Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 6

Ohium

Do speakers of contemporary Latin pronounce Ohium as 'Okium' similar to the way 'mihi' is pronounced 'miki' ? Thanks Duomillia (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The pronunciation [miki] is presumably over-compensation on the part of native speakers of languages which lack an [h] sound (including the majority of the Romance languages); I'm not sure I'd call it a "contemporary Latin" norm.

The name of the letter "h" was changed from [he] in Classical Latin to [aka] in late Vulgar Latin by a similar process of trying to pronounce the [h] sound as emphatically as possible as it was disappearing from the language... (The modern English letter name "aitch" or [eɪtʃ] derives from [aka] through French by fairly regular sound changes, since [k] before original [a] often became [tʃ] in medieval French, [ʃ] in modern French.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This assumes that there is a single way of pronouncing contemporary Latin. I recall my former Latin teacher telling us about attending a European conference about teaching Latin. Everyone there spoke in Latin: he couldn't understand half of them because their pronunciation was so influenced by the own native languages. Latin spoken by an English speaker may be very different to that spoken by an Italian or a German. Wymspen (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Wymspen -- there have been several reforms of Latin pronunciation. There was the Carolingian "Alcuin" reform around 800 A.D., the Erasmian reform around 1500 A.D. (though Erasmus was actually more concerned with Greek pronunciation than Latin), and a late 19th century British reform to cancel out the effects of the English Great Vowel Shift since 1500. Today the main multinational traditions are Roman Catholic ecclesiastical pronunciation (used at the Vatican and in forms of traditional Catholic worship) and scholarly pronunciations which attempt to broadly use the basics of ancient Classical Latin pronunciation (but without attempting to closely imitate all the complexities and contextual variants found in "Vox Latina" etc). However, there are still national variants. If ecclesiastical pronunciation is based very closely on Italian (which sometimes happens, but probably shouldn't be considered the best form of ecclesiastical pronunciation), then [h] would be absent. I once talked with someone who studied Latin in France, and she said that her teachers included very little or nothing in their pronunciation of Latin which wasn't also present in the phonology of the French language (so words were always pronounced stressed on their last syllable, in conformity with French habits of slightly stressing the syllable which contains the last non-schwa vowel in a word or phrase, etc.) AnonMoos (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Cheese and McMuffin Christ! If it's good enough for Russian Limbaugh, it's good enough for me. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I've never ever heard the /miki/ pronunciation. But if some people use it, I would expect them to use the same consonant in Ohium. Why on earth did whoever latinised it make it second declension? I would automatically assume Ohio, Ohionis, 3rd declension. --ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I would guess that part of the purpose of the [miki] pronunciation is to distinguish "mihi" from "mi". There would be no similar "functional" pressure for Ohium. If you look at la:Formula:Civitates Civitatum Foederatarum, you'll see that several state names where there's no reason to tack on an "-a" ending are given an "-um" ending. The weirdest Latin state name is "Cenomannica"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

/miki/ (or /mixi/) was common in medieval Latin, and was reflected in the common medieval spelling of the word, "michi". Adam Bishop (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

East Asian names

I understand that in their homelands East Asian names are usually in the order "family name" then "give name." But if they have lived in the US for some time they may place the family name last. If a Chinese person has an American name first and an Asian name in last place, like "Bob Lee" I would address him as "Mr. Lee" But if both names are specifically Chinese or Japanese, are there any clues as to what are typical given names versus typical family name? Length, number of syllables, ending with a particular vowel or consonant? Is it rude to ask "Are you Mr "first name" or Mr "last name?" or to just go ahead and call them "Mr firstname" if they are East Asian? Edison (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Anecdotally only, Chinese names often seem to have single-syllable family names and two-syllable (or more) given names. That doesn't work in Japan, where both can be multi-syllable. But if you're in America, they are likely to follow American naming conventions, publicly at least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You may find answers in Chinese name, Japanese name and/or Korean name.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 07:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Those articles do contain the answer. Basically, in Western printed materials, Westerners will usually write the name in the original form - family name first, given/personal name last. In writing a list of names, Westerners would write the family name first (regardless of ethnicity) and given/personal name last, separated by a comma. In speech, the given/personal name becomes the first name, and the family name becomes the last name. SSS (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Chinese surnames are not usually used as given names since many have been historically used although common surnames like Husng would be found in given names. For the Chinese and to some extent Korean and Vietnamese, there are only a few hundred (sometime less) surnames. Also Chinese surnames can be multi-syllable (ex. Gongsun) and given name can be single syllable. Usually Chinese names are given surname first, so that is the best clue.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Edison: I think your question is more about general practice/etiquette when encountering a "East Asian" (not a good term/approach) in English-speaking countries. Everything will be highly dependent on their English ability. From personal experience, Chinese and Koreans in English-speaking countries with lower English skills may introduce themselves with their full names in the order of family name-given name. On these occasions, don't do any guess work, but just ask "how may I call you?" like you would with any other Americans. For Japanese people in English-speaking countries, regardless of English level, you can always expect them to introduce their full names in the English order (given name-family name) because it is one of the few things 6 years of required English classes in junior high/senior high have accomplished. Although it's uncommon for native Japanese speakers in America to take English names, you can almost always expect a Japanese person to ask you to call them by their given name in a English setting, so it's pretty straight forward. Alex Shih (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih -- the term "East Asian" is fine in the context of the East Asian cultural sphere. There's not much else that one could call it, except maybe the "zone of adoption and former adoption of Chinese characters"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Alex. When I did my research before asking this question, on another forum someone got all huffy when the questioner referred to "Asian" people using the family name first and the huffyperson named several "Asian" countries to the west of China where the European name order was used, and scolded the questioner for not saying "East Asian" to refer to China, Japan and several neighboring countries. Sometimes it is simply not possible to be politically correct enough to avoid the "not a good term" huffystorm. I just want to know if there are reliable sources as to how Chinese and Japanese (and nearby countries which use "Family name" "Given name") people would prefer Americans to address them when we are presented the name "Yu Wu" or some such on a document. A:" Thank you Mr Yu," B: 'Should I call you Mr. Yu or Mr Wu?" C: "Thank you Mr. Wu," D:Never use either name unless invited to, for fear of offending them. Edison (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Edison -- Lin Yutang found it strange when people in the United States in the 1930s came up to him and addressed him as "Mr. Yutang", but I seem to remember that he was more amused than offended. A European convention is to capitalize the letters of the surname, which avoids confusion with Hungarian names, maternal surnames in Spanish and Portuguese, and so on (and also works with East Asian names), but this would not be understood in the United States... AnonMoos (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Edison -- Sometimes, Westerners will address each other as "Mr. Robert E. Lee" or "Mr. Lee". In elementary school, unmarried female teachers may be addressed by "Miss", followed by her personal name. SSS (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

