Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:44, 22 October 2017

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

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.

October 17

How come la caballera doesn't exist as a noun?

I can't find it in my dictionary. There is el caballero, which means the gentleman or knight. That makes sense, as knights really did ride on horses. But there is no la caballera. I know la doña means "lady", but it's not la caballera. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't? Language is never a complete or consistent system, and the sort of symmetry you seek is not universal. You will never find a natural language which is rigidly consistent, and there are lots of things languages do like that. --Jayron 32 13:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Put it another way. If I say "la caballera" to a native Spanish speaker, then would they still understand me? Or will they think I'm referring to la doña? I know languages aren't consistent, but humans are flexible. Just like in English, ketchup and tomato sauce are two different things. But if a non-native speaker says, "hamburger tomato sauce", the native speaker may still get a hint at what the person is saying, even though the terminology is wrong. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. They'd find it marked, but they would understand what you were going for. If I told you my mother was a doctress, you'd find it weird, but you'd probably work out that I meant female doctor. That's because grammatical gender rules in languages such as spanish is productive. That means you can apply known rules to create new words, and those new words will be understood, but will not necessarily be recognized as standard or comfortable. --Jayron 32 14:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On pt:wp cavalheiro redirects to "gentleman". Cavalheira is nothing more than a suburb of the Brazilian municipality of Cachoeira do Sul in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Cavaleiro is from the Latin caballus, a gelding or dray, and now is a rank between baronet and esquire. The feminine is dama. Cavaleira redirects to an article on technical drawing. The answer to your question is probably that women do not fight on horseback. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, what word should one use to describe a woman fighter on horseback? Caballera or something else? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To give an example from another Romance language (now that we've also mentioned Portuguese), in French you could theoretically feminize "chevalier" as "chevalière", but a chevalière is actually a signet ring. A female knight (such as a recipient of the Legion of Honour) is a "femme chevalier". Adam Bishop (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Academia website[1] lists both caballero and caballera. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But if you actually read the results it shows that "caballera" is only ever a feminine adjective, not a noun meaning a female knight. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feminine counterpart of a caballero is a dama. If you mean the feminine counterpart of a horseman, that would be la jinete. Jinete can be masculine or feminine. A woman fighter on horseback is una luchadora a caballo. —Stephen (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

TV commercial for drug Anoro featuring Fleetwood Mac's song "Go Your Own Way"

