Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 30

German

Straubingen on the Danube, c. 1630

I've got no knowledge in German

• 1. How would you translate into German: "He is from Straubing"?
• 2. Can the word "Straubingen" be a case form of Straubing (in Greman or in Ancient German)?
• 3. May one use the form "Straubingen" in sentences like "He is from Straubing" (in Greman or in Ancient German)?
• 4. May the words "Straubing-Straubingen" be (grammatically) related to each other just as the words "Munich-München" (and likewise) are?

77.125.76.235 (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• 1. Er kommt aus Straubing or Er ist aus Straubing.
• 2-4. As far as I can tell, you would never use Straubingen in any kind of grammatical context to refer to this particular town. -ingen is simply a common ending for place names, but not in the name of this town. If someone were to say Straubingen, I would assume the person is referring to some other town. --Terfili (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Straubingen is apparently a name once used to refer to present-day Straubing near Regensburg. See this article: Ulrich Schmidl. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it looks more like a older dative case form of Straubing. See this article: [[1]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That's more likely to be a variant name than an old dative. Only weak nouns ever had a dative singular in -en, and I don't think any noun ending in -ing was ever weak. Angr (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of confusion here about what is a dative form of what: as far as I recall, the -ingen itself is an old Germanic dative ending, used in a locative sense in place names (so a presumed archaic form "Straubingen" would basically mean "place of Straub", who- or whatever Straub may have been). For various reasons, the -ingen ending was shortened to -ing in Bavarian (and I think in English - I may be totally off the mark, but I seem to remember that English place names like Reading share the same etymology) -- Ferkelparade π 01:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: de:-ingen confirms what I just said - it's nice to know that occasionally I'm not completely wrong :P -- Ferkelparade π 01:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

My point was just that Straubingen is not synchronically the dative of Straubing (and wasn't in the 18th century either, when the quote at de:Gäuboden was written), even if place names in -ingen did start life as dative plurals. Angr (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Aye, and you were certainly correct..sorry, I was barging in a bit prematurely here after I read "Straubing" and "dative", without actually having read the quote at de:Gäuboden. Town/City names in German generally aren't inflected, except the genitive -s and except the odd archaic latinism where a Latin inflection ending is stuck on a German city name. -- Ferkelparade π 02:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your number 4, perhaps I'm missing something here, but how are "Munich" and "München" "grammatically related"? They are in two different languages. "Milano", "Milan" and "Mailand" aren't grammatically related for the same reason, as aren't "Sprengstoff" and "explosive" (to take an example at random). Tonywalton ^Talk 13:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

December 31

US flag

The US flag features two "interspersed" rectangles of stars. I'm wondering if there's a better term for this. Here's a scaled down version:

* * *                  * * *
             * *        * *
* * *    +         =   * * *
             * *        * *
* * *                  * * *  

StuRat (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The sites I've read before consider the design one of alternating rows of so-many and so-many; I don't recall an exact term. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It might be described as a repeated quincuncial pattern—at least, that is the term used at Francis Hopkinson#Flag controversy. Deor (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree -- and "Quincunx" is even one of my favorite words... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

wikt:interleave (which means regularly interspersed) is a slight improvement on wikt:intersperse (which means irregularly mixed). You could also say arrays instead of rectangles.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Grandiose; I think it's best described not as two interleaved rectangles but simply as alternating rows of however-many stars. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Square lattice calls it a "diagonal square lattice". Perhaps it counts as knurled.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In my lifetime the US has gone from 48 states, very easy to turn into a rectangle of stars, to 50 as discussed above. Being a bit of a maths and flag nerd, I've been busting to know how the pattern would be arranged for 51 states. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's 3 rows of 17, but obviously that would have the wrong proportions. If you break it into 3 rows of 8 and 3 rows of 9, alternating, that could work:

 * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
 * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
 * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *

StuRat (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Our article has two possible designs (here but the one Stu shows is most likely. Rmhermen (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure 51 is really very likely, though. The GOP, if they can help it, will not allow Puerto Rico to become a state without a more Republican-leaning state admitted at the same time (George Will suggested Staten Island, although I have never actually heard of Staten Island separatism outside that article). So maybe we should be thinking in terms of a straight jump to 52. --Trovatore (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Other ways of achieving a new Republican-leaning state would be (1) separating Upstate New York from NYC + Long Island, (2) separating inland California from coastal California, or (3) dividing Texas into two. But I can't imagine the Republicans allowing a predominantly Spanish-speaking area to become a state under any circumstances, even if they were to receive a Republican-friendly state of their own in return. Angr (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The GOP certainly has a nativist faction that would object to a Spanish-speaking state, but that's not the kind of thing that's going to result in party-line opposition (and the Democratic Party also has such a faction, though it might be relatively weaker). The thing that makes me predict solid Republican opposition is not cultural ideology but self-preservation. No one wants to give their opponents eight electoral votes for the forseeable future. --Trovatore (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Splitting California into a coastal part and an inland part is a recurrent conservative fantasy, but it's extremely unpopular among voters (a recent poll found that voters disapproved of the idea 80% to 10%), so I don't see this happening any time soon. Besides, a lot of inland California has recently become hispanic, socially conservative, fiscally liberal, and generally unsympathetic of the GOP; Californian white conservatives want to secede from Bay Area granola liberals, but they don't particularly care for hispanics, either. In 2000, Bush won in every single inland county except Imperial. In 2008, Obama managed to take Riverside, San Bernardino, Fresno, Stanislaus, Merced (by 8%), and San Joaquin (by 10%). The only way to form a Republican state out of California is to push the new boundary all the way to the Sierras. By my count, if we were to form a conservative state by joining all contiguous counties that voted for McCain in 2008, we'd end up with a thinly populated, mostly mountainous state, with the population of somewhere around 2 million (vs. 36 million in the coastal counterpart), no industry to speak of, and with the largest urban center being Bakersfield. --Itinerant1 (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, there's no such thing as "a bit of a nerd". It's either full Nerdsville or nothing. I think today's a good day for you to come out of the closet, vexillonerdologically speaking. You're among friends here.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is, Jack, while as a kid I could recognise just about every country's flag, too many of them have changed since then (flags and countries), and my knowledge of lots of those that haven't seems to have been filed in one of those hard to find brain compartments. Does being a vexillological amnesiac remove one from the nerd team? HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Just being aware there have ever been countries called Paraguay or Bhutan or Togo, not to mention having even a vague idea of what their flags are or were, not to mention editing Wikipedia with serious intent, puts you in the nerd category these days. I remember the days when every second kid was into flags and stamps and coins and stuff like that, and knew about Trieste and Danzig and Fiume and Port Arthur and all the rest; they were golden days, philatelonumismatovexillonerdologically speaking.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

These days the kids collect friends. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I was a total geography nerd when I was a kid. I could name the capital of any country, recognize the shape of the country (except for small island nations, which all look like little circles), and recognize the flag of any country. I could probably still do those things for any country whose capital, shape, and flag haven't changed since 1970, but other countries? Fuhgeddaboutit. Angr (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks everyone, looks like I have my answers, either "interleaved" or "quincuncial". StuRat (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Signing and talking

Could a bilingual person (in sign language and whatever spoken language), sign and speak at the same time? I have only seen it on films, but I know that signs do not reflect the local spoken language (for example, American Sign Language is not the equivalent of English in signs), so, it must be quite difficult to speak and sign at the same time. 88.8.75.198 (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that American Sign Language is not the same as Signed English. For examples of bilingual people, perhaps a good source might be YouTube. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, but could they do that spontaneously? When people say they are not the same, I have in mind that the grammatical structure is as far as a foreign language. So, it looks like it's incredible difficult, so difficult as writing Chinese while speaking in English (for a bilingual person in both). 88.8.75.198 (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I studied Japanese Sign Language in Japan (because I had some hearing-impaired kids in my class I was teaching), and there appear to be two types. There is one for people who still think in Japanese (i.e. learners), and one for those fully born and brought up with only sign language as a base. The former is based entirely on the structure of spoken Japanese itself, whilst the latter seems to be a more simplified (and therefore efficient) version. Of course, this is not so clear-cut, so there are combinations in between. The word order also seemed to be much more free (as is the word order in spoken Japanese itself), as in, I could use either Japanese word order or English word order (to a certain extant - the verb still came at the end), and the meaning would still be understood (in most cases). Speaking at the same time (because I had to interpret for the other kids and teachers), therefore, was not a problem, but this is JSL. I don't know ASL or BSL, but I doubt there is much difference. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The JSL article covers this. As in several other countries, there are two (here three) very different languages, JSL and Manually Signed Japanese. It appears from that article that JSL may owe more to Japanese than ASL and BSL do to English, but I suspect that, like them, it is a separate language with a radically different grammar. --ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Signing while speaking is possible. I've seen it done (in English and ASL). I'm sure it's difficult, but most things involving a second language are, and people still manage it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In the case of ASL, when people sign and speak simultaneously, their ASL tends to approximate English. It's actually not very difficult if you allow yourself to modify your signing to accommodate English, or if you sign pidgin ASL to begin with and thus already approximate English, as a lot of native English speakers do. I imagine it would be much more difficult to sign pure, unaccommodating ASL while speaking English. (It would be interesting to see how this compares with deaf native signers who can speak English, and with hearing children raised by deaf parents.) As for your Chinese example, I've spoken English while reading French (that is, translating while reading), and I think that's more difficult, because with simultaneous sign and speech, both are produced directly from the same thoughts, and no translation is involved. Plus they're your thoughts, and you're less likely to think something you don't know how to say. Sign languages are like creoles, in that there is a "pure" form and a whole series of compromise forms that are closer to the prestige language. I imagine that reading and speaking would be easier if you were reading in French and speaking Haitian creole, because you could adjust your creole to more closely match your input, and that's closer to the situation with English and ASL. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Joyo kanji

