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

May 15

Transliteration from Arabic

I would be grateful if a user could please transliterate from Arabic letters to English letters the entry in a population register shown on the link. <a href="http://chaimsimons.net/Arabicletters.jpg"> </a>Thank you 89.138.85.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

They are not legible. Omidinist (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

There are two methods which might improve the clarity of the Arabic letters. One of them is to decrease the size of the image. The second is to go to the actual Population Register. This can be found on the internet at: http://www.archives.gov.il/archives/#/Archive/0b0717068002269e/File/0b071706809d4c06 Scroll down to page 75. The required entry is the fourth family down from the top of the page, or alternatively it is the fourth family up from the bottom of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonschaim (talk • contribs) 04:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

How many languages have ever existed?

I've been wondering, has anyone attempted to estimate how many languages have ever been spoken? If so, how are these estimates made, and what are the results? I realize that this question is probably impossible to answer conclusively, but I'd be interested to know of any attempts made. 2602:306:321B:5970:9889:9295:DC56:B865 (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

First define "language" unambiguously, then we might be able to start a meaningful discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This blog - http://thelousylinguist.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/94000-language-deaths.html - suggests about 100,000 (give or take 40,000) and links to some research on the subject. Wymspen (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

To save anyone the bother of reading the blog which Wymspen linked to, his/her argument is that If we assume that languages come and go at a pace that correlates with populations, then we can assume that the current 6000 living languages are about 6% of the total number of languages that ever existed. That means the total number of languages that have ever existed is around 100,000. Not a whiff of a basis for that assumption. this essay is one of several to mention David Crystal estimating in his Language Death (which I don't have, so I've no idea of the reasoning) between 64,000 and 140,000; it also quotes a figure from Mark Pagel of up to 500,000; and presents a model which I haven't read (but which you might, if interested) which gives a figure of ~150,000. At a minimum, it's not such a silly question that no-one's bothered to ask it. Henry^Flower 20:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your point being that there is no such thing as a silly question? Do you have an RS for that? One simple question. How many indigenous language families were there in Europe before the advent of Indo-European? The answer? No one has a clue. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No, my point being that respectable linguists have addressed the question; and that this being a reference desk, we could (shock horror) actually refer people to them. Henry^Flower 04:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

"Respectable" perhaps is a relative term, Origin of language notes that the subject is nigh-on impenetrable, and that ANY attempts to answer questions such as this one (any discussion of the number of languages ever spoken has to first start with how language originated!) are basically impossible to answer, and that attempts to do so amount to little more than wild speculation, albeit some speculation done by people with certain post-nominal letters sometimes gets more attention, it isn't necessarily any less speculation. --Jayron32 15:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I've always been fascinated by the certainty with which some linguists state there was exactly one. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied that I understand the phrase "a pace that correlates with populations". Does it mean that there are 16 times as many dead humans as live humans, and therefore we can estimate that there are 16 times as many dead languages as live ones, or something else? —Tamfang (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it means. Henry^Flower 09:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ethnologue has catalogued just over 7000 current languages, but there is always a problem that languages often exist on a dialect continuum and that "There is no universally accepted criterion for distinguishing two different languages from two dialects (i.e. varieties) of the same language". This sort of calculation is bound to vary wildly depending on the criteria used for the counting. After all, people living in Brazil today speak a version of Latin, though the transition from Vulgar Latin to Brazilian Portuguese didn't happen in one instant. There wasn't ever a time when people suddenly couldn't understand their neighbors, like one day a group of Latin speakers woke up and suddenly was speaking Portuguese. Such changes happen gradually over many centuries. So, while we may be able to say, today, that Latin and Brazilian Portuguese are distinct languages, at some point in history, they weren't, and what was THAT? Was that a variety of Latin? A variety of Portuguese? A distinct third language? --Jayron32 14:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• One might as well ask how many families have existed. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

One answer is "All of them." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Which of course, probably isn't correct. For example, there are plenty of sign languages, e.g. New Zealand Sign Language, American Sign Language and perhaps even International Sign which aren't spoken, at least in accordance with the ordinary English meaning of the world. In fact our article says "Sign languages share many similarities with spoken languages (sometimes called "oral languages")". Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That assumes the OP meant "what percentage of languages have ever been spoken?" as opposed to other forms of communication. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

More explaination Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't. You're the first one to bring up whether all languages that ever existed were spoken with a pointless joke which is just plain wrong. Barring a very odd definition of languages, it's likely the number of languages which existed but were never spoken is too small to make a difference to the OP's question (i.e. it's likely the difference will be well within the margin of error or any estimate, and any estimate where this isn't the case is circumspect). For precision someone could have clarified whether the OP was only genuinely interested in spoken languages if needed although as said, there doesn't seem to be any real reason for this, but that's a different point. In other words, it doesn't actually matter that the OP's question potentially doesn't properly cover what they actually wanted to know but instead technically misses some languages, although it's also possible they were only interested in spoken languages; but your jokey response is still wrong, pointless and stupid whatever the OP actually wanted to know. Now maybe the later 2 apply to these comment as well, but I strongly dislike it when jokes or offhand comments are made which aren't even right (or make no sense), if you're going to joke you can at least make sure you get it right. (Although I think these comments do touch on a point that is relevant namely why this question will never have a satisfactory answer even as an estimate. Assuming the OP is interested in all languages not just spoken ones, the issues of dialect-continuums was touched on above. Chinese is on obvious popular example where you have many variants largely mutually unintelligible. You can then consider how to classify written Chinese in relation to this. Whether these complexities are enough to make a differences, i.e. including sign languages etc, that isn't in the margin of error, I expect not but it does further illustrate the problems facing any linguist who attempted this.) Nil Einne (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC) BTW, in case there is still some confusion, it seems clear from the title, and in any case I think was clear to everyone else including me that the OP was interested in an estimate of the number of languages that have existed. Because of their actual question, it's not totally certain if they are interested in estimates which include non-spoken languages. Most likely they are or don't care, and there's a good chance linguists who have tried to estimate have not bothered with such complexities simply because the number is likely to be too small to significantly affect the answer. If the OP was only interested in estimates of spoken languages and not all languages, then their questions is technically okay although, especially given the title, it may be helpful for them to reword it to make it clear they are only interested in spoken languages. If the OP is interested in estimates of all languages or doesn't care, then their question is technically poorly worded although as I've said several times, it doesn't really matter. Still as a nitpicker myself, I wouldn't complain about someone seeking clarification. Whatever the OP actually meant, it's clear that an answer 'all of them' isn't useful because it's plain wrong. Under most definitions of "spoken" and also definitions of "language" used by linguists, there are some languages which have never been spoken. An answer "nearly all of them" would probably be true, even if still pointless, still I wouldn't have complained about such an answer. An estimate of the proportion of languages that were spoken would likewise be pointless. Still if such an estimate really existed and this was given as an answer, it's actually the sort of jokey answer which should IMO get kudos. Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

May 16

Ah (阿)

What is the English linguistic terminology for the Chinese naming prefix Ah (阿)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

According to Chinese name it is a signifier of a nickname. I don't know that there is an English equivalent, maybe diminutive? --Jayron32 01:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary says "Used in front of persons' given names or kinship terms to express familiarity (traditionally in rural or southern Chinese dialects)." 阿 gobonobo ^{+ c} 02:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I am Cantonese so I understand the meaning of the term. I am just surprise there is no official linguistic categorization/terminology for it. Maybe it could be a diminutive, can anybody confirm that?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this similar to the Northern British dialect use of "our"; "our Jim" (for a brother, son, or close relative Jim), "our mam", etc. ? -- Q Chris (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it really answers the question but there was a similar discussion about this prefix last month. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It's similar to a diminutive in other languages, the closest analogy I can think of in English is modifying someone's name or form of address with a "-y" sound or "-a" sound, like "daddy", "Jimmy" or "Gazza". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The question shows up the limitation of seeking classification of every word or particle. I am reminded that in French you can use the definite article with similar effect. "T'as vu la Marie?" could. be translated into English "Did you see our Mary?", or "did you see that Mary one?", depending on the relationship. Languages do weird things especially when you get into dialect and colloquial usage. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a Hypocorism? --ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It's actually one of the examples listed in that article: in Cantonese and related dialects, the addition of a word-final very high tone, or changed tone sometimes in combination with the addition of the prefix A before the name. The A syllable is also used in other dialects originating in southern China as a term of endearment or closeness. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Underdots for cerebrals

I've recently come across a bit of information (pp. 258-259) which attributes the invention of underdots for "cerebrals" in Indic languages to Franz Bopp. I was about to add this information somewhere, when I discovered a slightly different story in Hunterian transliteration where there is no mention of Franz Bopp. Who in fact did invent the underdots? I could have dug myself and looked through every book by the authors mentioned, though I hope someone may already know the answer.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It may help to know that cerebrals are usually called retroflex consonants in most other contexts. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yet they did not use this term back then, so it's unlikely to find anything with such a keyword.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I've found it myself. In 1808 Charles Wilkins published his grammar of Sanskrit, where he explicitly use underdots[1]; Franz Bopp (b. 1791) was only 17 by then. In Bopp's own Sanskrit grammar, published in 1827, he did not used any dots at all[2]; yet he introduced over- and underdots in his famous Comparative Grammar (1833) [3][4], as well as in his earlier Analytical Comparison (1820)[5], where he directly cited Wilkins. So this misattribution to Bopp may be explained by the popularity of his main work: people who are more familiar with his works than with Wilkins' may think it was Bopp who had invented the dots.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

May 17

incredible

does this word ever mean "not credible"?68.151.25.115 (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That's where it came from, as with "unbelievable" which is essentially the same word.[6] Nowadays they're both used very often as slang terms for "extraordinary". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I consider both of those to be "weasel words" and should be avoided in Wikipedia articles. I'm undecided on extraordinary. Context I guess.196.213.35.146 (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, while there are shades of difference between "incredible" and "unbelievable" they are basically synonyms, and have etymologies which indicate it as well, "cred-" being a root that roughly beans "belief", compare words like "credibility" and "credulity" and "credulous" etymonline has information on the origins of the word. --Jayron32 12:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

One time I can think of it being used correctly was Jack Buck in calling Kirk Gibson's home run in Game 1 of the 1988 World Series: He said "Unbelievable!" and then immediately followed up with "I don't believe what I just saw!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. He is still using it to mean extraordinary. He doesn't literally believe that somehow a fictional event has been displayed in an attempt to trick him. Contrast with the statement that "Trumps claim that 5 million votes were cast illegally for Hillary is incredible/unbelievable". StuRat (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Certainly he's still being metaphorical. But the context of this situation was very, very extraordinary: Gibson hobbling around the bases on two bad knees, after he had somehow muscled the ball into the seats, off the seemingly unbeatable Eckersly. Here are parts of three calls:[7] And because of the over-hype around those words, I wouldn't call Trump's claims "incredible" or "unbelievable" because those words aren't strong enough nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that last bit. I wish reporters would outright say that Trump lied, when it's absolutely clear that he did. Instead they feel the need to soften it by saying something like "Trump made an unsupported claim that there were 5 million fraudulent votes". StuRat (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Columnists might say that, but journalists are supposed to be more careful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Lying implies intentional deceit; people who believe what they are saying themselves, or without regard for the truth one way or the other are not lying, since lying requires intent. If you actually believe it, or you don't care, you aren't lying, even if what you say is false. --Jayron32 03:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, difficult to prove without direct evidence. It's true of many salesmen: They not only have to be willing to lie, they have to believe the lie - hence, in their own minds, they aren't actually lying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Still, "unsupported claim" just isn't strong enough. The sun rose this morning in Detroit at 6:05 AM local time. I offer no evidence of this. I've just made an "unsupported claim". However, mine can be easily verified as true, while Trump's can be easily verified as false. So, Trump's claims should be called "false", at the very least. Then we should add something to indicate that anybody should know that it's false, so "absurd, false claim" might suffice. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

In the OED Online, "Not credible: that cannot be believed; beyond belief" is the first sense listed for "incredible"; since's it's a historical dictionary that means it's the oldest sense. The first example of use is from a book published between 1414 and 1420. And it was still a reasonably current sense when this part of the dictionary was written in 1900: they have an example from 1871, with Sir Leslie Stephen writing: "The small nucleus of fact round which so many incredible stories have gathered." Perhaps when this entry is updated for modern times they will add an annotation like "obsolete" or "now rare"; I can't say. (Of course they also list what they call the "weakened" sense that they define as: "Such as it is difficult to believe in the possibility of, or to realize; said esp. of a quantity, quality, number, etc., of a degree beyond what one would a priori have conceived as possible; inconceivable, exceedingly great." Their earliest example of this usage is from 1482 and in modern spelling it would read: "An inestimable and incredible sweetness of joyful comfort".) --76.71.6.254 (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

"I am an alt"

What does "alt" mean in the context of Curtis's comment? "I am an alt. These colors do not work for me. I backed the project without realizing that there would be no colors available for alts at this time. How long until black?" Urban Dictionary was no help. 173.18.56.232 (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Who is Curtis? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The person who made that comment, in the link I provided. I don't know anything more about Curtis than that. 173.18.56.232 (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It's rather obviously a shortening of alternative. To judge by the stuff I'm finding online (such as this), the "alt" culture seems to be rather similar to the goth subculture, though I'm sure that there are fine distinctions to be made. Note that Curtis is disappointed that the garment isn't available in black. Deor (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Usually, in Internet jargon, "alt" means "alternate character" (or account). More commonly it's just short for alternative (like alternative lifestyle or culture). The former doesn't fit the context here, certainly. Since he apparently doesn't like the current pastel colors and wants black, maybe it does have to do with alt lifestyle/culture. But I can't find anything online to verify that. clpo13_(talk) 17:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Subculture slang, especially youth subculture slang, like this is ephemeral and arcane, often intentionally so. People outside of the subculture are not supposed to understand the language, though context can sometimes give clues, in this case the use of "alt" probably means "alternative" in the sense of "not part of the mainstream"; what specifically it means is different is probably unknowable here beyond that, however. You can read more about this sort of language in articles at Wikipedia like Cant (language) and Argot. --Jayron32 18:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

In that context? It seems clear: someone who likes to wear black. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

See Subaltern (postcolonialism), which may shed light on the meaning of alt. The article says, "...the term subaltern describes the lower classes and the social groups who are at the margins of a society...", and suggests that it may be an appropriate term "for somebody who's not getting a piece of the pie". Akld guy (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

A Spanish/Russian r and a French/German r, in the same language.

Are there [Indo-]European languages, [spoken in Europe, and] having both a Spanish/Russian r (whether [r] or [ɾ] ), and a French/German r (whether [ʁ] or [ɣ] ), as two distinct phonemes (disregarding: loanwords, and allophones of [x] or of [g] )? HOTmag (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, Kabardian_language#Consonants is the first place I looked; it has r and ʁ. You can include various other Caucasian languages and Maltese if you accept a voiceless fricative for the ʁ. Spanish has the flap, the trill, and the ɣ. It all depends on how strictly you want to define the Parisian arr. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not clarifying my question enough. I meant Indo-European languages, spoken in Europe. As for Spanish, I don't think it has [ɣ], as a phoneme. HOTmag (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

See lago for [ɣ] in Spanish.--Wikimedes (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it an allophone of [g] ? (Thanks to your comment, I've just excluded also allophones of [g] ). HOTmag (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's a [ɡ] after a pause or a nasal and a [ɣ] elsewhere. European Portuguese, too, exhibits something similar. --Theurgist (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Greek has /r/ and /ɣ/ as distinct phonemes. Oh, and Irish too, I almost forgot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for Irish. As for Greek, isn't its [ɣ] an allophone of [g] ? (Thanks to your comment, I've just excluded also allophones of [g] ). HOTmag (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I think it isn't. --Theurgist (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

HotMAG -- I don't think that a simple velar [ɣ] would satisfy the definition of a standard French "r"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

But I didn't say what you think I said. I said: "French/German r (whether [ʁ] or [ɣ] )". HOTmag (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Armenian has /ɣ ~ ʁ/ (Armenian script: ղ), /r/ (ռ) and /ɾ/ (ր) as distinct phonemes and is an official minority language of many European countries.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 09:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And it's official in Armenia itself. Often in various terms, such as geopolitics, culture, history, sports and Eurovision, Armenia is counted as a European nation, even though it's in Asia according to the most common purely geographical definition for the boundary between Europe and Asia. --Theurgist (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. HOTmag (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Dutch, Luxembourgish, Icelandic. --Theurgist (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for Dutch and Luxembourgish. As for Icelandic, isn't its [ɣ] an allophone of [x] ? HOTmag (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Several dialects of Hebrew (Iraqi, Yemenite), reflecting different phonemes in Tiberian Hebrew. (Though [ɣ] is theoretically an allophone of [g] in Hebrew.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Please notice that I asked about Indo-European languages, rather than about Semitic languages (for which Arabic is a better example than Hebrew, because Arabic has an [ɣ] as a distinct phoneme, besides [r] ). HOTmag (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The question is futile since you are not asking about actual sound appearances, which others have already provided, but about phonemes. Phonemicization is an abstraction. Different authors have different interpretations, the choice of a symbol is merely a tool for their works. You could also say that Spanish, Russian, French and German all have /r/ just like English writers use /r/ for the English R, which is definitely not a trill in most varieties. The Greek example illustrates the problem well. Of course, modern Greek's [ɣ] developed from ancient Greek /g/. So do we use still use the phonemic symbol /g/ because it's historical? Or has sound change altered the phonological system? The problem is that the sound [g] still exists in modern Greek, but you spell it γκ. So the most accepted interpretation today is to keep [ɣ] and [g] separate. In another case, a Spanish phonemicist had to justify the use of the phonemic symbol /ɡ/ because [ɣ] is way more common in connected speech. --88.67.125.45 (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "Phonemicization is an abstraction " as you claim. On the contrary, I think phonemicization is a very practical matter. For example, [t] and [s] are distinct phonemes in English, because /ti:/ doesn't mean what /si:/ means. However, [t] and [ʔ] are not distinct phonemes in English, because /bʌtn/ means exactly what /bʌʔn/ means. HOTmag (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Uses of the terms "Middle" and "Old English"

When was the linguistic distinction first recognized between Old and Middle English, and between Middle English and what we call modern English? When were the terms first used? 70.190.164.57 (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Great English Vowel Shift. μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Old English has been known about since the Cotton library was assembled. The "Reliques of Ancient English Poetry" apparently contain some Middle English. AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• The article titled History of English discusses the events and changes that shaped the three languages. --Jayron32 02:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• [edit conflict] But the question isn't asking about the history of English: it's asking about the historiography of English. When did people first conceive of dividing the history of the language into Old, Middle, and Modern English periods? I don't know the answer myself. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Merriam_Webster has "Old English" first used in 1869 but "Middle English" from 1830.[8] Rmhermen (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Which begs the question: what was Middle English considered to be "between" from 1830 - 1869? --Jayron32 02:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Possibly between "Anglo-Saxon" and "Modern English". The OED may have some earlier usage examples for "Old English". Rmhermen (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If you're looking for historiography of English, then this book seems to be related. --Jayron32 02:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not helpful to the IP; it's in Arizona, and all WorldCat records for all editions of it are in the UK or the European continent. If it were only across the US, I could recommend interlibrary loan, but I understand from my colleagues in the ILL department that due to factors such as shipping difficulties and lesser openness toward ILL on the part of European libraries, they don't even bother requesting ILL from non-American institutions. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There's an interesting book that deals with at least part of the topic: The Making of Middle English, 1765–1910. The section "The Sense of a Middle" in the Introduction is particularly relevant. One sentence reads "In 1874, Henry Sweet cleared away all these fine distinctions ['Semi-Saxon' and the like] and asserted a simple model of Old, Middle, and Modern English", so that's one important benchmark. Deor (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• See Ngram for Middle English. See the Neogrammarians who split languages into pre- proto- old- middle- and modern- periods as part of historical linguistics. μηδείς (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

May 18

Translating Rohan

In translations of The Lord of the Rings, how is the speech of Rohan most commonly rendered? Is it typically left alone, or is it typically rendered in an ancient form of the destination language? The latter seems more in line with Tolkien's wishes (I can imagine him appreciating the Rohirrim speaking Old Church Slavonic in Властелин колец and their poetry following ancient Slavic forms), but that would potentially require someone skilled in the older form of the language, and I can imagine it being cheaper just to leave the Mercian Old English in place and retain the alliterative half-line structure of the poetry. I suppose that the other languages are typically retained unchanged, as the only other related speech is the potentially Indo-European speech of the House of Bëor (see discussion of Finrod Felagund's name "Nom" in their speech in The History of Middle-Earth, perhaps in The Lost Road) and the Elven speeches and Khuzdul have no relationship to the Mannic speech rendered as English in the original text. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Tolkien wrote up some notes for translators, the "Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings", in which he advises not altering Rohirric names (as is the case with almost all names and terms which are not predominantly modern English)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure of the copyright status, but you can read those notes here. Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

'To share a measure in common'

Is this expresion a pleonasm? Our article on irrational numbers says that two line segments are 'incommensurable' if they 'share no "measure" in common'. Isn't it redundant?

I suppose 'they share a measure' is equivalent to 'they have a measure in common' or 'they have some common measure' (a measure being such a smaller length which, if considered a unit, makes both segments' lengths whole numbers).
Using both 'share' and 'in common' in one expression seems incorrect to me. Am I right?

And if I am, does it need fixing in the irrational number article? --CiaPan (talk) (non-native speaker) 06:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"incommensurable" seems to be just another way to say that one or both of the segments is an irrational number, hence the two can't be expressed as a ratio. If a right triangle's legs are both of length 1, then the hypotenuse is the square root of two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: No, no, no. A segment is not a number, either rational or irrational. Segments are geometric objects, and a natural number (in Ancient Greek maths) expresses how many times one of them fits in another. Often this can't happen, so the Greeks invented an idea of a fraction, telling how many times a common measure (some 'unit length segment') fits in each of two given segments. Incommensurability is a situation when such a common measure does not exist.

But that's not what I asked about. See, this is a Language, not Math RD, and I seek for explanation of 'share sth. in common' in/correctness. --CiaPan (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I should have said the length of one or both segments is irrational. Actually, it doesn't matter, since no matter the size of the triangle it can always be said to have a measurement of 1, while the hypotenuse can always be said to have a measure of square root of 2 in relation to each leg. Trovatore's explanation is what I was trying to say, only he said it better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 

It's a very old-fashioned way of putting it. I mean really really old-fashioned, like to the days of the Pythagoreans, though of course they didn't speak English. They had a rather rigid view of mathematics; as I understand it the only "numbers" they recognized were the natural numbers greater than or equal to 2. (Not only was 0 not a "number"; 1 was not a number either, but rather the generator of numbers.) This was akin to a religious belief.

So for them the only way to express the proportion of two lengths was to find a third smaller length, such that both lengths were natural-number multiples of the smaller one. That would be the "measure in common".

It came as an unwelcome surprise when they found out that the hypotenuse of an isosceles right triangle could not be thus compared with one of its legs. There's a story that they forced the one who discovered it to drown himself. I think it's just a story, but it goes to how they felt about it.

With the modern conception of the real numbers, this all seems a little bit silly (perhaps more importantly for the reals specifically, so do Zeno's paradoxes). But it was important at the time, and to some extent it has survived in language, albeit very dated language. --Trovatore (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I re-read your question, and now I realize that wasn't what you were asking about. I guess share...in common is a tiny bit redundant, but it doesn't sound bad to me. "Share a measure" doesn't make a lot of sense. You could substitute "have a measure in common", maybe, but I don't think it's an improvement. --Trovatore (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Trovatore: Actually, I'm not going to improve the article at the language level – I don't speak English well enough. When asking the question I aimed my own learning, not Wikipedia improvement. I just tried to learn something new about the language in the part of 'feeling correct'. :) Thank you for the explantion. --CiaPan (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've reworded it. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems clearer now. But did you intend to tell us your location? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What's that got to to with the question? --76.71.6.254 (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Your IP address can be tracked. A registered user ID cannot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And? Why do you need to know the OP's location? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't. But someone with less honorable intentions might abuse that information in some way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Registered users post stuff while logged out, all the time. You're making an issue out of nothing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not my issue. I'm just trying to provide some friendly advice to the user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not perceive the current phrasing as being clearer now. The previous wording share no measure in common reflects imho in a very appropriate way the word in-comm(on)-(m)ensurable, which to explain it is intended. BTW, this wording was there for years (since 2004), already. Additionally, while tinkering around this paragraph in March, I did like the mutual corroboration by redundancy of share and in common, as pointing to a core concept of irrationality. The current formulation appears as clear to me, but also as not an improvement. Purgy (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Share no measure in common" is a reasonable exegesis of the etymology of "incommensurable", but it doesn't make sense, in English, for the concept being described. The word "measure" does not mean "submultiple of an interval".

So I wouldn't object to putting the phrase back as an explanation of the etymology, but we shouldn't use it as though it actually made sense, because it doesn't. --Trovatore (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

In no way I intend to modify the status quo of this paragraph, nor do I object to the notion measure having a special meaning in math (often), but I want to remark that I left the quotes around this word specifically to allow for the desired interpretation as some arbitrarily small line length (for heaven's sake, no infinitesimal), as an etalon, like the mètre des archives, to exhaust other line lengths. Purgy (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What did Russian ca. 17-18th C. really sound like?

If someone were transported from 17th C. Russia/Muscovy/whatever into the $current_year, would they have an accent? What would that sound like? 80.171.99.241 (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking whether a Russian from that time period would sound different to modern Russians? Someone with knowledge of Russian might know, but consider this: If you beamed an English speaker of similar vintage into modern times, he might well sound different, and also he would be unfamiliar with modern idioms and slang. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

We have History of the Russian language, but it is not very detailed, and deals more with spelling and vocabulary changes. The most important changes that affect Moscovy Russian compared to other dialects are akanje, and the other types of vowel reduction in Russian and the development of the yers, unstressed forms of short 'i' and 'u'. Unfortunately, our articles don't give time periods for these changes, but they are the main reasons for the differences between the modern Eastern Slavic languages.

For example, one, nine, and rain in the Rusyn language are /'jɛdɛn/, /dɛwjat/ and /dɨt͡ʃ/, while due to akanje and ikanje, "one" is /ad'in/, nine is /'djevɪt'/, and rain is /dɔt͡ʃ/. These are all stress-induced changes, with Rusyn slightly closer to Old Slavonic, but /dɨt͡ʃ/ being an innovation in a word that originally had a yer vowel, like 'book'.

I highly suspect a 17th Century Muscovite would sound like a Ukrainian to a modern Russian, as Ukrainian is more conservative in its vowels. I'd ping Lyuboslov Yezikin, but he spells and signs his name so incongruently I can't recall it at the moment. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Любослов Езыкин:. —Stephen (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have little to add, Baseball Bugs has explained it above. Russian is hardly different from any European language in that respect. If the OP wants more details he might read Russian historical grammars (though there exist only a couple of them in English/German, namely by V. Kiparsky and by W. K. Matthews).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Medeis: Jeden is a borrowing from Slovak or Polish, the Eastern Slavic form is odinъ (Ukr./Rusyn odyn; Russ. odin, but due to akanye the first syllable is reduced to an a-like vowel). In "rain" you seem to have misrepresented the last consonants, must be /ʃtʲ/ or /ʃt͡ʃ/.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I should have checked the Russian дождь, I was paying attention to the vowel. But the Rusyn is indeed dycz. Rusyn isn't really Eastern Slavic, it's intermediate between Ukranian and Eastern Slovak, and there's no standard, and had pronounced differences between villages. It rains (as my Grandmother pronounced it) is "Dycz pada", although Magocsi gives docz for the Prešov dialect. In any case, the Old Slavonic had a yer: *dъždžь. Jeden is just as much Polish as it is Slovak. Wiktionary calls Rusyn East Slavonic, but agrees with my pronunciation, see edinъ. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections to the fact that yer in Rusyn can have been reflected into y, I did only not expect that the last consonant had simplified as well. Although, there is a parallelism with Russian, where the colloquial pronunciation has the last consonant /ʃ/.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Rusyn "one"

I did not mean Rusyn is not Eastern Slavic, but that just this particular word for "one" is a borrowing. But it is impossible to identify the source language as the word sounds identical in both Polish and Slovak. Anyway it has nothing to do with Russian akanye.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that akanje has nothing to do with jeden. But wiktionary edinъ seems to show the (j)e and o forms were in free variation, and perhaps Rusyn simply fell on the Western side of that isogloss. Another complication with Rusyn is that there's an isogloss uniting eastern Slovak and Polish in having penultimate stress; some Rusyn dialects have free stress like Russiaan, some have penultimate stress. At some point, everything about Rusyns would end up explained as a borrowing, except for their genetic uniqueness. μηδείς (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not a free variation. Proto-Slavic initial *e- turned out je- in the West and the South but o- in the East (see also W.&S. jezero, jesen’ vs E. ozero, osen’, etc., consult, e.g, The Slavic Languages by Roland Sussex and Paul Cubberley, p. 46). There are several explanations why Rusyn has turned out as such but it's certainly off-topic.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

So, Msr. Fermat, you have a proof, just not enough room in the margin? :) I asked if you had a source that says (explicitly) that jeden is a borrowing in Rusyn from Slovak. (Such a borrowing would be highly unusual.) Should I take it that you don't? μηδείς (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I've given you a source, even the page. Unless you consider Rusyn West Slavic. What are the Rusyn words for "autumn", "lake", "deer", "alder tree", "sturgeon"? I couldn't find a proper full Rusyn dictionary.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, from Uzhgorod: осень, озеро, олень, ольха, осетер. Strikingly East Slavic. With such a consistency you cannot say jeden has come miraculously directly from Proto-Slavic. Particularly with typical West Slavic *ь > e.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Classifying sounds: consonants and vowels vs. obstruents and sonorants

When young children learn to classify the sounds of language, they learn to use consonants and vowels. Wikipedia, however, says that the classification into obstruents and sonorants is more natural. Which classification is more natural?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that children distinguish consonants and vowels in any conscious meta-linguistic way unless they become literate in an alphabetic writing system. In traditional Chinese society, any segmentation going beyond syllable onset vs. syllable rhyme was mainly of interest to some specialized scholars, and I'm not too sure how aware ordinary Chinese-speakers were of individual consonant and vowel segments which did not form a whole syllable onset or a whole syllable rhyme. AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

In English, it's easier to learn the vowels versus the consonants, because the vowels can be said with the mouth open, and relatively little other motions of the mouth other than lip rounding and position of the root of the tongue. Also, one has such sets as beat, bit, bait, bet, bat, bot, bought, but, boat, boot and book. Once you learn about syllables, you can learn that butter, battle, bottom, and button all end in syllables without real vowels, although we pretend, and say there is a schwa present. But one can't always substitute a sonorant for a vowel. Bert is fine as brt. But there's no such word as the impossible /bmk/ in English. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia's template at the top of several articles, including Affricate. It DOES say that obstruent vs. sonorant is important. Georgia guy (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No classification is "natural", they are all created by people for their own convenience. When you ask which classification scheme is "better", you need to specify better for what. Also, what linguists do is different from what teachers do; how a language is taught is pedagogy which is different than how linguists might want to study the phonology of language. Two totally different fields with two totally different classification schemes for two totally different reasons. --Jayron32 10:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Are there some ways the obstruent vs. sonorant classification is better?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Better for what purpose? --Jayron32 14:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Your post implies that there are some pros of the obstruents vs. sonorants classification. How is it important?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Languages differ greatly in their phonetic systems. As I mentioned above, in English, the vowels form a coherent class, and any vowel can replace any other (with a very few exceptions like *theenk) and create a word that fits in the phonetic system of English. Sonorants can also be syllabic in English, but they cannot substitute for vowels in all cases. But in other languages, you can have items like the surname Ng or other Vowel#Words_without_vowels. How to analyze those languages depends on their nature.

There is not one ideal system that fits all languages, any more than there's a single way to classify vertebrates. For example, whether an animal lays eggs, or has placental or marsupial development of "liveborn" young is an ideal way to distinguish the three major living clades of mammals. But that method of classification would be totally useless if applied to birds. Words (concepts) are tools we use to investigate reality. If the words we are used to using don't fit with the reality we want to describe, we don't shoe-horn reality into our terminology, we change or develop new terminology that better fits the reality we are dealing with. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

May 19

Translation from German

Hello, how would you say "Wir sind eine Haltestelle zu früh ausgestiegen"? — I tried to find an appropriate translation in probably every German-English dictionary I could find, but it was useless. However, this is probably not exactly an "exotic" example, is it? I hope you can help me along a bit here. Best--Erdic (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"We're one stop too early to get off." (I assume you want the English, and that the last verb was meant to be auszusteigen.)

Assume nothing. "We got off one stop too early" is the literal translation. Verbs of motion use sein to form the perfect. The literal translation is perfectly correct English, but it may be more idiomatic to say something like "We got off one stop before we should have" or "We got off one stop earlier than we meant to" or "We got off one stop earlier than we were supposed to" or indeed "We got off at the stop before the stop we should have got off at." Valiantis (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed the question mark! If it's intended to be a question the above suggestions would all need to begin "Did we get off..." Valiantis (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

(after EC) Thank you both. First of all, the question mark was supposed to refer to my question itself – my mistake, sorry! @Valiantis: I've already suspected that the literal and – as you state – grammatically correct translation is however not very idiomatic. Though I do wonder about the exact reason for that... Follow-up question: What if we left out the "stop" and simply wrote "We got off too early" instead – would that be unidiomatic, too?--Erdic (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The "one stop too early" construction is fine in British English, see "Investors Getting Off the Bus One Stop Too Early", "The Girl on the Train: got off one stop too early" and "It almost ended an hour later when I got off one stop too early in Exeter and missed my connection to the midlands!". Alansplodge (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• I missed the ? too. But what is "stiegen"? And while I accept (and should have thought of) the perfect in sein, How would one then say, "We are one stop too early to get off?" With a different verb? A different construction? μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

(aus)steigen - stieg (aus) - (aus)gestiegen is, afaik, a so called "Germanic strong verb". "stiegen" is one of the inflected forms (stieg, stiegst, stiegen, stiegt) in the past tense. A specifically German difficulty is the changing position of the "aus" in various forms. Your sentence might be translated to "Wir sind (noch) eine Haltestelle zu früh um auszusteigen." or "... zum Aussteigen." The first variant employs the infinitive and the second a nominalisation of the verb. OK? Purgy (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Medeis: Literally, it would actually be "Wir sind [noch] eine Haltestelle zu früh zum Aussteigen / um auszusteigen". But I guess it would be more natural to simply leave out the part after "früh" → "Wir sind [noch] eine Haltestelle zu früh" = "We're [still] one stop too early"? Would you say that – also with the "still"? And what about American English?--Erdic (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Purgy, I am still confusing myself by thinking this is an infinitive, rather than a past participle. Erdic, everything you have said in English is quite grammatical. Which wording you might actually use would depend on the context, whether in writing or in real-life speech. The use of still would imply that the person addressed had almost gotten off two stops too early, and is doing it again, one stop too early. But that's not a hard and fast rule. You might also say still just for emphasis, even if they hadn't already tried to get off. μηδείς (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible that the phrase is used idiomatically to refer to coitus interruptus? I cite the similar English (originally Naval slang) expression used in the Portsmouth region, "to get out at Fratton" (which is the railway station immediately preceding Portsmouth & Southsea). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Never heard of it and neither has Google as far as I can tell. Still, double-entendres have to start somewhere... Alansplodge (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

May 20

'not' favourable [reposted]

[reposted to give time for answers μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)]

what is the antonym (opposite) of "favourable/favorable" (unfavorable/unfavourable is not the answer).68.151.25.115 (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Adverse? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

What is your basis for saying "un-" is not the answer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

i mean 'give me a word without the prefix un-'.68.151.25.115 (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

So you don't object to "unfavourable" as such, it's just that you would like a list of additional antonyms. Right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Correct68.151.25.115 (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Would I be right in surmising that this is a crossword clue, where you already know that "un-" is precluded? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thesaurus.com has several antonyms for favorable (eg: disadvantageous) (here). — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:1 (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Names of nationalities in ASL

I'd like to understand the motivation for choosing the names of nationalities in ASL. Has this been analyzed by linguists?

Some look prejudiced nowadays, like using the same word for 'Mexican' and 'bandit'. In the case of 'American' they do a sign that resembles several strips. I assume this is an allusion to the American flag. In others it's difficult to see the inspiration. The sign for 'Canada' is knocking twice on the chest with the thumb up. Clipname (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The motivation is not prejudiced, but to select visual characteristics that stand out. Russian is represented by hitting the hands on the hips as in the Russian squat dance. German has the hands crossed at the wrists and moving the fingers like feathers, so the hands are like the wings of an eagle (deutscher Adler). Chinese is the finger-spelling C placed at the outside corner of the eye, indicating squint eyes with initial C. Japanese is the same with a J. Korean is the same with a K. Italian is the finger-spelling i making the Catholic sign of the cross at the top of the forehead. Swedish is made with a finger-spelling S moved in a circle in front of the forehead. There are more than one sign for many things, and I don't know what sign you are referring to as Mexican/bandit. When I sign Mexican, I make a finger-spelling X which I move from my right shoulder to my left hand. Bandit is made by forming a pistol with the right hand (two fingers for the barrel, thumb up for the hammer), held in front of the nose. There is another sign for Mexican, where you make a V with your index and middle fingers and hold them in front of your forehead, representing a sombrero. The sign for American is made by interlacing your ten fingers and moving the resulting two-handed sign in a horizontal circle, representing a cooking pot with the contents mixing together (a melting pot). Sensitive people may read prejudice into some signs, but no prejudice was ever intended. Other than the finger-spelling, ASL signs are mostly based on the visual, because that is the principal sense they have to use to know the world. —Stephen (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

What's the sign and rationale for Spain/Spanish or Europe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hofhof (talk • contribs) 18:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I got the Mexican sign it from ASL for dummies. May it be the old sign?

Rather than prejudiced, it's not PC. But I suppose the same happens in all languages. A common name about a group of people can be associated to something or get a negative connotation. Clipname (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Not eating anything that has eyes

How do you call someone who does not eat anything that has eyes? Noneyetarian? --Hofhof (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

A non-potato-eater? Dbfirs 18:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

A ovo-lacto (or lacto-ovo) vegetarian, as they wouldn't object to eating animal products, e.g. dairy and eggs. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

No, because Hofhof's mythical creature would be quite happy eating worms. Henry^Flower 19:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't expect biological facts and ideological stances to coincide. Milk products and unfertilized eggs do not have eyes, but almost all other animals, including starfish and nematodes can sense light, whether or not they have complex eyes. I dated an ovo-lacto vegetarian for 10 years, and they wore leather shoes for hiking, admitting that the position was a personal preference, not an absolutely defensible and logical position. μηδείς (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• There's no need for snark; two seconds of searching would show you that the maxim of not eating anything that has eyes is common enough. This non-RS suggests that they are Ovo-lacto vegetarians, as Deborahjay mentioned. And, while I'm sure they'd appreciate you letting them know they could eat worms, it's a slogan clearly meant to emotionalize the issue rather a biological rule to be pedantically applied (cf. "Don't Eat Anything With A Face", "Don't Eat Anything With A Mother", etc.) Matt Deres (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The snark was in the original question. Henry^Flower 07:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

English and French polyglot

Which of the following sounds more natural? To me, they both sound grammatical, but I'm not sure which one is better.

I'm an English and French polyglot.

I'm a polyglot in English and French. Scala Cats (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Polyglot usually involves more than two languages. You could say "I'm a polyglot who speaks French and English", which implies you speak other unspecified languages as well. If it's strictly those two, then you would just call yourself a bilingual speaker of French and English --Xuxl (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Biglot? Diglot? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

There's an old joke which runs something like "You call someone who speaks three languages trilingual and someone who speaks two languages bilingual, so what do you call someone who speaks one language? American..." -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• The first time I heard that joke, the answer was "English". --69.159.60.50 (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

And sometimes I think that's being generous. -- Elphion (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

How many Brits speak Spanish in addition to English? Millions of Americans do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Not the newest figures, but a 2006 Eurobarometer reported that 34% of people in the UK and 38% of people in Ireland knew "a language other than their mother tongue" at the time.[9] A 2001 Gallup poll gives about 26% for people in the US who "can speak a language other than English well enough to hold a conversation" (in over half of the cases Spanish, indeed).[10] All these percentages are at the lower end in comparison with other European countries, one of the reasons, of course, being the lack of pressure to learn another language when you already speak the lingua franca. See for example "Oh, to be bilingual in the Anglosphere". (.. well, you chose to take the bait ...)---Sluzzelin talk 01:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, as of 2011, Hispanics accounted for 16.7% of the national population of the United States, so it makes sense to ask, how many white Americans "can speak a language other than English well enough to hold a conversation"... HOTmag (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I am "white" in the sense of "gringo", but dream in Spanish regularly when it makes sense, usually in dreams that have to do with my days of working in a kitchen with Mexicans and Filipinos. I can also hold sophisticated conversations in French, and basic ones in German and broken Ruso-Slavic. I had a roommate in New York Presbyterian hospital from Minsk whose English was very limited. We got along well, but he kept worrying that the orderlies would know we were talking about them. Poly- means "many" (πολύς), not two, and is cognate with full. μηδείς (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

A moment-ous question

How long is a "moment"? I say it's at most a few seconds, while another editor says it's long enough for some bargaining, followed by a fight to the death (albeit between mismatched opponents - Doctor Strange vs. Dormammu - hence fairly brief). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

As with many such words, there is no precise value. It will depend on the context. Here is the definition. You'll note it does not list a specific window of time.--Jayron32 23:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been having an ongoing "senior moment" for some years now, as many here could testify. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

A story is told of a man who climbed a mountain and called out, “Dear God, is it true that for You a thousand years is but a moment?” As his voice reverberated across the hills a thunderous echo roared its response in the affirmative. The man rapidly fired off another question, “Is it true that for You a million dollars is but a penny?” To which the distant roar again replied affirmatively. Humbly the man asked, “God, can you spare me a penny?” To which God replied, “Of course. Just wait a moment...” Wymspen (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

English consonants sorted by frequency

Does anyone have a complete list of all consonant sounds in English sorted by frequency?? I'm sure the rarest is the wh in which. It occurs exclusively at the beginning of words and in compound words whose second word begins with wh; somewhere is a word of the latter kind. Any complete list?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Letter frequency might could get your started in the right direction.--Jayron32 23:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"Frequency of Occurrence of Phonemes in Conversational English"--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 00:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

From its abstract, that source seems dubious, since it does not use the IPA, and it says that a, n, t, i, s, r, i, l, d, ε are the most common phonemes. It doesn't define a, doesn't address the cot/caught merger (or is that the cat vowel?) and suggests that i is both the 4th and 7th most frequent phoneme. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Whew! I looked at the link and thought it fishy, but my linguistics days are too far behind me. Listing the same phoneme twice also aroused suspicion. :) Matt Deres (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The abstract is from 1978, and may suffer from OCR issues when it was digitized. I suspect the two i's were different originally, and the a phoneme may have been different as well... --Jayron32 03:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The abstract says "The speech was transcribed using a quasi-phonemic system, known as ARPAbet," which gives me pause. The sit vowel should still come out as a small cap I, so I retain my dubity. In any case, it seems to be behind a paywall; I could not download the PDF. μηδείς (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

You can do this [11] (the paper from 1950 seems alright).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Direct link to the 1950 PDF. Note that this is NYC English, and has strndl and a second type of d (maybe edh?) as well as the schwa, cat and sit vowels all with at least a 3% frequency. μηδείς (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, just added "rp" to the search query and got these[12][13].--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

May 21

backlash

Non-native speaker here. I have a question concerning the current usage of the word backlash, used without a qualifier, in political parlance: hitherto methought that a backlash can lash back at any lasher, leftward or rightward, but according to the German entry, which comes with a great many citations, it is by now synonymous with conservative/anti-progressive/reactionary backlash. Is that so? --2003:45:4B23:6300:D142:E45B:F20C:3B1 (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

If the German entry is correct, then the word in German is more restrictive than the English word.(see below). There is no requirement that a word with the same spelling has to mean the same in different languages. Perhaps someone fluent in German could comment? Dbfirs 11:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Our article is actually at Backlash (sociology), though at this point it fails WP:DICDEF and should probably be redirected to the Wiktionary entry here. There is no particular political slant left or right to the English usage. Matt Deres (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The meaning of the term Backlash in German is described in the monolingual Duden as 'Gegenreaktion, Gegenströmung; Konterschlag'. The German WP article is pure OR. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that a word can have different shades of meaning in two languages. For example, "molest" has come to mean "rape" in English, while it originally just meant "bother" (in old movies a woman might say to a cop "this man is molesting me"). In French, it retains the original meaning. StuRat (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Molest doesn't mean rape in Britain. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Painting your opponent as being irritable and prone to knee-jerk reactions (which is what backlash implies) is a lefty tactic (the conservative counterpart is "immoral" or "unpatriotic" - or was before the whole Russia affair, anyway.) So it figures leftists would use it wrt conservatives more often than vice versa, plus conservatives may loathe to use a word that has come to be associated with how leftists talk. This will limit its usage to those kind of situations (i.e., liberals unhappy with conservatives) even further. Liberals don't lash back, their reaction when they don't get their way is one of incredulous dismay at conservatives' irrational obstinacy ("I can't even.") PS There's also "frontlash", which is sappy human interest stories detailing some minority's purported fear of backlash, appearing as if on command whenever something big and nasty happens. Asmrulz (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

"Millions of data"?

"Data" and "information" are uncountable, right? Can I then say "millions of data"? And what about "information": Do I have to say "millions of pieces of information", which sounds a bit ponderous to me...? I'm very curious about your answers. Greetings--Erdic (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Neither is "uncountable", but "millions of pieces of information" is correct, as is "millions of data" and "millions of items of data". Information is seldom seen in the plural in modern English so "informations" is often seen incorrect, though it is still current in Scottish Law, and was used by Shakespeare, Swift, Carlyle and Robert Louis Stevenson. The singular of data is "datum", of course. Dbfirs 20:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• When using data as an uncountable noun, as with the uncountable information, you can say millions of pieces/items of data/information, but it flows better if you say lots of data/information, or a lot of data/information, or a huge amount of data/information, or (slightly more formally) very much data/information.

My feeling is that it's very rare to use data as a countable noun preceded by a specific count: these data is moderately common, but five data or millions of data sounds very strange to me. Loraof (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Rare, but not unheard of. The singular is datum, which is still used in some contexts. It is used in philosophy (A premise from which conclusions are drawn) and in engineering (A fixed reference point). Wymspen (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, I (and I assume the OP) was using "uncountable noun" in the sense of mass noun. In the phrase millions of items of data, items is a countable noun while data is a mass noun, like coffee in millions of cups of coffee. Loraof (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Datum and data are the singular and plural respectively. We can say "one datum" but not "two (or more) data". Are there other words that are countable in the singular but not in the plural? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

In my English, "data" is a mass noun, and does not have a singular. I would not use "datum" at all. --ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)