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 25

"Esboompjes" (Dutch)

Can a Dutch speaker confirm the translation for me (from here: [1]. A Google Translate version can be found here [2] but it doesn't translate 'Esboompjes'). Thanks, AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Dutch speaker, but "Esboompjes" is "Ash trees". (Google Translate will translate just fine if you put a space after "Es".) --Itinerant1 (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense from the context, except that the article later contrasts them with 'adult trees' - I was wondering if it meant 'young Ash trees' or something of the sort. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

First time it says "kleine Esboompjes" (literally, small ash trees), second time "volwassen bomen" (mature/full-grown trees). I don't know if "kleine" can mean "young" in Dutch, but, by the context, looks like it does.--Itinerant1 (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. and "boompjes" is a diminutive form of "bomen", so the first phrase is really "small ash saplings". And we do need a Dutch speaker to get all the nuances.--Itinerant1 (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a diminutive, and would be understood to refer to immature trees. Ucucha (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As a native Dutch speaker, I can confirm that 'boompjes' is the diminutive form of 'bomen', trees, so 'kleine esboompjes' would be 'young ash trees' or 'ash sapplings'. 'Kleine' literally translates to 'small', but can be used as 'young' in cases like this one.212.123.1.140 (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - as I thought. I'll amend the relevant article to 'Ash saplings', and link here in the edit summary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps rather archaic, but "ashplant" is the correct English word for a young ash tree, or a walking stick made from one. Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What is missing in the sentence that has an Apostrophe of belonging?

I know that usually, the place with a apostrophe is a simbole of missing letter; so what is missing in the sentence that has an astrophe of belonging? In example, in a sentense that has an astrophe like it: "it's", it's say that's missing a letter i, and this astrophe instead of this letter. I hope that my question is clear... thank you in advence 109.253.237.20 (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Apostrophes are not only used for contractions (as you say, for missing letters, as in "can't" where the apostrophe stands for "no" or "could've", where the apostrophe stands in for "ha"). They can also be used when spelling the posessive (That dog is Bill's, that is the Joneses' house) It doesn't stand in for any letters in that usage, it only indicates the posessive (to distinguish it from the plural. --Jayron32 01:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

ok. when have it started the history of this using of indicates the posessive by apostrophe? and how they have been using, in the past, for posessive 109.253.237.20 (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

See Saxon genitive for a history of the 's usage in English. --Jayron32 02:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

thank you a lot 109.253.237.20 (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Some people in the eighteenth century probably thought that "John's house" was in some way a contraction of the ca. 1600 usage "John his house" -- an idea which is not actually historically correct, but which might have influenced early usage of apostrophes. However, the main reason for the apostrophe use is so that the plural and possessive look different in writing... AnonMoos (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a dim memory that Ben Jonson (and no, I wasn't there at the time) got all in a dither about the title of Sejanus His Fall, not knowing whether to call it "Sejanus's Fall" or "Sejanus' Fall". Or something along those lines.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would an Olympic Sprinter be writing about that? :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised I'm the first to mention that the possessive "its" does not have an apostrophe in standard English. "It's" can only mean "it is" or "it has". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

None of the pronominal possessives have an apostrophe -- his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs, whose... AnonMoos (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

True - I just mentioned "its" because it was in the original question. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think none of us mentioned it because the OP specifically says that "it's is missing the letter 'i'", therefore displaying that (s)he already knows. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Children's alphabet

What is the alphabet called which children learn from? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There could be many different answers, depending on which language you are talking about, and which country. But in the UK I learnt the English alphabet with the help of books and wallcharts about a group of characters who lived in Letterland. They had adventures together, which somehow involved the pupil being asked to draw their shapes to help the story along. I forget why... But I remember enjoying reading the stories! (Or, more likely, seeing as I was still learning the alphabet, having them read to me...) Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not used now, but at one time an answer would have been the Initial teaching alphabet. --ColinFine (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)The Initial Teaching Alphabet was in vogue in the UK in the 1960s to 80s, but then went out of favour - I believe that it was found that any advantages were lost when the children converted to the standard Latin alphabet, and children were only able to read from school textbooks as everyday writing was uninteligable to them. The latest craze is Synthetic phonics, which sounds quite similar to the way I learned to read in the days of Janet and John. But I'm not an expert - maybe a professional could add something? Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Another possible answer: Apple Pie ABC.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Y Y Y, a yawning yellow yak. Young Yolanda Yorgensen is yelling on his back.

ser and ir

hello. how did the preterite forms of ser and ir in Spanish converge? A similar phenomenon happens in all the Iberian Romance languages (Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Galician) but oddly in none of the others (French, Italian, Romanian). This article from its TOC seems to have the answer but the relevant page 231 is not available. Thanks 24.92.85.35 (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that book is available at six libraries in Michigan. I'll see if I can inter library loan it. It's definitely after Spanish diverged from Latin though, since Latin esse and ire preterite forms are totally different. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 17:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

French and Italian (not sure about Romanian) do not have verbs that appear to come from ire, or at least they are not common (aller in French, andare in Italian; if those come from ire then something needs explaining). So maybe that's connected somehow — maybe if French and Italian did use verbs deriving from ire, then they also would use preterites such as fu. --Trovatore (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, in French the future and conditional forms do come from ire. French merged three Latin verbs: ambulare (allons, allais, etc.), ire (irais, irons, etc.), and vadere (vais, va, vas). Italian only uses forms from ambulare and vadere, and Spanish only ire and vadere. The ser/ir seems like an Iberian Romance innovation, but French does have a slight parallel, only not in the simple preterite, but in the passé composé. Je suis allé au magasin = J'ai été au magasin. And for the passé composé of the expression "ça va", "ça a été is the only option (there is no *"ça est allé"). Lesgles (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. But I'm not too convinced by the passé composé example, on the face of it. Can't one mean "I have gone to the store" and the other "I have been to the store", which are usually either both true or both false, but do not mean exactly the same thing? It's not clear to me that this is a use of the participle of être as a substitute for the participle of aller. --Trovatore (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Ça a été" meaning "ça s'est bien passé" strikes me as very informal, and as characteristic of European rather than Canadian usage in French. I might be wrong, but I would be surprised if this expression was not a fairly recent innovation. I had no idea that people who use this expression think of it as a past tense equivalent for "ça va," so that's interesting to hear. Also, "ça est allé" simply would not be used for an entirely different reason: most people don't say "ça est" at all (outside Belgium, I think). Only "C'est allé" would be possible in France or Canada, but I agree that even this is seldom if ever heard with the meaning "things went well."96.46.201.210 (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC) The TLFI gives an example of "ça a été" with this meaning from 1907, but not earlier.96.46.201.210 (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

November 26

Sight unseen (expression)

So the other day my wife was out shopping at thrift stores. I stayed home doing yard work. She called me an asked if I received a picture she had texted me. The picture was of an old church pew she thought would look nice in our dining room...but it was an expensive purchase. For whatever reason, my phone was not receiving texts at the time, so my response to her was: "If there is anyone I trust to make a purchase 'sight unseen' it is you." (Meaning that, even though I had not seen the item, I was okay with her buying it on her own judgment.) That got me thinking: Is the expression "sight unseen" redundant? I have used the expression before in similar circumstances. Am I using it wrong? Something seemed "wrong" when I said it this time. We really don't have an article on the expression. Any resources you can point to about the origin and/or correct usage? Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 03:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It's idiomatic (i.e. it may resist deep analysis of the type you seek), and similar to other technically grammatically incorrect but common constructions like "irregardless" and the like. --Jayron32 03:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

