Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 October 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Language desk
< October 15 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 17 >
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.


October 16[edit]

Boccaccio[edit]

What are various spellings or variations of the name "Boccaccio"? 12.171.237.36 (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is often misspelled (by me) as Bocaccio or Boccacio, but that's not really a variation as much as it is just wrong. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just imagine the fun customers could have with a food place called "Boccaccio's Focaccia". If it were a notable establishment, its WP article would need 15 redirects.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off with his/her/their head(s)![edit]

How would one go about saying "Off with his/her/their head(s)!" in German?

Filosojia X Non(Philosophia X Known) 00:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In this translation of Alice in Wonderland, the Red Queen Queen of Hearts says "Ihren Kopf ab!" (for "her head") and "Ihre Köpfe ab!" (for "their heads"). Deor (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! Filosojia X Non(Philosophia X Known) 00:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophia X Known (talk • contribs)

To complete the series, "Off with his head" would be "Seinen Kopf ab!". Marco polo (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if the ruler was seriously annoyed, would it be "Seinen Dummkopf ab!" as in "off with his fool head"? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 07:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realise you're probably joking, but still: nah, despite having "Kopf" in it, "Dummkopf" always refers to a person, not a head, so that sentence wouldn't make sense. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you could say "Seinen dummen Kopf ab!" to mean "Off with his stupid head!". Marco polo (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that Dummkopf is a good example of a bahuvrihi compound. +Angr 14:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoying someone's support[edit]

There are 252 million google hits for "enjoy support". That tells me that "to enjoy <someone's> support" is a very well-accepted expression. But it's hardly colloquial, not in my part of the world anyway. People usually talk about something or someone "having" support, or not. Except that I heard a local politician being interviewed on radio this afternoon, and he was talking about a proposed new casino. He was saying that such a proposal would need to "enjoy bipartisan support" to be a goer. He used that expression about 6 times in 2 minutes. Which got me wondering about the use of the word "enjoy" in this context. The only entities that can usually be said to enjoy anything are animate beings. How can an abstract idea, such as the establishment of a casino, be said to "enjoy" anything? Where did this expression come from, and why is it still used in certain registers but not others? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's used a lot when the support is the support of someone/something that would be seen as beneficial, and where 'enjoy' roughly means 'is lucky enough to have'. i.e., "the proposal enjoys the support of the charismatic Bill Clinton" or something like that. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is kind of an annoying media-hype term, yes? Regardless, my old Webster's gives two definitions of "enjoy": (1) To have satisfaction in experiencing, possessing, etc.; and (2) To have possession or use of; to have the benefit of. The latter would seem to fit the media usage, and squares with what Rjanag just said above. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 07:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hear it quite often during pledge drives on my local NPR radio station. It's usually used in a sentence such as "NPR enjoys the support of Larsen's Biscuits". Meaning that Larsen's gave NPR or the local VPR affiliate some money to fund whatever program is on at the time. Dismas|(talk) 09:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be acceptable for inanimate entities to be said to "enjoy" the support of someone or something. I don't think it is far removed from the enjoyment logically experienced by sentient beings. Bus stop (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the very sentience of sentient beings is what enables them to have perceptions and feelings. Ideas and proposals are not sentient and have no awareness of anything. But let's not get too distracted by this. I understand that "enjoy" has different meanings in different contexts. I'm now more interested in how and when the word came to be used for the sorts of cases I referred to in my question, when it normally refers to a person or animal having positive feelings when they eat a bone, or listen to a piece of music, or read a book, or have sex. Or edit Wikipedia. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant sense is the OED′s sense 4, "to have the use or benefit of, have for one's lot (something which affords pleasure, or is of the nature of an advantage)". The early quotations cited for this sense—going back to the mid 15th century—all have personal subjects; the first one with an impersonal, or at least a nonhuman, subject is from 1874: "Animals enjoying a much lower degree of intelligence." (That example would seem to me to belong rather to the following section of examples, in which the word is "sometimes used catachr[estically] with obj. denoting something not pleasurable or advantageous", but what do I know? The earliest citation for that particular usage with an impersonal subject is from 1871: "The reigns of Alexander Severus and Caracalla … enjoyed an unhappy distinction for their grinding taxation.")
Aside from one quotation from 1950, presumably added to show that the sense "to have one's will of (a woman)" is still current (the next most recent quotation for that sense being from Milton), the whole entry for the verb enjoy contains no quotations later than the 1870s; so it has probably undergone essentially no revision since it was written for the first edition. One would have to look elsewhere for early uses of the specific expression "enjoy support". Deor (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about your question. You say, "…why is it still used in certain registers but not others?" My question is, in what registers is it not used? Bus stop (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've never heard it used that way in any conversation I've ever had with anyone, or overheard. I have heard politicians use it, and I have read it as used by journalists. That's what I meant. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't really hear it in conversation because it's writing language. That doesn't necessarily make it weird; there are plenty of things (like "purchase" as a verb?) that appear almost exclusively in writing. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My Webstr's is from about 1960, so this usage is clearly not new, although it seems to have become used more frequently over time. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 14:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the phrase is fashion-forward, so it probably gets more than its fair share of abuse and misapplication. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back (as ever) to The Bard (1564–1616), (Sonnet 29):