This question is about a TV commercial for the drug Anoro, featuring Fleetwood Mac's song "Go Your Own Way". The video is here: Anoro: Go Your Own Way. In this commercial, they sing the phrase "go your own way" three times. These occur once at the 0:07 time mark; once at the 0:14 time mark; and once at the 0:55 time mark. The first two occurrences sound similar; however, the last occurrence (at the 0:55 time mark) has a very different sound to it. I'd like to know what would be a good adjective to describe that third version of the phrase being sung. The only words I can think of are "guttural" or "earthy", but those seem insufficient and not quite right. If the director of the commercial were directing the singer, how would he tell them to sing that third occurrence? What words might he use? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase mimics the original song; the chorus actually does that; however you'll note the third line has a different melody and singer than the first two. In the original song, the chorus has Lindsay Buckingham singing the last line with that melody; where as I believe first few lines are sung by the band in parts, with Stevie Nicks carrying the melody for those two lines. So the effect is caused by a different vocalist (as in the original). The melody in the last part descends rather than climbs within the structure of the song, so I might call it counterpoint? I'm not sure there is any other specific effect other than the vocalist mimicing the peculiarities of Lindsay Buckingham's singing style. --Jayron 32 15:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Thanks. You are saying that -- in the drug commercial -- there are two different singers? One singer is performing the first two occurrences of "go your own way"; and a completely different singer is performing the third occurrence? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first two occurances are a female singer (it sounds heavily Auto-Tuned as well), with harmonies behind her, while the third occurance is a male singer singing without harmonies. The arrangement is almost identical to the original, with the same basic vocal parts. The third singer even takes on the quirks of Lindsey Buckingham's voice. If you listen to the original, you can hear the similarities. --Jayron 32 11:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did not even recognize that the first singer was a female and the second, male. I guess that I just assumed it was all the same person, singing differently (as directed by the director). Hence, my original question. Yes, I did listen to the original song; many versions of it, in fact. Thanks. It's a great song. I am a little surprised that Fleetwood Mac -- I assume that they "own" the song? -- would allow one of their greatest songs to be used in such a base manner (in a drug commercial). Seems odd. I assume they are all millionaires. And I assume they are not getting all that much money from this TV commercial. But, maybe I am wrong? It just seems like a very popular (and very wealthy) artist would have a bit more "integrity" than to want to see their art work "debased" in this way. No? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The song would be "owned" not by Fleetwood Mac (who would only own specific performances of the song). Instead, songs are owned by a publishing company or group of such companies. A publishing company has only one purpose: to own copyrights and collect revenue for using them. MOST songwriters have their own publishing companies, and many bands that write collaboratively have a publishing company that handles the music end. If you have a band that writes their own songs, you can think of them as two overlapping ompanies: the band as a performing company and a publisher as a publishing company. In the case of "Go Your Own Way", it was published by Gentoo Music Inc. and Now Sounds Music are the music publishing companies. Gentoo is the Publishing company for Fleetwood Mac, while Now Sounds Music was the publisher for Lindsey Buckingham. (see Here for Buckingham's publishing company]. The rights to record a new version of a song have to be granted by the publishing company. Since the writer themselves is often the decision maker for said publishing company, they still get final say. But it doesn't always work that way; bands and writers (often not knowing better) often signed away publishing royalties, and some people (like Allen Klein/ABKCO) make their money by buying up publishing companies and then acquiring copyright on songs to collect royalties. To make it simple, the rights to use the song would have to be granted by Gentoo Inc. and Now Sounds Music. The granting of rights to use songs is negotiated by entertainment lawyers under the advise of their clients, the songwriters and their publishing company. This is usually handled by large clearinghouses such as Broadcast Music, Inc. or American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, which handles all of the dirty work, though the owner of the copyright has the right of refusal. --Jayron 32 18:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you sure that the second singer is male? I just listened to the song again. Seems like a female singer to me, at the 0:55 time mark. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly a guy to me. Or a guy's voice, anyway. Maybe try again with headphones, if you hadn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

Note that a vocal portamento is steadily changing the frequency of sung notes. That term doesn't indicate whether the frequency is increasing or decreasing, but the written music would show the notes, and the wavy line drawn between them indicates a steady blend rather than sharp change in frequency. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ad just popped up on my TV, and I think it's a cover - and that whoever they commissioned to do the song altered it to fit the ad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any doubt that it's a cover version? Certainly, that is not Fleetwood Mac singing in the drug commercial. Correct? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try answering the question being asked? The OP never doubted it was a cover. --Viennese Waltz 06:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try not to be what you normally are. I've heard the ad and there's nothing special about the final "go your own way" except that it ends a sentence instead of leading into the next bit of music. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that there was anything "special" about the third occurrence of "go your own way". But, clearly, it is sung "differently" than the first two occurrences. Do you agree or disagree with that? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's sung differently in that it ends the song with a full-stop / period rather than doing a fade-out like the Mac version does.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US Dollar Currency

Searching for a reliable record (starting from the beginning of time till to date) displaying 'ups' and 'downs' and 'stable' position of the currency please. 119.30.35.177 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This brief article has a nice graph and links to another article with more detailed information. It's not the highest quality source, so caveat lector, but it's a start for you. --Jayron 32 15:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a chart against inflation. Against gold, the price was fixed at 35 dollars an ounce for many years. Against sterling, for a long time the cent was worth a halfpenny. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 27#What's worth a pound? 82.14.24.95 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier discussion actually mentions the cent used to be worth 1/200 £, that is 1.2d, which is much more than a halfpenny. --77.138.205.35 (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There must be an error in there - before World War II the dollar was worth about five shillings, so four dollars to the pound, and 400 cents (making a cent slightly more than a half-penny). Until decimalisation, "dollar" was fairly common British slang for five shillings. Wymspen (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also (sort of) in New Zealand. "Half a dollar" was a slang term for 2 shillings and sixpence. Akld guy (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article 77.138 links to explains that "a halfpenny ... was a unit of currency that equalled half of a penny or 1/480th of a pound sterling." As a decimal that's 0.0020833... of a pound. Post - decimalisation the halfpenny was indeed worth 1/200 of a pound, i.e. 1.2 old pence, which is 0.005 in decimal. You will note that the ratio 0.005/0.0020833... is 2.4 to one. This is because the penny (and therefore the halfpenny) increased in value by that amount although it could no longer be spent (unless it was part of the Maundy money) and nobody spends Maundy money because its silver content far outweighs its face value. Re ColinFine's comment, I still have my copy of the San Serriffe supplement from 1 April 1977. I will have to look at it, but from what he says it appears to be a mixture of Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish as well. This fits in with AnonMoose's Papiamento theory. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