She isn't buying it "sight unseen", however. Unless her photo came through, you are. Bielle (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that the expression takes on the meaning we assign to it. But I am interested in doing an article on Sight unseen (expression) but am having trouble finding info on this...sorry that I didn't make this clear, and looking for resources. (In hindsight it was more of an open ended question.) Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 03:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't have an article on it: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --ColinFine (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We do have Category:English idioms and Category:English phrases so perhaps it is appropriate. (Yes, I am aware that "we have other articles like that" is not sufficient justification for an article.) Mitch Ames (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Chinese to English

What does this mean: 屌你老母? For context, found here [3]. Bielle (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It is Cantonese, and means 'Fuck your old mother'. See Cantonese profanity#Diu. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did ask. Thank you, KageTora. Bielle (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A corollary to the old "if a tree falls..." puzzler: If you post an obscenity on someone's page and they don't know what it means and don't bother investigating it, have they really been insulted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes, because merely not noticing something doesn't mean it didn't happen. What if a guy was shot point blank in the head and died instantly so he didn't notice? Has he really been shot? :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a little different. You don't have to be aware you're dead, to be dead. If consciousness survives beyond death, you'll be aware anyway. But whether that's the case or not, there no doubt a person shot in the head is dead, and we can safely bury or cremate his body. Insults are forms of communication, and communication is like a car leaving my driveway, travelling down the road, and parking on your driveway. Communication does not occur until it reaches the destination. If someone tells me, in Swahili, that my children have been burnt to death, have I been informed? No, I haven't. Communication has not occurred. However, if they say 屌你老母 in a face to face exchange that's otherwise in good enough English for you to understand, what may be successfully transmitted from their body language is a sense that they're putting you down. You may not know precisely what's being said, but the general intent will still come across if your perceptual apparatus is well-enough tuned. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

So what we are saying here is that even though they insulted you, you were not insulted? Is there some semantic difference in the active and passive of this particular verb? If someone stuck a piece of paper on your back saying 'Kick me', they have made a fool of you, even if you didn't notice and someone else kindly removed the paper (without telling you). Have you not been made a fool of? I think Jimbo (in the real-life example above) has been insulted, he just may not know it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It might depend on how many, if any, other people saw and understood the insult. In the case of "kick me" you have (at most) only been made a fool of if other people see the piece of paper. If someone stuck the paper on your back and then it fell off and was lost before anyone (other than the person who put it there) saw it, would you have been made a fool of then? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, and in this case (the Chinese written on Jimbo Wales' talkpage) it was there for the whole world to see (and still is, albeit struck out). Everyone involved in this thread knows what it means, in any case. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak Cantonese but as a native speaker of Mandarin (a deeply related language) it is my opinion that it does not mean "F*** your old mother" but rather just "F*** your mother"; in the Chinese dialects '老' is often used before a person to convey a sense of familiarity, not necessarily with the person but in the situation in general. For example (and I apologize for pinyin only, I am not capable of proper Chinese input on this computer): in putonghua 'wo3 de lao3 ma1' would mean 'my mother', 'lao3 ye2 zi' is "old man" (understood in the idiomatic sense, not the literal sense in ENglish), and 'lao3 xiong1' would be an older brother or male relative. 72.131.55.194 (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Very true, but bear in mind, by definition all of those people are older than you. In any case, we also have the same idiomatic usage in English, where the word 'old' is used as a term of familiarity, and almost of endearment. 'old mate' = 'friend' (usually, but not always one that you have been friends with for a long time, and hardly ever anything to do with age), 'old girl/old feller' = 'mum/dad' (Liverpool usage, expressing familiarity), 'have a pint of the old Tetleys' (simple term of endearment). For this reason I believe the 'old' in the translation can stay in, and the listener can make what they want from it. NB: In Liverpool, in all of the cases above, the word 'old' is pronounced 'ahl'. When 'old' means 'old', it is pronounced 'old'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I second the anon's view - it should be "fuck your mother". If 屌你老母 was "fuck your old mother" then it suggests a distinction between "old mother" and "mother", but 屌你母 is not idiomatic. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Whilst in Mandarin, 操你媽 is? Let me get this straight. 老 suggests familiarity or endearment. Endearment is obviously not the meaning in this phrase ("fuck your mother, of whom I am so fond" is ridiculous). Therefore, it is suggesting familiarity, albeit contemptuous familiarity? Is this correct? In which case it would fit perfectly with Liverpool English and Irish English, where we would say 'Fuck your old mother' (/'fux jɛra:l 'ma:/ in Liverpool). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What language is this?

[4]? Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

They seem to be Sikhs, so I would assume Punjabi, although I have no way of knowing just by listening to it. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking that too, but the script looks a little different than the script at pa.wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The leading singer is actually British(!), and he has a page on Wikipedia: Jassi Sidhu. And somewhere in the videoclip there's also Aman Hayer. Their articles say that they work in Bhangra style, which is commonly sung either in English or in Punjabi. But the writing system in the subtitles is not Punjabi or Devanagari, I can't recognize it right away. Seems remotely similar to Thai, but it's not Thai either.--Itinerant1 (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The subtitles are a South Indian script, Telugu I think. --ColinFine (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and the channel logo indicates the channel ETV Telugu. --Itinerant1 (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

India's Wall Street Journal confirms that they sing in Punjabi. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Same or not?

hello,

are there any differences between "hint", "allusion" and "innuendo"? I mean they are all synonyms, but maybe they will sound oddly when used in different contex. For example "error" is technically, while "issue" and "problem" sociological, etc. Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A hint is a partial solution to a problem, or a partial answer, or something like that. An allusion is a reference, sometimes obfuscated, to a literary work or something similar. Innuendo is language used to obfuscate information which is taboo to discuss directly. They all involve masking information in some way, but the nature of each (what information is masked, and how it is masked) is different. --Jayron32 18:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC) There are significant differences in meaning. I can't think of any sentence in which they would be interchangeable, so I wouldn't describe them as synonyms. Have you tried looking up the words in a dictionary, such as this one?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. I think "allusion" is the word I need.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 18:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The "T" in "often"

I've noticed that some English speakers ponounce the "t" in "often", while others say "offen" (as do I). I have not been able to connect this difference in pronunciation with the different varieties of English in a conclusive way. Myself, I learned to speak English by immersion in my early teens (late sixties), in Lusaka, Zambia, and I didn't even notice that some people pronounce the "T" until years later. Some of my classmates were the sons of UK foreign aid workers, some were the children of farmers who had lived in the country for generations, and some were the children of diplomats or foreign aid workers from many countries, including many from the USA.

My quesion is, which dialects, sociolects, national varieties of English pronounce the "T", and which don't? Thanks. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the information I found on the web in various unreliable sources, the following happened:

• Original pronunciation, long ago, was with the t, which is why it is spelled that way.
• In the 17th century the t was lost.
• Until relatively recently, dictionaries listed only the t-less pronunciation.
• Then people started to pronounce the t again.
• Now both pronunciations are considered correct and listed in dictionaries.

