| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 5 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 7 > |
| 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. |
January 6 Information
Folks,
I am in need of a toast -- Na Droswie, Prosit, Skål, etc -- (1) in Polish, and (2) which does NOT translate to anything having to do with long life or good health. ("To old friends" might be a candidate, for example.) Any experts on THAT subject here?
Thanks in advance, DaHorsesMouth ( talk) 00:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting question - I can't offhand think of any "general" toasts in English (as opposed to specific "to Jane and John, may their troubles always be little ones", "Her Majesty, God bless her" or "to the success of our endeavour"-type toasts) that aren't about long life or good health. The only one in English that gets anywhere near is "a toast to absent friends", but since that's effectively a remembrance of friends that have passed away (in other words died) that's probably not appropriate either. My Polish friends have always used "Na zdrowie". My uncle, a Scotsman, used to toast "Here's tae us, whae's like us? Gey few, and they're a' deid" but that may be a little difficult to translate. Tonywalton Talk 00:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- There's always "Cheers!". Is there a Polish equivalent? 86.178.73.74 ( talk) 20:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit more explanation is in order. A long-time colleague is retiring -- with a terminal illness. Long life and good health would be in bad taste, and more importantly would make me look irrecoverably stupid. Hence, I need another idea or two :-). DaHorsesMouth ( talk) 01:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why not translate the lovely Irish blessing:
- May the road rise to meet you,
- May the wind be always at your back,
- May the sun shine warm upon your face,
- The rains fall soft upon your fields and [optional for atheists and agnostics],
- Until we meet again,
- May God hold you in the palm of His hand.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
03:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've never understood that blessing. What does it mean for a road to rise to meet you? It makes me imagine someone falling over flat on their face.
Marnanel (
talk)
21:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, they are heavy drinkers. 'Nuff said. Half Shadow 21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've never understood that blessing. What does it mean for a road to rise to meet you? It makes me imagine someone falling over flat on their face.
Marnanel (
talk)
21:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- In English you can make up any toast by saying "to..." plus almost anything that comes to your mind. It works the same in Polish: you use the preposition za followed by anything (often some abstract concept) in the
accusative case. To you I would suggest Za przyjaźń! (Polish pronunciation:
[za'pʂɨjaʑɲ]), "To friendship!" Please let me know if you need more suggestions or more help with the pronunciation. —
Kpalion
(talk)
12:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Before someone asks: Na zdrowie! ("To health!") is the only exception where you use the preposition na instead of za. —
Kpalion
(talk)
12:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Slightly off-topic, but just to mention: "May the road rise to meet you", while the conventional wording in English, is actually a mistranslation of Irish Go n-éirí an bóthar leat. A better translation would be "May the road (i.e. the journey) be successful for you". + An gr 19:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Before someone asks: Na zdrowie! ("To health!") is the only exception where you use the preposition na instead of za. —
Kpalion
(talk)
12:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Some suggestions from an English friend of mine who has a Polish wife and runs a Polish restaurant staffed by Polish people:
- As a regular drinker with the Polish, a few spring to mind, although most toasts are same as in English ie health related. The only other ones that I know relate to *serious* drinking...
- There is this one from the villages:
- Top, bottom, middle, table - Góra, dół, środek, stół (gora, dough, shrodek, stow)
- As you may infer this related to touching glasses at top, bottom, middle and then to table before drinking.
