Language desk
< October 8	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 10 >

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.

October 9[edit]

Distinguish Two Words[edit]

What are the distinctions and shades of difference, if any, between the following two words: "alphabetic" versus "alphabetical" ...? They are not completely interchangeable / synonymous -- or are they? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 00:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

According to Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster Online, they are just variants of each other, which means they are, in fact, interchangeable. One might sound better than the other in certain contexts, though. For example, "alphabetic order" sounds kind of odd, since the vernacular is "alphabetical order." The same is probably true for similar words, such as numeric/numerical. --Crazy Legs KC 03:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't always hold true. For example, "historic" and "historical" could not be interchanged. -- JackofOz 06:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't stop some people! FiggyBee 08:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Alphabetic' and 'alphabetical' don't mean exactly the same thing. The former means "of, pertaining to, or by means of an alphabet" (OED), as in the example sentence "It is alleged that the Egyptians never actually achieved complete alphabetic writing." The latter means "arranged in the order of the alphabet". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richardrj -- When one is referring to placing files in A-Z order, then one must use the term "alphabetical order" ... or either expression ("alphabetic order" or "alphabetical order") is correct? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 15:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The OED shows "alphabetic" as the third definition of "alphabetical" and cites that from 1848. I call this pretty rare but just possible; it wouldn't be wrong to say that the Egyptians never developed alphabetical writing, but it would sound wrong. You can't go the other way, though. It's "alphabetical order", never "alphabetic order". --Milkbreath 15:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmmm. Clearly, "alphabetical order" sounds better and is more commonly used (when we refer to filing papers from A to Z). But, I am unclear why "alphabetic order" would be wrong. A post above states that the word "alphabetic" means: "of, pertaining to, or by means of an alphabet." When we place files in A-Z order, is not that "order" effectuated by means of the alphabet? I understand that this is all semantics, but that is the whole point of the question. Whether "alphabetic order" is wrong (or not) and why exactly (or why not)? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I know what you're asking. The answer, unsatisfactory as it may be, is usage. I guess this pair is not like some other pairs with and without "-al". "Alphabetical order" has set like concrete; "alphabetic order" is unidiomatic. There's no reason for it, and I can't even theorize. You say "alphabetical order" sounds better and is more commonly used, but that's wrong—it's the only possible form. You say that A–Z order is effected "by means of the alphabet". No. It is the alphabet. And the definition says "by means of an alphabet", which is more general than your construction.

If you want, you can suppose that the word in "-ic" is the base word, and the word in "-ical" is an extension of the base word. The base word has the simpler meaning as the adjectival form for "alphabet". We tack on an "-al" for the extended meaning having to do with the order of the letters. That's not an explanation, it's a proposed mnemonic device. --Milkbreath 18:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Up Question[edit]

Thanks. All of the above makes sense. But -- as a follow-up question -- this (below) is what I have gathered from the above discussion. Am I correct or incorrect? When referring to A-Z filing, we must use the term "alphabetical" and we cannot use the term "alphabetic." However, the word "alphabetical" (by definition) means "arranged in order of the alphabet." Therefore, to be technically / semantically / linguistically correct ... we would only say that "The files are alphabetical" ... but we cannot actually say that "The files are in alphabetical order". The expression "alphabetical order" is (technically) a redundancy which means "an order which is in order of the alphabet." Am I correct? In that the expression "alphabetical order" is a semantic redundancy; it cannot be used correctly / grammatically; and it should be simply stated as "alphabetical" (not "alphabetical order") when referring to filing papers from A-Z. (Joseph A. Spadaro 21:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I would not agree completely. First, linguistically there is not much wrong with redundancy. It may certainly be argued, as you do, that alphabetical(ly) has a semantic component of ordering, but it has others, e.g., the principle of ordering. In fact, the word is an adjunct to the verb, and explains how the ordering was done.
If you disapprove of the sentence The files are in alphabetical order, does not that imply that you also disapprove of The files have been ordered alphabetically? But in that case, The files have been ordered numerically or The files have been ordered chronologically would also be objectionable. (As, for that matter, would be The files are in numerical/chronological order.) Quod non: the verb expresses arrangement, the adjunct expresses the manner of arrangement. And of course, there can be no manner of arrangement if there is no arrangement in the first place. Which is not to say that The files have been ordered offers sufficient information in all cases.
There are many sentences which contain semantic redundancy, but which seem quite acceptable to me (in fact, it might be an innocent game to compile a long list):

He was born the son of wealthy parents

Wipe that smile off your face (As Bill Bryson points out, a smile could hardly be anywhere else)