Do native Japanese speakers reliably know whether or not a given kanji is on the Joyo list (e.g. because they remember from school)? I mean, I'm sure everyone knows that all the very common kanji will be on the list, and that very obscure kanji (that maybe they don't even recognise) won't be, but is there a grey area in between where people would be unsure and have to look it up? 86.181.202.9 (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I never give thought about joyo kanji. I just use kanji I want to use. It means nothing to most people that whether or not a given kanji is on the Joyo list. Though joyo kanji is important to civil servants and people in media, especially for reporters/writers in news paper companies and telop/tickers writers in TV companies, as they have to use joyo kanji only, fiction and nonfiction writers do not pay attention to joyo kanji at all. Oda Mari (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand from your reply that these people do not care whether they are using Joyo kanji. Do you mean also that they don't even know whether they are using Joyo kanji? 86.171.174.74 (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Joyo kanji are the ones you learn in school. But while you're at school, you'll also pick up non-joyo kanji. I doubt many people can remember which is which, unless they have to keep track of them for their job. Some are obviously standard, because they're used all over the place. Others are obviously rare: the kanji in the name of your town, say, which you hardly ever see anywhere else. But I suspect some cases would be difficult to judge, and most people have no reason to even try. — kwami (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

January 1

Central Asia and Azerbaijani languages Turkish and Russian

Before Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan became USSR states, did their languages have sound totally turkish or were they the same as today with Russian words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.143 (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

They had their own languages even when they were USSR states. Languages don't correspond to political boundaries. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, it's been alleged that the Soviets sometimes made rather arbitrary decisions as to what were to be considered separate languages and what were to be considered mere dialects, based more on political motives than pure linguistics, and that the newly-adopted writing systems for the various Turkic languages were made needlessly different from each other. The first writing systems adopted under the Soviets were based on the Latin alphabet, then converted to Cyrillic under Stalin... AnonMoos (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Languages of the Soviet Union has some infomation, though not as much as one might hope. --ColinFine (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Besides any alphabet issues they are different enough to treat all of them as different languages. All the Romance languages are written in the Latin alphabet nevertheless this does not make them any closer to each other. Blaming Stalin and communists in everything even in the special evil intention to differentiate the Turkic alphabets and as a result the languages is a conspiracy.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think anon. is asking whether the massive Russian loans in Soviet Turkic languages preceded the Soviet Union. AFAIK, they did not: most came in with the development of technical, educational, political, and administrative vocabulary under the Soviet government, with Russian as the model. There may have been some Russian loans before that, but they would have been far fewer and more likely to be for Russian cultural things: the Orthodox church, maybe, or food or music, the kinds of terms you would pick up from your neighbors. Foreign administrative terms would probably have been Persian. — kwami (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Before the October Revolution they were all strong sincere Muslims so firstly they wrote in the Arabic script and secondly their languages had a strong Middle-Eastern influence. And as a result their written languages contained a lot of Arabic and Persian words, which usually were not understood by common uneducated people (then more than 90% could not write nor read at all). Like in Turkey in 1920-1930 there was just popularization and simplification of the languages, which usually meant not Russification, but Turkification.
There are not many Russian words in the "Soviet Turkic" languages, maybe 5% or about so. Moreover they are not Russian but rather international words (mashina, avtomobil, tramvay, subyekt, obyekt, resbuplika, konstitutsiya etc.), as Russian has borrowed many Greco-Latin and European lexicon itself (about 20-30 thousand only common known words! In medical and technical texts they can reach 50% or more). I suppose that there are more French words in Turkish or Latin words in German, than Russian ones in the "Soviet Turkic" languages.
I've checked for own curiosity through the first 52 articles of the Constitution of Uzbekistan [2] and found out only 20 "Russian cognates" of about total 500-600. These are bank, gerb, demokratik, demokratiya, institut, konstitutsiya, norma, normativ, organ, partiya, pensiya, prezident, printsip, respublika, referendum, subyekt, suveren, suverenitet, telefon, texnika. As you can see they are neither Russian nor Slavic at all. The only Russian word I've noticed is sud "a court". I suppose more simple fiction texts contain the minimum of such words at all.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't gerb/herb a Slavic word? (Certainly not Greco-Latin.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Is "lost" in Latin "perditus"?

Also, how would it be pronounced, /pur-dih-shus/ or /per-dit-oos/? 99.242.47.208 (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it means lost and is pronounced /per-ditoos/. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

/per-di-toos/ I believe. Rmhermen (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

With the stress on the first syllable. Angr (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That is the nominative singular masculine form - for a different case, number or gender it would have a different ending. See Latin declension#First and second declension adjectives. --ColinFine (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Anon, the pronunciation would depend on whether you're trying for a Latin pronunciation, or an English approximation. But I don't see how you'd get an "sh" sound, since there's no i after the t. — kwami (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"Danish pasting"

I've seen this phrase used, but "Korean pasting" does not show up (when searched), for example. Why?Curb Chain (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably a play on "Danish pastry"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Need your help translating the following document

Does anyone know Arabic? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't help you, but if it's an Ottoman document, it must be in Ottoman Turkish, not in Arabic. --Theurgist (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's rather small and blurry (except for the tughra and heading at top), so it would probably need a pretty good expertise to decipher). AnonMoos (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

linguistics

am a student and i need some help in linguistics: difference between chomsky and hymes in communicative competence !! thnk u — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.1.114.118 (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Communicative competence is being able to successfully convey your intended meaning to your listener(s) -- not always the same thing as speaking a language correctly... AnonMoos (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, that's how I would define it, but we actually have articles Dell Hymes and Communicative Competence which say something slightly different... AnonMoos (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

For a student to be asking this homework question outright, without proffering any evidence they've at least done some simple searching to begin their quest to answer it, is not acceptable. I can understand it's holiday season and all, and you can't be arsed to do the work yourself. So you come here and effectively ask us to do it for you. Not on; we have a policy of not doing people's homework for them, and we have it for very good reasons. Come back when you've done some groundwork, and ask a MUCH more specific question, which we'll help you out with IF you can demonstrate you've tried to answer it yourself but failed. Happy New Year. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you know it's a homework question? The OP might be doing revision or confused over course materials. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Vexillonerdologically (not to mention philatelonumismatovexillonerdologically)

I saw this word in a section above and turned to Google search to get its meaning, precedents, record of use, etc. Google only found one use which happens to be the one I saw above.

Is this because the word was only recently coined or does it have a prior history of written use that has not yet been placed on the internet?

Also please what is the meaning? The root words "vexil" and "loner" and "dologic" seem clear but that is as far as I can take it today. Thanks, and very best wishes for 2012. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have an extremely strong suspicion that the word was coined VERY recently. Yesterday, in fact. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Technical name is nonce word... AnonMoos (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Even more recently than that, HiLo48. I coined the (relatively) short version yesterday, but it appeared in its full glory for the first time only this morning (our time; 2nd January). It's gonna be a great year, I can feel it in my bones. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a word coined by Jack of Oz in the thread above, from vexillology, with nerd stuck in the middle and -ically added to make it an adverb, presumably meaning "in a way characteristic of a nerd interested in flags". Adding philatelo- and numismato- extends the nerdishness to include two other obsessions of some nerdish youngsters, stamps (philately) and coins (numismatics). Deor (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Great word! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.174.74 (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Nonce word - "not expected to recur". Pity. Perhaps a campaign to create questions and situations which cry out for the use of "Vexillonerdologically" could be mounted? There must be scads of them.

