A stupid question

Hi All

what is this? - I noticed such thought shortcut:

>> NB: <<

e.g.

Quote:

---

NB: if it isn't in the list, there is probably an error with your installation of Excel. You can try to select the reference file manually by clicking the "browse" button, the file you need it is likely to be called something like "ExcelX.olb" (for Excel XP or later it seems to be "Excel.exe" instead).

---

sorry, but I don't know all shortcuts used in English language unfortunately and this makes difficult for me understanding of some texts.

Thanks in advance for every explanation

It's actually Latin, but is often used in English... It basically means "Note: "

(as this isn't related to computers, I have moved the thread to the General Discussion forum)


Oh, and it isn't a stupid question at all - it's not obvious what it means, so wanting to find out is definitely a good thing!

Apart from N.B., two other abbreviations you'll often come across are "i.e." and "e.g.", which are frequently confused even (perhaps especially) by native speakers. "i.e." means "in other words", while "e.g." means "for example".

Just for some quick info here:

N.B. stands for 2nota bene". Or "note well". In otherwords just pay attention to the following text.

e.g. stands for "exempli gratia". Which, as has been said, stands for "for example".

i.e. stands for "id est". Which means "That is" or "That is to say". More commonly it is "In other words".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 03myersd

Just for some quick info here:

N.B. stands for "nota bene". Or "note well". In otherwords just pay attention to the following text.

e.g. stands for "exempli gratia". Which, as has been said, stands for "for example".

i.e. stands for "id est". Which means "That is" or "That is to say". More commonly it is "In other words".

---

Question: how do you pronounce the three acronyms (i.e., n.b., e.g.) while reading a text? Do you spell them using the English alphabet or do you simply say "That is", "Note well" and "For example"?

TIA

I have always herd i.e and e.g. pronounced using the english alphabet. But I have never heard anyone except my maths teacher use n.b in the english alphabet. That is to say I have never heard anyone else *say* it full stop. Lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 03myersd

I have always herd i.e and e.g. pronounced using the english alphabet. But I have never heard anyone except my maths teacher use n.b in the english alphabet. That is to say I have never heard anyone else *say* it full stop. Lol.

---

Are you an English native speaker?

Yes, i.e. and e.g. are usually pronounced like that. No-one really uses N.B. in spoken language, as its purpose is more for supplementary information in text.

I prefer saying "in other words" and "for example", to avoid any confusion, since the average person tends not to distinguish between the two acronyms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

Yes, i.e. and e.g. are usually pronounced like that. No-one really uses N.B. in spoken language, as its purpose is more for supplementary information in text.

I prefer saying "in other words" and "for example", to avoid any confusion, since the average person tends not to distinguish between the two acronyms.

---

Thanks. I suppose that by "pronounced like that" you mean they are pronounced using the English alphabet. Do you think it is acceptable to read them using the original Latin full meanings (i.e. id est, exempli gratia, nota bene)? By the way, Nota Bene is not only a Latin but also a perfect Italian expression (Nota is the imperative form of the Italian verb Notare (= To note/notice) and Bene (=Well) is one of the most common adverbs used in the Italian language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

Do you think it is acceptable to read them using the original Latin full meanings (i.e. id est, exempli gratia, nota bene)?

---

Perhaps in a stuffy intellectual setting, but I don't think anyone would know what you were talking about if you dropped those into regular speech! :D

Great thanks for both:thumb: :thumb: :wave:

obviously for you esposito also :wave:

I'm sorry. But it look that I called thunderous discussion. I didn't want this. I want to say, that this at all doesn't disturb me – these shortcuts. This in what language is this written also. I respect all the peoples alike. So... I wanted to say this. I wanted for all to thank once yet

I greet Tamgovb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

Are you an English native speaker?

---

I'm a bit late now but yes I am a native English speaker. Spoken it all 16 years of my life. And made a terrible mess of it at every possible oppurtunity. Lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

Perhaps in a stuffy intellectual setting, but I don't think anyone would know what you were talking about if you dropped those into regular speech! :D

---

And would anyone understand what you are talking about if you spelt the acronyms during a regular speech? In other words, are those acronyms known by the average native speaker?

Most people would understand, but many would prefer to hear the equivalents ("in other words" and "for example").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by si_the_geek

Most people would understand, but many would prefer to hear the equivalents ("in other words" and "for example").

