Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

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.

May 28

Font for Persian

What is the most accurate font (supported by Wikimedia) for the Persian script? Liam987 (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Persian script is just the Arabic alphabet, which is supported by all major fonts nowadays. Are you perhaps looking for a font that renders text so it looks like Nastaʿlīq script? Angr (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Nastaʿlīq to look acceptable to Nastaʿlīq afficionados, you need a software system, not just a font. Most newspapers in Pakistan were based on photographs of hand-written text (not typesetting), until rather recently... AnonMoos (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the address of a zipped file of Persian fonts which are used in Persian Wikipedia. Persian has four letters that do not exist in Arabic and you cannot produce them with Arabic fonts. --Omidinist (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. --Omidinist (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic fonts used by my browser also seem to have the Persian letters. (It was slightly odd that certain older "official" standards such as ASMO 449 and ISO/IEC 8859-6 had many unfilled gaps in the encoding, yet confined themselves to Arabic-language letters only, but practical computer standards such as Windows-1256 have contained basic letters for Persian and Urdu.) P.S. As for the Persian preference for Nastaʿlīq over Naskhi, it surprised me a little when I came across image fa:File:Trinity-persian copy.jpg, apparently created by a Persian speaker for other Persian speakers, yet using the most basic plain-jane Arabic pseudo-Naskh computer screen font (kind of the Arabic version of Arial)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed like a bad chair on a black Monday

I'm sure I'm not the only person to be intrigued by something Matt Preston said on MasterChef Australia tonight (Monday 28 May).

He was critiquing a cake a contestant made, which was undercooked and sank in the middle. Preston said that it had "collapsed like a bad chair on a black Monday". The way he said it made me think it's a recognised expression, not something he just made up on the spot. But googling it gets me not very far.

Black Monday can refer, inter alia, to Easter Monday, which in 1360 was particularly cold. Shakespeare uses this expression in The Merchant of Venice (Act II, Scene V). Apparently, nowadays it can refer to "any Monday on which a great disaster happens". It certainly proved to be a great disaster for the contestant, as she was eliminated from the show, thanks to her undercooked cake. So for her, it was indeed Black Monday.

So, that's the Black Monday. But what's the bad chair connection about?

Did Preston cobble together bits of assorted, otherwise unconnected, language to come up with something uniquely Prestonian, or was he borrowing from somewhere else? He's English, and maybe he was quoting an expression known in that fair land but not known over here. Anyh ideas, fellow linguamanes. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBH Jack I've never heard of that one, but it sure sounds descriptive. In fact, until you said he was English, I was thinking of aphorisms used by the Australian MotoGP commentator Charlie Cox , who often has me laughing at his descriptive prowess! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phrase finder http://www.phrases.org.uk/ doesn't pull anything up, though it does have entries for Blue Monday. Could the chair be a reference to Goldilocks breaking the small bear's chair? 184.147.121.151 (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipdia has an article called Black Monday which lists many alternatives. The best known to me (and I suspect most Brits) are both financial disasters; Black Monday (1987) and Black Monday (2011). What this has to do with collapsing chairs, I don't know. Collapsing banks would make more sense. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bank comes from Bench as money changers in pre-Medieval markets did their business at benches. When such a money changer's business failed his bench would be broken, which gave rise to the word "bankrupt". Going from bench to chair is just a short step. Roger (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or a less cryptic explanation may lie in the phrase "Bad chair day" (a pun on "Bad hair day") which gets one or two hits relating the role of chair(men) in a financial crisis - see Bad chair day: The article profiles Maurice Greenberg, the former chief executive officer of the American International Group (AIG), and his role in causing the global financial crisis.... Alansplodge (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. I guess this is one that Matt Preston can chalk up for himself. It helps to have a way with words if you're a highly paid food critic, and to have the linguistic inventiveness to match the culinary inventiveness you expect from cooks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by : in France, very often when on a Monday morning you ask somebody "How are you ?" , he answers "As on a Monday..." (Comment ça va ? - Comme un lundi...) . T. y. Arapaima (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proper noun - Rivers and connecting article subject to the river.

Is the following thinking correct. Named rivers have capitalised like places so 'R' in river. i.e. Mississippi River, Colorado River etc.

There is no Asian River so the the r is not capitalised in South Asian river dolphin, Asian river turtle, same with no Central American river, so we have Central American river turtle and also while there are plenty of rivers in Texas none are called Texas River so Texas river cooter.
There is an Amazon River so we have big-headed Amazon River turtle, six-tubercled Amazon River turtle, red-headed Amazon River turtle. We have a Gulf Coast so capitalisation is Gulf Coast spiny softshell turtle. Pearl River so Pearl River map turtle. A Fly River and a Fly River turtle. A Mary River (Queensland) and a Mary River turtle.
Then some things are not so clear. There are many Black Rivers but it appears(?) the black river turtle is so called because it's black rather then a river it lives on. There is an Eastern River but the eastern river cooter doesn't appear to get it's name from it. There is a Southern River but seems unconnected to the southern river terrapin, same for northern river terrapin. How do I know for sure?