When in Rome. μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

[Tangential comment] A common habit in Britain (not sure about the US) at which I get alternately irritated and amused is to maintain the Chinese order for names, but stress them as though they were in the Western order. So you hear "Eyeway WAY" for Ai Weiwei and "Sheejin PING" for Xi Jinping. I try to remember to stress them as "Ai WEIwei" and "Shi JINping". --ColinFine (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this has more to do with the way we tend to intuitively (mis)pronounce East Asian words with the accent on latter syllables, e.g. I would pronounce it WeiWEI and JinPING when standalone as well. Compare Japanese waTAshi, TaNAka, SoiCHIro.

Also, since all three syllables are accented in both names you mention, stressing the middle one will probably be farther off from the original pronunciation than stressing the first or the last. 93.136.29.199 (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with a Chinese name living in a Western country, I'd prefer to use "family name" "given name" order but in most contexts trying to do so is just too difficult. Since my name uses the typical Malaysian system and so my given name is written as two words with space and no hypen, it's already a lot of effort trying to convince people not to call me by my generation name only, so even with that I've sometimes taken to spelling it as one word. I wouldn't say it's offensive but it does get boring. But definitely in most contexts someone who actually asks is likely to be less annoying than someone who assumes. As mentioned by others, with many Chinese names with experience you can probably tell by the name which is the surname, even if they only have a single syllable given name. BTW you shouldn't assume someone always wants to be called Mr "Family Name". Malay names for example are highly influence by Arabic custom and so the closests thing to a family name is the patronym and is what would normally be written under the family name field of any form. But even some of those who've lived in the West for a while would still prefer not to be called Mr "Patronym". Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Predicative adjective?

Hello again! In a recent edit summary of mine, I wrote "removed unnecessary illustration (also to be considered as a means against a glorification inappropriate here)". Question: Is this postpositive use of "inappropriate" correct (due to the "here", as I guess it would be wrong to write "a here inappropriate glorification"), and can it be called a predicative? (In the linked article, I didn't find any corresponding example, though I am quite sure about that in my sentence, "inappropriate" is not an attributive adjective, as they always go before the antecedent, don't they?)--Siebi (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Your reversion itself was inappropriate. It's something you should discuss on the template talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Grammatically you are correct, but I think Bugs is right; there's no glorification going on. The illustration is fine. Matt Deres (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your opinions. ( Note: In case you're still interested, I've started a new thread on the talk page.) Now, as for the linguistic part, is "inappropriate" a predicative here, in fact?--Siebi (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: Probably more or less the same question: Is it "a maybe interesting aspect" or "an aspect maybe interesting"? I'm actually confused right now…!--Siebi (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Context is required to make this construction work. "An aspect maybe interesting" without context sounds like "An aspect may be interesting", which is a different concept and now involves a verb. Normally it would be "A maybe interesting aspect", but if there were a qualifying text, such as "for this event", then you can say "An aspect maybe interesting for this event" (which is understood as "An aspect that is maybe interesting for this event"), but you can also get away with "A maybe interesting aspect for this event". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@JackofOz: Thanks a lot!--Siebi (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

January 8

Japanese vs. Hungarian personal names

Both these cultures use the Surname Given name (SG) order, unlike most others, which are Given name Surname (GS) (partly struck out in order to retrospectively render irrelevant much of the following discussion, and to ensure the actual topic of this thread is clear. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)) We usually have to reverse the names in English language contexts, no big deal.

Most Hungarian given names have well known cognates with other European names (Antal = Anthony; Miklos = Nicholas, Ferenc = Francis etc), and others are well known (Geza, Attila ...) so it's not hard to work out which is the given name and which the surname. Or whether the names have already been reversed for our benefit and no further adjustment is required.

Japanese is a rather tougher nut to crack. Some names are fairly well known in the West, but the majority are not. It's clear that a problem exists, since most lists of Japanese names that I've seen have some in GS order but others in SG. In Wikipedia, we seem to use whichever order is the most usual one for the subject, and if that happens to be SG we tend to add a note to say that the first name is the surname (Katsuragawa Hoshū, Sugita Genpaku, [1]). But not always (Nakajima Hiroyuki, et al.)

