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

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 [1] 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 [2] 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)

Part of the confusion is that "conservative" can be both noun and adjective. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's sort of the point of my question. These 2 types of expression (X with a capital <letter>; small/capital-<letter> X) are only confusable where X can be both an adjective and a noun. I could say "He's an idiot with a capital I", but I couldn't say "He's a small-i idiot", because there are no capital-I Idiots to distinguish them from, as there's no such thing as an association, club, league or party for idiots. Or if there is, where do I get an application form? :) A capital-C Conservative is not the same thing as someone who's conservative with a capital-C. A member of the Conservative Party need not be conservative, personally; and vice-versa. A particular person could quite easily be a member of both groups, but I was talking of the ones who belong to the latter group but not the former. Now I'm confused ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:16, 6 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. If 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. If 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)

I don't understand what the OP's misunderstanding is. We pronounce "can take" with one "t" in it, and "can't take" with two "t's" in it. It ain't rocket science. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's one of the many renderings of a pop song called "Can't Take My Eyes Off You", sung here by Barry Manilow.[3] Perhaps a non-English speaker would have trouble picking up that first "t", which is softer than the second "t", but it's there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, sort of. There's a distinction to be made between phonemes and the actual spoken sound. American English speakers may recognize two distinct "t"s in a word like that, but really the first t is more like a glottal stop and the second is a voiceless alveolar plosive . The act of not recognizing the distinction is actually one of those things that makes a native speaker "native", the two sounds are considered identical in a phonemic sense, so unless native speakers are deliberately made aware of the difference, they can go their whole lives without recognizing it. Consider also the two different "p" sounds in English, which most native speakers don't even realize exist, there's a distinctly different "p" used in a word like "pit" than in a word like "spit", and some languages consider these different phonemes, and will thus regularly notice the difference as being meaningful. To a native English speaker, they perceive them as identical, because our linguistic minds are trained to treat them as identical, even if they are not. These types of multiple ways to represent the same phoneme are called Allophones. --Jayron32 19:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... are you saying I only hear it because I already know it's there? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jayron32, instead of interpreting the first t as a glottal stop, would it be true to say that can't take is pronounced like cang take (the g is not pronounced, of course)? 77.127.207.89 (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't pronounce it that way, and I don't imagine any other native speakers do... there's no reason for the /n/ in can/can't to become velar before alveolar consonant /t/. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

So, do you pronounce the first t (in can't take) like a glottal stop? 87.68.254.92 (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As in the "pat/spat" example. English-speakers dont fail to hear rhe difference between "It's Pat" and "it spat" even if they are speaking quickly, with no pause ("itspat") because they retain some vague awareness from early childhood that the two "p"s are different. So the first "voiced p" is probably at the start of a word, (therefore the word must be Pat) and the second "unvoiced p" is certainly not (so must be spat). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.239.226 (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only native speakers. The difference between "it spat" and "itsp hat" is cleary noticed, even when you're not native, unless you're a Russain (and the like), who can't hear "h"s. 87.68.254.92 (talk) 07:48, 8 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).

Just to add to that, on an episode of the BBC's Coast (TV series), a former Breton "Onion Johnny" said that they preferred to work in Wales because being Breton speakers, they were able to converse with their Welsh speaking customers. In the 19th Century, Breton and Cornish fishermen used to exchange pleasntries mid-Channel (I have a source for that somewhere). The situation is a bit unclear because some forms of the revived Cornish language such as Unified Cornish and Common Cornish, are intended to allow speakers to understand medieval Cornish texts and so include strands of Old and Middle Cornish (a bit like learning a form of English that would allow you to read Chaucer and Shakespeare without reaching for a glossary). Whether these are easier for Welsh speakers to understand than Modern Cornish, I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

January 6

Latin translation ("Let the just proceed forth")

My school's senate is looking to adopt a Latin motto. We like "let the just proceed forth"; we used Google Translate to get a rudimentary translation but that's most likely not accurate. Really, what we're looking for is something that conveys justice or progress. Suggestions are welcome if anyone wishes to opine, but for now we're going with the aforesaid motto. If anyone could provide an accurate Latin translation, it would be much appreciated. Many thanks 71.213.60.86 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, how about "Prodeant justi"? If the vexilla regis can do it, why not the just? Deor (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

However, the verb prodo seems to mean "to put something forward, bring something forth" etc., rather than "to move forward". For the latter meaning, probably progrediantur would be better. AnonMoos (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Prodeant is from prodire (pro+ire), not prodere (pro+dare). Deor's suggestion seems correct to me. Iblardi (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, guess I confused "prodant" and "prodeant"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's understandable. It happens a lot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Rhyming phrases

Hey there, I was wondering if anybody could come up with any two-word phrases that follow the pattern of "hoi polloi" or "Lean Cuisine"—where the first word is one syllable and the second word is two syllables, the second one stressed and rhyming with the first word. Thanks for your input! --Fbv65edel — t — c // 06:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Whack attack. Jack Attack. I need sleep, or I'd probably come up with more. --Jayron32 07:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Steady with that last one, boy. :)

Great debate, jai alai, beat retreat, Mean Machine, Gair Affair.

