Language desk
< October 22	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

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

October 23[edit]

Des nuits d'amour à plus finir[edit]

The song "La Vie en rose" contains these lines:

Des nuits d'amour à plus finir

Un grand bonheur qui prend sa place

Des ennuis, des chagrins s'effacent

Heureux, heureux à en mourir

I understand most of that, but not the words à plus finir. Can someone help (without guessing or using Google Translate, of course)? --174.89.48.182 (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French negatives can be a bit nonintuitive. Words like "plus" can mean "more" or "no more" depending on the context. Plus finir means "no more to finish" in a literal sense, but probably closer to "without end" or "endless" in context.--Jayron 32 12:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm my understanding (from a non-native speaker who has forgotten a lot of French), here and here, which is the more formal form "à n’en plus finir" the "n'en" bit is often left out in spoken French (c.f. school French teaches "je ne sais pas" meaning "I don't know" but in common speech this is said "j'sais pas" or even just "sais pas" See wikt:j'sais pas) --Jayron 32 13:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From a native speaker: "ne plus finir" is equivalent to "ne jamais finir", which means "never end". The initial "ne", which makes it clear that it's a negative form, is dropped for poetic convenience. As Jayron states, the truly correct form would be "à n'en plus finir". Xuxl (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That fits perfectly. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thompson language[edit]

The Thompson language has ejectives and therefore uses the ejective symbol ʼ when written. But why are language and people named Nlaka'pamux? the ejective should follow a consonant and not a vowel.

My thought that the ejective may modify the following consonant is contradicted by the word Scw'exmx. So what does ʼ mean in the Thompson language and how do I pronounce Nlaka'pamux and Scw'exmx? --::Slomox:: >< 13:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slomox: The name for the people in IPA is [nɬeʔ'kepmux] (listen to it here[1]), and [nɬeʔkepmx'tsin] is the language, so there is actually no ejective here. The spelling Nlaka'pamux seems to derive from Nlakápamux with an accent on the second ⟨a⟩ to mark stress. And note that the glottal stop in the first syllable is not transcribed at all in the conventional spelling.

In Scw'exmx, ⟨ʼ⟩ indicates glottalization of ⟨w⟩, so it is [stsw̓éxmx]. –Austronesier (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, thank you! It's in the article: Stress is used with an acute accent; á. Seems inconsequential to me to use the same symbol for two different phenomena. But as there is no ambiguity...

So we could say that Nlaka'pamux is the "I'm on an American keyboard and it's hard to type accents" equivalent of the more correct Nlakápamux? Or is Nlaka'pamux valid in its own right? But my main question is answered, thank you! --::Slomox:: >< 07:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slomox: I found it: the spelling goes back to this source from 1900 (which I found via this source). The Americanist's convention in the early 1900s was to indicate stressed vowels as ⟨V´⟩ with an acute following the vowel; you can find the same thing e.g. in Sapir's descriptive works. –Austronesier (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your research! --::Slomox:: >< 15:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Americanist phonetic notation... AnonMoos (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need help translating a footnote from French to English[edit]

I need help translating a footnote from French to English. I'm specifically talking about footnote number five (5) here:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Documents_historiques_in%C3%A9dits_du_XIVe_s/S3TSAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=jean,+batard+de+bourbon+rochefort+%22fils+de+louis+i%22&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover

This is how I can translate it so far:

"The P. Anselme and other genealogists of the House of Bourbon ... attribute the paternity of Jean de Bourbon, seigneur de Rochefort (John of Bourbon, Lord of Rochefort) to Peter I, the second Duke of Bourbon, the son of Louis I, Duke of Bourbon. Their error is certain (or, alternatively, "This is certainly an error"); they skipped a generation. Jean is the natural son of Louis I, the first Duke of Bourbon, and thus consequently the brother of Peter I. In effect, Jeanne of Bourbon, the wife of Guy VII, Count of Forez, and the daughter of Louis I, the first Duke of Bourbon, ... "

Futurist110 (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am only allowed to a snippet of that page, but that first ellipsis can be replaced by ", including modern ones, such as M. Dussieux (Généalogie de la Maison de Bouron [Genealogy of the House of Bourbon], Paris, Lecoffre, 1869, p. 4),". For a more exact translation I would replace "skipped" by "were wrong by" and "thus consequently" by "in consequence", but of course these details are--wait for it--inconsequential. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full text of the footnote:

5 Le P. Anselme et les autres généalogistes de la maison de Bourbon, y compris les modernes, tels que M. Dussieux (Généalogie de la Maison de Bourbon, Paris, Lecoffre, 1869, p. 4), attribuent la paternité de Jean de Bourbon, seigneur de Rochefort, à Pierre I^er, second duc de Bourbon, fils de Louis I^er. Leur erreur est certaine ; ils se sont trompés d'une génération. Jean était le fils naturel de Louis I^er, premier duc de Bourbon, et par conséquent le frère de Pierre I^er. En effet, Jeanne de Bourbon, femme de Guy VII, comte de Forez, et fille de Louis I^er, premier duc de Bourbon, le nomme « notre chier et bien aimé frère, notre frère naturel » dans la donation qu'elle lui fit, en avril 1363, du château de Beçay-le-Guérant (Arch. nat., Bourbons, p. 1438. n° 3090). Marie de Hainault, veuve du duc Louis I^er, l'appelle « notre bien aimé Jehan de Bourbon, chevalier, fils naturel de nostre cher seigneur », dans une donation qu'elle lui fit également en 1351 (ibid.). Stevert ne s'y est pas tromgé [sic] (Hist. des ducs de Bourbon et des comtes de Forez. La Mure, nouvelle édition, II, 32, note). En revanche. Stevert conteste que le bâtard Guy de Bourbon, sire de Classy, ait été le fils de Pierre I^er comme l'ont assuré Anselme (Grands Officiers de la Couronne. Baluze (Hist. de la Maison d'Auvergne, I) et d'autres, sans en fournir de preuves. On voit par là qu'il y avait plus d'un inconnu à dégager, même après les travaux des plus grands généalogistes de la maison de France.

(The brackets of the last parenthesis (Grand Officiers...(...) also do not match in the source.) --Lambiam 08:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate on the last part here? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My French is not very good, but I would continue the translation as follows:

...calls him "our dear and well-loved brother, our natural brother" in the donation that she made him, in April 1363, of the castle of Beçay-le-Guérant (Arch. nat., Bourbons, p. 1438, no. 3090). Marie de Hainault, widow of the duke Louis I, calls him "our well loved Jehan de Bourbon, nobleman, natural son of our dear lord", in a donation which she made him equally in 1351 (ibid.). Stevert is not deceived by that (History of the Dukes of Bourbon and of the counts of Forez. La Mure, new edition, II, 32, note). In revenge, Stevert contests that the bastard Guy de Bourbon, lord of Classy, was the son of Pierre I as Anselme (Grand Officers of the Crown. Baluze (History of the House of Auvergne, I) and others have assured him, without furnishing proofs. One sees through that that there was more than one unknown to disentangle, even after the works of the greatest genealogists of the house of France. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.12.232 (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! That said, though, did I actually translate the first part correctly here? Futurist110 (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The full title of Anselme's work is Histoire généalogique et chronologique de la maison royale de France, des pairs, grands officiers de la couronne et de la maison du roy, et des anciens barons du royaume; avec les qualitez, l'origine, le progrés et les armes de leurs familles; ensemble les statuts & le catalogue des chevaliers, commandeurs & officiers de l'Ordre du Saint-Esprit, possibly the longest book title and one of the longest sentences ever. 92.27.12.232 (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct the penultimate sentence of the otherwise fine translation: En revanche simply means "On the contrary" (no actual revenge is meant), so a better translation would be: On the contrary, Stevert disagrees that the bastard Guy de Bourbon, lord of Classy, was the son of Pierre I as Anselme (Grand Officers of the Crown. Baluze (History of the House of Auvergne, I) and others have claimed, without providing any proof. Xuxl (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably "Le P." is short for "Le Père" and so should be translated "Father" rather than "The P." DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The missing bracket is present in another version (which also has trompé). The series of non-proof-providing genealogists then reads, Anselme (Grands Officiers de la Couronne), Baluze (Hist. de la Maison d'Auvergne, I) et d'autres,^[2] or, in translation, "Anselm (Grand Officers of the Crown), Baluze (History of the House of Auvergne, I) and others". We have articles on Father Anselm and Baluze. --Lambiam 15:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]