The President will not run for re-election (assuming a democratic context)

I put my hat upon my head / and walked into the Strand / and there I met another man / whose hat was in his hand (Dr Johnson, various redundancies). Bessel Dekker 21:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- Thanks for all the input. Makes perfect sense. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Different cultural perpective book[edit]

What is a pretty good cultural novel like wild swans that is available on the internet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.100.76 (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, do you mean available to read on the internet for free, or available to purchase on the internet? If it is the former, you may have to go back to books no longer under copyright, like Uncle Tom's Cabin for example. If you mean the latter, to offer a few diverse examples: The Kite Runner, Memoirs of a Geisha, El Corazón de Piedra Verde, The Remains of the Day. Rockpocket 07:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know a novel called 'Wild Swans'. Do you mean the Hans Christian Andersen story? If so, you could try Oscar Wilde's The Happy Prince and Other Tales, which is online here. If you mean Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China, which is autobiographical and about a period of upheaval, you might enjoy the novel Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak, for which he was offered (but refused) a Nobel Prize for literature. Xn4 10:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~The questioner is referring to Wild Swans.~~ Wareh 14:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Xn4 picked up on that, and made the point that it's an autobiography, not a novel as the question suggested. This is a significant distinction, and Xn4 didn't just assume the questioner didn't know this. The question could have been about some novel based on Elena Kats-Chernin's ballet Wild Swans, or on which the ballet was based. -- JackofOz 14:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried a google search for 'e-books' + 'cultural novels'.

I have always understood that Nobel Prizes for Literature are awarded for a body of work rather than a specific book. Although, of course, a book as good as Doctor Zhivago is likely to be a positive factor in compiling a significant contribution to literature. Richard Avery 10:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, Richard, and I should have said 'after which' rather than 'for which', but no one doubts the cause and effect, and Pasternak himself and the Soviet authorities certainly didn't. The whole story of his forced refusal of the Nobel prize hinges on it. Xn4 14:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to recommend The Brothers Karamazov. Corvus cornix 16:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the most common verbs often the most irregular?[edit]

I'm currently learning Italian and having lots of fun with all of its irregular verbs. While learning lots of verb forms and discovering some regularities in its irregularities, I've noticed that most irregular verbs are very common verbs that are used very frequently, and that the most frequently used verbs (essere, which seems to be the worst of the bunch, the modal verbs potere, volere and dovere, and simple verbs like sapere or dire) also seem to be the most irregular. This got me to thinking...from the languages I have had contact with, it seems that at least in the Indoeuropean language family, the most simple verbs are pretty much always irregular and the language's verb for "to be" is always horribly irregular (to stay with Italian as an example, it seems hard to believe that fu, era and sarebbe are different forms of the same verb). A look at the table in our article Irregular verb seems to indicate that the verb "to be" is indeed irregular in many languages the world over, and even in languages that have very few irregularities, the irregular verbs seem to be very common, frequently used ones (judging from the listed irregular verbs for Japanese). Now I'm wondering if there are any theories as to why the most frequently used words are so horribly irregular...one might expect that languages develop in a way that makes frequently used concepts easier to handle, but apparently the opposite is the case. -- Ferkelparade π 10:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The speakers of a language at one point have had to learn the language, which for native speakers happens by listening and inferring the grammar and lexicon from the samples they pick up. As a child learns to speak, it initially makes many "mistakes", simply because it made a reasonable generalization, which, however, happened not to be right. So after learning that a ceratin animal is called a mouse, a child may for some time talk about mouses, until it picks up from the environment that this is an irregular word. If a word is irregular but infrequent, speakers may persist in the wrong generalization, which then becomes the new rule. Many irregular English verbs have been "regularized" relatively recently through such a process. For irregular words of high frequency, the language learners quickly pick up the irregular forms, and so these persist. --Lambiam 10:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lambian, this does indeed explain why irregular forms of common words persist, but it doesn't really explain why these words were irregular in the first place (unless we assume that all verbs were irregular at some time in the distant past and the less frequently used verbs became regularized by the process you describe above, which I find a bit hard to believe). What I'm basically wondering is why the most common verb "to be" (which exists in every language, and which is very probably the most frequently used verb in any given language) is irregular in so many languages, not just in the Indo-European family, but also in Sami, Quechua etc. (and additionally, why, according to Irregular verb, it seems to be the only irregular verb in some languages) -- Ferkelparade π 11:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Pinker has some more in Words and Rules. Here's a link to the essay Words and Rules. Regarding your question why the most common verb might also be the most irregular one in the first place, I'm not a linguist, but the different forms (tenses é, era, fu, sarà e.g.) may have "originally" been shaped precisely in order to give a clear and audible distinction (unlike chiacchiera, chiacchierava, chiacchierasti, chiacchiererà, for example). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a site which describes very simply an explanation of the phenomenon that I had heard of in the past: that the irregularity of "to be" comes from the fusion of different existential verbs into one. [1]. It's very curious that two of the roots mentioned here (the B root and the S root) also exist in the Croatian verb "biti" (to be). (The present tense is really interesting to compare with Italian: (je)sam, (je)si, je(st), (je)smo, (je)ste, (je)su), cf Italian: sono, sei, è, siamo, siete, sono)SaundersW 11:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem curious, but we have an article Indo-European copula which explains the roots of the phenomenon. Duja► 13:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict: some duplication)