This raises the question, what word was used to convey the same meaning until this sparkling new one was coined? (Or minted, or printed?) Wanderer57 (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't encourage him! Jack is always making up words and trying to get others to adopt their use (when he's not employing them to cheat at Scrabble). Deor (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheat? Me? Never, sir. It's one thing to use a made-up word, knowing that one's fellow players will accept it as yet another of those obscure but valid words I happen to know and they don't, and they won't challenge it, and may not even ask what it means, but if they do, I'll come up with a plausible answer (well, it's up to them to check in the dictionary, and if they're too damn lazy, that's their lookout; I can't be blamed for being a human being who sometimes makes .. er, mistakes). But cheat? Me? Never, sir.  :)

The pity is I'll never be able to use my new baby in a Scrabble game, unless they more than double the number of letter-spaces on each side of the board, which would have other consequences. (Anyone for a septuple word score?) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Btw, "philat ... ically" scores 455 with a septuple word score. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2

What's the go with hyphens and dashes?

Been editing Wikipedia for a couple of years now, and one area I've never come to grips with is one that some editors are clearly obsessed with - hyphens, en-dashes and em-dashes. (I will probably be chastised and corrected for the way I've just used them!) I can hardly see the difference when I see a change made by one of the dash police. They are all cute little short lines.

I finally decided to look at the appropriate part of the Manual of Style, and found it quite incomprehensible. I studied English at school to a reasonable level and I write a lot. Never have I ever seen such an obsession over short lines than here in Wikipedia.

Two questions:

1. Why does it matter so much here?

2. Is there a simpler summary of the rules than the Manual of Style? HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have also been perplexed by this issue in the past. The problem in part is that there is no "en-dash" on my keyboard. When I learned to type, a few generations ago, they told us to use a double-hyphen to stand for a dash. The best explanation I can give for your second question, the MOS approach, is that hyphens are used for connecting related words, such as with "semi-automatic" (or as the minus sign in math usages), while dashes are used as the equivalent of "from-to", such as birth and death dates, or as connections between unrelated words, such as Minneapolis–Saint Paul. I'm sure there's much more to it. And since I firmly believe the answer to your first question is, "It isn't", I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it. I just use a hyphen and let the n-dash obsessed editors find and fix it, on the assumption that they know what they're doing while you and I might not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I don't worry about those distinctions, either. My advice is to just use a regular dash. If some other editor with too much time on his hands then wants to change it to something imperceptibly different, let him. I call this the "dash and go" approach. StuRat (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have autocorrect set in my (old) version of Microsoft Word to insert the appropriate length of line (when I remember to use the shortcuts I've created), but that doesn't work when editing Wiki articles. The en-dash and em-dash are available at the bottom of the editing page if you have either "Insert" or "Wiki markup" selected, but that helps only if you know which one you should be using. There are much worse faults in many (most?) Wikipedia articles, so I don't think it's a big deal either, even though I try to get it right in Word documents. Dbfirs 08:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I can quite easily notice the difference between them, and find it quite apparent in many instances when the wrong one is used, or when one is used incorrectly. However, in a number of circumstances I forget all the complexities of the rules and have to recheck the MOS. Now, when writing in article space I am quite particular about using the right one, and will correct incorrect usage if I see it. On the other hand, when writing elsewhere, such as on talkpages or the reference desk, I just use a dash for speed. And as above, I'm not really obsessive about it in terms of hunting them down, as I know most people don't notice (much less care about) the difference. However I wouldn't say that this is the only place that is obsessive about it; I think that most professional publishers would be similarly obsessive. I guess the point is that in a perfect world all Wikipedia articles would also be perfect, including perfect—and perfectly consistent—use of the agreed upon rules of grammar and punctuation (FWIW those are correctly used em dashes). If you're interested there is a short tutorial at User:Tony1/How to use hyphens and dashes that is perhaps a bit simpler than the MOS. --jjron (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

But not helped by the fact that the opening sentence of that article - "Hyphens and dashes are basic to stylish writing in English" - is totally and incontrovertibly bollocks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I forget to mention... Given that someone above referred to using a dash as the minus sign, thought I would also point out that that is also incorrect. The minus sign is yet another type of short straight line! --jjron (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That was me, and I was saying that you use the hyphen to indicate the minus sign. Or I do, anyway. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My bad, so you did. And for that matter, usually so do I. But if we want to wiki properly, we shouldn't. :) --jjron (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it matters so much because the "gnomish" aspects of Wikipedia exert a strong attraction on a set of editors with obsessive personalities. Looie496 (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't seek out correcting hyphen/dash usage, but I may fix an incorrect usage if I happen to stumble upon it the same way I would correct a capitalization error or something else minor I came across. And while the en dash and em dash are available to input into the wiki under "Special characters," I find it much faster to add them directly via alt codes: Alt + 0150 on the numpad for an en dash (–) and Alt + 0151 on the numpad for an em dash (—). --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, alt codes. Back in the 1990s-era day, I learned a few of them and still use them to this day: Alt+130 for é, Alt+138 for è, Alt+144 for É, Alt+135 for ç. They're so much quicker than any other method of accessing those characters. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Or on a Macintosh, option - for – and option+shift - for —. Pfly (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

To anyone who cares at all about writing correctly, confusing dashes with hyphens is a significant error. People who dismiss this as pedantry are mainly wrong. (Well, certainly wrong in an environment such as Wikipedia.) There are some borderline word-linking cases where the choice between hyphen and dash is not always clear-cut, but in the large majority of cases the two are very definitely not interchangeable. 86.176.210.154 (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see it matters a lot to you, but did you see my Question 1. at the start? Why does it matter so much? HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do any marks of punctuation "matter so much"? Would your question 1—"Why does it matter so much here?"—be any less understandable if it ended with a period or with no punctuation at all? The use of punctuation marks in accordance with a house style or widespread conventions may seem to some to reflect sheer arbitrariness or pedantry, but to others it reflects an admirable professionalism and an awareness of historic typographic practice that isn't lightly to be tossed aside. If you don't want to make any distinction between hyphens and en dashes and em dashes when you edit Wikipedia articles, you are of course free to do so; but why express incomprehension of editors who think the distinction worthy of preservation, and why use that as an excuse to make more work for others? If you truly can't understand the different situations in which the three marks should be used, perhaps you should try to word your sentences in such a way that none of them need be used. Deor (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Just to add my tuppence-worth: first; in some published material hyphens, en-dashes, em- or even double em-dashes, and minus signs may all be used for different purposes, so carelessness in their application may cause the reader confusion; secondly, even if only one or two of the different uses are being employed, inconsistency in usage will cause many readers – perhaps more sensitive to minutiae that you, HiLo48 – to stumble and become irritated. Editing is like theatre direction, generally one doesn't consciously notice it unless it's poor.

Professionally trained editors are always aiming for perfection in this as well as in other aspects of editing – one inconsistency or one annoyed reader is one too many – and perhaps we sometimes become a little obsessive about it, or apply it in areas like talk pages where it's not strictly necessary, and certainly we're more likely to notice lapses, but better that than sloppiness :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.103 (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The question raised by Deor doesn't work in the general application. Ending a sentence with a period can be important to understanding it. But that's not the case with the specific kind of hyphen or dash that's used between dates or between the names of two twin cities. There's no ambiguity to the general reader. I note 90's usage of standard hyphens where dashes theoretically should be used. But that's common practice, and there's no problem understanding the meaning. Meanwhile, Deor's deliberate use of dashes and hyphens in his statement didn't even catch my eye the first time. No matter which one is used, the meaning is unaffected. Which is why I don't bother with the fancy dashes. (1) The reading public doesn't care. (2) The typographers here DO care, and they will enjoy fixing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually I'd say 90's usage of hyphens and dashes is spot-on, at least following the rules of the MOS (well except that "en dash" and "em dash" don't really need to be hyphenated). --jjron (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I go along with Bugs, think of the "dash and hyphen police" as "dash and hyphen gnomes", do your thing and don't worry about the details of the length of the line and they will come along (huffing and tutting) and correct them for you. This is called collaboration and is one of the rocks on which Wikipedia is built. Richard Avery (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Consider me a "dash and hyphen gnome". I am quite careful about how I use them in my own writing, but unless it causes a major misunderstanding, or it happens to be in something I am otherwise editing, I leave them alone. About the only place I make a large number of changes is in tables, because a proper minus sign helps alignment, whereas a hyphen is too short and a dash is too long. (BTW, I am surprised no one pointed the OP to our article dash, which has relatively straightforward explanations about the similar punctuation marks. — Michael J 01:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As for the original question one, I think this is one of those things that occurs because the manual of style is itself based on real-world manuals of style, such as the Chicago one. I have no idea of the particulars, but I would imagine that the editors drawing up the Wikipedia manual of style mirrored the most widely-accepted style manuals out there, and that most of them are also quite picky about dashes. Also, I seem to remember there are a few differences when using dashes in British English and American English on Wikipedia too, and I think that is probably due to discrepancy between British and American style manuals. Does anyone know the details of how and when our current dash guidelines were drafted? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