  • How, may you ask, can he be least-contented with what he most enjoys? But (as indicated above) "enjoy" refers to the qualities, talents and possessions that the Author does possess, rather than to his present satisfaction with or delight in them. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice example, thanks Bardscene. One would need to be careful about bandying this expression around, though. Someone who said "I enjoy bipolar syndrome, occasional suicidal feelings and peptic ulcers", would need to be very prepared to be misunderstood. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution: ...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial... – That's not media hype, is it? —Tamfang (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third cousin twice removed[edit]

Does anyone know hot to say something like "third cousin twice removed" in French? Or if it's more complicated that that, is there any pattern in French for the "names" of cousins? Thanks for your time. 169.231.34.158 (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Xth cousin is "cousin au Xième degré", but this may be wrong. You can also say cousin germain for 1st cousin, and cousin issu de germain for 2nd cousin. [1] may help, and [2]. 129.67.37.143 (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "X times removed" part seems to not exist in many (European) languages other than English. --80.123.210.172 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to my dictionary (Robert &Collins Senior 2002). First cousin = cousin germain, second cousin = cousin issu de germain or petit cousin. Once removed = au deuxième degré, Twice removed = au troisième degré. I think we can infer: "third cousin twice removed"= petit-petit cousin au troisième degré or arrière-petit cousin au troisième degré. But I have never read or heard about such phrases in French. I am not a specialist of French genealogy vocabulary. – AldoSyrt (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen such degree of precision used in French either. After "issu de germain", you would fall into "cousin éloigné" (distant cousin). --Xuxl (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen such degree of precision used in English! The system exists, but few outside genealogical circles understand it. I think two people linked by such a distant relationship as third cousin twice removed would have no more in common genetically than two people chosen at random from an ethnic group. --Tango (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, when I tell people that my second cousin four times removed has his own Wikipedia page, their eyes tend to glaze over. Marnanel (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See here [[3]] for an amazing degree of precision (in French) — AldoSyrt (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect anagrams of notable people's names[edit]

Here's your homework for the weekend.

I've been wondering lately (I do a lot of wondering, in case you hadn't noticed) whether there are any good examples of two notable people whose names are perfect anagrams of each other.

When I say "perfect anagrams", I mean that close is not close enough.

The people don't need to have anything in common other than notability, but if they do have other commonalities, so much the better.

There are many trivial cases, but let's ignore them. Cases where just one of the names is altered (e.g. Ronald Smith/Roland Smith) fall into my definition of trivial. There has to be some mingling of all the letters, more than just John Andrews/Andrew Johns.

The more well-known both people are, the better.

You can use their full names or just their given names + surnames. Or any other forms by which they were commonly known. So, in JFK's case, you might come up with an anagram of John Kennedy (such as Donny E. H. Jenk, if such a person existed and was notable), or of John F. Kennedy, or of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Or indeed of Jack Kennedy.

