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

November 7

Make it happen/make it happens

Why do they say:

make it happen?

Why not:

make it happens?--82.159.164.102 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Happen is a bare infinitive in the infinitive phrase "it happen", which is the object of make. It's not a finite verb form that takes inflection. Deor (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not contesting the infinitive explanation, User:Deor, but how do we know this is not actually the subjunctive, which is identical in the present? μηδείς (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

One thing for sure: If someone were to say "Make it happens!" we would know right away they were not native English speakers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Medeis's thought occurred to me too, and I'm not sure there's a "real" answer to which mood the verb "really" is in. But I would point out that in languages where it's clear that you use the subjunctive for this sort of thing, like Italian, you would say something like fa che succeda, "make that it happen", where the conjunction che significantly changes the structure of the sentence. On the other hand, the English version could be heard as "make it (to) happen", which would sound sort of OK, and strikes me as closer to the structure we're analyzing. --Trovatore (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Now on reflection I'm not sure that fa che succeda is really idiomatic Italian; my intuitions are not as reliable as they used to be. I invite correction from native speakers. --Trovatore (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a native speaker (but a regular one). I think it's correct, but you can also use the infintive saying "fa' succedere X" for "fa' che succeda X" or "fallo succedere" for "fa' che succeda" (or you could say "fa' in modo che succeda" too). Sometimes there are distinctions, of course ... "Fammi vedere!" means "show me!" while "Fa' che io veda" means .. uhm .. "make that I see" (or something). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I suspected that it might be the English subjunctive, because if you reword it as "make sure that it happen" I am quite convinced that Brits who have lost the subjunctive would indeed say "make sure that it happens" (not that the latter is at all unattested or abnormal in American English as well.) μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I use the present subjunctive naturally, in sentences like "it is important that you be prompt", but "make sure that it happen" sounds almost ungrammatical to me, at the very least archaic. --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

What about sensory verbs such as to hear or to see using that form, bare infinitive or subjunctive(?): "Did you hear her play?" "I saw him finish the cake!" etc. ... Would you guys interpret "play" and "finish" as subjunctives here too? (not a rhetorical question; I have no idea how to distinguish bare infintive from subjunctive, formally). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely call those "bare infinitive" and not "subjunctive". However I don't have a clear criterion to propose to demarcate the two cases. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually, I just realized that my examples, using the object cases "her" and "him" probably point to bare infinitives (not "Did you hear she play"). Similarly, I think that might prove that the OP's example is a bare infinitive as well. If you replaced "it" with a feminine or masculine pronoun, it would have to be "her" and "him". Example: "Make her smile!" "Make him dance!" (it doesn't work that well with 'happen', though that would be conceivable too). So, I guess it is possible to distinguish them formally in this case (you just need to use a pronoun with declension). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly how I parsed it, Sluzzelin. Deor (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the construction under accusative and infinitive. The construction exists in German, e.g. "ich lasse ihn fallen", where the infinitive is clearly distinguishable from the subjunctive. --Wrongfilter (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

True, but it doesn't work with "machen". "Mach es geschehen!" is not grammatical (while "Mach, daß es geschieht!" is). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Not grammatical or not idiomatic? There is the expression "jemanden etwas glauben machen"... Think I'll put on some Blumfeld now... --Wrongfilter (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Very good reply! ("mach es geschehen" still doesn't sound idiomatic to my ears (unlike your example!), but that wouldn't be the first time my ears prove to be ignorant :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 23:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Spanish "bujía" (spark plug)

The RAE says the etymology is from the city of Bujía, Algeria (Béjaïa). What is the connection with the city and spark plugs? 68.0.147.114 (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm unable to give a definitive and referenced answer, but you might investigate a possible connection between the name of the town, which derives from European words meaning 'candle' (as the article mentions – see last sentence) and a fanciful resemblance between a candle and a spark plug. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.27 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It comes via the French "bougie", which is both a type of wax candle and a spark plug. The city of Béjaïa was a major source of candle wax (used as substitute for tallow). See fr:Bougie. The name "bougie" (or bougie d'allumage) later became the French word for spark plug, and was then imported into the Spanish language. --Xuxl (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You can check it out in the Real Academia website.[1] Their explanation is not quite the same as Xuxl's, but it relates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

And y'all may recall the expression used in The Right Stuff: When Shepherd exhorted the team to launch the rocket, he said, "Let's light this candle!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The OP linked to the RAE website in their question, and you're suggesting they "check it out in the RAE website"?! That's WP:UNCIVIL. --194.213.3.4 (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Not so much incivility as not reading the question properly; let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Alansplodge (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

D'oh! Yes. See Hanlon's razor. However, the connection between the city and the notion of a candle being analogous to a spark plug stands out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

November 8

Can someone help translate the Wiccan rede article into Chinese and the Wiccan rede itself?