的 and spanish de

Is the Mandarin 的 (de) related at all to the Spanish de in that they both have similar pronunciations (as well as identical romanizations) and similar usage in that they can be used to connect two nouns in an adjectival manner? 98.113.158.92 (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No. It's a coincidence. (Also they are not grammatically similar; in Mandarin the structure is POSSESSOR de POSSESSEE [张三的书], whereas in Spanish it's POSSESSEE de POSSESSOR [el libro de Mengano], unless you're referring to something different.rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The first principle of evaluating a proposed etymological relationship between two languages is to go back to the earliest known form on each side. So it's relevant that in Latin (the ancestor of Spanish), de most literally meant "down from" (or in an extended sense, "about" or "concerning"). It did not mean "of", and it did not form a quasi-adjectival connection between two nouns. Furthermore, the shorter the forms to be compared between two languages, and the more that they consist of sounds and sound patterns (phonotactics) commonly found in many languages of the world, the greater the probability of a purely accidental resemblance. Combined with the facts that Spanish and Chinese were in quite different parts of the word, with little opportunity to influence each other until less than 500 years ago, and it seems exceedingly unlikely that there is any kind of etymological relationship... AnonMoos (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And according to Wiktionary the possible original pronunciation of 的, in Old Chinese, was *[t-lˤewk], with an original meaning of "bright", and in early Middle Chinese, roughly contemporaneous with Latin, a pronunciation of [dek] or [tek]. There is no final velar in any of the reconstructed etymologies of Latin dē, which may have derived from the same root as dō ("give") or may be cognate with English to (meanings obviously unrelated to "bright"). Marco polo (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A fascinating correspondence has just occurred to me. A reconstructed Old Chinese pronunciation of 的, meaning "bright", was *[t-lˤewk], in which *[t-] is believed to have been some kind of prefix. Meanwhile, there is the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European root *lewk- [3], meaning "bright" and cognate with the English word light. Apparently others have noted similarities between Old Chinese and Indo-European roots. Marco polo (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Tongue

Hello. An uninformed person recently tried to seem smart to me by "citing" the etymology of the word 'tongue' as French (accompanied by a very butchered and affected rendering of the "original French"). Little did he know I speak French and have a strong grasp of word origins and naturally I chewed him out for it (in a friendly way, of course :) But looking back it seems a reasonable mistake to make, after all how the word is constructed (silent -ue, -on-, structure reminiscent of the 'legit' French 'langue'). I was wondering, could there have been any interference from French on the development of the spelling of this purely English word? If so what is this phenomenon called? Thanks. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

False etymology? --Jayron32 04:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think some of what you're asking (especially the relationship of "tongue" to "langue") is addressed in the article on false friends. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that EO says "tongue" and "langue" have a common origin... neither one of them being French, of course, but long before that.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

See also wikt:Tongue. Baseball Bugs' EOD link says the spelling originated in the 14th century. Was the Middle English pronunciation /ˈtɔŋ.ɡə/ or /ˈtɔŋə/ ? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Whichever the consonants, the stressed vowel was almost certainly [ʊ]... AnonMoos (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it progressed from Old English [tʊŋɡə] to [tʊŋɡ] to [tʊŋ] to [tʌŋ], though the last stages never happened in parts of the North of England. Angr (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's right, we still say [tʊŋ] here, and in some parts, they say [tɒŋɡ] or even almost [tɒŋɡə] in some areas -- I've never known why. Dbfirs 10:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We say [tʊŋɡ] in Liverpool, and in in most of the North West. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I didn't mention Scouse, but doesn't it start to change after Wigan as you travel East? Dbfirs 20:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Aye, which is why we call it the North West, because it's believe it or not North and West. Not East. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Terms for deer

English has a colloquial, unmistakable term for the family of Cervidae - deer. As far as I can see, this is not the case in many other languages. For example, the German word Hirsche means "deer" as well as "stags". What's the term for deer in other languages, and is it unmistakable? Or what else does it mean? Especially, I'm interested how the following dialogue in the movie Bambi (20th minute) has been translated into other languages, with what term for "deer":

Bambi: Mother, you know what?

Mother: What?

Bambi: We're not the only deer in the forest.

Mother: Where did you hear that?

Bambi: Thumper told me.

Mother: Well, he's right. There are many deer in the forest besides us.

--KnightMove (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the scarcity of large mammals in the Philippines, we have only one word for deer in (all?) Filipino languages - usa (pronounced oo-SAH). It used to refer strictly to the three endemic species of the genera Rusa and Hyelaphus in the islands, but it has been adapted to be the direct equivalent of the English word "deer". The Philippine mouse-deer, a chevrotain (Tragulidae) not a true deer (Cervidae), is not called usa despite its English common name, but has its own unique local name - pilandok. There are also no separate words for doe or stag or juveniles, instead the generic words for female/girl/mother or male/boy/father or child/young are used. Bambi has never been translated to our languages, as most of the population understand English.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two problems: the different names for different species, and the different names for different sexes of the same species. Usually, however, I think there is one term that can serve as a general one (German Hirsch, French cerf, Russian "олень", etc.) and would probably be used in a translation of the film. Interestingly, the original Bambi in the story by Felix Salten was a roe deer (Reh, chevreuil, косуля), but in the Disney film, he is a white-tailed deer (Weißwedelhirsch, Cerf de Virginie, Белохвостый олень). Lesgles (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In the Scandinavian languages they qualify the general name for animal(s) 'dyr' or 'djur' with specific words like 'rein' for reindeer and 'rå' for roe deer, which as I understand it was the original usage of the english word 'deer'. Mikenorton (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In German everyday speech, Hirsch covers deer species such as the red deer (Rothirsch) and fallow deer (Damhirsch), but not the roe deer, which is called Reh. Confusingly, the German dubbing of Bambi, uses Reh for Bambi and Hirsch for the adult deers, which doesn't make any sense zoologically (see de:Bambi (Film)#Einfluss). --BishkekRocks (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out that English has an astonishing number of unrelated words to describe deer of varying sexes, species and stages of development. Off the top of my head, I can think of: stag, buck, hart, hind, doe, pricket, fawn, and there are probably others. It's probably not a surprise that other languages have a variety too. Alansplodge (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Pricket? --KnightMove (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No, pricket. Deor (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe what we call that a "button buck" in Michigan (antlers less than 3 inches, legally an "anterless deer"). Rmhermen (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have turned it into a disambiguation. Another question: How do you call young mule deer & white tailed deer bucks - does the term "pricket" apply to them? --KnightMove (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Fawn, then yearling or button buck; then spike; then buck. Rmhermen (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Basque Dialectical Differences

Thank you for a comprehensive Basque page and this opportunity to ask questions

My question concerns online or other resources to improve my comprehension of dialectical differences in Euskara. I am currently at a stage where I am able to follow albisteak in Batua but have difficulty for example in following the Basque soap, Goenkale online. Other online aides like Kerman Mintzalagun and SitePal's text to speech are helpful but do not fulfill the audio-visual support that I believe I need to progress further. Is there any Basque programming that you know of that includes subtitles, so that speech patterns and dialectical variations can be more readily recognized?76.103.195.49 (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think such a thing exists. Written materials aside, you're pretty much on your own with the Euskalkiak in my experience. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, having said that, I'm assuming you checked out places like HABE for their material? Akerbeltz (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This being the language desk, perhaps it'll be tolerated if I point out that you probably mean dialectal, not dialectical. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

January 3

The use of the verb "drink" to automatically and assumably mean "drink alcohol [without specifying alcohol]"

This also occurs in the Spanish language, with the verb "beber [to drink; I would think it would be related to the 'beverage']," as I used a form of "beber" in a sentence in a college Spanish class once (without specifying beverage), which, if literally tranlsated into English would assumed to be alcohol, and my professor, a native Spanish speaker, said I needed to specify which beverage, otherwise (just as in English), it would be presumed to be alcohol. So, I would guess this the usage of "to drink," without knowing what exactly, would probably exist throughout Western civilization-based languages.

