Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 November 1

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 1

Is this saying present in other languages??

After you answered my last question so fully,I decided to ask another thing which was on my mind for some time.

I want to tell you not to get it wrong,it has nothing to do with politics,it is just a sayin which Im interested to..

In my country during 1990s there was a saying :"They dont attack Serbia because of Milosevic,but they attack Milosevic because of Serbia"

Nowdays it became a normal in the everyday speech to say this,off course changing words "Milosevic" and "Serbia" to another words to fit the context

Basicly,I wonder if this is specific to our language,because I think it might be used in another languages,off course little changed to fit another subject,but with the same meanging.

My english is not very good,so if you dont understand the question I may explain it again,its basicly "Is there a saying similiar to this one in other languages",because I think I heard it somewhere else,but Im not sure,my friends say its our invention,but I kind of doubt it... . Thank you

212.200.201.169 00:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't completely follow, but wasn't sentences like "They don't do X because of Y, they do Y because of X" common long before Milosevic? It's hard to see anything special about that sentence... 惑乱 分からん 01:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the OP asks if that phrase is commonly found in other languages. I don't think it's an idiom, so I see no reason for it not to exist in other languages. Syntactically, it probably can exist as well in languages that use complex grammar. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Similar sentence structures are chiasmus or antimetabole. MeltBanana 01:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they are asking more about a different saying with the same meaning, than a saying with a similar sentence structure. I don't quite follow the meaning myself. Attacking Serbia because of Milosevic makes sense, because he was the leading force behind Serbia declaring war on most of it's neighbors. But why would people attack Milosevic because of Serbia ? StuRat 04:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's like the same line of thought that i hear frequently in regards to America: People will say, 'We don't have a problem with Americans, we have a problem with America.' (Meaning, of course, that their dispute is with America's government rather than individual American citizens.)

Applying that to this situation, the statement might mean that people are not decrying Serbia for Milosevic's actions, but rather are decrying Milosevic for Serbia's actions (which presumably he had a hand in).

I'm not an expert in the politics of that region, though, so that's pure speculation. If that is what it means, though, then the answer to the question is yes, variants of that statement are present in at least (but probably more than) one language. ~ lav-chan @ 04:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably not what you mean, but there is an English expressions with a similar structure. To parphrase your example it would be "You can take Milosevic out of Serbia, but you can't take Serbia out of Milosevic". I don't know if that would be applicable here, but it would mean that Serbia will always be on Milosevic's mind. DirkvdM 06:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the original saying was a way of the pro-Milošević camp to put a spin on the international criticism, using the paranoid tendency of Serbs to believe the rest of the world is against them: We are under attack, and our enemies use Milošević as a pretext.  --Lambiam^Talk 06:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont quite understand Serbophobia attacks seen here by Stu Rat and Lambiam.I dont know what I said or wrote to provoke such disgusting hate speech,and so many lies in just a few sentences by some of you.

My question was simply about the line "They don't do X because of Y, they do Y because of X" (i just used words "Serbia" and "Milosevic",as they are most common in this sentence,but other words are also used),it had nothing to do with the politics,but some of you are just so full of filth and hate that you just cant resist telling some lies.

Anyway,thank you to everyone who responded to my question,I guess there is no similiar saying("They don't do X because of Y, they do Y because of X") in other countries 212.200.201.174 00:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? How can you have misunderstood our answer so completely? 惑乱 分からん 00:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In English this sort of X/Y/Y/X construction is called chiasmus or antimetabole. --Anonymous, 00:55 UTC, November 2.

Wakran,not you,your answer was OK.I just dont think that lies(like "Serbia declared war on most of its neighbors",while in fact it didnt declare war on anyone) and insults(like "paranoid tendencies") have anything to do with my question...Wakran understood my question right,and responded to it,but insults like those I`ve just mentioned are really not necessery...

Thank you once again

212.200.201.174 01:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't understand what you meant by saying "no similar saying"? 惑乱 分からん 02:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly the phrase has turned into more of a cliché in the Serbo-Croatian languages (a term I will continue to use until I get a better alternative) and perhaps it has connotations there that is difficult to transmit, but it surely doesn't sound like something corresponding so closely to the culture, that it'd be difficult to translate. 惑乱 分からん 12:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my statement that Serbia waged war on many of it's neighbors, and support that assertion with the following info from our Wikipedia articles...

