Language desk
< June 25	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 28 >

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.

June 26[edit]

Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test[edit]

Hello. I googled the title above; I can only find tests later than 2005 and a sample. Where can I find tests dated 2005 or earlier? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare 01:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which[edit]

Which Norwegian dialect is most different from Danish?199.126.28.20 14:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nynorsk is the Norwegian standard most distant from Danish, compared to Bokmål. The unofficial Høgnorsk is further still from Danish. — Gareth Hughes 15:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are orthographies. I'm talking about dialects. Thanks for your answer though.199.126.28.20 13:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are different grammatical features between BN and NN (not to mention the whole "Abominable Snowman" incident). AnonMoos 16:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, these are from the Orthographies, not the Phonologies.199.126.28.20 23:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are different varieties of Norwegian, not just systems of spelling. — Gareth Hughes 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they aren't. They are systems of spelling that do not reflect dialect.199.126.28.20 23:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude: 1) You don't seem to know as much as you think you know. 2) If you think you know it all, why are you asking questions in the first place? 3) Please don't add nonsensical comments to my user talk page. AnonMoos 06:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trait[edit]

How is it pronounced? Does it have a silent "t" at the end? 82.153.126.93 17:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "t" is not silent. It is pronounced so as to rhyme with "great". (JosephASpadaro 17:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well, the wiktionary entry (wikt:trait) lists a pronounciation with a silent T, but here in the states, I have never heard it pronounced that way. I assume it has something to do with the French. IPA for my pronunciation /treɪt/.-Andrew c 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Longman Pronunciation Dictionary says the t-less pronunciation /treɪ/ is standard in Britain, but the t-ful pronunciation /treɪt/ is also used there; in the U.S. only the t-ful pronunciation is used. No word on Canada, Australia, et al. —Angr 18:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard both in the UK. Strange that the US shun the French pronunciation which is embraced with words like homage. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 18:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, English speakers (throughout the world!) are nothing if not inconsistent. Garage is a better example, though; I'd pronounce homage [ˈhɑmɪdʒ], not [oˈmɑʒ]. —Angr 19:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, [r] is a trilled r. It's proabably more like [tɹeɪt]. Mike Dillon 19:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have occasionally heard the "tray" version. I remember a teacher of mine who terrorised us students in various ways (or so we perceived it), and was always attributing poor performance to certain unnamed negative "trays" of character we supposedly possessed. (I wonder what ever happened to him. Hello, Mr. H, if you're reading this.) -- JackofOz 22:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers Dictionary gives both pronunciations, in my experience, the silent t pronunciation is rather poseur-ish.DuncanHill 23:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the trill, as International Phonetic Alphabet for English states, the r in English is often written /r/ in broad transcription, not ɹ. But Mike Dillon is absolutely correct on the technical uses of these characters in the International Phonetic Alphabet.-Andrew c 22:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we actually used [r] in my Phonetics class in college and I didn't realize until recently that it's an alveolar trill, not an alveolar approximant. I think it's kind of unfortunate that the distinction is ignored in English transcriptions. Mike Dillon 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some of us it's not a trilled R, we pronounce it more like a w. Rhotacism is not to be laughed at! (Unless it's Jonathan Ross's). DuncanHill 12:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I personally have never heard it any other way than with the t pronounced at the end, and I've lived in the north and south of England, so I don't know if this is a British English thing. Maybe I just knew the wrong class of people? Cyta 07:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it somewhat similar to the essex dialect where butter has 3 'silent' ts (although theres some other slight sound in their place)? or is it more related to trying to be sophisticated and french? 213.48.15.234 09:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a French word, meaning "line" or "feature (of the face or personality)" which has been adopted as a loan word, and is now undergoing a process of assimilation. Since English typically keeps the original spelling of loan words from languages who use the Latin alphabet, there is a period of uncertainty over pronunciation, and then the word normally joins the class of loan words which are pronounced neither as they are spelled in English, nor as they are in the original language(like, for example, courage and language).SaundersW 11:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC) (added signature)[reply]

Cool, do we have an article on the essexy pronounciation that i mentionned? 213.48.15.234 13:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is glottal stop what you're looking for? 84.239.133.38 16:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, glottal stop would be my answer as well. Final /t/ in many English varieties, rather than altogether deleted, is weakened. Incidentally, I find native English speakers to be totally unaware of just how often the glottal stop appears in their speech. As a speaker of another language that makes prolific use of this sound, this is immediately obvious to me, although there, it's phonemic and the degree of glottalization is more pronounced. In linguistics texts, "uh-oh" is the most widely cited example of what a glottal stop sounds like, although for many speakers of American English "wait", "trait" (if they occur at the end of a sentence) and especially "kitten" will do fine. There is a small explantion of this at glottal stop#Occurrence. — Zerida 06:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon equivalent of loanwords[edit]