I have tried by using google but have only gotten so far I believe "威卡教 課堂" Wicca lesson might be the best translation for rede but what about the poem itself? I would love to have some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.79.57 (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's the full text:

collapse most of long text of uncertain copyright status and due to length
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bide within the Law you must, in perfect Love and perfect Trust. Live you must and let to live, fairly take and fairly give. For tread the Circle thrice about to keep unwelcome spirits out. To bind the spell well every time, let the spell be said in rhyme. Light of eye and soft of touch, speak you little, listen much. Honor the Old Ones in deed and name, let love and light be our guides again. Deosil go by the waxing moon, chanting out the joyful tune. Widdershins go when the moon doth wane, and the werewolf howls by the dread wolfsbane. When the Lady's moon is new, kiss the hand to Her times two. When the moon rides at Her peak then your heart's desire seek. Heed the North winds mighty gale, lock the door and trim the sail. When the Wind blows from the East, expect the new and set the feast. When the wind comes from the South, love will kiss you on the mouth. When the wind whispers from the West, all hearts will find peace and rest. Nine woods in the Cauldron go, burn them fast and burn them slow. Birch in the fire goes to represent what the Lady knows. Oak in the forest towers with might, in the fire it brings the God's insight. Rowan is a tree of power causing life and magick to flower. Willows at the waterside stand ready to help us to the Summerland. Hawthorn is burned to purify and to draw faerie to your eye. Hazel-the tree of wisdom and learning adds its strength to the bright fire burning. White are the flowers of Apple tree that brings us fruits of fertility. Grapes grow upon the vine giving us both joy and wine. Fir does mark the evergreen to represent immortality seen. Elder is the Lady's tree burn it not or cursed you'll be. Four times the Major Sabbats mark in the light and in the dark. As the old year starts to wane the new begins, it's now Samhain. When the time for Imbolc shows watch for flowers through the snows. When the wheel begins to turn soon the Beltane fires will burn. As the wheel turns to Lamas night power is brought to magick rite. Four times the Minor Sabbats fall use the Sun to mark them all. When the wheel has turned to Yule light the log the Horned One rules. In the spring, when night equals day time for Ostara to come our way. When the Sun has reached it's height time for Oak and Holly to fight. Harvesting comes to one and all when the Autumn Equinox does fall. Heed the flower, bush, and tree by the Lady blessed you'll be. Where the rippling waters go cast a stone, the truth you'll know. When you have and hold a need, harken not to others greed. With a fool no season spend or be counted as his friend. Merry Meet and Merry Part bright the cheeks and warm the heart. Mind the Three-fold Laws you should three times bad and three times good. When misfortune is enow wear the star upon your brow. Be true in love this you must do unless your love is false to you.

These Eight words the Rede fulfill:

"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.79.57 (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Translators available is a good place to find Wikipedia translators. --Jayron32 11:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

What is the source of this text? How do we know it is not under copyright? I am going to collapse most of it due to length and out of caution. μηδείς (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's a random internet user's translation, which I would suggest is probably as good as what you will get from a random Wikipedian. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't read the Chinese, but that article cites two English-named people, one who died in '46, the other '64. So we can't assume automatically that this is in the public domain. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

On that page the two English-named people are referred to in the following contexts: Adriana Porter (the one who died in '46) is thought by some to be the author; but Gerald Gardner (the one who died in '64) thought it that it originated from a novel called "Good King Pausole". Information that appears to be taken from the English Wikipedia article or a similar source. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The wiccan rede dates back to the 1930s and is a religious text I don't think its copywritten.108.75.79.57 (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't doubt you, but only works from 1923 or before (i.e., 95 years old) are guaranteed to be in the public domain, and we'd still need the original source. As a friendly FYI, the concept is the "right to copy", so the terms are copyright and copyrighted, although copywritten does sound nicer. I myself have also worked as a copywriter, but that's someone who writes the text for advertisements and blurbs and such, usually without credit or as "staff". μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Off topic, but that's not true. In most countries the rule is life + 70, there is no guarantee that a work from before 1923 is free of copyright. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

If something was published in the United States before 1923, then it's almost always out of copyright in the United States... AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and it seems to be a common misconception among some that the United States is the same as the world. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, bugger off. Any excuse for anti-American bigotry? The user geolocates to California, Wikipedia is governed by US law, and yes, frankly, the free world is an American protectorate, and has been through thee world wars. You know very well I am no ignoramus or xenophobe. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Liability for copyright infringement does not depend on one's physical location, or the location of the servers of the website one is using to post infringing material. If you didn't know this, fine, I hope that's a helpful explanation. If you do, then you may not be a xenophobe but the comment betrays your US-centric mindframe. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

An American answering an American user on an American website governed by American and Floridian law is US-Centric? Eto polno govno. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

very interesting, is that in the wiktionary? the origin of the rede is up to debate several people all now dead claim to have written it108.75.79.57 (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there some threat that prevents you from naming these people or mentioning the actual book or website where you have gotten this information? You seem to be obfuscating on purpose, as you are putting more effort into avoiding than answering a direct request for your source(s). Given you know what wiktionary is, read the guidelines at the top of the page that say in part that you need to do such basic research on your own. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

don't be unbeguiling now108.75.79.57 (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Katakana script

Hi, anyone knowledgeable about katakana script, please comment at Talk:Katakana#Wrong_organisation. Thanks 86.190.171.142 (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC).