Go to it. I expect a full list of answers on my desk by Monday morning.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, heh. I did say this was your homework. Do you need any help?  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's an anagram website that will do all this work for anyone who wants to. I'll have to find it. I told User:Theresa Knott about it some time back, and that's where she got some of her anagrams. Ironically, this is one question where that one long-standing troll could actually make himself useful. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 14:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is: [4] It doesn't create initials, but it did come up with this for John F. Kennedy:
Fed Jenny Honk
Fed Ken Johnny
Def Jenny Honk
Def Ken Johnny
There's only so much you can do with some of these. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 14:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jenny Honk doesn't seem to be notable. There are a number of anagram sites, but I haven't found any that cite notable name:=notable name. Looks like we're going to have to do our own homework.--Shantavira|feed me 15:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was always my expectation. I'm aware of those sites, but they don't help for questions like this. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the world of sports, with a slight bit of cheating: Rod Laver/Dave L. Orr. Deor (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making a list for you. --Sean 19:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A list: User:TotoBaggins/Anagrams. It's not perfect, since I don't have the WP database, so there are a lot of redirects and other cruft, and I only knocked out the top few dozen not-name stop words ("University", etc.), but it's something to look over. It's basically all anagrammatic two-word English WP article titles with name-like capitalization and a variety of cruft-removal schemes applied. There are surely both false positives and false negatives, since there might be a person named "Jack University" out there. --Sean 20:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, Sean. I'll have a good look through your list and pick the best of them. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This can become a bit trivial, since some first (Christian) names are anagrams of each other, e.g. Michael and Micheal, or Ronald, Roland, Arnold and Roldan. If your name was Ronald Smythe, you might easily name your son Roland Smythe (In fact when working on a census, I ran across a form where Ronald —— named all his sons with anagrams of Ronald: Roland ——, Roldan ——, Ranold ——, etc.) I think women's first names are even more anagrammable (e.g. Jean and Jane, Mary and Myra). And then there are the trans-sexual anagrams such as Roman, Ramon and Norma or Carlo and Carol. Of course both the parent and the child still need to be notable. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really interested in anything trivial, and I did specify that. An anagram where just one of the names is altered falls into my definition of trivial, and I've added that to the question. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another list. I got a bit carried away. Who knew that "Presidents of Somalia" and "List of Ranma episodes" were anagrams? -- BenRG (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thanks Ben. I hardly know any of the names, but I'll endeavour to rectify that. As for the others, there are some real beauties, like Potential suicide and Social ineptitude. It's a pity that Scaled Fruiteater is not one of our Featured Articles. There's a challenge for someone. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I constructed something approximating a list of "notable" actors/actresses and directors by downloading the raw IMDB data files of those credits (now about 800 megabytes!) and deleting all names that did not have at least 50 credits, arbitrarily counting a TV episode credit as just 1/50 of a credit. "Actors" here includes people who appear as themselves or who appear in archive footage, but I figure it's appropriate to include those when notability is what we're going for; for example, I was surprised to see that James Dean made the list despite the brevity of his career, due to many appearances in archive footage.

So it turned out that there were 18,203 names on the list. Since we were working in English, I stripped accents as well as punctuation for anagramming purposes, and I found a total of 8 nontrivial anagrams. I have attempted to provide Wikipedia links to the correct person if that person has an article.

  • Joan Chen / John Cena
  • Donna Marie / Edna Marion
  • Michael Yama (actor 1978-) / Michaela May (actress 1965-)
  • Antrim Short (actor 1913-37) / Martin Short
  • Marta Flores (actress 1937-2002) / Rafael Storm (actor 1930-45)
  • Lee Grant / Ángel Ter (actor 1949-87)
  • José Loza (actor 1949-2001) / Lajos Öze (actor 1955-86)
  • Elle Rio (porn actress 1984-93) / Lorelei (porn actress 1990--)

There were also 8 trivial anagrams, which I list for the record.

--Anonymous, 05:50 UTC, October 17, 2009.