From our article on Slovenia:

"Present-day Slovenia was formed on 25 June 1991 upon its independence from Yugoslavia, defeating the Yugoslav Army in the Ten-Day War."

From our article on Croatia:

"Along with Slovenia, Croatia declared its independence from Yugoslavia on June 25, 1991, which triggered the Croatian War of Independence. The Serb population living in Croatia revolted, supported by the Yugoslav army and paramilitary extremist groups from Serbia."

From our article on Bosnia and Herzegovina:

"International recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina increased diplomatic pressure for the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) to withdraw from the republic's territory which they officially did, however, in fact, the Bosnian Serb members of JNA simply changed insignia, formed the Army of Republika Srpska, and continued fighting. Armed and equipped from JNA stockpiles in Bosnia, supported by volunteers and various paramilitary forces from Serbia, and receiving extensive humanitarian, logistical and financial support from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Republika Srpska's offensives in 1992 managed to place much of the country under its control."

From our article on Kosovo:

"On 16 January 1999, the bodies of 45 Albanian civilians were found in the town of Racak. The victims had been executed by Serb forces."

Also, Serbia's refusal to hand over some wanted war criminals to the International Criminal Court makes me think that the Milosevic pro-genocide era hasn't yet ended. StuRat 05:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You may or may not understand the differences of meanings of "Yugoslav National Army", "Serb population living in Croatia", "Bosnian Serbs", "Serb forces" and "Serbia", but the fact remains that all of those have nothing to do with the question. Zocky | picture popups 05:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it relates to the original poster's follow up statement: [1]. StuRat 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

StuRat: 300.000. Serbs have been ethnicaly clensed from Croatia in 1995....10 precent of the returned....

As for Bosnia,type "Merkale" and search on google or anywhere else...It was the begginging of war,when Muslims shot their own market and blamed Serbs for it...Now its widly recognized that they did it.

Croatian War and Bosnian War,THOSE WERE CIVIL WARS,BEETWEN SERBS IN CROATIA AND BOSNIAN AND CROATS AND BOSNIANS....SERBIA AS A STATE WA NEVER IN WAR,AND ITS ARMY NEVER CROSSED THE LINE...IN SLOVENIA,YUGOSLAV ARMY WAS MULTIN NATIONAL,FROM ALL THE PEOPLE THAT DIED IN 10 DAYS WAR,MOST OF THEM WERE CROATS IN YUGOSLAV ARMY KILLED BY SLOVENIANS...You claimed that Serbia "Declared war on its neighbors..."I`ve just proved you wrong...

But you want to know what genocide is? More then 1000 civilians killed in criminal NATO bombing in 1999...Little 3 year old girl Milica Rakic who was killed in her own house by NATO bombs...Explain to her parents that its not a war crime...14 people killed in Serbian National Televison in belgrade...Explain to their families that they were guilty for working as camermans,jurnalists,make up staff...THATS SOME REAL GENOCIDE FOR YOU!!!

"Serbia's refusal to hand over some wanted war criminals to the International Criminal Court"

WHAT THE HELL???? DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WE GAVE TO THEM ALREADY...FIRST OF ALL MILOSEVIC,BACK IN 2001...(now look how they killed him,not allowing him to go to the Hospital ater he begged them to allow him to).........SLJIVANCANIN,PAVKOVIC,LAZAREVIC,SAINOVIC,STANISIC,FRENKY,PERISIC,ZELENOVIC,OJDANIC...ALL THESE PEOPLE WERE SENT IN HAGUE TRIBUNAL BY SERBIAN GOVERMENT....THERES ONLY ONE LFT,RATKO MLADIC,WHO IS AT LARGE,BUT POLICE IS LOOKING FOR HIM....YOU REALLY DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT,DONT YOU.....EVERYTIME YOU POST,YOU JUST POST MORE AND MORE FILTHY Serbophobia LIES...YOU REALLY SHOULD APOLOGIZE....