Why is so?

Just a side note here: As I understand it, the usual verb for "to drink alcohol" is not beber but tomar (which I think literally means "to take"). --Trovatore (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's automatic in English; as with many verbs that have numerous meanings, it depends on context. That said, "drink" as a verb typically has an object. "We ran laps for an hour, then everyone collapsed and drank water." You could certainly say "collapsed and drank," and in the context of a school sports team, the reader or listener would assume a non-alcoholic beverage.

As a verb with no object, "drink" tends to imply alcohol, and the context can reinforce that assumption: "On weekends all the guys in my dorm do is drink [alcohol]." Specifying a beverage as your instructor suggests is a way of reducing ambiguity. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

See metonymy. This is not restricted to Western-civilization languages - it occurs in practically any culture with a strong drinking tradition (which is basically, any culture) 24.92.85.35 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this. In the same way that when discussing sex, it is often merely implied (e.g. "They did it.") rather than explicitly named. And yes, it's not restricted to western languages. The Filipino usage of the verb inum/inom (to drink) is practically identical to the English "drink". -- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"Beverage" is indeed cognate with the Spanish beber, from the Latin bebere. Curiously, "beverage" is typically taken to mean non-alcoholic in English, unless specified as "alcoholic beverage". In contrast, the word "imbibe", which comes from that same Latin root bebere, and which simply means "to drink" or "to drink in", is used as a variant or euphemism for "drinking" (alcohol) and likewise without the qualifier.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the reason for this usage is that drinking a "soft" beverage is unremarkable, whereas drinking a "strong" drink carries a number of assumptions along with it. It's also worth pointing out that other forms of "drink", such as "drunk" and "drunkard", pertain either to alcohol explicitly or to something else metaphorically, e.g. "drunk with power". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In any case, "drink" used this way goes back hundreds of years.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor nitpick, the Latin word would be bibere, not bebere -- Ferkelparade π 04:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I was actually about to correct that mistake. Thanks for fixing. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

One usage that intrigues me is when drink is used in drink driving. Dunno how common that is around the English speaking world but around here it's the same as driving under the influence. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The colloquial terms used in America are "drunk driving" or "drunken driving" or "drinking and driving". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

@HiLo, I vaguely suspect that that usage came out of the Transport Accident Commission's "bloody idiot" campaign. As I remember it (and as the article suggests) the campaign slogan starting in 1989 was actually "If you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot.". But since that is a little too long to comfortably fit on a billboard, it got shortened to just "Drink Drive, Bloody Idiot" originally for billboards, and then for the tagline on TV ads, etc. I could be wrong, but I don't really remember just "drink driving" being used before that. --jjron (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Drink driving is the standard term in the UK and has been in use here since well before 1989. I don't have access to the OED online here, but this article[7] from the Daily Telegraph states the OED first records the term being used (in the Telegraph) in 1964. (You have to follow the hyperlink on "251 words"). Valiantis (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd go for the '60s as a safer bet than the '80s, in Australia too. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It works the same way in Russian. And, on top of that, there are other related examples of metonymy. There are even jokes about it:

• Only a Russian person can hear the expression "half a liter" without asking "half a liter of what?"
• In Russia, if you ask ten random people "how much is ten times 100 grams", nine out of ten will answer "one liter". --Itinerant1 (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Funny. Whereas here in the USA, if someone mentioned "half a liter", we might say "half a what?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Whereas in the UK, 'half a liter' [sic] guarantees you mean 'half a litre of petrol'. We'd say 'a pint' (slightly more than half a litre) for everything else (except shots, which are measured in millilitres). And, Bugs, before you say you use gas in your cars and not petrol, we measure that in cubic centimetres. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Why would anyone want to buy half a liter of petrol, I wonder? By the way, the second joke "works" because Russians measure vodka in grams up to half a liter, and in liters above that amount. It's just too cumbersome to say "milliliter" instead of "gram", especially after the first couple of 100-millilitergram servings of straight vodka.--Itinerant1 (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Gimme a liter-a-cola... --Jayron32 07:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The same is in the Semitic languages (Ar., Heb., and maybe also Am. and Tig.). I don't see here a western influence, because words like "drunk" (i.e. drunkened, e.g. in Heb.) go back as far as BC times. 87.68.248.107 (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, same in Japanese. 'Nondeiru' means 'drinking', and on its own without an object would very often mean 'is drinking/has been drinking alcohol'. However, it does not mean 'drunk' necessarily, for which an entirely unrelated set of words is generally used. Interestingly, if we translate 'he was drunk' literally into Japanese, it would actually mean 'somebody else drank all his alcohol'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the joke from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy works in other languages?: "It's unpleasantly like being drunk", "What's so unpleasant about being drunk?", "Ask a glass of water". -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No in western Austronesian languages due to the Austronesian-type morphosyntactic alignment. Instead of active or passive voices, verbs get affixes to form an agent -trigger or a patient-trigger, both of which make it clear if the subject is acting [the verb] upon or being acted upon [by the verb], in addition to tenses, etc.

In Filipino for example, from the root word inom (to drink), you can form agent-trigger uminom (prefix/infix -um-) and patient-trigger ininom (infix -in-). The phrase "like being drunk" would be translated as either parang uminom ("like having drunk [something]") or parang ininom ("like having been drunk [by something]"), with the former being the correct translation when used in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy context. It obviously will not work with the follow-up since it's clear that the speaker is referring to something drinking something, instead of something being drunk by something.

Like in Japanese, there is also an etymologically unrelated word used to describe a drunk (intoxicated) person that is primarily an adjective, lasing (Cebuano: hubog). It can be used (rarely) as an adjectival verb, e.g. linasing ("to get [someone] drunk [on alcohol]"). This word, in contrast to the previous inom, is used exclusively to mean getting drunk on alcohol (or rarely getting "high" on an emotion/feeling, cf. "drunk on power"). It can not be used to mean drinking alone, nor can it be used for a person who is drinking alcohol but is not intoxicated.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The joke does not work in Russian, either. There are too many suffixes and prefixes to denote all possible adjectives with the root "drink" (p'yushchiy "the person who drinks", vypivshiy "the person who just drank something", zapivshiy "the person who just drank some liquid with his food", napivshiysya "the person who just got really drunk", perepivshiy "the person who drank too much", vypityy "the beverage that got consumed"), and the two meanings of the word "drunk" in the joke end up translated slightly differently. Russian translations of the book just say "What's so unpleasant about being drunk?" - "Hangover", which is, of course, not quite the intended meaning, but you can't do much better. --Itinerant1 (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't work in German either, again because of the prefixes. A person gets betrunken, a glass of water gets getrunken. Angr (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the Italian translation of Hitchhiker's Guide, and they translated it literally, as bevuto. I thought the translator had completely missed the point, because the usual Italian word for "drunk" (in the sense of "under the influence of alcohol") is ubriaco. But when I brought that up, my friends told me that bevuto is also possible. --Trovatore (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Radicals vs phonetic components

Are there any Chinese characters where the radical component is also the phonetic component? If so, what are some examples? 98.113.158.92 (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Radicals can be semantic or phonetic; thus, most two-radical characters have both a semantic and a phonetic radical. (For instance, 摸 has the semantic radical 扌(手) and the phonetic radical 莫.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I meant more like the index radicals you'd use to look up a character in a dictionary. 98.113.158.92 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A bunch of examples are listed at Radical (Chinese character) (text starting "There are also instances of section headers which play a phonetic and not a semantic role in those characters...") 86.176.210.154 (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Alvarado

What is the meaning and etymology of the Spanish surname "Alvarado"? Am I correct in thinking it means "the beached" (cf Wiktionary:varado), or is a simple dictionary lookup misleading me? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's probably derived from the first name Álvaro, which our article says is Germanic and means "all guard". Pais (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

According to http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Alvarado, "It derives from a place called Alvarado, which translates as 'the place on the hot plain' or similar." Looie496 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

