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

May 30

Preferred pronouns in non-English languages

Living in the US, I've noticed a preference for non-"traditional" pronoun usage in transgender individuals (i.e. pronouns other than "she/her" or "his/him"). Some of these are new inventions (e.g. ze/zir/zem, if I remember correctly) and some are not (e.g. "it/its"). In some other languages such as Chinese or German, there are clear corresponding, relatively gender-neutual analogies to the latter case, but in others, such as French, I don't think there are words that currently exist "outside" of the feminine/masculine binary (which I assume is what the usage of such "preferred pronouns" is trying to achieve). In those languages, what (if any) methods are used to achieve results similar to the ones in English? --Morningcrow (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've seen an example from a German speaker using Z-initial pronouns. This risks some confusion with the awfully-similiarly-pronounced feminine singular, polite second person plural and third person plural forms (zie vs sie), but it has at least been tried. I've not seen anything similar for French, and given that every single thing in French has a binary gender, I don't know where you'd start. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Starting points: try our article Gender-specific_and_gender-neutral_pronouns#Romance_languages. If you can think of a page title you would have looked for, trying to find this, we can create a redirect so that future searchers find it more easily. Gender neutrality in languages with grammatical gender is also interesting, although slightly tangential to your question.

I found a small discussion with French-speakers present, here: [1]. They suggest that it's less sensitive in French, but I suspect I could also find discussions of English-speakers who don't understand what the fuss is about in English, so I wouldn't give it too much weight.

It looks like some non-binary French-speakers find it frustrating, and typically have to default to the masculine, although there are attempts to create new terms: [2], [3]. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Chinese doesn't have gender-neutral pronouns (that refer to humans) in writing, but in speech, all third-person pronouns sound the same. There's no way to tell the person's gender from grammar alone.

Gender is such an integral part of French that it's impossible to make gender-neutral overnight. Every noun, including abstract ones like "peace", has a gender. The gender is often completely unpredictable: "war" is feminine, for example, whereas "perfume" is masculine. The gender of a noun is not necessarily the gender of its referent: a "person" is always feminine, even when the person is male. Adjectives change based on the gender of their noun, as do articles (the/those) and sometimes even verbs. Impersonal pronouns (like "it is raining") always use the masculine.

Making French gender-neutral is not as easy as changing one pronoun; it has to involve a drastic overhaul of the grammar. That said, there are many people who try to make French less male-dominant. See [4] for one attempt. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hence why I was wondering about French specifically - I couldn't see any way the issue of gender in terms of grammar might be avoided . I realise that Chinese doesn't have gender-neutral pronouns that refer to humans either, but since part of the cases I'd seen in English involved use of "it/its" as a personal pronoun I was less interested in that specific case. --Morningcrow (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The genders could be called A and E; then there would be nothing very strange about war being in A and perfume in E. They are just arbitrary groups of nouns. I've never understood why people attach so much importance to certain nouns referring to male and female humans that they insist on naming the entire grammatical categories after them even when (as in French) there's nothing else "feminine" or "masculine" about those categories. -- BenRG (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is a language intended for use by human persons, so I don't think there's anything particularly surprising about nouns referring to human persons being given heavy importance. In any case, there are lots of situations where grammatical categories are named after a specific instance of them. For example, the dative case is so named, I believe, because it's the case given to objects of the verb dare, "to give", but there are lots of datives that have nothing to do with giving. --Trovatore (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

(Direct) objects of the verb dare take the accusative case just like direct objects of other verbs. (Indirect objects take the dative case, but this is the same for other verbs which have an indirect object with the sense "to or for someone or something"). Your correct in your statement that "dative" derives from dare - it was a calque from Greek δοτική (according to the OED's etymology) which is similarly derived from the Greek verb meaning "to give" - but saying that objects of dare take the dative is misleading. Valiantis (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Korean solfeggio

Never mind. Question was based on a misunderstanding on my part.

I was surprised to find that the musical notes in Korean are not do, re, mi but 빨주노초파남보 (bbal, ju, no, cho, pa, nam, bo). I didn't find anything about this in our article solfeggio, and I also didn't find anything about it in the Korean wikipedia article ko:솔페지오, whose title is just a transliteration of "solfeggio". Does the Korean system go by a different name, and is there some other term I should be searching for? Is it derived from the European system but with completely different names for the notes, or does it have some other origin? It would be interesting to add something about this to the article, if sources can be found. --Amble (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Does the article Music of Korea lead you anywhere interesting? --Jayron32 18:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC) I haven't found anything there or linked there that's related to solfeggio or 빨주노. Do you have anything specific in mind? --Amble (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Sorry, misunderstanding on my part. I missed a context shift and thought these were musical notes when they're actually just short names for the colors of a rainbow. --Amble (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

artificial languages

When people talk about artificial languages I have to wonder, isn't English an artificial language as well? It was made by humans and animals in nature don't speak it -- 21:19, 30 May 2014‎ User:Wpytgdp

By artificial, people generally mean constructed language, that is, one that is deliberately devised, with neat, precise rules of grammar. Esperanto is the best known example. English, on the other hand, developed gradually and haphazardly. As a result, its grammar is a bit of a nightmare, even for native speakers. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The language philosopher Rudi Keller once made the point that natural languages are what he called a "phenomenon of the third kind", something that doesn't really fit into the dichotomy of "natural" versus "artificial" things. Or, you might say, the phenomenon of language simply shows up a weakness in our definition of "artificial" and "natural", because these terms can mean a lot of different things. If you take "artificial" to mean "anything made by humans" and "natural" to mean "not made by humans", then of course language is artificial. However, normally we mean something else by these terms. An "artificial" language is one that was created by humans intentionally, according to a systematic plan and design. That's the crucial difference. Normal languages are shaped by humans, and we all effectively keep shaping and re-shaping our languages and changing them – but we don't do so intentionally, with the conscious goal of creating a "new" language or changing one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Tolkien had his Elves consciously propose and adopt changes to their language(s), to explain the existence of multiple Elvish languages descended from a common source; I guess he could not imagine that languages spoken by immortals would drift. —Tamfang (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that English was made by humans? Natural languages have to be learnt by infants, but so does walking: they do both naturally and effortlessly. Languages change over time, and as a consequence are different from each other, and hence from place to place; but so are bird-calls. Certain aspects of languages are consciously made by people, but they are pretty marginal to language as a whole. --ColinFine (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Effortlessly?! —Tamfang (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

aluminum

Why do Limey say "allie-min-un" instead of aluminum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KieraCameron2077 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We (Brits) don't. We pronounce aluminium the way it's written, with an I before the U, just like in the names of most other elements ending in -um, like uranium and thorium. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to dissasociate myself from the aggressive way the question was asked. However, the history of the word alumin(i)um is a bit of a sore point. Davy's original spelling well, actually not quite his original spelling; that was one no one uses anymore, namely alumium, but he changed it to aluminum is the one Yanks still use, and it was just fine; it converted the feminine alumina to a masculine form to mean the metal, nothing wrong with that. Platinum and tantalum also end in -um without the i.