77.138 wrote 1.2d - thereby clearly indicating that he meant pre-decimal - since decimalisation the abbreviation has always been "p" Wymspen (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also From $5 to $1.22: the 200-year journey of the pound against the dollar which says: "For most of the 1800s until the start of the First World War, every £1 was worth just under $5. The Napoleonic wars, which weakened the pound, was one exceptional period; as was the US Civil War, which saw the pound temporarily spiking up to $10... Governments however still viewed fixed exchange rates as desirable, and so in 1940 the pound was pegged to the dollar at a fixed rate of $4.03. This deal became part of the Bretton Woods agreement that was signed in 1944, which governed financial relations between 44 countries for much of the mid 20th century". Alansplodge (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Akld guy: In Britain the coin worth two shillings and sixpence (the "half crown") was also colloquially known as "half a dollar". The sixpence was a "tanner", the shilling was a "bob", and the two shilling piece (or "florin") was "two bob". Australia decimalised on 14 February 1966 (the day that I took up my first salaried position) and in 1971 Australians were still calling their twenty cent coins "two bob" (they were identical to the two shilling pieces they replaced). 2A00:23C0:7903:B901:542E:486E:9136:263F (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner was never used in NZ, but "bob" was used in place of shilling and "quid" was used in place of pound. NZ changed to decimal currency on 10 July 1967. Akld guy (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

Not profanity

What would be the antonym of Profanity? Red Panda 25 18:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not every word has an antonym. The world is not neatly divided into perfect oppositional pairs. There is no such antonym. --Jayron 32 18:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Profanity ... pleasantry ... a "close enough" antonym ... no? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Holy" is the opposite of "Profane".[3] Another good one would be "Pure".[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. "Pleasantry" would make the most sense, as a word that is used to please as opposed to offend. Red Panda 25 19:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Profanity" covers a lot of ground. "Profane language" seems to be what you're generally talking about, and it's by no means always intended to offend. As with this little classic:[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's the Sacred–profane dichotomy. But not everything that is non-sacred is a profanity, and not everything that is not a profanity is sacred. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a commentary on the Bayeux Tapestry,[6] which originally hung in the local cathedral. The author says, "To the objection that a sacred building would not have been a suitable place for profane subject matter, one can answer that the subject of the hanging was not exactly a profane one: it is a type of tract about an oath." Specifically, the loyalty oath that Harold swore and then reneged on (as told in the tapestry). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

Ph

In American English, the ph sound is taught that it is actually pronounced like an f. So, philosophy, philanthropy, and pho are pronounced like an f. Phillip begins with a ph and sounds like f, but Stephen contains a ph but sounds like a v. So, Stephen sounds like Steven. Some languages actually have Stefani or Stefan. Spanish speakers probably hear a v, so their version becomes Esteban, with the b pronounced like an English v. So, that means ph really has two different pronunciations v and f? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that one word, at least. This is one of those exceptions in English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50.4.236.254 -- "Stephen" for what would be more naturally be spelled in English as "Steven" is a classicizing spelling (like the "b" in "debt" and "doubt" etc etc). The letter "f" also has a [v] pronunciation, if you count "of"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's "aphelion"... Rojomoke (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Since it's "perigee" and "apogee" then it should be "perihelion" and "apohelion". But it ain't. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's "face" and "Paul", then it should be "bacebaul". But it ain't. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

As usual, Baseball Bugs is wrong: in Greek, ἥλιος begins with a vowel, so the final omicron in ἀπό is omitted in forming the compound word even in Greek. The rough breathing at the start of ἥλιος serves to aspirate the pi in ἀπό, making it a phi: so the Greek word is really αφήλιον. This is disguised by the later sound change of phi from [pʰ] to [f], but to preserve the morphemes in English the p and the h are often still pronounced in separated syllables, although you will hear the pronunciation with [f] sometimes. Double sharp (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a term to describe the change in perspective between languages?