I have to explain that last one. In the USA, a major new political scandal will tend to be referred to as "something-gate", after the Watergate scandal that resulted in Nixon's resignation in August 1974. In Australia, in April of that same year 1974, the scandal that involved Senator Vince Gair was referred to as the "Gair Affair", and ever since then, any new political scandal is called the "something Affair". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

So what will happen if the USA develops a political scandal involving water? JIP | Talk 09:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Watergate has already been done, and H2O-gate or Aqua-gate don't sound so catchy. We should leave this open to the inhabitants of our little problem-child country. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the Whitewater controversy was ever called Whitewatergate (was it?), so maybe there's an issue of avoidance where the morpheme "water" is concerned. Angr (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It was generally just called "Whitewater". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly remember it being called Whitewatergate, at least on this side of the Pacific. And Google returns over 67k responses for that search. It also seems political scandals in Aus used to get called "something affairs". These days, in our seemingly increasing push to become the 51st state, ours seem to more and more be becoming 'gates' as well. Consider Utegate (which I must admit was at least a potentially semi-clever play on words). Admittedly at this stage it does seem to generally be the more minor ephemeral 'scandals' that make the press for a week or two that are '...gates', but it does appear to be becoming more common to immediately add that tag. --jjron (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Zapp Zarap --KnightMove (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

la-di-dah ---Sluzzelin talk 14:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Barely there. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Shake 'n Bake. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Stow 'n go. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sam-I-Am. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Toodle-oo. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Stan the Man. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Green machine. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Green machine" is the only one that fits the OP's specifications: (a) two words; (b) first word has one syllable; (c) second word has 2 syllables, and is stressed on the 2nd syllable. There are thousands of expressions that fit this general rhyming pattern (chew and spew), but the OP wants something quite specific. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. A textbook example of failure to read a question carefully on my part. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Loup-garou. Steve Nieve.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The last 2 words of Quick Draw McGraw would work, but we never just say "Draw McGraw". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

duck amuck, dead ahead, loose caboose, view askew, white delight, blue tattoo, ... There is something pleasant about these bouncing cretics. I knew someone who, for reasons unknown, always referred to Willy DeVille as "Will DeVille", and I thought it sounded gallant. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The rhythm reminds me of feinting, followed by the actual attack. Or maybe I just drank too much coffee again.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Biannual as a noun for a half-yearly journal?

Can you say 'a biannual' as we would say a weekly or fortnightly? mean, if you can use it as a noun, not as an adjective like in biannual journal. Which is the most common term for a journal that is published twice a year? Semi-annual, biannual, or something else? I --117.211.83.250 (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The term you're probably thinking of is biennial,[4] which actually means "evey two years". Similarly bimonthly properly mean "every two months",[5] but has become ambiguous due to the common usage of bimonthly to mean "twice a month". "Bi" doesn't mean "half", it means "two". "Semi" means "half". "Semi-monthly" and "semi-annually" are the correct and unambiguous way to say these things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think "biannual" is commonly used as a noun to refer to a journal. In the OED, I can find such substantival uses for daily, weekly, bi-weekly/fortnightly, monthly, bi-monthly, and quarterly, but not for biannual or semi-annual. "Semi-annual journal" seems to be slightly more common than "biannual journal" on Google, and it won't get confused with biennial (every two years). Lesgles (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think biannual is a perfectly good noun to use for a publication produced twice a year, and I wouldn't confuse it with a biennial (usually a plant), but I agree with Lesgles (above) that it is not in very common use, though there are over 800,000 hits for "biannual publication" in Google. Wiktionary suggest semiannual as an alternative less likely to cause confusion. Dbfirs 11:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to throw a monkey-wrench into Bugs's explanation, bi can sometimes mean "half" escpecially since half just means "two parts". Consider words like bifurcate, bisect, biramous, all mean something which is "halved" or "split in two". Certainly, "semi-" is a less ambiguous prefix (semi- never means "two"), but in a certain sense there are words meaning "half" of something which use "bi-". --Jayron32 19:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, to create 2 parts where there was one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the Wiktionary entry on biannual. --jjron (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

learning help

i have issues with rebuttals and objection handling and especially when people are sarcastic to me even kids when i know they're wrong , can anyone suggest me any site where i can download such speeches/discussions/arguments on some sensible matter so that i can download it in my ipod and learn from listening as i am a working mom and hardly find time to read. this is for my learning purpose.. any suggestions would help. thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.70.159 (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this more suited to the Humanities desk? Though language is a part it seems that the questioner is asking about social skills and conflict handling. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you state the question more clearly ? To be specific:

1) Are you the one making the rebuttal, or did you make the statement and the others made the rebuttal ?

2) What problem are you having ? Is it that you are unable to come up with a rebuttal at all ?

3) Can you give specific examples ?

One suggestion, wherever possible, is to say "I'll think about it and get back with you later", which will give you time to formulate a response. Some people lack the ability to formulate a cogent response on-the-spot, like the last President Bush. StuRat (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

i too cannot quite figure out the question, but one reply that might work on occasion is: Richard Nixon called Pierre Trudeau "that asshole". Said Trudeau about Nixon, "I've been called worse things by better people." As a bonus, most of them won't have heard of Trudeau, and some won't have heard of Nixon. IBE (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

An iTunes search for "dealing with difficult people" returns a wealth of free podcasts. I can't speak for the reliability of any of them as I haven't listened to them. You could try it with related terms as well, for example "handling rejection" also returned many results, but it was perhaps less relevant to what you're looking for. --jjron (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The development of Proto-Germanic -eu- in Dutch/Middle Low German