If it weren't for the letter of an anonymous meddler to some journal, the whole world would call it aluminum, and that would be better. --Trovatore (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Or, according to our article, if it wasn't for a mis-spelt advert, America would still use -ium, as it did for most of the 19thC. DuncanHill (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The ad used Davy's correct spelling. --Trovatore (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I blame Noah Webster, who introduced lots of comedy mis-spellings into his dictionaries. Unfortunately, most Americans didn't get the joke. DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of Webster's spelling reform did not catch on. I don't know whether that's good or bad; it's just a fact, and now they look extremely strange. See the history of the American and British English spelling differences article, or this discussion on the talk page. However, that has nothing to do with alumin(i)um, which was unknown (as such) in Webster's day. --Trovatore (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong link for the talk page discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's the correct one: Talk:American and British English spelling differences/Archive 4#Obsolete spellings listed as "American" without explanation. --Trovatore (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Um, actually we're both wrong - he spelt it correctly in the first edition of his dictionary, or at least according to our Aluminium article. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean he spelled' it incorrectly. HTH. --Trovatore (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, he spelt it correctly. Time will shew that I am right. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Spelt is a grain. --Trovatore (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Spelt is the past tense and past participle of spell. I understand some foreigners spell spelt spelled. DuncanHill (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't cry over spelt milk! Lesgles (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was the British who changed the spelling from "aluminum" to "aluminium".[5] This is just one of those language oddities, like the question of whether to pronounce "iodine" to rhyme with "line" or "lean". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Route - root or rout? In the UK it is root, in the US it can be either (that's eye ther not ee ther) :-). Widneymanor (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Route 66 (song) is pronounced "root", even by Americans such as Chuck Berry. Why was an exception made in that case? Was the TV show also pronounced that way? (I hardly ever saw it.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of a sentence

In English what does it mean when someone says "the goy know shut it down"? -- 22:38, 30 May 2014‎ User:Bg4u

That sentence doesn't make much sense. Where did you see it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean "They're gonna shut it down"?!? If so, "gonna" is slang for "going to" which is used to indicate future tense. "to shut it down" is slang for "to end" whatever "it" is. So "they're gonna shut it down" means something is about to come to an end. However, if I misread your Eye dialect or if you meant something else, I'm sorry, but like Bugs, I can't make sense of what you actually wrote, because that sentence has no direct meaning. --Jayron32 23:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you interpret know as the mandative subjunctive, it could mean "let the Gentile know shut it down". Still doesn't make a lot of sense, but when it comes to interpreting strings of words as grammatical utterances, when there's a will there's often a way. --Trovatore (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not "know" as "no"? Then it could be a reference, in broken English, to a Gentile who did not shut down a machine, for instance. Bus stop (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I was looking for a way to interpret the written text as a grammatical utterance. Yes, I understand that that was probably not what the questioner was interested in. --Trovatore (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

In Hebrew goyim or "goy" means cattle and refers to non-Jewish people. "The goy know" means that non-Jews have become aware of ZOG and must be silenced (shut down) 208.105.74.232 (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

See our goy article. Goy does not mean cattle. It means nation. The Bible referred to everything that was not Israel as "the nations". In modern Yiddish, the singular goy has come to mean Gentile through a reasonably obvious linguistic process. --Trovatore (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. (Incidentally, Jewish daily liturgy refers to the nation of Israel as a goy.) Note, Trovatore, that the opening paragraph of article Goy is somewhat misleading (though not incorrect); the use of singular goy to mean "gentile" predates Yiddish by about a thousand years. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

May 31

Chinese tones

Hi, the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wV8B4bx1lM (see e.g. section at 7:50) explains four Mandarin tones as high flat tone, rising tone, low flat tone, falling tone. Other places, such as Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Chinese_phonology#Tones have a down-up "V-shaped" tone instead of the low flat tone. Why the difference? 86.183.31.9 (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

From the Standard Chinese phonology section you linked to above: "Third tone, low or dipping tone (上 shǎng, literal meaning: "rising")...has a mid-low to low descent; if at the end of a sentence or before a pause, it is then followed by a rising pitch. Between other tones it may simply be low." Hope that answers your question.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 00:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the video does seem anomalous in that the main presentation of the tone is as a flat tone. This seems contrary to all other explanations I have seen, in which the main or initial presentation of the tone is "V-shaped". If you search Google Images for "Chinese tones", for instance, every single picture looks essentially like the one in Wikipedia, and none look like the one in the video. On the other hand the woman in the video appears to be a native speaker, and teacher of some kind, at least she has lots of lessons on YouTube, so it puzzles me a bit. 86.183.31.9 (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

One way to think of it is like this. The v shape is correct. Tone 3 is a falling, low, then rising tone. But whenever it appears next to a higher tone the initial falling and final rising gets swamped by the higher tone. And as you never hear two low tones next to each other (the first is always changed to tone 2), and as all other tones are higher, this always happens. You only hear the low part of it, and you think of it as a low tone. The exception is when the low tone is at the start or end; only then can you hear the initial fall or the rise. So there's no contradiction, it's just that in normal speech there's no difference, except at the start and end of speaking.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

John gives a good explanation. If it helps, you can think of it as a type of tone allophone (I see "allotone" in that article although with Mandarin's neutral tone given as an example). In that case it's not surprising that the native speaker doesn't differentiate between them. As it says in the allophone article, "(n)ative speakers of a given language usually perceive one phoneme in their language as a single distinctive sound in that language and are "both unaware of and even shocked by" the allophone variations used to pronounce single phonemes."--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Or, more precisely, Tone sandhi.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 17:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you say this the same way?

I have here a book published in Great Britain in 1902. The title is "Modern Spiritualism: A History and A Criticism." This phrase bothers me. It does not roll off the tongue. I would prefer it changed into either: "Modern Spiritualism: History and Criticism" (both indefinite articles dropped) or: "Modern Spiritualism: The History and Criticism."

I am no language expert and don't know rules. My perception is intuitive. I read and the usage sticks in my mind. Reading something that essentially reflects English usage at the end of the 19th century I often notice that they used articles differently. It seems there were other standards. Is it correct or I am confused? Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The title is fine as written. Both your suggestions would work too. It's just a matter of preference. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I would guess that the author was just being modest in not claiming to write the definitive history or the final criticism. Use of definite articles in the title sounds slightly pompous to me (it might be appropriate for use by a highly respected authority on the subject), but either indefinite or no articles sound fine. Titles of a hundred years ago tended (on average) to be slightly longer and less "snappy", though there are many notable exceptions. Dbfirs 06:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The second "A" seems redundant, so I'd drop that. If anything should be concise, a title should. StuRat (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Harlan Ellison once wrote a story called Out Near the Funicular Center of the Universe the Wine has been Left Open Too Long and the Memory has Gone Flat. --Trovatore (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Was it a short story? If so, he used half his quota of words in the title. (I exaggerate, of course. Interesting people often do.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that the second a is redundant, but it does suggest that the book is in two distinct parts. —Tamfang (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-verbal languages

Are there any natural languages that are non-speaking, as in, writing-only languages? YeastyTrains (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The simple answer to your question is Yes, there are plenty of sign languages, such as ASL, BSL etc. Tne question about writing-only languages is more complicated, and depends on what you mean by a language. There are languages such as Latin and Sanskrit which were never the native idiom of anybody (they were very similar to vernacular languages of their time, but they were codified into something a bit different); but they have nevertheless been spoken at various times, so they probably don't meet your criterion. Note that spoken or gestural languages seem to be something that people spontaneously develop (or at least, have an innate capacity to learn) which is not true, as far as we know, of written languages. --ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean about Latin? By the end of the Republic, the spoken form (Vulgar Latin) and the conservative written form (Classical Latin) apparently had deeply diverged, but are you saying the latter never was spoken natively? (Disregarding differences analogous to those between spoken and written varieties of English, or any other language.) —Tamfang (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am. From what I've read, the difference between the literary language and the vernacular was quite a bit greater than the corresponding varieties of written English. Terence and Petronius use bits of Vulgar Latin in their plays, and both the syntax and the accidence are somewhat different. (This is about the limit of my knowledge of this - and I've lent my copy of Baldi's The History of Latin to somebody, so I can't check up). --ColinFine (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

All that shows is that the two had diverged a bit earlier than I thought. —Tamfang (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There are also Whistled languages and Talking drums. The are usually based on tones of a spoken language, though, so may not technically qualify as "non-speaking".--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 17:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

or "natural". —Tamfang (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue with a written only language is that, to my knowledge, all communities on earth have verbal language of some sort. It would shock me if there were races of people who only wrote to communicate. So, any written only language is likely to be considered to be a written form of the spoken language of the people using it. I suppose you could say that Braille is a written only language in that is used by people who speak multiple languages and is therefore isn't just a written form of English or any specific language. If you count raised bumps as "writing" that is. Bali88 (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Braille, however, isn't a language, but a code/vehicle of a language, much in the same way Morse code, Cued speech, and Signing Exact English aren't languages (the most former being a visual, auditory, or tactile way of communicating, the two latter being two vastly different methods of coding primarily spoken languages to be understood visually). Braille, like speech or writing, is not itself a language but simply a way to deliver one. - Purplewowies (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What's the difference? All language, spoken or otherwise, is a set of symbols used to communicate abstract ideas to another person. I'm not sure what the difference is between that set of codes and a formal "language". Bali88 (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're arguing that Braille is a written-only language because it's used by people who speak multiple languages then you may as well argue the Latin alphabet is a written-only language. It may be used by people in different languages but it's merely a way to present letters (and sometimes digraphs, frequently occurring words and other symbols) in a tangible as opposed to a visual form. An English-speaker who reads Braille can only read Braille written in English unless he learns both another language and the Braille conventions for that language - see French Braille, English Braille, German Braille etc. Valiantis (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh okay, I see what you're saying. Bali88 (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Chinese is, sensu stricto, a written-only language. Unfortunately, the entire question of the nature of the Chinese languages is so politicised (and has been for centuries) that you won't get any sense out of a Chinese-speaker on this. RomanSpa (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Possessive grammar issue

At Przevalski's nuthatch, a user has changed the opening sentence from

"Przevalski's nuthatch (Sitta przewalskii)..." to

"The Przevalski's nuthatch (Sitta przewalskii)..."