- Drink to your stupid head - Siup w ten głupi dziub (shoop vten gwoopi joop)
- Drink before we fall asleep - Chluśniem bo uśniem (hoolooshniem bo ooshniem)
- Hope this helps
- These are good, but just to clarify: normally you'd only use these expressions when drinking shots of pure vodka. You certainly wouldn't use any of these to propose a toast to someone with a glass of champagne. —
Kpalion
(talk)
10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll drink anything that stands still long enough, me ☺ Tonywalton Talk 21:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- These are good, but just to clarify: normally you'd only use these expressions when drinking shots of pure vodka. You certainly wouldn't use any of these to propose a toast to someone with a glass of champagne. —
Kpalion
(talk)
10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
What is the derivation of this word that means entrance in Welsh? Does it have connection with the verb 'mynd' (To go)?-- 79.67.75.108 ( talk) 00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Probably; "myned" is an earlier form of "mynd" (the suffix "-fa" indicates a place).-- Cam ( talk) 01:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
What is the origin of the word spatial? I can guess how spacial came about. 78.146.51.13 ( talk) 10:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- From Latin spatium according to Wiktionary. "Space" came from the same source via French. AndrewWTaylor ( talk) 11:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- The
OED lists 'spacial' as a variant spelling of the head-word 'spatial'. I do not recall having come across 'spacial' before. --
ColinFine (
talk)
23:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's only used on, ahem, spacial occasions. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- The
OED lists 'spacial' as a variant spelling of the head-word 'spatial'. I do not recall having come across 'spacial' before. --
ColinFine (
talk)
23:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
which is the oldest religious text in this world —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaaits ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Presumably something in the Sumerian or Egyptian languages, as those are the oldest writing systems in the world. The oldest attested text which has been continuously revered by a still-existing religion might be the Rig Veda... AnonMoos ( talk) 15:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Humanities reference desk would be a better place to raise this question. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 15:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- The
Epic of Gilgamesh is over 4,000 years old, so that's probably the oldest well-known religious text, but there likely are earlier Sumerian texts extant.
John M Baker (
talk)
16:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if I would classify that as a "religious text", though. It examines some religious themes (mostly in a philosophical light), but isn't a text one could easily base a religion on.
Matt Deres (
talk)
17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Depends also on your definition of 'religion.' According to Judaism, there are no other religions, and the Old Testament would therefor be the oldest religious text. Even without such a strict view of the definition of 'religion,' the Old Testament still ranks as an ancient text, having been received at Sinai in 2448 (it is currently year 5770 in the same sequence, making the OT 3220 years old.) DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 23:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if I would classify that as a "religious text", though. It examines some religious themes (mostly in a philosophical light), but isn't a text one could easily base a religion on.
Matt Deres (
talk)
17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- The
Epic of Gilgamesh is over 4,000 years old, so that's probably the oldest well-known religious text, but there likely are earlier Sumerian texts extant.
John M Baker (
talk)
16:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- DRosenbach, those first two sentences are ridiculous here on the Reference Desk.
Comet Tuttle (
talk)
00:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree -- they establish that from a particular POV, the question has a much narrower focus. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 03:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- What the Bible says was received at Sinai was the ten commandments, not the "Old Testament" as a whole -- and some books of the Bible make references to such things as Persian emperors (e.g. Ezra-Nehemiah, the book of Esther etc.) and so are manifestly much less than 3,220 years old. Mainstream Biblical scholars tend to doubt that anything other than a few small archaic "lyrics" (mainly the song of Miriam, perhaps the song of Deborah) survive substantially unaltered from
before ca. 3000 B.C. AnonMoos ( talk) 02:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)- 3000 BC? If this is Hebrew year 5770, then Hebrew year 2448 is only 1313 BC. +
An
gr
08:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, I had the two alternative phrasings "Before ca. 1000 B.C." and "Before ca. 3000 years ago" in my mind, and I unfortunately combined elements of the two in a way which led to a factually incorrect assertion...
--
AnonMoos (
talk)
15:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I sometimes wish we could all agree to switch to the
Julian Day system.
87.81.230.195 (
talk)
18:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- As long as we could all agree on which alternative we would all use. Seems the users of the system have as many sects as Christianity. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I sometimes wish we could all agree to switch to the
Julian Day system.
87.81.230.195 (
talk)
18:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, I had the two alternative phrasings "Before ca. 1000 B.C." and "Before ca. 3000 years ago" in my mind, and I unfortunately combined elements of the two in a way which led to a factually incorrect assertion...
- 3000 BC? If this is Hebrew year 5770, then Hebrew year 2448 is only 1313 BC. +
An
gr
08:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- DRosenbach, those first two sentences are ridiculous here on the Reference Desk.
