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

October 7

Recording session style guide?

For years I've been looking at lists of songs with recording information, and they seem to follow a fairly consistent style (even down to standard abbreviations for the instruments). But for the life of me I've never been able to find where this style is defined. Does anyone have any idea? Please note I'm interested in one for general writing rather than for Wikipedia.—Chowbok ☠ 00:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

American English vs. British English

Is there any way to find out whether British English or American English is the English of choice for those who speak English as a second language in countries in which English is not a primary language? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it would depend on who's doing the teaching and/or who wrote the texts or other teaching materials. There'd be no one-size-fits-all answer to this.

And those two are not the only possibilities. If I were teaching English to people in Mongolia, say, I doubt it would be either British or American English as such. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course there is a way to find out. What is the real question? Looie496 (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there particular countries you're wondering about? Typically, European countries and countries that were part of the British Empire in the 20th Century speak British English, whereas countries in the Western Hemisphere and East Asia tend to speak American English. Of course, there's also Canadian English, Australian English, etc., which wouldn't really be considered either "British" or "American".—Chowbok ☠ 03:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether Europeans will learn "British English", but I do know that the US had a large presence in Germany over the past 60 years, and I know quite a few Germans who learnt English in that time and who speak it with an American accent. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Simply because of its population size, there will always be a lot of Indians learning English. In most cases they will learn Indian English. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it has a lot to do with the type of English spoken by the teacher, moreso than the choice of the student. My French teacher in college was from France, and I sometimes have difficulty understanding Canadian French.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 06:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

By "speak" do we mean the choice of certain words (jumper vs sweater) or pronunciation? bamse (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

...or spelling? HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Many non-native English users I've encountered exhibit a variety of influences in their spoken and written language, depending on whether, where and with whom they studied English formally, and their exposure to the language since. To complicate matters further, the majority of the world's EFL/ESL teachers are not native speakers of English.[1] so learners, particularly in non-Anglophone countries, may well be learning from someone whose own English usage isn't typical of one particular variety. - Karenjc 10:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Anecdotally, a pair of professors, one Russian born and the other Spanish, both said they began learning English with a British accent, which they found easier to pronounce and understand. Both switched to studying American English while in Europe due to the economic advantage. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the purposes of the British Council is to promote instruction of British English to foreign language learners... AnonMoos (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What a horrible thing. --Trovatore (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we Australians will just keep teaching them Australian English. That's not horrible. HiLo48 (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"DOES THE BRITISH COUNCIL TEACH BRITISH ENGLISH?

Most of our teachers are from the UK, so you will learn more about British accents and UK culture but English is an international language.

We teach practical English that can be used in any context in any country."

http://www.britishcouncil.org/korea-english-courses-adults-faqs.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.171.180 (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I was teaching in Japan for ten years, and most schools preferred American English. I am British, and had no problem with that, but created my own school in my house, where I taught British English, and got lots of students because there appears to be some sort of prestige attached to British English. In Korea, they preferred American English, but it didn't really matter. In China, they preferred British English. Here in Hungary at my school, they teach British English. Some schools seem to have a preference based on the inability to understand that UK and US English are not as different as they think, whilst others does don't care, because English is English, and they have a business to run. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

(Anecdote:) When I was in school in Norway, we learnt British English, because that was the spelling used in our textbooks. However, due to how pervasive American pop-culture is (movies, TV-series, etc.), everyone spoke 'American' English, since that was what we were being exposed to. V85 (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Must have made you wonder why there was an extra "i" in aluminum/aluminium. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

According to Bing Translator, the Norwegian for "aluminium" is aluminium. It's aluminium in French too. You're rather out on a limb on that point I think. Alansplodge (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No, because they would have heard it on American media, as they said, without the "i" pronounced (perhaps in the phrase "aluminum siding" while watching Tin Men). StuRat (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are trying to be cheeky StuRat, or if you don't understand what people are saying here. Since I, as a Swede, have the same experience as V85 I'm joining in. If we noticed it, we obviously found the lack of "i" in the American spelling and pronunciation odd, since it is there in virtually all other languages we would have been familiar with (as West/Northern Europeans). Personally, I noticed the American pronuncation of Al in the lyrics to E-Bow the Letter, and initially thought it was just a way to make the words match the rythm of the song. In my experience, the books used for teaching English during the first couple of years all used British English, as did all tapes etc. that came with them. There was never any ban or restriction on American English though, and as soon as we were able to read regular fiction books in addition to the textbooks, these could use any variety of the language./Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Aluminum without the extra i was the choice of the discoverer, Humphry Davy, and it was a perfectly respectable choice, derived from alumina and similar to platinum and tantalum. It is unfortunate that most of the world picked up a usage proposed by some meddler who wrote in anonymously to a journal. This is one where we Yanks got it right. --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you attribute far too much power to that anonymous "meddler". All they [sic] did was to propose a new spelling. If the generality of people in the scientific community had thought it was a dumb idea, it would never have been heard of again. Interestingly, the word aluminum/ium does not appear in Humphry Davy except in a footnote. Humphry Davy does appear in aluminium, but as its namer, not its discoverer. The Etymology section is worth a read. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The truth is that relatively few people speak exclusively one variety of English all the time. Most of us who are exposed to other varieties tend to pick up bits and pieces, or more, of them. The pervasiveness of American media, and to a lesser extent British media, has wrought significant changes to other anglo-places. Case in point:

In Australia, we've always used the word alternative as both a noun and an adjective.

• You say we have no alternative (n.) but to refuse him entry. The alternative (adj.) viewpoint is to let him in but to detain him for questioning.

The American version of that would be:

• You say we have no alternative (n.) but to refuse him entry; the alternate (adj.) viewpoint is to let him in but to detain him for questioning.

We do have the word "alternate", but it was always exclusively used as a verb:

• Your mood seems to alternate between gloomy and suicidal,

and it's pronounced differently (ALL-tuh-nayt) from the American adjective alternate (ALL-tuh-nuht). America also has this verb.

Well, lately, Australian reporters have been using alternate as an adjective where we have traditionally used alternative. Some say it in the American manner (ALL-tuh-nuht), but others have made up their own pronunciation, which exists in no known dialect (all-TER-nuht).

Another case:

We're stereotypically known for addressing men generally (and some women) as "mate". When I was growing up, if mate came at the end of a sentence, it had a certain stress. Sort of like:

• "Is it gonna rain, MATE?" - "I wouldn't know, MATE". That overstates it, but you get the idea.

That all changed, and very quickly, when the TV show Minder first graced our screens in 1979. I am absolutely convinced that the Australian people picked up on that Cockney way of de-stresssing the last word, so that it's now usually:

• "Is it gonna RAIN, mate?" - "I wouldn't KNOW, mate". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine an American batting an eye at the use of alternative as an adjective. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

But do they usually choose to use it that way? Not in my experience, but yours is obviously far wider. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I would probably be more likely to use alternative, as in "an alternative method". But it would be "alternate juror", which is a set phrase. It would sound strange to hear, "You'll have to find an alternate route home." That would be "an alternative route". I just don't think there's any real difference, but each version might be used more in different contexts. μηδείς (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about this further, alternative implies some volition in the matter, while alternate usually doesn't. Divorced parents have the kids on alternate weekends. An alternate juror is a backup, not an alternative juror, as if there were some choice in the matter. If you have alternative routes you have various possible choices. If you take alternate routes that means you switch your routine according to some schedule, or are trying not to follow a predictable path because of fear of assassination. Alternate focuses on "(every) other" while alternative focuses on "option". μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

From a Canadian who uses some of both English and American styles: I've had to teach myself not to bat an eye at what I consider to be insalubrious language use. I was causing hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and giving myself eyestrain and whiplash. Bielle (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

So, Hurricane Bielle, eh. Is your last syllable pronounced like -cane, or -kən? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

How about "ell"? Bielle (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:VNE (version of 12:15, 5 October 2012) says the following in point 4.

• Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences (rather than alternate, use alternative or alternating depending on which sense is intended).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it is not necessary for schools to have a preference for US or UK English. Most of the kids are only learning it so they can pass exams, which are mostly written exams, so they only need to know the spelling. Even then, they are multiple choice anyway, so they don't even need to know that. Also, businesspeople will be interacting with people all over the world, and not just people from the US or the UK, all with varying levels of English and various types of accents, so it really doesn't matter. I met a girl in China who was really proud of her strong Georgia accent, and after a few days on a sort of business trip with her, she refused to talk to me, because she thought my UK accent was affecting hers. I told her, "It doesn't matter: language is for communication, not for sounding like you are from a place you have never even been to." If a Hungarian comes up to me and says "Áj vil nat báj zisz rekord, it iz szkrecsd," I will understand him. Seriously, it doesn't matter. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

And your surroundings matter a lot...I learnt most of my English in Ireland (Kerry), and am living in Brussels now...so my English at the moment is a bit of Irish/Dutch accent mix, which kind of flummoxes people from the United States. Are others picking up accents like that too, and change it accordingly when they are amongst others who speak English with an accent? Lectonar (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It is very common for people to change their accents depending on who they are talking to. Sometimes this is deliberate; I have been in a call-centre in the North of England where people are told to tone down their regional accents. Other times it is just hearing accents around. My wife is from Texas and living in England usually speaks with a very mild accent - some people literally cannot understand her otherwise. As soon as she gets on a phone to someone from Texas she brings on a much stronger accent, and says she doesn't realise it. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that this is termed Style-shifting. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. From travelling around a lot, I have basically lost my Liverpool accent, and I speak a mixture of US/UK English (as in, I have a standard RP accent, but it's very often rhotic, and my 'u' and 'a' vowels are still Northern), but when I return to Liverpool, the accent comes back again almost immediately, except when I am on the phone. If I use a Scouse accent abroad, I am very unlikely to be understood by anyone, and if I use the accent while I am on the phone trying to conduct business.... well, you know what I mean. However, from time to time, depending on who I am with, even in Liverpool I will drop the Scouse accent and return to my international one, to which many people remark, "Where are you from?" As an aside, there are some enclaves in the US where UK English is spoken, but with a really old Cockney style. In one film with Clint Eastwood in it, he ends up in some rural village out in the styx, and he needs to go somewhere, so he goes up to this guy and asks where the bus stops. The guy says "Right 'ere", and Clint looks around sheepishly and asks, "Where is that?", and the guy points at the ground and says "Right 'ere!!". KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly what you mean by your "a" vowel being Northern? (I get all the rest.) PS, the US accent you describe would be called hillbilly. μηδείς (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

See Northern English and Trap–bath split. KägeTorä is saying they pronounce words like "bath and "path" with the same vowel sound as "trap"; a native of Southern England would pronounce them with the same vowel sound as "palm" and "father". Gandalf61 (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"They", really? I can somewhat reluctantly accept the "singular they" in generic uses ("everybody get their coat!") but it's seriously jarring when referred to a named individual, even if you don't happen to know that person's sex. --Trovatore (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There are cases where I have good evidence about a person's sex but I use singular they in relation to them in order to respect their wish that people not assume or attribute to them any particular sex, or anything else about their personal identity. Well, one case, anyway. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

To me it comes across as seriously inferior. If it's absolutely necessary to use a sex-neutral term for a named interlocutor, then he or she or this person or other workarounds. --Trovatore (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Gandalf was referring to the pronunciation of people from the North in general, and not just mine. Hence, 'they'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh. You might be right. I hadn't considered that. --Trovatore (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No, no, Trovatore - you were right the first time. Not being aware of his or her sex, I informally used the pronoun "they" to refer to KägeTorä. I should, of course, have been more formal and called her or him "he or she". I hope she or he was not upset by my informality, and I apologise if I caused him or her any embarrassment or offended her or his sensibilities in any way. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not really informality. "Singular they" when the referent is "someone" or "anyone" has a long history. Singular they, when you have a particular person in mind, not so much, and it sounds like self-conscious PC. --Trovatore (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Trovatore - it was most kind of you to explain your point again but there was really no need. In my last post I was using a rhetorical device that we call "irony" in British Englsih. I don't know whether you have a word for that in American English. Sorry if I caused confusion. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, Gandalf. Just to clear this up, and to avoid future cross-pond warfare, I shall explain that I am a man, and 'he' is fine for me. If you would prefer to say 'they' (which I actually find very polite, rather than condescending), I shall have to get all of my multiple personalities to vote so we can have a general concensus consensus on which sounds better to us. It may take some time, however, because after all, here on Wikipedia, we are anonymous, and we are legion. :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I always thought we were few...Lectonar (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

But the number of long-time Wikipedians, who by rights should know more about consensus than anyone, but who still can't spell it, is legion.  :)

A good aide-memoire is that it's cognate with "consent", and has nothing to do with counting heads in a census. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Could it be the pronounciation which makes it so easy to confound? Or just selective perception Lectonar (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Jack. I wondered what that dotted red line was doing under it after I typed it. :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice meeting you or what?

If you get introduced to someone it's normal to say "nice meeting you". But what do you say if you get introduced, spend a couple of hours talking to someone and then it's time to say goodbye? You'll be not immediately after the introduction, so would you say "It was nice to have met you"? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Best to leave that vapid expression well alone and say something else (anything that includes "nice" is automatically vapid). How about "Hello", "Good morning", or "Pleased to meet you" when you get introduced, and "It was a pleasure meeting you" when you depart. At least you're talking about your experience ("pleasure") and your supposed feelings ("pleased"). "Nice" says nothing. Less than nothing. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"Nice" may be overused, but it's not meaningless. See def 7 here (due to many obsolete and rare defs listed first): wikt:nice. (And shall I point out that I provided a link, while you did not ?) StuRat (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said "nice" was meaningless, I said it says less than nothing. Your new contribution is welcomed, by me at least. (Your rhetoric, on the other hand ...) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

My English teacher at school always told us never to use the word 'nice', because he said it comes from Latin 'nescio', which means "I don't know". It doesn't matter where it comes from, it's what it means now that is important. If my mate buys a Ferrari and shows it to me, and then I say "Nice", it doesn't mean "I don't know." because that would be gibberish, or as Etymonline says "foolish, stupid, senseless," which would be an insult. It just means I do not want to overly commit myself with adjectives that show my true feelings (which may range from a real pleasure to downright disgust). 'Paradise' comes from an Indo-European word 'para-daiza', meaning 'something which is superbly constructed'. It doesn't matter if I go to some tropical island in the Pacific and call it 'paradise', whether it was or wasn't superbly constructed by human hands. Usage of words depends on current usage, not etymology. Also, 'nice' may be overused, but so is the verb 'to be', in that case. Both the verb 'to be' and the word 'nice' perform specific functions in the language. 'Nice' is a non-committal word which is in polite usage. "Nice meeting you" is fine. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It was a pleasure getting to know you. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I really enjoyed speaking with you. Bielle (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Although grammatically correct "It was nice to have met you" sounds somewhat unnatural to me. I would say "It was nice to meet you" or even "It was nice meeting you". I don't seem to share the prejudice against nice for use in casual conversation that the other contributors do, although I would avoid it in written communication.TheMathemagician (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

OP, may I ask - are you a native English speaker, and if so, which variety? I ask because I (Northern UK English speaker) would never say "Nice meeting you" to someone one being introduced to them: I would say "Nice/Good/Pleased to meet you", with an implicit It is ... or I am ... at the beginning. I might very well say: "Nice meeting you" on parting, where it would be shorthand for "It was nice meeting you." All stock phrases risk sounding insincere in this kind of situation, though. It's true that, leaving aside etymology, nice is an overused adjective that often sounds anodyne even when genuinely meant and can easily damn with faint praise. Medeis and Bielle's suggestions inject a little more warmth and sincerity by departing from the usual platitude. - Karenjc 15:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

To me it was nice to have met you carries a possible implication that it was formerly nice, but now no longer is, or at least I decline to assert that it remains nice. I would avoid it for that reason. It was nice meeting you, for some reason, does not trigger this nuance; I am not quite sure why. Possibly "meeting you" is a particular event in the past, and so naturally I can only say that it was nice (you wouldn't ordinarily say it is still nice meeting you), but "to have met you" is a continuing state, and if I say that that "was" nice, I invite the question whether it remains nice. --Trovatore (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the bigger issue is not in the specific formulation one chooses when meeting someone or whatever, it is all of the other stuff that goes along with the words: your intonation, your body language, the entire context of the speaking is important. Any salutation can sound insincere if its delivery is wrong, and a warmly and sincerely delivered greeting is far more likely to be received favorably regardless of the specific idiom or word choice used to deliver it. It's all in how you say it, and not necessarily in what you say. --Jayron32 19:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I go along with that 100%. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That's what I have been thinking for the whole thread. There's nothing wrong with a bland formulaic pleasantry sincerely delivered. μηδείς (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In my experience (I've lived all over the UK, but probably picked up this habit in Glasgow), when leaving someone, it is normal to have a "forwards-looking" statement anticipating our next encounter. So I would say something like "Hope to see you again soon". Bluap (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll add a warning that, like most things in UK English, it depends a lot on your relative social status. My response would be OK when talking to someone of roughly the same status (maybe 2 statuses lower or 1 status higher). Higher to lower status, saying "Pleased to have met you" is fine. Lower to higher status, I'm not sure - possibly wait for the higher-status person to make their reply. Bluap (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Nice to see you, nice". Astronaut (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

October 8

Difficult time with this bit of Brazilian Portuguese administrative language

Having a tough time figuring out what this bit of legalish administrative language from Brazil says. I've been using the aggregate translation service http://itranslate4.eu/en/ but I still can't quite figure out what this portion means "Processo MDIC/SECEX 52100.006488/2011-15". Processo is translated as "process" but I can't quite make sense of that. Does Processo mean application number? Administrative action?

"e tendo em vista o que consta do Processo MDIC/SECEX 52100.006488/2011-15 e do Parecer no 22, de 11 de julho de 2012, elaborado pelo Departamento de Defesa Comercial – DECOM desta Secretaria"

Breakneckfast (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I reckon it means a court decision. Wiktionary gives meanings "to serve a defendant with a writ or summons", "lawsuit" and "trial". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you a lot. Breakneckfast (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Alveolar trill

I've been trying to do the alveolar trill, without any success. How can I know whether I just need to work more or I have the speech impediment that makes that sound impossible? --168.7.233.164 (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You are asking for a perceptual judgment, which is impossible without a sound file uploaded by you, and a medical diagnosis, which we don't give. Upload a sound file and someone will give an opinion as to whether it's an alveolar trill, preferably with several examples in varying contexts. For the medical opinion seek a speech therapist. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney: should the "tt" be phonetically transcribed as a glottal stop?

I need the phonetic transcription of Mitt Romney into some foreign languages having a character for the glottal stop. HOOTmag (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is a hard "t" sound, unlike in "putting", which is often pronounced "pudding". StuRat (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's an exact rhyme with "bit", "fit", "hit", "kit", "lit", "pit", "sit", "wit", etc. Whatever the IPA gibberish is for those, "mitt" should be the same. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

More to the point: in some varieties of English it may be a glottal stop, but in both General American and Received pronunciation it is pronounced as /t/. The only time it would be a glottal stop is if it is being said in a dialect of English where every /t/ is substituted with /ʔ/. Those dialects exist, but they are not usually considered "standard". --Jayron32 22:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's phonemically /t/ in General American, but it might arguably be phonetically a glottal stop. It's very hard to hear the difference between an unaspirated /t/ preceding a consonant, and a glottal stop (and I think in GA it's standardly unaspirated). --Trovatore (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the difference is in the articulation of the tongue. An unaspirated t isn't a glottal stop, it's a alveolar stop, and it's articulated in a very different location: behind the teeth instead of at the back of the throat. --Jayron32 01:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, so I think AnonMoos has it right — this t is realized as a glottal stop in GA, in phrases like "night rate" or "Mitt Romney". --Trovatore (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I speak essentially General American, and I say nothing like a glottal stop there. I've also never heard a glottal stop in any other speakers of General American. It's absolutely an alveolar stop. --Jayron32 16:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, it is very hard to hear the difference, so you simply didn't notice it. If you think GA speakers don't use it, you're just wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've said it 1000 times to myself to check. The point of articulation is the tip of my tongue on the back of my teeth. The back of my throat remains open the whole time. --Jayron32 04:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I trust you that you don't say it. That doesn't mean GA speakers in general don't. --Trovatore (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In some American dialects, the word "Mitt" pronounced on its own would not be pronounced with a glottal stop, but in "Mitt Romney" pronounced as a connected phrase, the "t" could become a glottal stop (in such dialects, "night rate" could have a glottal stop, but "nitrate" wouldn't)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that 'nitrate' as well as 'night rate' and 'Mitt' would probably get a "glo'awl" stop here in "sahf Lund'n". AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's "Mitt Romney" - (can anyone tell me where the "IPA-1" userbox is located?) - in some varieties of English where the "t" is regularly replaced by glottal stop. Knock yourself out.

* Australian English: /miʕ ˈɺɔmniː/

* Bromley Contingent English: /mɪʕ ˈɺɔmni/

* Trainspotting English: /mɪʕ ˈromnɪ/

--Shirt58 (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it should be transcribed phonemically as a /t/, which is the underlying sound, whatever the surface representation. μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've emphasized: "phonetic" transcription, in order to make it clear that I'm looking for the surface transcription from GA (rather than for the underlying representation). HOOTmag (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

However, in most if not all English varieties, a t can be used in emphasised or careful speech, even though it would be replaced with a glottal stop in fast speech. A parallel is that in RP h's are often dropped in fast speech, but never in careful speech, and they should be indicated in dictionaries and pronunciation guides. Also, do you have any evidence for the glottal stop (alone) in Scottish varieties, as opposed to an alveolar stop accompanied by a glottal stop? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you have the wrong vowel in Mitt in Australian English. Unless you want to introduce him: "Meet Romney!". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Judith! As a youth I wore Thespis' buskins so I tend to be more careful with "pronounciation" [sic] than my fellow antipodeans. But I still hear myself saying the <i> in "bitter" as short version of the <ea> in "beater". Compared to other varieties of English, the AuE /ɪ/ is very close (both in the plain English sense of proximity, and phonological sense) to /i/.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Double whoops. My opinion was pure obiter, your comment should still stand.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I am still not sure what the underlying purpose is here, but the /t/ in Mitt is only preglottalized in General American, not simply replaced with a glottal stop, which sounds quite odd. See glottalization. Mitt is either said [mɪt^h], with a fully released, aspirated, and un-glottalized /t/, or [mɪˀt], with an unreleased and pre-glottalized /t/. Try saying it yourself, even in the glottalized version your tongue will contact your alveolar ridge, even if there will be no release. It will feel quite odd if you say it without articulating the alveolar stop at all. Also, if you're giving a phonetic transcription, it should be [mɪˀt] or [mɪt^h] in brackets, not a phonemic transcription between slashes.

That's news to me. I have a general American accent, and I pronounce Mitt with a glottal stop with no tongue contact with the alveolar ridge, when followed by another word such as Romney. My impression is that this is quite common. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And the article that you cite, glottalization, says To a certain extent, there is free variation in English between glottal replacement and glottal reinforcement. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly true, that when said in the context before Romney, it assimilates to the retroflex alveolar with the curled tongue making contact with the alveolar ridge, not the tip. So it's then a preglottalized retroflex. But not when "Mitt" stands alone, which is what the OP asked for and what you may notice I described. And there is simply no circumstance in General American under which the /t/ is a stand-alone glottal stop. I cannot imagine under what circumstances a layman would need to know or even understand this; perhaps the OP can clarify. Any phonetic analysis on this detailed a level will run into dialectal and idiolectal issues like the Northern cities vowel shift (which Romney seems to suffer to some extent) and become far too detailed to hold true as a general description. If the OP needs a narrow description of a single utterance that can be done, we'd need a sound file. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion that the OP wanted the word "Mitt" standing alone. The question title says "Mitt Romney", and the initial question body also says "Mitt Romney". --Trovatore (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I kind of went by the "tt" quote. In any case, the answer is no, a plain glottal stop would be wrong. I am sure that is quite clear. μηδείς (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

To make it clearer: I'm asking about phonetically transcribing "Mitt Romney", into languages having a character for the glottal stop. HOOTmag (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, you say there is simply no circumstance in General American under which the /t/ is a stand-alone glottal stop. Pretty strong statement. (1) Do you have some references for that? I'd be interested in seeing more about it. I know I've seen the contrary asserted many times, but I'm afraid I can't recall particular sources (I've read enough phonology texts that it all blurs together). (2) Are you saying that in reasonably rapid speech we Americans don't pronounce words like "button" with a pure glottal stop? I know I do, and I've heard it plenty of times. For example, I've read analyses of how the only way to distinguish "sudden" from "Sutton" is that the former has a flap while the latter has a glottal stop. (3) If what you say is true, where did I pick up the pure glottal stop in phrases like "Mitt Romney" (when spoken at normal or fast speed)? -- did I independently invent it rather than picking it up from others around me? Strikes me as unlikely. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

HOOTmag, if I understand your question right, you are asking whether you should transcribe the tt as a glottal stop if you're using a language that uses a specific character for that sound? No; I don't think in Arabic, for instance, that you would ever transcribe Mitt Romney into Arabic as مئ رومني or into Hebrew as מיא רומני, regardless of how you pronounce it in English (though I did have fun figuring out how those would be written). Lesgles (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of languages having a character for the glottal stop, e.g. Japanese (っ), Malay (k), Maltese (q), and also Arabic and Hebrew - as you've pointed out. Btw, why do you think you can't write مِئ رُومْنِي (in Arabic), or מִיאְ רוֹמְנִי (in Hebrew)? These languages do allow such a way of writing (as appearing also in the Quoran and in the Hebrew Bible). HOOTmag (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney would never be written ミッ・ロムニー in any serious article in a newspaper or magazine in Japanese, because that is childish anime writing. It is in fact written ミット・ロムニー, with the 't' clearly pronounced. The small 'tsu' is not a glottal stop in standard Japanese - it indicates a lengthening of the consonant. It is used occasionally in kids' books (and daytime TV shows which feel the need to emphasize the 'funny' thing some celeb said or did, by writing it on the screen, and repeating it several times) to indicate an abrupt end to a vowel, but not a glottal stop. Japanese does not have glottal stops. In fact, you might as well look at the Mitt Romney article, and click on the various languages on the left, to see how it is written in those languages. It's not hard, and I'm surprised no-one else has even thought of this. Also, transcribing a person's name into a language which uses the Latin alphabet does not necessarily need to have the spelling changed - Juan, for example, does not get changed to 'Huan'. Mitt Romney does not need to be changed to 'Mik Romney' for the Malaysians. Anyway, that link has both Hebrew and Arabic, and I see a clear 't' in both. Is there a specific reason you need to show your particular pronunciation, rather than the globally accepted one? Please clarify. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As to Japanese: so, our (English) article glottal stop should be changed a little bit, as far as Japanese is concerned, shouldn't it? As to other languages that use the Latin alphabet: I can't see how Maltese can spell "Mitt Romney", whereas Maltese assigns the word "mitt" for another meaning ("a hundred of"). Anyways, how about languages that don't use the Latin alphabet? I just wonder: if "Mitt Romney" is really pronounced in GA - with a glottal stop - rather than with the sound /t/ (as some editors here have claimed), then why should those languages transcribe it by the sound "t", while they don't use the original Latin character for this sound? Again, I'd like to make it clear again, that I'm referring (as I've always been) to the phonetic transcription. HOOTmag (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sokuon also says that っ/ッ is a glottal stop when it occurs at the end of the sentence. 81.159.107.204 (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it is an abrupt end to a vowel, sometimes a long vowel, and sometimes a short one. It was extremely difficult to teach an intervocalic or preconsonantal glottal stop to adult students in Japan, because many simply couldn't hear it, or distinguish it from other sounds, and even if they could, the sound was completely alien to them and they were unable to produce it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If those articles are definitely wrong then ideally they should be fixed... 81.159.107.204 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Does the Swedish Chef sing "Bort! Bort! Bort!" or "Bork! Bork! Bork!"? It may only be distinguishable to the sound producer, not the hearer. Back to Mitt Romney, when I say it my throat does have to open to produce the R sound, so although the front of the tongue on the alveolar ridge (at tt) is the more noticeable obstruction, there does appear to be a closing of the glottis as well.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to pile on: I'm another GA speaker who uses an alveolar stop here, not a glottal stop; the glottis does not close. -- Elphion (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Lesgles/HOOTmag -- the Hebrew spelling מיא רומני would not indicate a glottal stop at the end of the first word, since glottal stops at the end of a syllable had already become silent in pronunciation by the time of the Masoretic period of more than a thousand years ago. In modern Israeli Hebrew, the glottal stop is contrastive or phonemic ONLY in the context -VCV- vs. -VCʔV- (e.g. [lirot] "to shoot" vs. [lirʔot] "to see") -- and even that contrast is not necessarily preserved in colloquial or rapid speech... AnonMoos (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

October 9

Alumni of Nobel Laureates

Do these template titles make sense: Template:Alumni of Nobel Laureates from Chinese Universities, Template:Alumni of Nobel Laureates from Taiwan's Universities. I know what the templates are for but think "Alumni of" should be removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

They don't make sense to me. Could it mean "Nobel laureates who are alumni of Chinese/Tawianese Universities"? --Trovatore (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Think it should be "Chinese universities which are alma maters of Nobel laureates" based on the template contents... AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, please change that "which" to "that". --Trovatore (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

On what grounds? Other than arbitrary prescriptivism, I mean. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. These 3 statements all mean different things:

• The cat, which ate the rat, is satisfied.

• = The cat is satisfied + the cat ate the rat

• The cat that ate the rat is satisfied.

• = One cat is satisfied, viz. the one that ate the rat

• The cat which ate the rat is satisfied.

• = A poor man's version of the above.

But see English relative clauses#That or which for a differently nuanced view. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Are these templates intended for the university articles or the laureates' biographies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodger67 (talk • contribs)

I didn't make or use them but just came by them and wondered about the odd wording. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Alumni of Nobel Laureates from Chinese Universities and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Alumni of Nobel Laureates from Taiwan's Universities shows they are currently only used in university articles. I haven't found similar templates for other countries or universities. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The templates list universities, with the laureates in parentheses, so I agree with AnonMoos' wording. (I'm that/which blind myself.)--Wikimedes (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(Venezuelan) Spanish translation - "mujanches"

I have seen many Venezuelans using this word as an insult against anti-Chavistas, but I don't know what it means, and the online translators don't seem to either. --149.135.146.66 (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It is 'majunches', and means "Person who lacks appeal or qualities, insignificant, mediocre, says things that are not, or are not as necessary or desired; poor quality, regular". KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

garnish

Please help me. This is driving me crazy. When did they start using the word garnish for garanshee? I presume they have. It seems to me that this is the sort of thing that is bringing America'd education down. Instead of insisting that students learn and use proper language and grammer, we just change the words to make it easier. Our students need to exercise their brains and learn the correct terms. If you garnish my wages (and I surely wish that someone would) the only way to do that ais to tack a nice hefty bonus to my paycheck. It really doesn't seem all that big of a deal....except thst I hear teacher after using very poor grammer. I really don't like these teachers teaching my grandchildren anything.

What can I do to help stop this and help our leaders to see what is going wrong fwith our education system?

Thank you so much for your time.

Bonnie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.217.128 (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

To "garnishee" someone's wages is to remove some of it to pay a debt to a third party, and the employee is paid what's left over. The process is known as garnishment. It's often done by way of a court order that's incumbent on the employer, who is required to divert a proportion of the wage to the taxation authorities or whoever is owed the money. I'm sure some people confuse garnishee and garnish, which, as you say, means something quite different. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's hold on here. Garnish is perfectly normal to use in this situation, and is actually the older verb (1577 in the OED in this sense). Garnishee, like most -ee words (payee, etc.), was first a noun, referring to the person whose wages are garnished. It later came to be used also as a synonym of garnish (1892). Most dictionaries list both; Merriam-Webster has the main entry at garnishee, with a cross-reference from garnish, while Oxford puts the main entry under garnish. I myself have only heard of garnishing wages (though I haven't heard the word that many times in general). Lesgles (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Never heard of "garanshee" or "garnishee". Is it an American thing? Alansplodge (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

To "garnishee someone's wages" is well-known down here. It's probably at the same level of correctness of language as to "go guarantor" for somebody, but it has idiomatic authority; and it turns up in official places – see [2], [3].

It's a well-known concept in British law too. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The concept may be well known, but I contend that the word itself is rarely or never used in the UK. See the British Government's online resource for businesses page about Pay - an overview of obligations - Making deductions which describes how employers can make deductions from an employee's wages (which seems to be what we're discussing), without ever once using the words "garnish" or "garnishee". Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It might be useful to link to the WP article - Garnishment, which is alas Americocentric. Garnish used to be in common usage in the UK among those people and organisations who made use of Garnishee Orders. (I had occasional dealings with this in my work life and have certainly uttered the phrase "Could we garnish his bank account?" in the past). The term is less common in the UK now due to changes in the law a decade or so ago which saw the Garnishee Order renamed as a Third Party Debt Order. The Direct.Gov site gives a brief overview of this [4] and uses the new name Third Party Debt Order whilst this site [5] seems to set things out with more historical information and refers to Garnishee Orders. The link Alansplodge includes refers briefly to deductions due to court orders, and a Garnishee Order would be one of these (historically), though it tended to be used to claim money in a bank account, whereas an Attachment of Earnings Order would generally be used in England and Wales - I believe Scotland has different means to enforce debt - to enforce deduction of money from wages to pay a debt. However I'd understand any claim on money held by a third party that belongs to or is owed to the debtor to be a type of garnishment. The garnishee is actually the third party, not the debtor himself [6]. Valiantis (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I did provide that link in my initial response to the question. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear answer Valiantis. Sorry Jack, I looked at that link but assumed it was Americanese, because it also included the word "paycheck". Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"Garanshee" seems to be a confusion between "garnishee" and "guarantee". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I always thought a garanshee was one of those evil female lawyer spirits wandering the bayous, leading poor young men to their deaths. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I used to work for our state Revenue agency. Under law, the verb is "to garnish"; the subject of the action is the "garnishee"; and the action is called "garnishment"; Wisconsin law, at least, recognizes no such verb as "to garnishee". There is not nor has there ever been such a word as "garanshee" (as noun or verb). The biggest garnishment I ever issued, if I recall correctly, was for just over US$6.1 million; the garnishee whose salary I was told to garnish was a highly-paid professional working for an institution I shall not name. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As with many words, usage varies from place to place. Wiktionary recognises garnishee as both a noun and a verb. The 5th definition of the verb to garnish is: (law) To warn by garnishment; to give notice to; to garnishee. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"garanshee" or "garnishee" both sound wrong to my British ears, but they do exist in the Oxford English Dictionary. I would understand the verb "garnish" to mean either the action of equipping something (especially food), or adding something to the money you receive by slightly dubious means. As a noun I would restrict it to an item you add to your food. Astronaut (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Astronaut, even in Britain the orders are referred to as "garnishee orders". There's no such word as garanshee - the OP made it up. Both "to garnish" and "garnishee (orders)" would be familiar in Britain to lawyers and those who work in the quasi-legal debt and credit industry. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

So the answer to the OP is: they started to use "garnish" in this meaning before they started to use "garnishee". It is perfectly possible for English words to have two, three, or sixty different meanings. You are entitled to your personal preferences, but the fact that you happen to be unfamiliar with one meaning of a word does not to me seem to justify your slur on a whole generation of students, or indeed on anybody at all. --ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The OP needs to read the EO entry,[7] from which he can infer why "garnish" is used the way it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

October 10

Does Japanese text name plant?

click to enlarge

Can someone who reads Japanese advise if the plant is identified? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it just has some descriptions of various parts of the plant, such as colour, etc. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you be specific as to color? Is the flower described as aoi or more specifically?

It actually says 'murasaki', which means 'purple', not 'blue'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you please translate it word for word Paul venter (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I would, but to be honest, it's calligraphic writing, and small, and hard to read. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Finally identified as Papaver somniferum var paeoniflorum Paul venter (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"Since biblical times" - literal or metaphorical?

I was reading this page by PubMed, and saw this one-liner that caught my attention: "Leprosy is a disease that has been known since biblical times". First of all, is "biblical times" an actual time period in history? If so, does that imply people of other nations that do not know the Bible know no concept of this disease? I do recognize that leprosy is written or mentioned in the Bible, so that implies that during the time it was written, people had contact with leprosy. However, just because something is written or mentioned in the Bible does not necessarily mean that it does not exist prior to the written word of the Bible. Human prehistory is far longer than human history, unless leprosy is a relatively new disease that first appeared and infected humans "during Biblical times". I think the author means, in other words, that "Leprosy is a disease that has always been known in recorded human history." Still, I am wondering whether "since biblical times" means the time period between the supposed biblical creation story and the contemporary setting (time and place) of the chronologically last written book of the Bible, or it may mean "since ancient days". Oh, am I just asking a largely opinionated question that depends on context? How do I know and understand what context this PubMed article is using? Did biblical times end with the deaths of all the apostles? 140.254.226.239 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You're reading far too much into the phrase. It simply alludes to leprosy being mentioned in the Bible, so it's been around since whenever (some part of) the Bible was written -- which of course does not date the reference very precisely. The author is not trying to pin down the date, just adducing evidence that it's been around for a while. -- Elphion (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll take that as 'metaphorical'. Thanks. It's been bugging me for a while. 140.254.226.239 (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, in normal idiomatic English, the phrase "since Biblical times" implies a minimum period of time during which the disease has been known: i.e., since the disease was described in one or more of the books of the Bible; and at all times since then. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would say it's literal, not metaphorical -- just not very precise. -- Elphion (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just refering to the time period covered by the Bible, roughly 1000 BC - 100 AD or so. A big time span, yes, but calling something "Biblical times" just means dating it to that time period, not just to the Levant and Egypt and Mesopotamia. Something occuring in China in 500 BC could be accurately described as "during Biblical times", though it wouldn't be often said that way. But it wouldn't be wrong in any way. --Jayron32 18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The writer could just as well have written "It's mentioned in the Bible, so we know it's been around since at least that long ago". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I learned before that Isaac Newton used the Bible to date the age of the earth. Back then, he presumably thought the Bible was an "accurate" source for truth, so he used the Bible to approximate the age of the earth, which arrived at roughly 6000 years. In that case, would "biblical times" be anywhere from 6000 years ago to the first century AD? 140.254.226.239 (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it depends again on how you define your terms. The "traditional narrative" of the bible is taken to mean by some people in some traditions that the Bible positively and unequivocally dates the Creation to 4004 BC. That's not what I would call a universally accepted interpretation. Instead, if you consider the Bible to be a historical text on the Hebrew nation, you can date certain events into their historical context from other sources, and come up with a rough timeline of events in the bible, especially in the stories after the Pentateuch and Joshua (fitting the chronology of Genesis in with the rest of the Hebrew bible is somewhat problematic, and supporting evidence for the Hebrew nation in Egypt or the events of the Exodus is similarly lacking). However, starting with the period of the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), the dates become easier to verify in concrete terms and with reliable support from archeological and secondary historical sources, and that dates from around 1000 BC. You could probably extrapolate, therefore, that the period of the Book of Judges to be the 300 or so years before that. So, 1000 BC is a very rough estimate, but it is probably close enough to the actual time when the Hebrew people coalesced into a distinct nation apart from other Levantine peoples. --Jayron32 19:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If you mean by 'nation' that they had a king then ok, but Israel as a people is already (likely) mentioned in the late 13th century BC by pharaoh Merneptah. - Lindert (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have checked out those two webpages, and it looks like the Book of Judges is said to be written by divinely inspired judges. What does it mean? I do not know. However, it appears that people in the past were so religious back then that religion became real, and they could not distinguish actual reality from what they perceived as reality during that time. 140.254.226.239 (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There are old earth creationism and young earth creationism.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec)It was James Ussher, a 17^th century Archbishop of Armagh who made the calculation of 4004 B.C. being the date of creation. Astronaut (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

He's certainly not the only one who used the Bible to date the age of the Earth. Modern people would probably scratch their heads why they would rely on a religious text. One may infer that those people probably thought that the Bible told the truth about the world, and trusted that the Bible could accurately tell people about the world. Isaac Newton, as shown here, is another. 140.254.226.239 (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

So would earlier people: it's very much Enlightenment Era thinking to take a religious and poetic text and calculate a rigid, measurable timeline from it. It makes me imagine him taking a ruler to the Hereford Mappa Mundi, and thus 'determining' where places are. He'd probably think it showed a flat Earth. 86.159.77.170 (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This press release from the Pasteur Institute says "Ancient texts describe the presence of leprosy in China, India and Egypt around 600 B.C." Astronaut (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that is more clear than "since biblical times"! 140.254.226.239 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Anyway, there's actually some doubt whether what is translated as "leprosy" in the KJV (i.e. Hebrew צרעת) is the same as Hansen's disease as known today (see Tzaraath#Interpretations)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

More than doubt... The description of tzara'at in Lev 13-14 isn't the least bit similar to Hansen's disease. (It sounds more like psychosomatically caused vitilgo or psoriasis, but that's a tangent.) KJV took the Septuagint's λέπρα and utilized the nearest English word, leprosy. micha (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Leprosy is also mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi, although it likewise may not be Hansen's disease. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Can these words be used interchangeably? (churchgoer, church member, parishioner, etc.)

• Emily is a parishioner.
• Emily is a churchgoer.
• Emily is a church member.
• Emily is a church attendant.
• Emily is a church attendee.
• Emily is a disciple.
• Emily is a follower.
• Emily is an apostle.
• Emily is a member of the parish.
• Emily is a parish member.
• Emily is affiliated with the church.
• Emily is a [insert religion or religous denomination here].

So many words. They all seem to describe the same thing to me! 140.254.226.239 (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at all -- most have different connotations, depending on the denomination. A churchgoer need not be a member of (or even affiliated with) any church. Most liberal denominations don't have disciples, followers, or apostles. A church need not have an associated parish (geographical area), so even members are not necessarily parishioners. -- Elphion (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, "attendant" seems wrong here, more like somebody who attends to the details of church services, like turning the lights and heat on, etc. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, they are all distinct. Many churches have formal membership requirements that are distinct from the right to attend. You can go to a church for many years and never have followed the specific steps required to apply for and receive membership. Also, some of these terms are specific to certain denominations or used differently depending on the denomination. Let me try to define them as I best understand them.

• A "parishioner" is a member of a "parish"; a parish is a specific sort of territorial designation in Catholicism, for example, but unknown as a designation in many other denominations. Thus, a full member of a Catholic Church can be described as a Parishioner, but not one of a Baptist Church.
• A churchgoer is someone that physically shows up at church on a regular basis. A person doesn't need to belong to the church to attend it, nor do they even, strictly, have to be a believer.
• A church member, as noted, is someone that has gone through the formal process to "join" the church. Anyone can attend the church, but certain activities involving the governance of the church are often restricted to members. For example, Baptist churches are governed by a form of direct democracy where all decisions are voted on by the Church Membership. The right to vote in Church Council (or whatever the local name is) and to serve on Church Committees is restricted to members of the church, and not just to "churchgoers".
• Attendant and attendee are synonyms, and their both equivalent to "churchgoer".
• A follower, disciple, and apostle are specifically usually reserved for earnest believers in Christianity. Strictly speaking, one does not have to regularly attend a specific church to be a "follower" or "disciple", nor does one need to be a member. Those terms may be reappropriated in some specific congregations or denominations to refer to certain levels of "membership", but in most cases they just mean "a practicing Christian".
• Parish member is equivalent to parishioner: a full member of a church organized into parishes.
• "Affiliated with" is very vague, and could mean anything. Some people attend a church and never become a member. Some people establish a membership with one church, but don't specifically attend it (for example, they may have been regular attenders and members, but attend a different church, stop attending for personal reasons, or even are involved in missionary work and so don't live near their "home church"). It could also just mean the same thing as "attends the church". Almost impossible to distinguish without context.

I hope all that makes sense. --Jayron32 20:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

So, what does it mean that Phillip Pirrup from Great Expectations has a father who is "late of this parish" and a mother who is "wife of the above"? Why would someone attend church when that person is not a believer in the first place? What does that say about statistics that record # of Christians based on church attendance? What about the # of Christians who do not attend church but worship privately in their own homes in fear of religious persecution in their particular geographic location?140.254.226.239 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Pip's parents are buried in an Anglican graveyard. "Late of this parish" just means "used to live in the area associated with this church". It makes no claim as to his belonging to the church. (One of Graham Oakley's 'Church Mice' books includes, as a visual gag, a memorial tablet to one 'Richard Turpin... late of this parish, who departed this life suddenly at Tyburn'.)

People's attendance at church is dictated partly by belief, and partly by other social conventions. Many more people attend for Christmas and Easter, and for family events such as baptisms, weddings and funerals, than attend Sunday by Sunday. The specific reasons depend in a trivial sense on the individual's own preferences and experiences, and in a less trivial sense on the denomination involved.

Anglicanism, at least, is a faith which one participates in as much as believes in. Although reciting the creed is a part of worship, it's immediately apparent in most congregations that it is the act of being present and sharing both the symbolic meal of Holy Communion, and the actual meal of tea and biscuits afterwards, with one's fellow congregants, that is the focal element of the faith. It's not a philosophy class; it's a community.

It's widely known that about 1 million Anglicans and 1 million Catholics in the UK attend church week by week. (About 1 million Muslims go to Mosque on a Friday, too.) But vastly more go at Christmas. And more than half the population puts down 'Church of England' or an equivalent term on their census returns and the like. Attendance is arguably a better measure of active participation in the faith than simply what is recorded in surveys.

Private worship in time of persecution is harder to get statistics on. It also arguably changes the political and communal character of worship. If praying together is a sign of resistance against oppression, that factor will enter into people's decision to participate or abstain. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

See also Civil parishes in England. —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) I'm going to disagree with Jayron here - or at least, provide different answers, from my Anglican perspective:

Emily is a parishioner. - She lives in the parish, which is a geographical area. Would need to be qualified, implicitly or explicitly, with the name of the parish. This would be the dedication and location of the parish's main church - e.g. "a parishioner of St Muriel's, Little Whinging", or whatever. Used without qualification, it would mean the parish associated with a church, priest, or official already under discussion.

Emily is a churchgoer. - She attends a church (not necessarily of any specific denomination) on at least a semi-regular basis.

Emily is a church member. - She is at least one of: (a) a very regular attendee, an integral member of the church as community (b) a confirmed member of the denomination, and thus a communicant member of the wider church body or (c) a member of the electoral roll, and thus a member of the church for political purposes.

Emily is a church attendant. - Technically the same as the next, but would generally be understood to mean that she is either a sidesman (a volunteer who assists by giving out prayer books before services, takes the collection, and so on) or a verger (a paid employee who cleans and maintains the building).

Emily is a church attendee. - Same as 'churchgoer' above.

Emily is a disciple. - Not normally used. "The disciples", without qualification, tends to mean the people who followed Jesus during his earthly life. If Emily is a disciple of some named person (probably a priest or philosopher) it would mean she followed that person's teaching, without necessarily attending their church.

Emily is a follower. - Not normally used, but could refer to following a philosophy or style of churchmanship.

Emily is an apostle. - Not normally used. "The apostles" normally means Jesus' closest 12 followers, plus St Matthias (who was elected to replace Judas Iscariot), St Paul (who was 'the last apostle', 'the apostle to the gentiles'), and St Mary Magdalene (called 'the apostle to the apostles' for her role in the resurrection story. If Emily is described as an apostle of something or someone, it might mean she was an especially zealous, vigorous or inspired promoter of that thing.

Emily is a member of the parish. - Ambiguous. Might mean 'parishioner', might mean any of th meanings under 'church member'.

Emily is a parish member. - As above.

Emily is affiliated with the church. - She goes to the church in question to worship or for other purposes, and might be on the electoral role. She might or might not also do those things somewhere else as well.

Emily is a [insert religion or religous denomination here]. - "...Christian" = she believes in at least a basic Christian creed. "...Anglican" = when she worships, she does so in the Church of England. "...Catholic" = was brought up in the (Roman) Catholic church, and if she goes anywhere, she goes there.

AlexTiefling (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

So, if Emily is affiliated with the Church of Denmark, then she would be considered a "...Danish". She would be brought up in the Church of Denmark, or "Danish Christian". 140.254.226.239 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"...Danish Christian" just implies 'both Danish and Christian', without comment as to the denomination. I'd tend to describe a member of the Church of Denmark as a "Danish Lutheran". Certainly when I describe members of the Church of Sweden as "Swedish Lutherans", no-one seems confused. I am sure this is somewhat unfair to members of non-established Lutheran free churches in Scandinavia, but this sort of question arises in contexts where 'Episcopalian', 'Catholic' and 'Orthodox' are used with too little or too much specificity, too. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Parish member and parishioner are exact synonyms. Church attendant and church attendee are exact synonyms, and close enough to church goer that the latter would in most cases be an exact synonym, although attendant usually refers to a specific church she attends, while goer may mean she shops around. None of the before terms and none of the unmentioned terms means the same thing, see above. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

To re-emphasise: in the Anglican context, being a parishioner does not imply being a church member. The entire country is divided into Anglican parishes, and everyone is therefore a parishioner of some parish. As the Church of England is a state church, this matters, because you have a right to be married (unless some other factor prevents it) in your own parish church. 'Parish member' sits awkwardly in this context, and would not normally be used, but definitely implies some level of participation, which 'parishioner' does not. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask - is the attendant/attendee correlation maybe a US/Canadian English thing? In British English "attendant" and "attendee" generally have distinct and different meanings. "Attendant" is a noun implying some kind of official position - you might have a cloakroom attendant at a theatre or restaurant, or a petrol pump attendant in a filling station where there is no self service - and it is also an adjective meaning "concomitant". "Attendee", on the other hand, is someone who attends something. I see dictionary definitions that combine the two, but I've never heard the latter in place of the former in actual usage. We also have "attender", which means the same as "attendee". - Karenjc 22:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Many of the above are interchangeable, depending on the context. (also, communicant). But the Dickens example looks, from the bit that was given, to be referring to where the man had lived. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I still say that "attendant" has a different meaning, as in a "gas station attendant". That doesn't mean anybody who shows up at the gas station, it means somebody who works there. StuRat (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You would likely know from context, whether Emily has some church job or she just attends church. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Stu here. An attendant is someone who attends to things, meaning they have some official function to perform in the running of the event. People who simply attend events are spectators or members of the audience or the congregation. They could be called attendees. Attendants provide services to attendees. Both attendees and attendants are in attendance. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

For the writer, it's doubtful language need be that rigid. Of course, "attendant" in church contexts is perhaps most often used with respect to weddings, but it's doubtful that Emily is a wedding attendant, otherwise that more usual phrase is what likely would have been written. Perhaps, if a writer wants to convey that Emily is comparatively serious about churchgoing, she might consider that word form. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think we're all dickering over some of rather small difference here. The bigger point that needs to be made is of three or four overlapping ideas.

• Terms which refer to attendance of church (showing up and sitting through worship service)
• Terms which refer to membership of a church (which allows certain privileges not available to people who just show up: In some denominations, the right to take communion is contingent on membership, in other the right to participate in church governance, etc. etc.)
• Terms which refer to belief in the tenets of Christianity (which are not necessarily identical between denominations, and which also are not necessarily completely overlapping with other categories)
• Terms which refer to geographic organization of the church structure (for some denominations, people are assigned to a "home church" based on where they live.)

Every different Christian denomination is going to have a different take on these issues, so they're going to use different terms, different words, and sometimes what means one thing in one church means something different in another. But, broadly speaking, most denominations would recognize distinctions between beliefs, attendance, and membership. --Jayron32 01:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Attendant can mean both someone serving a function and simply one who is present.[8] In the one sense it is synonymous with attendee as stated, in the other it is different in meaning from all the rest. I am a little surprised at suggestions that language need not be very specific. These words all have well definable meanings in their contexts and except for the parish- and sometimes the attend- ones cannot simply be interchanged. Is there some specific ontext here? Because otherwise this question is just an invitation to debate and for a forum, not here. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

October 11

Nothing is impossible OR impossible is nothing

What's the difference stylistically and grammatically between both sentences? OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The first statement is another way of saying 'everything is possible'. It's grammatically fine to express the thought in either way, although saying 'nothing is impossible' is a good way to reply to someone telling you something can't be done.

The second statement is, on the face of it, grammatically incorrect. The word order is wrong - it sounds like something Yoda would say. However, spoken with a certain emphasis: "impossible is nothing!", it can mean something like 'I am prepared/able to do absolutely anything, including things others consider impossible, and to go even further than that'. It would be fine in advertising copy or political speech writing, but probably wouldn't work well in a formal report, for example. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The second one seems to be invoking the Use-mention distinction: "'Impossible' is nothing!" = "Claims of impossibility are as nothing to me!" AlexTiefling (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is the subject and is impossible is a predicative expression that describes it. The latter comprises a linking verb or copula, and a predicative adjective. English relies mainly on word order to identify the subject and object of a sentence, whereas some other languages actually mark them by changing them. See Subject-verb-object. It's possible to read the second sentence in the way Mike and Alex have suggested, in which case impossible is the subject and nothing is a predicative nominal. In theory, inversion could also allow nothing to remain the subject - for example, compare with Tender Is The Night. But it sounds odd and mannered, and isn't the first assumption a native speaker would make on reading the phrase. - Karenjc 15:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to correct something that Cucumber Mike said, "Nothing is impossible" is not necessarily the exact same meaning as "everything is possible". The concept of Litotes shows how double negation isn't always equivalent to no negation at all. It may be the sense the speaker is trying to convey, but it doesn't have to be. If I say "She's not ugly", I could mean either "She's plain looking, but not offensive" or I could mean "She's smokin' hot". The second usage would be the use of litotes, but it isn't always clear without some context, such as the body language or intonation of the speaker, or the nature of the conversation to know what the exact meaning of a phrase like that is. For example, if two friends are discussing a third friend, and the one said "She's hideous!" and the second said "Well, she's not ugly!", that's the first usage. If the two friends conversation went this way Friend 1: "Damn she's fine looking". Friend 2: "Well, she's not ugly!", that's the second. It only takes a subtle change of context to completely change the meaning of a phrase. For a humorous example, see this video, fast forward to 2:00. --Jayron32 16:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)ʙ̩

No, you're right. I expressed myself badly. I meant to get over the point that, if your friend tells you he wants to have his 21st birthday party on the Moon, you can say 'Hey, everything's possible' or 'Hey, nothing's impossible' and be fine, grammatically speaking, either way. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Grammatically yes. Semantically, not at all. --Jayron32 16:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime I found a WK link to Impossible Is Nothing (video résumé) confirming that it sounds mannered, but the author appears to be a native speaker. I am aware that the second sentence is much less uncommon, but does that make it ungrammatical? I thought that it was a way to putting stress on 'nothing' instead of on 'impossible.' The phrase was also used by Adidas, probably taking some liberty to break the grammar for marketing purposes. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, the two statements in no way mean the same thing. They are not simply restatements of each other. The second statement undoubtedly does not follow normal, standard rules of English grammar. However, there are times when it can be useful to break the rules in order to emphasise a point - something like when Shakespeare has Julius Caesar say "This was the most unkindest cut of all." I'm sure there's a word for this practice, but I can't think of it right now. Someone will be along shortly to rescue me. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Consider this paraphrase of Alice in Wonderland:

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."

"Impossible?" scoffed the Queen. "Impossible is nothing." "When I was younger, I would practice for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Help fixing an apparent translation from Italian

The article Aliprandi looks like it's been badly translated, either in part or in full, from the Italian version of the article, it:Aliprandi. Could someone with appropriate skills possibly fix up or delete the sentences that don't make much sense in the English version? --Dweller (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Russian help

What are the Russian words in File:Brightonbeachbrooklyn.JPG? Some of one is obscured by a pillar. Can you figure out the full word? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

My knowlegde of Cyrillic letters is limited (and my knowledge of Russian practically non-existent), but the obscured words read Чёрное море, meaning "Black Sea". The first word is "Magasin" meaning "shop", so I'd bet the whole thing reads "Black Sea bookstore", just as the shop's English name --Ferkelparade π 16:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, except that that's a z in магазин "magazin". μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The other word is knigi, "books". 109.99.71.97 (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

МАГАЗИН КНИГИ ЧЕРНОЕ МОРЕ. The diaeresis of the letter Ё is not actually obligatory in Russian spelling; see halfway down the #Russian section of Yo (Cyrillic). --Theurgist (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Anyway, what is the Russian at File:Storefront of NY Central Pharmacy.jpg? Also, would anyone mind adding a Russian language description to File:Brightonbeachbrooklyn.JPG? Found a description on the Russian Wikipedia. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That's центральная аптека, tsentral'naja apteka, "central apothecary" (i.e. drugstore). μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! It would be nice to have a Russian description for File:Storefront of NY Central Pharmacy.jpg as well WhisperToMe (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't speak standard Russian, so am afraid to compose it myself, others here are competent to do so. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Just added a Russian description. Lesgles (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Chinese sources -> English

I'm working on the State Grid Corporation of China, one of the biggest companies in the world according to Wikipedia[9], but as a Chinese-only company, most of their sources are in Chinese.

I have done the best I can to improve the article with the English sources I can find. Does anyone have some guidance on how to (a) see if there is a better version in the Chinese Wikipedia that can be translated or (b) a good way to to get a translation of the sources? Corporate 19:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Visit the article at zh:国家电网 and then find a user who speaks good English (EN-3 to 5 or N) on ZH Wikipedia, and see if they can help WhisperToMe (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Do a google translate, pick out the paragraphs that look interesting, and post them here, plenty of native speakers of Chinese are active here. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"Nicholas" with an "M"

Can anyone explain how in a group of central and eastern European languages, the variant of the name Nicholas begins with an M? It seems to be in Polish, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian (but not any related language), Lithuanian (but not Latvian), Belarusian and Ukrainian (but not Russian). Clearly an areal feature (possibly corresponding with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), but how and why did it occur? 93.96.208.82 (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The name is also used in Ruthenian and, according to Babynames.com, in Finnish. A search at Google Scholar doesn't return anything useful. My suspicion is it is due to interference from the name Mikhail. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

See, and I was thinking that there was some sort of transition, akin to Grimm's law in western Languages, that perhaps those languages have some sort of N-->M shift present in many words. I don't speak any of them, but are there other analogues where N words in Western European languages are M words in the cognate in Eastern European languages? Maybe in all positions, maybe only in initial positions, maybe when followed by a vowel? I only ask because my 3-year old son (an obvious native English speaker, but a very young one) confuses and swaps "N" and "M" sometimes (my favorite is that he says "Lenomade" for Lemonade and "Walnart" for "Walmart". Otherwise, he's quite eloquent). So, does anyone who speaks those languages know? --Jayron32 20:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Lemonade > lenomade is metathesis, Walmart > Walnart is phonetic assimilation. Both phenomena can occur regularly accross the sounds of a language, or just in individual words. My little sister used to call medicine "bedimus", which exhibits a complex case of both changes. The unconditioned sound change of initial /n/ to /m/ is unheard of as far as I know. Final /m/ to /n/ is common. Final /n/ to /m/ is quite rare, and in Portuguese is a result of the neutralization and reanalysis of final nasal consonants. μηδείς (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

But the fact that it's languages within a certain area (irrespective of the familial relations of the languages: we have all the West Slavic languages, some East Slavic ones, one Baltic and one isolated Uralic) suggests that there is some kind of specific influence in that area that seems to have spread. Perhaps for instance, there was some (say) Polish leader whose name became spelt like this, and then it spread to the various areas he was leader of? 93.96.208.82 (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it is definitely not a regular sound change in this case, which points strongly to interference. (Unfortunately our link linguistic interference doesn't help here.) Compare the word citizen which comes from the same source that gave the expected modern French citoyen, but shows interference from denizen: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=citizen The areal surmise is likely right in tracing it to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, just can't confirm that without a source, and my net searches have been unhelpful. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Medeis's hypothesis is correct, according to Vasmer: "Народн. Мику́ла получило м- от Михаи́л, как и польск. Мikоłаj. Объяснение м- из нов.-греч. невозможно, вопреки Соболевскому." "Popular Mikula [m forms are also found in folk Russian] gained an m- from Mikhail, as did the Polish Мikоłаj. The explanation of m- from modern Greek is impossible, despite what Sobolevsky says." [10] Lesgles (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If it is found in Russian it is likely traceable to northern (i.e., Western and Eastern) Slavic which is a dialect continuum, or even earlier. It's curious whether it's attested in Bulgarian or Slovenian, which are the outliers of Southern Slavic. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "It's curious whether ...". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's suspicious you can't guess. μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Must you, Medeis? Can you not simply answer a simple question? It's not my fault if you can't write comprehensible English.

You seem to have confused possibly 3 idioms:

• (a) "It's curious that ...". This takes something that is at least asserted as true, and wonders something about it, which could extend to its very truth value.
• (b) "I'm curious about ...". This is a non-specific expression of curiosity about something.
• (c) "I don't know whether ...". This is simply wondering whether something is true or not.

I have no idea whether you're saying:

• this N-M phenomenon is attested in Bulgarian and Slovenian, and you find that a curious state of affairs; or
• you don't know whether it's attested in those languages or not, but you're interested in finding out; or
• something else. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The use of It's curious whether in my first statement and the use of It's suspicious (that) in my second statement was intentionally functionally analogous and meant as a rather broad hint as to how I was using the phrase in the first case. (And it is curious that you would think, even though I used the term "whether", that I was suggesting it might be a fact that Mikolai is attested in Slovenian and Bulgarian.) Hopefully, you will find this helpful.μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Your erudition may be your undoing. I have not had the formal training in linguistics that you seem to have; all I know is when something makes sense and when it doesn't. Do not necessarily expect me to pick up on the subtle clues that someone with your level of education could be expected to. I can stretch my brain to handle many cases of sub-optimal expression, but sometimes that would require me to make unwarranted assumptions. I've been hanging around here long enough to know not to do that. (The only possibly unwarranted assumption I ever make is that good faith is being exercised.) As you were using a combination of words ("It's curious whether") that has no known precedent, I couldn't possibly know that "whether" was meant to bear the main meaning, as opposed to "It's curious". That is why I asked a simple 9-word question. A simple 9-word answer would have been really good. Thanks for the explanation you did provide.. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There is an aphorism I often use in cases like what Jack is describing above. "I don't need to be a chef to know what my food tastes like". It is quite a suitable sentiment for what just went down here, I think. --Jayron32 16:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"No known precedent"? Here are six dozen or so usages of "it is curious whether" ("it is curious whether the Court analyzed in detail all situations where PLF's liability would cover medical expenses in a malpractice situation ..." "It is curious whether internet marketing companies will be able to stay on their toes and take advantage of trending news about the products or ..." "As such, it is curious whether or not the latest model of saber, the M1860, developed just last year, will even come into service." "As they worked in the same area, it is curious whether the three African American statisticians Charles Bell, Albert Turner Bharucha-Reid, and David Blackwell ..." "It is curious whether Chelsea Clinton signed a Pre-Nuptial Agreement prior to her marriage.") mostly in formal edited writing, and including a Yale linguistics paper: "Hirayama (1964) records the above –ha ne-‐nu as the negative, so it is curious whether the negative form has changed or whether these are instances of ...". Here are a few thousand uses with "it's curious whether". No specific linguistic training is needed here, no more than is needed to understand what someone means when he starts a sentence with "hopefully". It's truly curious whether anyone else is confused by this impersonal phrasing. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The things you learn here. All I can say is that I have never in my life heard it until now; I would never choose to say or write it; and I would suggest others also refrain from it, because, as I said above, it is inherently confusing and ambiguous, seeming to conflate different and contradictory idioms and not clearly meaning any one of them (because it couldn't possibly cover all these bases).

"It is curious" normally precedes something that is curiosity-worthy but not in doubt. My first hit when I google "It is curious" is a classic example: "It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare". My understanding of your examples is of things that are in doubt. And that's what troubles me with all of them. The sentences start out leading the reader down the track of certainty ("It is curious"), but then, "whether" immediately diverts them onto the track of uncertainty. Which bit of the sentence are they supposed to believe? They end up in no-reader's-land. They have to choose. Different readers will choose different meanings. If my life depended on it, I'd probably be guided by the presence of "whether", and believe that "It is curious whether Chelsea Clinton signed a Pre-Nuptial Agreement" means "We don't know whether or not Chelsea Clinton signed a Pre-Nuptial Agreement, but we're curious".

But if you're telling me that it actually means "It is curious that Chelsea Clinton signed a Pre-Nuptial Agreement", and that there is no doubt being expressed, I'd have to ask you how you can be so sure of your interpretation. I'm not saying mine is necessarily any more valid, btw. Either way, it's a Fail with a Capital F for Good Writing. The fact that we can find many examples of its use means nothing more than we can find many examples of any badly composed sentence we care to think of. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Two things. The "whether" makes it a question, so there's no overlap between "It is curious whether" expressing curiosity about whether something is the case, and "it is curious that", expressing that there is a fact which is odd. The other is that "it is curious" is being used here impersonally. There is no "it" which is curious. Similar to the impersonal use of "hopefully" as in "Hopefully the Yankees will win." One is not saying that when the Yankees win the will be hopeful as they do it. What is being expressed is, "One hopes the Yankees will win" or "It is a matter of curiosity whether the form exists in Slovenian and Bulgarian." Of course one suspects all this drama from the beginning has been in order to allow you a venue to say such things as "Fail with a Capital F for Good Writing". Instead of implications of bad faith that make it hard for me to take you seriously, you couldd simply have google the phrase and found tens of thousands of instances of its use. I am quite certain you understood what was meant from the beginning, and that no one else has shared your reported confusion. I have no intention of reading or responding further on this silliness, so I do hope someone will hat the conversation of what I mean by "it is curious whether" to here and put it out of its misery. μηδείς (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

We were having a civil conversation until now, one that was about meaning and interpretation. It was not about you and me personally. It's sad that you've injected incivility, and that you've made it personal, and that you've accused me of bad faith, and that you've abandoned the conversation after your final spray so that you're safe from whatever I may have to say in response to your incredible and unforgiveable, but sadly all too predictable, rudeness. No matter, it will be here in perpetuity for you to read in your spare time.

I asked a simple agenda-free 9-word question (Not sure what you mean by "It's curious whether ..."), and all I wanted was a simple agenda-free short answer in return, not all this palaver. That was in your power to provide. You chose not to provide it. That is and remains your responsibility. You really need to examine your problem with anyone ever asking you to explain anything you say. If you're so insecure that you can't just answer them without suspecting their motives, I feel very sorry for you. I hope you can find peace. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Aaand to bring the debate back - in Slovenian the name is not among the most popular ones, but it does have both variants. There's Nikolaj and Miklavž. Although that second one is limited almost entirely to the name of the Slovenian folk version of the Christmas gift bringer. Not saying this second version is non-existent as a personal name, but it is fairly rare. 192.51.44.16 (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I know someone named Nichael (with an English surname). Our acquaintance isn't close enough that I've dared ask how that happened. —Tamfang (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There is always Nichelle Nichols

Horse/Hors/Pferd/Equus

dictionary.com says that the word "Horse" is cognate with the Old Norse "Hross", and cognate with the German "Ross". But the German word for Horse is "Pferd". Where did "Pferd" come from? It certainly doesn't appear to be related to "Hross" or the Latin "Equus". 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary says it derives from the Latin paraveredus, meaning "An extra horse; post horse or courier's horse for outlying or out of the way places". Presumably the Romans considered Germany an out of the way place. Looie496 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

English palfrey is from the same root, via Anglo-Norman. Lesgles (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

According to Mallory and Adams, horse itself is apparently cognate with hurry, course, car, and Epicurus, all from PIE *kers. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And then there's French cheval and Spanish caballo, which I believe come from late Latin caballus, meaning "nag" - from which we ultimately get "chivalry". --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

In German, "das Ross" does mean "the steed" and I have seen it used, although it is true "das Pferd" was much more common in my personal everyday experience. Falconus^{p t c} 15:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

October 12

Which one is the headquarters of Air China (Chinese help)?

Which building is the Air China administrative headquarters? I seem to be getting some contradictory stuff

• 国航信息大厦 at 16 Tianzhu Road File:AirChinaHQ1.JPG - says it's 16 Tianzhu
• http://www.airchina.com.cn/www/en/html/index/ir/financial_informatio/3039/D13A3036915754AEEE740D6A60912C03.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6BM0HGZNy says that the "registered office" is the Blue Sky Mansion
• "Air China HQ Building" at 30 Tianzhu Road File:AirChinaBuildingShunyi1.JPG from http://www.pata.org/Members/6131/ and http://www.cibtm.com/en/Exhibitors/111706/Air-China and http://www.iata.org/membership/pages/airline_members_list.aspx

It's possible the company may have one building as its "registered office" and another as its administrative headquarters

I put this in the language section because Chinese speakers may be needed to pore over documents which explain things Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• After looking through some documents, I think I've figured it out: Blue Sky is the registered office and the 30 Tianzhu building is the Administrative HQ WhisperToMe (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

-tr

Is there a word for words ending in "-tr" (e.g. Polish teatr), "-tl" (Icelandic "jökull") and other "unpronounceable" combinations? In what languages do such exist? bamse (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The combinations may be unpronounceable by you, but that doesn't mean they are unpronounceable by speakers of these languages. Phonotactics is the study of how phonemes may be combined, such as the consonant clusters in the examples you mention. Gabbe (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't know Polish that well, but is the end of "teatr" any different than the french word "quatre" (four), in terms of how the final consonant cluster is sounded? Each language has a set of sounds that are used by that language, which is only a small subset of the possible sounds availible for all languages. Without practice, some sounds are difficult for non-native speakers. It doesn't make them unprouncable, it just means the non-native speaker isn't as practiced in making them as native speakers. --Jayron32 12:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's pronounced VERY different from the French. The Polish "r" is flapped or trilled. And the word is pronounced exactly like it is spelled. Approximately like "TEH-aht-rrrrrrrr". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

In this case I think it may just be a matter of spelling. The fact that English spells the word "theater" doesn't mean that English speakers always pronounce a distinct "e" sound in the last syllable. In general spelling only correlates approximately to pronunciation, whatever language you look at. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

But lots and lots of words in Nahuatl end in "tl"; besides the language's own name, examples you may recognize include chocolatl, coyotl and of course the useful military implement, the atlatl. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a distinct difference in pronunciation in the final consonant sounds of the French word "quatre" and the English word "theatre". Indeed, one thing that makes native French speakers apoplectic is the way in which native English speakers butcher their language by substituting native English sounds for native French ones based purely on spelling (vowels are particularly problematic in this regard). I have a decent knowledge of French as a second language, however I am not comfortable speaking it often in front of native French speakers because I don't want to be disrespectful of their language by butchering it. --Jayron32 16:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The French getting upset at others butchering their language. Ah could nev-AIR ev-AIR believe zat.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a general problem in confusing pronunciation and spelling. The final r, l, m, and n in English words like butter, bottle, bottom, and button are actually 'stand-alone' syllabic consonants. There's no actual vowel sound between them and the t's that precede them. We usually write them with a schwa, because we expect every syllable to have a vowel, but this is more a matter of convention and expectation than fact. We could just as rationally write those words as butr, botl, botm, and butn, and as we do write rhythm. Indeed there are many languages that do just that. The Czech tongue-twister Strč prst skrz krk "Stick your finger through your throat", ignoring other minor differences, would be written "Sturch pursed scurrs Kirk" if it were an English phrase. See Vowel#Words_without_vowels and English words without vowels.

Yet, in the case of Nahuatl and French words ending in -tre (if the r is pronounced at all) those consonants are fricatives like s and 'sh'. The tl sound in Nahuatl is somewhat like a lisped English ch. The ɫ is a voicelss fricative like the double ll of Welsh Lloyd, pronounced with the tongue in the position for /l/, but with air hissing out around both sides of the tongue, rather than the throat humming in the way we pronounce the /l/ in lick. (You can approximate the sound of this phoneme by trying clearly to enunciate "hlick".) As for the French -tre, the r may be silent, but if it is pronounced, it will usually be a fricative made in the back of the throat, sounding vaguely Arabic. See French phonology.

Topics like these are complicated, and surprisingly scientific. I would suggest A Mouthful of Air as a great introduction, and then an old edition (it's a textbook, and new editions are expensive, but no better) of Fromkin & Rodman's Introduction to Language. μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The OP used scare quotes around "unpronounceable", indicating that he already realized that these words are not really unpronounceable, just seemingly so. To paraphrase and update his question, what languages have final consonant clusters other than "-tl" and "-tr" that are seemingly unpronounceable to speakers of English, and is there a term for words ending in such? Duoduoduo (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't know much about Russian, but can their "shch" sound be word-final? Duoduoduo (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, борщ, "borscht" is one such word. The ad hoc phrase 'cluster-final word' would seem to cover the necessary meaning. I can't see the concept being needed so much that it would necessarily have its own word. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The "borscht" spelling is really misleading and I don't know how it ever gained prominence. The final consonant is -shch, just like the -shch- of "ashchurch". It could be romanised in German as -"schtsch", and that's how a t could creep into the middle. But to end it with a -t is not right, in any language. Of course, many people probably do now pronounce it as "borsht", but only because it was mis-romanised in the first place. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You think that's bad, explain me why the French spell the very easy word "bishop" évêque? μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong (as happens rather more often than I'd like to admit) in this case, the little hat the second <e> wears indicates an <s> used to be there (unlike English where when the sounds disappear, the bloody letters remain). Looks to me like it would be from epísk(opos) with the p -> b -> v or p -> f -> v in some process the people who really do know about this will probably be able to name? --Shirt58 (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, now you have "ruined" my joke by explaining it. Yes, your explanation is spot on. The pair is often used as an example of how words from cognate sources can evolve to be very different, since these don't share a single sound or letter. Oh, and p>b>v is the proper sequence, like sapere to savoir, with Spanish saber showing the middle state. μηδείς (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In Bulgarian, the letter щ is regularly /ʃt/. I don't know whether there are Russian dialects in which that is the case, but it wouldn't surprise me. When I studied Russian at school forty years ago, we were taught that щ was a palatalised /ʃ/, and only pronounced /ʃt͡ʃ/ in very careful speech: I have since read that this is a Muscovite localism. --ColinFine (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

bamse: Regarding your two particular examples, see Sonority Sequencing Principle and Sonority hierarchy. It is generally normal that a sonorant like /r/ or /l/ should stay closer to the syllable nucleus than a stop like /t/ should, but as they said, each language has its own patterns and limitations of combining sounds. The initial /kn/ cluster has now been impossible in English for centuries, but is still very much possible in most other Germanic languages. There are pockets of languages worldwide where any initial consonant clusters are forbidden and "unpronounceable", and that's why, for example, you can sometimes hear someone in Turkey referring to Bill Clinton and Brad Pitt roughly as "Bill Kill-lin-tawn" and "Beer-rat Pitt". An initial /ŋ/ (ng) might be giving Westerners hard times mastering it, but is a perfectly regular thing in many languages of Africa, Asia and the Pacific Islands. Examples are as many as you'd like. --Theurgist (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about Canadian French, which might be the variety that Jayron and Medeis know best, but in France the r of quatre and the l of table are frequently omitted. It is regarded as a marker of working class speech - normally - but not, I think, if the speaker is a learner of French with a cool/cute/quaint English/American accent. Jayron, I'm sure there's no call to be self-conscious; it's a courtesy to make the effort to speak your listener's language. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

My French is school-learned and conservative, meant to be broad enough to be clearly understood throughout francophonia. I did explicitly qualify above: if the r is pronounced at all. When it is, /fǝnɛːtʁ/ and even /katχ/ for quatre are possible, with ʁ and χ being fricatives. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you did say that. Relevant to the discussion on consonant clusters is that the r isn't dropped if a vowel follows. Quat' personnes but quatre enfants. (Quatres enfants is regarded as uneducated.) In accents of southern France and in West Africa r's are rolled. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

We were instructed that in graded recitations, American r's would be marked wrong, but trilled r's would be acceptable for those who couldn't do the gutteral r. (Not that I remember anyone finding that any easier.) We were told to expect the trilled r in poetry and song (along with silent e's being pronounced) and given Edith Piaf to listen to for an example. I never did go to France though, touring the German Alps instead when I had the chance. I have probably spoken 10 hours of French over the last 10 years, and all with Africans and Haitians. μηδείς (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a commercial in France at the moment (or, at least, over the past couple of months) where a kid is cooking for his parents and calls them to dinner, "à tab'!" When they don't come (they're looking at cars or something) he enunciates it more fully, "à table", pronouncing the normally silent -e. For words like "quatre" it's definitely convenient for non-native speakers like me that you don't have to pronounce the -re. Otherwise when the "r" is an important part of the word, sometimes French people had no idea what I was saying (I could never pronounce the name of my bank counsellor, for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

October 13

African languages

Map showing the six language families represented in Africa

Why are (Sub-Saharan) African languages so much more phonologically complex than other languages? (tones, clicks, large phonemic inventories, etc.) --168.7.234.32 (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that generalized statement is wrong. You're probably thinking of Khoisan, which is just a small group. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Some links: Khoisan languages, which is quite small, population-wise, compared to the Niger–Congo languages that dominate sub-Saharan Africa. Pfly (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Southern Africa is home to the Bantu languages and the Khoisan languages. The former are not terribly phonetically complex. They include the Zulu language and the Swahili language among several hundred others. They are a sub-branch of the Niger-Congo language family. Most Bantu languages are tonal but not with very complex systems. Zulu has two tones, Swahili as adopted as a lingua franca has lost its tones. The Khoisan languages are noted for their clicks. Their non-click consonant systems are not very complex. If combinations of sounds with clicks are interpreted as single entities, and not clusters, they can have among the highest consonant inventories. Zulu has just over 30 non-click and three click consonants. If combinations aren't seen as clusters, it has about 48 consonants, a rather large inventory, with its five vowels and two tones on top.

The Nguni language subfamily of Bantu, which includes Zulu and the Xhosa language, the native language of Nelson Mandela, has inherited clicks from a Khoisan substrate language. These languages are very similar, but Zulu speakers may not understand Xhosa utterances with their even more complicated click inventory.

To the northwest of Bantu lie the remaining several hundred Niger-Congo languages (of which Bantu is a subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup). Many of these languages are similar to Bantu in sharing noun prefix-classes, although this has largely disappeared in some, like the Yoruba language. These diverse languages tend to be tonal and of CV type with moderate consonant systems and simple vowel systems, often with nasalization.

The Hausa language, spoken in Nigeria, is a member of the Chadic languages subgroup of the Afroasiatic languages, distantly related to Semitic, Berber and Egyptian. It has a moderately complex consonant system and five vowels with length and tone, totally about the same number of phonemes (40) as English.

To the northeast of the Bantu languages lie the very old and diverse Nilo-Saharan languages, which includes the Maasai language, the Dinka language and the Nubian languages among several dozen others. Their consonant systems don't make them stand out from the Niger-Congo languages. (In fact, there is very controversial evidence that Niger-Congo may itself be a small sub-branch of Nilo-Saharan. But you can't determine that just by saying the consonant systems are similar.)

Unfortunately I am not aware of any good surveys of African languages in general. Lyovin's An Introduction to the Languages of the World is cheap, excellent for the educated layman, and widely available. It doesn't concentrate on Africa, though. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there theories as to why some languages (and language families) have more or less phonemes than others? My intuition says it is just "historical chance", but maybe there are other ideas? Anyway, that seems to be the basic question here (and in the next topic), why more in some and less in others? Pfly (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no natural selection in language evolution (although there may be sexual selection for complexity) so it is basically random. Sounds are lost that are difficult to pronounce (knight). New sounds are borrowed into a language (clicks in Nguni) or caused to become phonemically distinct by outside influences (z, ʒ, and oɪ in English from French). Sounds merge (marry Mary merry) and sounds split (halve have, trap bath). See the remarks in the thread below as well. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Pacific Island languages

Why do Pacific Island languages (e.g. Hawaiian, Rapa Nui) have such simple phonology? --168.7.236.74 (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Because Proto-Polynesian *did. Why *did Proto-Polynesian such simple phonology? Er, I dunno. But that map is probably going to come up later in discussion. --Shirt58 (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a possible vague correlation between language spread and language simplification. See Johanna Nichols fascianting but highly speculative (to the point of numerology, sometimes) Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. The Georgian language and the North Caucasian languages have been in one place a long time. People take pride in the dialect of their village. When languages tend to simplify their sounds over time, they usually compound their words. "I need a /seɪl/." "What a boat-sail?" "No, a garage-sale." As Shirt58 has said, where a language can go depends on where it started out. See drunken walk. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not fold, spindle or mutilate

A question for oldies (like me)...

There's a discussion over at Talk:Punched card about the expression "Do not fold, spindle or mutilate". The article describes it as a "a motto for the post-World War II era." An editor has observed that "motto" isn't really the right descriptor for it, and has suggested "meme". I see that as anachronistic, since that word didn't exist back then.

Any suggestions? HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Aphorism ? Saying ? Catchphrase ? StuRat (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Maxim, adage, dictum, saw? Does anyone know how to say it in Latin? Then we could call it "The baby boomers' brocard". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Maxim, motto, adage, etc all imply a certain significance that I don't think the phrase has - I think "catchphrase" works well (and certainly isn't anachronistic). "Catchword" is now a bit archaic, but would work for a century or so earlier. Andrew Gray (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In the Emily Litella article, it says "The line "Never mind" became a lighthearted catchphrase of the era", which seems to be in accord with the meaning you want to express... AnonMoos (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed phrase aka set expression or set phrase or occasionally formula. meltBanana 14:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Wha? Did memes not exist before Dawkins named them? —Tamfang (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

They were called "fads", "crazes" etc. Before the Internet, there was Xeroxlore... AnonMoos (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, isn't it nice to educate the young'ns occasionally? HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I like catchphrase. I'll take it back to the other discussion, and point it here as well. HiLo48 (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

How about "mantra"? Roger (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Umm ... that works for me. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Rhyddfrydol

Morning reference desk regulars. The Welsh word for 'liberal' is 'rhyddfrydol'. Do we have any idea of the etymology of this word, given how different it looks and sounds? doktorb _words^deeds 08:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Different": different from what? "Rhydd" is an adjective meaning "free" (as in speech). Marnanel (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the OP means it looks and sounds very different from "liberal". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The History of the Welsh language is different from the History of the English language, and many words that mean the same look and sound completely different.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it's worth noting that Latin liber means "free", so rhyddfrydol is something of a calque. Deor (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Rhyddfrydol = rhydd-bryd-ol = free-will-adj.

According to Pokorny, rhydd ("free") is from an IE root prāi-, prəi-, prī-, "be willing", and is cognate with "free". Bryd ("mind, will") is ultimately from IE bher- ("bear, carry"), so related to "bear" and Latin "ferre"; but more immediately to Irish brith ("judgment"). So rhyddfrydol is partly related to "free", but not to "liberal". --ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I didn't do very well with my question first thing in the morning. I am British and posted that question with only having one cup of tea beforehand so that's my excuse. Thanks for the answers - it's interesting to see the responses you've given, many thanks for the help. doktorb _words^deeds 20:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Arabic help

Hi! What is the Arabic for "Offices of Air Algerie in Beijing" ? I want to add that to File:AirAlgerieOfficeBeijing.JPG - Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"مكتب الخطوط الجوية الجزائرية في بكين" should work fine. --Soman (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Also what is the Arabic in File:Fmso front.jpg? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

" کلیة الطبا سوسة ". --Omidinist (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

October 15

Bristish

Resolved

I noticed that "Bristish" is a common misspelling for "British". As there are so many of them, could you get your bots to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.114 (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the page you want is "Wikipedia:Bot requests". Gabbe (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It probably means people from Bristol. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You know he's right -- Q Chris (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, rightish, there are 49 instances of this misspelling in the whole English Wikipedia. Is that common? I have (hopefully) fixed them. If you use the search within WP for misspelled words you'll get a much more condensed report (try parrallel for example). Richard Avery (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

How odd - my search shows 807 and previously showed over 1000, most still seem to be there. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

How odd, yourself. I get 49 in content pages, and 183 in the entire site. What are we doing differently? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that a google.co.uk search for site:en.wikipedia.org Bristish gives 1,040 results, but a serach on google.co, gives 800. The wikipedia's own serach gives 49! -- Q Chris (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If you exclude talk and user pages from Google it is down to 111 matches but even then Google includes some correct spelling of 'British' on it's search results. Wikipedia under lists and excludes the match in some none prose area's and excludes results such as word variations, so you have to search separately for 'Bristishers' et cetera. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 12:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Those are interesting stastistics.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Typo rules used by AutoWikiBrowser and WPCleaner have now been extended to handle Bristish typos. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 12:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Boats/ships given feminine article in English

Why are (or were, if the practice has decreased) naval vessels described as "she"? It doesn't seem to be a linguistic carryover from other European languages that give nouns gender, because I checked that in French, "a boat" is "un bateau" (m), and "a ship" is "un navire" (m); in Spanish, "a boat" is "un barco" (m), and "a ship" is "un buque" (m); and I checked German, in which "a boat" is "ein Boot" (m), and "a ship" is "ein Schiff" (m). So why are (or were) boats/ships described femininely in English? 20.137.2.50 (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Here are links to five related discussions now archived.

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 January 13#Are ships feminine in American as they are in English ? And why ?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 February 2#Feminin Ships
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 November 17#"he" and "she" nouns
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 January 23#a Ship is a she? or a it?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 January 27#Use of “She”

—Wavelength (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

NB: In German both are neuter, not masculine - das Boot and das Schiff. - Karenjc 14:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, the German language nevertheless has the same tradition of referring to specific ships as feminine. For example, the German article on the MV Wilhelm Gustloff (de:Wilhelm Gustloff (Schiff)) starts out with "Die Wilhelm Gustloff war ein Passagierschiff". "Die" is a definite, feminine, singular, nominative article, even though Wilhelm Gustloff himself was a man, and even though, as pointed out by Karenjc, "das Schiff" (and likewise "das Passagierschiff") are neuter. ---Sluzzelin talk

Thank you for providing the opportunity to quote from the famous tea-towel: “A ship is called a “she” because there is always a great deal of bustle around her; there is usually a gang of men about, she has a waist and stays; it takes a lot of paint to keep her good looking; it is not the initial expense that breaks you, it is the upkeep; she can be all decked out; it takes an experienced man to handle her correctly; and without a man at the helm, she is absolutely uncontrollable. She shows her topsides, hides her bottom and, when coming into port, always heads for the buoys.” - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the English articles (the, a/an) are completely indeclinable for grammatical categories; it's only in pronoun references ("she" etc.) that feminine personification of boats, countries, etc. is manifested in English... AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Is it likely that the beginning of the feminization of nautical vessels traces back to female busts being placed on the bow of them, whenever and wherever that first started to happen? i.e., are there, or are there not references to boats/ships as a 'she' before any boat/ship made with a female bust on the bow is known to have been made? 20.137.2.50 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

See "Figurehead (object)" and Acts 28:11.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"American" accent

I just love the accent of Elizabeth McGovern as Lady Cora in Downton Abbey, but what kind of accent is that? And is it her natural speaking voice? I am English and to me it sounds essentially American, but different from most American accents I am familiar with. What does it sound like to Americans? (Maybe it sounds British!) For those whe don't know the series, I could find surprisingly few clips on YouTube; just these short ones with not-great audio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwZKPAY7fkU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQsLJP7mRgM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.4.150 (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't hear any accent at all, so I suppose that makes it my accent, General American. The one exception was the word "late", near the end of the 2nd clip, which sounded like "lyate" to me. StuRat (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

An aside: I watched Ordinary People last week, for the first time since I saw it at the cinema on first release in 1980/81. When the Elizabeth McGovern character appeared, I recognised her voice and face but could not for the life of me place where I knew her from. Even seeing her name in the credits didn't cause pennies to drop. I finished up checking her out here, and the first mention of Downton Abbey made it all clear. Then I wondered how I didn't recognise her as Cora Grantham straight away. She's hardly changed in 30 years. Except, she wasn't wearing crinolines in Ordinary People. Yes, that must be it. Nothing to do with advancing Alzheimers. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• She enunciates her /t/s clearly, not reducing them to flaps or glottalizing them. (General_American#Consonants) Other than that its a plain General American accent. There is such a thing as Stage English and the Mid-Atlantic accent, but she doesn't really affect that. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Strange, it doesn't sound "plain" to me at all, it sounds quite distinctive. I wonder why. 86.128.4.150 (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I love the show, have had a crush on McGovern since childhood, and as one might guess, have listened closely to her speech. She does pronounce her /r/s, unlike the Brits who have an RP accent on the show. Other than enunciating very clearly I don't think she's got an peculiarities that stand out. I'll have to listen whether she has the Mary-marry-merry merger. Given the care of her speech I doubt it. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I just fast-forwarded through an episode. Unfortunately she really only has a minute or two of lines at most in an episode. The only thing that stood out beside her /t/s was her speech rhythm, which sounded influenced by the received pronunciation accent. Her stressed syllables were lengthened, as for instance, when she said the shell-shocked butler Lang "looked like a RAAAbit in front of a SNAKE." μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I had recently watched the show together with an American (native American-English speaker having grown up in Southern California) who found McGovern's pronunciation to be special too, a bit like that of an American who has spent a long time living in England (which applies both to her character and to Elizabeth McGovern herself). I now revisited her diction in Once Upon A Time in America, almost 30 years ago and before she had moved to England, and, to me, it sounds distinct/unusual even there, though not the same as in Downton Abbey. Then again, I'm not a native English speaker, so I can't claim to hear the same subtleties an American person might hear. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I am downloading OuaTiA to compare. But yes, her accent on Downton Abbey is exactly what one might expect from an American in Britain, she's partially assimilated her speech to the locals. Americans do, when speaking very carefully, (or did when I was a child,) clearly enunciate their /t/s. When I was in choir in elemantary school the director made a point of it. (You can hear Billy Joel make an effort to enunciate his /t/s in his singing.) I can remember the director getting incensed when we sang "Silen' Nigh'". See code switching and compare Madonna's acquired British accent. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Abrogate

It is defined as: Repeal or do away with (a law, right, or formal agreement). However, the word is also used to mean: to treat as non-existant <an abrogation of responsibility>. Is this a valid form of usage? In this sentence: "Paul Ryan launched a withering attack charging the US president with ______ responsibility for the economy", are abdicating and abrogating equally acceptable verbs to use? Ankh.Morpork 19:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The OED has the legal meaning as the first entry, followed by "To do away with, to put an end to; (occas.) to reject or deny." Marnanel (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dereliction or abdication of his duty would be better than abrogation. μηδείς (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Abrogation of a person's own duty has a specific legal meaning in an administrative law context while dereliction and abdication have different specific meanings and, depending on the intention of the author here, they may well not be interchangeable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

caisse

Can you record the pronunciation of the word caisse in Quebec accent ? Fête (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That should be [kɛ:s] in standard French, which would be [kaɛ̯s] (or [kei̯s] among older speakers according to our article Quebec_French_phonology#Diphthongization. But I have absolutely no personal experience with this myself, and am just giving you the links and what they say. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of youtube videos of politicians and journalists blathering on about the scandale de la Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

October 16

British and southern US accents

I saw a program on TV that said that some accents in the southern US are very similar to British accents of the 18th century. How do they know what 18th-century accents were like? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in Historical linguistics. I tried looking for a Wikipedia article on phonological reconstruction, but that redirected to "historical linguistics". User:Medeis may have some better clues for you, they seem to be very knowledgeable on linguistics. --Jayron32 02:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that what is thought of as a typical Southern accent is very 18th-century. One voluminous scholarly work with a lot of information is "English Pronunciation 1500-1700" (vols. 1 and 2) by Eric John Dobson (though it technically ends at the beginning of the 18th)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

One obvious point - there is no such thing as a 'British accent', even now. There certainly wasn't one in the 18th century. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have come across various not very scholarly references that have attributed characteristics of genteel Southern American English to Cavalier English speech of aristocrats under the reign of Charles I of England and other landed aristocrats. (See Charleston, Virginia (where I was conceived--yes, I went there) and The Carolinas) They are supposedly the immigrants who could afford estates and slaves. One can draw obvious parallels between the non-rhotic speech of the South (and New England) and received pronunciation. But I have never come across anything I have found particularly convincing in respect to this and have no worthwhile references to offer. My suspicion is that the non-rhotic aspect of Southern speech is an issue of random fixation based on an original bias of Southern non-rhotic speakers than anything else. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I know this is anecdotal evidence and original research, but I have a US Southern accent and several times people have thought that I was from the UK because of my accent. Just as there isn't one British accent, there isn't one Southern accent. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The recent source of the accent comparison was David Stern of the University of Connecticut. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You think that's bad? I have a South Jersey accent and have been accused of being British. I think it's the enunciation. μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a very typical Southern English accent, and when in the USA once I was mistaken for a Texan, which astonished me. 86.146.105.202 (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a linguist, but I'm rather sceptical of the whole premise. How could an accent be transplanted to an alien setting and remain ossified for 200 years, while the same accent has changed (apparently) out of all recognition in its home environment? It makes no sense. Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually that's a rather common phenomenon, where there is a center in a language from which innovations spread, with peripheral areas retaining conservative and even archaic features. For example, consider the spread of the loss of final /r/ from the center to the periphery in Britain Rhotic_and_non-rhotic_accents#Development_of_non-rhotic_accents and the retention of archaic features like pronunciation of "gh" and trilling of /r/ in some Scottish dialects. See wave model. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Other examples include Quebec French which retains elements of 18th century French lost in modern French, and Icelandic which is much closer to ancient Norse than modern Norwegian, Swedish or Danish. Modern Icelanders take pride in their language and actually put extra effort into maintaining their language and eschewing loans from other languages. It seems counter-intuitive that languages in isolated areas would develop less than the language in its 'original habitat', but it seems to be the case. V85 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the opposite of what one would expect from biology, since species in fringe areas adapt to their new surroundings and change because of it. But there is no natural selection as such in linguistic change. A large amount of linguistic change is due to innovation in a prestigious center such as Paris in French or youth culture centered on NY and LA in the US. But the phenomenon even can be found in the innovative Satem dialects of Indo-European which were centered on the Pontic homeland with the Centum languages being found on the periphery. See centum-satem isogloss. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

But how do they know what the accents were like 250 years ago (the article oesn't say). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a specific answer (someone may) but it's usually done via two methods, either the comments of educated writers or writers from other areas who comment on the peculiarities of local speech (think Mark Twain portraying local dialect in his writings) or by misspellings of untutored local writers which reveal their actual pronunciations rather than accepted spellings; "wif dat" for "with that" in Britain, "nigga" in the US, and the like. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Arabic help

What is the Arabic on the billboard: File:Corruption-Nouakchott.jpg? How do you say "Billboard of a campaign to prevent corruption in Nouakchott" in Arabic? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"أبرهن على نزاهتي بالامتناع عن الرشوة". I don't know how to translate the description, though. Lesgles (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Also, what's the Arabic in http://web.archive.org/web/20100804212603im_/http://www.mf.gov.dz/images/bannnn.gif ? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The first one, Lesgles is referring to, says: "I show my integrity by refusing to be corrupted". And the second one is الجمهوریة الجزائریة الدیمقراطیة الشعبیة (the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria), وزارة المالیة (Ministry of Finances). --Omidinist (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Omidinist! Now, what would the image description "Billboard of a campaign to prevent corruption in Nouakchott" be in Arabic? And for File:Rue_Champollion_in_Alexandria.JPG what is the Arabic on the sign? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The street sign says "شارع شامپوليون", Champollion Street. Do note the letter پ (Pe_(Persian_letter)), usually not used in Arabic. --Soman (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The image description would be "لوحة من حملة لمنع الرشوة في نواكشوط". --Omidinist (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the Arabic name of Karim Djoudi, the Algerian minister of finance? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"كريم جودي"

[11] Lesgles (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! WhisperToMe (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a noun, derived from "hear"?

The noun derived from "see" is "sight". Is there an analogous noun derived from "hear"? "I heard her voice, and it was love at first ...?" --KnightMove (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hearing is the word, I believe. The 5 traditional senses are sight, touch, smell, taste and hearing. These words can all be used as verbs as well. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ignore the man behind the curtain. He's offering you a red hearing. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, "Hearing" is not a noun in the strictest sense, but it's good to know that there is no other.

Clarityfiend: In case you deem me to be a troll... I don't know why, but I'm simply not. --KnightMove (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean that it's "not a noun in the strict sense". Are you claiming that gerunds are not quite nouns? You can claim that if you want, though I'm not sure the position really makes sense, but in this case it doesn't matter, because hearing as a sense is a different thing from hearing as an instance of what happens when you hear something. And hearing as a sense is quite clearly a noun, in the strictest possible sense, and is equally clearly derived from the verb hear. --Trovatore (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

As I had accepted that hearing is the only English term, there is no vital necessity to continue this discussion, but for clarification an answer and out of curiosity one more question:

1. I think that in poetic/literary contexts there is indeed a difference between gerunds and what I call nouns in the strictest sense, because gerunds as a rather trivial derivation of verbs often leave a weaker impression. I deem the sentence "I demand your obedience!" to have much more impact than "I demand your obeying!", even though there is no actual difference in meaning. I feel the need to contrast love at first hearing to love at first sight, which sounds somewhat strange, quirky, and weak, IMHO. Thus I was looking for a better word. Ok, there is none!
2. "...hearing as a sense is a different thing from hearing as an instance of what happens when you hear something. And hearing as a sense is quite clearly a noun, in the strictest possible sense, and is equally clearly derived from the verb hear." Actually, I do not understand the difference. Both are gerunds, aren't they?

--KnightMove (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You know, actually, I think you have still a third meaning in mind. Sight in "love at first sight" is, I think, neither the sense of sight nor an instance of seeing, but rather a thing (phenomenon rather than noumenon) that is seen, a visual image. The corresponding word for "auditory phenomenon" is probably sound. But "love at first sound", unfortunately, sounds like a joke. --Trovatore (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Colin accurately explains my point, below. --Trovatore (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

1) You may wish to consider the poem/prayer "God be in my Head", in which each line ends in a gerund:

God be in my head, and in my understanding;

God be in mine eyes, and in my looking;

God be in my mouth, and in my speaking;

God be in my heart, and in my thinking;

God be at mine end, and at my departing.

2) While it's obviously the same formation, and no verb forms the two parts differently, there is an obvious difference of quality, meaning and usage between 'hearing' in "I was hearing of new disasters every day" and in "My hearing has started to go; please speak up". I am insufficiently a linguistic pedant to know whether the terms 'present participle' and 'gerund' overlap in meaning. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Alex: no, the present participle is not at issue here. The point Trovatore is making, and KnightMove questioning, is that "hearing" as a noun is different from "hearing" as a gerund. No doubt they started as the same word, but the noun "hearing" has shifted its meaning to encompass exactly the same range of meanings, mutatis mutandis as "sight". I guess you could regard this as a broadening of the meaning of one word, but I find it more natural to regard it as now two separate words. When it means "act of hearing" (eg I wasn't happy about hearing that), or "acts of hearing in general" (eg Hearing about acts of generosity always makes me happy), it is clearly a gerund, exactly parallel to "seeing"; but when it means "auditory faculty", the suggestion is that it is not a gerund, as my hearing is good, parallel to my sight is good, does not refer to any acts of hearing, but to the faculty itself. --ColinFine (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Nah. I'm just having my little jest. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

EO unequivically declares "hearing" to be a noun form.[12] It's worth pointing out that "sight" as a sort-of noun form of "see" is a later development. It originally meant "something seen".[13] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

tenable, meaning?

"Commonwealth Academic Fellowship tenable in UK". What does the word "tenable" in this document mean? --202.88.252.2 (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Tenable: "capable of being occupied, possessed, held, or enjoyed, as under certain conditions: a research grant tenable for two years

In this case, "The Fellowships are for a specific programme of academic collaboration ...." and candidates should "be available to commence their Fellowship in the United Kingdom on 1 September, 2013". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"Tenable" is one of a family of words derived from the Latin tenere, which means "to hold" or "to keep"; hence it also means "to have" in the sense of "to possess".[14] Words such as "tenant", "tenet" and "tenor" are also from this root, and words such as "tendril" and "tentacle" are cousins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

We’re done for

Meaning we're doomed.

I'm curious as to how this expression arose. This says it dates from 1803, but doesn't tell me who first said and why and in what context. Or, most importantly, how they expected anyone else to understand what they meant. Because there was no existing corresponding active expression that might have given the game away. All there is is this passive expression "<someone's> done for". Or am I wrong in making that assumption? Maybe there was an idiom "To do somebody for", that's fallen into disuse.

Another thing. It seems to exist only in the present. Never "He was done for" or "We will be done for". I can say that the world will end on 21 December, but I can't say we will be done for on 21 December. Can I? We're done for right now, because our fates are already set in stone, even if our actual grisly and agonising deaths will not occur for two more months.

Can anyone shed some light on this, please. Preferably before December. Just in case. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly understand "We will be done for"; I may even have used that form myself. And the phrasal-verb form is "to do for somebody", not *"to do somebody for" - again, this is something which I've heard and used. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"To do for somebody" - doesn't that mean to look after somebody, tend to their needs, etc; rather than be the agent of their doom? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Siegfried Sassoon thinks not: http://poetry.poetryx.com/poems/7220/ AlexTiefling (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is one meaning, but apparently there is another meaning of 'do for': To ruin, damage, or injure fatally, destroy, wear out entirely. (first known from 1740 in "D–mn you, I'll do for you") - Lindert (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

e/c We'll be done for, could also be used in conditional sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It is first found (according to the OED) in a letter (dated 1803) by Lord Nelson, quoted in The dispatches and letters of Vice Admiral Lord Viscount Nelson. You can find it online here. - Lindert (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"We have had a dreadful winter. The Kent is almost done for, and she is going to Malta merely for a passage in the summer. Stately is obliged to have her lower-deck guns taken out, she is so very weak."

Excellent, thank you. But I still want to know how Nelson could have had any confidence his reader would have understood what he meant. Context helps greatly, but if the actual sequence of words he chose was completely unknown, then they'd still be scratching their heads. I suppose it could be a relative of "to be done in". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem far from "done with," either. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Most linguists will tell you that the earliest known written reference to a word or expression often substantially postdates the first oral use. These things come into being in the vernacular, eventually become accepted as standard, and only then used in writing. Additionally, we only get to see a fraction of the stuff that was actually written in any period, so other earlier uses may be lost. Rojomoke (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Very true, Rojomoke. See my response to Norwegian Blue below. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In the "sleepy suburb" thread some days ago, I learned about the google ngram viewer feature, which works nicely here too, and fits well with a date around 1800: We are done for. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks. I fiddled around with a few variations on the phrase, and found this result for "I am done for", which shows some results from around 1780. All the others (You are, he is, she is, we are ...) start around 1800 and have a pronounced spike around 1900. Maybe that was turn-of-the-century angst at work. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

volume

Can you turn up the volume of the file File:FRQC-tête.ogg please ? Fête (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just turn up the sound on your computer? --Viennese Waltz 22:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you turn up the volume of the file File:Fr-Normandie-ça va.ogg please ? Because it's not loud. Fête (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

See VW's response, above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I often run into the same problem, and wish the source file were louder. μηδείς (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a practical way to fix it here? Or would it have to be downloaded, tinkered with, and re-uploaded? Would the folks at the "village pump" know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Might get an answer on computing. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

October 17

Equivalents to Basic English/Special English in Spanish, French, and German?

Hi! I noted that Simple English Wikipedia has a basis in Basic English, Special English, two standardized simplified Englishes. Do you know of any equivalents in Spanish, French, and/or German? If so, they could form bases of Simple versions of their Wikipedias - Since I know there are large numbers of Spanish speakers in the United States who may have access to technology through public libraries but are not well educated, I think a Simple Spanish Wikipedia could be very helpful. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Basic English isn't meant so much for uneducated English speakers, but for speakers who have English as a second language, it being the language with the most second-language speakers in the world. French, Spanish and German are all easy to pronounce once you know the spelling rules, while English is a crap shoot in that respect. But none of them takes kindly to having its grammatical desinences removed. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

French? Easier than English, maybe. But it has plenty of stuff you just have to know, especially in terms of when letters are silent and when they aren't. (An old colleague summed it up as "don't pronounce anything in the second half of the word", which works pretty well for, say, prennent.) --Trovatore (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's true that Basic English was meant for ESL purposes, but Simple English Wikipedia is also trying to target people who are relatively uneducated and children as well as ESL. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think SEW has a clear rationale. It was my understanding that it was supposed to be able to treat material that was just as difficult, but using simple language. The problem is, of course, that in practice this is not in fact possible — while it is certainly true that it is a bad habit to use unnecessarily difficult language, it is also true that precise discussion of specialized material requires specialized language.

As a same-level-of-sophistication copy of en.wiki using simple language, SEW is just a flat failure. As a "children's WP" it could possibly make sense, but in that case it probably shouldn't e treated as a "language" WP, but as a different WikiMedia project. --Trovatore (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that it is difficult to introduce complicated/precise topics to relatively uneducated people anyway? If they aren't able to understand complex sentence patterns and/or terminology then it would be very difficult to discuss certain things with them. There are languages which by design have great difficulty in discussing things like sciences and modern technology (It can take a long White Hmong sentence to convey what a short English sentence can say) - Because of these two aspects we can have language wikis which aren't/can't be as "sophisticated" or "technical" as say, English and French WhisperToMe (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

French may have a lot of silent letters but there is no confusion over how they are pronounced, nor is there confusion over how the non-silent ones are pronounced. And if one drops the verb endings it is simply no longer French. Those languages are simply not amenable to the same project that English is, for the same reasons I just gave, regardless of the uneducated trying to take advantage. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There is confusion over whether they are silent or not, and no simple rules for determining that. There are also one-off pronunciations specific to a given word (e.g. the schwa in the first syllable of faisons). --Trovatore (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Getting back to your original question, the only non-English equivalent of a standardized simplified language that I know of is français fondamental. These languages are restricted on purpose; any natural language, including the Hmong languages, can express complicated concepts through loanwords, calques, etc., if the speakers are motivated to do so. I think that the paucity of scientific literature in Hmong is more a product of the social situation of Hmong speakers than of the languages themselves. Also, just so we're clear in this discussion, Basic English and Simple English have nothing to do with pronunciation or spelling reform. Lesgles (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that natural languages can adopt loan words, etc. And I agree that the limited natural languages do have to do with cultural/situational issues. But sometimes it can become cumbersome to incorporate and explain all of these loanwords. In some countries people switch from their native tongue to a second or third language just to discuss scientific topics/etc. Anyway, thanks for the tip! I'll review the failed French Simple nominations, and then make a proposal regarding starting a "Simple French" Wikipedia based on "français fondamental" WhisperToMe (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to give examples, Trovatore. Prennent is perfectly regular in regards to pronunciation for a third person verb and presents no confusion. French spelling may be more complicated than its surface phonetics, but that is not bad given it conveys information you'd otherwise have to gather from context. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have never lived in France, so I don't really know, but I was taught in high school that prennent is a single-syllable word. I have heard other French speakers say it with two syllables, but the second syllable was at most a little glide. It certainly does not rhyme with, say, maintnent. --Trovatore (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I started a Meta page to explore the concept of a Simple French Wikipedia: Meta:Babel#Simple_French_Wikipedia_proposal_based_on_fran.C3.A7ais_fondamental WhisperToMe (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Help with Chinese names

Hopefully quite a simple question: I'd like to use this book as a reference, but don't know how to cite the names of its authors. They're listed by Google as "Dan Yao, Jinhui Deng, Feng Wang, Huiyun Tang"; however the front cover of the book reads "Yao Dan et al", and Feng Wang redirects to Wang Feng. So, are Google's versions reversed/westernised? And if so should we return them to family-name-first per WP:NC-ZH? Thanks! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Google probably listed the name in western order. Chinese names#Chinese names in English states that in most situations Chinese people use the family name first. It may help to try to find the Chinese characters of the authors. Deng, Yao, Wang, and Tang are all Chinese surnames. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're trying to work out which is which, but are not up on Chinese surnames, it's useful to note that Chinese given names are often (not always) two syllables, while surnames rarely (though occasionally) are. Henry^Flower 04:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Linear A and Linear B

I couldn't find mention of this in the articles Linear A and Linear B, but in what sense are they "linear"? Being that Linear A is still unintelligible and that these names were coined before Linear B was deciphered, I assume it must refer to something fairly superficial. Some orthographic feature, perhaps? 129.234.186.45 (talk) 09:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)