212.200.202.241 16:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop the shouting and talk in a civil manner. Have you seen the film of the Srebrenica massacre by Serb forces ? Here's a video that contains some footage, although the audio is in Turkish: [2]. Both Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić are still in hiding and quite likely being assisted in hiding by the people and government of Serbia. While there were certainly also massacres committed by Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes, and Albanians, and the people responsible for those massacres are also to be tried in The Hague, that does not excuse Serbia. The JNA was controlled by Serbs, and changing uniforms to those of the Army of Republika Srpska doesn't excuse their actions, either. While it is regrettable that civilians died in the NATO bombing to end the war, Serbia left no other option, that was the only way to stop the genocide. Many innocent civilians also died in the defeat of Nazi Germany. StuRat 21:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica?!?! DONT MAKE ME LAUGH....Kravice,East Sarajevo,Knin,Pristina,Pec,Gorazdevac....Do I need to go on? Serbs are the greatest victims of all wars...Bombing of Serbia,MORE THEN 1000 (one thousand!!!) civilians,thats the greatest war crime in histrory of Europe after World War II.....78 days and night of bombing...Tell the parents of 3 year old Milica Rakic that she was also a Serbian killer....NATO commited war crimes and thats a fact....Its not the first time USA did such a horrible things,let us not forget Nagasaki,Hiroshima,Korea,Vietnam,Iraq....Srebrenica,the biggest estemation is around 8000(much too large number)...All of them were males,ALL OF THEM....None of them were under the age of 16....So they were basicly captured Muslim soldiers(mujahedins and other terrorists...) So now its a crime to capture and shoot the terrorist...None of them were under 16 and they were all male.... But look at Nagasaki,Hiroshima ect. How can you even compare it...

And how many Serbs were killed by Albanians since the NATO agresion in 1999??? There are almost no Serbs left in Kosovo....Alongside Croatia,the biggest ethnical cleaning since WW2....Why dont NATO stop that genocide on Serbs...Or why dont they let us go to Kosovo and stop it ourselves...How come Kosovo may get independence,while Republika Srpska cant??

Who will explain the killing of little 3 year old girl Milica Rakic to her parents...Were they also "war criminals"....Serbs extradicted more then 20 people....Everyone but General Mladic....How many people faced charges for destuction of Dresden,for Firoshima,for nagasaki,for NATO agresion back in 1999....ZERO!

http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Mladic_i_Clark.jpg ^^^^^^^ Ooop,IS THAT GENERAL CLARK ALONGSIDE RATKO MLADIC....WHOS THE REAL "WAR CRIMINAL" ON THIS PHOTO? 212.200.200.26 00:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

NATO isn't just the US, it's most of Europe and Canada, too. They were implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244. They all agreed that Serbia needed to be stopped, as did most of your neighbors. Do you think the whole world was wrong and only you are right ? If you believe that prisoners should be massacred, I see we will never agree on anything, so there is no point in trying. StuRat 05:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Serbs also murdered children and raped women at Srebrenica, according to this UN report: [3]. StuRat 06:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha,funny way you Americans look at things...

Let me quote the report you mentioned:

"[W]e saw two Serb soldiers, one of them was standing guard and the other one was lying on the girl, with his pants off. And we saw a girl lying on the ground, on some kind of mattress. There was blood on the mattress, even she was covered with blood. She had bruises on her legs. There was even blood coming down her legs. She was in total shock. She went totally crazy"

What he saw was two Serbs with a Muslim hooker.They probably paid it to her,or she gave it to them for free,but from this report you can see that he enjoyed it "She went totally crazy"...So you see that she liked it,she got crazy out of joy.As for blood,maybe she was a virgin,maybe she kept herself for the Serbs soldiers,so you see that even Muslim girls can keep themselves for the right man.How can you blame those two soldiers for giving it to the woman that probably begged them to do her...

But as for kids,even this so called "UN report"(made out of testemonies by paid witnesses and so called "experts"),but even these reports dont mention the killing of the children...No children under 16 years old were killed....

But let me ask you something,if you captured Muslim soldiers that raped you mother,wife,sister,that cut of your children or parents heads,that burned your houses.what would you do? Do you even know how many people died by the hand of Naser Oric and his terrorist group...And he was sentenced to what,2 years???? More then 3000 Serbs civilians died in the area of Srebrenica during 1992-1995 period...So what Serbs did was revenge...Is it any worse then Hiroshima or Nagasaki....Or NATO agression back in 1999(AND NATO DOESNT HAVE "MOST OF THE EUROPEAN COUNTIRES IN IT",AS YOU SAID,BACK IN 1999 IT ACTUALY HAD ONLY 19 MEMBERS,AND RUSSIA,CHINA,IRAQ,CUBA,ZIMBABVE,LYBIA,EVEN SOUTH AFRICAS THEN PRESIDENT NELSON MANDELA ,THEY WERE ALL STRONGLY AGAINST THE BOMBING OF SERBIA).....