In (Middle) Low German there is a correlation between û (IPA [y]) and ê (/ei/) when they come from proto-germ. *eu. For example *deupaz exists as "dêp" and "dûp" (=/dyp/). Similarly, the imperative of "sên" (to see) can be se! or su! (=/sy/). (from *sehw)
My question is whether there is a similar alteration in Dutch and (and this is the part that's more important to me), whether there is a rule by which the occurrence of Y can be predicted. I remember vaguely that it depends on surrounding vowels, e.g. the presence of a U/W creates a form with Y/Ü. But I cannot make out a clear pattern.Dakhart (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The regular development of West-Germanic *eu/*iu is ê in Low Saxon and ie in German and Dutch (EN thief, NL dief, DE Dieb, NDS Deef). The [y] you mention is a result of i-umlaut of *eu. An *i in the syllable following the *eu would trigger umlaut: *steurijan would result in EN steer, NL stuiren, DE steuern, NDS stüren.

Dutch usually has this umlaut (*biuti -> EN booty, NL buit, DE Beute, NDS Büüt; *teugi -> NL tuig, DE Zeug, NDS Tüüg), but in some cases the umlaut stems from forms Dutch does not know. The plural *liudi resulted in DE Leute and NDS Lüüd, but NL lieden without umlaut, because Dutch prefers plural forms without umlaut (although a form with umlaut exist too: NL lui). The verb EN see, NL zien, DE sehen, NDS sehn does not show umlaut in its Dutch forms, because Dutch follows a verb inflection pattern different from German and Low Saxon. DE laufen -> er läuft, NDS lopen -> he löppt, NL lopen -> hij loopt. Dutch does not use umlaut in the forms of the 2nd and 3rd person, but derives these forms from the infinitive. --::Slomox:: >< 23:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

English genitive case of 'Chancellor'

Hi all,

Something I was thinking of while I was watching a news item on Sarko - when Cotam Unité goes somewhere, it's referred to as the "Presidential aircraft". When the British Prime Minister goes somewhere (including on a flying acne spot), it's the "Prime Ministerial aircraft". When Angela Merkel gets on board Konrad Adenauer, I have never heard it referred to as the "Chancellorial aircraft" - a word that sounds very odd to my ears. Is this the valid form of "Chancellor" incorporating the 'ial', or is there an alternative? Or did we just decide en masse that it sounds a bit odd so we stick to saying 'the plane/car/office of Chancellor Merkel' ? Many thanks for your thoughts --Saalstin (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but just a side comment: what you're looking for is an adjectival form, not genitive case. (Genitive case would just be "chancellor's".) rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't find anything in the OED, so there probably isn't any such word. Or if there is, it isn't well established. We are comfortable with words because other people use them, not just because they're a regular derivation. — kwami (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Chancellorial" gets over 8000 Ghits, so the OED can put that in its pipe and smoke it. Angr (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The etymolgically correct form is "cancellarial", from the Latin "cancellarius". However, it's used very rarely. "Chancellor" is derived from the French derivitive of this word. "Chancellorial" is thus a bastardized formation. However, this has nothing to do with the validity of the word, which depends on actual usage. If "chancellorial" were to catch on (which it hasn't, yet), it would be the "correct" word, regardless of it's dubious parentage. Until then, rephrasing is the best option. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What about Chancorial? It's used in Parliament - see Relations Between the Executive, the Judiciary and Parliament (p2); "if it impacts on the role of the Judiuciary then it is a Lord Chancorial role". Also the press: "the Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP, the man with the best chancorial eyebrows since Denis Healey". Alansplodge (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

With a total of eight relevant Google hits, I highly doubt that the word would ever have been heard, and probably not understood, except by a minuscule fraction of native English speakers. The pronunciation certainly does not make the connection to chancellor obvious in the absence of abundant context. However, since it is the term used by the Lord Chancellor himself, it would seem to be the most "correct" form, at least to his ear. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Arabic: Attijariwafa Bank

What does Attijariwafa mean in Arabic (or Moroccan Arabic)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.198.215 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Presumably connected with the word تجار "merchant, trader, businessman" with following adjectival (nisba) suffix, and the word وفاء with many meanings (including "faithfulness", "payment" etc.) -- though the exact nature of the grammatical construction, and where the hamza went, somewhat escapes me... AnonMoos (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please look at this page. Wafa is someone's name. Altogether they mean: Wafa Commercial Bank. --Omidinist (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

? There is nothing on that page that throws any light on the question, unless you mean that it was created from a merger of Banque Commerciale du Maroc and Wafabank. From what AnonMoos says it is possible that that "Attajari" bit comes from the Arabic name for the Banque Commerciale (though there is no evidence given for this on the pages); and it seems probable that the "Wafa" comes from "Wafabank", but there is no evidence on either page that "Wafa" is somebody's name. --ColinFine (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

However, the words in that order, and with the definite article prefixed where it is, don't really seem to conform to an ordinary basic standard Arabic grammatical construction... AnonMoos (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve McLaren

Former footballer and manager of British football (soccer) clubs, Steve McLaren usually sounds like this - [6]. He has recently gone back to managing the Dutch side FC Twente, where he is (in)famous for sounding like this [7] [8].

Do people here have a guess why his accent becomes so Dutch almost over night? Not just the accent but mannerisms, grammar/sentence structure? I know some people pick up these things but...so much? To this extent? It's very bizarre.