Comet Tuttle (
talk)
00:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say it silly to rely on the "Bible," as a fundamentalist reading of it provides a quite silly and absurd collection of snippets of laws that give no detail whatsoever -- you are right, however, in picking up an error I made...I was referring merely to the Five Books of Moses as being from that date. The entire FBoM were gifted at Sinai (not merely the 10 Commandments), except for a few passages here and there (e.g. on the topic of Shabbat) that were given prior to Sinai and Merivah. And to think that mainstream biblical scholars who neither read nor understand Hebrew and Aramaic so as to grasp the subtle nuances of the Torah and its commentaries can have substantial claims to make is bizarre. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 03:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the purpose of either of your postings to this thread really has been (and especially unclear on the reason for your switch from apparent ultra-fundamentalism in your post of "23:37, 6 January 2010" to ultra-skepticism in your most recent post), but in any case the main point remains -- it's unlikely that there's any lengthy connected passage in the Old Testament which (in the particular form in which it's found in the Old Testament) substantially predates the Rig-Veda.
AnonMoos (
talk)
10:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- You take a very hard-line approach towards me, as though you suspect me of evangelism while I surreptitiously pretend to answer questions. The purpose of my posts was to highlight the fundamental question being asked by the OP: one regarding religious texts. What is a religious text? Any text that mentions God? Any text that is written by someone who claims to be religious? Certainly both of these suggestions would be met with criticism by many (including me). What makes the Rig-Veda a religious text -- the fact that it was written by someone as a form of prayer? The Rig-Veda differs from the
FBoM in that the latter possesses claims of divine origin, while, from what I could deduce from a quick read of the former, it does not.
DRosenbach (
Talk |
Contribs)
13:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- AnonMoos -- you misunderstood and mischaracterized my religious perspective twice -- one in the form of ultra-fundamentalism and another in the form of ultra-skepticism. The Orthodox Jewish perspective is neither. (But this is not the place to discuss it. If you'd like to carry on a separate discussion, I welcome you to my talk page.)
DRosenbach (
Talk |
Contribs)
13:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I really have very little idea what the purpose of most of your posts here is, and have very little interest in pursuing this discussion further other than to observe that I was using a rough-and-ready operational definition of a religious text as one which is revered by a religion...
AnonMoos (
talk)
15:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- In case the OP bears a perspective distinct from your own, I offered an alternative understanding. Settled it is, then. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 17:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I really have very little idea what the purpose of most of your posts here is, and have very little interest in pursuing this discussion further other than to observe that I was using a rough-and-ready operational definition of a religious text as one which is revered by a religion...
AnonMoos (
talk)
15:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- AnonMoos -- you misunderstood and mischaracterized my religious perspective twice -- one in the form of ultra-fundamentalism and another in the form of ultra-skepticism. The Orthodox Jewish perspective is neither. (But this is not the place to discuss it. If you'd like to carry on a separate discussion, I welcome you to my talk page.)
DRosenbach (
Talk |
Contribs)
13:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- You take a very hard-line approach towards me, as though you suspect me of evangelism while I surreptitiously pretend to answer questions. The purpose of my posts was to highlight the fundamental question being asked by the OP: one regarding religious texts. What is a religious text? Any text that mentions God? Any text that is written by someone who claims to be religious? Certainly both of these suggestions would be met with criticism by many (including me). What makes the Rig-Veda a religious text -- the fact that it was written by someone as a form of prayer? The Rig-Veda differs from the
FBoM in that the latter possesses claims of divine origin, while, from what I could deduce from a quick read of the former, it does not.
DRosenbach (
Talk |
Contribs)
13:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the purpose of either of your postings to this thread really has been (and especially unclear on the reason for your switch from apparent ultra-fundamentalism in your post of "23:37, 6 January 2010" to ultra-skepticism in your most recent post), but in any case the main point remains -- it's unlikely that there's any lengthy connected passage in the Old Testament which (in the particular form in which it's found in the Old Testament) substantially predates the Rig-Veda.