The point about people starting to pronounce the t again, as opposed to a minority having done it all the time, might well be a case of incorrect (or overly prescriptive) old dictionaries and the recency illusion. But it also appears plausible that for some reason (possibly influenced by oft) some people 'corrected' their pronunciation based on the spelling. This would have resulted in most speakers not pronouncing the t, some more sophisticated speakers pronouncing it as a hypercorrection, and the most sophisticated speakers not pronouncing it because they knew that the hypercorrection was false. I.e. the least and most sophisticated speakers would have agreed against the intermediate ones, resulting in a pretty random distribution of the pronunciations. Hans Adler 23:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Important comment. Until recently, Wikipedia had an article titled List of words of disputed pronunciation, but somehow it was deleted. Perhaps if that article had still existed, it would help give information. Georgia guy (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"Now, when you say orphan, do you mean 'person who has lost his parents', or do you mean — pfrequently?". — the Major General

--Trovatore (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

C19, generic distant British colonial outpost

Posh commanding officer: "Hear that sound in the distance, lads? That's war drums."

Geordie private: "Howay, then lets gan tek 'em back!"

--Shirt58 (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have been deleted on the grounds that it would rapidly become uselessly huge. I think to be useful it should exclude any known generic difference like those found in Phonological history of English short A and Phonological history of English high back vowels, and include only unique cases in which a specific word has developed multiple pronunciations, without forming part of a pattern of similar words.  Card Zero  (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a good case for recreating this old list or creating a similar new one, but it would have to be done with inclusion criteria that are clear, actually useful, and keep the list size reasonable. Often is a good candidate for inclusion because many native speakers are uncertain which is the 'most correct' pronunciation in their variant of standard English. Tomato is a good candidate for inclusion, even though it has no such uncertainties, because of the notable song that plays with the AE/BE difference. Finding reasonable list criteria such that both fit is a challenge. (It may be best to create such a new list in userspace first, and then present it to deletion review, or at least make absolutely sure that the AfD arguments have been dealt with.) Hans Adler 00:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Gee, instead of such a list, why wouldn't you just use a category in wiktionary? If there isn't one yet, create one, and tag words with them. – b_jonas 22:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The deleted list had this to say: "often (help·info) - (1) /ˈɒfən/, (2) /ˈɒftən/. Some dictionaries list (2) as the preferred British pronunciation, although according to LPD a poll among British speakers revealed 73% preferred (1) and only 27% (2). Most post-1990 American dictionaries list both pronunciations, but some pre-1990 dictionaries list only (1)." LPD is Longman's Pronunciation Dictionary, 1 st. ed., 1990. Rmhermen (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I see something similar with the second 't' in 'twenty'. --Itinerant1 (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Or both t's in Atlanta. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The "t" in "often" was retained (from the 17th century) and never lost in northern UK English dialects. I'm not sure about other regions or countries. The missing "t" in "twenty" and "Atlanta" seems characteristic of American pronunciation from this side of the pond, but the omission (e.g. "twenny", "plenny") is heard in the informal speech of some in the UK. Dbfirs 07:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Is the increasing usage of the /ˈɒftən/ pronunciation mainly a UK English phenomenon, or is it increasing in American, Australian, NZ and other varieties of English as well? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 10:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it's increasing in American English, but I think it's more stigmatized in American English than it is in British English. In Britain, even well educated people might pronounce the t in often, but in America it sounds quite nonstandard to do so. Angr (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't pronounce the t, and when I hear my fellow Americans do so, it sounds gauche to me personally. But I hear it so much, from such well-educated people, that I have to dispute the idea that it's still widely or effectively stigmatized in the US. (I'm sure it must have been when it first started sprouting up.) Wareh (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In my native dialect, the "t" in "often", along with other "t"s before "en" was formerly pronounced as a plosive with the tongue in the "t" position, but with the plosive actually made somewhere between the throat and the nose (the air escaping through the nose, rather like a small sneeze). I've no idea whether there is an IPA symbol for this strange consonant. I don't think I've heard it recently. Dbfirs 22:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many examples of this trend to "speak as you spell", once condemned by the purists but allegedly encouraged by schoolteachers (maybe so they didnt have to teach so many exceptions (?!). If so, the teachers won because it seems to be irreversible, and indeed the traditional pronunciations can now seem affected or even ridiculous to the modern ear. See the article on Spelling_pronunciation or google "speak as you spell (movement)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.239.226 (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Or, for a more radical movement advocating a system of such pronunciation for many words, see Regular English Pronunciation. – b_jonas 22:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

... though in the case of "often", it is just a return to the original pronunciation, never abandoned by some. Dbfirs 09:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Evidence that it was "never abandoned by some"? I'm sure the /t/ was pronounced when the word first appeared in Middle English, but then it was deleted at the same time as other /t/s between a fricative and /n/, e.g. listen, hasten, soften, etc. I find it unlikely that the current pronunciation with /t/ ever reflects a preservation in unbroken succession from Middle English rather than a recently introduced spelling pronunciation. Does anyone who has a /t/ in often also have one in soften or listen? Angr (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would struggle to prove my claim of continuity because recordings of speech from hundreds of years ago don't exist. The situation is complicated by the fact that "oft" (with the "t" pronounced) is the form retained in dialect, so it is possible than the "en" was added early in the twentieth century to match the southern word. H W Fowler, who described the "t" in "often" as a "hypercorrection", was a southerner. He did teach in the north for a while, but he probably had very little exposure to the local accent. Dbfirs 13:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My intuition is that there's a marked difference between often and soften on one hand and listen on the other. I don't know if it's the distinction between ft and st or if it's the obvious etymological relations with oft and soft and absence of any apparent connection between listen and list. But this non-native speaker always pronounced soften with the t (maybe because it's not a very frequent word, so 'regular' pronunciation wins over the 'correct' one) and started to also pronounce the t in often while working at Leeds University. Whereas I can't imagine anyone speaking the t in listen other than as a clear error of a fellow non-native speaker. Hans Adler 10:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My personal observations confirm this, the "t" in "often" is pronounced in Yorkshire, and in Scotland (my experience here is only in the border areas though). It seems to be returning in the younger generation all over the UK though. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm an Australian from NSW from a blue collar industrial worker suburb with white collar parents in the education industry who received a BA education from a regional university that maintained high standards without class bigotry. Half my mother tongue was the primary school with blue collar, half was the household with more white collar. I say "offen" "offén" and "oftén" but never "oft'n". I tend to only say "often" when it makes poetic sense for mid word consonance or to mimic priggishness or upper class wankery. A normal offen is "off'n", whereas offen being in a stressed position is more "offén". I hope this gives you a linguistic data point. From what I can see it involves sociolects of class, though it seems to be a created distinction. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

November 27

Forming negative clauses with copulative verbs

Hello, again. I was wondering how one would form a negative clause with most copulative verbs.

In the olden days, negatives in English clauses were formed much as in Latin or French; to wit, one would place the negative adverb immediately following the verb.

eg. "I know not where she went." or "She loves me not."

Over the years, this usage fell out of favor, and using finite forms of "to do"—as an auxilliary verb—became the preferred way to form negative statements with action-verb clauses.

eg. "I do not know where she went." or "She does not love me."

Curiously, however, the old usage persists in clauses formed with "to be."

eg. "I am not that happy to see you." or "It truly is not a sacrifice to help you."

(Not even the most progressive English speaker would write "I do not be that happy to see you." or "It truly does not be a sacrifice to help you.")

I'm curious, however, as to whether "to be" is unique among English verbs in this sense, or this applies to other copulative (non-action) verbs. Pine (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

eg.

"I don't feel that good." or "I feel not that good."

"He doesn't seem right for the job." or "He seems not right for the job."

"It doesn't sound very appetizing." or "It sounds not very appetizing."

"She doesn't look pretty in that dress." or "She looks not pretty in that dress."

"This place didn't smell so bad, yesterday." or "This place smelled not so bad, yesterday."

