Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:17, 19 October 2023

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

October 13

Pronouncing "boatswain" as one would expect per its spelling

The web site dictionary.com says that doing so is rare. But the web site for AHD5 says it is sometimes done but is incorrect. Which dictionary is more precise?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who's to say what is incorrect in English? Unlike some laguages, there is no authority to say how to spell or pronounce words. Dictionaries record what is used, and the main dictionaries all give the primary pronunciation as:

Bazza (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The OED gives both pronunciations, and says: N.E.D. (1887) gives the pronunciation as (bōu·tswēin /ˈbəʊtsweɪn/ , usually bōu·s'n /ˈbəʊs(ə)n/ ). The spelling pronunciation has been recorded in dictionaries since the late 19th cent. CodeTalker (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the answers already provided, I would speculate that the spelling pronunciation is seen as "incorrect" only insofar as 1. "bosun" is more common for people who have encountered the word before, or among people who actually work on the sea (I assume), and 2. perhaps more importantly, the spelling pronunciation may be perceived as being characteristic of someone who has not been around people who use the "correct" pronunciation, only learning the word through indirect means. Again, this is speculation, but given that this and forecastle are nautical terms, I think it would make sense that the perceived correctness of pronunciation has been shaped by usage by sailors, and pronunciation through spelling would mark someone as not being of the marine tradition, making it "incorrect". GalacticShoe (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some forecastle never eat a skunk, but then again some forecastle. --Trovatore (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]

There are certain conventions which are observed. For example, the word "Southwark" is universally pronounced "suth-ack." Only through ignorance would anyone enunciate it as "south-waurk." (I'm not sure what an American would do if confronted with this word). 2A00:23C5:E103:3301:10C7:5393:6798:6E3C (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not fail to pronounce the R. --142.112.221.114 (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rather in general, the only way to learn how to pronounce English words is to hear them used. If you only know a word from seeing it written, you can guess, but then you may guess incorrectly. This is particularly so for proper nouns, like Cholmondeley, Smithwick's and Slough. But there is also no way of knowing that the ⟨g⟩ in margarine is soft, or that the ⟨ei⟩s in leisure and seizure are not pronounced the same, other than by hearing the words spoken, or by looking up their pronunciations in a dictionary. I hear academic colleagues who are non-native English speakers pronounce determine as if it rhymes with undermine. If you learn the word from people who mispronounce it, you'll copy their mispronunciation. It may even become dominant, like the mysterious four-syllabic pronunciation /mɪs.ˈt͡ʃiː.vi.əs/ of mischievous. Obligatory link: "De Chaos". --Lambiam 18:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that leisure and seizure do in fact rhyme for me. I'm aware of the other pronunciation of leisure but wouldn't use it unless quoting (e.g. singing How Can Love Survive). --Trovatore (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In America it's usually pronounced LEE-zher, only pronounced LEH-zher if trying to sound British. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, for some older people in my country, the ⟨g⟩ in margarine is hard. Bazza (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to make more sense. I went to the margarine article to see if I could find out how the soft-g pronunciation got started, but only found more questions. That article links to margaric acid (surely pronounced with a hard g?) which apparently is a C-17 straight-chain saturated fatty acid, but then claims that "margaric acid" was re-analyzed as a mixture of stearic and palmitic acids (C-18 and C-16 respectively). So does that mean that what they thought was margaric acid was actually a mixture of stearic and palmitic, but then the name got re-used for the C-17 acid? It's not extremely clear from the article, but if so, the link to margaric acid is mis-contextualized. --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The OED says "margarine" is from "French margarine margarin n. (an application arising from a misconception about the chemical nature of the substance) (emphasis added). Regarding the pronunciation, it says "N.E.D. (1905) gives as the pronunciation only (mā·ɹgărīn), with /-ɡ-/ ; this pronunciation, which became rare in the second half of the 20th cent., probably underlies the nickname Maggie Ann (see maggie n. 4). N.E.D. (1902), however, s.v. Oleomargarine, notes that the latter is ‘Often mispronounced (-mā·ɹdʒərīn), as if spelt -margerine’ (i.e. with /-dʒ-/ ). The latter pronunciation is recorded in 1913 (with subordinate status) by H. Michaelis & D. Jones Phonetic Dict. Eng. Lang". CodeTalker (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed margarine at least once before: here's one such discourse from 2008. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If gaol can be pronounced like "jail", then margarine can be pronounced like "marjarin". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most commercial margarines here in Australia seem to avoid calling themselves margarine on their packaging. This could be because they don't want their customers arguing over the pronunciation. ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What do they call it, then? (There are a number of products in the general margarine-verse in the States that don't call themselves that, but I suspect it's because they don't meet the regulated definition.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They call themselves spreads, or have such well known commercial names that they use those alone, without saying the real name. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, searching around a little, that may actually be true here as well. I am not sure why. It could be that they don't want to formulate the product so that it meets the FDA definition (which requires at least 80% fat, and obviously fat is more expensive than water), or it could be that they just don't want to be called margarine, which may have gotten a bad name once people became more aware of how partial hydrogenation can create trans fats. --Trovatore (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I favour the latter explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Margarine#Spread products has an explanation. The article notes earlier that margerine in the US has by law to have an 80% fat content, while modern spreads have much less. Elsewhere, I suspect that the unpleasant taste of traditional margerine that I remember from the 1960s and 70s might have driven the rebranding. Alansplodge (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some call it something like "I'm pretty sure this isn't butter" (ingredients: 10% yellow; 70% spread; 20% rounding error) so they make you say 'butter' when asking for it. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 22:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