AnonMoos (
talk)
10:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- DRosenbach, since your definition strikes me as somewhat arbitrary (no offense meant), I looked up our article on
religious texts, and the definition in the heading is: "Religious texts, also known as scripture, are the texts which various religious traditions consider to be sacred, or of central importance to their religious tradition. Many religions and spiritual movements believe that their sacred texts are divinely or supernaturally inspired.", so at least according to our article, a body of text doesn't necesarily have to claim divine inspiration to be considered scripture. Incidentaly, the article also has an answer for the OP: "The oldest known religious texts are
Pyramid texts of
Ancient Egypt that date to 2400-2300 BCE."
TomorrowTime (
talk)
13:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I gave no definition for you to be struck by arbitrariness :) My assertion that the Rig-Veda might not possess claims of divine inspiration should not allow the extrapolation that I assert that all religious texts must possess divine inspiration. I can write a text tomorrow with no divine inspiration, but if I am writing an explaination, elucidation, elaboration on, etc. a previously defined work of scripture or body of religious thought, my work would indeed be a religious text. My purpose was to inform the OP that his or her question of "the oldest religious text" is nearly if not exactly as contentious as any other question on comparative religion. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 13:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
From the Finnish translation of a Lucky Luke album, I recall a Mexican gun shop owner telling Lucky Luke (and this is as close to verbatim as I can get, from memory):
- "Dice que Billy the Kid dijo '¡Soy Billy the Kid! ¡Billy the Kid! ¿Tu entiedes eso? ¿Y eso? ¿Y eso? ¡Pum! ¡Pum! ¡Pum!'"
Now my question is, is this grammatically correct Spanish? JIP | Talk 18:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Another question, from another Lucky Luke album: Apparently Spanish for "when is it time to eat?" is ¿Quando se come, aqui? Is this grammatically correct Spanish? If so, can someone provide a direct word-by-word translation? JIP | Talk 18:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- It seems fairly close. I read it as "He says that Billy the Kid said, 'I am Billy the Kid! Do you understand that? And that?' Bang!" I think the second one, "When does one eat, here?" is also fairly close. Do those translations make sense in context? ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→
18:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, except the ¡Pum! is part of Billy the Kid's quote in the first one. It was Billy the Kid who fired the gun, not the gun shop owner. Thanks for the reply.
JIP |
Talk
20:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Some spelling corrections: ¿Tú entiendes eso?, ¿Cuándo se come aquí?. + An gr 21:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, except the ¡Pum! is part of Billy the Kid's quote in the first one. It was Billy the Kid who fired the gun, not the gun shop owner. Thanks for the reply.
JIP |
Talk
20:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- My Spanish isn't strong enough to be confident about whether a given expression is grammatical or idiomatic, but I'm fairly certain that "entiedes" in the embedded quote in your first question should be "entiendes".
Marco polo (
talk)
21:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's correct. I saw it as entiendes, but it was missing the second n. Also, I suppose the Pum part would more literally translate as "Boom". Either way, imitative of a gun being fired. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
need a 14 letter word with E A N A D N H T O I D M U I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.15.30 ( talk) 21:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe there is one, at least in English. (DETAIN HUMANOID!) Marnanel ( talk) 21:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- And in other languages? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.65.15.30 (
talk)
21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know, but a subset of your letters is adeimnot, which seems to have a lot of anagrams in Italian (as well as a couple in English and a couple in French). (The rest are adhinu, FWIW.)— msh210℠ 19:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- And in other languages? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.65.15.30 (
talk)
21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Check out sites such as anagrammer.com which can solve puzzles like this. The closest word that it picks up, which is 11 letters, is "deanimation".
Them
From
Space
21:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- thanks for that link! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.15.30 ( talk) 22:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
-
SOED on CD doesn't list any anagrams of E A N A D N H T O I D M U I.