"The candy doesn't taste too sweet." or "The candy tastes not too sweet."

"You didn't become a doctor, did you?" or "You became not a doctor, did you."

I'll admit, that last one at least sounds pretty awkward to 21st-century ears, but what about some of the others? In formal settings, may some of these still be useful? Or is the modern rule for copulative verbs (except "to be") identical to that of action verbs? Pine (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of your usages sound close to litotes, which is the use of the negative as an understatement, and feature a word order similar to what you are suggesting above. --Jayron32 07:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note also that whereas it is indeed true that the negative of "is" is "is not", not "does not be", the imperative negative form is "do not be", not "be not", as it probably used to be. JIP | Talk 07:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Much of Twinpinesmall's question seems to be about do support, and the rest of it about negative quantifier float (which we don't seem to have anything about, but which you can read a little about here)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say that, in all of your suggest examples without the "do", the "not" reads as negating the object phrase, not the verb. For example, "this place smelled not so bad" seems to me to be saying that the way the place smelled was "not so bad". --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I would read them all, though I would be puzzled about the process of becoming "not a doctor" (perhaps being struck off?) It is very rare in modern English for the negation to follow verbs other than to do and to be. The construction was common at the time of the King James Bible, but modern readers "wist not" (sorry, wrong tense). Dbfirs 22:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot say that I find the discussion so far particularly clear in that it had not what I consider the appropriate focus on a certain grammatical category. I dare not go so far as to say that one must not present the case without this information, but I will not suppress mention of the fact that one should not have omitted it. To wit: Might it not be the case that we need not make up our own list when lists of auxiliary verbs are readily available and ought not to be ignored?

Granted, all the above examples but one are of auxiliary verbs in their function as such. The one exception is have, which can also be used as a full verb while negating it as an auxiliary, provided one somehow hides the fact that it functions as a full verb. Or one can hide the fact that one is negating auxiliary-style by doing something less common, as in "Yes, we have no bananas" or "make no mistake". I think these are all examples of the old grammar having escaped regularisation because in all these cases it's slightly less obvious that they even fall under the new rule. Hans Adler 11:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should have thought more deeply about auxiliary verbs, but I'm not an expert. Idioms with "no" are probably left over from the old grammar, but I don't think that "no" is a normal negative. Any verb can be followed by "no", for example "I see no ships(/signals)" meant the same as "I don't see any" in Nelson's time, but can also refer to the number seen. English is a language that has changed a lot in its lifetime, and rules are not as clear-cut as prescriptivist grammarians would like them to be. Some of us still use older forms just for effect and heed not modern "rules". Dbfirs 21:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses!

Perhaps one simply must ensure that the copulative verbs in question are inchoate if he wishes to avoid using the supporting "do." The "became not a doctor" clause clearly does not work since the "becoming" is understood as already having happened.

At any rate, I must admit to not having realized that one now always forms the negative imperative (some call it jussive) mood in English with the "do not" auxiliary. Thank you for sharing that, JIP!

———The construction was common at the time of the King James Bible, but modern readers "wist not" (sorry, wrong tense).———I believe that the correct form (back in Jacobian times) would have been "wite not." ("do not wit," nowadays.) Pine (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

————Yes, or "wit not" or "witt not". I retained the joking "wist not" in the wrong tense because "wist not" occurs nine times in the KJV, so has entered the language of those familiar with that version, and is often used (wrongly) in the present. The old conjugation is not commonly known except the form retained in "to wit". Dbfirs 07:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of the word "welcome" when referring to childbirth

This always sounds like a very forced and clunky construction when I see it used "Person X welcomed a new baby last week". Where does this come from? It almost sounds like a bad translation to me! QmunkE (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I usually see this in "personality journalism" (which I don't particularly seek out, just to be clear, but every now and then I do see a link that interests me on CNN's front page) — the "welcomer" is generally a celebrity of some sort. I don't think it's "forced" so much as "precious" or "twee". How does CNN (or whoever it's linking to, say People) know how the interested parties actually thought about the event? --Trovatore (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This is similar to the overuse of the word 'enjoy'. For example, 'UK citizens to enjoy lower tax rate' - how can anyone actually enjoy any tax rate? 'Country X in Africa enjoys the sun all the year round' - I'm pretty sure the people there have more pressing things in life. This, and other words, are just journalists' attempts to grab your attention by flowering up the facts a bit. Even the BBC has resorted to reporting on news stories that it calls 'dramatic', amongst other unnecessary subjectively emotive descriptions. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"What sort of insects do you rejoice in, where you come from?" the Gnat inquired. Angr (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this comes from journalism exactly. When the new parents write their own birth announcements for a newspaper, or when they are announcing it to friends and family (like on Facebook for example), they often use "welcome" in this way. Or other odd constructions like the baby has "arrived". Adam Bishop (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You can find something of the kind as far back as Robert Burns' "Welcome to a Bastart Wean", or if you prefer to follow his Victorian editors "A Poet's Welcome to his Love-Begotten Daughter":

Welcome! my bonie, sweet, wee dochter,

Tho' ye come here a wee unsought for,

And tho' your comin' I hae fought for,

Baith kirk and queir.

--Antiquary (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The original meaning of "welcome" is a greeting ("Welcome, from “well +‎ come” - “May you have fared well in coming here!”) That is, when a guest or relative arrives at your house, you "bid them welcome" or you "welcome them". A baby is nothing if not a relative coming to your house for long visit, so by analogy it makes some sense to welcome them like one would welcome a relative that traveled to stay with you for a while. If it sounds clunky, it's likely because the usage is slightly archaic. Though they're all related, I believe the "welcome" in "they welcomed a baby" does not really mean the same as the "welcome" in "You are welcome to some pie" or "Thank you. - You're welcome." or really even "We welcome suggestions for improvement." -- 71.35.113.131 (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

KageTora, I don't agree with the comments about "enjoy." This word meant "to have for one's use, benefit or lot: experience" before it meant "to take pleasure or satisfaction in." (Definitions from the Merriam-Webster, which gives "enjoyed great success" as an example.) The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins with "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..." 96.46.201.210 (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The term is explored in a popular song "With Arms Wide Open".^[5] There may be a philosophical or religious aspect to this, in the sense that a baby can be viewed as originating in situ and as not travelling very far during childbirth, or else as a spirit coming to Earth from some mysterious spiritual realm or divine origin. Nonetheless, it is typical to welcome a person after they've come through the door, and outside of prisons and castle sieges there are few gates more difficult to pass! ;) Wnt (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominalisation of verbs

hello,

English language is sometimes confusing, especially for German-speakers. In German grammar it is very easy to nominalise verbs; you just need to put the article ahead verb. In English grammar you sometimes use prefixes, for example -dom or -ness (boredom, laziness, etc). But sometimes I can't do it for other words. I want to translate the following sentence:

1. Das Erlebte hatte hier das Gehörte überlagert

I would translate it as follows:

1. Here, experience overlays the things heard

Is this correct? Is there any other synonym for "das Gehörte", "the heard" maybe? --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 12:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not "the heard". Your translation sounds okay (though it should be "overlaid" in the past tense or "had overlaid" in the pluperfect since the German has a pluperfect); another possibility would be "what has been heard". If it's clear from the context who has been doing the experience and the hearing, then complete clauses might sound more idiomatic, e.g. "What he had experienced overshadowed what he had heard". Angr (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Finnish also has the same easy way of nominalisating verbs as German. The example sentence would be:

1. Tässä koettu peittää alleen kuullun

Where both "koettu" and "kuultu" (here shown in the accusative case "kuullun") are nominalised verbs, meaning exactly the same as "das Erlebte" and "das Gehörte" in German. I find it strange that English does not have this easy construction. JIP | Talk 19:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone for help!--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 19:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know it sounds long-winded to foreigners who want to nominalise everything but Angr's translation "What he had experienced overshadowed what he had heard" really does sound much more natural.