Any info or explanation would be good - stabs in the dark would be handy too :) doktorb _words^deeds 17:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is quite common. For example look what happened to Madonna's Detroit/Italian-American accent when she married Guy Ritchie and moved to England. Such behavior may or may not be intentional; people do sometimes change accents depending on their social situation. I mostly speak with what most would consider an "neutral" American accent, but when I am back home in New Hampshire around my family and friends I grew up with, the New England accent returns with a vengence. My wife yells at me, saying "You don't talk like that". I did for eighteen years, however. I never intentionally switch between the two, but depending on social situation (who I am with), my speech can change considerably. This is actually quite normal behavior, linguists and behavioral scientists call it Style-shifting, and people mostly do it subconsiously. They aren't necessarily being "fake" or putting on an affectation, it is just a natural way people work: their behavior reflects their social environment. It doesn't happen to the same degree in all people; some people may be more resilient in maintaining a consistent speech pattern, while others are more naturally adaptable in assuming different dialects depending on the social environment. --Jayron32 18:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Many Australians spend significant chunks of their lives in places where different English accents are used. (That's everywhere else.) The impact varies markedly. Some retain their pure Australian accent, some change dramatically. Some know they have changed. Some don't. Some do it deliberately. A close relative who spent a lot of time in the USA said she had to deliberately speak with an American accent at times simply so the natives could understand her. I've tried on several occasions to order a Coke in the USA, and failed. Haven't figured out what goes on with that one. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

But all those other examples are of people who moved to other English-speaking countries. It is unusual for a native English speaker to pick up a foreign accent when living in a non-English speaking country. I've lived in Germany for 15 years and I know Americans and Brits who have lived here far longer than I have, and none of us has picked up even a trace of a German accent. At least this fellow can still pronounce his th's, so he doesn't sound too Dutch. Angr (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Many if not most Dutch speakers also speak quite good if Dutch-accented English (I used to visit the Netherlands and Flanders regularly), and this is likely to be even more the case in a semi-international milieu like professional football which is strongly British-influenced, so it's not unlikely that Steve McLaren is effectively immersed in a Dutch-accented English-speaking environment, rather than himself speaking Dutch day-to-day (whether or not he's actually learned the latter), and be consciously and/or unconsciously adapting to that.

As Obpersonal corroboration: I myself was raised in an English environment, but moved to Scotland (Fife) in my late teens and lived there for most of seven years. I consciously began to use Scots-English vocabulary and grammar when speaking to Scots in Scotland, but did not realise that I was also unconsciously acquiring a distinct Scottish accent regardless of who I was speaking to; I only found this out when I moved back to England and relatives mentioned it to me – as a rough calibration, the politician David Steel (a Fifer) sounded neutral/baseline to me, and I hadn't even realised that he was Scottish rather than English. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.41 (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

He probably reads the Daily Telegraph and knows that Mimicking a foreign accent helps you communicate according to research by the University of Manchester and Radboud University, published in the journal Psychological Science. Alansplodge (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've lived in Sweden, which has a similar level of English-speaking among the general population (i.e. a lot). I can confirm that, almost involuntarily, within a very short time of being there I started to speak with a Swedish accent. If you have something you want to say to someone, you want to be understood, and you (or, at least, I) will try to make it as easy as possible for the listener. Therefore I was using words I would not normally use (such as 'apartment', when I would normally say 'flat', since 'flat' can also mean 'not hilly') and using slightly non-standard grammar (things like 'I have no clue about that' - closer to the direct Swedish translation than 'I have no idea'). Basically, once you use a word or phrase once and find you get blank looks, you want to find a better way to say it so you're understood next time. There was no intention from me to change my accent, or to 'put on a silly voice' when talking to the foreigners, it just happened. But it was certainly effective! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true that I mostly speak German to Germans; the few Germans I regularly speak English to are ones whose English is so good I don't have to be accommodating with mine. At least, not much: I grew up in Texas but have pretty much stopped saying y'all since coming here, because I know Germans might not understand it, or at least will find it highly amusing. And not only the Germans - if my English has changed at all, it's become slightly British-influenced because I have so many British acquaintances here from both work and church. For example, I've picked up the saying "I can't be arsed" - pronouncing the last word [ɑɹst] with my fully rhotic accent - even though I otherwise never use the word arse, but only ass. But *"I can't be assed" isn't an expression in any variety of English, so I have to use the British word. And as for "flat" vs. "apartment", I've done exactly the opposite from Cucumber Mike: I've started saying "flat" rather than "apartment" because "flat" is the word both my British friends and my German friends use (the latter having been taught it in school). Angr (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

In France everyone says "flat" to me in English, even though I say "apartment" (in my non-British English) and they say "appartement" in French. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I heard an interview McClaren gave to BBC Radio 5Live about 3 months ago, in which he said he did it for two main reasons: one, he was bored with saying the same thing to the same people so he thought he'd say it differently, and two, he thought he'd try and kid the English press that he'd completely assimilated in Holland. So it was fully intentional on McClaren's part. Speaking personally, when I moved from the Black Country to South Yorkshire, it took me no time at all to pick up quite a strong accent despite having a very strong accent of my own. I had a friend who did the opposite journey and he too changed accents. So it does happen, and I suspect it's a subconscious attempt to fit in. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

January 7

Arabic transcription

Which spelling of "Saf(f)iy(y)a(h)" is correct? --108.225.115.211 (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