Mitch Ames (
talk)
12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- The anagram site I use found thousands of multi-word combinations, but when I restricted it to 1 word, it found nothing. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 5 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 7 > |
| 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. |
January 6 Information
Folks,
I am in need of a toast -- Na Droswie, Prosit, Skål, etc -- (1) in Polish, and (2) which does NOT translate to anything having to do with long life or good health. ("To old friends" might be a candidate, for example.) Any experts on THAT subject here?
Thanks in advance, DaHorsesMouth ( talk) 00:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting question - I can't offhand think of any "general" toasts in English (as opposed to specific "to Jane and John, may their troubles always be little ones", "Her Majesty, God bless her" or "to the success of our endeavour"-type toasts) that aren't about long life or good health. The only one in English that gets anywhere near is "a toast to absent friends", but since that's effectively a remembrance of friends that have passed away (in other words died) that's probably not appropriate either. My Polish friends have always used "Na zdrowie". My uncle, a Scotsman, used to toast "Here's tae us, whae's like us? Gey few, and they're a' deid" but that may be a little difficult to translate. Tonywalton Talk 00:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- There's always "Cheers!". Is there a Polish equivalent? 86.178.73.74 ( talk) 20:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit more explanation is in order. A long-time colleague is retiring -- with a terminal illness. Long life and good health would be in bad taste, and more importantly would make me look irrecoverably stupid. Hence, I need another idea or two :-). DaHorsesMouth ( talk) 01:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why not translate the lovely Irish blessing:
- May the road rise to meet you,
- May the wind be always at your back,
- May the sun shine warm upon your face,
- The rains fall soft upon your fields and [optional for atheists and agnostics],
- Until we meet again,
- May God hold you in the palm of His hand.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
03:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've never understood that blessing. What does it mean for a road to rise to meet you? It makes me imagine someone falling over flat on their face.
Marnanel (
talk)
21:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, they are heavy drinkers. 'Nuff said. Half Shadow 21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've never understood that blessing. What does it mean for a road to rise to meet you? It makes me imagine someone falling over flat on their face.
Marnanel (
talk)
21:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- In English you can make up any toast by saying "to..." plus almost anything that comes to your mind. It works the same in Polish: you use the preposition za followed by anything (often some abstract concept) in the
accusative case. To you I would suggest Za przyjaźń! (Polish pronunciation:
[za'pʂɨjaʑɲ]), "To friendship!" Please let me know if you need more suggestions or more help with the pronunciation. —
Kpalion
(talk)
12:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Before someone asks: Na zdrowie! ("To health!") is the only exception where you use the preposition na instead of za. —
Kpalion
(talk)
12:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Slightly off-topic, but just to mention: "May the road rise to meet you", while the conventional wording in English, is actually a mistranslation of Irish Go n-éirí an bóthar leat. A better translation would be "May the road (i.e. the journey) be successful for you". + An gr 19:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Before someone asks: Na zdrowie! ("To health!") is the only exception where you use the preposition na instead of za. —
Kpalion
(talk)
12:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Some suggestions from an English friend of mine who has a Polish wife and runs a Polish restaurant staffed by Polish people:
- As a regular drinker with the Polish, a few spring to mind, although most toasts are same as in English ie health related. The only other ones that I know relate to *serious* drinking...
- There is this one from the villages:
- Top, bottom, middle, table - Góra, dół, środek, stół (gora, dough, shrodek, stow)
- As you may infer this related to touching glasses at top, bottom, middle and then to table before drinking.