There is no translation for "das Gehörte" because you cant nominalise a perfecr passive participle and I'm not sure "experience" is really quite the same as "das Erlebte". Better to stick to a verbal construction with "what..." (=that which) and paraphrase it as best you can.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.239.226 (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Tiny correction: I think that the proposed translation ignores the "hier" and the pluperfect in the German original, implying that a change had just taken place in a narrative set in the past. I would propose something like "What he had experienced now overshadowed what he had heard", where now provides the information about aspect that hier and the pluperfect provided in the German original. Marco polo (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Help needed updating pl:Tab Two

Hi everyone, are there any Polish native speakers reading along here that could update pl:Tab Two so it matches the information from Tab Two or de:Tab Two? Kind regards and thanks in advance, 188.105.123.98 (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Another useful place to post this would be the Polish Wikipedia's embassy pl:Wikipedia:Kawiarenka/Babel. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 19:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, pasting it there. -- 88.67.159.167 (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Latin texts in need of translation

Does anyone know if there are any significant Latin texts available online that have yet to be translated? I'm keen to start just as an exercise (and of course I would make my work available for others to use/ improve on). Also (extra question while I'm here), in relation to a previous question that popped up here a few weeks/months ago, when the Vatican etc. has to coin a new Latin word, why don't they just use the modern Italian? IBE (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you mean by "significant"...occasionally I, and others, translate medieval papal letters for Wikisource, but I don't know generally significant those would be. Relatively minor and specialized texts like that sometimes haven't been translated. There are plenty of texts that haven't been translated in a long time, so there are only stilted 19th century translations. If you want to translate just for fun, even if there are already published translations, a good place to start is The Latin Library. As for the Vatican, why would they use the Italian word? It wouldn't be a Latin word then... Adam Bishop (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

See Category:Articles needing translation from Latin Wikipedia.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. And it's not even empty. Hans Adler 22:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Translated to what? All languages of the world? – b_jonas 14:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, every language in the world except Hungarian... just kidding, of course, IBE (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We're discussing in English on the English-language Wikipedia, so I think we can assume "into English" is meant. As far as I know the Annales Ecclesiastici remains untranslated, which probably explains why cranks and pseudohistorians like to cite it. It runs to twelve large volumes, though, so it might be a bit big for an excercise. And you can't just use modern Italian words as Latin, because Italian lacks the inflectional endings that carry the grammar in Latin. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the use of Italian, I don't know much about it, but declensions can always be added. Computer, computri etc. Since there is no Latin word for such things, creating one would not be Latin any more than borrowing from Italian would. And even Arabic borrows from English, yet there is scarcely a language so well formed for creating new vocabulary. Still, if there is such a reaction against nova latina italianata (?), even here on Wikipedia, I dread to think what the Vatican would say. As for the suggestions, much appreciated, but I can't find any medieval papal letters by googling - Adam, are they available online? It's not entirely for fun, as I want to contribute (in my humble way) to something of lasting use, but also I want to build my own writing fluency through the exercise. I could do a page at a time of that long one, but I'd rather take the shortest medieval papal letter I can find, and do it in full. IBE (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Vatican is not the only body which creates new Latin words, although they do have an online lexicon which is, indeed, glossed into Italian. Latin has its own methods for creating new words, and often a new concept can be explained by a Latin phrase made of up pre-existing words (rather than a single new word). The Latin Wikipedia has its own policies about creating new words, and the process is often discussed at the la:Vicipaedia:Taberna (the Village Pump/Reference Desk). The English article New Latin has some info about new vocabulary. For papal letters, I don't think they are usually online, but if you are looking to translate untranslated medieval documents, there are certainly many thousands of them (at the very least). The Patrologia Latina is online, but for a subscription fee, unless you can find complete versions on Google Books. The Latin Library that I linked to above has a lot of medieval texts taken from the PL editions. Just between the PL and the Corpus Christianorum alone, you could be busy for the rest of your life translating stuff! Adam Bishop (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

November 28

Doing without "on" when dating an event

We can write:

• The novelist Rock Hardman was born on 9 May 1974, or
• On 9 May 1974, the novelist Rock Hardman was born.

We can also leave the "on" out, and write:

• The novelist Rock Hardman was born 9 May 1974.

But we can't write (*):

• 9 May 1974 the novelist Rock Hardman was born, or even
• Nine May 1974 the novelist Rock Hardman was born.

That is, we can do without the word "on" when the date follows the event, but not when it precedes it. Why?

(*) I'm talking about ordinary prose, and not a list such as:

Events of 1974

• 2 February: xxxx
• 12 April: xxx
• 9 May: Rock Hardman was born.
• 17 July: xxx

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Not in UK English, Jack. The 'on' is needed whether the date comes before the phrase or after it. Dropping the 'on' seems a purely American feature to me, and I didn't know it was also a feature of Australian English. Having said that, I asked my mum earlier about when she is going for a week's holiday down south, and she said, 'December 9th, we go,' so it looks like it is possible, and both of us were wrong. :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a date can be the subject of a sentence ('December 9th is the date we go') and the implied "on" at the end is suppressed, but UK English still retains the "on" in full sentences. Lists commonly omit the "on", but we would restore it when translating the list to a full sentence. Dbfirs 09:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if the "on" is suppressed because people think they shouldn't end a sentence on a preposition, so just leave it off. ("December 9th is the date on which we go" is rather clunky, after all.) --Tango (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it - my mum doesn't know what a preposition is :) I think she's shortening it from 'Dec 9th is when we go', rather than from 'Dec 9th is the date we go [on]'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

How to answer a question posted in 2006

"Lunchbox in Portuguese" posted May 19,2006 - I have the answer but can't contact users Manop and / or HenryFlower, TheMAdBaron. I'm supposed to use the search box to send a public message, but where is the search box? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1947rogs (talk • contribs) 18:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The search box is in the upper right-hand corner of each page. You can leave a message for Manop at th:คุยกับผู้ใช้:Manop, for Henry Flower at User talk:Henry Flower, and for TheMadBaron at User talk:TheMadBaron. All three of them are still active at Wikipedia. Angr (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

November 29

Lunchbox in Portuguese, posted May 19 2006

Sorry for starting a new question. The word Manop was looking for is probably “vianda” which corresponds to Yves Masure’s description, “a kind of lunch box consisting of a stack of typically three to five cylindrical containers, strung one above another by metal strips, that also form a handle on top”. Containers used to be made of aluminum. Nowadays the term is applied to one-way packages for warm food. “V” turns to “b” when passing from Portuguese to Japanese. Then *bianda would converge with the existing word bento (convenient). “Vianda” has a latin origin (life as in victuals, vivres – “viande” is meat in French and “vianda” is “edible roots” in Spanish). 1947rogs (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the original question for reference. Falconus^{p t c} 00:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Angr & Falconus! 1947rogs (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Translation from Dutch