And please,dont say that Serbs killed children...How can a 16 year old person be a children...He can carry a gun,cant he? He can shoot at Serb soldiers,cant he? So,when you capture a 16 year old muslim that was drugged out of his mind,shooting at you,what would you do? Let him get away with it? Let him go so he can come back and rape and torture more Serbian civilians? Get real,it was a war,not a game.

YXYX 11:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The UN report (not the "so called" report) does indeed contain reports of child murders:

44. As evening fell, the terror deepened. Screams, gunshots and other frightening noises were audible throughout the night and no one could sleep.76 Soldiers were picking people out of the crowd and taking them away: some returned ; others did not.77 Witness T recounted how three brothers – one merely a child and the others in their teens – were taken out in the night. When the boys’ mother went looking for them, she found them with their throats slit.78

158. ... One Dutch Bat witnesses summed it up in this way:

[Y]ou could see the total fear, and I never thought that it really existed, but you could even smell death there because it was total fear, what you saw on the faces of the men and the young boys.368

348 - Witness F, T. 1503 (soldiers in camouflage uniforms were looting houses); Ademovic, T. 1589 (soldiers wearing camouflage (but without insignia) threatening to slaughter the Bosnian Muslim refugees and a soldier wearing camouflage killed a baby with a knife);

448 - By the evening of 13 July 1995, the Drina Corps must have been aware of the VRS plan to execute all of the thousands of Bosnian Muslim men and boys captured in the area of the former enclave following the take-over of Srebrenica (para. 295 ).

Your statement that girls who are brutally raped "must have wanted it" is obscene. The rules of war do not allow for ANY prisoners of war to be killed, as they can't possibly pose any threat after they become prisoners. The Serbs went beyond killing captured combatants, however, and killed men and boys of, or near, military age, whether there was any evidence they were in the military or not. They also killed and raped a few children, elderly and women. It's almost inevitable that some of this will happen in war, but the soldiers responsible should be tried and punished by their own nation. Serbia, however, as reflected by your attitudes, holds these brutal murderers up as heroes, thus the need for the International Criminal Court. StuRat 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There might have been couple of civilians kids,but most of that is,excuse my french,bullshit...It is similiar to the thing that was done to Germany after WW2....They were even blamed for Katin massacre!!! Its still nothing compared to the crimes that Croats,Albanians and Muslims commited on Serbs....If you are really interested in the subject,I may find the pictures of thousands of Serbian houses that were burnt down to the ground....For example,Serbian population in Croatia at the beggining of 1990s was 15 precent...NOW ITS ABOUT 3 TO 4 PRECENT...On Kosovo pretty much the same situation since the arrival of NATO aggressiors...Look just on all the crimes commited during the March 17,2004....During the single day,about 100 Serbian churches were set on fire,and in days after in many thousands fled away...

Anyway,Serbs never commited crimes masive and disgusting such as Nagasaki or Hiroshima...Who was sentenced for that? No one....American to this day celebrate Nagasaki,Distruction of Dresden,Hiroshima and all other crime as their victories....

Then look at Guatenamo base...Horrors that are hard to imagine for someone from Serbia...But Americans not only can imagine,but they also did it....

the bottom line>>>>>>>Guatanamo=people who did it are being punished,not the General or the President.............So how can you blame President of Republika Srpska Karadzic or General Mladic for Srebrenica......Crimes are done by individuals,there is no "command responsibility".....If there is,who will be sentenced for the brutal and criminal killing of 3 year old girl Milica Rakic,who died from NATO aggressiors bomb....Who will go to International Criminal Court....

p.s.Serbs already extradited Milosevic and about 20 other....They killed Milosevic there and no one of them 20 returned....Albanians,muslims and Croats are ruturning in bunches from Hague Court........Can you please explain that???????????????????????? And now we are guilty for not extraditing our GREATEST WAR HERO GENERAL RATKO MLADIC.......Arent 20 people enough.......Now they have stopped negotiations with EU untill we arrest General Mladic too........So they are punishing the whole nation for just one man that is hiding.................

http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Mladic_i_Clark.jpg ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Neither one of these two Generals ordered the crimes himself....Some Serbs killed Muslims...Some NATO soldiers killed Serbian civilians(including 3 year old girl Milica Rakic that was killed in her house while getting ready to sleep).........Now,which one is a war criminal....Niether....Or maybe both???