One language may view item A as default while item B is special. Another language may view the exact same object but take item B as default! One language may have an ancient idiom that is ONLY understood within the context of the geographical homeland; when this idiom is translated to a different language in a different geographical location, the meaning is lost, but the metaphorical meaning is retained. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In French, "gross" retains it's original meaning of "large", with the modern meaning of "disgusting" being a more recent definition borrowed from English, while in English the disgusting def is now the default (except for financial matters). So, if you said "that man is gross" in the two languages, it would likely be interpreted differently. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, I'm sure there a lot of those. Entrée, for example.[7] Here's what EO has to say about "gross".[8] At some point in one of the sub-articles it says that the usage "forked" in English, and it could be that's a term the OP is looking for. Like the way the Old French word "hostel" forked into "hotel" and "hostel", which are not the same thing, though they serve a similar purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is a word which describes your specific situation. The nearest concept I can think of would be some sort of linguistic paradigm shift. --Jayron 32 11:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in linguistic relativity, and untranslatability 137.110.73.234 (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Idiom is the non-literal meaning of a word or phrase in a language. A translation that retains the idiom, but loses the literal meaning would be an idiomatic vs. literal translation. See for example Translation#Fidelity_and_transparency and Yojijukugo. As Baseball Bugs says, a specific example would be useful; it might be described by a specific term within the broader concepts given so far, or possibly something else entirely.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Category:Paintings by name

"Paintings by name" is ambiguous thus I want to make it a disambiguation page. *Category:Paintings by title (title of painting), *Category:Paintings by by author's name (redirect to Category:Paintings by artist]]) and "*Category: Paintings by subject name" (name of depicted person name). "Paintings by subject name" is a correct and not strange expression? Thanks. Regards--Pierpao (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange. If you really want to restrict it to depicted persons, I offer you Paintings by name of subject. However, some of the paintings have subjects which are not persons, so perhaps just Paintings by subject would be better? Henry ^Flower 10:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being able to find paintings of particular people might be useful - so how about "Portraits by name of subject" Wymspen (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

Please translate the following German to English.

Hi, Man versetzte ihn dann als Chef des Stabes zum Marinebefehlshaber Westfrankreich

Can you please translate the above. scope_creep (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate says it means, "He was then appointed head of the staff of the naval commander in the province of Westphalia." Does that fit with the context where you're seeing this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Chef des Stabes" would be Chief of Staff and "Westfrankreich" western France. So the whole sentence would be: He was then appointed chief of staff of the naval commander for western France. --Xuxl (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, Google gave me Western France, not Westphalia. Not sure what happened when Bugs tried. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to figure. If I use the entire sentence, it comes back "Westphalia" but if I use Frankenreich by itself it comes back "France". I guess this kind of thing is why Google Translate is not considered terribly reliable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best approach, I'm sure you would agree, would have been to wait for an editor who has the relevant language skills to come along, rather than provide what you yourself acknowledge was a "not terribly reliable" translation. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no indication that the OP had or not tried Google Translate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that. Google Translate usually is better than that, and it was pretty close to correct when I used it ("They then transferred him as chief of staff for Navy Commander West France"). So, it's a good "first pass" at a translation, with German experts later being able to refine the nuances it missed. Now, if a German expert had already answered, then I might agree that adding a machine translation wouldn't help much, at that point. StuRat (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Westphalia???? Where does Google Translate get that from? The translation is something like "He was then transferred as chief of staff to the navy command(er) for Western France." I'm not very familiar with military terminology in either language, so you may want to cross-check the terms. --Wrongfilter (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks scope_creep (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omission of the definite article

Suppose that a reporter talks about some specific negotiations, why is it correct to say, for instance, "we are just receiving reports that negotiations have been broken off" (instead of "... that the negotiations have been broken off)? After all, as stated before, he is referring to specific negotiations. So why don't we use the definite article here?--Cleph (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could, but it's pretty common to omit it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Negotiations" are somewhat like "data", in that it's difficult to have just one (a datum). That is, wherever there are negotiations, there are likely multiple items being discussed, and whether you considered the discussion of each item under consideration to be a negotiation on it's own, or merely part of the overall negotiation, is just semantics. StuRat (talk)