How does "Bedankt dat je me geen Holland noemt." translate from Dutch. I'm having a little trouble with auto translators on that one. --188.220.46.47 (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to mean "Thank you for not calling me a Holland". I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, though. Angr (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the 'a' a part of it? It should translate as "thank you for not calling me Holland" as though the nation of The Netherlands was speaking the line. --188.220.46.47 (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know Dutch, but I know German, and I'm pretty sure (like 95% sure) that Dutch geen works exactly like German kein and means "not a" as well as "no" (the determiner, as in "yes, we have no bananas"). If Dutch works like German here, then "Thank you for not calling me Holland" would have to be "Bedankt dat je me niet Holland noemt" rather than "geen Holland". Angr (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It would make perfect sense if the word was "Hollander" rather than "Holland". The point being that Holland is just a part of the Netherlands and not a complete synonym - in the same way that all Americans can't properly be called Yankees even though it happens quite often. Roger (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

[6]--Itinerant1 (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Holland is a part of the Netherlands, a place, so I'm not sure what you mean with your original phrase. It literally translates to "Thank you for not calling me Holland". But if you mean 'Hollander' instead of 'Holland' (the inhabitant of the place instead of the place itself), it would be "Thank you for not calling me a Dutchman". (source: native dutch speaker)212.123.1.140 (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In English, that's a bit difficult as the adjectival form of "The Netherlands" is "Dutch". (In England (at least), "Holland" has been a synonym of "The Netherlands", but is less so now. Holland is also part of England, being one of the Parts of Lincolnshire.) Bazza (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I googled "Bedankt dat je me geen * noemt." Except for one spurious YouTube comment from 2 minutes ago(!?), it found nothing. However, "Bedankt dat je me een * noemt" (the same sentence without the negation in the relative clause) appears to be an idiomatic expression. It appears that "Holland" is a typo for "Hollander" and that the intended meaning is "Thank you for not calling me a person from the Netherlands" (as opposed to a person from Holland, presumably). The relation between Holland and the Netherlands appears to be much like that between England and Britain, in that people from the Netherlands are by default considered to be from Holland and many don't know the difference. It's odd, because Holland has only a bit more than a third of the total population of the Netherlands, whereas 80% of the British population is concentrated in England. Hans Adler 20:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

November 30

U Thant

Given that the MLCTS version of his name is u:san and the IPA of the Burmese pronunciation of his name was Burmese pronunciation: [ʔú θa̰ɴ], why is there a "t" on the end of his name in the Latin alphabet, and thus why do we pronounce his name /ˌuː ˈθɑːnt/? Nyttend (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In non-scientific transliteration of Burmese, syllable with creaky tone that end in a nasal are often transcribed as ending in nt because creaky-tone syllables are shorter than high- and low-tone syllables and end with slight glottalization. A more narrow phonetic transcription of /θa̰ɴ/ would be [θã̰ˀ]. Adding a t in the transcription encourages English speakers to cut the syllable short and glottalize it a bit, allowing it to come closer to the Burmese pronunciation. It works the other way round, too: English syllables that end in /nt/ in English are usually rendered into Burmese with a creaky tone and final nasal, e.g. the Burmese word for pint is /pa̰ɪɴ/, while pine is /pàɪɴ/ with low tone. Angr (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the "nt" bit in Burmese is very close to the way that syllable would be pronounced in French. English is not the only language which uses the Latin alphabet, and if I were pronouncing the "Thant" name in French, I'd get that last sound almost correct. --Jayron32 07:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

English isn't the only language which uses the Latin alphabet, but it's the Latin-alphabet-using language with which Burmese speakers were in longest and closest contact. And in French, it wouldn't matter whether you transliterated it thant or than; the two transliterations would suggest the exact same pronunciation. In English, on the other hand, you can use than to transliterate /θáɴ/ and /θàɴ/ (both of which are much longer in duration and have no glottalization) and thant to transliterate /θa̰ɴ/ (which is shorter in duration and has glottalization). Angr (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

She had a good innings

My friend rang me last weekend to tell me his 94-year old mother had died. He said what a lot of people say about recently departed loved ones who reached a substantial age: "Well, she had a good innings".

I got to thinking about this expression. It's redlinked at wiktionary. I feel certain it's a cricketing analogy, mainly because it's always innings the way I hear it, and not the baseball word inning. Do Americans use this expression, and do they singularise it to inning? If not, what would be an equivalent expression in countries that do not play much cricket? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine an American saying of a woman who died at 94, "She had a good inning" (or "innings", for that matter). I think we would just say "She had a good life". No sports metaphor occurs to me at all. Angr (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard it either (I'm not American but we don't play cricket in Canada either). We could say "had a good run" (or a "long run"), but I don't know if that's actually a sports metaphor. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Innings, the literal baseball equivalent is At bat, but I've never heard the phrase "had a good at bat" used to describe someone's life. It stands to reason, given that a "good at bat" is not defined by the length of stay at the plate, whereas staying at the crease for a long time is part of a good innnings.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that for non-cricket followers this expression would go straight through to the keeper? HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly a common phrase in England (and Australia) - [7]. Cricket was the first organised and well reported sport in England, much more widely understood, popular and central in English social life 100+ years ago than it is today. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure HiLo48 can verify it's an expression that's known to all Australians. I can only assume it's known wherever cricket is a national sport, but that awaits confirmation. Now we have to track down its first use. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's one of dozens of wonderful metaphors our language has taken from cricket. There's a goodly collection here. HiLo48 (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The earliest use of this particular sense that the OED records is from 1870: "She's had remarkably good innings, and persons can't be expected to live for ever" (Mary Bridgman, Robert Lynne). Note the plural rather than singular use of innings in this British novel, where the singular "a remarkably good innings" might be expected. The earlier metaphorical uses cited refer to a particular "turn" or opportunity, as in The Pickwick Papers: "It's my innings now, gov'rnor, and as soon as I catches hold o' this here Trotter, I'll have a good 'un." Deor (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the plural in the 1870 source is remarkable. If you look at the etymological explanation in the innings article ("a gathering in"), it appears to be basically a Germanic word for collection(s), which would of course have been "in-ing" at the start, formed from in as if it were a verb. I think it would make sense to say that an innings consists of several collections (or collection phases) distinguished by the different batsmen. Hence innings in the plural, which then gradually became a singular in the UK but remained a plural in some of the colonies. Hans Adler 13:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question, this. I'd like to know if it's used in India or Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, etc. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In baseball an "inning" typically only lasts for a few minutes, so it would not be a very natural metaphor for a full lifetime. A cricket innings, as I understand it, typically last for a lot longer. Looie496 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The longer the better, just like lifetimes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

According to this, Hanif Mohammad of Pakistan batted for 970 minutes against the West Indies in Bridgetown in 1957-58. THAT was a good innings.

Of course, in actual cricket it's not so much the length of time you stay in but the number of runs you get while your'e there that matters. A quick scoring batsman can achieve the same results in half the time as a slow scorer. In life, though, someone who achieved great things in a remarkably short life would never be said to have had "a good innings". The expression applies only to people who reach an advanced age, regardless of their achievements or lack thereof. In some cases, just about the only thing that can said of a non-descript non-achiever of great age is that they had a good innings. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The the length of time you stay at the crease can matter an awful lot, if you're playing for a draw. Perhaps you remember Defiant England cling on for draw? Alansplodge (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Staying in at all costs, even at the cost of getting no runs at all, is sometimes crucial. But typically, it's runs that count. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In which case Atherton's Jo'burg knock satisfies both criteria. Ericoides (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The numbers might also be relevant - a long life is around 80-100 years, which would be considered a good score for a cricketer, while a baseball player's score is more likely to be single digits. 59.108.42.46 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

But in life, 97, 98, and 99 are considered a good innings while in cricket these scores are often a disappointment, such is the importance of a century. Ericoides (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't Cricket played in Canada?