YXYX 17:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have absolutely no concept of what war crimes are. It does NOT include civilians accidentally killed during military operations. It DOES include civilians intentional executed while in custody. And no, you don't get to decide you've extradited enough war criminals, so are allowed to protect the ones you have left. The EU should absolutely have nothing to do with Serbia until they decide they will no longer support genocide or protect those who ordered it. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba holds a few hundred detainees, none of whom have been executed, many of whom have been released. This hardly compares to the thousands executed by Serbs. As for the atomic bombings of Japan, that ended a war, by killing thousands, that otherwise would have killed millions, had it continued. Similarly, the bombings of Serbia prevented much larger casualties, had NATO allowed the genocide to continue. StuRat 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"It does NOT include civilians accidentally killed during military operations. It DOES include civilians intentional executed"...Right,but Nagasaki and Hiroshima were intentional...It killed tens of thousands innocent civilians.....If you think America have right to INTENTIONALY kill civilians,without it being considered as war crime,then how come other countries cant do it...If we had a nuclear bomb,maybe we would have dropped it on Sarajevo or Zagreb...But we didnt...So Srebrenica happend......Is there any difference...Besides that in Srebrenica only males over the of 16 died....Not to mention that they were mostly muslim terrorists...

"atomic bombings of Japan, that ended a war, by killing thousands"...Ok...Srebrenica also ended a war,by killing few thousands males over the age of 16....otherwise many more people would have been killed.

But lets see another fine example of western rethoric:"you don't get to decide you've extradited enough war criminals, so are allowed to protect the ones you have left."

WHAT? How can you call General Ratko Mladic or Radovan Karadzic "war criminals"...In Serbia we have a saying "innocent until proven guilty"....It seems USA is closer to "guilty until proven innocent"....They were indicted,they are not "war criminals",they were indicted for it

But lets see for the International Court...How come we extradited so many people,including President Milosevic and President Milutinovic...How come USA have a strickly policy of no extraditing its citizens to no foreign countries OR international courts...It wont even sign the treaty for the new International court that is going to take place in next few years...Lets say that an american soldier is accused of war crime....THERE IS NO WAY THAT USA WOULD EVER EXTRADITE ITS OWN CITIZEN.......Never ever happend....

And I only have one more question that I would really like you to answer: "It does NOT include civilians accidentally killed during military operations."///WHEN NATO AGGRESSORS BOMBED SERBIAN NATIONAL TELEVISION,WAS THAT A WAR CRIME....WERE THOSE PEOPLE "ACCIDENTALLY KILLED"....EVEN THOUGH THE TELEVISION ITSELF WAS A TARGET.......THEN HOW COME GENERAL MLADIC AND RADOVAN KARADZIC ARE BEING ACCUSED OF BOMBING OF SARAJEVO...BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE ALSO DIED ACCIDENTALY.....SO IS A NATIONAL RADIO TELEVISION A LEGITIMATE TARGET???????

YXYX 22:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

At the time, there was no way to target the soldiers and factories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki without also hitting the civilians, whether conventional or nuclear weapons were used. So, yes, the civilians were not the targets, but were still hit. The Serbs had absolute control of Srebrenica, however, so would have had no trouble whatsoever in destroying military facilities of the enemy without killing civilians, if that was what they wanted. However, their goal was to kill civilians. As for the US not extraditing to the International Criminal Court, it isn't necessary, as those US soldiers who murder civilians will actually be tried and sentenced in the US, unlike in Serbia, where they get treated as national heroes. StuRat 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You have an interesting circular logic going on MLADIC and KARADZIC:

• They are innocent until proven guilty by court.

• Since they are innocent, we won't provide them to the court for trial.

• Since they will be never be tried, they will always remain innocent.

StuRat 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok,then answer me this:

Vojislav Seselj arrived in Hague Tribunal at february 2003.....Now its November 2006....His trial havent even started yet!!!!! Is that justice?

And another thing...Lets sey we provide Mladic to Hague...Will USA ever provide Bill Clinton to Serbia,since he was sentenced to 20 years in jail back in 1999???????? ......Excatly.......