So, why is it that some Japanese names are known in the West in GS order but others in SG, while all Hungarian names are known to us in GS order? Is it just that it's harder for us to work out which Japanese name is which, or is it some sort of respect thing, or what? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely sure that's always 100% the case, but Hungary is a small surname-first island in the middle of surname-last common European practices, so they're presumably very used to adapting their name order for foreigners, while that's not true for Japan...

By the way, there can be a few clues for Japanese given names -- ending in vowel + o usually indicates a masculine name (Kazuo etc.), while a name which is two moras in length plus a final -ko is often feminine. AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that the ko in Japanese girls' names—literally `child`—may have started out as a diminutive suffix (akin to "princess," "Miss," or "sweet little") before eventually becoming an indivisible part of their proper names.Pine (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] I suggest (yes, OP but something to work on) that because Hungary is part of Europe, Hungarians have long known that the predominant Western custom is GS, so they have always introduced themselves to foreigners (and spoken and written their names in other languages) in that manner.

By contrast, Japan was much more isolated, particularly from significant interactions with Europeans, until the Meiji period (i.e. the mid-nineteenth century), so they have much less history of wanting/needing to accommodate themselves to the GS custom, while at the same time most Europeans who came into contact with them soon became aware of Japan's SG custom and worked with it. In modern times, therefore, Japanese people retain their own SG custom domestically, with only those who work with Westerners, particularly outside Japan, or who want to build an international following, sometimes adopting GS in those contexts, or not, according to personal preference.

Compare also the common custom of Chinese people, also SG domestically, adopting a GS name using a new Western G and their own S. An well-known example (of direct personal relevance to my own family) was the late Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who readily used the name Harry Lee not only when in England, but also in informal English-speaking company in Singapore. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Except he was known to the world at large as Lee Kuan Yew, not Kuan Yew Lee. Just as we know of a certain Mao Zedong, not Zedong Mao. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point: that particular widespread Chinese adaptive custom doesn't reverse the Chinese SG form, it creates a new GS with the Chinese S prefaced by a new Western G – that's why I said "compare". Some Japanese people also do this, or adopt a more "Western-friendly" G for use with foreigners.

I presume, by the way, that you've read our article Japanese name, which also mentions the likely relevant point that most Japanese families only adopted a surname in the 19th century? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I haven't read it, but my question relates only insofar as a Japanese person actually has both a given name and a surname, so what may have obtained in earlier times is out of scope. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Jack, do you have a source that shows the given name - surname pattern is the "norm"? Also, what about Genus species, and Latin names and Patronymics, as well as single-name societies? μηδείς (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

In Russia, it is common for people to put the surname first. It is more formal to do this, so business cards are always according to wikt:ФИО (i.e., surname–given name–patronymic). The surname usually comes first in military contexts, lists, award ceremonies, obits, documents, forms, IDs, and so on. The other order with the given name first is more informal and therefore more common, but the ФИО order is still quite common in Russia. Of course with Russian names, it is almost always obvious which name is which, just by the form. Russian surnames usually end in –ов/-ова, -ев/-ева, -ёв/-ёва, –ин/-ина, -ын/-ына, -ский/-ская, -цкий/-цкая, or -ой/-ая. Patronymics end in -вич/-вна. The other name that does not have one of these endings is the given name.

Speaking of Genus names, formal Russian practice is to switch the order and place the adjective second, as in: клён ясенелистный (literally, "maple ash-leafed" = ashleaf maple). —Stephen (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Medeis, I never said it was the norm, I said "most others". The rest of your queries are not relevant to my question, which was about how Hungarian and Japanese names are treated differently in the anglosphere. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Even Russian Wikipedia puts the surname first in all biography titles. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This policy was highly controversial when it was enacted. Other than in encyclopaedias (incl. WP) and other alphabetic lists, Russian given names usually precede the family names. --194.213.3.4 (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Jack, I mentioned English because I took that as your main context, and assumed Western and Europe were just used to avoid repeating English custom. Without attributing any arguments to you I would point out Spanish naming customs in which the Mother's family name is given after the father's family name (Think 'Chelsea Clinton Rodham') and there can be confusion with English speakers thinking the father's name is the person's middle name, or even native Spanish speakers being unsure when Someone like Jose Antonio Cruz could be the son of mister Cruz (or of the unmarried Ms. Cruz) with Antonio as a middle name, or Antonio could be the father's last name, and Cruz the mother's last name. That's not half of the possible confusion due to marriage and noble stylings, so readers should refere to the article.

Then of course you know, Jack, that Russian names have both gender and case, as well as the second name being a patronymic, not a middle name. English speakers often mistake the patronymic for the last name. Again, readers should see Russian naming customs.

Then there is Latin, where Julius Caesar's family name is Julius, Caesar (one of many possible cognomina) is basically a nickname, and his first name, Gaius (Abbreviated C!) is one of only a handful of praenomina (fewer than 40, about a dozen, like Marcus and Quintus, in common use) available; while women might bare only the family name, with no praenomen or cognomen, or the cognomen "secunda" used to distinguished the first-born plain-old Julia from her younger sister. Again, see Roman naming customs.

The ancient Greeks pretty much used just one name, but often appended an "of [polis]" or a patronymic to avoid confusion. Linnaeus' binomial nomenclature paralleled the Roman system, with the Genus wikt:gens first, and only one species name, with the possibility of further names (H. sapiens sapiens v.s. H. sapiens neanderthalensis) to distinguish varieties that could (or were found to be able) to interbreed.

