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

September 24

Learning English Pronunciation

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

I'm a beginner with spoken English (British).

• Which are the best online resources to learn English pronunciation freely?
• Is it possible to know the pronunciation of an English word, that seen for the first time, without being a native speaker?

--Joseph 08:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The best online source of audio files for pronunciation of English words, as far as I know, is wikt:Category:English terms with audio links.

It is not possible to know the pronunciation of an English word that you're seeing for the first time, without being a native speaker. Even if you were a native speaker, you still could not be sure of the pronunciation of a word that you're seeing for the first time. You need to hear the word pronounced, or see a description of the pronunciation (usually in IPA). —Stephen (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

We have an article: English phonology that gives some general principles, but it would probably not be suitable for a beginner who had never met IPA before. As Stephen says above, English has so many differences in pronunciation of the same group of letters that even native speakers sometimes get it wrong, and speakers in different regions sometimes disagree on what is the correct pronunciation. Dbfirs 11:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I tutor English, and my most successful results come from students watching English-language movies that they have already seen dubbed in their native language, but shown on computer programs like VLC Player at slow speed and with the closed captioning on for the first view. The slow speed allows much easier comprehension, and the captioning should be turned off for the third viewing. It is also helpful to learn songs and poems by heart, such as Shelley's Ozymandias and Yeats' Second Coming. Richard III with Ian McKellan is also a great source if played at slow speed with closed captioning. The language is archaic, but the pronunciation is divine. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

How many syllables do you think "Ozymandias" has? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, September 25, 2017 (UTC)

I count five, but I think it has 13? μηδείς (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

OP, you need to choose whether you want to learn British English, Australian English, Canadian English, or American English pronunciation. Those are the main branches of English. Standard American English may be more useful than the other varieties and regional American dialects, given that the United States is a global superpower. Canadian English sounds like Standard American English, so that will work too. British and Australian English both sound like the New England accent (part of the New England region in the USA).

For the pronunciation of words, it is difficult to know how a word is pronounced without hearing it first. The first reason is that English has too many silent letters. On Between the Lions (Children's TV Show), there is a song about "when two vowels go walkin' / the first one does the talkin' " and musically explains why boat has a long o sound while the a is silent. Then, there is the silent e. The second reason why English words are difficult to pronounce for native English speakers is the stress placed on a syllable. Somehow, total is stressed on the first syllable, but totalitarian is stressed on the second syllable. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, totalitarian is stressed on the fourth syllable, the "tar" part. I would also disagree with the way you've compared the various regional accents. But your main point is valid - that the OP needs to decide "which" English he wants to learn. He appears to be in India, so "Indian English" might be the place to start. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the stress is on the first, second, second+fourth, or fourth only, total in totalitarian is not pronounced the same way as total itself. The comparisons above are based what they sound like to my ear, which may be totally different than yours. So, the comparisons are still valid on a subjective level. Finally, India was formerly a colony of Great Britain. Given the immense size of the British empire, which explains why Europeans learn British English, it may be more useful to learn British English. Besides, I think that's what taught in India, since many Indians around me sound British. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you find a youtube or something where someone is saying that word the way you say you hear it? As regards Indian English, I agree that British English should be sufficient. Indian English (to my semi-limited experience) is really just British English with a few idiomatic quirks Indians have invented. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not exactly (or even close to) how our article Indian English puts it, but whatever ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, note that multi-syllabic words in English often stress the next-to-last or another near-to-last syllable. For example, U-tile vs. U-til-ize vs. u-TIL-it-y vs. u-til-i-ZA-tion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

991joseph, we must begin with your second question.

• • "Is it possible to know the pronunciation of an English word, that seen for the first time, without being a native speaker?" No, you can't be 100% certain by looking at the English spelling. If you already know many words, then you can often guess the right pronunciation. But that does not help learners! :-) However, it is also possible to write English words in a different way. This is called IPA (International Pronunciation Alphabet). If you look up words in a good learners' dictionary, it will use IPA so that you know the pronunciation. So first you must learn IPA, then you can learn each word and phrase.
  • "Which are the best online resources to learn English pronunciation freely?" If you have a mobile phone or tablet, then the best way to learn the IPA sounds is Macmillan's Sounds app and it's free! I have used it with many students. It will take you a few weeks to learn the sounds. Then you need to check each word or phrase. I highly recommend the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. It's the no.2 best-selling book in English (after the Bible) because it's very, very helpful for people learning English. You can use it online for free and it includes several major types of English (including American English and British English). As you learn the IPA and new words, you should try to connect with other English speakers. If other people understand you, then your pronunciation is good enough. If they don't understand you, then you know that you need to improve. It's best to speak to other people in your area. You appear to be in India, so that should be easy. Matt's talk 21:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Either British or NA English is respected world wide. For the sake of upward mobility, adopting one of those standards is most common world-wide. μηδείς (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. --Joseph 04:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not silent letters which are the bugbear but irregularities. Hence George Bernard Shaw's famous observation that ghoti ("gh" as in "rough", "o" as in "women", and "ti" as in "nation") is actually pronounced FISH. In English the default stress is on the penult. If it's not there the next most likely place for it is the antepenult. 92.8.220.234 (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