The addition of "the" is painful to my ear because in normal grammar we would never put an article before a possessive like this. In short, it sounds as strange to me as "The Einstein's theory of relativity is..." On the other hand, I recognize that the possessive here is actually part and parcel of the name phrase itself, and so could be viewed as really no different than "The bald eagle is..." Is there any formal guidance on this grammatical foible?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The change looks correct to me. You wouldn't write "Bald eagle is a bird of prey", would you? It's no different here. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The species is referred to as though it belongs to its eponym; no article is required. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That seems to beg the question. Yes, of course we wouldn't write "Bald eagle is a bird of prey", but that construction lacks the possessive that normally would bar prefixing an article if it wasn't part of a noun phrase. We also wouldn't write "Theory of Everything is" but we would write "Moore's law is" (and never "The Moore's law is"). Why is it different here?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that both are allowable (with and without article) in this case, so there's no particular need to change one to the other... AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the editor who added the "The" was wanting to avoid random readers thinking the article was about a specific nuthatch owned by a certain Przevalski. IMO, that was an unnecessarily pedantic change; if there really were a notable single specimen of nuthatch, it most likely would have its own name (e.g. Freddy (nuthatch)) and not be referred to as the property of its owner, regardless of its owner's name. Alternatively, if their logic was that all animal names should start with "The", then their tin ear to the nuances of English is evident. I agree that "The Przevalski's nuthatch" sounds as foreign as "the Blanford's fruit bat","the Jackson's hornbill", "the Hose's frog", "the Donaldson Smith's Nightjar", "the Gillett's lark" or probably hundreds of other creatures eponymically and possessively named after their discoverer or describer. (I note that "The" has been removed from Przevalski's nuthatch, but not from Gillett's lark.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I will take the lack of any of you learned people digging up a formal rule here as confirmation that it's at least not obvious the "correction" was proper and would have taken this as a platform to revert (even though it's already been done by another).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Word most liable to cause offense

What is the most offensive word in the English language? Nerdy Pop 3 (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I would tend to doubt whether degree of offensiveness can be independent of context, which would mean that one word can't always be most offensive in all situations... AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That correlates with something an English teacher once told a class I was in: "Meanings are not in words; meanings are in people." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

According to both surveys cited in Profanity § Severity, cunt was the most offensive in Britain in 2000 and New Zealand in 2009. Profanity § External links includes http://onlineslangdictionary.com/lists/most-vulgar-words/ (American, English, and Urban slang) which has cunt a close third behind felch and skullfuck. This UK article suggests that ethnic slurs such as nigger are now deemed more offensive. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that result is quite silly. Skullfuck is certainly no more offensive than just fuck. Felch will be meaningless to more than 99% of the population, and more disgusting than insulting in such cases. Cunt is by far the worst word you can use in American English. You wouldn't use queef in mixed company either, but it is not understood in all dialects, and again is more icky than insulting. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Explanation - new one to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Certain queef and cunt are terribly vulgar and I wouldn't use them except in the very limited of company, but I don't necessarily view them as offensive. Bali88 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The http://onlineslangdictionary.com/lists/most-vulgar-words/ allows visitors to vote for the words; I doubt it would be acceptable as reliable source for an article. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I'd say the "N" word easily wins the race in America. Bali88 (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's a specific example of racial insults being deemed worse than other terms. (I've added the emphasis):

In 2007, Indian cricket crowds called the West Indian born Australian cricketer, Andrew Symonds, 'a monkey'. During the 2007-8 Indian tour of Australia, the Indian player, Harbhajan Singh, allegedly repeated the abuse. Amidst protests from the Australian players and threats that the Indians would abandon the tour, the matter was resolved. Harbhajan, we were told, had called Symonds a 'motherfucker' – albeit in Punjabi – and not a monkey. Sexist abuse of the vilest kind, but not racism, was permissible. ...

I suspect that the Profanity article needs updating to reflect the current tendency to treat racial terms as more offensive. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Wayne's World, "mung" is the worst thing there is, and you really don't want to get it at Halloween. Since that (apparently) only exists as a word, it has my vote for the worst word there is. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone "a silly old cunt" in Australian English, while hardly a compliment, is not generally seen as obscene. "Smart cunt" is ambiguous. It could be either a compliment or an insult. HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the tone, context and relationship of the two people. Hack (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not in the US. cunt and queef are words boys learn on the street from other boys, they never use unless their girlfriends are of the talk dirty type (I have never understood that) and which would never be used in the household or between family of different generations. Nigg#r and all the rest come nowhere near this taboo. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

June 1

Why are bananas yellow?

Why are bananas yellow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigglefit500 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a Science Desk question... AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The article Banana indicates several colors depending on the variety. And even the most common store-bought varieties start as green, then turn yellow, and then flecked with brown, and eventually all brown or almost black. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

^{They are not ripe until the skin is almost black. I can never understand why so many people eat them before then!} Dbfirs 06:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What's your source for that belief, Dbfrs? In my experience, bananas that are almost black are generally regarded as over-ripe, and considered good for only one thing - baking banana cakes. For simple eating, ones that are yellow with no green tinges and only a few if any black spots are the best. By that I mean they're firm but easy to chew, and soft without being mushy/squishy. Also, their sugar content is supposedly lower, which is better for diabetics (I'm not sure how that works, since a banana is a fairly closed system). I live in a country that has a large banana industry; some other places have to import all or most of their bananas, and they have to be chemically treated to guarantee their arrival in edible condition. This often means they're ripe when they appear not to be, or vice-versa. That may be your experience in Cumbria, not known for its extensive banana plantations, afaik -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

My extra-small type was intended to indicate that this was a personal preference, and a source of contention. You are almost certainly correct that yellow bananas available in Cumbria are really green ones that have been artificially ripened. I find them difficult to digest before the skins go black because of the high starch content, but perhaps this is because I've never had the opportunity to taste a tree-ripened banana. One day I might visit you in upside-down country. Dbfirs 08:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I look forward to that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"When flecked with brown / And with a golden hue / Bananas taste the best / And are the best for you." --Chiquita Banana ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, another Chiquita poetic effort was "Bananas are best / With freckles on their vest". Deor (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Bananas are yellow (for a certain period of time) because their skin reflects light between 570 and 590 nm. Angr (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Bananas are yellow because purple failed in a marketing test. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

From a physics point of view, they are yellow because they are not blue, and because they are not quite green or red either. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Chemistry-wise, because Cavendish bananas naturally stop ripening after picking, they stay green. But if you stick them in a room at 18 degrees Celsius and give them a nice dose of ethylene, they'll turn yellow, the colour of optimism and pleasure (citation needed). Likewise, if you grow marijuana when the nights are getting colder in the north, it'll turn purple and convince customers it has extra zing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

From an evolutionary POV, I'd say they are yellow because that makes it easy for animals such as monkeys to spot them, which then carry them to remote locations, where the seeds can grow. They are tasty for a similar reason. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Aye. They also turn fluorescent in ultraviolet when they're ripe. I can't exactly describe the colour, but I'd bet it's more impressive than boring old yellow/green/greenish yellow. Pentachromatic birds don't want to fly all the way over there just to be bitterly disappointed, and the trees realize that's a key demographic. Eventually. Accidentally. Or some other tree does first, and we prepare to say goodbye to bananas. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:41, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