That's not even to go into Arabic naming conventions, where men are often named after both their father and their sons, as well as their home towns/clans. μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Medeis that "most others" is fairly questionable since it depends a lot on what you count. Considering that most East Asian cultures use the surname - given name order and they represent a fair chunk of the human population and there are a whole bunch who don't really have anything that could be called a surname so it's questionable whether "Given name Surname" is really entirely accurate even if the patronym is usually later and then there are those mononym ones, and that quite a few of the practices now taken for granted are very recent (as in 100-200 years at most). Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

There's also the American naming pattern that many here may take for granted, but is actually quite alien to, I suppose, much of the rest of the world. I mean the first name – middle initial – surname pattern, where the middle initial in theory stands for a second given name (but not always, sometimes it's really just a bare letter, as in Harry S. Truman), but the full middle name is rarely used. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Shirley this "American naming system" off whych thou speakst comes only from the Census Bureau, which expects a middle name (initial only, whether it exist or not) and a last name of at least two letters, or at least a "vowel" and "consonant", explaining the names Sandra Oh <O and the surname Eng from the better Ng. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

As an American not widely known by his first given name, I have had occasion to notice that it's not only the Census Bureau. —Tamfang (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I've struck out the bit about "unlike most others", as it was just an aside, but one that has been way too productive in meandering far from the point of my question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@JackofOz: again I assume total good faith, but if you have strucken sumpin' 3 days after it was done posted, and most of the followin's in response, you should also resign the strikening for clearitude's sake. (By resign I mean to WP:SIGN again, not quit.) μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Her full edit summary was "totally irrevelant bee ess by vote x banned user--seriously, the pt stuff is SUCH a giveaway".

If the user is indeed banned, then that fact alone is sufficient justification for removing any and all of their posts, and commentary on the relevance of the content is itself an irrelevancy. But Medeis can speak for herself to further elucidate this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

January 9

Can one use "to do" to intensify a modal verb in English?

Hello, again!

English is extremely unusual—if not unique—among the major world languages in that it has a verb, to do, that one can substitute for any other non-auxiliary verb in the language (except to be).

e.g.

It would be nice if they served pizza, here.

"They do!"

But->

I'd like her car better if it were blue.

It is!

And->

We'd probably enjoy ourselves more if you could play the piano.

I can!

Also, in non-auxiliary verbs (except "to be") in the active voice, simple aspect, and present and past tenses, to do also serves to intensify said verbs.

e.g.

I finished my homework.

I did finish my homework.

He drives carefully.

He does drive carefully.

—————So far, so good, right?—————

I can't help but wonder how (if at all) this relates to both auxiliary verbs as well as to do and to be. [In a very recent post], I lamented the forming of homonym chains.

e.g.

You do this quite well.

You do do this, quite well.

Not to beat a dead horse, but this strikes me as apt to lose the reader's attention.

Also, the following strikes me as very bad English.

e.g.

They are happy to be here.

They do be happy to be here.

And when it comes to modal verbs, I don't even know where to begin!

e.g.

She may sleep in his room while he is away on vacation.

She does be permitted to sleep in his room while he is away on vacation.

We need pour a solider foundation before we attempt to build so tall a structure.

We do need pour a solider foundation before we attempt to build so tall a structure.

I myself believe that to do has no place whatsoever, as an intensifier, in these sentences. Several English professors, however, have told me that it actually may have a place intensifying dare and need—but not can, may, or ought.

And furthermore, when it comes to must, I have become completely bewildered! As I've [| mentioned before], that verb is quite possibly the most difficult one, in 21st-Century English, to properly conjugate.

e.g.

All cars in that lane must exit the motorway.

All cars in that lane do have to exit the motorway.

The American soldiers had to stop their advance at the Elbe river.

The American soldiers did have to stop their advance at the Elbe river.

What you do think, out of curiosity? Except for to be (or a modal-verb tense that uses to be) would it seem proper to use to do to intensify not only simple verbs, but also auxiliary verbs?

Thank you. Pine (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

So first of all, "need" is not ordinarily considered a modal verb in English, with the possible exception of a few non-productive fixed phrases like "if need be" (and I'm not actually sure it's a modal there). *We need pour a solider foundation is ungrammatical.

Most of your examples with "do have to" and so on actually sound fine. But again, "have" is not a modal.

With the genuine modal verbs, like "can", "could", "will", "would", "may", "might", "must", I really don't think do-support is possible. All the examples I can think of are obviously ungrammatical, like *he does can drive fast. --Trovatore (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

With the genuine modal verbs, like "can", "could", "will", "would", "may", "might", "must", I really don't think do-support is possible. All the examples I can think of are obviously ungrammatical, like *he does can drive fast.

No argument here, Trov, considering that can is a finite tense, a more appropriate—if admittedly makeshift—infinitive being to be able to. My question relates, though, to whether one may use do-support on such a jury-rigged periphrase.

e.g.

Yes	He can drive fast.
No	He does can drive fast.
No	He does be able to drive fast.
Maybe?	He does remain able to drive fast.

If one "swats the bes," (with apology to usage commentator Edward Good) then is do-support possible? For what it's worth, I believe in only using it in simple tenses, lest it cause the reader's eyes to glaze over. Some English professors, though, have told me otherwise.

Pine (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You probably need to listen to your English professors more as some of the sentences you have written are invalid.

• They do be happy to be here. - invalid; should be "They are happy...".
• She does be permitted to sleep in his room while he is away on vacation. - invalid; should be "She is permitted..."
• We do need pour a solider foundation before we attempt to build so tall a structure. - invalid in several respects: "We do need to pour a more solid foundation..." is what it should be.
• All cars in that lane do have to exit the motorway. - valid, but strange; "...lane must exit.." would be more usual.
• He does remain able to drive fast. - invalid; "He remains able...".