92.8.220.23 -- We have an article on ghoti, but it's quite silly for several reasons, such as that it's UGH (not "gh") which is sometimes pronounced as [f], but only after the letters "a" and "o", while "ti" also can only be pronounced [ʃ] when before a vowel letter... AnonMoos (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure there's universal agreement on the pronunciation of "ugh" but words like "rough" and "tough" and "enough" fit the bill. Yes, the rules for "gh" as "f" technically nullify Shaw's joke, but that might have been part of the point he was making. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was referring to -- in the word "tough", the vowel letter "o" means [ʌ] as in "son"; in the word "cough", the vowel letter "o" has a normal "short" pronunciation; while in "laugh" the vowel letter "a" also has a normal "short" pronunciation. So according to the most reasonable analysis, it's the trigraph "ugh" which means [f] in those words (but only after the letters "a" and "o", of course), while the sequence "gh" by itself NEVER means [f]... AnonMoos (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• IPA is international phonetic alphabet, not pronunciation alphabet. μηδείς (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

September 25

Dutch

I've used Google-Translator, for translating an English text into Dutch. Does the translation contain any mistakes? Anyway, I need the correct translation into Dutch.

The English text is:

Please read ! Next time, please speak to me in Dutch (my native language), if you want me to respond verbally rather than in writing. Second, I knew that's what you were going to say to me, so I had already written my response, in advance. Surprising, isn't this? Anyway, for some reason, I couldn't walk on the pavement. Actually, I was trying to walk very close to it, and not in the middle of the road, because I didn't want to disturb drivers. If you think I failed, I apologize from the bottom of my heart. Have a nice day. Goodbye.

Google translator output the following Dutch text:

Gelieve te lezen ! Volg de volgende keer alsjeblieft met mij in het Nederlands (mijn moedertaal), als je wilt dat ik mondeling en niet schriftelijk reageer. Ten tweede, ik wist dat je dat tegen me zou zeggen, dus ik had al mijn reactie al eerder geschreven. Verrassend, is dit niet? Hoe dan ook, om een of andere reden kon ik niet op het trottoir lopen. Eigenlijk probeerde ik heel dichtbij te lopen, en niet in het midden van de weg, omdat ik de bestuurders niet wilde storen. Als u denkt dat ik mislukt, verontschuldig ik me van mijn hart. Een fijne dag toegewenst. Vaarwel.

185.46.78.132 (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Doing the "round trip", Google translates this back into English as

"I'm not sure if I'll be able to do it," he said, "I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do." een of andere reden kon ik niet op het trottoir lopen Eigenlijk probeerde ik heel dichtbij te lopen, en niet in het midden van de weg, omdat ik de bestuurders niet wilde storen. Een fijne dag toegewenst Vaarwel

This is not remotely like the original English, and the untranslated Dutch indicates that the translation was so poor that Google could not understand it. 92.8.220.234 (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I need the correct translation into Dutch. 185.46.78.132 (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Google Translate is still quite hopeless at producing grammatical translations. I don't know Dutch, but no matter the languages involved, the answer will always be "yes", it contains mistakes. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm mainly interested in the correct translation, rather than in the accuracy of the above translation. Actually, I've always been aware of the difficulty in mechanical translations (Indeed, I asked whether the above translation contained mistakes, but that's because sometimes the mechanical translations are reasonable, at least in rare cases). 185.46.78.132 (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2:Even if you use a human it can still go wrong [1]. There are other machine translation services, example [2]. SYSTRAN gives

Gelieve te lezen! De volgende tijd, gelieve te spreken aan me in het Nederlands (mijnmoedertaal), als u me mondeling eerder dan in hetschrijven wilt antwoorden. Ten tweede, wist het ikdie ben wat u aan me ging zeggen, zodat had ikreeds mijn reactie, vooraf geschreven. Hetverrassen, is niet dit? In elk geval, met een bepaalde bedoeling, kon ik niet op de bestratinglopen. Eigenlijk, probeerde ik om zeer dicht aanhet, en niet in het midden van de weg te lopen,omdat ik geen bestuurders wilde storen. Als udenkt ontbrak ik, verontschuldig ik me van debodem van mijn hart. Heb een aardige dag.Vaarwel.

while Bing gives

Gelieve te lezen! Volgende keer, gelieve te spreken mij in het Nederlands (mijn moedertaal), als u wilt dat ik mondeling eerder dan schriftelijk reageren. Ten tweede, ik wist dat dat is wat u wilde zeggen tegen mij, dus ik had mijn reactie, bij voorbaat al geschreven. Verrassend, is dit niet? Anyway, voor sommige reden, ik kon niet lopen op de stoep. Eigenlijk, ik probeerde te lopen zeer dicht bij het, en niet in het midden van de weg, omdat ik niet wilde verstoren van stuurprogramma's. Als u denkt dat ik niet dat, ik verontschuldig me uit het diepst van mijn hart. Een prettige dag. Vaarwel.