On a darker note, the top banana of the United Fruit Company was Black. Like many of his spoiled counterparts, he was tossed from a window and onto the roadside. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:49, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

As this is the Language Refdesk it may be relevant to examine the etymology and history of the word "yellow" - see Yellow#Etymology and definitions, the sources cited in that section are probably also worth reading. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

How about that? Comes from a word meaning "yellow". InedibleHulk (talk) 11:56, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

That's 'cause etymology be kewl! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

terms of endearment Lithuanian

hello, could the all-knowing RefDesk please suggest some terms of endearment in Lithuanian? in particular, I'd like to know if there's a term equivalent to the Russian солнышко/Polish słoneczko "little sun" Asmrulz (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the Reference Desk after all, but I couldn't find any reference specifically listing terms of endearment. This paper, however, discusses diminutives (which are often used to form terms of endearment) in Lithuanian and gives an example of saulutėlė as a diminutive of "sun" although it doesn't say whether it can be used as term of endearment. I've found that Google translate does a decent job of translating Lithuanian. You can try entering words into Google Translate such as "sweetheart" (which gives four possible translations: širdelė, "sweetheart, darling, sugar"; mielasis, "dear, sweetheart, honey, sugar, pet"; brangusis, "dear, darling, sweetheart, babe, pet"; mylimasis, "beloved, lover, sweetie, love, sweety, sweetheart") for some ideas.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 02:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!Asmrulz (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2

funny military name

I need help choosing a humorous military-themed user name for a MMO game I like to play. I especially like the names that use the old joke of making a pun on a military rank such as "General Confusion," "General Grievance," or "Major Offensive". Was just wondering if someone could offer some ideas along those lines. Just brainstorming. Thanks!--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Private Parts. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Colonel O'Truth. Corporal Punishment. Marshall Law. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Major Pain. General Disorder. Hack (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not finding or figuring out any good ones for a Captain, Lieutenant or Sergeant - there's no ambiguity or homophony to exploit. <sulk> Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Bombadier Beetle? Captain Obvious? Gunner Sit-Right-Down-and-Write-Myself-a-Letter? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Major Arsenal - X201 (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Major Major Major Major. --Jayron32 16:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The TV show How I met your mother has a recurring joke similar to this. Someone says "I got a major raise at work", and others respond by saluting the imaginary person "Major Raise". Here's some examples from the show, you can probably find more by googling [6]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Major A. Hole. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Squadron Leader Leader [7]. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sergeant A. Tarms, Sergeant Major, Sergeant Shriver. Captain N. Tennille, Captain Kerr-Runch, Captain Capstan. Lieutenant [loo-tenant] LaTrine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

General Mess and Private Mess, as in "The privates eat in the general mess, while the generals eat in the private mess." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ — Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Colonel Mustered. Lieutenant Subletter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I used to work for a company selling computers running Unix. I was at a meeting once where some stuff was being discussed in which we techies were concerned that something required by the customer (not unconnected with the Armed Forces) would require modification to the operating system kernel. After some discussion a rather naïve marketing lady asked very quietly "who is this Colonel Modz anyway?" Tonywalton ^Talk 23:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

For the British pronunciation: Lieutenant Rightenant MChesterMC (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Major General Verymodelov. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone who didn't get the joke: Major-General's Song. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean Major general Song, I suppose? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds Russian: Веримоделов. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This thread seems to have caused General Amusement. A collocations dictionary could help generate more ideas. 142.150.38.155 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What, nobody mentioned the Punnery Sergeant yet? And touching the Unix subject again, Colonel Panic? (who's on Windows now, and promoted to General Failure)? - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 14:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Field Marshal Marshall? see this thread... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "almond"

I enjoy being pedantic. Usually I would be the one correcting others' pronunciations of words, but very recently the tables apparently got turned, and I found myself apparently mispronouncing the world "almond". I have lived considerably long and never once have I heard anybody pronounce "almond" without the "l". Yet the dictionaries indeed declare that "almond" is pronounced "a-mond". I do not quite believe it. Is the dictionary ever wrong? How exactly should it be pronounced? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

My electronic copy of NOAD has the l as an option, so does Mirriam Webster [8], and so does Wiktionary [9]. So I wonder what dictionary you're looking in? As for which pronunciation goes "first", that is a somewhat political matter, and each dictionary usually has a section discussing how their editors arrive at these choices. I personally have always said and heard the 'l' in 'almond', but it's sort of suppressed compared to e.g. 'All men.' If you listen to the examples at m-w.com, you'll see that the first and third (with and without 'l') sound very similar. I suspect there might be an AmE/ BrE issue at play as well, but I can't easily find any ref for that. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

p.s. dropping the l might be a form of hypercorrection, as "almond" comes from "amygdala". SemanticMantis (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

SemanticMantis -- The l-less pronunciations are older within modern English. The 1937 Daniel Jones UK pronouncing dictionary lists only [ɑːmənd], while the 1951 Kenyon and Knott USA pronouncing dictionary lists only [ɑːmənd] and [æmənd] as generally-accepted pronunciations (with [ælmənd] as a New England regionalism)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You've quoted a few dictionaries there; the OED (online) has Brit. /ˈɑː(l)mənd/ , /ˈalmənd/ , /ˈɒlmənd/ , U.S. /ˈɑ(l)mənd/ which seems to mean "either". Tonywalton ^Talk 22:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If your comment is in reply to mine, then the answer is that I was looking where I would find information on what was considered the most standardly correct pronunciations 65-75 years ago... AnonMoos (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• The etymology isn't directly from Greek, but from amygdala to L. amandula to French alemande and Spanish almendra, probably due to the influence of the Arabic al-. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=almond At some point in English since Chaucer (someone will know) the -alm- sequence lost the ell except in spelling, so that words like palm would rhyme with words like bomb. The restoration of the ell based on spelling is called spelling pronunciation, it applies as well to things like the -t- in often which until recently was silent. Hence older pedants insist on amond, while the rest of us blithely go on pronouncing the ell. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

  Say Hello, Wave Goodbye? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hm, the spelling pronunciation article lists alm, psalm, etc as examples. But, if e.g. you pronounce "palm" as "pahm," and I say "pa/l/m", are we not both pronouncing the l in some sense? I mean, the pronunciation is different, but people who say "pahm" would not pronounce "pam" in the same way. I guess what I'm getting at is that the 'l' still has an effect on pronunciation, even if it is not vocalized as /l/. Do we have any articles that mention that concept? SemanticMantis (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No, we're not pronouncing any kind of /l/ sound. We are using the historical spelling to indicate that the sound is different from what might be expected if the 'l' weren't there, just as in words with silent e. --ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I've miscommunicated. If you say ah-mənd then you aren't saying any /l/ sound, but my claim is that you are making a sound for the letter l. (This would be easier if I actually knew the IPA). If I pronounce 'tortilla' as 'tor-TEE-ya', I would not say that I'm not pronouncing the l. I would rather say that I'm pronouncing the l differently than I do in e.g. 'lemon'. A similar example is 'button': whether I vocalize /t/ or just do a glottal stop, the letter t is being "pronounced" in a sense, in both cases, just with different sounds. You say the l in almond indicates a different way of pronunciation than if the letter weren't there, and I agree. But how is that really any different than using a letter to indicate pronunciation in more phonetically transparent words? I feel like there must be some linguistic term for this, which is why I ask. I got to allophone for the 'button' example, but I'm not sure if that would apply to the two pronunciations of almond or not. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So you're talking about more-or-less systematic patterns of spelling which represent particular pronunciations, but in the present language are completely arbitrary (though they may make sense historically)? No, I don't know a name for that. It would be picking out just one feature from the mess that is English spelling. --ColinFine (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