Steven Pinker in Words and Rules argues (not uncontroversially) that language is learnt as a mixture of words (stored directly in vocabulary) and rules (for generating new words and word-forms from known ones by inflection, compounding, etc.) For the most common words, it is more convenient to store all forms (say "be", "been", "being", "am", "is", "are", "was", and "were") in vocabulary and fetch them directly as needed. For less common words, you store only the root form and generate the required form on the fly (say "distinguish" + "-ing" = "distinguishing"). There is no advantage in having a regular form if it is looked up directly rather than calculated.

The "irregular" verbs are often the ragged remnants of earlier "regular" classes of verbs; this is hinted at in English by ablaut patterns such as sing-sang-sung, swim-swam-swum, sink-sank-sunk. Modern English has only one "regular" pattern (help-helps-helped-helping), but other languages have multiple conjugation classes (as well as, perhaps, irregular verbs). If a conjugation class becomes a closed class/non-productive it may eventually lose members (as some become regular or extinct) to become just a bunch of irregular verbs. French verbs may be divided into 2, 3 or 4 "regular" groups depending on whether the small –re and -oir classes are considered regular or irregular.

Other processes that turn regular verbs into irregular ones include suppletion (present in "be" and "go" in many European languages) and phonemic changes which may turn once-predictable patterns of sound change into seemingly arbitrary ones. jnestorius^(talk) 11:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm looking at A History of the English Language by Albert C. Baugh. He calls "irregular" verbs strong, and "regular", weak, a concept applied to the Germanic. Irregular verbs are only deemed irregular because they are fewer than the regular ones. So-called irregular verbs display a certain regularity of form when we look closely at the various classes of them. About 300 Old English verbs were strong ones (compared to about 150 now), but I think it is implied that they all started out strong long ago. We don't know where the weak conjugation came from. Baugh ascribes the present relative dearth of irregular verbs partly to a loss of conservative authority after the Norman invasion, which accelerated a process that he believes is a natural one in the development of English—that strong verbs acquire weak conjugations by analogy. Even "to be" has undergone change; we used to have "beest", for example. This is a crude representation of his ideas.

It is easy to surmise that the verbs expressing the most basic concepts would be those most resistant to change. (This is me guessing, now.) --Milkbreath 12:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all irregular verbs "strong" is misleading. As I understand it, Germanic had two regular paradigms, called strong and weak; the weak paradigm became dominant (at least in English) — but not all irregularity is relics of the strong paradigm. —Tamfang 00:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies, everyone, they've been most helpful. Indo-European copula is just what I was looking for -- Ferkelparade π 13:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the "was"/"were" alternation is due to Verner's Law, and is extremely archaic in that sense -- all other alternations in inflectional paradigms due to Verner's law were eliminated long long ago... AnonMoos 19:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also is/are. — Verner's Law is an example of an important source of irregularity not otherwise mentioned above: context-dependent regular phoneme shifts. —Tamfang 00:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet slang acronym pronunciation[edit]