Given that Katakana is used in 3 languages other than Japanese, I agree with Christoph Paper, the current organisation is correct, and I don't see how it is unhelpful. Remember Wikipedia is not a manual to learn languages. --Lgriot (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Is the following construction grammatical in English? <verb> + "him" + <subjunctive>

185.46.77.39 (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Modern English really doesn't have a subjunctive conjugation in any reasonable "synchronic" functional analysis (as linguists would say). There are only a few constructions with unexpected verb forms (mainly "If I were"/"If he were", and also "I insist that he be removed"), and some archaic isolated relics ("albeit" etc.). There's no real connection between these as far as current language usage goes (i.e. unless you invoke history of earlier stages of the language which the great majority of speakers of current-day English don't know about).

By contrast, the "accusative with infinitive" construction discussed in the previous section above is very "productive" in modern English... AnonMoos (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

When AnonMoos is using the word "productive", the article Productivity (linguistics) may provide some context. --Jayron32 11:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, I strongly dispute Anonmoos's claim that the subjunctive is not productive in Modern English. Maybe so in Britain or where Anonmoos lives, but I hear the present subjunctive all the time, so much so that usages like "I recommend that he sees a doctor first" would be highly jarring, and even uneducated speakers in the Mid-Atlantic use the subjunctive properly in such cases to the point of virtual universality. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Medeis -- The few specific constructions in modern English where anomalous verbs are used are pretty well established, and probably aren't going away anytime soon. However, what is extremely dubious is that these little anomalies could be connected into anything that could be meaningfully called a subjunctive verb conjugation, in terms of non-historical analysis of the modern language only. I would strongly deny it... AnonMoos (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to write something like that, interpreting what you had said, in response to Medeis, but it was over airport wifi and it didn't get saved. I agree, if you look at 21st-century English in isolation, it's hard to make a case that "if I were a rich man" and "it is important that he take this course of action" are instances of the same phenomenon.

What's not clear to me is that looking at 21st-century English in isolation is a correct or useful restriction. Why should we not look cross-linguistically, and use paradigms that make sense for multiple languages? Doing so has at least some advantage if you want to learn those languages. --Trovatore (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec) It's hard to follow what you are asking without a specific example of a sentance structure, but if you want to learn more about the use of the subjunctive mood in English, Wikipedia has an article titled English subjunctive that will help you. --Jayron32 11:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

OP's response: Unfortunately, neither of you has directly referred to my specific question...

( @AnonMoos and @Jayron, how the hell can our articles accusative and infinitive or English subjunctive help me solve my problem?)

So let me discuss it a bit...

As I wrote, I'm looking for a grammatical construction of the form: <verb> + "him" + <subjunctive>. In order for you to understand better what I mean, let's have a look at two constructions, similar (yet not identical) to the one I'm looking for:

• "they let him go ".
• "they insist he go ".

The first example, "they let him go ", contains the form: <verb> + "him " + <infinitive> (Why infinitive? because that sentence means "they enabled/allowed him to go ", wherein the "to " is an indicative sign of the infinitive). So this form is similar to the one I'm looking for, yet not identical to it. On the other hand, the second example, "they insist he go ", contains the form: <verb> + "he " + <subjunctive> (Why subjunctive? Because it follows "he ", rather than "him ", hence it can't be an infinitive, so the only choice left is subjunctive; that being a formal reason, besides the obvious semantic reason).

Back to my original question: Is there a grammatical construction of the form: <verb> + "him" + <subjunctive> ? 185.46.77.39 (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

in English, any verb following an accusative (without a comma between both words), cannot be a subjunctive, and must be an infinitive, period. E.g. the subjunctive "were" can follow the word "he", but cannot follow the word "him" (unless there is a comma between both words, e.g. in the sentence: If she, who hates him, were his neighbor, he would suffer very much).

Indeed, sometimes, it's not clear whether the word followed by the verb is an accusative or a nominative: e.g. in the sentence: I see the people go; It may mean: I see they (=the people) go, so the "go" is in the Present Simple; However, the sentence may also mean: I see them (=the people) go, in which case the "go" must be an infinitive, and cannot be a subjunctive (nor can it be in the Present Simple). HOTmag (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem with this sort of language analysis is that it was developed for highly inflected languages like, say, Latin. English just isn't that inflected. Among standard constructions, for example, there are basically only 4 standard verb endings (-∅, -s, -ed, -ing, and, i.e. cover, covers, covered, covering) and that means that the same word has to do a LOT of work in English, so trying to analyze whether a particular verb plays a specific role in a sentence comes down more to context than anything else. The specific example the OP seems to be asking about is "They insist him go", which is not standard English, that is it is marked as such and native speakers would find it odd. One common way to analyze sentences like this is to understand that English can drop the connector word "that" from relative clauses, so the sentence "They insist he go" can be analyzed as "They insist (that) he go". --Jayron32 12:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

English in a synchronic analysis may not be all that inflected, but diachronically it was, and the subjunctive and infinitive formations descend from a time when the forms were distinct. If we were to insist that only synchronic analyses were allowed, we might as well argue that whores are farm instruments, and suggest "plowing" as their commonality. It would be synchronic, and it would totally miss reality, educated usage, and scholarly philology. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I really don't know what that's supposed to mean. Historical and comparative analysis can help elucidate things in many cases of course, but if there's nothing in the contemporary modern language itself to connect phenomenon A in the language and phenomenon B in the language, then the connection between the two does not have any "psychological reality" for speakers of the modern language -- no matter how closely A and B are connected historically and comparatively.