Kudos to Deor, Sean, BenRG and Anonymous for your efforts. I will make good use of all your results.
I'm still a little disappointed that there's no example so far of a pair of people who are both "internationally famous" (the definition of which is "a person JackofOz knew about before looking in their Wikipedia article"). Maybe there just isn't such a case. But things can change; who knows, maybe Frode Haltli will become the André Rieu of the accordion one day. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody famous? Obviously Jack hasn't watched enough porn! :-) (Me neither.) --Anonymous, 11:26 UTC, October 18, 2009.
OK, so, how about Wikipedia articles whose titles are anagrams of other Wikipedia articles? --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop right there!! Don't even remember that idea was even posted. Because everyone knows what will happen next: there will be a Wikipedia rule (pardon me, guideline, but try telling that to a robot) WP:NOTAGRAM against creating article titles that are anagrams of existing titles of anything that exists in any Wikipedia or Wikimedia in any language. The burden of searching for such a potential WP:Anagram fork will be on the article's creator, of course, but 'bots will be devised to rename every article that is an anagram of any other. However, I've said far, far too much already. Be like Dad, keep Mum (Le bike Dad, peek Mum.) See you at the WP:RfC. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Categories for renaming??? Grutness...wha? 22:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting back[edit]

I'm gradually going through the very long list (127 printed pages) that TotoBaggins/Sean created. The best pair I've found so far is Philip Marlowe (the fictional PI) and William Hopper (the real-life actor who played the fictional PI Paul Drake in the original b/w TV series Perry Mason). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now gone through the entire list. The only other non-trivial pair that sprang out at me was Alexander Downer and Andrew Olexander. Both were Liberal Party of Australia politicians who were known for saying and doing incredibly stupid things in their time in opposition. Downer sort of redeemed himself when he decided to become a statesman, and was our longest serving Foreign Minister 1996-2007; Olexander never made it to government. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old English words[edit]

What are these old English words exactly: foundun hauynge ? --74.219.90.114 (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I found where you found the quote, maybe someone else can help more: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Marie "1380s Wycliffe version of the Bible: Matthew 1:18: Whanne Marie, the modir of Jhesu, was spousid to Joseph, bifore thei camen togidere, she was foundun hauynge of the Hooli Goost in the wombe." Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Those don't look like Old English, they look more like Middle English or simply old-fashioned spellings of modern English. Anyway, foundun is "found" and hauynge is "having". Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The full sentence, then, is approximately as follows: "When Mary, the mother of Jesus, was married to Joseph, before they came together, she was found having the Holy Spirit in her womb." Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close, but the "of" is important: The meaning is "she was found to have [a child] of the Holy Ghost in the womb." Wyclif was closely rendering the Greek εὐρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου and wound up with something not quite idiomatic in English. The Holy Ghost was not personally hanging out in Mary's womb. Deor (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not idiomatic in current English, but it might have been in the 1380s. --Tango (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right; all I can say is that I can't recall ever seeing this particular use of intransitive have and that it isn't recorded in the OED or in any of the Middle English glossaries I have at hand. It's still my impression that this is an imposition of the Greek idiom on English rather than a use of a genuinely native idiom. (The Vulgate, following the Greek word for word, has "inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu Sancto"; and that doesn't seem to me to be idiomatic Latin, either.) Deor (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 1380s would have been Middle English according to our article. --Tango (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that in the John Wycliffe article it says that he completed his translation directly from the Vulgate into vernacular English in the year 1382. It does not say he translated from Greek, but from Latin. Nowhere do I see that he knew Greek. Am I wrong? --66.76.169.20 (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he translated from the Vulgate; but as I pointed out above, the Latin here is a lexical and syntactic match for the original Greek, so it seems better to go to the original when seeking the meaning of a somewhat obscure idiom that is reproduced in both the Latin and English versions. I'm going to stay out of the subsection below, which, in the most charitable interpretation, deals with matters outside the scope of this ref desk. Deor (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Deor for your response. Noone else cared to tackle this point, so I would have to say you are definitely the doer. I didn't think John Wycliffe knew Greek.--66.76.169.20 (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Ghost[edit]