---

Thanks.

I don't know if I should start a new thread for a similar language related question. Anyway, I would very much like to know whether the old personal pronoun, thou, is known by the average English person. Moreover, how do you pronounce it?

Known? Yes. Used? No. It's old English stuff, and most people don't abide by those laws anymore. Similar words include ye, thine, [thou] art, sayeth... and so on and so forth.

Indeed... the only time you hear those words is in films/plays etc based hundreds of years ago.

Thou is pronounced similar to Vow - I'm sure you can find an online sound sample somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timeshifter

Known? Yes. Used? No. It's old English stuff, and most people don't abide by those laws anymore. Similar words include ye, thine, [thou] art, sayeth... and so on and so forth.

---

Thanks. I suppose it is known since you can find it in the Classics and some old editions of the Bible. I don't know if the version of the Lord's Prayer you recite during the Mass today is still the old one containing "thy" (e.g. "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven") or "thine" (e.g. "For Thine is the kingdom and the power...). If it is, that may be one of the reasons why "thou" is still known.

King James/New King James translations of the Bible, yes. A church I went to a while back recited that every week.

I have always believed it is a shame that the English language has lost "thou". The presence of the second person singular would surely help us to avoid misunderstandings in a lot of circumstances. After all, all the other European languages have different forms for the two second persons.

never heard of n.b., and i scored decently high on the English SAT. I would say normal people wouldn't look twice if you used I.E. and E.G. in a sentence, because they are common, although they might not use them themselves.

We may have lost the second person singular form, but never fear, for we have gained a second person plural pronoun, y'all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

We may have lost the second person singular form, but never fear, for we have gained a second person plural pronoun, y'all.

---

One of the problems caused by the disappearance of "thou" in the English language can be found in translation. Once I had to translate the following sentence from Italian into English:

Da allora cominciammo a darci del "tu".

Its literal meaning is, "From that moment on, we started using 'thou' to address each other".

In Italian, when you make friends with someone, you stop using the second person plural (voi) or the third person singular feminine (lei) and start using the second person singular to address him or her. (Please note that the third person singular feminine is used to replace the second person singular.)

Now, I think that a good translation for a sentence like the one above could be, "From that moment on, we started calling each other by (the) first name". Nevertheless, as you proceed with your translation, you may find yourself in trouble if in the text there is an explicit reference to the personal pronoun (e.g. "Why did you say, 'You are right' instead of 'Thou art right'?").

That's why I believe that the loss of the second person singular in English can be an enormous headache if you work as a translator.

that's hilarious. I said that in my post but deleted it, because it wasn't equivalent.

In England, when you make friends with someone you start saying "Oi you" instead of "excuse me". That's assuming you could be bothered with politeness in the first place.

In soviet Russia, second person translates you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

that's hilarious. I said that in my post but deleted it, because it wasn't equivalent.

---

What did you say in your post that was not equivalent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timeshifter

In soviet Russia, second person translates you!

---

Does that mean in Russian they don't distinguish the 2nd person singular from the 2nd person plural, like in English?

Soviet Russia was the definite article, and in this context a noun relevant to events in the past tense. Thus any simile there derived is nor necessarily applicable to said party in the present tense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wossname

Soviet Russia was the definite article, and in this context a noun relevant to events in the past tense. Thus any simile there derived is nor necessarily applicable to said party in the present tense.

---

I have to admit the content of your post is beyond my understanding of the English language. Believe me, in these cases I am caught by a sort of inferiority complex: how is it possible that I can't understand regular speech in spite of my university degree in Languages with full marks and honours?

So, there are a few things about your post I would like you to explain to me.

What do you mean by "Soviet Russia was the definite article"? Is it equivalent to "Soviet Russia wants the definite article"?

And is it correct to use "nor" instead of "not" (as you have done) in the expression: "Thus any simile there derived is nor necessarily applicable to said party in the present tense"?

Thanks in advance for your reply.

"was" and "wants" have very distinct meanings; "was" refers to the fact that the previous post was made earlier and hence the past tense was used. "wants" is derived from the verb "to want", and has nothing to do with this sentence.


The "nor" was a typo, or typographical error. It was intended to be "not".

You have been on VBF long enough; you should realise that there is never a need to feel inferior in response to a post of wossname's.