If you try to construct a "subjunctive" verb conjugation chart for modern English, then it's really quite threadbare. The past subjunctive would only have distinct verb forms from the past indicative in the 1st person singular and the 3rd person singular of "to be" -- and nothing else. The present subjunctive would always be identical in form with the infinitive, which means that in verbs other than "to be", only the 3rd person singular of the present subjunctive would have a distinct verb form from the present indicative.

That's why it makes a lot more sense to me just to say that certain anomalous verb forms are used in certain specific constructions, without trying to slap a "subjunctive" label on them, which doesn't usefully explain much within modern English... AnonMoos (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Not only the past subjunctive of "to be". Check: "they be", "he go".

Actually, the subjunctive and the infinitive in English are distinguishable from each other, by some ways: semantically, syntactically and morphologically.

• Semantically, by the meaning of the verb, which is determined by the context, that is determined by the meaning of other words in the sentence, e.g. "insist" and "let", so that "I insist you go" ends with a subjunctive - because of the meaning of "insist", whereas "I let you go" ends with an infinitive - because of the meaning of "let".
• Syntactically, by the case of the pronoun followed by the verb, so that if the pronoun is in the nominative case (e.g. "they") then - the following verb (e.g. "go") cannot be an infinitive - and must be either a subjunctive (e.g. in "it's important that they go") or a verb in a regular tense (e.g. in "I see they go"), whereas if that pronoun is in the accusative case (e.g. "them") then - that following verb cannot be a subjunctive (nor any verb in any regular tense) - and must be an infinitive (e.g. in "I see them go").
• Morphologically. On one hand, some morphological forms like "he goes" "they are" "I was", can be neither infinitives nor subjunctives, and must be verbs in regular tenses. On the other hand, some morphological forms like "he go", "they be", "I were", cannot be infinitives - nor any verbs in any regular tense - and must be subjunctives.

HOTmag (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

HOTmag -- As I said above, if you try to create a chart of subjunctive verb conjugation for modern English, the past subjunctive would be distinct from the past indicative only for certain person/number combinations of "to be", while the present subjunctive would be distinct from the past indicative only for "to be", and third-person singular forms of other verbs. It's pretty thin gruel on which to build a whole theory of a contrast between a general verb indicative mood and verb subjective mood in modern English -- especially since the distinctively inflected subjunctive verbs only appear in a few very specific and narrowly-defined syntactic constructions. The putative present subjunctive has the same form as the infinitive, but I'm not sure there's any deep significance to this, since (with the single exception of the super-irregular verb "to be"), English verbs have a maximum of 5 distinct forms in their conjugation (regular verbs have only 4 -- "walk", "walks", "walked", "walking").

I don't necessarily object to using "subjunctive" merely as a handy convenient historically-based label for the anomalous modern English verb forms found in certain constructions, but this unfortunately has the potential of misleading people into thinking that there's a real subjunctive verb conjugation in modern English (which there isn't). 185.46.77.39 above certainly seems to be confused on this point, and he/she would probably perceive things more clearly if he/she had never heard the term "subjunctive" in relation to modern English... AnonMoos (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I fink AnonMoos's memory hole approach to human knowledge and praxis has quite a bit of merit. Given vat most people alive today were born PS (Post-Simpsons) it would seem to be makin' sense to burn all da prints of Bewitched and Are You Being Served, and any book published befo da advent of da interweb and carphones. We could tear down some monuments, and behead, I mean give a morphine drip, I mean a fentanyl overdose, to anyone over firty. I'm lovin' it. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Whatever -- synchronic-functional linguistic analysis is just as valid as historical-comparative linguistic analysis. Neither is "better" or "worse" than the other -- they just ask different questions and pursue different methods. This has been solidly established ever since the time of Saussure, which was over a century ago (the Cours de linguistique générale was first published in 1916, and has had two separate translations into English). Pretending that synchronic-functional linguistic analysis is somehow equivalent to illiteracy is something I would expect from someone who was trying to be a traditional prescriptivist language pundit, but lacked sufficient knowledge to do so... AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not particularly motivated to take anyone who begins with "whatever" seriously as a scholar or an adult, but yes, I have read Saussure, and his prediction of the laryngeal theory is up there with Einstein and Darwin in my book. But his insistence on synchronic analysis is not universally accepted. My speech community has included those born before 1900 and those after 2010. I certainly don't think that the English I speak in my sixth decade is a different one from what I spoke in my first, even though the phonology, vocabulary and syntax have all changed. The bottom line is that your contempt is not an argument, and name-dropping aside, doesn't need to be treated seriously what(so)ever. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a stunning amount of confusion above (as well as some sensible comments). Anyway, with the exception of a few defective verbs (modals, USE /jus/, BEWARE, and perhaps some other freaks I can't immediately think of), English verbs have a plain form and a plain present [non-3rd-person-singular] form; and other than for BE, the two appear exactly the same. The plain form is used in infinitival clauses ("We helped him push the car"); it's used in mandative subjunctives ("They insist that he go"); and it's occasionally encountered in miscellaneous minor archaisms. BE also has "irrealis 'were'" ("If he were honorable,..."), a remnant of a subjunctive system. So, to the question. "I'll have him go there" has GO in the plain form, although (because it's not BE) it's indistinguishable from the plain present form. (In "I'll have him be on time", BE is obviously in the plain form.) No descriptive grammar I'm familiar with would call it subjunctive. -- Hoary (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