To show what you're up against, here's the official English version of an EU regulation:

The processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union should also be subject to this Regulation when it is related to the monitoring of the behaviour of such data subjects in so far as their behaviour takes place within the Union. In order to determine whether a processing activity can be considered to monitor the behaviour of data subjects, it should be ascertained whether natural persons are tracked on the internet including potential subsequent use of personal data processing techniques which consist of profiling a natural person, particularly in order to take decisions concerning her or him or for analysing or predicting her or his personal preferences, behaviours and attitudes.

This is what Google made of the official Dutch version:

Processing of personal data of persons involved in the Union by a non-EU-based processing officer or processor must also be covered by this Regulation when related to to monitor the behavior of the persons concerned as far as they are within the Union. To figure out Whether a processing can be considered as controlling the behavior of stakeholders should be whether or not natural persons are being tracked on the Internet, and in particular or in that connection Personal data processing techniques are used to create a profile of a natural one person, in particular to make decisions regarding him or to his personal preferences, conducting or predicting behaviors and attitudes.

I would make the following corrections to the google translation (Dutch is my native language):

Gelieve te lezen ! Lees dit alstublieft! Volg de volgende keer alsjeblieft met mij in het Nederlands (mijn moedertaal), Praat de volgende keer alstublieft Nederlands (mijn moedertaal) tegen me, als je u wilt dat ik mondeling en niet schriftelijk reageer. Ten tweede, ik wist wist ik dat je u dat tegen me zou zeggen, dus ik had al mijn reactie al eerder geschreven. Verrassend, is dit niet nietwaar? Hoe dan ook, om een of andere reden kon ik niet op het trottoir lopen. Eigenlijk probeerde ik heel dichtbij er vlak langs te lopen, en niet in het midden van de weg, omdat ik de bestuurders automobilisten niet wilde storen hinderen. Als u denkt dat ik mislukt dat toch heb gedaan, verontschuldig ik me mij van mijn hart harte. Een fijne dag toegewenst. Vaarwel.

Note that I used formal (polite) pronouns (i.e. u instead of je), which is appropriate for addressing strangers, and I removed 'goodbye' at the end, because it seems (in Dutch at least) out of place at the end of a written note. - Lindert (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

So, your translation is as follows:

Lees dit alstublieft! Praat de volgende keer alstublieft Nederlands (mijn moedertaal) tegen me, als u wilt dat ik mondeling en niet schriftelijk reageer. Ten tweede, wist ik dat u dat zou zeggen, dus ik had mijn reactie al eerder geschreven. Verrassend, nietwaar? Hoe dan ook, om een of andere reden kon ik niet op het trottoir lopen. Eigenlijk probeerde ik er vlak langs te lopen, en niet in het midden van de weg, omdat ik automobilisten niet wilde hinderen. Als u denkt dat ik dat toch heb gedaan, verontschuldig ik mij van harte. Een fijne dag toegewenst.

Please notice, that Google translates it into English as follows:

Please read this! Please speak Dutch (my native language) next time if you want to respond to me orally and not in writing. Secondly, I knew you would say that, so I had written my response before. Surprisingly, right? Anyway, for some reason, I could not walk on the sidewalk. In fact, I tried to walk along, not in the middle of the road, because I did not want to hinder motorists. If you think I've done that, I sincerely apologize. Enjoy your day.

I've noticed the following discrepancies:

1. als u wilt dat ik mondeling en niet schriftelijk reageer, is translated by Google into: if you want to respond to me orally and not in writing.

2. Verrassend is translated by Google into: Surprisigly.

3. Eigenlijk probeerde ik er vlak langs te lopen, is translated by Google into: In fact, I tried to walk along.

4. Als u denkt dat ik dat toch heb gedaan, is translated by Google into: If you think I've done that.

185.46.76.57 (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Oldest living language

What's the oldest living language is it Tamil or another language -- 16:03, 25 September 2017 24.97.253.174

Please sign your post with four tildes. Tamil. Hebrew. Chinese. Greek. Etc. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Since all languages change over time, this will all be a question of how much change you would say qualifies it as a new language. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Tamil, is known to be the oldest one (about 7000 years ago), but maybe there are living languages about whose being older than Tamil we don't know. 185.46.77.40 (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Neanderthals are believed to have language. So, Neanderthal, as far as I know, would be the oldest language, assuming that we extend beyond the Homo sapiens species. Plants and other animals can communicate. That would mean plants would have the oldest language. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