the shortest English word, hardest to pronounce, for foreigners.

I think it's whirl, in GA accent. That's because many languages (including IndoEuropean ones, like German and Russian), don't have the W sound, nor the rhotic R sound (in GA accent), nor the vowel of this word (now I'm thinking about Spanish Italian and likewise), while the dark L sound in this word does not exist in many languages either. I doubt if anyone can think about another example, but you are invited to suggest one, just to be sure I'm not wrong. 2A06:C701:7455:C600:5169:C2D6:AB07:4DE9 (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many struggle with "the". --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, many struggle with "the", but a lot of languages do have this sound, including Arabic, Greek, Spanish, Portugese (in Portugal), Swahili, and many others, so this sound is not that rare in human languages. However, in my opinion, the probability of finding out a language - besides English, having both the vowel of "whirl" - and its three sounds being: W and rhotic R and dark L, is close to zero - if not a zero. 2A06:C701:7455:C600:5169:C2D6:AB07:4DE9 (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess "world" would be more difficult than "whirl". Then, as a Swede, I'd place my bets on "through" or "throw", anyway. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Spanish doesn't have neither the voiced_dental fricative /th/ nor the schwa. The vocalic sound is specially the harder of the two for Spanish speakers to reproduce, I guess. Pallida Mors 02:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They might be talking about the z and the soft-c in Castilian Spanish, which are enunciated a lot like a soft "th" in English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point, but this peninsular trait is a good approximation to /th/ in thick, not /ð/ in the, as far as I see it. Pallida Mors 12:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What sounds are difficult depends on the speaker's first language(s) so there's no objective answer to this question. Nardog (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an objective answer. Please see the last sentence (beginning with "However") in my recent reponse. 2A06:C701:7455:C600:5169:C2D6:AB07:4DE9 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It'd also depend on when a pronunciation is deemed satisfactory. Few learners of English nail the pronunciation of initial /tr, dr/ so try, dry may qualify but they can perfectly get by without nailing it. Nardog (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