The rest are fine, normal, everyday English. Bazza (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think that last one is possible. For example: "After his accident, he is no longer able to walk very well, but he does remain able to drive fast." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.23.915} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Same with #4, e.g. "All cars in that lane do have to exit the motorway, but they can get back on at the next interchange." 93.139.63.123 (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The rule is quite simple: You can use "do " as an intensifier, if and only if you can use "don't ". HOTmag (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Some of the proposed uses of "do" above, for example "they do be happy to be here" are perfectly proper in some dialects of English. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, even in my dialect, they sound possible, though forced. On the other hand, *we need pour a solider foundation is completely ungrammatical. --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be "need to". However, in the negative it can be either "we don't need to" or simply "we need not". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. I've never figured out what's going on there. Is it a one-off, or is there some larger explanation? You can kind of do the same thing with "dare", though it sounds old-fashioned. --Trovatore (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I kid you not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

:-). But that's not the same thing. You can't say *he kid you not. But you can say he dare not venture further, if you don't mind sounding a bit Victorian. --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

But also "need" and "dare" are not the same thing, the difference between them being even bigger than the difference between "kid" and "dare", because the difference between "need" and "dare" is not only with "He" (as in your example of kid/dare) but also with "I": You can't say *I need say, But you can say I dare say. HOTmag (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

One more question that I'd like to ask as long as we're on the subject: Was do-support always required in order to form the interrogative mood before the advent of Modern English?

Viz., once upon a time, might one have formed simple-tense questions simply by inverting the order of verb and pronoun, without using to do as an auxiliary?

Did they go away?

Went they away?

Does she love me?

Loves me she?

I apologize if this is a stupid question, but it's one that's been gnawing at me for quite some time. Pine (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Went the Day Well?. DuncanHill (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Vo imja Otsa i Suna i Switaho Ducha, @Twinpinesmall: (User:Twinpinesmall), what have you been doing at the English wikipedia for the last DECADE if you don't speak English? μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Twinpinesmall -- it would be "Loves she me?" ... AnonMoos (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was common before the advent of Modern English, and indeed in Early Modern English, as you can see from the King James Version of the Bible: "Sayest thou this thing of thyself?", "Simon, sleepest thou?", "Lovest thou me more than these?". It survived still later in poetic or literary English: "Wakest thou or sleep'st", "Breathes there the man?", "Say you so?". --Antiquary (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

St. Thomas and Prince

How much use does "São Tomé and Príncipe" get? I can't immediately remember seeing much of anything that uses this name, aside from our article. I've occasionally encountered "St. Thomas and Prince", but aside from that, pretty much everything I remember reading is either "Sao Tome and Principe" or "São Tomé e Príncipe"; having diacritics and "and" is unusual in my experience. The CIA World Factbook, the BBC, an international-relations center at the University of Denver, and the UN (member states directory and permanent mission pages) all use "and" and no diacritics, while the English-language pages on the Republic's governmental websites are nonexistent, so I can't see how they represent themselves in English. Neither the US nor the UK has an embassy there, nor vice versa, so there aren't relevant websites there either.

So...can someone find me some significant sources that use diacritics and "and"? I'm looking for authoritative sources, not popular and inexpert stuff like newspapers. Or must I conclude that virtually all authoritative sources use "e" and diacritics, or "and" and no diacritics? Nyttend backup (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the old diacritic wars. Good luck with that. --Jayron32 20:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

While you left this note, I was modifying my question, although I presume that you'd have said the same thing if you'd seen the revised version. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

At first I thought it was an early collaboration album we had all missed. I had never even heard of these islands... but it seems they have some lovely stamps, all with diacritics, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

All schoolboy philatelists know of this place, from spending uncountable hours of delight perusing Stanley Gibbons' Stamps of the World, which incidentally is a first hand way of learning one's history and geography. If you weren't of this ilk, you had an exceptionally severely deprived childhood. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I did my best in our relatively modest coastal home, but I enjoyed philatelic nerdism closer to home. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

From the movie Duck Soup, when Groucho and Margaret are getting romantic:

Mrs. Teasdale: Rufus, what are you thinking of?

Rufus T. Firefly: Oh, I was just thinking of all the years I wasted collecting stamps.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

My sincere apologies in railroading this entire thread. We can expect a hat soon, I fear. But in answer to Nyttend backup, that looks to me like an inter-langage amalgam. Martinevans123 (talk)

Hats usually have some sort of grounds. Is boringdom the ground on which you want this thread hatted, @Martinevans123:? Or is it something else? See WP:ANI. But do NOT ping me. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

To answer the question Nyttend backup, the International Monetary Fund does indeed use all the diacritics together with the translated "and" in São Tomé and Príncipe, selected issues and statistical appendix and again in this report. I also found one or two tourist guide books using the same formula, such as this one. Alansplodge (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that; it's good to know that we're not unique :-) And I've been a stamp collector for years and years; the Scott catalogue is the only place I remember seeing "St. Thomas and Prince" as the preferred name for the country. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

January 10

Chinese/Manchu word ’ha’hachutsze

From the article whipping boy:

• In 1876, the North-China Herald commented on the announcement in the Peking Gazette of the start of the education of the Guangxu Emperor (1871–1908):

  The next appointment to be made (though not gazetted) will probably be that of the child who, according to the Manchu Imperial custom, shares his Majesty's studies under the name of ['ha'hachutsze] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), in the capacity of a [souffre-douleur] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) or "whipping-boy." Whenever the Son of Heaven is naughty or inattentive, the ['ha'hachutsze] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) is beaten or disgraced

ref —— Translations of the "Peking Gazette" 1876, reprinted from the "North China Herald". April 1877. p. 4.