If the connection between the subject and the river is undeterminable then the capitalisation should be done how? Is there any faults in the above? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've got a pretty good grasp already. How do you know how for ones you can't determine? Look it up. There isn't really a better way. Mingmingla (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "there is/ is no X river" is the best guide. Even if there was an "Asian River" in Wisconsin, say, that doesn't mean "Asian river dolphin" becomes "Asian River dolphin". Whether the "river" in "X [r/R]iver Y" is capitalised depends on whether it is a kind of "Y" named after "X River", or a kind of "river Y" named after "X". Often the context or your general knowledge should help. If it is something you are entirely unfamiliar with, you just need to look it up (as Mingmingla suggested). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the existance of a river doesn't make the name capitalised. It's only if there is a connection in the etymology. Trouble is most of the time no etymology exists for common names. So 'look it up' doesn't help much. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at publications about the animal, written by reputable sources. However, I wouldn't be too surprised to find that one author's black river turtle is another's Black River turtle. With a common name, I think it's best to follow the common usage(s) (if there are multiple, pick one and stick with it), rather than trying to trace the origins of the name. If you are trying to eliminate potential confusion, you could also specificy the scientific name, but I don't know how formal you are trying to be. Falconus^{p t c} 16:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Firstly, I'm trying to understand the concept for formal writing, then secondly, apply it to Wikipedia. Reputable sources tend to divide into two groups, scientic based publications that tend not to use sentence case (i.e. IUCN here) and therefore capitalise the first letter in every word of a common name and news sources that mention few turtles, but when they do use sentence case i.e Amazon River turtle. In the application to Wikipedia capitalisation of each of the first letters fails WP:CAPS and WP:FNAME while the news sources don't cover such things as Black River turtle or Black river turtle. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) is WP:FNAME written about in the sentence above. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. Sorry. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tangent: New World rivers tend to be named after something else (Amazon River after the Amazons, Hudson River after Henry Hudson) or transparently with an adjective (Rio Grande, Rio Negro, Red River); whereas Old World river names, so far as I'm aware, generally refer primarily to the river itself or its personification. I advocate using "River" for the former but not the latter; you wouldn't say "Sicily Island". —Tamfang (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passé composé

In formal French, do they use the passé composé for its original usage as the present perfect, or do they use the passé simple for that as well? --108.222.4.112 (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For my purposes, I assume that they are equivalent in meaning. However, I am not a native speaker, and I almost never use the passé simple, even in writing. In reality, is there any difference in meaning? Falconus^{p t c} 19:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the passé composé is the present perfect tense, and is used as such. However, in addition, passé composé is now also used in place of the passé simple. One can therefore always replace the passé simple with the passé composé, but one cannot always replace the passé composé with a passé simple.

Example: Quand j'ai fini mes devoirs, je sors. (When I have finished my homework, I go outside.) In this sentence, the passé composé is used as the present perfect. It would not be possible to replace it with a passé simple. V85 (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subtle difference is explained (with an example) on the Passé simple WP page. — AldoSyrt (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should have guessed that we'd have a Wiki Page on that... Thanks! Falconus^{p t c} 21:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best natural universal language?

Today, English is almost a universal language. But guess it would be decided that one of the known natural languages had to be the universal language, not judged on its current international importance, but only by lingustic criteria. Would there be languages that serve the purpose better than English? Omniglot has come to the answer "no": "In conclusion, it is lucky for us that our universal language [English] is the simplest and easiest, even though that simplicity and easiness weren't the reasons that lead English to that condition." I failed to find other, more detailed studies on that question - do you know any? --KnightMove (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My English teacher used to say: "English is the easiest language to learn poorly" (I live in the Netherlands). There are certainly arguments for choosing English, such as the lack of a complicated case and gender system, having only a few verb forms, consistent word order and using the basic Latin alphabet. However, a disadvantage is that spelling is less phonetic than in some other languages, e.g. 'case' when pronounced ends in 's', 'apple' in 'l', 'though' and 'tough' have different endings, 'now' and 'low' have a different 'o', the 'k' in 'know' is silent, etc. Many languages have adapted the spelling of words to conform to their pronunciation, but English has had no significant spelling reform for centuries. German e.g. is much more consistent and logical when it comes to spelling.

I've read on many places the claim that Malay is (one of) the easiest language(s) to learn (see e.g. [1]), though I have no experience with that language. - Lindert (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English is not necessarily easy for many speakers of other languages to learn when it comes to certain sounds or grammatical constructions which are only found in a relatively small minority of the languages of the world, such as [θ] and [ð], phrasal verbs, stranded prepositions, etc. Many linguists would say that creole languages approach the simplest common denominator of human languages. Unfortunately, our creole language article doesn't really give an overview of the structural characteristics which many creoles share... AnonMoos (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that whoever wrote that article on Omniglot, probably hasn't done very thorough research. And in the end, who can blame them? I don't think any person would be able to learn all the languages of the world, and then be able to make an assessment of what the easiest language to learn would be.

English does have some major shortcomings: highly irregular orthography, many sounds that are not used in other languages, and although the grammar might be easier than that of other European languages, there are still many complications such as a rather complex verb system (even if those tenses are formed in rather simple ways) with a lingering subjunctive; the separation of definite and indefinite nouns and singular and plural forms.

One advantage with English, though, is that we are so used to hearing it being spoken with various accents, that mispronouncing certain words isn't going to impede understanding of what people say.

I think that creoles, as mentioned, might be a good alternative, or a version of Malay. Although my knowledge of Malay is very limited, I think it would certainly fit the bill of the author of the Omniglot article: non-accented, phonetic Latin orthography; non tonal and a simple grammar (compared to European languages, incl. English). In addition, thanks to colonisation, Malay also uses a large number of Latin and Greek loan words, which are shared with European languages. However, there are bound to be things even in such a simple language, that would be drawbacks for it.