- Drink to your stupid head - Siup w ten głupi dziub (shoop vten gwoopi joop)
- Drink before we fall asleep - Chluśniem bo uśniem (hoolooshniem bo ooshniem)
- Hope this helps
- These are good, but just to clarify: normally you'd only use these expressions when drinking shots of pure vodka. You certainly wouldn't use any of these to propose a toast to someone with a glass of champagne. —
Kpalion
(talk)
10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll drink anything that stands still long enough, me ☺ Tonywalton Talk 21:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- These are good, but just to clarify: normally you'd only use these expressions when drinking shots of pure vodka. You certainly wouldn't use any of these to propose a toast to someone with a glass of champagne. —
Kpalion
(talk)
10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
What is the derivation of this word that means entrance in Welsh? Does it have connection with the verb 'mynd' (To go)?-- 79.67.75.108 ( talk) 00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Probably; "myned" is an earlier form of "mynd" (the suffix "-fa" indicates a place).-- Cam ( talk) 01:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
What is the origin of the word spatial? I can guess how spacial came about. 78.146.51.13 ( talk) 10:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- From Latin spatium according to Wiktionary. "Space" came from the same source via French. AndrewWTaylor ( talk) 11:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- The
OED lists 'spacial' as a variant spelling of the head-word 'spatial'. I do not recall having come across 'spacial' before. --
ColinFine (
talk)
23:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's only used on, ahem, spacial occasions. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- The
OED lists 'spacial' as a variant spelling of the head-word 'spatial'. I do not recall having come across 'spacial' before. --
ColinFine (
talk)
23:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
which is the oldest religious text in this world —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaaits ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Presumably something in the Sumerian or Egyptian languages, as those are the oldest writing systems in the world. The oldest attested text which has been continuously revered by a still-existing religion might be the Rig Veda... AnonMoos ( talk) 15:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Humanities reference desk would be a better place to raise this question. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 15:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- The
Epic of Gilgamesh is over 4,000 years old, so that's probably the oldest well-known religious text, but there likely are earlier Sumerian texts extant.
John M Baker (
talk)
16:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if I would classify that as a "religious text", though. It examines some religious themes (mostly in a philosophical light), but isn't a text one could easily base a religion on.
Matt Deres (
talk)
17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Depends also on your definition of 'religion.' According to Judaism, there are no other religions, and the Old Testament would therefor be the oldest religious text. Even without such a strict view of the definition of 'religion,' the Old Testament still ranks as an ancient text, having been received at Sinai in 2448 (it is currently year 5770 in the same sequence, making the OT 3220 years old.) DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 23:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if I would classify that as a "religious text", though. It examines some religious themes (mostly in a philosophical light), but isn't a text one could easily base a religion on.
Matt Deres (
talk)
17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- The
Epic of Gilgamesh is over 4,000 years old, so that's probably the oldest well-known religious text, but there likely are earlier Sumerian texts extant.
John M Baker (
talk)
16:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- DRosenbach, those first two sentences are ridiculous here on the Reference Desk.
Comet Tuttle (
talk)
00:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree -- they establish that from a particular POV, the question has a much narrower focus. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 03:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- What the Bible says was received at Sinai was the ten commandments, not the "Old Testament" as a whole -- and some books of the Bible make references to such things as Persian emperors (e.g. Ezra-Nehemiah, the book of Esther etc.) and so are manifestly much less than 3,220 years old. Mainstream Biblical scholars tend to doubt that anything other than a few small archaic "lyrics" (mainly the song of Miriam, perhaps the song of Deborah) survive substantially unaltered from
before ca. 3000 B.C. AnonMoos ( talk) 02:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)- 3000 BC? If this is Hebrew year 5770, then Hebrew year 2448 is only 1313 BC. +
An
gr
08:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, I had the two alternative phrasings "Before ca. 1000 B.C." and "Before ca. 3000 years ago" in my mind, and I unfortunately combined elements of the two in a way which led to a factually incorrect assertion...
--
AnonMoos (
talk)
15:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I sometimes wish we could all agree to switch to the
Julian Day system.
87.81.230.195 (
talk)
18:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- As long as we could all agree on which alternative we would all use. Seems the users of the system have as many sects as Christianity. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I sometimes wish we could all agree to switch to the
Julian Day system.
87.81.230.195 (
talk)
18:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, I had the two alternative phrasings "Before ca. 1000 B.C." and "Before ca. 3000 years ago" in my mind, and I unfortunately combined elements of the two in a way which led to a factually incorrect assertion...
- 3000 BC? If this is Hebrew year 5770, then Hebrew year 2448 is only 1313 BC. +
An
gr
08:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- DRosenbach, those first two sentences are ridiculous here on the Reference Desk.