YXYX 03:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

They are slow, all right, but that's because they like to research all the evidence thoroughly. Better that than a quick, fake, show trial, like the one in Serbia for Clinton. Apparently they don't even feel the need to have the accused in the country in Serbia to try them and sentence them. I suppose this is an improvement over the usual Serbian method of just killing anyone they don't like. StuRat 06:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you do me a favour? Read what greatest living intelectual in the world Noam Chomsky think about Tribunal in Hague and about wars in ex Yugoslavija.

Also read what respected american intelectual Ramsey Clark thinks about those wars...And Clark is to be trusted....Then we`ll talk again YXYX 17:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles on a French calendar

For my niece who is just starting to learn French, I am making a calendar of the year 2006 for her. Should the holidays identified on it have articles or not? That is, should it say, for example, Fête du Canada or La Fête du Canada? (Or is it La fête du Canada?) How about Équinoxe d’automne or L’équinoxe d’automne? If it’s one way or the other, are there any exceptions? I’m leaning toward omitting the articles, but I’m not 100% certain. In case it means anything, the months and days at the top just say janvier, février, mars, etc. and dimanche, lundi, mardi, etc. — Michael J 08:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there might be articles on these already. On the French Wikipedia, there's fr:Fête du Canada corresponding to Canada day. Looks like equinox maps to fr:Équinoxe too. Oh, by the way, check out the French resources on Wikibooks: wikibooks:Category:French and the award winning wikibooks:French. --HappyCamper 13:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a matter of taste (and how much space you have). This calendar leaves out most articles, whereas this calendar sports them. Omitting them seems a bit more "modern", but wanting to appear modern is so 20th century...  --Lambiam^Talk 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Lambiam. I think it looks better without the articles, so I’m going to leave them off. ... Thanks too, HappyCamper, but I think you took the wrong meaning of “article” in my question. I was referring to grammatical articles, such as le, la and les (the), not Wikipedia articles. I appreciate the effort, though. — Michael J 20:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

done, through, and finished

Is there any difference when you say "Are you finished?" "Are you done?" and "Are you through?"

thank you.

I think you have them listed from most to least formal, but it's a rather subtle difference. StuRat 17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

'Are you through?' is very rarely used in a context of finishing something. I'd say it's more likely to be said when the person being asked is crawling out of big tube or something, than in a context of asking about completeness. The other two, however, are pretty much the same. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 18:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you're from, but 'very rarely used' is not how i'd describe it. It is used fairly commonly in my experience, however it holds a connotation that 'done' and 'finished' don't have. Specifically, i think 'through' is reserved for two cases: (1) sarcasm or hostility, and (2) frustration.

In the first case, it's usually kind of a smart-ass thing people say when they think the other person is being annoying or long-winded. You might say 'Are you through?', in a sarcastic manner, when somebody is done lecturing you. It gets across the point that you don't really care to hear their arguement.

In the second case, it usually expresses finality in regards to a frustrating situation. For example, 'I'm through with being picked on!' (to express standing up for oneself) or 'I'm through with doing the dishes!' (to express giving up on something).

I haven't very often heard it used to mean 'done' any other way. Like, i might say 'i'm done with my essay', but i would never say 'i'm through with my essay' (unless i meant i was giving up on it). That's my experience anyway. ~ lav-chan @ 23:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well spoken English is, and always will be, 'have you finished?' in all contexts. The other forms are American-isms.

I have to disagree with Wooty. "Are you through?" is certainly a well-known phrase for finishing. "Are you through with dinner?" "Are you through with your test?" User:Zoe|(talk) 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that all three are acceptable American English and that "finished" is more formal, though I would not go so far as to say "incorrect". The accompanying tone is important. -THB 04:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

German :"Darf ich Sie etwas fragen" or "Darf ich Ihnen etwas fragen"

Hello,

I am surprised to see that both of these :"Darf ich Sie etwas fragen" and "Darf ich Ihnen etwas fragen" result in many results on Google. Which one is correct? I'd say "etwas" is direct object, and the person you ask something in the indirect object, so I'd go for a dative--> Ihnen.

What do you think? Thanks! Evilbu 17:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, 'cos you are asking a question to them, Definitttaly Ihnen. Englishnerd 17:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Darf ich Sie etwas fragen" is correct. The person you ask something is the direct object. I don't think "etwas" is the direct object because I can't think of any constructions where you can directly replace "etwas" with the topic of your question. *"Darf ich Sie Weg fragen?" is incorrect, it's "Darf ich Sie nach dem Weg fragen", with an inserted prepositional phrase (which requires dative "dem Weg". With more elaborate questions, it's similar: "Darf ich Sie fragen, ob Sie den Weg kennen?". Again, the content of the actual question is in a different clause. I'd say "etwas" in your examples is something like a placeholder, kind of like a case-less stand-in for the indirect object. I hope I didn't confuse you anymore than was necessary. Rueckk 18:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sie and etwas are both direct objects. German is far from being the only language in which the verb "to ask" takes two direct objects, of the thing asked (internal direct object), and of the person asked (external direct object). (I link to cognate object because it is the closest equivalent covered here. There is no grammatical difference between "I talk the talk" [cognate internal d.o.] and "I strike the blow" or "I ask the question" [non-cognate internal d.o.]) Wareh 20:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Then what explains the many results for 'Ihnen'? I would have used that. Is it the many bloody foreigners like me getting it wrong or aren't Germans themselves too sure either? DirkvdM 08:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I get only 24 results for "Darf ich Ihnen etwas fragen" (with quotes), almost all of which are from Dutch sites or in a Dutch context (one site is Estonian). So, yeah, I'd say it's just you guys. Rueckk 10:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

But when I was watching Kundun on German television(dubbed of course), an Indian border guard walked up to the Dalai Lama and said "Darf ich Ihnen etwas fragen", well I would have sworn he said that! Oh well. I'm still surprised.. in Dutch we would have considered it an "indirect object"="meewerkend voorwerp". But Germans also say "Folgen Sie mir" and "Helfen Sie ihm"... so they use a dative while an accusative would have made more sense. I guess this is one of the downsides of languages that are spoken by so many other people. (I wouldn't call them foreigners, because German is spoken in Switzerland, Austria ... and by 70.000 people in Belgium as well.)Evilbu 15:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

French-English translation

What is the translation of the following French piece?

• Les mouvements satellites..., qui poursuivent leurs actions sans modifier en rien leur ancienne ligne politique, viennent confirmer cette thèse d'une "manœuvre de lifting."

Does "viennent confirmer" indicate uncertainty in the statement being made? Viennent could have been omitted as well, making the "thèse" certain in that case, not? Thanks! Los Intangibles 17:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My French is bad, but my impression is that you have misunderstood completely, my rough interpretation is something like:

The satellites movements* (subclause) shall confirm this thesis as one "manoeuvre of lifting."

*(Something seems missing from the French example)

Note, however, that I only have two semesters of French studies behind me... 惑乱 分からん 21:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"The satellite movements..., which continue their actions without modifying their ancient political line in anything at all, come to confirm their thesis of a "lifting manoeuvre"." This is as close as I can get to the original. Greets, David 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but shouldn't the first clause read "Les mouvements des satellites" or something? 惑乱 分からん 22:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I read satellites as an adjective modifying mouvements in the sense of "accompanying" and manoevre de lifting as "face lift procedure" but can't make good sense out of the sentence as a whole. -THB 04:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That was my first impression, as well, but neither my old French dictionary, nor Wiktionary gave "satellite" as an adjective, so I began thinking that some word was missing... 惑乱 分からん 12:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Satellite is an adjective, it means non-mainstream. Like the English Satellite State, see my response below. --Cody.Pope 18:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In English, satellite doesn't mean non-mainstream. A better definition would be subordinate. A satellite state is not one that's not mainstream, it's one that's under the thumb of another one.--Prosfilaes 20:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

True, I guess I was trying to emphasize that the phrase has nothing to do with satellites in the sky. So "satellite movements" could be the actions of a satellite state etc. Although, French may be more loose in the definition of satellite in this context. Without a source it's hard to say what exactly their talking about. I would guess that it is probably talking about an action of a French speaking African nation, but that is pure speculation. --Cody.Pope 20:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and a quick search of google.fr seems to confirm that the sense here is actions of a non-mainstream political party. --Cody.Pope 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, this particular phrase is a bit hard to translate out of context but the English equivalent would be: These satellite movements (which is to say non-mainstream political movements) who pursue their own actions without changing their ancient political lines at all (i.e. en rien) come to confirm this thesis of a "face-lift" (which is to say they're trying to change their appearance artificially since they are still following their ancient political lines). --Cody.Pope 04:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your replies. I could have provided a little bit more context (I thought it was already enough):

• Les mouvements satellites de ce parti tels que le ****, qui poursuivent leurs actions sans modifier en rien leur ancienne ligne politique, viennent confirmer cette thèse d'une "manœuvre de lifting."

