Language desk
< July 30	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	August 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 31[edit]

John Locke[edit]

What is a social contract, and why is sovereignty an important part of a social contract? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.247.0.214 (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do your homework for you, but you might like to read our article on the social contract. 87.112.129.180 (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did the words "eye" and "symmetry" once rhyme?[edit]

As per the Blake poem:

Tyger, Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

When read in mdoern English, the entire poem has a consistent AABB rhyming scheme throughout, except for these two lines. Am I correct in assuming that this is because eighteenth century English pronunciation counted "eye" and "symmetry" as a rhyming pair? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Companion to William Blake by Morris Eaves (pp 72-3) claims it's an eye rhyme, i.e. it looks like it rhymes with the repeated letter "y", but it didn't actually rhyme for Blake any more than it does for us.[1] With its talk of eyes and symmetry the use of eye-rhyme is particularly appropriate. This has been widely discussed in various internet forums so you can read plentiful debates, with some people suggesting the words may once have rhymed, long before Blake and possibly before the Great Vowel Shift.[2][3][4][5] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suspect that it's not based only on spelling (which is not the same for the two words anyway), since word-final position has sometimes tended to promote lengthening of non-schwa vowels, and it's probable that there were both short and long-vowel pronunciation variants for words such as "symmetry" at certain periods. In Blake's time, the long-vowel pronunciation was archaic in standard English, but could have been used as a poetic variation... AnonMoos (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blake was, I believe, noted for his deliberate use of archaic English. I'm fairly sure that the pronunciation of eye to rhyme with "ee" was not quite extinct in Blake's time, and even after his era, poets still sometimes used its archaic plural form of "een" (cf "shoon" for shoes, "childer" (as in Childermas) for child (whose plural is still "children"), etc. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic license, maybe? Gilbert and Sullivan made "alive" and "Conservative" rhyme, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Pirate in English, versus its use in Spanish as an insult[edit]

In Spanish, Piratas, is very much a derogatory term, whereas in English, the word "pirate" conjures up an almost romantic image - parrots, X marks the spot, wooden legs, that sort of thing. A couple of British editors have pointed this out but two editors who are native Spanish speakers refuse to accept this. I must admit to being rather irritated by this as to my mind, they are effectively accusing me of dishonesty. I would be grateful if some of the editors here would comment but if this is inappropriate please delete this post. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is there a Spanish language version of Pirates of the Caribbean? HiLo48 (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In English, the word "pirate" is rarely derogatory. I don't know about Spanish, but in colloquial Moroccan dialects (many of which are heavily influenced by Spanish) the word for pirate is often derogatory. Wrad (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fatbeard explains the English-language connotations in its own unique way. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a native British English speaker and I agree that, in the popular image in the English-speaking world, "pirate" is rather romantic. Even in a historical context I would still view the word as a neutral descriptive term that is not inherently derogatory, even though those people may have done bad things. 81.159.107.49 (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Native Brit here, too, and I would say that 'pirate' - in a historical context - would conjure up the image of the lovable rogue. Even in a modern context, with pirates off the coast of Somalia or people pirating copyrighted content, it still would not be used as an insult, as it would be just a simple statement of fact. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an American, I have to agree. It has romantic connotations, and in modern usage would at worst just be taken as a statement of fact. The difference may trace back to the fact that the English basically licensed their sailors to prey on Spanish trade as pirates. See Piracy in the Caribbean, Golden age of piracy, Francis Drake, and, especially, privateer. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Captain Haddock's famous swear words including "pirates". Is this a form of derogatory use of the word "pirate"? JIP | Talk 20:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a professional mariner who would have been the potential target of any contemporary pirates, Haddock would naturally have a more jaundiced view of them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, Tintin was originally written in French. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the romantic image of pirates is a modern thing, even in English. Before romantic books and movies about them, they were feared. The US even fought two minor wars against the Barbary pirates. See First Barbary War and Second Barbary War. Also see Bombardment of Algiers (1816) for a British attack on them. StuRat (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the context of this question is not the innocent use of the word in modern English, but as a description of an occupation of David Jewett, an American who fought on the side of the Argentineans against the Spanish and supposedly claimed the Falklands/Malvinas for Argentina.