But, of course, what is the definition of 'best' in this context? In addition to being easy to learn, I think it would also include the ability to convey messasges clearly, with very little ambiguity. Furthermore, it also needs to be a language that has a lexicon that can deal with rather complex issues, so that we can write scientific papers using that language. This would mean that some languages, even if their grammar is simple, might be inappropriate for such use. I don't speak any creoles, but I have the impression that in these contexts, the creoles are used in daily life, whereas the 'original language', whether it be English, French or whatever, is used in more formal circumstances, such as government and academia. Also, I am not sure if 'simple grammar' is what people who are learning a language want: Many people are willing to spend lots of time learning languages which, at least from the outside, seem rather complex, such Latin, Sanskrit, Klingon, Na'vi... Latin and Sanskrit are historic prestige languages, but the latter two are surely of limited practical use. V85 (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the calls for a "spelling reform" for English heretical and will fight the idea fiercely should it ever arise in earnest. Spelling indicates etymology. Throw the whole etymology out, and for what? How will etymologists in 500 years time know that "lajikl" is cognate with λογος? (not to mention that it's fugly.) Spelling is the littlest obstacle on the way towards speaking a nice and idiomatic English, anyway (a thing I know poses difficulties to me.) When spelling and pronunciation have diverged so far that it's become as bad as in say, Gaelic, something will probably have to be done, but English is nowhere near this yet. Уга-уга12 (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree, somewhat, with this argument, however, nobody here has so far said that spelling reform should be undertaken, merely that English spelling could be an impediment to learning the language. Furthermore, a spelling reform might not go as far as to change logical into lajikl. For example the word thought: This word doesn't really show any link with its cognate think, other than the initial digraph. On the other hand, English spelling actually includes several examples of false etymologies, such as that superfluous s in the word island. V85 (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we were writing English phonetically, I certainly would not be using "a" as my first vowel in the new version of "logical". Already you can see the issues we'd have to deal with, most of which are permanently irreconcilable due to the many different languages out there that all call themselves English and all use the same spelling for words that often sound nothing like each other. It's the nonnest non-starter of all time. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Isn't it about time that someone mentioned Ghoti? That's what usually happens in discussions like this. - X201 (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're not discussing how to make English spelling better, that'd be a mute point. V85 (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with Omniglot's conclusion. English may be relatively easy for most Europeans to learn, because English is grammatically similar to but in superficial ways easier than other European languages. (As Lindert says, English is easy for Europeans to learn poorly, because in fact its grammar is not so simple when it comes to features such as verbal aspect and modality and the many idioms involving separable verbs, not to mention features such as definite and indefinite articles that can be very difficult for non-Europeans.) However, English, like other European languages, can be challenging for speakers of unrelated languages, especially East Asian languages. The best test of the ease of learning a language is the language's ease of learning for speakers of unrelated languages and languages not connected by a regional Sprachbund. Using that test, I can say from experience that Swahili probably beats English as a language that would be easy for speakers of unrelated languages. I have heard that Malay/Indonesian is also easy for speakers of unrelated languages. It is no coincidence that both are trade languages that began as pidgins. Probably the same would be true of other trade languages derived from pidgins. Marco polo (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me to see how Swahili would be easy for speakers of unrelated languages to learn, since it's a highly-inflected language with inflectional characteristics which are not too widespread among different language groups, starting with a heavy emphasis on prefixing (when suffixing inflection is more common typologically), noun-class concords, negative pronominal forms distinct from positive pronominals, relative verbal inflections (only seen in Celtic among Indo-European languages, as far as I know), applicative verbal inflections, etc. I think that the easiest language to learn (broadly by speakers of many different languages) would be an artificial (constructed) language with similarities to the common structural characteristics of creoles; the earliest such that I know about was Lancelot Hogben's Interglossa of the 1940's... AnonMoos (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I would guess Malay/Indonesian is more of a koine than a true creole... AnonMoos (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The one with the largest army. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having formally studied French, German, Russian, Greek, Latin, and Zulu, and speaking English, Spanish and Rusyn to some extent, I would suggest that English, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese and Indonesian all have their merits. As a second language, Spanish is probably the simplest. Its only fault is its arbitrary gender distinctions--but these are for the most part simple and regular. Chinese orthography beats out English spelling for difficulty. English has the largest vocabulary, best literature, one of the most simple grammars, and among the least arbitrary distinctions. My advice? Learn either English or Spanish as your second language, and Chinese as your third. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creoles