English names that sound like prostitutes' names

Once I named one of the girls in my Spanish class "Estrella", and my Spanish teacher later told me that it rather sounded like a prostitute's name. What will be the English equivalents? --121.134.141.253 (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a joke, that does seem to hold, that if you take the name of your pet and add the street you live on, you get your "hooker name". So you end up with something like "Smokey Alvarado" or "Fluffy Showers" or something (I used to live on Showers Drive; it works perfectly for this). http://www.strippernames.net/ generates some credible sounding ones too. I don't think Estrella sounds like a hooker; it sounds like a beer. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the names the site has generated for me is "Chardonnay", so apparently the names of alcoholic beverages are not that far away from the hooker names. --121.134.141.253 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes. Sherry or Champagne or Chardonnay or Whiskey are credible stripper names; Vodka, Gin, Lager, or Buckfast Tonic Wine aren't. I can't give you a rational explanation of why. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Naming your daughter Chastity is definitely tempting fate. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Or it might work, and they might have no interest in sex with men. StuRat (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean s/he's chaste, though. Angr (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No, but it affects who gets chased. :-) StuRat (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I always thought a name that sounds like a female body part or sex act was rather ill-advised, like Regina and Phylicia. Then there's something you might want to eat, like a Candy or a Bunny. StuRat (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder (given the alcohol names above, and the names from the stripper-name-generator) whether there's something of a synesthetic bouba/kiki effect going on. That is, the womens' stripper names sound especially soft and voluptuous (bouba names), but with a soupçon of kiki for spice. There's probably a Ph.D in linguistics to be had in comparing stripper names (mostly bouba with a little kiki) with roller derby names (mostly kiki but feminised with a little bouba). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The OP is asking for hooker names, but in my experience (American English) it seems we tend to talk about something being a "stripper name" rather than a "hooker name" (and I see some of the other posters above mention stripper names rather than hooker names). One that pops into my mind is Candy (I once had a Chinese classmate who used that as her English name and I remember trying to explain that that's a stripper name). Then again, there are also some normal names that some people consider stripper names (I can't think of them off the top of my head, but I remember once my sister-in-law complaining about some girl and bringing up the fact that "she even has a stripper name", I think it started with M). rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not surprised some Asian girls name themselves Candy, for it is the name of the heroine of a famous Japanese anime. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say there'd be a few generalisations, some outlined above - Finlay's soft sounding alcoholic beverages, Stu's things edible and/or cute, but again they need that soft sound (bunnys, candys, etc). Just had a look at List of prostitutes and courtesans to see if there were any obvious patterns but can't see that much - that would almost indicate that these supposed "prostitute names" are in fact completely based on preconceptions or popular use, rather than having any link to reality (those ones from fiction are closer to our biases, but some of them would undoubtedly have been chosen because they are those names). However I'd suspect also if a name had been strongly enough linked with prostitution, stripping, or just general promiscuity or some related pursuit through popular culture it would also be regarded in similar light, especially if not common. For example you don't get many girls called Jezebel or Lolita for example, and most people would be offended if you referred to them as that for some reason, even though if you could remove the names from their cultural context they would be (IMO) quite nice names (not that they were necessarily of English origin or names in general, but they could be used). --jjron (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It might vary from country to country. My American wife told me that "Chantelle", which is perfectly acceptable in the UK would be seen as a stripper name in the USA. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The archetypical supposed prostitute was Mary Magdalene, yet curiously this has never stopped large numbers of (mainly European and overwhelmingly Christian) women being named Magdalena, or its variants such as Madeleine, or short version Magda (one of the loveliest female names in existence, imo).

I say "supposed" because there is zero biblical evidence for her engaging in the profession in which she is traditionally said to have engaged before coming under Jesus's influence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I always confuse that one with Chanterelle. To my mind, it's a mushroom name.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

In Italy, they name the nice, edible things after the prostitutes: spaghetti alla puttanesca.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

January 4

Translation

Can someone help me translate the snippet of text here? Thanks. I think it might be German.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Also this page or just the part about Edith Marie Pomare. Thanks. I am not sure what language this is though.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The first one is, I think: "...successor of King George I Tubou, who died on March 17, 1893; 1st marriage in Nukualofa, on December 8, 1898, to Edith Marie Pomare Ouahine from Tahiti, maiden name Eimeo, born February 3, 1882, date of death unknown". It's in French. The second one is in Czech. "Many also talked about a Tahitian princess named Edith Marie Pomare Vahine. But, to a great surprise of all islanders, king George II married a 19-year-old Lavenia, daughter of his chief of police Kuba.--Itinerant1 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The German snippet is here. It says (like the French) that princess Edith Marie Pomare Wahine was born on Eimeo. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, but the second wife is described by the first snippet as "Lavenia psse de Tonga, nee a Koubou", which, according to the second (Czech) snippet, means "daughter of a man named Kuba". This English text [8] also says "Lavinia, Kubu's daughter". This would indicate that "Marie Pomare, nee a Eineo" means, as "nee" does normally mean, "Marie Pomare, daughter of Eimeo". --Itinerant1 (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, all English online sources agree that she was born on Eimeo. And the book does uses "nee a XXX" to mean "born in XXX" in other places. I was mistaken.--Itinerant1 (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The text "Édith Marie Pomare Ouahine psse de Tahiti, née à Eimeo" is in French. The word "psse" is short for "princesse". In English: "Edith Marie Pomare Ouahine princess of Tahiti, born on Eimeo". — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

@Itinerant1: Could you enlighten us about the letter Ziu? User:Странник27/Sandbox. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Easy. Go to [9] and copy/paste "зю" in the search box. (It should get you here.)--Itinerant1 (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Japanese translation help

ご利用の端末では
視聴サービスを利用いただくことはできません。

Hello, I'm getting the above message when trying to view a video stream from a website. I believe the second line means "you are unable to receive this video service". I'm hoping the first line explains the reason, but I can't figure out what it's saying. Google Translate is completely useless as usual. Can anyone help? 86.160.212.9 (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know Japanese, but, as far as I can tell, the first line just says "using this device ..." --Itinerant1 (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Itinerant1 is right. It's " By/with the terminal unit you are using". Oda Mari (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right, thanks. I hoped it would be something more specific! 86.160.210.251 (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Japanese 'r'

How do you say the Japanese 'r'? --207.160.233.153 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Check out the Wikipedia:IPA for Japanese page here on Wikipedia.Van Gulik (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The way I was told to pronounce it (for native English speakers) is to put your tongue in the position for "l", and then try to make the sound of "r". In practice, I have heard all sorts of pronunciations from native speakers in study materials, from what sounds to me like English "l", to "r", to "d", and all points in between. 86.160.210.251 (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As-clauses in English

The article Mule Deer states:

"The Mule Deer does not show marked size variation across its range, as does the White-tailed Deer."

Am I right that the sentence wants to imply that White-tailed Deer does have marked size variation across its range, while it literally means that White-tailed Deer does not have marked size variation; and, that it should be worded "... as the White-tailed Deer does" to express its true meaning? --KnightMove (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is very ambiguous and confusing. If the White-tailed Deer does show marked size variation, I suggest "Unlike the White-tailed Deer, the Mule Deer..." Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Small-c vs. capital C

Sometimes we use expressions such as "He is a reactionary with a capital R", to mean he is an arch-reactionary, an extreme reactionary. You get the idea.

We also use the descriptor "small-<letter>" to distinguish people from those belonging to formal groups with that word in the title, which would be capitalised. Such as "He is a small-c conservative", meaning he is conservative by nature, and not necessarily a member of some Conservative Party. The difference is clear in writing, but "He is a conservative" and "He is a Conservative" sound exactly the same in speaking, so the disambiguatory descriptor "small-c" has to be added if we want it to mean the former but not the latter.