There are no google hits for ’ha’hachutsze. Can anyone interpret it? Maybe "chutsze" is 竹子 zhúzi "bamboo"? Were pupils beaten with bamboo rods? jnestorius^(talk) 00:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jnestorius: Not sure if you read Chinese, but here's the explanation on Baidu (哈哈珠子): [2]. Apparently it's the Manchu plural for "boy" in other searches. Alex Shih (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't read Chinese, but this is in English: Some Explanations of the 'Haha Juse' in the Qing Dynasty. I guess Manchu plural became singular in Mandarin the same way Italian plural panini has become singular in English. jnestorius^(talk) 18:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

An interesting use of "gazetted". Is the implication that the Manchu Dynasty has an equivalent form of publishing imperial appointments, or that the British authorities usually re-announced Chinese announcements? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems a bog-standard instance of "gazette" sense 1 as opposed to or even subsense 1.1. Peking Gazette is linked above. jnestorius^(talk) 18:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

International Phonetic Alphabet - English Approximations are really American English Approximations

Hi, I am confused by the article on IPA and its use of "English approximations" in other language-related articles. For example, the article on Korean language will link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Korean

Why do the IPA references give "English Approximations" instead of correctly stating that these are "American English Approximations"?

The approximations given are never standard, proper English. This obviously will affect vowels rather than consonants; consonants are generally similar regardless what English dialect or accent one has. However the approximations for vowels are incorrect if they are meant to represent/approximate Standard English (or even Australian/NZ which are similar to Standard English). Using the example of the Korean IPA above. It gives the English approximation to Korean "a" and "a:" sound as bot/box/spa. These words only sound the same in American English.

In standard English, bot and box sound the same or nearly the same, but nothing like spa. And the same can be said for nearly any IPA reference link which gives an "English approximation". This makes it quite confusing for a standard English speaker...example: is that Korean vowel meant to be the sound of bot/box or is it the sound of spa?

So the final question: how did this all come about and has this ever been clarified or acknowledged by the IPA or by IPA reference users such as wikipedia? 203.43.150.40 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

First off, the IPA symbols are what is in the first column. What is not in the first column is not IPA. Second, you have a slightly strange and narrow view of the Anglosphere if you think that any form of English with Cot-caught merger is "non-standard". However, I don't think that's what the chart was intended to refer to; there were actually some technical problems with the table formatting which I couldn't figure out 100%, but I did a quick-and-dirty fix; look at it now... AnonMoos (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry AnonMoos if my use of the word Standard confused you. I meant Standard English as in high-level/educated English from England, the origin of the language. Others would know this as Received Pronunciation. To this end, neither the cot-caught merger nor the father-bother merger have occurred in RP English. 203.43.150.40 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little confused — which of "cot" or "caught" would correspond to which of "bot", "box", "spa"? I have trouble imagining any of those three pronounced with the "caught" vowel /ɔ/.

I distinguish "cot" from "caught" myself, at least when speaking carefully, but I think I use pretty much the same vowel in "bot", "box", and "spa". Maybe it's one of those /ɒ/versus /ɑ/ versus /a/ things that I never have quite figured out what the distinction is? --Trovatore (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess it's technically actually "father-bother merger", but that would often be loosely grouped with "cot-caught merger" by many... AnonMoos (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Cot-caught merger has nothing to do with the OP's question. This is father-bother merger that the OP is (unconsciously) asking about. Actually, standard American English doesn't distinguish between the vowel of "bot" and of "spa" and of "bother" and of "father". However, standard British English does distinguish between the same vowel of "bot/bother" and the same vowel of "spa/father". So, Back to the OP's question, the answer is YES: It should have been: "American English Approximations". Please notice, however, that also American English is "standard" and "proper" not less than British English, as opposed to what one can conclude from what the OP has claimed. HOTmag (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I would be very confused if I were trying to learn Korean pronunciation. Here in the north of England, it's the vowel in cat and spat, but we would confuse others if we suggested that. Dbfirs 08:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As a Brit, I always find it strange that the American pronunciation of Las Vegas is Los Vegas. Widneymanor (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Las" in Las Vegas approximates the Spanish pronunciation, which I would say is close to the way a Brit would say "France", for example. As in "ah". I don't recall ever hearing anyone say "Los" Vegas in the Spanish way, as in "oh". Unless you mean to rhyme with "loss", which is possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

See the "father-bother merger" in the discussion above. The vowel for many English speakers on both sides of the atlantic in "father" and "bother" has merged into the same sound, the difference being that the merger has happened closer to the "ah" end of the spectrum in the UK and the "aw" end of the spectrum in the US, which is why to a british speaker it sounds more like "loss vegas". Americans, of course, don't notice this. --Jayron32 13:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That could be regional. In my part of America, the "fa" of "father" sounds like "fah", not "faw". And the "bo" of "bother" sounds like "bah", not "baw". There's also "water", which in the Midwest is pronounced like "wah", while a typical New Yorker might say it like "waw". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That's because they never have [as], [af], [aθ], [aŋ], but rather: [ɔs], [ɔf], [ɔθ], [ɔŋ], (e.g. in loss, cough, froth, song), so Las Vegas is not an exception. So what's strange? BTW, some British accents have something analogous: They never have [æs], [æf], [æθ], but rather: [as], [af], [aθ] (e.g. in last, laugh, path). It seems like you mean they pronounce VEGAS as if it were spelled VAGAS (check: vague). Was that what you meant? HOTmag (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Pronouncing "Vegas" as in "vague" likewise approximates Spanish pronunciation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure it's the first "a" they're referring to. There's a bit of a spectrum from LASS to LOSS. I prefer the cheeky "Lost Wages", which seems more accurate in other ways. Matt Deres (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, this "discussion" (scare quotes because some editors are inadvertantly talking past each other) just goes to show a general knowledge of the IPA is really necessary for meaningful cross-dialect communication. I have heard Americans and Brits pronounce Las Vegas as if the first vowel were anything from [æ] (cat) to [a] (father) to [ɔ] (Gott in Himmel, "caught") or in between. I say [lɔs] for bot Los Angeles and Los Vegas when speaking my English dialect (NYC or Delaware Valley accent) even though it's not even close to the Spanish /o/ and /a/ respectively.

I find all too often that the Phonetic renderings of words are inconsistent between articles and a subject of ownership by the author within certain articles. The British IPA pronunciations tend toward a narrow RP phonetic transcription (with a terrible treatment of long vowels, diphthongs, and arr-colored vowels) that are totally foreign to Americans using a traditional phonemic Americanist IPA standard, while the American "sound-spellings" are just laughable.

Editors who care about such things should (1) learn the IPA, (2) realise that the British dominated IPA transcriptions are far too narrow and often idiosyncratic, and (3) that the version you see depends on the idiolect of the author who has claimed ownership of the article and his familiarity or lack thereof of local or native pronunciations of words spoken by people who don't speak his own dialect. Caveat lector. μηδείς (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Mideis. In my unclear (and always subtly trolling) way of discussion, this is what I was asking and the point I was trying to make. In wikipedia there are too many unclear IPA pronunciation references. This comes about because there are editors from a wide range of English speaking backgrounds.

The mistake all people make when trying to convert a verbal pronunciation into writing is that we only think of how we pronounce something...then we incorrectly assume this is how everyone else pronounces English. Hence, for the purposes of explaining a pronunciation, people who edit really need to recognise, learn and importantly denote whether they are pronouncing in RP English or more likely, GA (General American) English when using "English Approximations".

>>Side note: I agree that GA English is much more useful for approximating the pronunciation of foreign words because, as you said correctly, we seldom use long vowels in RP English.<<

The reason for doing all of this is that the general readership will most likely be inexperienced with/not be able to decipher IPA symbols, and so the English approximation is required to guide them to the correct pronunciation. Clarity and correct use of this English approximation is required to make the effort worthwhile. 203.43.150.40 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You say [lɔs], but that's because you never have [as], [af], [aθ], [aŋ], but rather: [ɔs], [ɔf], [ɔθ], [ɔŋ], (e.g. in boss, cough, froth, song), so Las Vegas is not an exception. BTW, some British accents have something analogous: They never have [æs], [æf], [æθ], but rather: [as], [af], [aθ] (e.g. in last, laugh, path). HOTmag (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

But Brits pronounce Las Vegas and Los Angeles differently (Lass and Loss resp.), whereas to our ears, Americans pronounce them both as Loss. Widneymanor (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct, but as I've already explained, that's because General American English never has the first vowel of FATHER - before /s/ (nor before /f/,/θ/,/ŋ/ ), so whenever the Brits pronounce the first vowel of FATHER before /s/ - e.g. in PAST or in LAS Vegas - General American speakers must replace that vowel by the vowel of either AT or DOG. In most of the cases - e.g. in the word PAST - General American speakers choose the vowel of AT, but in LAS VEGAS - they don't choose the vowel of AT - because this vowel doesn't exist in Spanish (being the origin of Las Vegas), so General American speakers must choose the vowel of DOG - thus having the pronunciation of LAS Vegas like that of LOS Angeles. HOTmag (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree, Widneymanor. I was born and raised in Detroit but have lived in California for over 45 years. Most Californians pronounce "Las" as in Las Vegas as "lahss", and pronounce "Los" as in Los Angeles something like "lawss", only softer. There is definitely a difference in pronunciation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Not never. In New England English, the father-bother distinction is preserved. --Jayron32 18:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I meant General American English never has the first vowel of FATHER - before /s/. HOTmag (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No, HOTmag, I think you're wrong here. I speak GA, more or less, and I do use the first vowel of "father" in the Las of Las Vegas, at least when speaking carefully. --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you think you ever have the first vowel of FATHER - before /s/ (or before /f/,/θ/,/ŋ/ ), except for loanwords, e.g. proper nouns borrowed from Spanish (like Las Vegas)? HOTmag (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Took me a while to think of an example, but yes: "fossile", /fas.l/. --Trovatore (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC) Or could be /fɑs.l/ or /fɒs.l/, I guess — as I mentioned, I've never really figured out what the distinction is supposed to be. It's definitely not /fɔs.l/. --Trovatore (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Me too, and also: possible, docile, and likewise, so it seems that you're right. BTW, the Brits don't pronounce docile like us but rather like: dough-cile, the last syllable being like that of reconcile. HOTmag (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

HOTmag, I think you're slightly confused about British accents. Even as an RP speaker, I don't pronounce the "Las" in Las Vegas with the "a" in "father". I've only ever heard it pronounced by British people with the short "a" in (a British pronunciation of) "cat" (on the rare occasions it's said at all - usually the city is just called "Vegas" even over here). Proteus (Talk) 12:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