November 9

Swedish lingua franca Scandinavian

Is Swedish a kind of lingua franca for Scandinavia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.158.151 (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

My cousin, who's half Danish, Swedish, and Finnish (his grandmother read part of the Kalevala in Finnish for me before her death at 103) spent a year in Sweden where he was kidded for having a Danish name. He and his Danish great-aunt conversed, each in their own tongues. His PhD thesis in linguistics was on Sinhala, though. In any case, my experience with Scandinavians speaking Nordic languages other than Finnish (which is not Indo-European) is that they are all educated enough to understand each other, with Danish being the most conservative dialect. That's OR, not RS. But I am not sure you're going to get a better answer than one from an actually Scandinavian editor, of which we have several. [Alansplodge's comment below comports with what I have heard second-hand] μηδείς (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Supplementing the anecdotal evidence by Medeis with some actual referenced data: North Germanic languages#Mutual intelligibility. Tl;dr: no, most Scandinavians outside of Sweden cannot speak or understand Swedish. --194.213.3.4 (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe they won't understand it without learning it. But I have the impression that many do learn it. In the case of Iceland it's maybe because they are much smaller. Finland had a historical connection to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.137.75 (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

See also On Danish's odd relationship to Swedish and Norwegian which says: " I happen to speak some Danish (my wife is from Copenhagen) and so have a small-n experience with this: I've had exactly one conversation with a Swede, me speaking Danish and her speaking Swedish, and we understood each other quite well. I've seen my wife speak Danish with a Swede and another time with a Norwegian, once again, with little apparent trouble". Confirming the story I heard from some Norwegian friends; "All the other Nordic countries joke that Danish sounds like Swedes talking with a potato or porridge in their mouths, while Danes joke that Swedes sound like drunk Danes, and Norwegians sound like drunk Danes singing" [2]. Finnish is from a totally different language group; Swedish is the second official language but only "44% of Finnish citizens with another registered primary language than Swedish could hold a conversation in this language" (see Languages of Finland). Alansplodge (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

November 10

"all but"

Somebody recently wrote on my talk page: "Classifying Romani people (or Indigenous groups for that matter) in the same category as recent immigrant groups is all but guaranteed to be reverted." — What confuses me is that I've known the expression "all but" only in the sense of "everything except for", but here it seems to be meant just the other way round, am I wrong? If not, have I missed something there?--Herfrid (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The expression's meaning is "almost certainly". --Xuxl (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

See all but. Alansplodge (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Or this, giving the two possible meanings [3] Wymspen (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you everybody! I must have overlooked that somehow…--Herfrid (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

In use since 1590: "All were faire knights, and goodly well beseene, But to faire Britomart they all but shadowes beene." (Spenser's Faerie Queene.) Dbfirs 07:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Is Jesús ever a Jewish name?

I tried to look for a Jew named Jesús but found nobody. Is it still strongly regarded as a Christian name in the Hispanosphere? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 21:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

"The name Jesus is derived from the Latin Iesus, a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iesous). The Greek form is a rendering of the Hebrew ישוע‎ (Yeshua), a variant of the earlier name יהושע‎ (Yehoshua), in English "Joshua"." See Jesus. You will certainly find Jews called Joshua, or the Hebrew equivalent. Wymspen (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

While that's interesting, note that the OP is specifically asking about the name "Jesús" and about Jewish Hispanics. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The point being that "Jesus" and "Joshua" are actually the same name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I think he's asking about Christian Hispanics. "Christian name" is somewhat deprecated these days, but I doubt any Jew would use the term about their own given name. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Not to go too far down the rabbit hole, since I don't actually know the answer, but he's clearly asking about Jews. He says so twice. He's not using "Christian name" as a synonym for "given name", he's using it as "a name used only by Christians". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