'Palm' only rhymes with 'bomb' if you have both l-dropping and the cot-caught merger. Here in the UK there are plenty of people with neither. (I have l-dropping but no merger.) AlexTiefling (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I don't have the cot-caught merger (hotdog has two distinct vowels) and I rhyme bomb and palm. I also rhyme orange and car-hinge. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm interested now. I don't treat the vowels of 'hotdog' as different, and once had great difficulty understanding an American who pronounced that exact word (to my ears) as somewhere around 'hutdug'/'hatdag'. What merger have I got that you don't, that conceals two different vowels in hotdog? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The various splits and mergers of the low English vowels across British and NA dialects confuse me. All I can say is that I usue the same vowels in hot and cot as I do in dog and caught respectively, and the first pair is distinct from the second. When Iwas young and lived in the South they used to have my mother say "hotdog" which they though was hilarious, since they used the cot vowel in both syllables. My Nephews also show a merger, but in their case in New England the use the caught vowels in both cases. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Aha - now that makes sense. That's the sound that sounds to many English ears like 'dawg'. Some upper-class British accents have that split too; posh folk who say 'dawg' would never pronounce 'cot' as 'cawt'. Whereas to me the split very much puts hot, cot and dog on one side, and caught, bought, fought on the other. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, "dawg" for me would be a diphthong, like the name of Smaug as properly pronounced according to Tolkien. In any case, my low vowels from front to back are can (n.)/can (v.)/Khan/gone/crown, with crown being a diphthong. μηδείς (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

AlexTiefling -- the pronounced [l] in "palm" dropped out several centuries ago, and the pronunciation of this word without an [l] sound was presumably part of the common ancestor of all forms of current standard English; this doesn't have much to do with recent l-vocalization... AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I do sometimes hear the l pronounced in 'palm' - presumably this is a hypercorrection? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think pronouncing /l/ in palm is a spelling pronunciation, as indicated by Medeis and Angr above and below. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• The standard joke among people in and around the California almond industry is that they're called "all-monds" when they're on the tree, but "ah-monds" after they're harvested, because to harvest you "shake the 'ell out of them". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe the ag community in California's Central Valley pronounces it /æmənd/ rather than /ɑːmənd/ ("cat" vowel in the first syllable). A lot of them migrated from Oklahoma and like places during the Dust Bowl, and their accent has not yet really mingled with that of coastal California. --Trovatore (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fascinating. I heard the distinctive accent when I was last in the Central Valley, and wondered at the time where it had come from. Thank you! AlexTiefling (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• the linguistics nerd in me feels obligated to tell you that the correct pronunciation of words is dictated by how people pronounce them. Where I live it's "ah-monds". But I'm sure the "all" pronunciation is used in other areas. Bali88 (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Down here, it's always ah-mənd and pahm, not to mention buoy is an exact homophone of boy. Anyone who says the el in the first 2 words, or sounds the u in buoy reveals they've been exposed to at least some novomundane influence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• In the American Midwest I've always heard and said it as "AHL-munds", "PAHLm", "HOLmes", etc. But we do pronounce "would" as a homophone of "wood". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Here's an ad produced by the Blue Diamond company and presumably approving of its pronunciation of "almonds".[10] I hear an L in it. Does everyone else? Or no? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No. It's more like they suddenly switch to a Boston Brahmin accent for just that word, but I could not swear on a Bible that I hear an el. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

but would you swear on a Bibe? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think whether a "true" /l/ is present is somewhat subjective, and different ears will draw different conclusions. Hence such a confusing and interesting thread! SemanticMantis (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Bali88 that "the correct pronunciation of words is dictated by how people pronounce them". Neither the l-less pronunciation "ahmond" nor the l-ful pronunciation "all-mond" is "right" or "wrong", but the l-less pronunciation is older than the l-ful one; the pronunciation with the /l/ is a more recent spelling pronunciation. The same is true for several other words spelled with -alm- such as calm, palm, and psalm. There's nothing wrong with spelling pronunciations—some of them have become the only standard pronunciation—but it's good (IMO) for people who use them to be aware that they are using them, and not to make fun of people who use the traditional pronunciation (I'm speaking to you, you Brits who pronounce the /h/ in herb and make fun of Americans who drop it; and to you, people from Northern states who pronounce the /h/ in humble and make fun of Southerners who drop it; and to you, my mother who used to berate people for saying Artic instead of Ark-tic). Angr (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Southerners drop the h in humble??? So it's like "umble"? I've lived in a lot of places and have never come across this! Bali88 (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a word "umbel" (wikt:umbel; http://www.onelook.com/?w=umbel&ls=a).

—Wavelength (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm...that links to a flower. Bali88 (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, some Southerners drop the h in humble. Not all do. And I think the h-less pronunciation may be rather old-fashioned nowadays even in the South. Angr (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just to complicate things a bit, there's also the Almond, which runs through Cramond near Edinburgh, of course, although obviously with a different etymology. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• To add to my previous statement, much of what we consider incorrect pronunciation is actually just hearing someone speak in another dialect. Things like "axe" instead of "ask" fit into this category. The only things that are actually incorrect are when a specific person has a weird pronunciation that doesn't fit any cultural speech pattern. What we typically think of as "correct" speech is just the common parlance of the upper class. When someone says "Don't axe no questions", that's actually correct for their dialect. We only think it's incorrect because we view the people who speak like that as being from a lower social class. There is no rhyme or reason why one set of grammatical rules is correct and another is incorrect aside from us being elitist snobs who think that poor people are icky. Our view that our way of speaking is objectively correct is furthered by taking English classes in school where we're taught that our speech is correct and other ways are just "poor grammar". Bali88 (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Salmon is simiar. Engish is a weird anguage.Joepnl (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

For many of my fellow antipodeans, there is no el in Australia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

And "there's no f in Union". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

June 3

Does "all but X" have two opposite meanings?

"All but" has been discussed before, the answer was that it means "almost". Yet, Freedictionary.com lists these two meanings:

• almost In some places, bus service has all but disappeared.
• everyone or everything except those mentioned All but the weakest plants survived the hot weather.

The latter sounds familiar because it's used the same way in Dutch ("allesbehalve", "everything except"). There's a set of things (plants) for which something is true (surviving the hot weather), except for the mentioned subset (the weakest). "All"="all plants", "but"="except".

The first example seems to be doing the exact opposite. It seems to mean "bus service did many things, but disappearing is not one of them". Maybe the literal sense is something like "bus service did its very best to disappear by becoming unpopular, limited to Mondays, etc. except it hasn't totally disappeared yet"? Joepnl (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much as you say it. Another way to explain it would be "Bus service is so poor that the only thing that it has left to do is disappear." Mingmingla (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The sense of it is that, for some patrons, it really has disappeared so, while the the service still exists per se, for those affected customers, it may as well not exist. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Chinese text on map

In Matteo Ricci's 1602 map of the world, there is some explanatory text in the South China Sea. It seems that the location of modern-day Spratly Islands is labelled Wanli Changsa (万里長沙), corresponding to the modern Vietnamese name for the islands (Trường Sa). What does the text corresponding to modern-day Paracel Islands say? What's the long explanatory text in the middle of the South China Sea? DHN (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation

Are there any languages without punctuation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.116.25.10 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, in Chinese (and, it seems, other East Asian languages), punctuation was adopted from Western languages in the 20th century. Thus, before then, Chinese was largely written without punctuation: see "Chinese punctuation". — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation is not a property of languages: it is a property of writing systems. Many languages are not written, so of course they are without punctuation. (This is perhaps nitpicking; but people who think about language in our society almost always think of written language, but this is a limited and very atypical kind of language). --ColinFine (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Please see Punctuation#History.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

In English the written punctuation relates to pauses of various length in speech. So, does any language exist which doesn't make pauses which convey meaning ? So it would sound like: "I am going to the store now later I am going to the beach by the way my car needs an oil change". StuRat (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it very much. But "the written punctuation relates to pauses of various lengths" is an oversimplification (and possibly untrue). Among features of prosody roughly encoded by punctuation, pitch contour is at least as significant as length of pause. --ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Stu, being of a scientific bent, has a logical cast of mind (a very good thing per se, generally speaking) and likes to categorise things in a black-and-white way as often as he can. I'm sure that explains his take on the spelling of the third person neuter singular possessive pronoun its as it's (presumably on the pseudo-rule: There's a one-to-one correspondence between the possessive case and apostrophe-s). The approach may work well in many contexts but, as you say and this example makes all too clear, it can lead to oversimplification and downright error. English is internationally notorious for its features that defy logic, analysis, consistency or sanity. But it is what it is (or, if one prefers, it's what it is) and must be met in the quiet places of our minds as a friend and an equal, warts and all, and loved unconditionally, not something to be conquered on the field of battle and capriciously molded to wrong-headed irrelevancies like logic. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