But do we know if they had one language or many ? Without written records, this may be impossible to determine. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Tamil is certainly very old but there's no way it's 7000 years old. Oldest languages lists them by the earlier written attestations, and I suppose Tamil might be at the top of the list of still-living languages depending on how you define it...it's a bit misleading to say that modern Tamil is the same as Old Tamil, but people will happily claim they are the same language simply because we still use the same name for it, similar to Greek or Arabic (but unlike, say, Latin, which is now called various other languages). It's also important to note that there are dubious political reasons for claiming that Tamil (or any other language) is the oldest language. I thought we had an article about politicizing languages like that but I can't find it now... Adam Bishop (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Language politics? (in need of some love though). Language policy is a little better. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

And for Tamil specifically, Tamil nationalism and the related articles linked therein. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Our article Tamil language states that ". . . proto-Tamil emerged around the 3rd century BC", and some "Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions from 500 BC" are mentioned, which would make it less than 3,000 years old. Of course it descended by gradual change (or evolution, if you prefer) from older antecedents, but this is true of all natural languages. Proto-Dravidian (the articles suggest) began to diversify in the 3rd millennium BC or about 5,000 years ago: Tamil is a descendent of this (as are various other languages), but it is not the same language. This is not to diminish the unquestionably venerability of Tamil literature, which is indeed amongst the oldest continuous literary traditions in the World. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.115.180 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

24.97.253.174 -- I'm afraid that this is one of those questions which laymen are often interested in, but which professional linguists find to be almost meaningless in the way that it is usually asked. All languages that are being spoken for everyday purposes by a community of speakers are subject to change over time. (A language which is only liturgically recited from a fixed sacred text, and not used for other purposes, is not a "living" language".)
As for Tamil, this has been discussed at length on Talk:Classical language and its archives. The extravagant theories of Devaneya Pavanar are not accepted in reputable scholarly sources, and according to The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages ISBN 0-521-56256-2 the date of the earliest surviving Tamil-language literature is more like 200 BC... AnonMoos (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

---

so its Greek thats the oldest living language and not Tamil according to the oldest language article -- 25 September 2017 71.168.85.165

No, all living languages that are not conlangs or creoles are equally old. It's the same with living organisms. Anything that is alive now is descended from the earliest common ancestor so there are no organisms that have shorter or longer pedigrees than any other. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

There certainly are some species which are older than others. That is, just like languages, before a certain point the ancestors are considered to have been a different species. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a matter of human terminology, not of actual ontology. All living organisms have a pedigree of the exact same age, except for hybrids, if you want to pick nits, although their parents still originated from the same original ancestor. Mistaking our names for reality is a common fallacy, but not one actual biologists espouse. Humans, Coelacanths and Oaks all date back to the same common ancestor, and their bloodlines have the same timeline. μηδείς (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

No, at least with sexually reproduction, it's not just a matter of terminology, it's defined as a different species if it can't reproduce with the current species. I agree that with asexual species, the definition is more problematic. StuRat (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The Having the Slightest Clue About Your Chosen Topic department refers you to Species#Attempts_at_definition. Henry^Flower 07:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Dead languages can come alive, e.g. Hebrew. With a parallel history to Hebrew, Latin could also be classed as a living language. 92.8.220.234 (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Not really. Living languages are defined as languages which evolve because they are in active use, because they have native speakers who use it in the modern world, and as such Latin really doesn't qualify. Modern Hebrew has about 5 million native speakers, mostly in Israel where it is a language of every-day use. There's probably a few weird parents who have raised their children speaking Latin, but it is not a language with a native community of speakers. No one hails a cab in Latin or chats up the shop keeper down the road in latin, or discusses politics in the local pub with strangers in Latin. As noted above, insofar as Latin is still "alive", it is called French and Spanish and Romanian and the like. Modern variants of languages frequently claimed as particularly old, such as Tamil or Greek or the like are about as close to their ancient versions as is French to Latin. --Jayron32 17:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, when Pope Benedict announced his resignation, one of the Rome newspapers had a scoop because the reporter who was present happened to speak Latin. And how do you think those prelates from all over the world communicate with each other when they come together? 92.8.220.234 (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Most probably those prelates speak either Italian or English (or also Spanish, Portuguese and French, as these languages are spoken by the majority of Catholics). Thus Latin in the Church is rather a written language, not spoken. Public official announcements in Latin is not the same as routinely speaking in it (but no doubt some people in the Church can do this feat). --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

See Contemporary Latin for modern usage. I know a few people (from Wikipedia and in real life) who can hold conversations in Latin. There is a "Conventinculum" where they can converse with other Latin speakers. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