Comet Tuttle (
talk)
00:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say it silly to rely on the "Bible," as a fundamentalist reading of it provides a quite silly and absurd collection of snippets of laws that give no detail whatsoever -- you are right, however, in picking up an error I made...I was referring merely to the Five Books of Moses as being from that date. The entire FBoM were gifted at Sinai (not merely the 10 Commandments), except for a few passages here and there (e.g. on the topic of Shabbat) that were given prior to Sinai and Merivah. And to think that mainstream biblical scholars who neither read nor understand Hebrew and Aramaic so as to grasp the subtle nuances of the Torah and its commentaries can have substantial claims to make is bizarre. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 03:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the purpose of either of your postings to this thread really has been (and especially unclear on the reason for your switch from apparent ultra-fundamentalism in your post of "23:37, 6 January 2010" to ultra-skepticism in your most recent post), but in any case the main point remains -- it's unlikely that there's any lengthy connected passage in the Old Testament which (in the particular form in which it's found in the Old Testament) substantially predates the Rig-Veda.
AnonMoos (
talk)
10:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- You take a very hard-line approach towards me, as though you suspect me of evangelism while I surreptitiously pretend to answer questions. The purpose of my posts was to highlight the fundamental question being asked by the OP: one regarding religious texts. What is a religious text? Any text that mentions God? Any text that is written by someone who claims to be religious? Certainly both of these suggestions would be met with criticism by many (including me). What makes the Rig-Veda a religious text -- the fact that it was written by someone as a form of prayer? The Rig-Veda differs from the
FBoM in that the latter possesses claims of divine origin, while, from what I could deduce from a quick read of the former, it does not.
DRosenbach (
Talk |
Contribs)
13:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- AnonMoos -- you misunderstood and mischaracterized my religious perspective twice -- one in the form of ultra-fundamentalism and another in the form of ultra-skepticism. The Orthodox Jewish perspective is neither. (But this is not the place to discuss it. If you'd like to carry on a separate discussion, I welcome you to my talk page.)
DRosenbach (
Talk |
Contribs)
13:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I really have very little idea what the purpose of most of your posts here is, and have very little interest in pursuing this discussion further other than to observe that I was using a rough-and-ready operational definition of a religious text as one which is revered by a religion...
AnonMoos (
talk)
15:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- In case the OP bears a perspective distinct from your own, I offered an alternative understanding. Settled it is, then. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 17:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I really have very little idea what the purpose of most of your posts here is, and have very little interest in pursuing this discussion further other than to observe that I was using a rough-and-ready operational definition of a religious text as one which is revered by a religion...
AnonMoos (
talk)
15:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- AnonMoos -- you misunderstood and mischaracterized my religious perspective twice -- one in the form of ultra-fundamentalism and another in the form of ultra-skepticism. The Orthodox Jewish perspective is neither. (But this is not the place to discuss it. If you'd like to carry on a separate discussion, I welcome you to my talk page.)
DRosenbach (
Talk |
Contribs)
13:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- You take a very hard-line approach towards me, as though you suspect me of evangelism while I surreptitiously pretend to answer questions. The purpose of my posts was to highlight the fundamental question being asked by the OP: one regarding religious texts. What is a religious text? Any text that mentions God? Any text that is written by someone who claims to be religious? Certainly both of these suggestions would be met with criticism by many (including me). What makes the Rig-Veda a religious text -- the fact that it was written by someone as a form of prayer? The Rig-Veda differs from the
FBoM in that the latter possesses claims of divine origin, while, from what I could deduce from a quick read of the former, it does not.
DRosenbach (
Talk |
Contribs)
13:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the purpose of either of your postings to this thread really has been (and especially unclear on the reason for your switch from apparent ultra-fundamentalism in your post of "23:37, 6 January 2010" to ultra-skepticism in your most recent post), but in any case the main point remains -- it's unlikely that there's any lengthy connected passage in the Old Testament which (in the particular form in which it's found in the Old Testament) substantially predates the Rig-Veda.