See Romanization of Arabic, which describes various schemes (you really need to know the original Arabic). It's very complex, as there's no universally-used standard. Which Safiyah/etc is it? Sometimes people have a preferred transliteration, or there is a commonly-used transliteration, or you can use a style guide for a particular publication. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's for a Muslim character in a story I'm writing. --108.225.115.211 (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If I knew the Arabic-alphabet spelling, I might be able to give more advice, but "-iy(y)a(h)" is the nisba (adjectival) suffix with feminine ending (the "h" being ta marbutah). The double "yy" would only be used in rather scholarly transliterations (and not all of those), while more popular or journalistic styles might completely omit any "y". As for the "h", you're pretty much on your own, because omitting it and including it are both quite common. You can see the semi-de-facto Wikipedia practices at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic‎... AnonMoos (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. We actually have an article Saffiyah (name)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

January 8

Interpreting lyrics

From the well-known song "Well, Did You Evah!":

— Have you heard that Mimsy Starr

— Oh, what now?

— She got pinched in the Astor bar

— Sauced again, hey?

— She was stoned!

1. Who is Mimsy Starr?
2. I assume from the intonation that "pinched in the Astor bar" is a pun on "pinched in the ass", but the subsequent lines seem to suggest that "pinched" could also mean drunk. Is that right?
3. Does "stoned" mean drunk or, as now would more often be the case, high on some other drug such as cannabis?
4. Does the "Astor bar" refer to Hotel Astor (New York)? 109.151.34.151 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Stoned can mean either drunk or high[9][10], but drunk is the older sense and would be more familiar to a 50s audience. "Sauced" means drunk or under the influence of alcohol ("sauce"), and with some sources giving "stoned" as meaning "very drunk", in this context "stoned" most likely means more drunk than "sauced". (Although there may be an element of double entendre).

"Pinched" is probably a play on words; the amount of ambiguity in the lyrics is probably deliberate. It seems that the person who hears it and replies "sauced again" assumes it means drunk, even though it's less clear what the other singer means. Note that "pinched" can also mean "picked up by the police" for another possibility (see below).

Mimsy Starr is probably not a real person (at least there doesn't seem to be any evidence of anyone by that name existing), just a humorous name made up for the song. Mimsy isn't a usual first name, but Google Books gives several results from popular novels and plays of the 40s and 50s (and there was 60s actress Mimsy Farmer). Mimsy is also a slang term for the female pudenda (as are many other girls' names), though with slang it's hard to pin down how old a word is; so there may have been a risque element to this, with her name suggesting Mimsy Starr is a bit of a slut or a prostitute. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)I think "Mimsy Starr" is just made up for the purpose - that way, it can rhyme with "bar" and feel like the right sort of name as a satire (I don't think "slut" would be the aim, though). Also I think "Astor bar" is "As[short pause]tor bar", that is to say, it is a play on both meanings. And I'm fairly certain "very drunk" is intended for "stoned"; not sure, though; I think the drugs thing is more recent, and a bar would be a very odd setting for substance abuse (given that the upper-class context and date suggest cannabis is unlikely). Don't know if the Astor bar is real, but if my theory about the play on words is correct, it needn't be. It is just a theory, though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I definitely think that "Astor bar" = "bar at Hotel Astor (New York)". I agree that "pinched in the Astor bar" plays on the "nipped by the fingers" and "arrested by the cops" senses of pinched. Deor (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember the phrasing being "She got pinched in the ass-tor bar" with definite emphasis on "ass". --TammyMoet (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is no doubt that the "ass" gag is intentional. The trickier question for me is what the other, non-punning meaning of "pinched" is supposed to be. The suggestion, as you see, is that it means she was arrested (for being drunk?). 86.171.174.159 (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In many areas of the United States, one can be arrested for public intoxication. I think the "Sauced again, hey?" response implies that the responder is taking pinched in that sense. Deor (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible if Ms Starr was behaving in a very disorderly way and there was some sort of fracas. But I wouldn't think the police are routinely called to hotel bars just because some customer gets drunk. 86.171.174.159 (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the song was originally written for a Broadway musical, Hotel Astor in New York is the most likely interpretation. (Not that there are many Astor bars in the world.) --Itinerant1 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

January 9

Pi/pie

Pi is similar to pie in that they sound alike. Are there any other examples of words that sound alike, one of which is a food item, the other of which is a serious, non-gustatory entity, especially something relating to an accomplishment of mankind—either in the arts or sciences—or any other positive and affirmative realm? I'm trying to draw connections between accomplishments of humanity over our multi-thousand year history—and food items that may have (even if only in a fictional or farfetched way) sustained some of us day-to-day during that time. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Good bread comes from good bred wheat. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

(with an English near-RP accent) "paw paw" and "poor pour" (spilling juice over the table)! However my Texan wife pronounces all three differently. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Baby Ruth (candy)/Babe Ruth (sporting hero). E is a recreational drug and e is a mathematical constant. Roe is delicious tasty fish eggs, and rho has various scientific uses (e.g. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, density, type of meson). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Moo, assuming that means a tasty cow, and mu (letter)? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sole/Soul, Plaice/Place, Flounder/flounder, Spam/Spam. Though the last two are not fish. Of course for non-flat fish you have the Cod and if you had a portion of of cod or "cod piece" and then you have Codpiece. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this just a request for food puns? One obvious early cultural milestone was the worship of Cheeses, although an earlier religion with great influence was Brahmanism, with its concept of korma. In the enlightenment, much thought was given to the possibilities presented by the electrical currant, leading in due course to silicon chips, and also making it possible to become a wok musician, and perhaps develop a large flanbase.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