See previous Reference Desk discussions on Jesus as a forename here and here. I can't find a reference, but it seems very unlikely to me that a non-Christian would call their child Jesus. Alansplodge (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless they just like the name. And he shall be a good man.--Jayron32 13:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I find here that "Jews don’t name children versions of God, generally sticking to human beings in the Hebrew Bible. It is forbidden for Muslims to name a child Allah or God. For reasons that are unclear, much of the English-speaking world has tended to avoid Jesus as a name." Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why the first point is relevant, Bus stop, since only for Christians ia "Jesus" a name of God Jews. --ColinFine (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

ColinFine—I don't know if the entire sentence is relevant or not. To my way of thinking, if there are human beings named Jesus in the Hebrew bible, then you are right—the sentence is irrelevant. But if there are no human beings named Jesus in the Hebrew bible—then the sentence is relevant. (I am referring to the sentence reading "Jews don’t name children versions of God, generally sticking to human beings in the Hebrew Bible".) I do not know if there are human beings named Jesus in the Hebrew bible. It is the sort of question I wouldn't touch with a ten foot stick. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Joshua is a prominent figure in the Hebrew Bible. Joshua and Jesus are the same name. (In Spanish, Joshua is apparently rendered as Josué.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It is beyond my capabilities to weigh in on biblical instances of Jesus or related names. I feel competent finding sources on contemporary instances of the name Jesus. I would be in over my head if I tried to address the biblical occurrences of the name Jesus or related names. I'm comfortable with sources like the New York Times. Ancient history was not as systematized our modern online news media. Bus stop (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

For which reason the odd exception tends to really stand out, e.g. James Jesus Angleton. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

According to his wife the name was given to him by his mother. His wife said that his attitude towards his middle name changed in the course of his life. "Carmen Mercedes Moreno [mother] was a devout Catholic who insisted on giving him the name of Jesus."[4] Cicely Angleton, his wife, said "[a]s he grew older he became proud of his Mexican background—but, at the beginning, no. He never liked to use his middle name...who likes to go around with a middle name of Jesus?" Bus stop (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Bus_stop -- the Hebrew name ישוע (Yeshua`/Jeshua) occurs in the Hebrew of the Old Testament at Ezra 2:2, 2:6, 2:36, 2:40, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 3:18, 4:3, 8:33; Nehemiah 3:19, 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, 7:43, 8:7, 8:17, 9:4, 9:5, 11:26, 12:1, 12:7, 12:8, 12:10, 12:24, 12:26; 1 Chronicles 24:11; and 2 Chronicles 31:15, and also in Aramaic at Ezra 5:2. In Nehemiah 8:17 this name appears to refer to Joshua son of Nun, just as he is referred to as Ιησους in the ancient Greek of Josephus and the New Testament (Acts 7:45, Hebrews 4:8), since Yeshua` was a later short form of Yehoshua` (Joshua). English Bible translators of ca. 1600 AD were the ones who decided to transcribe Hebrew ישוע / Yeshua` into English as "Jeshua", thus creating a separation between that name and "Jesus" in English. Before that time, the name ישוע / Yeshua` of the Old Testament generally had the same form as the Ιησους (Jesus) of the New Testament in Christian Bible translations in various languages... AnonMoos (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeshua is the word the Jews use when writing in English. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Getting back to the question: "Is Jesús ever a Jewish name?" I think the New York Times is basically telling us that the answer to that question would be "no". The NYT says "Jews don’t name children versions of God, generally sticking to human beings in the Hebrew Bible." Maybe the NYT is wrong. The NYT obviously is not addressing either of the two concerns this thread has uncovered. The NYT is unconcerned with whether or not Jesus Christ is regarded as a God by the Jews, and the NYT is unconcerned with whether or not "human beings in the Hebrew Bible" were ever named Jesus or close variants of that name. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

According to the New York Times the name Mary was considered too holy for general use. But in its original form Mariam it has been in continual use in many religions. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The question being asked specifies the name Jesus, not the name Mary. Bus stop (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's in the link you provided, and readers who don't spot your disclaimer may believe that what is written there is true. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

My disclaimer? Any source may be incorrect. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

November 11

English: Negation after a question

Hi all,

I'm a French native speaker and I live in Asia now. I have an English friend and I noticed that he always adds a negation at the end of a question. For example, "You are coming, aren't you?" or "You'll go there, won't you?". It sounds quite weird for me cause I haven't heard that a lot in American series or movies. When I started to speak English, I used the French way of asking a question: "You are coming, no?" but I know now nobody says that in English. I sometimes use "You are coming, right?" cause it sounds much better than "aren't you" (makes me feel like I'm talking like a grandpa). So, what is the best (or coolest way) to ask a question in English? You will answer my question, won't you?... right? 42.114.193.73 (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how you measure "coolness", but "innit?" is apparently popular in Multicultural London English (and is not just short for "isn't it?", but may be used as a universal tag question). 86.186.80.52 (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The negatives that you mention (aren't you, won't you, isn't it) are very common in the English of England and would be considered the usual intensifiers. Use of "innit" marks you as being part of a particular sub-culture, but is often heard. Your use of "right" might be considered more modern without the stigma of "innit". Dbfirs 15:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty common in America too. And "innit" or at least "idnit" is common in the rural south and possibly elsewhere. Then there's the related Milwaukeean expression "aina hey".[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