People also carry on conversations in Klingon and Quenya. Until people are using at a standard means of communication, within a speech community, for every day use, all the time, for mundane every day life, it STILL isn't a living language, it's just a goofy hobby. Contemporary Latin is still not a "living" language. --Jayron32 23:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Re 92.8.220.234: Modern Hebrew differs from Ancient Hebrew in too many ways, so they are definitely not the same thing. If we narrow our definition, Latin, if not the oldest living language, is certainly the oldest language still in use. The Vatican continues publishing new materials in it.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Classical Chinese is not too far behind. It is used in the Far Eastern countries. Chinese four-character idioms are sometimes derived from ancient Classical Chinese stories or sayings. Family trees too. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Любослов Езыкин -- If you take Mishnaic Hebrew as the starting point (rather than Biblical Hebrew), then the discrepancies between ancient Hebrew and modern Israeli are significantly fewer (though there are still obviously many differences)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, we're getting the fallacies of laymen presented as facts. Linear B Greek, Attic and modern Greek are all mutually unintelligible, even though they are genetically identical. The Same with Elephants and fish. It's absurd to apply human concepts to reality, as if reality depended on those concepts. All organisms and all languages except in very special circumstances have the exact same age. Elephants are derived but they are in no way newer than Coelacanths. As a trained biologist and linguist, I laugh in your general direction. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Medeis -- the big changes in pronunciation during Late Antiquity and the early medieval period (aspirates to fricatives, voiced stops to fricatives, many vowels to [i] etc.) would be a strong bar to mutual intelligibility between different historical stages of the spoken Greek language, but you can get a little farther if you confine yourself to written language alone (that was the purpose of Katharevousa)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

offtopic - Nikolay Trubetzkoy says in Common Slavic Element in Russian Culture" that Russian is the most direct descendant of OCS (it's still over five or six hops, but other languages have even more) and also the only meaningful and quantifiable way in which Russians (and presumably other Slavs and their respective languages) are part of the wider Slavicdom. 78.53.241.14 (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Old Church Slavonic was originally a language spoken in what is now parts of northern Greece, southern Macedonia, and southern Bulgaria, written down at a time when there was some substantial degree of mutual intelligibility between the Slavic languages. I'm not sure why modern Russian would be considered to have the closest relationship to it among modern languages. Modern Bulgarian has a greatly reduced noun inflection system, and participates in the Balkan sprachbund, but is said to have a fairly conservative verb system... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of Katharevousa. With its resistance to spelling reform since Middle English, we have a similar circumstance with our language--spelling is archaic and words are not pronounced as spelt, but written literature is mutually comprehensible across the Anglosphere.

As for Russian being closest to OCS, well, first, OCS is not proto-Slavic, but rather a very early South Slavic dialect used as a proxy, given it has extant texts. Second, How do you deal with the Russian loss of the aorist, the loss of "to be" as a copula in the present, ikane, akane, the masculine genitive accusative, and other innovations not found in more conservative dialects? Trubetzkoy is entitled to his subjective opinion, but it's a very hard argument to make. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Adam Bishop: For various types of linguistic nationalism you might want to look at Goropianism, Sun language theory, Japhetic theory and Turkish language reform. After the establishment of the Turkish republic under Ataturk, Persian and Arabic and other loanwords of long provenance were replaced by coinages from old Turkic roots that had not been used for centuries. Other foreign words were kept, but fake etymologies were made up for them out of pseudo-Turkish. It would be like the US claiming in 1776 that the real etymology of America was < A-miracle.

There are plenty of instances also of languages without transparently close relatives being given bizarre supposed origins. Some have claimed that Hungarian (whose closest relatives, Khanty and Mansi are spoken in Siberia) actually comes from Sumerian (!), the evidence being that Hungarian is unique and Sumerian is unique so pride dictates that they be related. There's also the absurd claim that Albanian is derived from Etruscan. Until the last century, Armenian, Japanese, Korean and Chinese, among others, were all treated as sui generis by domestic linguists for nationalist reasons. This is by no means the end of the list of such fringe theories. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Another relevant article for Tamil - Elamo-Dravidian languages. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Brammer

What is "a brammer"? Is it only Scotch word? My neighbour say it mean "very good" or "fine example". 86.175.165.180 (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Wonder if it comes from admiration of the works of Bram Stoker (that is, the belief that his novels didn't suck). StuRat (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

[3], [4], [5]. Google 'brammer scots' for more. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope. See Scottish Word of the Day: Brammer. BYW, "Scotch" is archaic for any other purpose than describing whisky and a few other traditional products. "Scots" or "Scottish" is much preferred nowadays. Those from North of the Border have been known to become extremely agitated by incorrect usage (see Scotch (adjective)). Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Scotch tape, butterscotch, hopscotch (though "scotch" in that one refers to a line, not a Scot). Scotch are objects, Scots are people. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Scotch tape is not Scottish, but American. It is little known in the UK: the brand-name-that-has-become-generic here is Sellotape. --ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Right. Supposedly it got its name from the alleged "stinginess" of glue on its original incarnation, and they use pseudo-tartan colorations in their packaging. And generically it's cellophane tape. But Scotch Tape, like Kleenex or Xerox, has become a "generic" product name among the populace. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"Scotty McTape, a kilt-wearing cartoon boy, was the brand's mascot for two decades, first appearing in 1944." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I would have named him Michael McMillian, so that there would be 3 M's in his name. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Scotch is also a verb. One "scotches a rumour". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that relates to the "hopscotch" usage, in which "scotch" is equivalent to "scratch" as in to draw a line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It's quite uncertain that the word butterscotch has anything to do with Scotland; see here. It's just as likely that it's another example of the "scratch" sense, or even invoves an alteration of scorch. Deor (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

