Language desk
< May 8	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	Current desk >

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.

May 9[edit]

Fill in the blanks[edit]

In the sentence: "You drink coffee ": The word "you " is the subject of "drink ", the word "coffee " is the object of "drink ", and the words "you " and "coffee " are the ______ of "drink " (A single word is needed).

For mathematicians only (I know there are some here): a and b are the _____ of the relation R(a,b). (I know I could ask that at the reference desk of Mathematics). HOTmag (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Argument (linguistics) jnestorius^(talk) 09:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wonder if this term can answer my second question as well, since the term "argument" is useful in the theory of functions, in the context of our linguistic issue (See: Argument of a function). HOTmag (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a and b are the elements of the relation R(a,b). For example, from our Binary relation#Formal definition: "The order of the elements in each pair of G is important: if a ≠ b, then aRb and bRa can be true or false, independently of each other." -- ToE 09:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, that's natural, because every relation is a set. I wonder why one cannot talk also about "arguments of a relation", following the usage of the same term - in the theory of functions - and also in linguistics ("arguments of a predicate"). I guess the usage of this term in linguistics ("arguments of a predicate") was inspired by the usage of this term in the theory of functions, since every function is a kind of relation, while the idea of a relation and the idea of a predicate, overlap each other (they are not identical though). HOTmag (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any problem with using "argument" for both of these purposes. It is a term widely used in both linguistics and mathematics, in a very highly similar (if not strictly identical), manner. Every function is also a certain type of set, but IMO it would be a bit perverse to talk about the "elements of a function", when we already have a wide variety of words that are both more clearly and already established (e.g. input, output, domain, range, argument, evaluation, etc etc.) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is no problem with your using "argument" for the element of a relation, i.e. everyone will surely understand you, just as there is no problem with my using "nose" for the elephant trunk: Everyone will surely understand me. However, I still wonder if - using "argument" for the element of a relation - is common; It should have been, though. HOTmag (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't know a good way to asses what's common usage in the wild. I've heard "argument" used, but I've also heard "relatee" used, though I'm highly confident that's not a common usage. I also feel I should also mention that if R relates a and b ( i.e.

R\subset A\times B

, and aRb is true), then neither a nor b are actually strictly elements of R. The elements of R are ordered pairs. So if we really want to get technical, User:Thinking of England's proposal to call them elements is incorrect, though, like your elephant example, it might not cause any confusion. It is correct to say that (a,b) is an element of R. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a and b are not elements of the relation R itself, but, using the language of Binary relation#Formal definition, they are elements of the relation's set of departure and set of destination.

MathWorld's Relation page speaks of them as components, since aRb is shorthand for (a,b)∈R and a and b are components of that ordered pair. (I've sent them a note about the error in their last sentence where they currently say "... one often writes aRb to mean that (a,b) is in R×R." The last term should be simply "R", not "RxR".) Also note that the question of whether (a,b) is an element of R itself or of the graph of R is discussed in Binary relation#Is a relation more than its graph?

If we are being strict with our vocabulary, I'm not sure it is appropriate to speak of "the relation R(a,b)". Isn't the "relation" the whole or R? R(a,b) itself is an element of that relation. Is it more correct to say that R(a,b) is a relationship between elements? -- ToE 14:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I like "components", I don't think I've heard that before. I agree that the relation is strictly and properly R. It is tricky to talk about R(a,b) or aRb carefully. Assuming by convention a,b are fixed, then I think aRb is best thought of as a logical sentence, that can be true or false. But some treatments have it that writing aRb carries an implicit of truth, e.g. R transitive implies that (aRb and bRc => aRc). But if you want to allow x,y to be variables, then we can say that "the relation" is R, or write it as R(x,y) if we need to highlight the binary nature of the components. PS Good luck getting mathworld corrected. WP has totally biased my notion of how easily errors are fixed. Five years ago I reported an error to Oxford dictionaries for the the entry of "hyperbola" in the electronic NOAD- and it's still there in all its embarrassing glory :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are arguments in linguistics, logic and philosophy. Of course people not schooled in those sciences might call them variables, or whatever. But a broad education is a waste. μηδείς (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ცხვარი ცხვარიაო, მარა ნასწავლი ცხვარი ორი ცხვარიაო[edit]

What does this Tbilisi graffiti mean? Google Translate cannot make heads or tails of it. Is it a word-play of some sort? --51.9.190.228 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly turns on the meaning of the word სხვარი (skhvari), repeated four times; but I haven't managed to find the meaning of the word. It does have a number of hits on the web, including a translation of "Macbeth", where Lady Macbeth's line "Who dares receive it other, / As we shall make our griefs and clamor roar / Upon his death?" (Act 1 Scene 7) is rendered "ვინ გაჰბედავს სხვარიგად ფიქრსა, რაკი ჩვენ მოვრთავთ გლოვა-ტირილს და მწარე მოთქმას მის მოკვლის გამო", which Google translate says is "Who gahbedavs skhvarigad thoughts, Because we movrtavt crying tears and bitter weeping Because of her killing". The third word is "skhvarigad", which appears to be 'skhvari' with a suffix, but I haven't found a meaning for the suffix -gad. Unfotunately this does little to elucidate its meaning, and nor do the other instances I've found on the web, eg a comment on Worldsport.ge, Google translated as "madrid been struck Ale Ale Ale O and espanurat mgerodnen and namdvilat know essni arianespanetis fan club and website barsamanias people to be rumors about me were ulshematkivari edge vambbob eg team I am) and the Barcelona nor dinamotbilis of having Barcelona nor espanets magla'm having on Georgia fans in other HR and team skhvari fans and all of our fans to think" --ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research! According to Georgian grammar#Nouns, skhvarigad could be the adverbial case of a hypothetical noun skhvarig, which gets much more Google hits than skhvari, including a hyphenated appearance at https://wikisource.org/wiki/%E1%83%AE%E1%83%9B%E1%83%90_%E1%83%92%E1%83%A3%E1%83%9A%E1%83%98%E1%83%A1%E1%83%90 . Google Translate doesn't recognize skhvarig as a word, though. --51.9.70.229 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number of Google hits is not a reliable guide to the normal meaning (of anything). In fact, it's the unusual version of a word that probably gets more hits because people are seeking the meaning. Akld guy (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:User ka.—Wavelength (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps User:Enarjilisi or User:Mkurnali or User:Nodar Kherkheulidze can help.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Enarjilisi, Mkurnali, and Nodar Kherkheulidze: --51.9.70.160 (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Native speaker here.

First of all, it's not სხვარი. We don't have a word like that in Georgian. It's ცხვარი - what actually means sheep.

Second - it translates like "A sheep may be a sheep, but an educated sheep is two sheeps". Which sounds like total bullshit :D

Third - there are words სხვა (other), სხვარიგად (otherwise), but სხვარი does not mean anything. All above mentioned speculations are unfortunately just wrong guessings :)))

--92.51.96.188 (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]