These questions at the end are called tag questions. English uses a huge variety of them ("wouldn't he", "didn't they", "shouldn't she", "won't you", "will you" ...) but French gets away with the all-purpose "n'est-ce pas?", n'est-ce pas? :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

That construction figures prominently in a song called "Didn't We?"[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Odd, now that the OP mentions it, the "You are coming, aren't you?" construction is indeed rare in colloquial American English. "Aren't you coming?" would be the normal expression. "You are coming, aren't you?" sounds not only highly emphatic, but also dismissive or sarcastic to my ears, yet but fully native and comprehensible nonetheless. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned "ain't you / ain't it" yet. Or maybe it ain't cool anymore? And then there's the famous Canadian "eh". — Kpalion^(talk) 11:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

WHAAOE:Eh. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A hard one...

... I guess at least: "This is nothing of which I would say I am proud of" vs. "This is nothing [which] I would say of I am proud of". I guess the latter is wrong, but if so, why? I've learned that usually you are free to place the preposition either at the beginning or at the end of a prepositional relative clause (is that the appropriate term, by the way?) and that you can leave out the relative pronoun in defining relative clauses... So, from a strictly grammatical perspective, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that, should there?--Herfrid (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The point you have missed is that wherever you put it, you only need one "of" - so it is either "this is nothing of which I would say I am proud" or "this is nothing (which) I would say I am proud of" (you can leave out the "which"). Pedantically, it is often said that you should not end a sentence with a preposition - but English speakers often do, and there is nothing really wrong with it. There is a famous Churchill quote: "This is the sort of pedantry up with which I will not put!" Wymspen (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(Well, allegedly it was Churchill.) Wikipedia's article is Preposition stranding. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Wympspen's given the correct answer, you only need one "of" and you can put it in the "of which" or stranded position and be fully understood by any competent speaker. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot already so far! So, to put it straight, would the second "of" be wrong, in fact, or just unusual?--Herfrid (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Both, really. I mean, people sometimes hypercorrect themselves, as in "To whom do you wish to speak to?". Or they have an extraneous 'that': "I am telling you that, despite what you insist is the case, that I did put the money in the bank". You can find examples of just about every error it's possible to make; whether any particular one is common enough to be "unusual" or rare enough to be "almost unheard of", will depend. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@JackofOz: Okay, thanks. I was just asking because I thought this: What if we replaced the first "of" with "about", thus saying "This is nothing [which] I would say about I am proud of", as the "about" belongs to "say" (→ to say sth about sth) and the "of" to "proud" (→ to be proud of sth). Do you see what I mean?--Herfrid (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No, that's an irregular construction. Wouldn't even be used in informal speech. Akld guy (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

German news phrases

On German TV news, they often say things like "Und [damit] nun zum Sport / zu den aktuellen Meldungen des Tages mit Judith Rakers". What expressions do you use in the UK and the US respectively for these news transitions?--Herfrid (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

What would be an approximate literal translation for those words? Google Translate seems not to be functioning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

In any case, typically the news anchor would say something like, "And now here with Sports is Mike Buzzcut." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

damit kommen wir zum Ende des Programms → that brings us to the end of our programmes (Brit) → or programs (US). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"end of our program"... the final 's' in the German is genitive. —Stephen (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

For further research (though I wasn't able to find a list of typical phrases), this type of transition is also called "segue". (Googling "CNN headline news' segue of the day" will give you an awkward one. And there was a character on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, the "impeccably dressed and debonair" Segue Sam, known for his "witty, smooth segues to the next guest"). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

November 12

Etymology of the word 'male'

The wiki pages under the heading 'female' include an etymological subsection. Why is this not included in the wiki paages under the heading 'male'?Bromgf (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess nobody's gotten around to writing it? I see an unresolved request for this info on Talk:Male from a decade ago also. Check wikt:male and [7] for possible info to include. Why not give it a go yourself? DMacks (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Why would it be notable? For "female", it's notable because it's interesting that it's not derived from "male". The reverse does not apply. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bromgf: This isn't a science question, and unless you're still unclear on something about the etymology it's not even a language question. Please consider moving or removing this section. Wnt (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Derived via Old French from the Latin 'masculus' and 'femilla'.[8][9] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I have moved this topic from the Science Refdesk. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The bottom line is that this is a folk etymology, a respelling made in ignorance of the diachronic facts.