He uses the Jeff Foxworthy Thesaurus when he comes up with his posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

[...]
That's why I believe that the loss of the second person singular in English can be an enormous headache if you work as a translator.

---

My mother works as a translator. I don't think such things are really a problem when you are fluent in both languages, because the word you choose in the target depends more the context it is used in.

In other words: you don't really translate directly from one language to another, word for word; you read and understand the source material, then write your understanding of it in the target language. Then you check to see whether what you've written is equivalent to the original.

If you have difficulty translating something then either the content is particularly obscure or the source material is ambiguous and clarification from the author should be sought. Good writers make sure that what they write isn't ambiguous, no matter whether they have the luxury of singular second-person pronouns or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

My mother works as a translator. I don't think such things are really a problem when you are fluent in both languages, because the word you choose in the target depends more the context it is used in.

In other words: you don't really translate directly from one language to another, word for word; you read and understand the source material, then write your understanding of it in the target language. Then you check to see whether what you've written is equivalent to the original.

If you have difficulty translating something then either the content is particularly obscure or the source material is ambiguous and clarification from the author should be sought. Good writers make sure that what they write isn't ambiguous, no matter whether they have the luxury of singular second-person pronouns or not.

---

You left out another important case, i.e. when the word you have to translate does not exist in the target language.

In that case, it is true that you can analyse the context and, depending on it, translate the gist of the sentence, but it is also true that the translation you get will be unfaithful to the original. The translation of the second personal pronoun singular from Italian into English may be a good example of what I am saying.

One of my old university professors used to say, "Translations are like women: if they are beautiful they are unfaithful, if they are ugly (=literal) they are faithful".

Yeah, I agree, you have to make a judgement call. Sometimes you need precision (such as a legal document); other times, the translation can benefit from a bit of flair (such as a novel).

As for "you/thou", Wikipedia has a brief summary on it:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You]You - Wikipedia[/url]

Early Modern English distinguished between the plural you and the singular thou. This distinction was lost in modern English due to the importation from France of a Romance linguistic feature which is commonly called the T-V distinction. This distinction made the plural forms more respectful and deferential; they were used to address strangers and social superiors. This distinction ultimately led to familiar thou becoming obsolete in standard English (and Dutch), although this did not happen in other languages such as French. Ironically, the fact that thou is now seen primarily in literary sources such as King James Bible (often as words from God) or Shakespeare (often in dramatic dialogs, e.g. "Wherefore art thou Romeo?") has led many modern anglophones to erroneously perceive it as more formal, not familiar (case in point: in Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Darth Vader addresses the Emperor saying, "What is thy bidding, my master?").

---

I don't think that this loss presents a problem because ‘you’ covers both cases and the context in which it is used determines whether it is being used in singular or plural form. In such cases, the correct translation, into modern English, carries more than the gist of the original: it carries the same meaning as the original, and the distinction is recoverable—even if it is not explicit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaza

"was" and "wants" have very distinct meanings; "was" refers to the fact that the previous post was made earlier and hence the past tense was used. "wants" is derived from the verb "to want", and has nothing to do with this sentence.

---

I'm sorry, but I still can't grasp the gist of the sentence "Soviet Russia was the definite article". What does it mean exactly? What does he mean by "the definite article"? The only definite article I know of is "the" but I am not sure, at this point, that this is what wossname was hinting at. In other words, how can that sentence ("Soviet Russia was the definite article") refer "to the fact that the previous post was made earlier and hence the past tense was used"? I can't see any connection between the definite article and the past tense in this context. Please help me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

I don't think that this loss presents a problem because ‘you’ covers both cases and the context in which it is used determines whether it is being used in singular or plural form. In such cases, the correct translation, into modern English, carries more than the gist of the original: it carries the same meaning as the original, and the distinction is recoverable—even if it is not explicit.

---

So, how would you translate "Decidemmo di passare dal voi al tu" (="We decided to address each other using thou instead of you") into modern English?

Badly. :D

That's a very particular case because it's dialogue. I am not a professional translator and so I don't know any conventions for handling dialogue, but I assume it would depend on the type of document. For fictional writing you could probably get away with changing it to "first name", as you suggested; but you would have to take care to be consistent throughout. For non-fiction, where the flow of the writing is not as important as its correctness, you might have to annotate it with a translation note. As I say, I don't really know.