Did Canadians play similar games to Cricket but fail to codify it? Did they accept codified cricket in limited circumstances, but fail to generalise it? Why isn't Canada a great test cricketing nation? Why is my vision of Canadian cricket equivalent to my vision of United States of American cricket? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Further, why aren't Malaysia and Singapore real forces in international cricket? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We have an article about Cricket in Canada, which I actually might as well not even link to, as it's not particularly informative. It used to be more popular, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, at least in Upper Canada/Ontario where there was a larger British population. I happened to be reading the sports sections of early twentieth century Canadian newspapers a few weeks ago, for an entirely different purpose, but I noticed that they did report on cricket games in Canada (and abroad). I wonder if it had anything to do with Charles Lennox, 4th Duke of Richmond, who was governor of Canada and a cricketeer in the early nineteenth century. But baseball has been popular in Canada since the 19th century as well - see the slightly more informative Baseball in Canada. There was a Canadian form of baseball that was a mix between American baseball and cricket, but the American form was adopted in Canada fairly early. Apparently it was also in Canada that a modification of rugby became Canadian/American football in the nineteenth century. I guess we just like to make up our own rules! In my experience, the only people who play cricket in Canada today are southeast Asian and Caribbean immigrants. Everyone else plays hockey, baseball, soccer, and (Canadian/American) football. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You might want to look at the website of Cricket Canada; "Formerly named the Canadian Cricket Association (Established 1892)". They seem to be doing they're best: "In 2009, over 20,000 children throughout the country played cricket in both school and community based development programs.". We do have an article on Cricket Canada. It says; "Cricket was once the most popular sport in Canada until the early 20th Century before it was overtaken by hockey. Cricket was so popular it was declared the national sport by John A. Macdonald, the first Prime Minister of Canada. Cricket, today, is a popular minority sport in Canada, although it is growing. Cricket is the fastest growing sport in Canada. Canada has well over 40,000 cricketers across Canada." Alansplodge (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't really give you the "why" you're looking for, but international cricket is divided into the first-class nations (England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh and possibly Zimbabwe), and the Associate nations (which is basically everyone else). The International Cricket Council is the governing body. I suspect the answer is more to do with the history of cricket rather than anything intrinsic to the nations you mention. However, both Malaysia and Singapore aren't exactly populous countries, and with cricket, the more population a country has, the more likely that country is to be successful. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Malaysia has a larger population than Australia, so that argument doesn't really work.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Aren't we missing a fairly obvious element here – the weather? Cricket needs sunshine and dry wickets. I would have thought the Canadian climate would be a factor. --Viennese Waltz 14:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"Sunshine and dry wickets" being a well known feature of England, of course.....  ??!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I was going to insert a caveat along those lines, actually. But in the end I couldn't be bothered. England has a temperate climate with just about enough sun and absence of rain in the summer months to enable a full season's cricket to be played. I'm no expert on the climate of Canada, but I would have thought there was too much snow and ice there all year round. --Viennese Waltz 15:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, not really, and other summer sports like baseball, soccer, and football are popular. It's not climate, as much as geography and culture (being close to and influenced by the US). (Oops, as Marco has already explained below.) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Average max temp in July: Toronto 25C, London 22C. Average rainfall in July: Toronto 62mm[8] London 57mm[9]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

According to some Singaporeans I've been talking to, cricket in Singapore has always been dominated by the direct British influence; for example, the coaches (and teachers at schools that took charge of cricket) were often British. This gives a facade without cricket really catching on among the populace. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this thread be at WP:RD/E? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think climate is really an issue in Canada. The regions where most Canadians live do not have snow and ice year round. These regions have mostly mild and pleasant weather from late May through September. Probably a bigger issue is cultural differences from other Commonwealth countries. Since the late 19th century, Canada has had neither a substantial body of English troops and colonial administrators, who were instrumental in spreading cricket in Asia and Africa, nor, relative to the population, a large influx of migrants from England. (More so from Ireland and Scotland, where cricket is less popular, or from continental Europe, where it was almost unknown.) Meanwhile, baseball, a similar sport, was indigenous to Canada, and radio and TV broadcasts from the United States (within range of Canada's largest cities) would have boosted baseball's popularity and done nothing for cricket. As Adam Bishop says, cricket's recent revival in Canada is largely due to recent immigration from Commonwealth countries in Asia and the Caribbean. Marco polo (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't "why is cricket unpopular in Malaysia?" but why is cricket so popular in the Indian subcontinent. Outside there (and the West Indies where cricket is fading in popularity), cricket is largely confined to the British and their descendents. Other more populous British colonies like Nigeria and Tanzania play cricket a bit but prefer other sports and aren't leading forces in the game. Malaysia may seem close to India but it has a very different culture both from India and from the UK. Canada, as already mentioned, is subject to vast influences from its south, which is also why they tend to speak American English rather than British, and have a few other American traits. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo -- as a practical matter, cricket and baseball seem to occupy somewhat the same sporting niche, so that countries that enthusiastically embrace baseball don't usually seem to be cricket powerhouses... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Playing The Race Card" equivalents?

On Race card, it is stated that "Playing the race card is an idiomatic phrase that refers to exploitation of either racist or (more frequently) anti-racist attitudes to gain a personal advantage, typically by falsely accusing others of racism against oneself." What happens if a person is falsely accused of sexism or homophobia? Are there linguistic equivalents to the race card but applies to sex and sexual orientation?

Something that would mean the following: "Blah blah is an idiomatic phrase that refers to exploitation of either sexist or (more frequently) anti-feminist attitudes to gain a personal advantage, typically by falsely accusing others of sexism against oneself," OR "Blah blah is an idiomatic phrase that refers to exploitation of either homophobic or (more frequently) anti-gay attitudes to gain a personal advantage, typically by falsely accusing others of homophobia against oneself."

For example, suppose a young male student (who happens to be gay) likes to play video games and ignores doing his homework assignments. His grade drops sufficiently, and he fails the class. He cares less about his grades, because he is so obsessed with video games and those things cause his downfall, not his gayness. But he accuses the teacher of "homophobia". What is the terminology for this kind of situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.190.84 (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, is this solely an English expression? Are there foreign equivalents that mean roughly the same thing? 164.107.190.84 (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that "playing the race card" is itself a series of words of questionable significance. But when calling someone "homophobic" I think one is raising the same specter of "false accusation" unless substantiation is included. Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Playing the gender card, playing the homophobia card. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In German we don't say "the race card" specifically, we use the more general term "die Opferkarte spielen" (literally "playing the victim card"). This can encompass race/gender/ sexual orientation/any other issues - is "playing the victim card" idiomatic in English? I always assumed it was, but seeing your question I'm not so sure anymore -- Ferkelparade π 17:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Playing the victim. We do not have the equivalent of "race card" in our languages, but we do have the more generalized equivalent nagpakamartyr. Derived from English and roughly translated as "to act as if you were martyred", used in situations where someone deliberately adopts the position of the downtrodden in the hope of gaining sympathy.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "playing the victim" is quite the same, as it fails to convey that the person is accusing somebody of attacking them for a class to which they belong. I concur with "playing the X card", where X is racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other class which is traditionally discriminated against. StuRat (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Origin of word blackleg