German Africa Prize

I'm about to start creating a draft article about the "German Africa Prize". The article at de:WP uses three different spellings: "Deutscher Afrika-Preis", "Deutschen Afrika-Preis" and "Deutsche Afrika-Preis". It looks like that article needs to be fixed, but which spelling is correct? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are all correct, they're just in different grammatical cases. For use in an English article use the form "Deutscher Afrika-Preis". --Wrongfilter (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you're right, the German article needs fixing... --Wrongfilter (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wrongfilter, I might be back later to get the translation checked, but not today, it's bedtime for me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

Are native Arabic speakers required to also know Quranic Arabic?

As far as I know, Arabic-speaking people may either speak in their regional dialect to communicate with locals or Modern Standard Arabic to communicate by writing and formal speeches, even though Quranic Arabic is regarded as the superior form of Arabic. So, does this mean that all native-Arabic-speaking people must also learn Quranic Arabic through study of the Quran? Do Arabic speakers use Quranic Arabic in otherwise conversational dialogue like how Japanese and Chinese may use four-character idioms in normal, everyday speech so some understanding of Quranic Arabic and the history are necessary to get the meaning? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what "required" is supposed to mean in this context, but Muslims certainly need to know Qur'anic Arabic to read and fully understand the Qur'an, while those who want to develop Arabic-language literacy need to know some Modern Standard Arabic (which is similar to the language of the Qur'an, but not really the same). AnonMoos (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. using colloquial vernacular Arabic together with MSA is what some linguists would call "level-mixing". It probably should be included in the Stylistics article, but that seems to be almost purely about literary criticism. It's briefly alluded to in the Code-mixing article... AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By "required", I mean certain phrases from bygone times are inserted into colloquial dialogue. In the Chinese language, most educated Chinese speakers use four-character idiomatic expressions that may be extracted from Classical Chinese texts. I think English speakers do the same thing with Shakespeare and the King James Bible. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

1) While a high percentage of Arabs are Muslims, not all are.

2) Most Muslims are not Arabs, living in nations like Iran, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, so may not speak Arabic at all.

3) From the crazy portrayals of the writings in the Quran by ISIS and others, I get the impression that those followers must not actually read the Quran themselves, but just rely on the (mis)interpretations of others. I am reminded of the medieval period where the Catholic Church "interpreted" the Bible to say whatever was in their interest, such as supporting the Crusades and the selling of indulgences, and rigorously opposed it being written in common languages. Hopefully most Muslim leaders don't oppose this, but I suspect that ISIS does. StuRat (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 171: / Line 171: @@
 :P.S. using colloquial vernacular Arabic together with MSA is what some linguists would call "level-mixing".  It probably should be included in the [[Stylistics]] article, but that seems to be almost purely about literary criticism.  It's briefly alluded to in the [[Code-mixing]] article... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 03:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 :: By "required", I mean certain phrases from bygone times are inserted into colloquial dialogue. In the Chinese language, most educated Chinese speakers use four-character idiomatic expressions that may be extracted from Classical Chinese texts. I think English speakers do the same thing with Shakespeare and the King James Bible. [[Special:Contributions/50.4.236.254|50.4.236.254]] ([[User talk:50.4.236.254|talk]]) 03:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
+:Some points:
+:1) While a high percentage of [[Arab]]s are Muslims, not all are.
+:2) Most [[Muslim]]s are not Arabs, living in nations like [[Iran]], [[India]], [[Pakistan]], and [[Indonesia]], so may not speak Arabic at all.
+:3) From the crazy portrayals of the writings in the Quran by ISIS and others, I get the impression that those followers must not actually read the Quran themselves, but just rely on the (mis)interpretations of others.  I am reminded of the medieval period where the Catholic Church "interpreted" the Bible to say whatever was in their interest, such as supporting the Crusades and the selling of [[indulgences]], and rigorously opposed it being written in common languages.  Hopefully most Muslim leaders don't oppose this, but I suspect that ISIS does.  [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 04:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)