AnonMoos (
talk)
10:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- DRosenbach, since your definition strikes me as somewhat arbitrary (no offense meant), I looked up our article on
religious texts, and the definition in the heading is: "Religious texts, also known as scripture, are the texts which various religious traditions consider to be sacred, or of central importance to their religious tradition. Many religions and spiritual movements believe that their sacred texts are divinely or supernaturally inspired.", so at least according to our article, a body of text doesn't necesarily have to claim divine inspiration to be considered scripture. Incidentaly, the article also has an answer for the OP: "The oldest known religious texts are
Pyramid texts of
Ancient Egypt that date to 2400-2300 BCE."
TomorrowTime (
talk)
13:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I gave no definition for you to be struck by arbitrariness :) My assertion that the Rig-Veda might not possess claims of divine inspiration should not allow the extrapolation that I assert that all religious texts must possess divine inspiration. I can write a text tomorrow with no divine inspiration, but if I am writing an explaination, elucidation, elaboration on, etc. a previously defined work of scripture or body of religious thought, my work would indeed be a religious text. My purpose was to inform the OP that his or her question of "the oldest religious text" is nearly if not exactly as contentious as any other question on comparative religion. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 13:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
From the Finnish translation of a Lucky Luke album, I recall a Mexican gun shop owner telling Lucky Luke (and this is as close to verbatim as I can get, from memory):
- "Dice que Billy the Kid dijo '¡Soy Billy the Kid! ¡Billy the Kid! ¿Tu entiedes eso? ¿Y eso? ¿Y eso? ¡Pum! ¡Pum! ¡Pum!'"
Now my question is, is this grammatically correct Spanish? JIP | Talk 18:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Another question, from another Lucky Luke album: Apparently Spanish for "when is it time to eat?" is ¿Quando se come, aqui? Is this grammatically correct Spanish? If so, can someone provide a direct word-by-word translation? JIP | Talk 18:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- It seems fairly close. I read it as "He says that Billy the Kid said, 'I am Billy the Kid! Do you understand that? And that?' Bang!" I think the second one, "When does one eat, here?" is also fairly close. Do those translations make sense in context? ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→
18:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, except the ¡Pum! is part of Billy the Kid's quote in the first one. It was Billy the Kid who fired the gun, not the gun shop owner. Thanks for the reply.
JIP |
Talk
20:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Some spelling corrections: ¿Tú entiendes eso?, ¿Cuándo se come aquí?. + An gr 21:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, except the ¡Pum! is part of Billy the Kid's quote in the first one. It was Billy the Kid who fired the gun, not the gun shop owner. Thanks for the reply.
JIP |
Talk
20:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- My Spanish isn't strong enough to be confident about whether a given expression is grammatical or idiomatic, but I'm fairly certain that "entiedes" in the embedded quote in your first question should be "entiendes".
Marco polo (
talk)
21:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's correct. I saw it as entiendes, but it was missing the second n. Also, I suppose the Pum part would more literally translate as "Boom". Either way, imitative of a gun being fired. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
need a 14 letter word with E A N A D N H T O I D M U I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.15.30 ( talk) 21:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe there is one, at least in English. (DETAIN HUMANOID!) Marnanel ( talk) 21:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- And in other languages? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.65.15.30 (
talk)
21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know, but a subset of your letters is adeimnot, which seems to have a lot of anagrams in Italian (as well as a couple in English and a couple in French). (The rest are adhinu, FWIW.)— msh210℠ 19:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- And in other languages? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.65.15.30 (
talk)
21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Check out sites such as anagrammer.com which can solve puzzles like this. The closest word that it picks up, which is 11 letters, is "deanimation".
Them
From
Space
21:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- thanks for that link! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.15.30 ( talk) 22:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
-
SOED on CD doesn't list any anagrams of E A N A D N H T O I D M U I.
Mitch Ames (
talk)
12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- The anagram site I use found thousands of multi-word combinations, but when I restricted it to 1 word, it found nothing. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)