My grandmother was born in Scotland, but had an English surname, so I figure, on average, that I have about a fifth of Scotch in me at any given time. StuRat (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Brammer is also a British surname which, it is claimed, ... comes from a family once having lived in Bramhall in Greater Manchester. Bromale was a township in the parish of Stockport. Although ancestry.co.uk offers a few other alternatives. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The article linked above from The Scotsman suggests that the slang word might be derived from Brahma, although that seems a bit of a stretch to me. Alansplodge (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

September 26

Did anyone ever make an abridged dictionary with an "easy cutoff"?

Not just a "hard cutoff" (or possibly instead of one) Why wasn't this more common? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please explain the diff. (Although I agree that they abridge too far). StuRat (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Abridged dictionaries delete hard words like honorificabilitudinitatibus and muriatic. Why not delete the ones least likely to need to be looked up like "the", "it", "car", "kitten" etc.? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, common words are likely to also have less common definitions, for one thing. You might find something like what you want by going to specific dictionaries, like a medical dictionary. They wouldn't define the terms you just listed, but might define seemingly obvious medical terms, like "head", more specifically, so the exact location where the neck ends and the head begins would be defined, for example. StuRat (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You could just keep definitions like boat (full house in poker) and delete boat (vessel). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Sagittarian Milky Way -- early dictionaries, such as the Table Alphabeticall, were mainly lists of "hard" words, and omitted words that were considered to be obvious for native speakers. Over the long term, this approach was not found to be useful for comprehensive general-purpose dictionaries (as opposed to specialized vocabulary lists and such)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Do they make vocabulary lists with definitions as long and good as a quality dictionary? If so, comprehensive dictionaries are probably still much more common. No pocket dictionaries ever tried this? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The nearest approach I've seen is The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (Oxford University Press 1981, with subsequent corrected reprints). It followed on from the 11 editions of the OUP's internal House style manual (1905–1973), for use in conjunction with their Hart's Rules (whose article also describes the OEDfW&E), and includes only words whose spelling, hyphenation or usage might be ambiguous for professional writers and/or editors, and those at a tertiary education level. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.210.199 (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A theological college has just produced a glossary to the Book of Common Prayer [6]. It contains words which have become obsolete or changed their meanings. Examples:

• comfortable - providing strength
• magnify - give praise to
• quick - living

• As for quick meaning alive, you do have to admit that the dead tend to be rather slow (heck, even undead zombies are). StuRat (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"quick" vivus жив and βιος are all cognates. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What else would "magnify" mean? And in what sense is it obsolete? Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

These days, it means "make larger". But when Mary sang "My soul doth magnify the Lord", she wasn't meaning "My soul maketh the Lord larger". And a magnifying glass is not a device used when praising others (the trowel is the instrument of choice for that). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"Magnify" = "big up" perhaps? Alansplodge (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hm, sorry, the magnifying-glass sense wasn't coming to mind at all. The only meaning coming to mind was "O magnify the LORD with me; Let us exalt His name." Nyttend (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• There wouldn't be much point in cutting these words out, at least from a space-saving perspective. The core vocabulary of any language is quite small (there are only 850 words in Basic English, for instance). That would be a bit more than 1% of the 65,000 entries in Chambers Dictionary. Smurrayinchester 12:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You're mostly correct, but certain basic vocabulary items (such as "set") are notorious for taking up long entries in most dictionaries... AnonMoos (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but I wonder how many definitions you could definitely cut out. "put in a place" could go. Maybe "to harden by drying or coagulating". But "a series of tennis games" or "a tool for placing nails" might well be better staying. Smurrayinchester 10:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be interesting to compare how advanced learner's dictionaries cover the most common words. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

September 28

Do mention it!

The polite way, among many others, of replying to thanks is "You're welcome!" or "Don't mention it." However, among friends, if you specifically wish to indicate that "thanking you" is the very least you can reward my efforts, is there a convenient, ironical and, when needed, even unpolite way of saying "Please do mention me in the despatches! I've just spent three workdays getting you out of trouble, and all I get is 'Ta!'. Of course you can tell people off, but I am looking for a popular phrase, if there is one. --Pxos (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

How about "no need for thanks" or "don't be too polite"? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes the phrase "Don't mention it!" said very loudly indicates that the speaker expected to be thanked for some action and is showing his displeasure that he wasn't. 92.8.220.234 (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd be straightforward and honest about it, and list the specific actions you wish them to take. Like a restaurant could say "If you enjoyed your meal today, please recommend us to others". If they are having trouble staying in business, they might even add "...so we can stay in business and continue to serve you."