When I was young an apple was just a fruit. Then The Beatles created the Apple recording label and some electronics entrepreneurs created Apple. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the funny responses. You are what you eat. If it wasn't for food, could humankind have invented nuclear submarines, or performed brain surgery? Never underestimate the power of a morsel of gastronomic sustenance. Bus stop (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Foods are so highly prized that a number of them have been named after people. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Name of fallacy/rhetorical technique

The fallacy I have in mind consists of "explaining" a phenomenon by simply restating it in other, more technical terms. Such as "the meanings of words change because of semantic alteration" or "God can do anything because God is omnipotent." Does this have a name? 69.109.56.10 (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this (the original meaning of) begging the question? Angr (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The word you seek is Tautology (rhetoric), which is "is an unnecessary or unessential (and sometimes unintentional) repetition of meaning, using different and dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing (often originally from different languages)." --Jayron32 20:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought of "tautology" too, but in the end I decided that this is not really tautology. It's possible I am wrong. 86.171.174.159 (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Fake middle English

In Doomsday book, there is a number of sentences in what's supposed to be a (likely made-up) 14th century Middle English dialect. They are left untranslated in the book, I tried to google them, but didn't find any translations either. I wonder if anyone can make sense of them?

This is one of the longest:

"Wick londebay yae comen lawdayke awtreen godelae deynorm andoar sic straunguwlondes. Spekefaw eek waenoot awfthy taloorbrede."

I think it starts with "which land did you come, lady", "straunguwlondes" could be strange lands, "speke" speak, "awfthy" of thy. But I don't get the rest of it.

A dialogue:

"- Ellavih swot wardesdoor feenden iss?"
"- Maetinkerr woun dahest wexe hoordoumbe"
"- Nor nayte bawcows derouthe"
"- Certessan shreevadwomn wolde nadae seyvousy"

Another dialogue:

"-Thin keowre hoorwoun desmoortale?"
"-Got talion wottes"
"-Bere wichebay gansanon, aydreddit ister fayve riblaun"
"-Nay, Elwiss, itbahn diwolffin."

The whole thing looks like a peculiar mix of French and German, with some English thrown in, it's recorded phonetically, and word spacings may be unreliable. To illustrate what we're dealing with, some easier-to-translate sentences: "Shay pighte renninge ahndist eyres" - "She fell running (down?) the stairs". "She hathnau woundes. Hoor teres been fornaught mais gain thy pitye."

Any ideas? --Itinerant1 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of it is in fact readable, if you take it as a modern-English respelling-by-ear of an approximation of Middle English of that period and area (early 14th-century Midlands, right?) The vowel spellings suggest a Modern English spelling approximation of a pronunciation prior to the Great Vowel Shift. I can't work out all the details right now, but some details would be:

• Methink her woundes hes(t?) wexe hur dumbe.

[…]

• Certes an shreved woman wolde na deceive us(?)
• Think you hur woundes mortale?
• God alone wottes.
• […] is the fever y-blown?

Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The following is all speculative. It is a bizarre form of English (Middle) with French, hence "mais" for "but" elsewhere. Ellavihs = Eliwys, the character.

First two of a dialogue:

"Eliwys, what words do you find these to be?" "Methinks her wound has rendered her dumb." - 'wexe' as form of 'wax', "grow" or "become".

First of another dialogue: "Think you, are her wounds mortal?"

I would count on 'londes' being 'lands' as that is fine ME. In that first sentence perhaps there is a 'Normandy' in 'deynorm andoar'. 'Eek' probably for 'I (ME 'ich').--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I agree with Future Perfect too. I would modify and add: "...is her fever re-blown?" "No, Eliwys, it's been [subsiding]." I am not sure what "diwolffin" should be exactly.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• "lawdayke awtreen godelae dey..." = "lady Katreen, good lady"?
• "Bere wichebay gansanon" = "The berewic has begun to sound"?
• "Nay, Elwiss, itbahn diwolffin." = "No, Eliwys, it is the wolves"?

Iblardi (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

For context, the story here is that a time traveler is sent back to the Middle Ages, equipped with a mechanical translator that is supposed to be able to handle the language as it was spoken, but because nobody really knows much about how Middle English was actually pronounced, she finds that the translator does not work. I believe that Connie Willis constructed those sentences by taken Middle English sentences (which we understand very well in written form) and mangling the phonemes, mostly in the direction of making them more similar to the phonemes used in German. Looie496 (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It's starting to make sense to me now. In the first dialogue, "bawcows" could be "beaucoup" ("much"), "certessan" could be "certainly" :

• "Eliwys, what words do you find these to be?"
• "Methinks her wound has rendered her dumb."
• ...
• "Certainly a shreeved-woman would not deceive us." (But I'm not sure what "shreeved" means in this context.)
  • "Certainly a shrived woman would not deceive us." (The "i" in the word "shrived" was pronounced "ee", not "eye" in Middle English.) In England C14 context, a person who was dying and had made a last confession would have had their sins forgiven, and would not risk this state by telling a lie. In some common law jurisdictions this is still part of evidence law: see Dying declaration.