So, how do we use these expressions when we want to say that someone is extremely conservative ("conservative with a capital C") but NOT a member of the Conservative Party? Is it OK to mix them and say "He is a small-c conservative with a capital C"? Or would that just confuse people? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Each is a rhetoric fluorish, to some extent, so to use both sounds odd indeed, unless you were going to some deliberate point (can't quite think what; maybe "too conservative to be Conservative" or something). It's so inherently avoidable; it feels like a mixed metaphor. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Being a contra-suggestive rebel with a capital C-S R, I am always attracted to things that are inherently avoidable. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I'd really agree with the premise. "He's a small-l liberal" means he's liberally minded, but doesn't necessarily support the Liberal Party, which would generally be quite the opposite, but would be the first thing most people would think you meant if you just said "He's a liberal". Writing it with a capital L doesn't mean he's strongly liberal though; the capital indicates a proper noun, e.g., naming the Liberal Party, you'd need to add the "He's very liberal" to mean he's strongly liberal. In speech adding in the "small-l" term is just a shorthand way to distinguish, but it's not necessarily needed in writing as the capital for the proper noun often suffices. "He's Catholic in his views" or "He's catholic in his views" mean quite different things. Additionally in speech it's easy to clarify if your listener clearly misunderstands, but not so much in writing. In speech you'd just add the usual qualifiers if you wanted to add impact: "He's very conservative", or if it wasn't clear enough "He's doesn't support the Conservative Party, but is very conservative in his opinions". If you say "He is a reactionary with a capital R" the "with a capital ..." is just intended to add emphasis to how reactionary he is, not intended that you would literally spell it with a capital; in writing you may put it in bold or something to add a similar emphasis. --jjron (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I know of Australia's Liberal Party, which I admit is not all that much, I don't really agree that it's "quite the opposite". Don't they support free markets, individual liberties, protections for the accused, that sort of thing? That's what I consider "liberalism" in the proper sense of the word, as opposed to the big-government sense that developed in the United States in the 20th Century. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

During the relatively recent Prime Ministership of John Howard the Liberal Party in Australia became very conservative. It was definitely the more conservative of the two major parties. It sought the votes of those inclined to be racists on immigration and boat people issues. It supported US policy unquestioningly on issues like the Iraq invasion, including keeping Australians in Guantanamo without trial. To this Australian, it didn't appear very liberal at all. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I grant you that those things don't seem liberal, but part of my point is that liberal and conservative are not in fact antonyms nor even necessarily in tension. If you live in a liberal state, it is conservative to be liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The irony is, the people to whom the word "liberal" was applied in the U.S. in the 20th century actually were liberal in the classical sense of the word (supporting free markets, individual liberties, protections for the accused, etc.) and were not particularly pro–big government at all, as their opponents tried to trick the voters into believing. Angr (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, gonna hafta disagree with you there. The only consistent liberals, in the older sense, in the latter have of C20 America, were called "libertarians". --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is why, for example, people so badly misunderstood Barry Goldwater; they were surprised when he started taking "liberal" positions around the 1990s. But Goldwater was always a liberal, one of the strongest ones on the American political scene. --Trovatore (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That's my point - he was labeled "liberal" because that's what he was, just like Carter and Mondale and Dukakis and the rest. None of them were socialists or even remotely left-wing (and the Democratic Party has drifted to the right since their day) and they certainly weren't in favor of government infringement of personal liberties - that's what the so-called "conservatives" who complained about "big government" were for. Angr (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's more ironic that the supposedly "small government conservatives" are actually more obsessed with trying to control individual social liberties, including investing in a disproportionately larger armed forces to carry it out. The only thing "small" in their vision is smaller government intrusion into matters that involve money.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

They also tend to believe in smaller federal government say in matters they want handled by state and municipal government, e.g. States' rights, because local governments have historically been much more tolerant of the tyranny of the majority than the federal government has. Angr (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) But people were surprised that he was liberal. They shouldn't have been surprised. His free-market policies in 1964 were liberal too, although called "conservative", which they also were, because they wanted to conserve the existing liberal structure. On the other hand Mondale's views on the economy were not particularly liberal, but rather state-interventionist. --Trovatore (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

People were only surprised because they had successfully been trained to believe the word "liberal" means something different than it does. Angr (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Jjron, but what premise is it that you're disagreeing with? I wasn't saying anything other than that there are people who are not members of any Conservative Party (or maybe have no political involvement of any kind) but are nevertheless very conservative in their outlook; so much so that we might say of one, "he is a conservative with a capital C". Being a non-member of the Conservative Party also makes him a "small-c conservative". Can we reasonably or usefully combine these into "he's a small-c conservative with a capital C"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that while one could attempt to do so, the attempt would be so fraught with awkwardness as to lack both reason and utility. As a writer, I'd say you would lose whatever casual charm the use of such informal idioms can convey, and risk confusion and misunderstanding. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That confirms what I was getting at with my question "Or would that just confuse people?" (witness the above exchange). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

When you were young

something dreadful happened to you. You will really have to concentrate to recall it. What is this sort of "prediction" called? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not catching your drift, Kitty. What's the context? How can something that happened in the past be predicted, scare quotes or no? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It is nonsense of course; the same as ghosts. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you thinking of engram, or perhaps a similar concept from more conventional psychological disciplines such as Abreaction or Recovered memory therapy? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.46 (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe Repressed memory?--Itinerant1 (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Closer to false memory. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Confabulation? Also False memory syndrome, similar to the "show me on the dolly where the bad man touched you" line of questioning. It was often the cause for public hysteria on UFOs, conspiracy theories, sexual abuse, and satanic cults. In some cases resulting in people getting jailed for crimes they obviously did not commit. The most controversial and fantastically unbelievable of which is the McMartin preschool trial.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you make vague suggestions, something is going to satisfy the requirements of those suggestions, but it is the ratio of vagueness to specificity that matters here. "Something dreadful happened to you" sounds specific because "something dreadful" can be expected to be unforgettable. "You will really have to concentrate to recall it" sends us scurrying off looking for a different sort of memory. The incompatibility of the requirements that we have been provided with tempts us to apply interpretive reasoning. To complicate matters further, we may be sorting through faded memories. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

a "prediction" that would be true if applied to most people is a form of cold reading used by flim-flammers everywhere.... - Nunh-huh 01:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this a "suggestion"? You are being "influenced" by a "suggestion". It is one example of the power of suggestion. Something will fit the bill if you search hard enough. When one "concentrates", one considers options one would have rejected in a more cursory glance. Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

January 5

How does the American accent make a distinction between "can't take" and "can take" (the stress being on "can")?

If the Americans say "I kn take it", then no confusion arises. However, if they want to put the stress on "can", then how can they make sure that the listener does not hear: "I can't take it" - which means quite the opposite? Note that this problem does not arise in the British accent. 77.124.232.245 (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is neither the American accent nor the British accent (compare received pronunciation, Cockney, Scots). At least some US accents use less word linking than e.g. Oxford English, so that it's easier to assign the syllables to individual words. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course there are some American accents, but I'm talking about the average. Almost all of (or most of) the Americans say "can't" like "can" but with a "t" at the end, don't they? Anyways, I didn't understand your answer, and I still wonder: what should the American speaker do, to make sure that the listener hears: "can take" (the stress being on "can") rather than "can't take"? 77.124.232.245 (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem certainly does arise in the British accent, just ask any Scott or someone from northern England. My experience in Yorkshire is if there is danger of misunderstanding the speaker emphasises the "can't" and makes sure that the two t's are fully pronounced (by a slight pause) . -- Q Chris (talk)

You explained what the speaker - who wants to say "can't take" - should do, to make sure that the listener does not hear "can take". However, my question has been about the opposite case: what should the speaker do, to make sure that the listener hears: "can take" (the stress being on "can") rather than "can't take"? 77.124.232.245 (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Basically the same, the Can would be emphasised and a pause to ensure the words are separated. This would be done if someone anticipated the misunderstanding, not in normal speech, for example:

A: "you can take that leaflet home" (hurriedly)

B: "Sorry, I didn't catch that"

A: "you CAN take that leaflet home, all these leaflets are free. (more slowly and deliberate)

I should add that this is all personal observation. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

When you say: /kæn...teik/ with a pause between the words, you may still be heard like a person who says "can't take" without a pause between the words. 77.124.232.245 (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In my experience unlikely, but if you were really worried you could always use different words (you aren't allowed to take... , its not possible to take ...., etc.) -- Q Chris (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

My question has been about "can't" - rather than about "not allowed to" and likewise.

Anyways, is there any difference between:

• 1. pronouncing "can take" with a pause after the "can", and:
• 2. pronouncing "can't take" without a pause after the "can't"?

If there is such a difference, could you describe it literally?

