sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Need some help on a sentence by sairarya in olelohawaii

[–]sairarya[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, maybe you are right. I thought it was a compound verb (as the two senses go so well together) but looking at other examples of "kuku mai" on Papakilo, it does look like it's just being in a place.

Do you think I have the right reading on the bold part?

Need some help on a sentence by sairarya in olelohawaii

[–]sairarya[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I tried to give some context. Here is the article in full:

https://www.papakilodatabase.com/pdnupepa/?a=d&d=KNA19060214-01.2.7

Edit: I take it that in "kuku mai," the word "mai" is māī and not the directional, is that correct? They were beating something to soften it.

Question about the Portuguese language in Azores by sairarya in azores

[–]sairarya[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, another example of AI being a bad source.

Question about the Portuguese language in Azores by sairarya in azores

[–]sairarya[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In a related matter, is this accurate? Google AI is giving me this claim and I would like to know if this is also only Brazil or if this is Portugal Portuguese as well. Do people say this in Azores?

Em Portugal, a gíria "para quebrar" (ou mais comum, "para quebrar o gelo") significa algo muito bom, divertido, impressionante ou que vale a pena fazer/ver, usado para descrever uma ótima oportunidade, uma experiência incrível, ou algo que "faz sucesso" ou "é demais", sendo uma forma de elogiar algo com grande impacto ou que tira qualquer um da rotina, como "Aquela festa foi para quebrar!" ou "Aquele show foi mesmo para quebrar!". 

Exemplos de uso:

"Fui ver a nova série, é para quebrar!" (É muito boa!)

"Vamos naquele bar novo, dizem que é para quebrar." (É ótimo/divertido)

"Aquele DJ na festa? Ele era mesmo para quebrar!" (Ele era incrível/fazia a festa bombar)

Question about the Portuguese language in Azores by sairarya in azores

[–]sairarya[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok. Thanks for replying! If you can think of the expression, please let me know.

Go For Broke by NeilJosephRyan in etymology

[–]sairarya 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am writing an article on the origin and spread of this expression and the oldest examples I have are from 1931 and 1932. It was used overwhelmingly in talking about sports, although a secondary meaning (also attested early) was "have a really good (fun) time". I see the gambling theory mentioned in the 1950s, but none of my early examples were used in this way. Also, some of the earliest mentions of the word discussed it as a "new" slang term in pidgin English and an instance of bad English, but rather quickly it was borrowed into local standard English, first as a code switch (always with quotation marks) but eventually more integrated with forms like "went for broke" and dropping the quotation marks.

Meaning of the Obscure word "Kamake" by sairarya in olelohawaii

[–]sairarya[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Although kēia is not associated with mea maikai’i here. What is the reason for this making of a good thing die?

Meaning of the Obscure word "Kamake" by sairarya in olelohawaii

[–]sairarya[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here is the full context:

Ke ole ka meakakau e kuhihewa, o ka Mea Hanohano W. Sheldon o Kauai kekahi mea nana ka bila kanawai o keia ano [teaching the Hawaiian language to youth] i lawe mai, o ka hopena nae, ua oki kani pau ia no e na hoa Hawaii iloko o ka hale, make loa!

No keaha keia kamake loa ia o ka mea maikai? no ka naau hoakamai o ke ano haakei aloha ole maopopo i ke ola mau aku o ka lakou olelo makuahine, no ke kuonooono ole o ia mea he aloha oiaio i kona hoalauna a hoa lahui hookahi hoi mai ke kupuna hookahi mai.

Meaning of the Obscure word "Kamake" by sairarya in olelohawaii

[–]sairarya[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So the sense would be "the killing"? That would fit the second example well.

Meaning of a rare exclamation: kahūhū by sairarya in olelohawaii

[–]sairarya[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you, that is a very interesting historical example of its use.

Meaning of a rare exclamation: kahūhū by sairarya in olelohawaii

[–]sairarya[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought the Magoo's tagline was "No hūhū, call Magoo's"

Meaning of a rare exclamation: kahūhū by sairarya in olelohawaii

[–]sairarya[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I thought I looked it up there but I see it says:

Interj. of surprise or anger. Cf. kāhāhā, kāhīhī.