I was thinking of English words which are borrowed, and I wonder why they were borrowed:

"cousin", "uncle"
"age"
"empathy"
"candor"

How would these concepts have been expressed in English before the Norman Conquest?

age = ieldu a feminine abstract noun. DuncanHill 00:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fæderan sunu (paternal uncle's son), mōdrigan sunu (maternal aunt's son), mōdrige (maternal aunt's daughter)
fædera (paternal uncle), ēam (maternal uncle)
ield (age)
mōdes styrung (stiring of mood)
heortes openian (open of heart)

— Gareth Hughes 00:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And many more words beside. Beef certainly existed before the Norman conquest, even though "beef" is a Norman borrowing. It was the contexts in which they were used more that related many things to the meanings they have today. Consider also cognates borrowed separately into English: Guardian (of French origin) and Warden (of Norman origin) are direct cognates, but have taken two slightly different meanings in English. Chase (cf. French chasser) and catch (cf. Norman cachi) are also direct cognates, but have taken two separate meanings in English—while we have retained the Germanic "hunt" to mean what these words mean in French and Norman. Many more such examples exist in English. The Jade Knight 07:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different words were borrowed for different reasons. The language of the educated was Latin for much of Anglo-Saxon (~500-1066 AD) times, although (old) English was also used. Danish vikings ran a lot of the North and East of the country (Danelaw) pre-conquest. Norman French (which had Norse influences) became the language of government for a few hundred years after the conquest but the ordinary people continued to use (middle) English. Later writers, short of words, would often borrow from other languages as well, especially Latin and Greek. And there was some limited Celtic influence. Now how each individual word was chosen from this mix of influences is hard to trace. But certain trends are noticable, for example, beef for the meat as the Norman rulers would eat it, cow for the animal as the Anglo-Saxons would grow it. Everyday words tend to be more Germanic. But for most words you simply can't say why one was chosen over another. Also as mentioned by Jade above, instead of simply choosing one of two options to express something, subtly different meanings emerged. I can recommend The Adventure of English by Melvin Bragg which discusses the different influences and the amazing persistance and spread of the English language to this day. Cyta 07:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "beef" have been the AS equivalent of "cow flesh"? Corvus cornix 16:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think cow flesh May have been AS for beef rather than vice versa. Or maybe something like cu flaesc, I am not sure? 137.138.46.155 06:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the Old English word for "beef" is attested, but I doubt it would be cūflǣsc, since that would imply the meat specifically of a female cow, and beef can just as easily be from a bull or ox. Hrīðerflǣsc is more likely to have been the word; hrīðer was the generic word for Bos taurus without regard to sex or reproductive ability. Modern English is lacking a singular form for "cattle". —Angr 21:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Angr, the modern German is Rindfleisch, it sounds similar enough to have had the same root, so that sounds good to me. Cyta 07:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hrīðer is related to Rind. But hrīðerflǣsc is just my guess - AFAIK it isn't actually attested in Old English, so we don't know if that was actually their word for beef. —Angr 00:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ox or Beef would be the Modern English singular for cattle. DuncanHill 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought ox meant specifically a castrated male, thus, heifers, cows, and intact bulls aren't oxen. And I thought a beef was a full-grown Bos taurus grown for its meat, thus a calf isn't a beef, and neither is a milch cow. There's the word neat, which seems to mean an individual head of cattle, but it's also pretty archaic and not part of most people's active vocabulary (in the relevant meaning). —Angr 21:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cattlebeast is relatively common in these parts, or even just 'head'. --Charlene 08:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ox" is given by Chambers Dictionary as "a general name for male or female of common domestic cattle" it does go on to give the usage for a castrated male also, for "beef" it has "an ox, especially one fattenned for the butcher", and I've certainly heard (and used) both ox and beef to refer to individuals of the bos genus without confusion, when talking to farmers. "Beast" is used generally for any animal, haven't heard "cattlebeast" before, but it makes sense, and would be immediately understandable. "Head" I've only heard when talking of a number (eg "Six head of cattle") but it wouldn't surprise me to hear it used as Charlene describes. DuncanHill 08:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Neat" I must admit I'm not familiar with - though "Neat's foot oil" I have heard of, for some reason "neat" sounds to me as though it would be a Northern English word (I grew up in Cornwall, of Moonraker stock, so am largely unfamiliar with Norther farming terminology). DuncanHill 08:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do occasionally see the plural of cow written as "beeves". Corvus cornix 19:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly enough, the words cow and beef are doublets; both come directly from Proto-Indo-European *gʷōu-. —Angr 00:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]