To put it bluntly, Wee Curry Monster and the British editors want to call Jewett a pirate, claiming it has romantic connotations in English and is not derogatory; and the Argentinean editors are disagreeing because it is the less acceptable of the terms when compared with privateer.

I'm sorry but I agree with the Argentinean editors. Pirate and pirata both mean the same thing in English or Spanish (and yes it has the same romantic connotations in Spanish). But both are still loaded words when compared to privateer, cf. Sir Francis Drake who is described as a privateer to the British, but is considered a pirata by the Spanish. Why is Drake not similarly called "pirate" then if the word is as innocuous as claimed? It's a rather transparent attempt to discredit Jewett. See Talk:David Jewett#Privateer and Pirate.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that context, it is best to use the less negative term (privateer) and explain somewhere in the text that the English consider him a pirate and explain why. In terms of history, a pirate is someone who is not on your side. A privateer is someone who is. That is really all there is to it. Wrad (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To put it bluntly Obsidian Soul has reported a completely untrue account of the discussion at Talk:David Jewett. Two Argentine editors wish to remove the word Pirate for the simple reason they see it as detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim over the Falkland Islands. He is referred to as a pirate in reliable secondary sources, because though a licensed Privateer by Letters of Marque to take Spanish ships he crossed the line and captured Portuguese and American ships for which he was not authorised, and thereby was accused of piracy by both the American and Portuguese Governments. Oh and I don't wish to use Pirate in preference to Privateer, I suggest both is used to reflect the weight of opinion in the literature. Its also worth stating that I personally don't consider it is relevant, since as a licensed privateer the former Spanish settlement of Puerto Soledad was fair game.

So Obsidian Soul would you care to explain why a completely uninvolved editor, comes out of the blue to attack me personally? And I do see someone misrepresenting my actions so blatantly as a clear personal attack. And for information, I would consider that if Francis Drake committed an act not authorised by Letters of Marque he should be described as both, exactly the same as I agreed on the article concerning Henry Morgan. Had Jewett not crossed the line and committed the act of piracy I would vociferously resist the imposition of an incorrect epithet.

To the editor who accused me of canvassing, please check your facts first, since I proposed to make a post here to resolve one question raised there BEFORE I posted here and funnily enough as I proposed in talk, I also took the discussion to WP:NPOVN. Which is simply following the steps in WP:DR. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, I'm a completely uninvolved editor, neither British, nor Argentinean and with only the vaguest idea of the obviously long and convoluted history of the Falklands/Malvinas affair. So I didn't exactly take the time to inspect the page history. Apologies then for getting the details wrong, but you still misrepresented the discussion by not fully revealing the actual context of the argument. A romantic pirate in colloquial English isn't exactly that romantic anymore when being used to describe someone like Jewett. It's demonization. Yet you still used this discussion to "prove" the mistaken claim that "pirate" and pirata had different connotations in Spanish and English.

And you just betrayed yourself by giving the correct definition of pirate. Not so romantic after all, yeah? Anyway, no it's not a personal attack, but please, when asking a question, do try to give the full background when you're using it as ammunition in a content dispute.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. I came here for a specific answer to a specific question. I pointed out to the guy that Pirate is not an insult in English, the way Piratas is in Spanish. He came out flat and said I was wrong and it irked me, and I did not hide that.