77.124.232.245 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the difference is the emphasis and the pause. If someone were emphasising "Can't" in the way you would if you were making sure you were not understood then they would certainly separate the t's. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect I didn't understand your answer: Note that I've been talking about a "can't take" whose t's are not separated. May this "can't take" be different from a "can take" whose t's are separated? 77.124.232.245 (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the context and emphasis "you CAN take" or "you CAN'T take" would key the listener to expect the speaker to be careful about separating the t's. If you are asking whether its possible to deceive a user by adding emphasis and pronouncing unseparated t's (like someone telling the "twenty sick sheep in a field" joke) then the answer is yes they could. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as the British accent in Yorkshire (and in northern England) is concerned. However, the Americans here, who have joined this thread, have claimed something different: they've claimed that "can take" is pronounced /kænteɪk/, whereas "can't take" is pronounced (in US) /kæʔteɪk/ or /keɪnteɪk/. Do you know of anything similar in Yorkshire or in northern England? 77.127.158.82 (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that I am not sure, I don't really understand the distinction they are talking about in the nasal release and nasal stop. There could be some subtle difference I'm not noticing because it is usually easy to hear the difference between "can" and "cant" even if they are both followed by a 't' in fast speech. -- Q Chris (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In most American dialects, even those in which unstressed can is pronounced /kɪn/ or /kən/, stressed can't is pronounced /kænt/. (In stereotypical backwoods dialects, it is often /keɪnt/.) Listen to Lena Lamont's attempts to learn to say "I can't stand him!" in a "cultured" accent in Singin' in the Rain; even in her exaggerated "normal" speech, the can't is understandable. Deor (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, so the Americans say "can't" like "can" but with a "t" at the end, don't they? Anyways, I didn't understand your answer, and I still wonder: what should the American speaker do, to make sure that the listener hears: "can take" (the stress being on "can") rather than "can't take"? 77.124.232.245 (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The can fully release the "n". A fully released "n" sounds quite different from an alveolar stop to an American ear. Foreigners may not hear the difference, though. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you didn't understand my question. Of course "can" and "can't" are not pronounced the same way, and I notice the difference well. However, I'm not talking about "can't", but rather about "can't take", which is supposed to be pronounced /kænteik/, isn't it? Now, if the Americans want to say "can't take", they can simply say "can't", and then they can stop for a moment - before saying "take", so that no confusion arises. However, I was not talking about Americans who want to say "can't take", but rather about Americans who want to say "can take": They are supposed to say /kænteik/, aren't they? Alternatively, they can stop between the two words, i.e. they can say /kæn...teik/. However, even when you say: /kæn...teik/, this may still be heard: "can't take" - i.e like a person who says "can't take" without a pause between the words, so my question is still relevant: what should the American speaker do, to make sure that the listener hears: "can take" (the stress being on "can") rather than "can't take"? 77.124.232.245 (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I did understand your question, and answered it. I said that they can fully release the "n". Accented "can take" and "can't take" are pronounced /kæn...(alveolar release)...teik/ and /kæn...(alveolar stop)...teik/, repectively. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have any article that deals with the difference between a nasal release and a nasal stop? I was looking for the phrase "nasal release", but - unfortunately - I found nothing. If you can give a link, I'll appreciate it.

Additionaly, can you give a pair of English words being identical except for their kind of nasal consonant (nasal release vs. nasal stop)? 77.124.232.245 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this so far, but the American pronunciation of can't is quite distinct from that of can. Now, the vowel(s) involved vary from one region to another; this tends to be a nasalized diphthong in most American English varieties when can or can't is stressed. The components of the diphthong vary regionally. Unlike British English, the vowel (diphthong) in can is identical or nearly identical to the vowel (diphthong) in can't in most varieties (though as someone else has said, some varieties have [eɪ] as the vowel in can't and a different diphthong in can). However, I think that the syllable codas are distinct and fairly universal across American English. Can ends in [n]. Can't ends in a glottal stop [ʔ]. So, for example in my variety of American English, can take is [kʲɛæ~n teɪk], while can't take is [kʲɛæ~ʔ teɪk]. (I can't find a way to put the tilde over the vowels where it belongs to indicate nasalization.) The difference in pronunciation is, I think, easy to hear. Marco polo (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

1. How about "can't find"? Is it pronounced [kʲɛæ~ʔt faind]?

2. If it is, then: can it also be pronounced [kʲɛæ~nt faind]?

3. If it can, then: can also "can't take" be pronounced [kʲɛæ~nt teɪk]?

4/ it it can, then my original question arises again. However, if your answer to my first question or to my third question is "NO", then one must conclude that the pronunciation of "can't" may vary according to the following word. I will have no further questions - only if your answer to my second question is "NO".

77.127.158.82 (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Some linguistic ideas that have not been brought up which is relevent to this discussion is the ideas of gemination and minimal pairs. Gemination#English has some relevent discussion on the matter. "Can take" and "Can't take" are a perfect example of a minimal pair, that is two words whose pronounciations differ only by a single phoneme. In this case, the phoneme is what happens between the "n" and the "t". As mentioned several times above, "Can take" is spoken with a full release between the "n" and "t" sounds, so they appear as seperate phonemes. In "Can't take" the nt appears together as sort of a "double-barreled consonant", as it does in words like "rant". The Gemination article brings up the minimal pairs of "night train" and "night rain" as another example; in this case the difference is in the "tr" letters; in "night rain" the t-r is prounounced with a full release between them. In "night train" the tr sound has that "double consonant" feel to it. --Jayron32 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The distinction between night rain and night train is similar to the one between can take and can't take. As Jayron says, they are both minimal pairs. But I don't think the distinction is really one of gemination in either case. In can't take, a glottal stop [ʔ] is followed by a [t]. In night train, a glottal stop [ʔ] is likewise followed by a [t]. There's no real gemination there. A phrase like some man has real gemination. Marco polo (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jayron32, Do you mean (as Marco Polo has expalined above) that "can't take" is pronounced as something similar to /kæʔteɪk/? If it is, then: Is "night train" pronounced as something similar to /naiʔtreɪn/? 77.127.158.82 (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, some Americans distinguish them easily by pronouncing can't as if it were spelled cain't, while others distinguish them by pronouncing can't "cahn't" (as in RP). Personally, I distinguish the strong pronunciations of can and can't as [kæ̃ːn] vs. [kæ̃t] or [kæ̃ʔ]. I don't usually have any trouble understanding other Americans when the difference between can and can't is in question, but I do sometimes have difficulty understanding foreigners speaking English, because they may not get all the phonetic cues that are normally subphonemic (vowel length, glottalization with concomitant /n/-deletion, etc.) Angr (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

1. How about "can't find"? Is it pronounced [kæ̃t faind]? or [kæ̃ʔ faind]?

2. If it is, then: can it also be pronounced [kæ̃nt faind]?

3. If it can, then: can also "can't take" be pronounced [kæ̃nt teɪk]?

4/ it it can, then my original question arises again (see the title of this thread). However, if your answer to my first question or to my third question is "NO", then one must conclude that the pronunciation of "can't" may vary according to the following word. I will have no further questions - only if your answer to my second question is "NO". 77.127.158.82 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

[kæ̃ʔ faɪnd] sounds most natural. [kæ̃t faɪnd] sounds unnatural. [kæ̃nt faɪnd] sounds OK but only as a slow, careful pronunciation. If I say can't take with the same level of carefulness as [kæ̃nt faɪnd], there will be an audible release of the first [t] and a rearticulation of the second [t], resulting in something like [kæ̃ntə̥teɪk]. Angr (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

To sum up: when referring to those American accents that don't pronounce "can't" like kahnt, "can't" is always pronounced [kæ̃ʔ], or [keɪnt] or according to a third option - that varies according to the following word: If the following word begins with any consonant other than /t/, /d/, then the third option is [kæ̃nt], whereas if the following word begins with a /t/ or a /d/, then the third option is [kæ̃ntə̥].

I wonder how it is in the British accents in northern England, where "can't" is not pronounced like kahnt. 77.127.158.82 (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

To the original question, as a Canadian I can hear the difference just fine. Generally the context will be clear, but even if it isn't, the "American accent" isn't an accent to us. One could just as easily ask the same question of other languages: how can Chinese speakers hear the differences in tones? I can't. The answer is that the were trained to hear the difference. 50.98.176.48 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course you're trained to hear the difference. The question is whether you can describe the difference literally. 77.127.158.82 (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I know you asked it, but the question seemed to me to ask how we can make sure to be clear which we intend to say. The answer is, we don't make sure to be clear because we don't need to make that distinction. We just can tell the difference. 'Can tell' and 'Can't tell' suffer the same issue you claim. Is there a difference? Yes. Can I describe it? Not really, though the attempts above pretty much cover it. Mingmingla (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I don't pronounce the 'T' in any of the won't/can't/don't type contractions. Just glottal stops. Mingmingla (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I find myself always wishing during these discussions that someone would just upload some sound clips. Rmhermen (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Something that others have hinted at is that there's usually also a difference in stress/pitch/sentence shape (whatever one wants to call it) involved. In most cases. I'd expect to hear "I can't take it" uttered as "I can't take it", whereas "I can take it" would be "I can take it" or "I can take it" or "I can take it", depending on the context. Deor (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Welsh and cornish languages

What are the differences between welsh and cornish languages? Are they mutually intelligible?--95.247.175.97 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a short discussion here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AWelsh_language/Archive_1 164.36.38.240 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC).