Article 11 of the Constitution of Lebanon states that "Arabic is the official national language. A law determines the cases in which the French language is to be used." Alevero987 (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can find people who would know if you were speaking French to them. --Jayron32 15:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Can someone help me translate this Latin entry from Moritz Steinschneider's Catalogus Librorum Hebraeorum (p. 957, no. 4985)[1]?

Nostri quaesita in [Midrash Mishle] (N. 3749 [=cross-reference], v. Zz. ib. [Gottesdienstliche Vorträge] 269d), unde inscriptionem [Shaalot R. Eliezer] super libellum De Resurrectione a scriba positam ad Nostrum respexisse puto, quamquam Elieser b. Jechiel Parisiensis auctor fertur in Cod. Vat. 324b ap. Assemanum (quem affert Zz. Z. G. [Zur Geschichte] 165) est enim fragmentum ex Saadja Gaon : L. Relig. etc. q. v. !

The reference is to this entry of Assemani's catalogue.

Thanks! הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 06:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Our subject's question in [Midrash Mishle] (N. 3749 [=cross-reference], v. Zz. ib. [Gottesdienstliche Vorträge] 269d), where I think the inscription [Shaalot R. Eliezer] placed by the scribe concerning the small book On the Resurrection referred to our subject, although Elieser b. Jechiel Parisiensis is said to be the author in Cod. Vat. 324b according to Assemanum (about whom there is a report in Zz. Z. G. [Zur Geschichte] 165), is a fragment from Saadja Gaon: L. Relig. etc. q.v.!"

So basically the question is a fragment, if I understand correctly... Adam Bishop (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! With the context and a vague idea of what Steinschneider should be saying, here is my modification of your translation—please tell me if this fits the Latin original (my comments and transliterations are in square brackets):

"[See] [o]ur subject's [=Eliezer ben Hurcanus] questions in [Midrash Mishle] (N. 3749 [=cross-reference to Steinschneider's entry on Midrash Mishle], see Zunz. ib. [Gottesdienstliche Vorträge] [p.] 269 [footnote] d), from which I think the title [Shaalot R. Eliezer] placed by the scribe concerning the small book On Resurrection [in Judaism, that is, not the Resurrection] refers to our subject, although Elieser b. Jechiel Parisiensis is said to be the author in Cod. Vat. 324b according to Giuseppe Simone Assemani (to whom refers Zunz, Z. G. [Zur Geschichte] [p.] 165), which is [in fact] a fragment from Saadja Gaon's Book of Opinions and Beliefs, q.v.!"

In other words, 2nd century Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurcanus' reputation for asking questions (as illustrated by the reference to Midrash Mishle and Zunz [trust me on that one—I'm fine with the Hebrew and German references]) caused his name to be attached to small book on Resurrection, which is in fact a fragment of a 10th century book by Saadia Gaon—although Assemani attributed to a "Eliezer son of Jechiel of Paris".

Does that make sense? I'm trying to make sense of a source that cites Steinschneider (this entry specifically) as doubting Assemani's accuracy.

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense! Steinschneider definitely doubts Assemani's attribution here. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now found an article in German by Steinschneider, where he makes the same point, somewhat more clearly: [2] הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Wayne Lo's art here it looks like his last name in Chinese is 駱. Can someone please confirm this? And what is his first name? If that picture doesn't show it, then there are other works with the same signature. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His name in Chinese is 駱文. See this. What it looks like 之 in the picture is actually cursive 文. Oda Mari (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Kindly comment on acceptabilty of following sentences:

1. I know the sweets Dana likes. 2. I know the sweets that/which Dana likes. 3. Sweets I buy Dana likes. 4. Sweets that I buy Dana likes.

If necessary please also suggest the changes to make these sentences acceptable to native speakers.

Thank you very much. 14.139.82.7 (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya[reply]

The first two sentences are valid. As for #3 and #4, the acceptable forms are: 3. Dana likes sweets I buy. 4. Dana likes sweets that I buy. 77.126.185.239 (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User 77.126... that the standard and correct forms for 3. and 4. are the forms offered by 77.126... However, some native speakers, I think especially from the New York area, do produce nonstandard sentences like the ones you wrote for 3. and 4. There is normally a pause between clauses, and the word sweets, I, or buy would be emphasized. This kind of structure is used to put the emphasis on what exactly it is that Dana likes rather than on the fact of Dana's liking something. To represent this clearly in writing, you'd need to write "Sweets I buy, Dana likes" or "Sweets that I buy, Dana likes". You might also italicize the word receiving emphasis to make it even clearer. But these forms are not the standard way of creating sentences in English. As for 2., speakers of most varieties of English would use "that" rather than "which". According to some (mainly American) style rules, "which" is incorrect in that context. On the other hand, some speakers of English accept "which" as correct in that position. However, the most natural and widely accepted conjunction in that context is "that". Marco polo (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the above, but add that for #3 and #4, it would be more precise to say "The sweets", since you are identifying a particular group of sweets. I don't know whether it is grammatically essential, but technically, #3 and #4 are just reversals of the normal sentences, "Dana likes the sweets (that) I buy". It sounds wrong to say "Dana likes sweets I buy", but perhaps this is not a technical, grammatical error. IBE (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would write them as follows:

1-2) "I know which sweets Dana likes." (Saying you "know the sweets" sounds like the sweets are friends of yours.)

3-4) "I buy the sweets that Dana likes." StuRat (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, context matters. #3 and #4 are perfectly cromulent if one says, "Sweets I buy Dana likes. But not sweets John buys." See topic fronting. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In English, love, like and want are different words - having different meanings. In Hebrew, love and like have the same meaning - marked by one word only (AHAV), vs. the other separate meaning: want (RATSA). In Arabic, love like and want all have the same meaning - consequently marked by one word (H'ABB).

This mixture has influenced the culture of some nations. For example, the Hebrew speakers have a joke that goes like this "If you really love fish, so why do you eat them?", while the English speakers can't have jokes of this kind (i.e. jokes based on mixing the separate meanings of "love" and "like". I like fish - not love fish, and that's why I eat them, so no joke can be told about that).

Are there languages that have separate meanings (signified by separate words) for various kinds of love, e.g. a separate word - for loving one's spouse, and another separate word - for loving one's parents/children, and likewise? 77.126.185.239 (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the "love fish" joke works just fine in English, as it is used both ways: "I love fish" is a short way of saying "I love to eat fish." The Romance languages certainly have separate words for the three ideas. In Spanish, if I love something or someone in a general sense, it's amo. If I love or cherish or "want" someone, it's quiero. If I like something, i.e. if it "pleases me", it's me gusta. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese it is slightly complicated. If you say 魚は愛する it would mean "I will love the fish" but 魚は愛してる would mean "I am loving the fish", which may get you arrested in many jurisdictions. 魚が好き on the other hand, just means "I like fish", and usually, as a fish-eating species, it would mean "I like to eat fish". KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix it. It's not "魚は", but "魚を". Oda Mari (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, "魚を愛する" is used in contexts like these. "The man who loves fish" and "Unlike dogs and cats, it's difficult for me to love fish", but not in the context like "I love fish". "魚を愛してる" is both "I love fish" and "I'm loving fish" in Japanese. Oda Mari (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

「は」, Mari, In this case I am referring to a specific fish, not just a random one. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with a specific fish or not. 魚は愛する and 魚は愛してる mean "Fish/the fish loves" and "Fish/the fish is loving" in ja. Oda Mari (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, because 食べ物は、食べた？ would not mean 'Has the food eaten itself?' Maybe I forgot the comma, but in spoken Japanese, there are no commas. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. 魚は愛する only means "Fish loves" in Japanese. There is the usage of は on this page. See ■Web辞書（『大辞林』から） . The original dictionary page is not available on the web anymore. The usage of 魚は愛する is #2 and the usage of 食べ物は、食べた？ is #1. You mix up the two different usages. Oda Mari (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

77.126.185.239 -- You probably haven't watched much Pee-Wee's Playhouse, or you would be familiar with "If you like it so much, why don't you marry it?" (actually an old joke)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Spanish: love=amar; like=gustar and want=querer.

I love him=Lo amo;

I like him=Me gusta (it implies physical and emotional attraction but it is not as powerful as love) and

I want him=Lo quiero and that leads to a question I've asking myself... when someone says... I don't love him, but I do want him", referring to a man. What does the want implies? Sexual desire? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't love him, but I do want him means "no tengo amor para él (no estoy enamorado con él) pero, sin embargo, me gustaría tener relaciones sexuales con él."