But I'm more interested in the meaning of "viennent confirmer" here. If the "thèse d'une manœuvre de lifting" is certain, why would you want to make use "viennent" (to come)? It could have been omitted, not? Los Intangibles 21:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but I think it is a little stylistic. Without it the text does make sense, but with it the conclusion more clearly follows. It's functions like: "the conclusion "becomes" clear", if you will. --Cody.Pope 22:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Viennent" has no real meaning. To me "viennent confirmer" and "confiment" would generate the same meaning. There is a slight uncertainty if you add "viennent", but very slight , basically it is a bit like saying that these movements are bringing into the context confirmation of, rather than saying that they are confirming. --Lgriot 22:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of names in Kurdish to English.

I am an English woman married to a Kurdish man and we are expecting our first child, and wish to name our child with a true kurdish name, but I would like to know the meaning of the name we chose, is there anyway I can find these out, apart from asking my husband all the time? Thanks in advance

195.93.21.69 18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Kurdish given names would be a start, although most of the name entries do not include the meaning. I hope that is some help, and congratulations to you and your husband! -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 18:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You live in the US I believe? You could try looking for some books. I know here in NZ there were various books in the libraries about Chinese names (with English translations). Unfortunately Kurdish names are probably a bit more specialised but you could still take a look. Even if there's nothing in the libraries, you could try a bookshop. Perhaps look at Turkish and Iranian name books as well. They might have a section on Kurdish names. You could also try contacting any Kurdish associations you know of and see if they have any recommendations. Also, I don't know if this is viable in your circumstances but have you considered asking your in-laws for help too? It could way to improve relationships (of course it could be impossible or a bad idea) Nil Einne 20:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

After you have selected one or a couple of candidate names, you might also try asking some Kurdish-speaking 'pedians if any of them happen to know the meaning. Not all names have a well-understood meaning, but additionally they may have connotations, such as a peasant name, or suggesting an old spinster. In selecting a name, I'd also consider how badly it is likely to get mangled when rendered by an English speaker, as will inevitably happen with Helale; some names will hold up better than others. And in terms of spelling in the English 26-letter alphabet a name like Aştîxwaz may be less felicitous.  --Lambiam^Talk 01:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you and your husband can't agree, use "Benaw". -THB 02:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck on the birth of your child ! (Small Kurds are whey cool). StuRat 04:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Help a Korean-speaking wikipedian (not me)

It might be helpful if a Korean speaking wikipedian can help here. User talk:Jimbo Wales#A question about gathering in Korean wikipedia. The user appears to be asking a serious question, although I'm not sure if it's something for Jimbo to answer or even to be considered at the English wikipedia at all (as opposed to them considering it themselves). However, although I think I can guess what the question is as can Jimbo probably, it will IMHO help if we can be sure so a Korean speaking wikipedia should try and contact the user and try and provide a better translation. Nil Einne 20:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak Korean, but the link you gave isn't in Korean, in an case (with the exception of a single word, I believe). As near as I can figure, he has formed a group of 13 people who felt there was some type of systemic bias in the Korean Wikipedia, and are devoted to creating articles with an alternative viewpoint. This group has been rebuffed by the Korean Wikipedia establishment (Admins and such), and he is seeking the opinion of Jimbo on this matter. Sub-issues include his signature and a group template, both of which are apparently objectionable to the establishment. He never says just what the bias is that they are fighting against. The obvious issue would be a North Korean/South Korean schism, but somehow I doubt if enough North Koreans have access to the Internet to have much of any effect of Wikipedia. Perhaps the argument is between South Koreans who favor a policy of accommodation with North Korea and those which favor confrontation, although this is pure speculation on my part. StuRat 04:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the Korean editor's User Page, and see he believes in Intelligent Design. If his group is trying to add articles which explain things using the ID perspective, as if they are "equally scientifically valid" with accepted scientific theory, then I can certainly see how this would cause conflict. StuRat 04:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes go to the Korean Wikipedia, and I can tell you the group Han-O-Baek-Nyeon is against "no fair use" and "NPOV". Fair use is not allowed under Korean law. Other than that, I'm not interested in their goals. --Kjoonlee 04:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)