A politician could say: "Your thanks are greatly appreciated, but, in order to continue to serve you, I really need your votes and the votes of your friends and family". (If cash isn't recognized as a bribe there, they could ask for that, too.) StuRat (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

My original question is in need of some rewriting. In the Finnish language there is an old proverb that goes roughly as follows: "A cat will survive on a "thank you", a dog on a little stroke upon his head." (The translation is my own and therefore little shaky, but anyway.) The animals in the proverb are not pets but live on a farm "parallel to people" and not dependent on them as such. A cat will catch mice and birds, and he lives happily without interference: all he might want is a "thank you" once a year. A dog will need more, but even he becomes overjoyed at the idea of an occasional bone and a pat on his head. In Finnish, the first part of the saying is sometimes used to tell that mere "thanks" might make the day of a stray cat, but it is not sufficient to the annoyed party. Is there anywhere near a similar proverb in the English language? --Pxos (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There is "Fine words butter no parsnips," which via the link in Reference 1 of List of proverbial phrases is explained in https://www.phrases.org.uk/index.html The Phrase Finder as "Nothing is achieved by empty words or flattery" (plus a great deal more about the proverb's origins). However, saying that in reply to sincere but valueless thanks (rather than as an ironic comment to a third party) would be quite hostile, as would something along the lines of "That won't pay the rent," or "That and [insert appropriate amount] will buy me a cup of coffee." I leave it to more diplomatically adroit editors to come up with better alternatives. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.210.199 (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I have to laugh at what I'm about to write, but I've recently got used to asking people who thank me for the service provided by my business for a review on Google or Facebook! I usually say something like "My pleasure! Would you please do me a favour and leave me a review on the Facebook or Google page? That would be so helpful" So in future a proverb may come out of that. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

One internet TV streaming service has a neat way of doing this. When you access the site a notice appears which reads:

You found us, share the love! We are free and want to stay that way, so please, help us by sharing.

There are buttons for Facebook, Google+, Linked In, Twitter and one I've not come across before, "Stumble Upon". If you don't show your appreciation you don't get to watch the programme, because the box (which is over the screen) won't disappear until you do. 46.208.167.127 (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You might look for a quote by Dale Carnegie, who was all about how to make a favorable impression on others. I'd have to think he has a quote about thanking people profusely somewhere in his books. However, Dale did have this warning:

“The difference between appreciation and flattery? That is simple. One is sincere and the other insincere. One comes from the heart out; the other from the teeth out. One is unselfish; the other selfish. One is universally admired; the other universally condemned.” ― How to Win Friends and Influence People

Here's another quote, from the same book, that may be more what you want:

“Once I did bad, and that I heard ever. Twice I did good, but that I heard never.” (This is rather odd phrasing, but means you are more likely to hear about things you did wrong than things you did right.)

Here's a huge list (899 !) of his quotes, so you can look for something even better: [7]. StuRat (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Protesting against

In the lede of the Jeffrey Glenn Miller (an article requiring the use of American English according to MOS:STRONGNAT), an American editor has written protesting against. This surprised me, as I had thought Americans preferred simply protesting anything objectionable. Does the addition of against sound strange to American ears? Is the use regional?

Supplementary question: is the phrase protest ones innocence used in the U.S.? It would seem nonsensical if protest is equated with protest against. Thanks --catslash (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I think protest can be either a transitive or intransitive verb. When you protest a thing or occurrence, that's the transitive usage. When you protest against it, that's intransitive (that is, you could have just said you're protesting and closed the sentence with that, but you have also decided to give the reason, and the reason is given by the "against" phrase). --Trovatore (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, protest one's innocence is perfectly cromulent, and to protest for and against are used to avoid ambiguity. μηδείς (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I think what User:Catslash is asking about is the American English construction "to protest something", whereas in British English, we would "protest about something" or "protest against something". Google a finds plenty of Americans who "protest Donald Trump's NFL remarks" [8], or "protest Obamacare" [9], or "protest anti-abortion laws" [10]. Is this just journalese or do people actually speak that way? Alansplodge (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

People do actually speak that way. However, they also say "protest against"; the phrase does not strike this American ear as at all unusual. --Trovatore (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. But "protest for" is a bit unusual in US English. I would expect "show support for" is more common. To be more specific, I would expect to only see "protest for" in cases where it's really protesting against something else. For example, "protesting for minimum wage" is really protesting against low wages. However, I wouldn't expect to see "protesting for Donald Trump", as that isn't really protesting against anything specific. StuRat (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

So to get back to the question, in the Jeffrey Glenn Miller article lead, we have: "He had been protesting against the invasion of Cambodia", whereas the OP was expecting "He had been protesting the invasion of Cambodia" as the usual American English construction. Are both forms acceptable? Is one a regional variant? Alansplodge (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

September 29

Why does Cantonese have a written form, but Shanghainese, Wuhanese, and Hokkien do not?