Its not being used as ammunition in a content dispute, this ain't the place and I have taken the core dispute to WP:NPOVN. It was simply used to demonstrate to the guy his presumption that I was being dishonest was wrong, nothing more. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Le sigh. I'm betting if you expanded on the context a little bit more, you'd get very different answers than what you first received. Anyway, just duke it out in NPOVN. It's going to be a gory one, I can tell. No point in spilling it over into the refdesks.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the context that was relevant to the question I posed. The only reason it spilled over here was you chose to jump in without making sure of your facts first. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my English schools, Sir Francis Drake was called a pirate. We had to learn that he was traditionally called a privateer, but then learnt about him really being an official sort of pirate. Then we had a long discussion over whether you could really be a pirate if you were working officially for a government. Was David Jewett officially working for the Argentine government in his pirating/privateering? 86.161.208.94 (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. He was licensed by Letters of Marque by the Argentine Government to take Spanish ships. He was employed by a group of Buenos Aires businessmen, who financed a privateering voyage to make money; something we might find strange today but was once common. Except having failed to find any Spanish ships, he resorted to attacking a Portuguese ship the Carlota, which was not authorised and classified as piracy. He later seized an American ship, the Rampart which ruptured diplomatic relations with the US for a time, especially when the Argentine Government ruled it to be OK because it had a Spanish cargo. The Americans viewed this as piracy and at one time Buenos Aires was considered by the US to be a nest of pirates. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not discuss article content issues here on the reference desk. There are plenty of other ways to get outside opinions, like third opinion, RfC, the notice boards, and DR. The reference desk is not intended for content disputes. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it a place for juvenile pissing contests, as one of your above posts indicates. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for god's sake, the guy asked a question, I simply answered it. The only reason it got dragged here was someone going off hack-cocked and making a mountain out a molehill. And please direct your comments at that guy, I was just defending myself/ Wee Curry Monster talk 00:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering, Wee Curry Monster. Your answer helped me see why this is disputed :) 86.161.208.94 (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pirates of Penzance were clearly meant to be lovable. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you're an orphan!-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the general concept of violent individuals looked at romantically, I suspect that this only happens once those who recall the actual violence are gone. However, that may no longer happen, since the invention of photography and especially movies. (It's hard to look at somebody fondly when presented with photographic evidence of the piles of mangled corpses they left behind.) StuRat (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People, whom I assume aren't violent Marxists, are still wearing Che Guevara shirts.

I hope they mean it to symbolize "opposing corrupt authority" and not "executing civilians", which happened in Cuba soon after Fidel Castro, Che, and their amigos took over. (And, even worse, it could be taken as a sign of support for bad hair.) StuRat (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Singing in Mandarin[edit]

How do they sing in Mandarin (or other tonal languages), since the tones already mandate pitch? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it's more like poetry accompanied by instruments. Note that, in English, we use a tone change for questions, yet manage to put questions into songs, like Don't You Want Me. StuRat (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This gets asked here from time to time. Here's one set of responses. Deor (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the meaning is understood from context, just like in StuRat's answer above, where the fact that it is a question is not ambiguous, despite the phrase in the song having a falling intonation which, in my dialect, is actually the normal way of forming a question. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true for Vietnamese, Thai, and the other tonal languages. Tones are more or less ignored when singing, and the intended word is inferred from context—the Vietnamese words phở and phơ would be indistinguishable if one were switched out for the other in a song, though I'm pretty sure it would be obvious whether the singer was talking about Vietnamese soup or euphoria. Perhaps both at the same time, even—that stuff is delicious. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 08:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, words in Vietnamese songs must be sung in their correct tones, otherwise they'd be meaningless or extremely hard to understand (that means that the lyric has to be chosen carefully). Some poetic license is allowed, but they're rare and are more often seen in more modern songs. DHN (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing that needs to be understood, is that the tones in Mandarin are not as important as one may think, and indeed, they vary from place to place. Ancient Chinese was largely monosyllabic, but modern Mandarin (and other dialects) has become largely bisyllabic, meaning that it is much easier to discern from context which word is being referred to. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thai songs are generally written so that the tone of the lyrics (mostly) corresponds with the music, i.e. low-tone syllables fall on low notes, and high- and rising-tone match with high notes. Some variation seems acceptable for mid and falling tone and unstressed syllables. But otherwise the result sounds weird, though likely still comprehensible. -115.67.2.56 (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]