rural is notoriously hard to enunciate even for those used to the rhotic r, so I would imagine that many people who don't speak English would have a difficult time with it. GalacticShoe (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In American English, "whirl" and many other words have a kind of syllabic retroflex "r" approximant, IPA symbol ɚ or ɝ, which is not one of the world's most common sounds. AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet met a non-Australian who can "correctly" pronounce almost anything in Australian English, so pick whatever word you want. "G'day" might be a good starting point. Americans seem to have particular trouble with the "o" sound in words like "Coke". They can't even recognise it when Australians say it, let alone say it in Australian English, making buying a very common drink quite a challenge for us in that country. Just realised an even shorter one. Australians always pronounce "emu" with a "y" sound after the "m". Many non-Australians insist on pronouncing it as if it's an electronic cow. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E-moo as opposed to E-myoo. Well it works for the Liberty Mutual Insurance company, whose ads feature an emu called "LiMu". "Lee-moo E-moo." Wouldn't work so well with "e-myu". In some regional American accents, they pronounce a standalone "u" as if it had a "y" in front of it, like for example pronouncing Duke University as "Dyook" instead of the more usual "Dook". Those folks might tend to say "e-myu". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball_Bugs -- That's the older pronunciation, usually found in the UK. In most American English, there's been a simplification of "yoo" to "oo" after dental consonants (except intervocalically, as in "menu", "tenure" etc). AnonMoos (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to see that the Emu article only has the pronunciation used by Australians. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Yod-dropping. Alansplodge (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to learn that our Australian friends have difficulty pronouncing "Coke", the famous nickname of a beverage sold in every country on Earth that does not have an anti-Coca Cola political party in power. On the other hand, Americans cannot ever stop bickering over whether "soft drink" or "pop" or "soda" is the correct generic term. I grew up in Michigan, where "pop" was the universal usage. I have lived in California for many years, where people are utterly bewildered at the usage of "pop" to refer to a refreshing cold bubbly beverage. Californians think of "pop" as a little explosion sound associated with balloons rapidly deflating, or a quick punch as in "I popped him in the nose", or a style of art associated with Andy Warhol and Roy Liechtenstein, or popular culture more broadly, as in "pop star". But never a cold beverage like Coke. Or Pepsi, my mother's favorite. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This American (North Carolinian, in fact, which seems relevant given your example university) says "Dook" and "emyu". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:HiLo48: Americans seem to have particular trouble with the "o" sound in words like "Coke". - My take on that is that more and more Australians have completely lost the ability to say the simple "o" sound. There seems to be this ... thing ... whereby they feel the need to have the lips spread as widely as possible at all times, as if they're always smiling. But that is inimical to making a sound such as "o", which requires the mouth to be open in the vertical, not horizontal, direction. So they come out with stuff that sounds like "fine hime" (phone home), "hellay" (hello), "noy" (no), and, yes, "Kike". To add insult to injury, they try to initiate the "o" or "oo" sounds from as deeply as possible in the throat, particularly after the "r" sound - "through", "grew", "blue", "blow", "crow" etc. have all become auditory nightmares. The already mangled "noy" has now become "naurr". Try as I may, I cannot emulate these sounds that so many of my younger fellow Aussies speak from birth. Therefore, it's no surprise to me that Americans - or anyone else - have tremendous difficulty making them. The whole phenomenon of the Aussie "naurr" has become a comedy meme: [1], and the subject of serious academic study: [2], [3]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased that you, as a native Australian, have observed this peculiarity. What you're describing sounds like what they're saying, and I as an American would definitely be hard pressed to actually imitate it. It reminds me a bit of how Jules Hudson, a native English presenter on Escape to the Country, enunciates the long O sound. It sounds kind of like a long A. Like he might say "hame" instead of "home". Not quite the Aussie way of saying the long O. But still an oddity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the very top of this page, it says: "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Please don't. --82.166.199.42 (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

significance of the middle name (or full name?) in child discipline

In this scene, Arthur Read punches his sister out of anger. D.W. turns to Mom. Mom calls him by his full name. Then Arthur mutters, "Uh-oh. Middle name." Just by the story context, I have always known it means something bad. But at the same time, I lack the cultural context as I am kind of a first-generation naturalized American transplant.

Is it the full name that is used in child discipline in various cultures, but it is the middle name (used in some cultures) that is used for child discipline?
Is this just an American practice or the greater British-influenced practice (across the anglosphere) or the greater Western European practice? A first-gen Polish American said she never encountered this practice at home, only in American sitcoms; Poland is part of Central Europe, not Western Europe.
How did the middle name (or is it the full name?) rise as part of child discipline?
How are American children conditioned to believe that the full name or the middle name would automatically mean they are in BIG trouble? Like, do American parents ONLY do this when the kids are in big trouble, creating an association between a bad incident and the full name? I have heard that being called by one's full name as a kid is simply terrifying. Hmmm...
Is this tied to the story of Rumplestiltskin, or at least provides the cultural basis for Rumplestiltskin?