StuRat cannot reconcile his claim here that "the written punctuation relates to pauses of various length in speech" with use of the apostrophe in normal English contractions to show not a pause but Elision. A child's education begins at a disadvantage if it learns from a sub-literate adult about a pet: "don't pull it's tail". 84.209.89.214 (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the thing that makes its/it's such a hard thing to learn is that the Saxon genitive is normally formed by adding apostrophe-s (neither a pause nor an elision, but just the way that possessives are marked). So it's actually very natural to think that the genitive of it should be it's; why shouldn't it be? The only reason I can think of is that then it would not be distinct in writing from the contraction of it is, but it's difficult to construct a sentence where that ambiguity would matter (and anyway the contractions of it is and it has are already identical). --Trovatore (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is why it was decided/agreed/consensified many, many years ago that it's refers only to those contractions, and not to the possessive pronoun. To a logician, "don't pull its tail" may make little sense without the apostrophe, so why don't they spell knife as nife, or eight as ait? I'll tell you why. It's because they are perfectly happy with these and a myriad of other accepted ways of doing things in our language that make no immediate sense to an outsider. Why, then, do they make a single exception in the its/it's case? I've seen many so-called sentences written without any hint of punctuation, no caps, run on sentences, spellings like "cant" and "dont" and "im" and all the rest - but they still go out of their way to insert an apostrophe into its, where it is actually NOT required. This word seems to have become hallowed ground, where so many of the other features of written English have been thrown away as so much unnecessary rubbish. Such a strange phenomenon. Also, it's not a hard thing to learn. But to learn something, it has to be taught properly, and that's where we're sadly lacking these days. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that improved education is needed to combat bad literacy but another explanation is needed for the practice of posting a grammar fault at every opportunity long after the error has been pointed out. One can not believe that prolific Ref. Desk contributors such as Jayron32, SteveBaker or StuRat were never taught English or lack access to grammar books. Possibly they belong to Generation X born between MCMLX and MCMLXXX who typically did not receive an education in the Classics in the languages Ancient Greek and Latin. While skill in reading Latin numerals has little purpose today, ignorance of other cultural heritage inherent in these languages was a mark of the period of intellectual darkness and economic regression in Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire that we now view as Dark Ages of barbarism. Relating to the OP's question, early Latin script has little or no punctuation. Latin has a complete set of posessive pronouns for each of the Grammatical persons I - you - he/she/it plus their plurals, and this adequate scheme is carried through to modern English. The pointless disruption of breaking this orthodox set by conflating one member alone its with a contraction of unrelated words it is may suggest to Trovatore another reason not to do so.

The strange phenomenon that Jack observes may be irreversible by education, if a source of education such as the Wikipedia Ref. Desk cannot itself stay true to reliably sourced facts in Wikipedia articles that document modern English. The movie Idiocracy (2006) paints a sad dystopian future vision: "...years passed and mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. ...Unaware of what year it was Joe wandered the streets desperate for help. But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valley girl, inner city slang and various grunts. Joe was able to understand them but when he spoke in an ordinary voice he sounded pompous and faggy to them."

I hope that is not a likely future, despite the spectacle of a page filled by a churchgoing Wikipedia admin who treats punctuation symbols like stones to be thrown in a tantrum. JustAnotherUploader (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

StuRat -- I think it would be better to say that written English has a mixed logical/intonational punctuation system, which works reasonably well most of the time, but which doesn't and can't capture all relevant features of spoken language, and which is not so precisely defined that every combination of a written sentence and intended meaning has one and only one acceptable punctuation... The punctuation system of Hebrew Bible manuscripts is preoccupied with grouping words together into phrases and phrases together into larger phrases in order to help with interpretation and ceremonial recitation of the text. AnonMoos (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

How are written languages limited? Unwritten tongues are (lacking the stabilizing effect of writing) mutually unintelligible with their version 2 generations apart (and/or 10 km away). Also (assuming unwritten=small, being spoken by close-knit, presumably very high-context cultures) they are extremely baroque to the point of being virtually unlearnable by outsiders (it's a common misconception that "primitive people speak primitive languages"). They may have 177 gender suffixes but have to loan concepts like "tractor". And there are only so many things one may need to relate living a village life. This is very un-PC to say except when it's about medieval Europe, but premodern pre-state people don't know anything about anything, are superstitious, mostly live nasty, brutish and short lives and it's romanticism to assume they have a richer experience than us with science, complex social structure and whatnot.Asmrulz (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you have a deep understanding of linguistics or anthropology. There's very little correlation between most aspects of linguistic typology and civilizational level (or whatever you want to call it). Many peoples living in small villages in the forest have a quasi-encyclopedic knowledge of most species prominent in the local environment and/or useful or dangerous for humans, a knowledge which helps in their survival -- and it could be argued that human memory capabilities evolved in part for this purpose... AnonMoos (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• I lost a client because she didn't understand why I translated a student's essay with question marks, when, to the client's eyes, there were none. My explanation of why Japanese uses sentence-final particles to indicate questions or not went on deaf ears, and she hasn't spoken to me since. The student, however, won the competition the essay was for, having been translated by someone else, who presumably either gave the client the same reply as me, or just left out the question marks. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 16:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

June 4

pentasyllabic

how many syllables does the word pentasyllabic has 4 or 5 ? explain ( how can 'SLY' in pentasyllabic be one of the syllables) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.202.103 (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The word "pentasyllabic" has five syllables: /pɛn/, /tə/, /sɨ/, /læb/ and /ɪk/, so "pentasyllabic" can be said to describe itself! (By contrast, "haplology" has been said to be the most hypocritical of all words.) Bennett Chronister (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Or ironic, at least. Then there's the famous "world wide web", with three syllables, whose abbreviation has nine syllables. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

W3 has four. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, there is no "sly" in this word. There is a "syl". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the famous one is 'phonetic' which is not spelled the way it sounds, unless someone has brought a hammer down onto your front teeth. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 16:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that. How do you normally pronounce 'ph' at the start of a word? Or are we taking 'phonetically' to mean that every letter has only one possible value? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I spent the first 12 years of my life with no front teeth, and found it hard to pronounce 'f', or, in this example, written as 'ph', which, incidentally was not pronounced as 'f', hence the different spelling. It was an aspirated 'p'. I could do that - because my lips were still intact, despite the accident which caused me to have no front teeth. 'Th' was also difficult, as it didn't exist in my dialect (Scouse), and also because, once again, I had no front teeth. I do now, of course. And to now answer your question, no, every letter does not have one possible value. 'Photi' can be pronounced 'fish' or however you like, including 'Hitler has only got one ball', depending on how you want to pronounce the letters. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 17:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you also object to the spelling ‹th› for a fricative? —Tamfang (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No objection whatsoever to our spelling. It's just unfortunate that we lost þ and ð. When I was learning to read English as a child, quite simply, when faced with 'th', I read it as an aspirated dental, specifically in the word 'with'. I read that, and had no idea what the word meant, until it was re-pronounced to me in 'proper English'. I didn't know the sound existed. Bear in mind, I was five years old. And in retrospect, teachers forcing small children (who do not have front teeth) to use dental consonants (and berating them if they can't) is pretty silly. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Quintessentially pentasylly, really. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

When you think about it, when kids are learning to speak, and all their teeth are falling out, there is no point in forcing them to pronounce dental consonants. This is why 'th' ends up changing to 'f', through ɸ. 'Least, ʔat's da way I fink abaaʔ iʔ KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Using beratement as an educational tool in any field is not only silly, it's counterproductive. Angr (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as a teacher for 16 years I totally agree. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Word for legal ambiguity

What is the technical term for an ambiguity that results from an ambiguously written law? Bennett Chronister (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Loophole?--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 05:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a technical term for this. Ambiguity would adequately describe it. A loophole is not quite the same thing, as it doesn't have to arise from an ambiguity. The drafter of the law could simply have omitted to provide for the situation. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You're not thinking of the word lacuna, are you? A lacuna in the law simply means a situation where there is no applicable law, and doesn't have to arise from any ambiguity. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There is indeed - Contra_proferentem. (Against the one bringing forth) 196.214.78.114 (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

And In_pari_materia#In_pari_materia (In the same matter) 196.214.78.114 (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

And Noscitur_a_sociis. (it is known by friends). 196.214.78.114 (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if any of those cover this, but one legal concept is that any legal ambiguity is held against the drafter of a contract. So, if a contract said "I will provide Bob with 20 widgets and he will pay me $1000 for them in a reasonable time frame after delivery", since "reasonable time frame" is ambiguous, Bob would be given a lot of latitude there to pay whenever convenient, if it went to court for collection. StuRat (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that what the Contra proferentem article that 196.214.78.114 linked is about? Deor (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] You are thinking of the contra proferentem rule. However, neither this nor noscitur a sociis are descriptions of ambiguity. Rather, they are legal rules that may be applied to deal with the consequences of ambiguity in documents. In pari materia is not a canon of construction and is not relevant in this context. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Arbitrary is probably the word you are looking for, see Law, Objective and Non-Objective. μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. Arbitrariness implies the lack of logic or reason, which is not the same as ambiguity. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary has various senses, and when you get into "the secretary shall determine" sort of 'law', that is arbitrary. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A word for "(being) as politically incorrect as possible"?