Why are creoles counted as separate languages even though they're just dialects? --108.222.4.112 (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's a language and what's a dialect is not clearly defined (a language is a dialect with an army and navy), and some linguists don't draw any distinction between the two. A creole, on the other hand, usually incorporates parts of two often very different languages - for example, the grammar of one and the vocabulary of the other - so it's not "just" a dialect, regardless. FiggyBee (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, a creole usually incorporates parts of several different languages, not just two. Creoles are descended from pidgins, which mostly arise when speakers of multiple languages are thrown together and need to communicate. (If there are only two languages, one group generally just learns the other's language rather than developing a pidgin.) If your only experience of creoles is with languages like Jamaican Creole, it's not surprising that you consider it a "dialect" of English, since Jamaican speakers can fluctuate along the post-creole continuum, the highest (acrolectal) level of which really is practically just standard English with a Jamaican accent. But take a look at other English-based creoles like Saramaccan or Sranan Tongo and you'll see they can't be considered dialects of English by any stretch of the imagination. Angr (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why do they use the same word for things like Jamaican Creole or Hawaiian Creole, which are clearly just dialects of English, and others that could more reasonably be called separate languages? --108.222.4.112 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creoles in general have a grammar which is quite different from those of all the languages from which their vocabularies are drawn, so in no reasonable sense are they dialects of anything (though a particular creole may exist as several different dialects). --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Wikipedia articles gives this example text in Hawaiian Creole: "God wen get so plenny love an aloha fo da peopo inside da world, dat he wen send me, his one an ony Boy, so dat everybody dat trus me no get cut off from God, but get da real kine life dat stay to da max foeva." It's clearly just a dialect of English. --108.222.4.112 (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that can be fairly called "dialects of English" are actually mesolects, and not true basilectal creoles. In any case, Saramaccan, for example, is a historically-English-based creole which has zero mutual comprehensibility with standard English... AnonMoos (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In linguistics, rather than just common speech, creole has a very specific technical meaning. A dialect of a language is simply a local form. The dialect has been passed down from mother to child without interruption in transmission from first language speaker to first language speaker. A creole comes about when this normal transmission is not the case. Creoles occur when pidgins, which are "broken" (in common parlance) languages become learned as a child's first language. Let us say that African slaves of various tribes speaking different languages come together on the plantation of a European owner. They will learn a very simplified working language with phrases such as, "Me done say you work yesterday, me say you work today, me gone say you work tomorrow, sabby?" This is not the way native English speakers talk and they have not learned it from their mothers, but as a second very simplified "compromise" language with maybe only a 500 word vocabulary, a simplified set of sounds (no "th") and a limited grammar--no "I would have fled hence hadst thou told me." Now, let's say a slave from one tribe takes a wife from a different tribe. What language will the children learn? In this case they will learn the pidgin, which until now was limited and no person's first tongue, rather than their mother's native tongue. The limited pidgin will now become recodified, with rules made up to cover more complex and subtle situations. This emerges spontaneously out of wordplay no differently from the way slang emerges among youths. If this speech becomes adapted as the general speech of a population, as Haitian Creole did when the Slaves revolted and killer or exiled their French masters, you have a fullblown Creole. If the Creole speakers stay in contact with their "target" language, as speakers of Jamaican English have with speakers of the Queen's English, their creole evolves toward the "standard". This is the case in American Black English, which has largely reassimilated with Standard American English, but retains traits from its time as a creole. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Wanamaker

The Sam Wanamaker article says he was the father of Zoe Wanamaker. Shouldn't that be he is the father ..., even though he is no longer alive? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Would anyone say "Henry VIII is the father of Elizabeth I"? No, they wouldn't. Using the past tense does not indicate the father-daughter relationship has ceased to be, just that either he has, or both he and she have, ceased to be. On the other hand, we would say "Zoe Wanamaker is the daughter of Sam Wanamaker", because she is the subject of the sentence and she is still alive. But if she had died and her father was still alive, it would then become "Zoe Wanamaker was the daughter of Sam Wanamaker".

What it comes down to is that you can't use the present tense in reference to a dead person, except in cases like "Rasputin is my idol", but there it's really about me and my decision to idolise him in 2012, rather than anything he did personally in 1912.

Or, "Jimmy can't come out to play, because he's dead". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

Language evolution

Why do languages become less formal over time? --108.222.4.112 (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they do. We just interpret archaic language as "formal" because churches and lawyers prefer old words, since old language makes them seem "more established". (Would you want a lawyer who spoke the latest slang ?) StuRat (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's even an objective measure of formality we can use here. Slang has always been a part of language, so I'm not sure even that can be shown to have increased with time. Even the King James Version of the Bible, using words like "thou" and "thee", utilized what was at the time fairly standard English in use between everyday people; it would not have been considered excessively formal language, or, indeed, formal language at all at the time of its composition. As Stu said, churches and courts, along with other more "formal" institutions tend to be slower to change their use of language with the times, so this tends to create an interesting illusion.