How come Cantonese get a written form but the others do not? In such a case, how can one write a children's playground song in the Wuhan speech? Is there a way to indicate a particular pronunciation of a specific regional word? In the Wuhan dialect, as opposed to standard Mandarin, the pronunciation of 孩子 and 鞋子 are reversed. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

See Written Cantonese, which seems to indicate that it started in Hong Kong, where written Mandarin was little known, and not used for official purposes. Wymspen (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You can transcribe Chinese using IPA, although that produces linguist-readable, rather than human-readable text. If all the sounds involved appear in Mandarin, then pinyin (etc.) would be a more accessible option. Bopomofo can be used for Hokkien. Henry^Flower 10:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

We have an article Written Hokkien, and there's also Chinese Wikipedia#Wikipedias in other varieties of Chinese, including https://hak.wikipedia.org/ (Hakka Chinese), https://zh-yue.wikipedia.org/ (Yue, specifically Cantonese), http://zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org/ (Southern Min), etc. AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a myth. The only reason that Cantonese writing is somewhat codified is due to Hong Kong's colonial history and to a lesser extent this applies to Southern Min due to Taiwan's status. Current research states that most peculiarities of Chinese varieties can be traced back to Chinese characters. It's just a matter of necessity and emphasis of local identity. Keep in mind that vernacular/spoken Chinese in written form is a fairly recent thing. When someone wants to create a written form for their local dialect, there are mainly two possibilities for uncertain cases: borrowing a character unrelated in meaning that has similar pronunciation or creating a new character because the etymology and the original character have been obscure among the local population. Later research often rectifies mistakes, but popularization of incorrect usage is irreversible. The character 畀 found in classical Chinese has been interpreted as 俾 in Cantonese but as 拨 in Shanghai dialect. Dictionaries by researchers have been published to correct this. The usage of these "colloquial" characters is discouraged since characters generally should have the same meaning in every dialect. While borrowed characters are frowned upon, it is arguable whether a newly created character is justified because it has diverged from the etymologically original character and this process is not unknown to classical Chinese itself. Some Chinese Wikipedias have opted for a Latin-based transcription because they don’t want to deal with researching origins and just want a quick way to write down their dialect although not many people can actually read it and it’s usually possible to keep everything entirely in Chinese characters. Therefore, in Wuhan dialect, you don’t swap the words 孩子 and 鞋子. “Child” stays “child” and “shoe” stays “shoe”, pronunciation is not indicated, and a person from Wuhan automatically knows how to read it in their dialect. It’s etymology over pronunciation. Of course, you can use wrong characters for comical effect in Internet culture.--92.75.208.20 (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That reminds me of the borrowing of Chinese characters into Japanese and Korean. The meaning and sometimes the phonology are retained. Same goes for certain Chinese dialects. Funny thing is, loanwords from English are meant to phonetically resemble the original, while often having a nonsensical meaning. I have recently learned through a language app that the Korean word for yogurt really sounds like yogurt. The Chinese version translates the meaning, which literally means "sour milk". That makes sense, as yogurt is made from milk and tastes sour. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Word for old parents

Is there a word for people who become parents late in life? I seem to remember there is a geronto- type word. Amisom (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you be thinking of senile primigravida? That's just about the mom, though, not the dad. --Trovatore (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Also called elderly primigravida, "elderly" being 35. It's also called geriatric primigravida which may be what Amisom is thinking of. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You can also use elderly primipara (describing the age at which the woman gives birth rather than the age at which she becomes pregnant, or gravid). There is also an equivalent term for those who have subsequent children late in life - elderly multigravida or multipara. Wymspen (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't find any term on Wiktionary with a geronto- prefix and that means to parent someone later in life. [11] My best suggestion would be "elderly parent". Back in the olden days, people brought forth youngsters in their teens and twenties. Now, people deliver youngsters in their twenties and thirties. I suppose the thirties will be considered "old" if you live in ancient times or present-day Guatemala. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

"Elderly parent" does not work for me. My grandmother was an "elderly parent" when she died at age 95. Her daughter (my mom) was described as "caring for an elderly parent." Mom was 70 at the time. -Arch dude (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

My grandfather was 49 years old when my mother, his youngest child, was born. He was born in 1881 and lost his first wife in the worldwide influenza pandemic at the end of the First World War, which left him with four motherless children. He remarried a young farm girl (my grandmother) who he had hired to help around the house, and they had three more children. Had it not been for that horrific flu epidemic, I would not have been born. In my opinion, he was not elderly at 49, since I am 65 now, but he was quite elderly when I knew him as a young child. What a guy! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

"Late life parent" (or "late-life" which is less ambiguous) has a fair internet usage. [12] Alansplodge (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Aren't these referred to as "mature parents"? 82.14.24.95 (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)