(Similarly, Hamlet doesn't kill Claudius while Claudius is confessing that he murdered Hamlet's father.

"Now might I do it pat, now he is praying;

And now I'll do't. And so he goes to heaven;..." Act III, scene iii, ll 73.74)

--Shirt58 (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point. This dialogue actually happens about five pages after the woman in question receives her last rites. --Itinerant1 (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Think you her wound is mortal?"
• "God only knows."

• "Berewick began sounding."
• "Edward ..."
• "Nay, Elwiss, it is a band of wolves."

Future Perfect: almost but not quite; this is supposed to be happening in the first half of the 14th century in Oxfordshire. --Itinerant1 (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I would read "itbahn diwolffin" as "it ben the wolven" > "it is the wolves" rather than "it is a band of wolves"(cf. Chaucer App., "it ben the schirrefes men" > "it is the sheriff's men") [provided that ME wolf does indeed have a plural form in -en]. Iblardi (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Also "Spekefaw eek waenoot awfthy taloorbrede." = "Speke, for ic wat nought of thy tale or brede" > "Speak, for I know nothing of thy language or breed"? Iblardi (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Similarity between spanish and english?

Could someone care to explain the (apparent) similarity between these two languages? It is obvious that there are a lot of morphological similarities between many words in both languages (also semantically, but to a slightly lesser degree), but I cannot seem to find a historical event that might explain it. Thanks in advance.190.25.95.239 (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to give us a clue to which similarities you are thinking of. English and Spanish are distantly related, but not many of the cognates are immediately obvious, so you're probably not meaning that. But English has borrowed a lot of vocabulary from French and Latin, which are more closely related to Spanish, so perhaps that is what you mean. --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that my exact question is: How come that two differently rooted languages (one being a romance language and the other being a germanic one) have so many morphological similarities (semantical too, but to a slighlty lesser degree)?

Some examples include (first is english and second is spanish):

Pain - Pena

Stranger - Extraño

Fallacy - Falacia

Science - Ciencia

Etc.

I do not think that borrowed vocabulary is exactly what I'm looking for, though it's possible I may be mistaken.190.25.95.239 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not exactly family that matters in your case, but the languages from which English borrowed - in this case, French, which is a Romance language and in the same class as Spanish. However, I may be wrong. Interchangeable|talk to me 23:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In essence, you are indeed looking for borrowed vocabulary, but English is a special case because it borrowed so many words from other languages so early in its development. The first wave of importing Romance words happened directly after the Norman conquest - the Norman invaders brought their early French language with them, and while English kept its Germanic grammar (mostly) and a core vocabulary of Germanic words, it took in tons of French words back then. The second wave came roughly in the 16th century, when it became fashionable for science and philosophy to use Latin words and English started borrowing words from Latin in bulk. many of these words became everyday words, including, incidentally, the word "science" itself. The result is a language that is still Germanic at its core but shares more than half of its everyday vocabulary with the Romance languages, including Spanish. -- Ferkelparade π 00:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Some similarities between English and Spanish are pure coincidence, such as much and mucho, which are not related at all. But most similar vocabulary is due to both English and Spanish having words of ultimately Latin origin (inherited in Spanish, borrowed either via French or directly from Latin in English). Angr (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that (at least) one of the OP's examples is a word that was borrowed from Latin by Spanish as well as by English. Fallacy comes from the Latin fallācia and the normal sound changes from Latin to Spanish would have rendered the initial "f" into a "h" (which was then lost in speech but retained in spelling). It follows it was a later borrowing of a Classical term, something which the Spanish did to enhance their language during the Renaissance just as the English did. Valiantis (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Look at the work of Jakob Grimm regarding the Indo-European languages and the changes as they evolved - it explains a lot. Collect (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

All four of your examples were borrowed into English either from French or directly from Latin. --ColinFine (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

January 10

Using the verb dominate

Suppose there are two quantities x and y, and suppose that x is much greater than y. Which, if any, of the following are correct ways to use the verb dominate?:

1. x dominates y
2. x dominates over y
3. x dominates the sum x + y

References are appreciated in case I might have to convince someone else. —Bromskloss (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, for starters, "dominate" means "to rule".[11] How does one quantity rule another? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In holdem, we say the hand AK dominates AQ. Not sure what you're getting at with the third sentence. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Dominating decision rule and mathematics terminology (in my experience) uses the same phrasing. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Dominate" is clearly used for a relationship between abstract entities in some fields (as in the examples given by Clarityfield - I guess that "holdem" is Texas hold'em poker) - but in general English - even in general mathematics - all your examples are meaningless. Is there some particular field you are discussing? --ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Are they meaningless? My intention is just to express $x\gg y$ using the word dominate. For example "the gravitational pull on the Moon is dominated by that from the Earth, i.e., the Sun has a negligible influence". —Bromskloss (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

OPTIMIZATION

Definition of OPTIMIZATION

an act, process, or methodology of making something (as a design, system, or decision) as fully perfect, functional, or effective as possible; specifically : the mathematical procedures (as finding the maximum of a function) involved in this.

I am looking for assistance with the the word Optimization. Optimé is from the Latin root optim which in English means “to be the best.” Is this accurate? Is Optimé short for Optimization? And would it be accurate for me to call my company "Optimé Group" or is "The Optimé Group" more suitable? Are you able to provide me the translation for Optimization in other languages? 04:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)202.156.10.13 (talk) 202.156.10.13 (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.13 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

OPTIMIZATION - more detail

Definition of OPTIMIZATION: an act, process, or methodology of making something (as a design, system, or decision) as fully perfect, functional, or effective as possible; specifically: the mathematical procedures (as finding the maximum of a function) involved in this.

I am looking for assistance with the the word Optimization. Optimé is from the Latin root optim which in English means “to be the best.” Is this accurate? Is Optimé short for Optimization? And would it be accurate for me to call my company "Optimé Group" or is "The Optimé Group" more suitable? Are you able to provide me the translation for Optimization in other languages? 202.156.10.13 (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Optimé" looks like a French spelling, but it doesn't mean anything in French, as far as I can tell. However, it could represent the Latin adverb optimē, which means roughly "in the best way"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. See wikt:optime... AnonMoos (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

British place name Slurvian pronunciations

Is there an article, or some rule of thumb, to aid non-British English speakers as to how real or fictional English place names are likely to be pronounced? When some writer first recorded the name of Cholmondeley, Cheshire, or the name of someone it was named for, it may well have been pronounced with four syllables, rather than as "Chum-lee." A commentator on American speech once described such US contraction and omission of sounds as "Slurvian." If Worcester had been pronounced in the old days as "Woostuh," why would it have been spelled as it is? Inhabitants of Britain can learn the correct pronunciations from the speech of news readers, or from common speech if they live near the cities, but would Brits somehow know what letters or syllables to slurviate in pronouncing placenames they read in fiction, where some of the names might be the author's invention? Are most place names pronounced as spelled (allowing for non-rhotic pronunciation) and only a select few slurviated? Are places with 3 or fewer syllables left unslurviated? Are certain syllables more likely to be glissed over than others? Would most Brits automatically pronounce (real) Towcester like "tohster" or some similar 2 syllable pronunciation if they had not heard it so pronounced? Are all "w's" omitted, and double "e's" pronounced as "short "i's" as in Greenwich? Is Cavendish, Suffolk pronounced with 3 syllables, or is it "Candish?" Lamberhurst has no pronunciation listed, so presumably it is not some contraction like "Lamb'st." If one sees a (fictional) "Heronsdene," should one mentally pronounce it as spelled,(3 syllables) or contract it somehow? How about Horsmonden? Does a Brit somehow know it is not "Horm'den" or some such, without hearing someone pronounce it? Edison (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't think there is a general answer to your question: even in travelling the relatively short distance from Ak'ne to Naaarj one will find such variations in dialect as to render any 'rules' useless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Edison -- The pronunciations that you mention can be disconcerting, and sometimes serve as quasi-shibboleths to distinguish people with local knowledge from those without, but I don't think that they're really very frequent or very important. British people might well ask what the general principle is which distinguishes the pronunciation of "Kansas" from "Arkansas" (of course there's none). And there are a lot of small towns in the U.S. which have quasi-shibboleth pronunciations (i.e. which are pronounced differently from how you would expect from the spelling) -- such as Palestine, Texas pronounced "Palesteen" etc. etc. etc.

If you want to avoid faux-pas, you can acquire a copy of Daniel Jones' pronouncing dictionary, which lists all the names with unexpected pronunciations which ca. 1950 radio newsreaders in Britain would be expected to know... AnonMoos (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the question "Does a Brit somehow know it is not "Horm'den" or some such, without hearing someone pronounce it?" is: no. However, some "difficult" place names such as Gloucester, Worcester and Bournemouth are relatively large towns, and their names would probably crop up occasionally on national radio, TV and in general conversation. Many children would therefore generalise the spelling of, say, Leicester, on that basis. I grew up in a place called Wallasey, pronounced Wollasee rather than Wallasay, and never thought it odd in any way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Even within British English, spelling pronunciations of place names sometimes arise and oust the traditional pronunciations. Cirencester used to be pronounced "Sissiter", but very rarely is nowadays. Angr (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That applies to surnames too. I know people whose surname is spelt Mainwaring, and they pronounce it as spelt, Main-waring, not the traditional Mannering. I once met a man I'd previously read about, whose surname was "St John", and I thought I was doing the right thing by addressing him as "Mr Sinjen", but he looked at me very strangely and said "It's Saint John". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Lib Dem MP Lynne Featherstone doesn't seem to ask people to call her "Fenshaw" either ;) doktorb _words^deeds 12:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

These examples and so much more are gifts/time-capsules from one era of England's decision not to have spelling rules to the modern era and we would be a lesser country without them ;) There's a good amount of the British obsession with class here too - I live near Penwortham whose population would love to have it pronounced "Pen-worth-am" to suit their income and social standing but until the Lancashire short-vowel is killed off, they have to live in the less grand sounding "Penwuth-em". I have no doubt that "Towcester" became "Toaster" for the same reason ;). In seriousness - spelling rules are alien here, and through a mixture of spelling reforms, class, and dialects, the contradictions and exceptions will always outnumber the rules. How else can "Macclesfield" not be pronounced as spelled? doktorb _words^deeds 09:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As suggested above, some of these pronunciations are unexpected to British people from different regions. When I moved to West Yorkshire, I got corrected when I accented Todmorden on the second syllable (it's accented on the first), and I was told that Slaithwaite was pronounced 'Sla-wit': so it is, but it is also pronounced as written, and I've yet to discover an explanation for who says one and who says the other. --ColinFine (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)