Male and female have totally separate etymologies, as BB has alluded to; mās and femina; and fe-male is simply a respellling/reanalysis of the French reflex femelle based on modern naivete. The roots are unrelated, with mās meaning "manly" and dhe- -> fe- meaning "suckle" as in fetus and fellatio. μηδείς (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the French reflex se, the same as or very similar to other Romance languages? The Oxford English Dictionary says that femelle is a diminutive of femme. It also says the root *fe- means "to produce offspring". Its derivation of "fellatio" is as quoted above. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe μηδείς is using reflex in the technical sense, referring to a word that is a "known derivative of an earlier form", while you're referring to reflexive pronoun. 2.97.236.64 (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ha! No wonder I couldn't figure out where in the world the Western Romance pronoun was coming from! Yes. IP 2.97 is correct as to my meaning. μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

To use sth as sth

Do I need to use an indefinite article for this collocation, e. g. in a phrase like "As a browser, I use..." or can I also leave out the "a" here? If so, would that be an informal thing then?--Herfrid (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about "browser" as computer software, or are you talking about yourself browsing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• You certainly cannot omit the article in that expression, whether "browser" means the person or the program. If you want better advice, provide a full sentence in the context of a full paragraph. Other considerations come into play when the full context is revealed. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"I use safari as my browser."

"I use safari as a browser."

"I use safari as browser."

Hmmm, I am not sure, but yes I think a teacher would strike the last one as ungrammatical. --Lgriot (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the third option is ungrammatical on its own. μηδείς (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

November 13

ဵ

What is the ဵ character? My screen displays the little box indicating that I don't have the right character set. Google tells me that it's "MYANMAR VOWEL SIGN E ABOVE", but I don't know if this is a Latin E with a diacritical mark used primarily in Myanmar, or an E-equivalent character in Burmese, or something else. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

There is an article on the Burmese alphabet which shows a sympol like that in the list of diacritic signs - and then says "Changes inherent vowel to /i/" It certainly won't be any form of Latin E, as the Burmese language does not use the Latin letters. Wymspen (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so it's a Burmese character. This is why we redirect characters to alphabet articles; little boxes are useless for identification, but a redirect to the alphabet tells me that it's a part of the alphabet. For all I knew, it was used when writing English in Myanmar, but not used when writing English anywhere else. Thank you! Nyttend backup (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not the right character. The one Wymspen refers to is U+102E (ီ), the one you asked about was U+1035. They are visually similar - U+1035 has a open side on the right, where U+102E is closed.

The answer is similar - it's a vowel diacritic used in the Burmese script - but in this case not in the Burmese language itself. The character table at Wikipedia:Font on the Burmese Wikipedia indicates that it is used in the Mon language.

Part of the reason for the confusion with the text in Unicode may be the fact that Myanmar is intended not just as the name of the country, but also the name of the majority language and the script in which that language is written. When it says "MYANMAR VOWEL SIGN E ABOVE" it's referring to the Myanmar script, not the country called Myanmar.

Also worth mentioning that this is one of the less well-adopted parts of the Unicode standard. Most people in Myanmar - including on the web - use non-Unicode fonts such as Zawgyi that use the same code points but put different characters in each place. Looks like Zawgyi doesn't actually use U+1035 but in the general case you may find that what is intended is actually something completely different from what Unicode says you should see. Kahastok talk 21:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

W sound in Greek

Does anyone know the reason the w sound disappeared from Greek?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the letter for the PIE reflex of /w/ in Greek was digamma, Ϝ, which dropped out of most dialects rather early, although it's common in Mycenaean Greek. The problem with such explanations is that we often have historically attested series like f > h > 0 in the development of Castilian from Latin. But there's a hiatus between Mycenaean Greek and Post-Homeric greek where there are no attested texts and the Alphabet is entirely replaced. So the relevant data is speculative. μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You can never really give reasons for language change, Georgia guy; all you can do is notice that some changes are more likely (happen more often) than others. Mηδείς has given one example of a labial disappearing, but this also happened regularly in both Celtic (/p/ -> nothing; eg Welsh adar 'birds' is cognate with Greek pteros (wing) and feather; and Irish athair 'father' with Latin pater and indeed English father) and also in Japanese (/p/ -> /h/). In fact there is one isolated instance in Welsh of /ʋ/ disappearing: the word mab 'son' appears in patronymic names in the fossilised form ap which appears to have come from map via a form with a /ʋ/. So it appears that labials are rather labile, so perhaps you might expect the weakly pronounced /ʋ/ to be the most labile. --ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Reasons and stages or trends are indeed two different things. But ease of production and lack of contrast are often given as causes for phonetic change. That is, if /h/ is easier to produce than /f/, and the language lacks /h/, then such a change doesn't lead to confusion, so it is not prevented by an increase in semantic confusion. The direct and unconditioned change from /w/ to /0/ is highly unusual. Some dialects of English have hwa > hu > u for "Oo's 'at at te door, luv?" in the development of the standard word "who". But the historical development of PIE /k^w/ to /hw/ to /ʍ/ or /h/ before rounded vowels to /0/ is much better attested and explained. Presumably there were intermediate stages in Greek as well; they are just not attested as far as I am aware. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW, athair is derived from the reconstructed ɸatīr, so p > 0 is not assumed, and the same development is presumed in Japanese, where p > ɸ (> h | i) is assumed, and ɸ is still found in the Ryukyuan languages in conservative forms. In the Rusyn language, PIE w > w/v/f depending on context, but the /f/ has not progressesd to /h/ or /0/, given /h/ is not an allophone of /g/ as it is in Great Russian. μηδείς (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)