But Spanish people pronounce la casa (the house) differently to la cosa (the thing), so I disagree that the vowel of At doesn’t exist in Spanish.Widneymanor (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur. Definitely Spanish casa sounds different from Spanish cosa, but neither one uses the vowel in English "at". --Trovatore (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• @HOTmag: you are simply wrong. I do not have the cot-caught merger and I could easily pronounce the vowel of Las Vegas with the /a/ or [ɑ] or [ɒ] of "father" (or better, the [a] of Castilian]. But I don't as a lexical issue do so in my primary dialect, where los and las in American place names are both [lɔs] as a given. I also say /hat dɔg/ and /flarɪdɘ arɪdʒɪnz/, except when in NY. Please keep in mind that I speak Spanish well enough to be mistaken for a native (on occasion I have been asked whether I am Oaxacan, Dominican, or Venezuelan); both Delaware Valley and NYC English at a native, code-switching level; have had my Russian vowels described as "beautiful"; am fluent in French and rusty in German; and won a Fulbright Scholarship to study Zulu. I do admit I find tonal languages difficult, since I usually have to parrot back a sentence three or four times to get it right.

But I fear most editors who insist on various respellings and phonemic transcriptions are actually monodialectal, as well as totally ignorant of the difference between phonetics and phonemes. I don't intend to repeat myself, so ping me if you (vos) have a question. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Did the Flahrida ahringes make anyone else think of Johnny Cash singing Orange Blossom Special? --Trovatore (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct. I too could very easily pronounce the first vowel of Las vegas like that of: possible, docile, fossil, but I actually pronounce the first vowel of Las vegas like that of Los Angeles. HOTmag (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"To have oneself be ..."?

Do we say "he has himself elected / celebrated / ... by..." or "he has himself be elected / celebrated / ... by..."?--Siebi (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The first one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

TY. And you're sure the second one is wrong?--Siebi (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if it's technically "wrong" but it's rather awkward phraseology. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

He has himself elected.

He has himself be elected.

He has his son chosen.

He has his son be chosen.

I think both will work. But I prefer the first one over the second one, simply because the second one is too wordy. SSS (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

January 11

Is "engagement" just the modern term of the archaic "betrothal"?

I hardly hear anyone use the term "betrothal" nowadays. Most of the time, people use the term "betrothal" in stories that take place in earlier times, which I conveniently replace with "engagement". How did "betrothal" fall into disuse? Most of the time, in modern English, people would say, "I'm going to get married," or "I'm engaged," or even "I'm going to tie the knot." SSS (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on our article, it seems that betrothal was/is more "official", and often organized/arranged by the couple's families. Iapetus (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

SuperSuperSmarty -- Engagement is the modern equivalent of betrothal, but in many cultures betrothal was a binding agreement which had far more consequences than a modern engagement. In Old Testament times, from what appears in the Bible, most of the heavy lifting (negotiations between the two families) was done at the time of the betrothal, and if a betrothed woman had sex with someone other than the man she was betrothed to, then she was already guilty of adultery. In fact there seems to be more emphasis on betrothals than weddings; probably in some cases if the betrothed man and woman had sex, and the betrothed woman went to live with the husband's family, and they accepted her, then that was the wedding (the Hebrew word כלה which is conventionally translated "bride" also meant "daughter-in-law", with the implication of one who has recently come to live with her husband's family, and "young married woman"). There may have been some kind of wedding ceremony, but it wasn't really described in the Old Testament (though there is the "royal wedding psalm", Psalm 45)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hence also the term Breach of promise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• No. If I need to splain beyond what WP, Wiktionary, Google, Webster's, EO, and Oxford all give, don't bother to ping me--I'll just ignore it. μηδείς (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• μηδείς, did you mean to put this comment in the engagement-v-betrothal section? Nyttend backup (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• I did type that, but it may have been a cut and paste error, it doesn't seem to belong here. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Los Tres Calaveras

In the comments section to this 1960s Mexican movie "Los Tres Calaveras" someone wrote: "¡Ah cabrón, que chingones le salen los corridos a Javier Solís!" Can someone translate? Is it that Javier Solís is not known for singing corridos? Were they referring to something in the movie? (I haven't watched it yet but Javier Solís seems to only appear in the very beginning and the very end of the movie). Thanks. Basemetal 17:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Cabrón" is an expletive, like "shithead" or "asshole". "Chingones" is a more virulent expletive like "fuckers", but used in a positive way. My spanish is a bit rusty, but I'm pretty up on my swearwords (being a U.S. schoolteacher). My best shot (and this is with my less-than-perfect spanish that someone will be along to correct) is that in English this would be "Ah, shit! What fucking genius brought out the Javier Solis songs!" --Jayron32 19:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't come up with a literal translation, but this reads to me as, "Dude, his shit is da bomb!" The impersonal use of the verb is pretty much untranslatable, but it is more at "what incredible songs come out of Javier" Le and a Javier refer to the singer as if he were the object, and salen, being plural, refers to the songs as the plural subject.

You run into very weird things like "Se me rompio el brazo." Literally that would be "The arm broke me itself" but the sense is I got my arm broken (passively, not by a third party, and not on purpose), or better "My arm broke on me." Another analogy would be, What fuckin eggs come out of that chicken, which is a bit easier to grok in English. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

So "chingones" is here actually an adjective meaning "incredibly good" and refers to the "corridos", and is not a noun that would be the subject of "salen" (the subject of "salen" actually being the "corridos"): is that correct? Could you also say "los corridos le salen chingones a Javier", meaning "Javier comes up with incredibly good corridos"? Basemetal 02:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sort of. The best English translation in terms of sense would be "fucking brilliant" in the British sense. Chingon and related words are vulgar, and lack a direct English translation, but their use usually indicates a positive attitude. --Jayron32 05:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)