What is the origin of blackleg, the alternative word for a scab during a labour strike? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The origin is somewhat obscure, but the derivation is probably Scottish, according to the OED. Originally "black nob" from before 1838 (nob in the sense of knobstick, but possibly associated with "nob" in the much older and still current dialectal sense of a person of some wealth or social distinction, possibly a shortening of "noble"), with the single word "blacknob" first appearing in print in The Scotsman in 1834 (" All the men employed by the iron companies were on strike, with the exception of six ‘blacknobs’."). The word then became "blackneb" and seems to have been corrupted to "blackleg" by 1844, possibly by amalgamation with the older word "blackleg" meaning a swindler. Whether the word has any direct connection with the disease in cattle or plants is anyone's guess. Dbfirs 19:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't even heard the word before, but based on what you say one might speculate that a black nob was one who was on the side of the nobs, but whose skin colour (dark from sun and dirt) showed that he was not one of them. Hans Adler 19:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a Steeleye Span devotee then?[10] Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I had assumed black trousers came into it somewhere. Could nob be dialect for a cap?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well "neb" is dialect for the peak of a cap, and "nob" is slang for "head", but exactly how "blackleg" came to mean "scab, strike-breaker" is not clear. Dbfirs 22:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a guess, but the "black" might come from the custom of putting soot on your face as a disguise, a tradition still kept by mummers and molly dancers.[11] In the Rebecca Riots of the 1840s; "not all (male) members of the mob would wear women's clothes, those that did, often in white gowns, would also blacken their faces or otherwise wear masks." Or it could have been just an insult, like "blackguard". Alansplodge (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the Kai Lung books has a ridiculous yet entertaining explanation purporting to trace the origin of the word to ancient China... AnonMoos (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Names like "Frasier" and "Luthor"

Luther is not uncommon as a given name or surname, and there are prominent historical figures who bore it - Martin Luther and Martin Luther King spring immediately to mind. As far as I know, all examples in the real world spell it -er. The only person who spells it -or is Superman's arch-enemy Lex Luthor, who is obviously fictional. Yet the internet is crawling with references to Martin Luthor and Martin Luthor King, not to mention the Idris Elba-starring TV series Luthor and Bryan Talbot's graphic novel The Adventures of Luthor Arkwright. Similar is the perfectly normal name Fraser, which nobody used to have a problem with, but one successful sitcom later and everyone who bears it has to put up with it being misspelled "Frasier".

Is there a term for this sort of thing, where one prominent use of an unusual word or name overrides many examples of a more usual word or name? --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• The ignorant or accidental substitution of one word with a similar-sounding but wrong alternative is called a malaproprism. That really applies to wholly different words, though, not cultural transmigrations of spelling. I'm not aware whether there's a specific name for the phenomenon you describe. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Names often change spellings for trendy reasons. Sometimes a mother will intentionally choose a common name and give her kid a strange spelling of it; other times a name with an established spelling will become changed, maybe because the old spelling is hard for people. Consider the name Schuyler, a Dutch name which has become spelled Skylar and Skyler much more commonly now among English speakers. The old English name St John can sometimes be found as the name Sinjin (c.f. Sinjin Smith). I don't know that the phenomenon has a name, nor that it necessarily represents anything. --Jayron32 05:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I wonder how many poor little Britneys are out there now, given their names by mothers who have never even heard of Brittany but have sure heard of Britney Something-or-other. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

December 1

Delikatesswarengeschäfte? etc.

I am working on a translation of de:Adolph Friedländer at a subpage here. The sentence below is giving me a bit of trouble.

Mit einer nach dem Tod des Vaters geerbten alten Steindruck-Presse ließ sich Friedländer in der Thalstraße 22 in Hamburg-St. Pauli nieder und begann mit dem Druck von Etiketten für Kolonial- und Delikatesswarengeschäfte.

"Grocery shops and delicatessens"? Babel fish translates Delikatesswarengeschäfte (as opposed to Google which doesn't recognize it) as "delicate goods business". I have the translation right now as:

"After his father died, Friedländer inherited his old lithographic press and set up shop in the St. Pauli quarter of Hamburg. He initially concentrated on label printing for grocery shops and delicatessens."

Help?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Kolonialwaren weren't just any groceries; they were foods imported from European colonies in the tropics: bananas, coconuts, spices, and so on. Delikatesswaren can be translated into English as "delicacies". I don't think there is an exact equivalent in English for these kinds of businesses. You could roughly translate both types of business collectively as "gourmet grocers". In that case, I would suggest the following: "With an old lithographic press that he inherited after his father's death, Friedländer set up shop at 22 Thalstrasse in Hamburg's St. Pauli quarter and started out printing labels for gourmet grocers." Marco polo (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much Marco. I think I'm going to go with leaving in the German original and parenthetically state they are types of gourmet grocers. As a reader I don't like it when someone simplifies something specific from a source to something that's sort of close but not exact because there is no direct translation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Delicatessen is itself (old) German for "delicacies".  Card Zero  (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hamlet

Hello all. I am reading Hamlet and I have come across the interesting line 110 (AIII S1), where Ophelia says "Could beauty, my lord, have better commerce than with honesty?" Is this a sexual reference? In these lines the word "honesty" is used frequently to mean "chastity" and "commerce" (in French at least) is an old, very formal euphemism for "intercourse" (i.e. commerce charnel), so she is basically saying "Can beauty do better than chastity?" or more faithfully "Could beauty find better "commerce" than it presently has with chastity", no? Thanks. 24.92.85.35 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

What is this called?

A relatively simple question. Among a group of friends I have, the following sentence from a video game has them baffled: "Owning the same nail polish does not a murderer make." They claim that this sentence is either grammatically incorrect or was a result of mistranslation. I know for a fact that this sentence is grammatically correct, but is there a way to describe this unconventional rearrangement of words? --WaltCip (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is very conventional in that it is a rather common idiomatic construction: "blank does not a blank make". It is very versatile, as the form can be used in any number of different ways such as my use here. See this Google book search to view ammny forms. In fact, we have a essay here entitled Wikipedia:One sentence does not an article make. But of course it is unconventional when one is unfamiliar with the construction and hears it with a modern English grammar ear. I found one site discussing the idiomatic form itself, here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The example I immediately think of is: Stone walls do not a prison make, Nor iron bars a cage, from 1642, so it has a long pedigree. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

One swallow does not a summer make is attributed to Aristole, though I guess the question there is when was the translation into English provided the framed grammatical form.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Over-proscriptive rules of grammar do not a language make... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a typical poetical trick, the verb on the end of the sentence to stick. Often found in the letters page of local newpapers. Makes me sick.  Card Zero  (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You really German then love must. Ericoides (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I German, considered in comparison to other languages, quite honestly, without beating around the bush, at all times of day, categorically, and I can't emphasise this enough, oh wait I forgot.  Card Zero  (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for the German verb is surely the ultimate thrill. ~ Flann O'Brien, 'The Hair of the Dogma', 1977. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I confess, when I'm reading in German, I sometimes cheat by glancing to the end of the sentence to find out what the verb is going to be. It's a bit like reading the spoilers for a movie I haven't seen yet. Angr (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Germanic ordinal numerals

Is it true that, from a morphological viewpoint, Germanic ordinal numerals are originally past participles? --Theurgist (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely sure how that would work -- ordinals have a [θ] suffix, while weak past participles have a basic [d]. Theoretically they might be related by Verner's Law, but I would tend to doubt it... AnonMoos (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You would really have to wonder what sort of verbs they would be past participles of... I'm interested what literature asserts or even discusses that ordinals were past participles. -- the Great Gavini 10:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)