So then explain "of the Holy Ghost."--74.219.90.114 (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I did. What is it that you don't understand? The basic meaning of the nominative feminine participle ἔχουσα is "having", but in Greek (especially with the ἐν γαστρὶ in this sentence) it can idiomatically mean "being pregnant"; Wyclif literally translated it as "having", but at the cost of making his English sentence somewhat opaque. The phrase ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου means "of [or 'from'] the Holy Ghost". One might therefore render the Greek as "she was found [to be] pregnant by the Holy Ghost", but Wyclif was trying to produce a word-for-word translation. Deor (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't believe you did to a layman to understand. Explain exactly that of the "Holy Ghost" is, that apparently today is called the "Holy Spirit." Explain in detail to me what this is that is called the "Holy Spirit." I believe if we knew the exact meaning of this term, perhaps the average layman, that is not religious, could better understand what Wyclif was really trying to say. Keep in mind to keep it simple for those of us that don't necessarly believe in the Jesus story or in the Christian faith. Bottomline please explain that of the "Holy Ghost/ "Holy Spirit." I do believe in John Wyclif however.--74.219.90.114 (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Virgin birth of Jesus and Holy Spirit. Deor (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I did read the complete articles. However still don't get what the Holy Spirit is from a non religious point of view. Please don't have me read several more articles just to skirt the question. Just tell me bottomline in simple layman terms that is not from a Christian point of view what the Holy Ghost is or maybe I'll get the impression you really don't know. Then what you told me above won't have much value and credibility. Perhaps Wyclif knew what he was talking about all along, without others having to put other words in his speaking.--74.219.90.114 (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Ghost/Spirit (the two are synonymous and are both in contemporary use) is an entirely religious concept, so your question makes no sense. --Tango (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trinity might help, although it will probably take a few readings, and giving your imagination free reign, for it to start to make sense. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 15:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Holy Ghost? The Holy Ghost is God. The trinity in a nutshell: God the Father is God. Jesus (God the son) is God. The Holy Spirit is God. They aren't three Gods, they're only one God, but three persons. If that doesn't make complete sense, well, it's not really supposed to. The doctrine of the trinity is considered by the Roman Catholic church to be one of the mysteries of faith - things which are taken to be true, but beyond our limited human understanding. The best humans can do is analogies like Saint Patrick's shamrock (three leaves, one stem). The Holy Spirit is frequently represented by a dove or by wind, and most often mentioned in contexts where God sends grace or divine power to someone or some thing. (In Catholic theology, the Holy Spirit is also thought to be the manifestation of God the Father's love for God the Son (Jesus).) In the context of the passage, God the Father is sending God the Holy Spirit to Mary to impregnate her with God the Son. That's why the "of" is critical - it's being used in the same sense as traditional fathering. At the time the passage was written, it would not have been uncommon to say something along the lines of "Susan is hauynge of Steven" meaning that Steven is the biological father of her child, fathering it in the usual way. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Humans make this stuff up and then call it a "mystery of faith". →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 16:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up the meanings of the words with online dictionaries and came up with this:
  • holy = exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness; having a divine quality
  • spirit = The vital principle or animating force within living beings; the part of a human associated with the mind, will, and feelings; the essential nature of a person.
So for a simple combination using both words in that order of "Holy Spirit" one might say that might produce something like:
  • an extremely good spirited person
  • an extremely good vital person
  • a righteousness energetic lively person - a good vital leader
  • an extremely good and righteousness human being
Just by using the direct meanings of the words and not involving religion, it looks like to me it could mean a person that is good, righteousness, and dedicated and immersed in doing righteousness moral things. So maybe he is baptized in the holy spirit - a good attitude, one of good morals. Makes sense to me and certainly no mystery. --66.76.169.20 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you not involve religion when interpreting a Bible verse? Holy Spirit means that particular aspect of the Christian god, it has no other meaning. The verse is describing God making Mary pregnant, there is no ambiguity there. --Tango (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point of view, IF you believe in the Christian god and that religion - which millions worldwide do not. It looks like to me more people worldwide do not believe in Christianity than do. So for myself I would rather put these New Testament verses in easy plain English terms that any layman can understand and keep out of this "mysteries of faith." I do not believe in throwing caution to the wind and would rather try to find a good logical answer than just a "mystery." Good logical answers has got me further in life than throwing caution to the wind. Having a God make Mary pregnant does not make sense to me. It is one of those "mysteries", which just doesn't make sense. I have an idea now how babies are made - and I can pretty much guarantee you it isn't that way.--66.76.169.20 (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not religious, but I know that the Bible is a religious text. Therefore, I interpret it from a religious point of view. It is very clear that the intended meaning is that God made her pregnant. Trying to put any meaning into it other than that which the writer intended is pointless. --Tango (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To better comprehend the concept, you have to "pretend that Christianity is true" and try to understand it from that viewpoint. Applying science or geometric logic to religion is like trying to tie a hair-ribbon onto a bolt of lightning (apologies to W.C. Fields). →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 21:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me that God made her pregnant. Nothing could be more illogical. It is not of the God I believe in would do as a logical item. My God that I believe in does logical things. That is not in the least logical. Maybe to those that believe in the Christian faith, which looks like a minority worldwide, might believe this "mysterious" faith where one has to throw caution to the wind. In the John Wycliffe lines of Matthew 1:18 he writes "she was foundun hauynge of the Hooli Goost in the wombe", which looks like to me then means "she was found having of the holy spirit in the womb." Womb according to online dictionaries is: A place where something is generated. Now we have "she was found having of a moral person in the place where something is generated." Maybe Jesus was not even a person, but perhaps a concept instead. It is alright to give views other than Christianity, isn't it? Wikipedia doesn't kid people off if they give other viewpoints, do they? If that is the case I can not even "pretend that Christianity is true", for I feel it is a mere myth. How do you know what the original writer intended, as you do not know the original writer. That is just your interpretation from a Christian viewpoint. We are allowed to see it from another viewpoint other that that of Christianity, aren't we? To follow up, nobody has answered my point that I do not believe that John Wycliffe even knew Greek - as the article does not mention that.--66.76.169.20 (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is religion. Logic don't enter into it! The theory is that Mary was impregnated directly by God, thus Jesus was born without "original sin". Your next question is probably, "Huh? What?" Like I said, logic does not figure into it. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 22:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't claimed that God made her pregnant, we have said that the Bible says God made her pregnant. That is simple fact. I am not Christian, I consider the Bible to be a mixture of warped history and myth, but I know what it says. There is no point trying to interpret the Bible from any point of view other than Christianity since the Bible is the sacred text of Christianity - it has no other purpose. --Tango (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 22:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read how Aphrodite was generated, and suddenly the Christian story almost makes sense by comparison. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 22:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Christianity story just does not make sense no matter what. Bugsie, I sure hate to Tango you up, but John Wycliffe wrote Matthew 1:18 as:

  • But the generacioun of Crist was thus. Whanne Marie, the modir of Jhesu, was spousid to Joseph, bifore thei camen togidere, she was foundun hauynge of the Hooli Goost in the wombe.

I do not see "impregnated" in there anywhere or even anything that even remotely looks like that. Ya'lls skirted a couple of points I asked.

1) Wikipedia doesn't kick people off if they give other viewpoints, do they?
2) Nobody has answered my point that I do not believe that John Wycliffe even knew Greek.

From one that does not believe in Christianity I see Wycliffe's line above as:

  • But the production of the formally selected one was thus. Rebellion, that which gave rise to self help, was associated to increase, but before rebellion came together with increase, it was found having of moralities in the place where it was generated.
  • generacion = production
  • Crist = anointed, formally selected one
  • Marie = rebellion
  • modir = something that gives rise to something else
  • Jhesu = help, self help
  • spousid = associated
  • Joseph = increase
  • foundun = found
  • hauynge = having
  • Holy Spirit = moralities
  • womb = place where it was generated
  • "Jesus" (pronounced /ˈdʒiːzəs/) is a transliteration, occurring in a number of languages and based on the Latin Iesus, of the Greek

Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs), itself a Hellenisation of the Hebrew יהושע(Yehoshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic ישוע(Yeshua, Joshua), meaning "YHWH rescues" or "YHWH delivers".