However, as someone who speaks something on the order of one-and-a-half languages (English fluently and Hebrew very badly), I would be interested to know if other languages have any peculiarities in this regard -- i.e., observably moving away from formal, tightly structured speech, to looser, more flexible types of communication. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The King James Version did not "use fairly standard English in use between everyday people": it used deliberately archaic language based on previous English translations of the Bible, because that's what people thought Biblical language should sound like. They thought the older language sounded 'right' and more reverent, because they were used to older language in their Bibles. Now, earlier translations probably played this game less, but by the time the KJV was being written, the language of the popular English Bibles sounded old and formal. This is a prime example of older sounding more formal to later ears. 109.155.32.126 (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That comment doesn't sound correct to me. Are you claiming that Shakespeare also used archaic language in his plays? Dbfirs 20:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's right there in our article on the translation, as well as every article I've ever read on the translation. No, Shakespeare mostly didn't use deliberately archaic language, except for effect. That's why, unlike the KJV, Shakespeare doesn't consistently use "thee/thou" for the singular. The language of Shakespeare is not Biblical (KJV) language, although it does sometimes use older English phrases such as were found in existing Bibles and prayers. 86.161.209.111 (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language was indeed changing at the time of the KJV, but not as quickly as it is now, so the words used in the translation would not sound particularly archaic at the time. In parts of northern England, use of "thee" and "thou" for the familiar singular is retained to the present day, though it is becoming less common. The KGV translation might have sounded slightly formal, but I don't see how it can have sounded "old" when Shakespeare used similar language for his popular plays. Dbfirs 09:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it sounds similar to you now, especially with both bodies of writing having become cliche, doesn't mean it sounded similar to people then. Even so, Shakespeare is full of strangely-modern sounding phrases and exchanges, and the KJV Bible is not. And language was changing more quickly when the KJV was written than it is now: there was less of a written culture (and now a broadcast culture) to resist change and homogenise language. Don't take it up with me: take it up with every scholar who has written about the language used in the KJV. Take it up with the translators, whose methods and philosophies we know quite a bit about. The KJV is pretty much the classic example of using older language because that is what people are used to hearing in that context: it even specifically took older translations as the basis for the wording. This is no secret, or obscure opinion. Seriously, it's right there in our article, linked further up in this section. 86.167.12.64 (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have retained many, many phrases and expressions from both Shakespeare and the KJV in our modern language, mainly because of the popularity of both. Shakespeare wrote less formally in his plays, and obviously included more colloquial conversations. When I read formal documents written around 1611, they sound (in general) very similar to the KJV, but if your scholars can see a difference, I suppose I'll have to defer to them since I'm not an expert. My point is that the difference, to modern ears, is not particularly great. Dbfirs 17:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most famous archaisms in the KJV is "to-broke", where "to" is not really the ordinary English preposition, but corresponds to zer in German zerbrochen; I doubt whether Shakespeare used it. Also, the thou/thee vs. ye/you contrast in the KJV is "static" (depending only on who is addressing whom, and their relative statuses), while in Shakespeare it's rather "dynamic" (depending on the particular context at the moment when a pronoun is uttered, and sometimes varying back and forth in utterances by the same speaker to the same addressee). The "dynamic" usage seems to more closely represent the spoken English of the early 17th century (though there were limits to how far things could be varied without giving offense). AnonMoos (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can find the "to-broke" construction only in Chaucer and other Middle English writings. It's not in any of my versions of the KJV, even ones printed a couple of centuries ago. (Have they all been modernised? If so, where can I find the original text? Wikipedia claims that the KJV was written in Early Modern English in common with Shakespeare's plays. The Standard text of 1769 seems to have corrected mainly just spelling and misprints.) I agree that Shakespeare would use a more "modern" colloquial usage in his plays, as would be expected by his audience, but, to me, the more formal writings of Shakespeare (e.g. Sonnets) appear at least as "old-fashioned" as most of the KJV. Dbfirs 09:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears in a printed KJV that I have here as "to brake" (Judges 9:53). Not sure if that's modernized, or I misremembered... AnonMoos (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"And a certain woman cast a piece of a millstone upon Abimelech's head, and all to brake his skull" sounds almost like modern English to me except for the old spelling of "break". The spelling "brake" was used up to about 1800, so was far from archaic in 1611. I agree, though, that the meaning was probably just a report that his skull was smashed (not reporting her purpose), so this is indeed an isolated example of retention of Chaucer's English, just as some of our legal documents retain archaic English expressions from hundreds of years earlier. Dbfirs 11:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what "formal" is supposed to mean in this context; formal is a description of particular speech-styles in particular contexts, not an inherent characteristic of a whole language. However, if 108.222.4.112 means "inflectionally complex", then linguists have documented cycles of languages accumulating and shedding inflection over long historical periods. Within the Indo-European languages, the overall average tendency over time has been mostly towards less inflectional complexity, but that isn't true for all languages... AnonMoos (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By "formal", I suppose I meant grammatically rigid, with strict prescriptions for constructing phrases and sentences that are rarely deviated from. As I understand it, English is actually a more grammatically flexible language than most others. While technically SVO, English in common use can be modified to allow for an OSV syntactical structure in many circumstances. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be that formal means using grammatical constructs, such as the T-V distinction, and employing a large Greek-Latin vocabulary. When language seems to have become less formal, I would guess that there are two socio-economic reasons for why that could be. When it comes to the TV distinction, I think it is less used now, giving language a more informal twang, because of egalitarian movements, such as Communism and Anarchism, that wanted to eradicate the rigid social hierarchies, and showed equality by changing the way they addressed each other. (Using a simple 'Comrades!' rather than 'Your excellencies, highnesses, duchesses, dukes, ladies and gentlemen!')

The same could be said when it comes to the vocabulary being used. As literacy has increased, the potential target audience for literature has increased, and in order to reach that audience, literature has to accomodate the mass audience's level of education. Similarly when it comes television and movies, as disposible income has gone up, the potential market increases, if you target the mass market rather than a niche market. If we assume that the mass market is less educated, it would make sense that the language used is less formal than if targetting a more educated segment of the population. V85 (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