Yrotarobal (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's being called by one's full legal name, not necessarily the middle name as such. The basic idea is that your mother doesn't ordinarily call you by your full formal name, so when she does, it means something. I would not call it "disciplinary", but a tactic to persuade the child that the situation is serious, or that they should pay close attention. AnonMoos (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how far back it goes, but I recall this line from a Star Trek episode: "Harcourt Fenton Mudd, where have you been???" <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 03:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's really just an unusual emphasis on the name that indicates that things are serious. Using the longer form of the name is a way to allow for even more emphasis than the everyday short form, because every syllable can be emphasized individually. --142.112.221.114 (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That technique might not have worked for kids named William Henry Harrison or William Howard Taft. Either that, or they got used to it. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 04:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it was regularly applied to Bernhard Leopold Friedrich Eberhard Julius Kurt Karl Gottfried Peter Prinz zur Lippe-Biesterfeld. If it was, it had no lasting effect on this scoundrel. --Lambiam 10:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or to Louis George Maurice Adolphe Roche Albert Abel Antonio Alexandre Noë Jean Lucien Daniel Eugène Joseph-le-brun Joseph-Barême Thomas Thomas Thomas-Thomas Pierre Arbon Pierre-Maurel Barthélemi Artus Alphonse Bertrand Dieudonné Emanuel Josué Vincent Luc Michel Jules-de-la-plane Jules-Bazin Julio César Jullien. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or, indeed, to HRH Don Alfonso Maria Isabel Francisco Eugenio Gabriel Pedro Sebastian Pelayo Fernando Francisco de Paula Pio Miguel Rafael Juan José Joaquin Ana Zacarias Elisabeth Simeón Tereso Pedro Pablo Tadeo Santiago Simon Lucas Juan Mateo Andrès Bartolomé Ambrosio Geronimo Agustin Bernardo Candido Gerardo Luis-Gonzaga Filomeno Camilo Cayetano Andrès-Avelino Bruno Joaquin-Picolimini Felipe Luis-Rey-de-Francia Ricardo Esteban-Protomartir Genaro Nicolas Estanislao-de-Koska Lorenzo Vicente Crisostomo Cristano Dario Ignacio Francisco-Javier Francisco-de Borja Higona Clemente Esteban-de-Hungria Ladislado Enrique Ildefonso Hermenegildo Carlos-Borromoeo Eduardo Francisco-Régis Vicente-Ferrer Pascual Miguel-de-los-Santos Adriano Venancio Valentin Benito José-Oriol Domingo Florencio Alfacio Benére Domingo-de-Silos Ramon Isidro Manuel Antonio Todos-los-Santos Infante of Spain and Portugal. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a common practice in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Full-Name Ultimatum from tvtropes.org, which was the most scholarly study of the phenomenom that I could find. Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

To reverse or to not reverse

I have encountered mass editing of myriad articles by 2601:642:4001:4640:8000:188B:8A6F:874B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Most changes involved a reversal of the proper order of two words, often "not" and "to", or "never" and "to". I reverted them as quickly as I could. It is possible I may have missed some or gotten a few wrong in the process. I left two messages on their talk page and they have responded. We need more eyes on this as the English language does have variations. Since the changes were to existing content, I have assumed the status quo version was correct. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's trying to fix split infinitives. His changes reflect what I was taught in school, even though in colloquial speech it's more like the way you're recommending. Here's some discussion on this question.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sought to preserve the status quo. We do indeed need more eyes on this. I have reported this at ANI (Mass editing/vandalism?). Please comment there. Maybe I'm wrong. Also, look at the IP's talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You eventually made that argument, but your initial argument to the IP was "You reversed the proper order of 'not' and 'to'." That's your opinion, not absolute fact. You repeated that at WP:AN. It will be interesting to see what they tell you there. They might argue it's a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For greater clarity as to what's been done: Valjean posted that item here at WP:AN as Bugs says, not at WP:ANI as Valjean says.

For greater clarity as to English usage: there is no such thing as "correct" or "proper" usage, only accepted usage. The split infinitive is a widely accepted usage and not something that needs to be "fixed", although, of course, some people have disagreed with that. --142.112.221.114 (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakingly "fixing" what is not broken is not vandalism, also not if perpetrated on a large scale. --Lambiam 09:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of split infinitives being wrong in English is totally artificial and wrong-headed, it comes from there having been no multi-word infinitives in Latin, and the norms of Latin grammar being shoehorned into English style. In aggregate, I would say it degrades the quality of the prose, and shouldn't be done en masse. Remsense聊 18:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently an area where reasonable editors may disagree. The age of the editor may also play into this, as what was taught and accepted has changed over time. This has become clear at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Mass_editing discussion.