  • "Christ" (pronounced /ˈkraɪst/) is a title derived from the Greek Χριστός (Christós), meaning the "Anointed One", a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ

I have been talking of the New Testament and John Wycliffe. Have not studied the O. T. I certainly do not see this as a spiritual view, just as a logical view. Makes sense to me. You would have to agree with me that diplomacy is better than a rebellion (i.e. edit wars), don't you? If you do, then it would be the preferred method and the formally selected one. Interesting response I got on this and I can certainly see how entrenced the Christian faith is in our society. By substituting the meanings of the words, the sentence makes sense. But a god impregnating a virgin sounds illogical and a lot like a myth to me. We have not advanced that much in religion over the last few thousand years.
Everyone has chosen not to answer the point that the article on John Wycliffe does not say he knew Greek. So on that bases I will have to assume he did not, therefore the parts of him rendering Greek in a certain fashion does not have any credibility - since apparently he didn't know Greek, therefore could not have translated from it. I read that he translated from Latin.--66.76.169.20 (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this had better be my last comment on this issue. The Virgin Birth is indeed a myth - however, the word "myth" does _not_ imply that the story is _false_. Christians believe it to be true, non-Christians do not. The idea of a god impregnating a virgin isn't _illogical_, unless you consider any sort of miracle to be "illogical" - implying that the "laws of Nature" are on an equal footing with abstract logic, a viewpoint that is by no means universally held. Finally, there have been many better translations of the Bible into English since Wyclif's; if you want to produce your own "logical" translation without starting from the Greek, the NIV or the NEB (execrably bad prose, but an accurate translation) would be a better target. Tevildo (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a totally different viewpoint and certainly not Christianity and not religion and not beliefs in myths. Now if you want to kick me off Wikipedia for expressing my viewpoints, then it is obvious who has control of Wikipedia. Then no other viewpoints can be expressed other than that religion. --66.76.169.20 (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to interpret the Bible from anything other than a Christian viewpoint? --Tango (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One may wish to interpret it from a Jewish perspective. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there are other messages here in the New Testament. Perhaps moral messages. In my viewpoint then in what I came up with for Matthew 1:18 I see it as negotiations and diplomacy is far better and a preferred method over a rebellion (i.e. edit wars). You certainly can agree with me on this, can't you? I see messages like this throughout the New Testament since I am not tied to the Christian faith.--66.76.169.20 (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a "message", it's just you misinterpreting a religious text (and getting something that makes even less sense than the Nativity story - at least that makes sense as a work of fiction). What you are doing is no better than the Bible code. --Tango (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my detailed logical arguments and am not going to tango any further with you on this since you are not providing logical details, which just bugs me.--66.76.169.20 (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A logical argument is only as good as its assumptions. You are assuming that there is some other meaning to the Bible than that which was intended, which is very dubious. You are extracting information from noise - you can usually find whatever information you like in random noise just be choosing a suitable method of extracting it. That doesn't mean that there is any meaning in it. --Tango (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And who's threatening to kick you off for giving other viewpoints??? And I don't know where you're getting that phraseology from. It says, "But the generation of Christ was thus. When Mary, the mother of Jesus, was spoused to Joseph, before they came together [i.e. before they consummated their marriage], she was found having of the Holy Ghost [i.e. Holy Spirit] in the womb [i.e. she was pregnant already, with God's child]." What's not to understand? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 23:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Bugsie, I got that phraseology from just looking up the meanings behind those words. Logical, wouldn't you say? --66.76.169.20 (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's taking something and substituting something else, kind of like spelling "fish" as "ghoti". →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 00:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't see that anyone can object to 66. putting together his own translation of the Bible to fit in with his particular spiritual views. But it might be a better idea if he were to start with the Greek (and Hebrew, if he wants to include the OT) rather than Wyclif... Tevildo (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you are neglecting context and idioms in your translations. If you "look up" "looking up", you'll see that it means "gaze skyward". "Behind" means "to the back of". "Words" means "a combination of glyphs". A "meaning" is "the significance of a thing" So if you "looked up the meanings behind those words" then logically you must have "gazed skywards at the significance located to the back of a combination of glyphs". While I admire your eyesight to be able to see the small gap between the ink and the paper, I'm still baffled why you had to hold it above your head to do so. Yes, that reinterpretation may be a little convoluted to get get the meaning I wanted, but I believe your reinterpretation of Wycliffe is equally convoluted in search of the meaning you wanted. Language is imprecise - you can't just slice-and-dice words. (When someone writes "Holy Spirit" they don't mean "an extremely good spirited person" any more than when someone writes "New Jersey" they mean "a just-sewn athletic shirt".) To know what a word or sentence meant, it has to be informed by what the speaker/writer wanted it to mean. What John Wycliffe meant can probably be found by looking at the religious movement he was involved in (Lollardy). Unfortunately, their beliefs with respect to the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, and the Virgin Birth aren't mentioned in that article. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably several steps back or forward in the discussion, but you should see John 3:16, Nicene Creed and Apostles' Creed to see how important the fatherhood of Jesus is to Christians (of whom I, too, am not one). For the first four centuries or so after Christ, many theories were advanced, but a combination of many factors (faith, reason, study, prayer, discussion, appeals to religious authority and, not least, raw political power backed by pitiless brute force) have led to a broad common interpretation of the Trinity (and to a lesser extent, the Virgin Birth) among almost all traditional Christians, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. That does not of course mean (least of all on Wikipedia) that no one can have a different opinion, and the millions who deny the divinity or Christhood of Jesus of Nazareth are almost bound to. John 3:16 reads "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." ("Begotten" is an old English word for "physically conceived" or "fathered".) Part of the Nicene Creed reads (in the English Book of Common Prayer#1662