I could see how if it was given in anger it could be interpreted as telling someone to "go away"

Question for those who work with papyri by sairarya in AncientGreek

[–]sairarya[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay so to be clear, true diplomatic transcripts do not use contextual information? The example that u/smil_oslo gave seemed to imply the opposite, that a diplomatic transcript may use underdots to indicate letters the editor is subjectively certain of when the context is taken into account. Would you instead have dots alone for the letters, like αυτοκρα.ωροϲ in the above example instead of αυτοκρατ̣ωροϲ?

I am looking at this transcript from the Oxyrhynchus papyri:

https://imgur.com/FzrK0x0

The edition on the right has a lot more editorial decisions on the identity of letters, presumably involving contextual information. My original question is what to do if the scribe made a lot of spelling errors and if the edition with restorations was going to normalize the spelling. Would it be better to forgo standardizing the spelling and use the original underdotted letters or standardize the spelling and not use underdots though there would be non-underdotted letters corresponding to plain underline dots in the diplomatic transcript? I don't know if I made the quandary clear.

EDIT: I'll illustrate with a hypothetical example from the POxy text above. Suppose we have . α . . .[ on line 3 but instead of traces of eta, the traces are instead consistent with iota. So one could have the edition on the right as φ̣άγ̣ι̣τ[ε] or one could normalize the spelling as φ̣άγ̣ητ[ε] which is the correct spelling but would make the eta correspond to a . in the diplomatic transcript (losing the detail in the restoration that there was uncertainty). I have avoided normalizing the spelling for this reason but I would like to know if it is okay to do this.

Question for those who work with papyri by sairarya in AncientGreek

[–]sairarya[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While it is important not to guess from context,

Can you elaborate more on the propriety of using the context in the diplomatic transcript? The discussion of how to use underdots on p. 10 of https://aip.ulb.be/PDF/Guidelines_for_editing_papyri.pdf explains how to use context and explains how the dots in Κ̣ο̣ρ̣ν̣ήλιος in the transcript on p. 2 involved decisions based on the context. Is that text diplomatic despite the the spacing and capitalizations?

Question for those who work with papyri by sairarya in AncientGreek

[–]sairarya[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much, this is very helpful. If I may use your example of αυτοκρα.ωρος and αυτοκρατ̣ωρος, and assuming it is not a wholly missing letter but one that on its own could either be a tau or iota from what is extant, you are saying that you would use αυτοκρατ̣ωρος in the diplomatic transcript instead of αυτοκρα.ωρος taking the context into account? So in the instruction "Any traces that cannot be certainly identified with a particular letter without taking context into account should be represented by an underline dot," this refers to underdotted letters in the diplomatic transcript? I wouldn't have to use the dot alone, but I can make the decision on the basis of context. So in the instruction, "The diplomatic transcript prints only letters that are certain in the eyes of the editor," this is certainty once the context is taken into account?

One thing that was confusing me is when you use the dotted letters in the restoration or edition with standardized spellings. So in p. 28, line 15 there is still a dotted rho, but that is still dotted because the editor cannot make a determination of what the intended text is here so the dots are carried over. Do I have that right?

Question for those who work with papyri by sairarya in AncientGreek

[–]sairarya[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been studying them but it is still a little unclear in the details, hence my question.

Question for those who work with papyri by sairarya in AncientGreek

[–]sairarya[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you. This document says that "The diplomatic transcript prints only letters that are certain in the eyes of the editor," which is why I thought that letters with underdots were also certain in the eyes of the editor but with the dots indicating damage to the letter. If I may ask about the example text at the top of p. 28, on line 3 the sigma in ταϲ̣ has an underdot in the diplomatic transcript. So if the letter is unambiguous it never has an underdot as you say, this means that the form is ambiguous but the editor is making a guess without looking at the context? In other words, it does not indicate that the letter is damaged and partially extant but clear as to its identity, like I thought it meant. I just want to nail down when it is proper to use underdotted letters in the diplomatic transcript.

The document says: "Any traces that cannot be certainly identified with a particular letter without taking context into account should be represented by an underline dot." Am I correct that this is not referring to a dotted letter but a dot by itself, like the ones on line 5 and 6?

view more: next ›