108.222.4.112 -- It's a little unfortunate that you're asking a series of "big" or "deep" questions that may not have any very simple answer, and that you don't seem to be prepared to properly understand the partial answers that people are able to give (as was seen conspicuously with the Creole question above). Maybe you should be a little less grandly ambitious -- or at least try to fully digest the answers to the last question before moving on to the next one... AnonMoos (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say English has become "less formal" but I would say it's become more euphemistic and less plain in its formality. We scrapped T-V distinction and replaced it with this system of prefacing everything with a bunch of completely unnecessary modal verbs we have now, (e.g. "come here" vs. "if you'd just like to come around here please"). There are also different levels of formality - the register you use to talk to customers, your boss, your teacher at school and a police officer are all markedly different, and I doubt this was always the case. I guess a similar thing must be happening in Hungarian too, since one of the three pronouns they use for distinguishing levels of formality is falling out of use. - filelake shoe 08:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For linguists, formality is not primarily a matter of structure or even vocabulary. Instead, it is a matter of register. Different languages mark higher (or more "formal") registers in different ways. In some languages, more formal registers use distinct vocabulary, in others they use distinct structures, in others it is a combination. As others have said, formal registers are often (but not necessarily) marked by usages that are archaic or obsolescent in the colloquial language. They may also be marked by greater use of structures and vocabulary from a sometimes ancient sacred language (such as the greater use of Sanskrit in more formal registers of Indian languages). I don't think that linguists have documented a trend toward the disappearance of register in any language, though such a trend might (hypothetically) occur if a society were to experience a decrease in social complexity and hierarchy (such as a collapse of civilization followed by the development of an egalitarian subsistence society). However, the features of register certainly do change over time, like all other aspects of language. Usages that once belonged to a higher register may pass out of use entirely. Usages that were once part of the colloquial language may be reassigned to a higher register. Certainly these processes have happened in English over the past few centuries. Marco polo (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, unlike now, back then, written works used more formal language than everyday speech, with a few exceptions, like Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. Since the written works are all we have of that era, it seems to us that everyone spoke more formally. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In traditional "sword and sandal" epics (until stuff like Xena and Merlin came along) it was the norm for people to talk in severely restricted ways. It was always "Yonder lies the castle of my father", not "That's my Dad's castle over there". But in reality, I'm sure they were just a little more relaxed about things when talking among themselves away from courts and kings. Merlin is probably far more accurate in terms of the naturalness of the language they spoke - but it just seems so wrong and so easily dismissable to those of us who grew up expecting the uber-romanticised version. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "Yonda lies da castle of my fodda"! Adam Bishop (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Funny. The article about that movie points out that the quote is apocryphal, at least for that movie, but also editorializes about "American snobbery". That comment was probably posted by someone who doesn't realize how much America makes fun of its own accents of all varieties. One oft-quoted item is Howard Cosell at a critical moment in an Ali-Frazier fight: "Down goes Frazhuh! Down goes Frazhuh!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic question about a merchant inn

Ibn Battuta mentions in his travel log that merchants who came to the Chinese port cities had to impound their money with proprietors of merchant inns called "Funduq." What are the Arabic characters for this word? Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

فندق, "from the Greek, pandocheion, an inn", according to the etymology section in our article on Caravanserai. See also ar:فندق, the Arabic Wikipedia's article on hotel. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to add to Sluzzelin's answer, I just wanted to say that that's a fascinating word, which is sometimes mistaken as a native Arabic word. It has a broken plural, "fanadiq", which makes it seem somehow more Arabic (although that pattern is also used for other borrowed words). It was even adopted from Arabic into European languages around Ibn Battuta's time (actually a bit earlier), "fundacium" in Latin and "fonde" in French (and something similar in Italian too). In French the "fonde" was the marketplace in the cities of the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem - an adoption of the Islamic funduq, which was itself borrowed from the earlier Byzantine pandocheion that Sluzzelin mentioned. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Ocean Trade

The Indian Ocean is one of the oldest trade routes between Africa and Asia.Important trading routes linked the east coast of Africa and Madagascar with the Arabian Peninsula , India and Indonesia.

How trade begins and expands Trade begins locally with the exchange of goods among individuals. Trade expands with migration and the spread of information about different resources available in other areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanthini Ragoonaden (talk • contribs) 13:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia's Language Reference Desk. I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question you are asking. Can you ask the question in a different way? Depending on the information you need, you may also wish to ask the question at either the Humanities desk (which answers questions on history and economics) or the Miscellaneous desk (which covers a very wide range of subjects). This page is for questions about the usage and history of language. One further source of information on this topic is our article on Indian Ocean trade, with links to other related topics. If you intended for your text to be added to the article, simply click the 'edit' link at the top of the article and start typing. However, you might want to ask at the talk page first to attract the attention of other editors interested in the topic. Finally, when making a post on the reference desk, or one of Wikipedia's talk pages, you can type four tildes (~~~~) to sign your posts. Happy editing! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

Phoning

Resolved

I recently watched several episodes of an American television series set in Chicago of 2010, and noticed that virtually all of the characters, of all generations, always used the verb "phone" for "calling someone on the telephone". ("Did you phone her yet?", "He just phoned me." ...) Has the verb "call" gone out of fashion in colloquial American English? ("Did you call her yet?" ...) Is there a distinction between the two? Does it have something to do with mobile phones? Or was this just the writer? Thanks for insights. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that your Q has found the right Desk, I can answer here:

Means the same thing, but "phone" is less ambiguous, IMHO, because "call" can also mean to shout out a person's name or call on them in person. StuRat (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The visiting case would ~~always~~ usually be "call on someone" or "pay someone a call", not just "call someone", so it would ~~never~~ not necessarily be confused with "phone". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A variety of phrases, such as "He called earlier" or "When did he call?", could be ambiguous. 109.153.233.152 (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a college/post-college student who lives a few hours' drive west of Chicago, and I'd expect to hear "call," especially from my age group. At a guess, it's either a regional difference (my dialect is more rural-Midwestern, Chicago is urban North) or the writer's idiolectic preference (or both). Lsfreak (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have anything to do with mobile phones. Remember, before they came into widespread use, it was "E.T. phone home". Deor (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And before that, in 2001: A Space Odyssey, Heywood Floyd asked his daughter to tell his wife that he had "telephoned" and would try to "telephone" again the next day. That usage seems more formal than "called". And there's no ambiguity. The context makes it clear. "He called earlier" or "When did he call?" would obviously refer to a phone call, at least in the USA. The double usage of "call" is sometimes made fun of, though. As with the long-running radio and TV ads for Culligan water softeners. Salesman: "Call your Culligan man." Housewife: "HEY, CULLIGAN MAN!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the "Call me a taxi!", "OK, you're a taxi" joke. By the way [to the OP], this is not just limited to US English. The UK has exactly the same usage. Slightly off-topic, but I find it interesting that in shortening the word 'telephone', we have chosen to use the end of the word, rather than the beginning. With 'television', however, we watch the 'telly' in the UK. We don't say, "I saw something good on the vision today". KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's your answer: "telly"'s already taken to mean television, so there's only "phone" left. The start of the word is used in other -phone words because the ending is reserved for telephone (e.g. microphone --> mike; saxophone --> sax; etc). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's curious how "telly" is used in British English, and "TV" in American English. Unless it was because Milton Berle was known as "Mr. TV". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting because the phone existed long before the telly did. So 'telly' was not already taken at the time. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening the verb form from "telephone" to "phone" has been common practice for at least 90-some years. Here's a song from 1916,[2] which includes the line "...he went and drew a whole month's pay / to phone and say..." This may also be of interest in showing how long we've had wireless telephones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty clear why 'television' was abbreviated 'TV' or 'telly', rather than 'vision': Vision is already a word in relatively common usage in English, whereas TV and telly are clearly unambiguous. For 'telephone', using 'phone' doesn't yield any similar sort of ambiguity, as 'phone' isn't a term that is used in the common vernacular.

As an interesting sidenote, where German has abbreviated 'automobile' to 'Auto', the Scandinavian languages have abbreviated it to 'bil'. When a German rides in his 'Auto', a Norwegian, Swede or Dane will be driving his 'bil'. The Scandinavian 'bil', is, however, a somewhat artificial construct, as it was the result of a contest to find a common Scandinavian word for automobile, rather than the result of organic language evolution. V85 (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The etymological equivalent of a camel: An object designed by a committee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam Webster redirects phone as a verb to telephone, and says the first use was 1877. OED dates it to 1889: "Telephone 1 Feb. 56/1 The expression ‘I telephoned So-and-So’, is often rendered ‘I phoned So-and-So.’" M-W does note give a date for call for telephone use, but OED dates it to 1882: "J. E. K. Telephone 19 The means by which the Exchange operator knows which subscriber is calling is very ingenious and very simple." OED's latest date cited for phone is 2004, and for call, 1928. From personal experience as a New England native, I would consider call to be the more common word; phone sounds slightly old-fashioned or patrician; I would expect the same people who use summer as a verb to use phone as one. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is The Good Wife (TV series), right? I noticed a few years ago this (to my ear) affected substitution of "phone" where typically one would say "call." It's probably a quirk of the writers, but I fanwank that because they are a Super Serious Law Firm doing Super Serious Business, their Super Serious calls are all "phoned." Catrionak (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone, for your responses, and well-identified, Catrionak. What threw me off was everyone always substituting "phone" for "call", not just the people who share one work environment and thus might have adapted the Super Serious lingo, but outsiders too. Anyway, it's been a while since I lived in the US and I haven't been to Chicago in fifteen years which is why I asked here. It's comforting to read that "call" still sounds more typical or natural to some Americans. Thanks again. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be just a regional preference, like the "soda" vs. "pop" thing, or rhyming "aunt" with "ant" vs. "want". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are referring to the The Good Wife (TV series), the show's creator has gone on record saying that the odd usage of the verb "to phone" stems from his own experience. He grew up using this construction, and it creeped its way to the scripts. This is a known phenomenon in writing known as "Author Catchphrase". Basically this is when the author of a novel/tv show/movie reuses the same line (or a variation) in his or her work. See http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AuthorCatchphrase for examples. Hisham1987 (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks Hisham! It didn't even occur to me to google, but sure enough what you say is mentioned by this blog, e.g.. Thanks too for the link to TV Tropes. Though I've spent far too many hours browsing through that site, I don't recall having encountered the term author catchphrase before. This question is now definitely resolved! ---Sluzzelin talk 00:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Shrew bread"