For example, the word "overweight" is seen as quite PC way of describing excessive weight; it's about as neutral as it gets. But OTOH, if you called a senior citizen "overage", all Hell would break loose. In a certain sense, it's the opposite of euphemism. Is there a word for using that device on purpose?

If it happens on the internet, I'd say it's "trolling", but that's the grander scheme and not the device itself. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 15:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

How about "rude"? Also, being overweight is a correctable condition. Being "overage" (whatever that's supposed to mean) is not. Calling somebody with a term like that is equivalent to saying "Why aren't you dead yet?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be one, quite extreme, implication. I thought of a "too old for a job" or "for driving" sense. Which one is more applicable will depend on context. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 06:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The usual opposite of euphemism is dysphemism. --Amble (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the opposite of euphemism is frank honesty. μηδείς (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Diane: You know, the opposite of love is not hate. It's indifference! Sam: You know what? I don't care --Trovatore (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I missed the link in the euphemism article somehow. Bummer.

A case can be made for both: dysphemism is the "other extreme" opposite, the way "opposite" is usually and colloquially used; honesty would be more of a "boolean" opposite (to both eu- and dysphemism), in the sense that "not white" doesn't imply "black." - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 06:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It always amuses me when someone thinks that there's exactly one true opposite for a given abstract concept, and that they know exactly what it is. When the original poster talk's about an opposite of euphemism, he gives enough information to make it clear that he's not looking for frank honesty. Dysphemism does match his description. --Amble (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's you, not me, who's proposed the one true opposite. You should apply for tax free status. μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you could read a little more carefully before commenting in this manner, Medeis. Try "usual opposite" vs. "no, the opposite ..." Food for thought. IBE (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that dysphemism is what could be called the etymological opposite (or antonym) of euphemism.[11] However, that's not a very common term. Not to me anyway, as I had never heard of it before. But it's kind of like what Dennis Miller used to do on his HBO show, seemingly throwing obscenities around when it wasn't necessary, just for shock value or because it was pay TV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I was interested in a term for the device without obscenities, hte kind which is sometimes used in politics to invalidate the opposition on a certain level without actually invalidating them (i.e. without any real argument). "overage" would fit that, as an analogy to "overweight", where the "over-" prefix implies it (age/weight) is too high, but only in a "look, there's even a word for it, so it's obviously too high" way. In law: prima facie. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 06:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"Insulting." StuRat (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Insulting" is another grander scheme, but I'd say its scope is somewhere between "dysphemism" and "trolling".

I found "Boo! version" in Loaded language and dog-whistle politics – and it reminds me of the abortion topic, where the two sides are usually called "pro-choice" and "pro-life". "Anti-choice" and "anti-life" are their "boo!" words they throw at each other. Another ubiquitous case is "grammar nazi", which is a twofer: not only an extreme "boo!" word but also often used in reply to bad spelling, not bad grammar. Can we say "palma facie"?

I found hate speech too, but that has a legal meaning, and using it to describe the kind of dysphemism in question when the law doesn't apply can be an example of it. Wow, recursion. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 06:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Blunt and artless may be other options. The problems seems to be that all (or most) of these various terms imply a preexisting motivation which defines why a speaker uses a very specific term. There are, however, numerous reasons why one would want to call a spade a spade.

You would need to analyze for what purpose the dysphemism was deployed. It may be anything, (therapeutic) honesty, lack of education / manners, emphasis, aggression, professional jargon (see obese / adipose) and a stack more. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Blunt, or brutally blunt, works for me. Someone I know rather well (she gave birth to me, if that's any sort of clue), told me last year that where I live is "a backwater". There were hundreds of other ways she could have expressed the same basic idea, but she prefers to cut to the chase and say it like it is (in her opinion, that is). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

June 5

Thousand Families Poetry

Does 千家诗 have an official English translation? Like how 三字经 is known as Three Character Classic? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.iciba.com/千家诗 (Google is surprisingly helpful)KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Google indeed is helpful, but I was hoping for a better answer. I do not find that site particularly reliable too. No Wikipedia article on it too... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Okeedoke. But you can right-click on my link, and look around. Qianjiashi is most commonly used, it seems. Not just on that site, but on many sites about this. Some Chinese names do not have 'official' translations. They are simply romanized. And I lived in China, work as a translator, and had no idea what that was until you mentioned it, so it's not surprising there is no wikipedia article on it. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a zh.wiki article on it too... I just needed a translation to better the article Huang Zunxian. Thanks for the help. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Forming a cross-person genitive.

Hello, again!

A well established quirk of Indo-European grammar dictates that nouns (far oftener than not) become rendered in the 3rd person, and that one may only use pronouns for the first and second persons. Indeed, apart from a handful of logical or rhetorical devices (e.g. "Socrates is a man" or "That's enough, woman!") we, constantly, remain bound to utilize "I," "you," "me," etc. This presents a problem in the genitive case, however.

If someone, for instance, says "Those are America's and Britain's responsibilities," then it means something rather different from "Those are America and Britain's responsibilities." The former—with `s following both nouns—implies different possessions by each party; whereas, the latter—with `s only following the final noun—implies that both parties share possession. This, of course, functions quite adequately when said parties all constitute 3rd persons.

But, when it comes to mixing nouns and pronouns, I'm confused. To wit, when two people share a group of friends, would it seem correct for one of them to say "Those are Linda and my friends"; "Those are I and Linda's friends"; or "Those are me and Linda's friends"? And, if they don't share the friends in question, then would he say "Those are Linda's and my friends," or "Those are my and Linda's friends"?

Thank You. Pine (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are mine and Linda's friends. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The wonderful thing about language (not limited to Indo-European languages) is that we can use the word 'both'. "Those are both mine and Linda's friends". KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd say "... are both my and Linda's friends" or "... are friends of both mine and Linda's" (though the latter is rather unusual; "are friends of both Linda and me" is, I think, how most people would express it). "Mine friends" isn't idiomatic, as we use possessive determiners rather than possessive pronouns to modify nouns. Deor (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In terms of strict grammatical rules, "Friends of Linda and me" is perfectly fine. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 13:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

For shared friends, one can say "Those are (the) friends of Linda and me". For unshared friends, one can say "Those are Linda’s friends and my friends".

—Wavelength (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

June 6

Spanish translation requested

Here is my story. I have been learning Spanish for a couple of years. Last summer, I went to Mexico for a month and lived with a Mexican family. It was probably one of the best experiences I ever have in my life. Anyway, I want to write them a letter in Spanish. I can write a letter myself, but it's probably going to be crappy. However, I want the letter to be a good one because they're like my family in Mexico and it's very important to me. I'm going to write a letter in English. Can anyone with high proficiency in Spanish please help me translate it? Please keep the letter in simple words, no fancy! Greatly appreciate!