Editor at 77.126.185.239, Jehovah's Witnesses have published information about different words for different kinds of love, at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002781.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a whole article about Greek words for love. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's fictional, but in Islandia they have four distinct words for 'love'. --ColinFine (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Habb" in Arabic isn't the only word for "want", or even the most usual one (which is "arid", I think?) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Kpalion has mentioned the article, the Greek words agape, eros, and philia are "primary" words for the single word love in English. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khmer has many words and phrases for these 3 concepts, all with varying or overlapping shades of meaning. The most common are ចូលចិត្ត /coul cət/ for "to like something/somebody" or "to prefer something/somebody's company", ស្រឡាញ់ /srɑlaɲ/ for "to love something" or "to love somebody (friend, significant other, or parent/relative)" and the Sanskrit-derived ស្នេហ៍ /snae/ (sneha) which most often connotes romantic love--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 07:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's "This mixture has influenced the culture of some nations" presupposes linguistic relativity, aka the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. Controversial. jnestorius^(talk) 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the origin of the phrase "lace into" meaning attack or scold? —Keenan Pepper 17:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it derives from "lace" meaning "cord", in the sense of using a cord to whip somebody. I expect that the OED would give a full tracing, but I don't have access to it. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has it in its 1997 additions, marked as orig. and chiefly US (which would figure, as I've never heard the phrase before), with citations from 1922, but does not attempt to explain the origin of this sense. It has a meaning (7) of 'lace' as "lash, beat, thrash", with citations from 1599, but again it does not say anything about how this meaning arose. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have guessed "chiefly Brit." precisely because I've never heard it before.

On the other hand, I've heard light into (past tense lit into) with the same meaning. --Trovatore (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There's the phrase "lays into" which is much more common. Perhaps "lace into" is just a mistake for that. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my thought too, or maybe "lash into" as ColinFine's source may imply. I've never heard it before either. The examples cited at Wiktionary are from US sources.- Karenjc (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this phrase mean something? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 20:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us some context ? It would mean different things if used in different places. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago I found some fanfiction and it was titled that way. Just the title and the text... Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 20:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fanfiction for what ? Without any additional info, I would think it would mean "directly about the subject", rather than "going off on a tangent". Of course, depending on the context, they might also be referring to the Axis powers, Axis of evil, etc. StuRat (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, it was a continuation of another fanfiction, like what happened after the whole confussion in the previous fanfiction. How changed the life of the main character. It was an only chapter as far as I remember. It wasn't about WWII or politics. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 20:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here the "axis" must be the main character, so "On Axis" means it's about them. This is a fairly uncommon usage, so I'd guess they are going for a double meaning, perhaps using the literal meaning of axis somehow. StuRat (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have a Ref Desk usage hint for you: Indent one space following somebody, if you are replying to them. This makes it easier for readers to follow the thread. I adjusted your indentation accordingly here. StuRat (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? Is that in what language is On Axis? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 21:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like that. The language is English, or course, although the literal meaning of "axis" comes straight from Latin: [3]. StuRat (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I think it resembles to axle. I cannot think of a way that phrase is related to the content of the fanfic. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 21:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is. An axle has an axis around which the wheel rotates. But "axis" also has a figurative meaning: "the center of things". StuRat (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is true... every day we learn something new :O. I will read the fanfic again and try to understand why is it titled On Axis Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 21:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you've looked it up, but since it hasn't been mentioned: the Spanish word is "eje". "El eje de la Tierra". As you probably are aware, many Latin words with "x" have evolved into Spanish words with "j", "luxus" (luxury) = "lujo" etc. In most of the Google hit's I get for "On Axis", "Axis" is a proper noun. "On axis" is not in the Urban dictionary. There appears to be something called an "on-axis" and an "off-axis" in visual projections and microphone placement, but I doubt that that's relevant to your question. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the English word axle and the Latin word axis are cognates, each descended separately from the Proto-Indo-European language. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Although, whatever you do, do not read the etymologies, or you may fall prey to the etymological fallacy.) μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means something in optics, where it refers to something that's physically located on the optical axis of the system, or to performance or quality along the optical axis. As you move away from this it becomes "off axis". --Amble (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "On axis" can actually mean quite a number of possible things. As a random example, there is a Swedish recording label called "On Axis". The general meaning is that something is located on the center-line of something, but the exact meaning depends on the context. Looie496 (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without any articles it's most probably a proper name. A planet or something.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Such a phrase is frequently seen without an article. We have "off sides" and "on target", for example. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In GoogleBooks it's very scarce and in the BNC there is only one instance of it (cf. "on the axis" - 12 instances).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But titles are a special case. You often leave out unneeded words to make them more concise. StuRat (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an unlikely guess: It could be a mistranslation from the modern German idiom "auf Achse sein", ( = to be on the road, on the move, ...). In German Achse can mean both "axis" and "axle". Here the latter is meant, so it would be "on axle" I guess. Like I said: wild guess. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I wanted to know when the word paedophilia was first used. The article on it in Wikipedia says the at the end of the 19 century - but gives no reference. Is there a reference for this bit of information?

Regards

Geoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.190.70 (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OED's first citation (with the spelling 'paidophilia') is from 1906. This doesn't exclude the possibility of earlier examples, but is the earliest that has come to the notice of the OED editors. --ColinFine (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closely-related forms (though apparently not "paidophilia" itself) occurred in Ancient Greek, where they were often synonymous with forms related to "paiderastia"... AnonMoos (talk)