Hello learned humanitarians ! I recently heard on an english-speaking radio that "your president F. Hollande will have to put his pre-electoral pledges on a high shelf, like some shrew breads, and leave them untouched". I know the Soricidae carnivorous little frantic animal, & the taming of a shrew, & the Hebrew forbidden offertory breads (though, if I remember well, David had to eat them, in an emergency) but I wonder why those breads are called "shrew" . And the recipe of "shrew bread" I found on the web (corn meal + bacon fat + eggs stirred & cooked in a skillet) if it recalls our mediterranean "matafan" (kill-hunger), is quite far from Hebrew standards, & confusing. Thank you kindly in advance for your answers. Arapaima (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Showbread, the KJV refers to these loaves of bread as 'shewbreads'. My guess would be that whoever was presenting that commentary misspoke: He knew the breads were called 'shewbreads', but either misspoke (and just added an extra r) or his mind gave it a false etymology, namely 'shrewbread'. I recall I at first thought it was called 'bull-ox' (which sort of seemed to make sense, as it put two synonyms next to each other), whereas it is actually called 'bollocks'. V85 (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a mistake by the speaker. Google and Google books show that "shrew bread" or "shrew-bread" are quite common alternatives for showbread. [3][4] and lots of results in Google Books[5][6][7]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although not originating with the speaker, I'd say it is definitely a mistake, which was just copied by a lot of people. The term 'shrew bread' in the context of the Hebrew temple just does not make sense. The Hebrew is 'לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים', (bread of the face/presence). - Lindert (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shew was the correct spelling of show before the 20th century.[8]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hence Ed Sullivan's stereotypical comment about a "really big shew"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, they are saying the same thing in France, except in the opposite direction - Hollande will have to bury his promises, not put them up on a high shelf! Adam Bishop (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shrewbread is an obvious folk etymology. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to all for "lighting up my lantern" (éclairer ma lanterne, as we say here in France). Hello Adam, from my family experience (& from the old houses I hired, visited, or moved out-in during my now rather long life) things not to be touched by children but which could be needed at any time (such as butcher knives, weapons, preserves, or contraception contraptions) were hidden by housewives on the upper shelf or on the top of big cupboards (where they might be forgotten during decades) rather than buried into cellars. As for money, it was usually tucked into a sock and hidden between piles of sheets in that same press, hence our expression (which 'll be for sure used a lot in the next future) : sortir son bas-de-laine (pull out one's wool-stocking) meaning "giving away one's hoard". Ours was a culture of presses. T. y.Arapaima (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lanaugue

when was spanish first taught in north america? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.232.113.196 (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean in Spanish colonies, or in non-Spanish colonies? -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know for sure that junior high and high schools which had foreign language programs were teaching Spanish, French, etc., at least as far back as the 1940s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit earlier than that, in the 16th century, certain Jesuit and Fransiscan missions taught Spanish to some of the indigenous people living in New Spain (including parts of what now lies in the Southwestern United States), though they also tried to translate their doctrine into the native languages, and in the beginning Spanish was probably not taught formally as a language, but more along the lines of having students memorize catechism and prayers as formulas, without understanding the language's structure and meaning. See for example Cycles of Conquest: The Impact of Spain, Mexico, and the United States on the Indians of the Southwest, 1533-1960 by Edward Holland Spicer, University of Arizona Press, 1962, ISBN 9780816500215, 422ff ---Sluzzelin talk 00:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean just in the US and Canada ? Obviously, Spanish has been taught formally in Mexico and Central America (which most consider to be part of North America) since they had schools, and informally before that, in the home. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting if somewhat off-topic anecdote is that early explorers of NE Canada met natives who knew a little Basque which they had gotten from Basque cod fishermen. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

Grammar help needed

The final compliment of choristers comprised 182 trebles, 37 male altos, 62 tenors and 67 basses. Is that correct or is it "...comprised of..." or "...was comprised of..." or anything else? It doesn't sound quite right to me. Alansplodge (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"comprised" or "was comprised of", not the other. - filelake shoe 07:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedants have for long insisted that "comprise" means only "be made up of", and that using it to mean "make up" is wrong; but the historical record does not support them. The "be made up of" sense is older (1481 in the OED) but the "make up" sense is recorded from 1794, and "be comprised of" from 1874. Nonetheless, the original "final compliment of choristers comprised" is undoubtedly acceptable, once you correct compliment to complement. --ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks both; spelling corrected too! Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-pedantry aside, etymology prefers composed of over comprised of. —Tamfang (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. See Etymological fallacy. (FWIW, I don't like comprised of either). --ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you two are not proposing to use either of those expressions without the word "was" in front. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna throw a spanner in the works here and go with consisted of as a simple alternative to all this comprised malarkey. --Viennese Waltz 07:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Words created by author?

In the Warriors series by Erin Hunter, the cats speak in English (well, they probably speak cat, but the novel is written in English, for obvious reasons). However, they have their own words for certain concepts: "twolegs" are humans (the word human is never used), "greenleaf" is spring, "mouse dung!" is an exclamation, usually for frustration, etc. What is the correct term for these words? Are they neologisms? Bramble claw x 23:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shazbot, neologism doesn't quite fit, since these examples aren't likely or intended to enter the mainstream. I can't grok anything better than invented word/phrase. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many authors invent words and languages. Richard Adams invented a rabbit language for his Watership Down, which introduced several new words. Lewis Carroll invented many nonsense and new words (see Jabberwocky). It wouldn't be too far from the truth to say that J. R. R. Tolkein wrote his Middle Earth books merely as a vehicle explore and develop his various invented languages; that he was primarily a linguist and philologist who wrote novels to give him a reason to invent languages, which was his real passion. I don't know that there is a better word than neologism or perhaps constructed language to describe such a practice. --Jayron32 14:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not neologisms, constructed words and phrases I would say, it would be a bit much to call it a "constructed language" when it's just a few phrases which are constructed, else we should consider English a constructed language given how much of our vocabulary comes from Shakespeare. Newspeak is a conlang based largely on such fictional context-related phrases. - filelake shoe 14:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two other notable examples would be Riddley Walker and Nadsat in A Clockwork Orange. --Viennese Waltz 14:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of nonce word is probably worth mentioning. Although perhaps not nonce by a strict definition, as such words usually repeat within the book/series, they could be considered nonce for the purposes of the fictional setting taken as a whole. (The article categorizes nonce words as a sub-type of pseudoword.) I probably wouldn't classify them as (plain) neologisms, as that term usually implies a non-fictional and potentially ongoing usage. -- 71.35.105.132 (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 4