Dear! Hi! It has been a year since I was in Mexico. I miss you guys all. I also miss Mexico, the house, the people and pretty much everything in it. How is everyone doing? I wish Evelyn fulfill her dream of going to Instituto Politécnico Nacional and Fernando goes to the college of his choice. I hope everyone is going well with their lives. I really want to eat Lupita’s food again. I wasn’t lying when I said you are one of the best cook out there. I surely can tell you that I enjoyed every moment I had back in Mexico. I would do all over again if I have a chance. Anyway, as for me, I’m going to University of Wisconsin Madison next year. Even though my Spanish is not very good, I’m still working on it. I won’t give up. My goal is I’ll be fluent in Spanish one day in the future. I’ll keep my promise of going back to Mexico in a few years. I’m planning to study aboard for 6 months or a year during college in Mexico. Hopefully, my plan works out somehow. I guess it’s good bye for now. I’ll see you all again in a few years or sooner. And remember, if you ever happen to be in the US again, I’ll always welcome you to the US as you all warmly welcomed me to Mexico. Sincerely!

67.4.214.251 (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Your letter implies that you are a high school senior. Your English composition and grammar skills are not up to the standards at which a high school graduate should be able to write. I think that you will need to re-write your letter using proper grammar first before successfully translating your letter into Spanish. --Thomprod (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but who are you to judge me up to some standard? I can tell you right now that I'm a highly successful senior. I hate bragging, but your comment was just too rude and came as a big insult to me, who is going to graduate soon. I don't think i can even graduate and go to U of W Madison if my English is not up to the standard. You're welcomed to discuss with my college about the English standard. I also just finished honors 12th grade English with a solid A. My GPA is very high, and I've received many awards throughout high school and too many other things to list. After reading my letter again, my grammar was fine for the most parts. Plus, you're not getting the point. The point is to write a personal letter, not to show off like "Yo, look at how well I can write my letter in proper grammar". I don't know anyone that tries to write a letter with perfect grammar to someone they love. Personal letters are how people usually talk in every day life. If you haven't noticed already, nobody cares about grammar as long as you don't say something like "you doesn't". I don't know if you're book smart or stupid, but one thing can be certain, you are socially awkard as your comment strongly proved it. Good luck criticizing people with your non-sense. Lastly, I asked for help. If you're not willing to help or not able to help then do not bother to make a comment. I think I have better things to do in my life than to discuss non-sense with someone like you. Peace!67.4.214.251 (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You have mistakes in your comment immediately above, also. The question is, do you want to translate incorrect (or "colloquial") English usage into incorrect Spanish usage or into correct Spanish usage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Hi,

They give many awards in high school now? Certainly not to you for letter writing or competent native grammar. I get paid to write translations from English to Spanish. I will do one for you for free if you can give us a properly written English letter. μηδείς (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, allow me to reword your letter.

Dear [name]

A year has passed since my arriving home from Mexico, and I, truly, miss all of you. Indeed, my heart still yearns for not only the country, but also the house, the people, and pretty much everything in it. And I cannot help but wonder: How has everybody kept up, since my visit? Verily, I hope that everyone's life be going well.

I pray that Evelyn do achieve her dream of going to Instituto Politécnico Nacional, and that Fernando, likewise, become accepted to whatever college he choose. As for me, I certainly look forward to enjoying Lupita's food once again, and, Lupita, I did not lie when I said that you truly are one of the best cooks around! Forsooth, I can, unequivocally, tell you that I enjoyed every moment I had back in Mexico, and I'd do it all over again if I ever had the chance.

Next year, I'll start classes at the University of Wisconsin Madison, and shall continue working toward my goal of one day becoming fluent in Spanish. Upon which time, God willing, I'll fulfill my promise of returning to Mexico; namely, I plan to study there for 6 months to a year whilst in college. If, somehow, my plan works out (as I so dearly hope) then I'll see you all again in a few years time or sooner. Remember: If you ever again find yourselves in the US, then I'll make sure to welcome you—as you so warmly, welcomed me!

Sincerely,

[name]

Perhaps, Medeis will, happily, translate this version into Spanish. If not, though, I'll try to do it pro bono. (Something tells me, however, that he would do a better job!) Pine (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I fully understand why the OP's already angry, and it's getting worse: "My heart yearns"? "Verily"? "I hope that everyone's life be going well"? What planet is this?

All the OP wanted was to translate the letter he provided, warts and all, into a reasonable hispanic facsimile thereof. If the translator notices spelling or grammar glitches in the original, but the meaning is clear, they just translate what they believe the writer meant, without comment, unless the writer asked for feedback on their original text. I know this simple matter is within the grasp of everyone here who is in a position to help. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree.....sort of. I get the feeling that the extreme formality of Pine's version was meant as sarcasm (toward the critics above). Also, from the types of mistakes the OP makes, I believe English may not be their first language. If that were the case I'd be willing to totally agree with you, Jack. But the OP's attitude in their response to Thomprod (especially the unwillingness to see their mistakes) invited the further criticism. Perhaps it would be best if somebody would just provide a translation of the OP's letter (yes the English is full of mistakes, but I believe the sense of the intended meaning can be discerned) and be done with this tread.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The OP could always start with the Google Translate result and polish from there:

Querido! Hi! Ha sido un año desde que estaba en México. Le falto todos los chicos. También extraño México, la casa, la gente y casi todo en él. ¿Cómo está todo el mundo? Ojalá Evelyn cumplir su sueño de ir a Instituto Politécnico Nacional y Fernando va a la universidad de su elección. Espero que todo el mundo va bien con sus vidas. Tengo muchas ganas de comer la comida del Lupita nuevo. No estaba mintiendo cuando dije que usted es uno de la mejor cocinera que hay. Yo sinceramente puedo decir que he disfrutado cada momento tuve de nuevo en México. Lo haría todo de nuevo si tengo la oportunidad. De todos modos, en cuanto a mí, voy a la Universidad de Wisconsin Madison próximo año. Aunque mi español no es muy bueno, todavía estoy trabajando en ello. No voy a renunciar. Mi objetivo es que voy a ser fluido en español un día en el futuro. Voy a mantener mi promesa de volver a México en unos pocos años. Estoy planeando estudiar al extranjero durante 6 meses o un año en la universidad en México. Espero que mi plan funciona de alguna manera. Supongo que es adiós por ahora. Yo veré a todos de nuevo en unos pocos años o antes. Y recuerda, si alguna vez sucede estar en los EE.UU. de nuevo, siempre voy a darles la bienvenida a los EE.UU. como todos ustedes me acogieron cordialmente a México. Atentamente!

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, everybody, you must be terrific person if you won't exchange my forge notes for actual pesos!

Sorry, Bugs, that's half comprehensible but even worse than the English. If Pine wants to go to ANI, ask to have either himself or the OP blocked as a sock, then report back here under his real identity as to what he actually wants to say in reasonably idiomatic English, fine. As for JoO, I am sure he could make an even better pretend attempt, especially given his expertise in imagined anger. 05:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

God Love

Theophilos, Amadeus, Gottlieb and Bogoljub are given names that have respectively a Greek, Latin, Germanic and Slavic origin. They are all based on words meaning "God" and "love" in their original language. Are there other examples in other languages such as Celtic, Hebrew, Arabic, Hungarian, Sanscrit... --151.41.148.245 (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Closest Hebrew equivalent I think is Eldad (usually translated "God has loved"). - Lindert (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Another Hebrew form (parallel with Obadiah) would be something like "Ahaviah", and indeed I find a few hits for this name, one of which does give the meaning as "the LORD loves" or "love of the LORD". --ColinFine (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

For languages of non-monotheistic cultures, such as Sanskrit, it's probably more likely to find names relating to "love" and specific deities (not "God" in general). For example "Shivali" (शिवाली) means "Beloved of Shiva" in Sanskrit and the (not too common) Hindi name "Harika" (हरिका) comes from Sanskrit Harikanta, a feminine form of "Beloved by Indra".--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 00:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Gender

Why did some languages evolve "gender" but others didn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.95.11.138 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Linguistic gender will give you a hint and some good sources such as the Cabridge langugae series on the topic. Two standard methods are marking of animate versus inanimate nouns on the verb. Man throws rock is often marked differently from rock throws man. Words for fire, the planets, and living beings get marked as animate in such systems. Another way is systems that add a form meaning -woman to female animals. This can spread to fruits and other "unusual" forms--think of how we still name ships, storms, and nations as female in English. There are also forms like those of isiZulu where prefixes may indicate a person, animal, or even both a tree or medicine (as medicines often come from plants). These systems often start off rationally motivated, but become irregular due to custom. μηδείς (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Corrected wikilink in the above. --ColinFine (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)