How is "STFU" pronounced? Like "stiff you" or something similar, "ess tee eff you", or do you say each word, "Shut the f**k up?? Or something else? -Poet Note 16:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had always thought that this sort of thing was an abbreviation and that you should say each word. But since internet shorthand is not a spoken language, there may be no pronunciation rules. Marco polo 16:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard STFU in conversation, with the letters spelt out. Never heard it spoken as an acronym, as rofl sometimes is. Algebraist 16:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These internet short-hand words are usually pronounced as separate letters. When referring to LOL (laughing out loud), I often hear people say "ell, oh, ell" ... but I have never heard "lol" (to rhyme with doll). So, the same goes for STFU or WTF or AFAIK or IMHO and the rest of the alphabet soup. (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I work with quite a few younger guys, and I have only ever heard "LOL" pronounced to rhyme with doll, and "STFU " pronounced as stuh-foo. Of course, it's only really possible for anyone with an ounce of sense to say these things in a sort of ironic, self-mocking manner, so that may have something to do with it. Koolbreez 19:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard "lol" and "lolz" said as words (rhyming with "roll/s") , but exclusively as sarcastic responses to something that isn't funny. I have also heard "double-u tee eff" spelled out by people who would never dare to use the actual f-word... Adam Bishop 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a high school student, I hear a lot of these (both spelled out and not) [don't get the idea that all high schoolers go around shooting off the f-word, though; most of them don't]. I don't ever remember hearing them (with exceptions like "SNAFU" pronounced as acronyms), however (like lol rhyming with doll).--Falconus 19:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another example, like SNAFU, is FUBAR. Corvus cornix 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this may be a generational thing. I am 45, and while people my age and older recognize older acronyms such as "snafu", I think that most people in my generation or above don't know what STFU means, much less how to pronounce it. (I didn't know what it meant until I read this.) I recognize "LOL" but have never heard it pronounced. Now, someone my age may come along and say that they use these words all the time, but I think that it is unusual. Most people over about 35 formed their vocabulary before many people had access to the internet, and so internet lingo has not worked its way much into their conversation. Marco polo 20:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Marco polo 100%. There is definitely an age / generation factor at work here. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Okay....so I guess anything goes. I always say "You Pee Ess" but I hear "Ups" frequently. Course I also say "Os" for for O.S. (Operating System) and everybody else says "operating system". I guess if you're reading it, you have to say "ess tee eff you" or the listener wouldn't know it's an acronym. Thanks. -Poet Note 15:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some "pronunciations," while non-standard, are irresistably clever, e.g. FAQ pronounced (derisively) Fah-Queue ;-) -- Deborahjay 19:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Help![edit]

I was reading an article [2] and there appeared to be (quite laughable) explanation of the poem in Chinese. I can't read Chinese but somehow *cough* it may just be vandalism. Here is what it says (I did not change anything):

« Si--sī Si̍t-si Sú » (Min Nan or Taiwanese)

Se̍k-sek si-sū Si--sī, sī su, sè si̍t si̍p-su.

Sī sî-sî sek-sī sī-su.

Si̍p-sî, sek si̍p-su sek-sī.

Sī-sî, sek si--sī sek-sī.

Sī sī sī si̍p-su, sī sí sè, sú sī si̍p-su sè-sè.

Sī si̍p sī si̍p su-si, sek se̍k-sek.

Se̍k-sek sip, sī sú sī sit se̍k-sek.

Se̍k-sek sit, sī sí sì si̍t sī si̍p-su.

Si̍t-sî, sí sek sī si̍p-su, si̍t si̍p se̍k-su-si.

Sī sek sī-su.

« Si¹
si⁶
sik⁹
si¹
si²
» (Cantonese Jyutping)

Sek⁹
sat⁷
si¹
si⁶
si¹
si6, si³
si1, sai⁶
sik⁹
sap⁹
si¹
.

Si⁶
si⁴
si⁴
sik⁷
si⁵
si⁶
si¹
.

Sap⁹
si4, sik⁷
sap⁹
si¹
sik⁷
si⁵
.

Si⁶
si4, sik⁷
si¹
si⁶
sik²
si⁵
.

Si⁶
si⁶
si⁶
sap⁹
si¹
, ci⁵
ci²
sai3, si²
si⁶
sap⁹
si¹
sai⁶
sai³
.

Si⁶
sap⁹
si⁶
sap⁹
si¹
si1, sik⁷
sek⁹
sat¹
.

Sek⁹
sat⁷
sap¹
, si⁶
si²
si⁶
sik⁷
sek⁹
sat¹
.

Sek⁹
sat⁷
sik¹
, si⁶
ci²
si³
sik⁹
si⁶
sap⁹
si¹
.

Sik⁶
si⁶
, si⁶
sik⁷
si⁹
sap⁹
si¹
, sat⁹
sap⁹
sek⁹
si¹
si¹
.

Si³
sik⁷
si⁶
si⁶
.

Errr....that doesn't seem quite right, can someone please fix it?

Thanks!

♥ECH3LON ♥ 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was vandalism to Template:Sup. That's a famous poem by YuenRen Chao... AnonMoos 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it appears to me makes sense. Those are the correct transcriptions in Cantonese and Min-Nan, which illustrate the point that the section is trying to make. Not the best written section, but I don't know that I could do better myself.Steewi 00:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think AnonMoos has already fixed the problem :). By the way, that's not a poem; that's prose.--K.C. Tang 01:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]