"I believe ... in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made; Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man,..." — English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use#Anglican Communion.

Notice the words "begotten not made", the result of one of the early battles between orthodoxy and perceived heresy. (But if you look at the table at Nicene Creed which compares the Creeds promulgated at Nicaea and Constantinople, you can see the germs of different opinions even there.) —— Shakescene (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, however, that the "begetting" being done here is not the begetting that involved Mary. The Son was "Begotten of his Father before all worlds." The Son, as a person of the Trinity, existed before the creation, and before the Incarnation.–RHolton≡– 01:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Wycliffe's version of the Bible is at John Wycliffe's Translation. An outline of information about the Trinity is at Should You Believe in the Trinity? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site, and Matthew 1:18 is discussed under the heading "Jesus a Separate Creation" at What Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jehovah vs YHWH Sunday Night Smackdown[edit]
Beware of anything the JW's have to say, starting with the fact that there was never any such word as "Jehovah" in the O.T. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 18:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Tetragrammaton. Not only is the Old Testament (primarily & originally) written with Hebrew letters rather than Roman letters, there's no vowels. How the tetragrammaton (which does occur in the Old Testament) should be rendered in English is the subject of much scholarly debate - both Yahweh and Jehovah can be taken as acceptable representations, depending on which vowels you substitute in, and what you believe the "correct" Hebrew->English consonant conversion is. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Information about the Tetragrammaton is outlined at The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site. The table of contents lists several subtopics. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The vowel points used to represent "Elohim" and "Adonai" were misinterpreted as being part of YHWH. "Jehovah" is an artificial invention with no validity. I'm sure the IP who posted the question is amused by the kind of debate these questions can generate. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 20:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation." The word Christ, Christos, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Messias, means "anointed." 208.180.136.118 (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except the proper transliteration from Hebrew is more like "Yeshua", referring to YHWH, i.e. "YHWH is salvation". And YHWH is not really God's name anyway, it's the dodgy answer He gave to Moses, and essentially means "I am". And, yes, Jesus and Joshua are etymologically the same Hebrew name, via different paths. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 21:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I yam what I yam, and that's all that I yam, saith Popeye the Sailorman. Cf. the New Testament passage, where Jesus asks "Who is it that men say that I am?", which The Atlantic Monthly made into a cover story about twenty Christmases ago. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's strong to the finisheth, 'cause He eats his spinacheth. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you equating Olive Oyl with Asherah, Bugs? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2009_October_16&oldid=1141891659"