Lambiam wrote this: "Please take note of the section Split infinitive § Current views. Changing the grammar in standing versions to accommodate one's personal predilections based on an outdated prescriptivist viewpoint is IMO a no-no. This is not essentially different from the MOS:RETAIN rule. Mass editing to accommodate such an outdated prescription is disruptive."

So there are language rules and retain issues involved, and they are two very different things. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of the start of Hamlet's famous speech: "To be or to not be..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A small quantity of questions

1: Does a genitive noun (or noun modifier in languages where the modifier goes before the noun) have to be preceded by another noun or noun modifier (excepting instances where the technical genitive case is not serving a genitive function, like how it merged with and adopted the functions of the ablative in Ancient Greek)?

2: How do I know when to use each Chinese negation word (不、没、别、无、非、etc)?

3: What are the situations and rules for when I can, must, or must not omit the Chinese character 的? Primal Groudon (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what your first question means... AnonMoos (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. It’s “Does a genitive noun* have to be preceded by another noun or noun modifier”, but with the genitive case serving non-genitive functions (like how it takes on ablative functions in Ancient Greek) as a stated exception.

The above asterisk* after the phrase “genitive noun” means “or noun modifier in languages where the modifier comes first”. For example, if an English noun has an adjective directly describing it, the noun would be preceded with the adjective, so my initial question made it transferable to the noun modifier in such cases. Primal Groudon (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latin grammar#Genitive lists cases such as oblīvīscar noctis "I will forget the night", where a genitive noun is not preceded by any noun or noun modifier. 82.166.199.42 (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a literal reading of your question about genitives, the answer is clearly and trivially "no" – in "Peter's dad isn't here", "Peter's" is the genitive noun, and isn't preceded by anything else. (Before somebody objects, the same would apply in any number of languages where the possessive element is expressed by a true morphological genitive rather than the English "'s", whatever its status is.) But I suspect you had something different in mind with your question, so you may want to rephrase. For the Chinese question, this wiki page [5] offers an accessible beginner's overview on the difference between 'bù' and 'méi' in standard Mandarin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Peter's dad” uses a construction type that, in English, has the genitive noun come before what it relates to. I didn’t list it as an exception in my question, so I guess it’s fair game. Primal Groudon (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rule for 不 and 没 is the former is used generally, the latter with and only with the verb 有, "have", which has a few uses in Chinese similar to English. They are the two words for "not" in Chinese. As for 的 it's normally omitted when referring to close family relations. These rules apply primarily to Standard/Mandarin Chinese, other varieties of Chinese work differently.--2A04:4A43:90AF:FAB6:D12C:EFE3:C0C2:2409 (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Book 1 of Julius Caesar's Commentarii de bello Gallico contains the noun phrase regni cupiditate, in which the noun regni, the possessor of the cupidity, is in the genitive case and is not preceded but followed by a noun. This order, with the possessor preceding the possessee, is not uncommon in Latin. I bet that among the languages that have a genitive case there are many that do not require another noun to precede it. In fact, in Turkish the common order in possessor–possessee constructions is to have the possessor in the genitive case, followed by the possessee marked with a possessive suffix: trenin lokomotifi – "the locomotive of the train". --Lambiam 09:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 的, in speech you'll almost always be using it. In writing it will depend on the formality of the register. News headlines will often omit particles for concision, academic writing will dip into the older genitives like 之 and 其. If things are more closely semantically linked, like pronoun + family relation term the need for 的 diminishes somewhat. If you're just starting out, use it everywhere you think it should go, for clarity until you are able to communicate in the language clearly. It's mostly a style issue. Folly Mox (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

不 is your best bet for most situations. 沒 is not really a negation word on its own: 沒有 is, equivalent to 無. This basically means "without", and is used for negating verbs, although not always: in the imperative you'll still use 不, although the written imperative will sometimes fall back on 毋.

非 is used to negate adjectival terms, and is the exact opposite of 是. I rarely heard it in speech. 未 is also a negation word meaning "not yet" or "cannot", and there's a couple lects which use 甭 for "don't", whose meaning can be inferred from its composition. Folly Mox (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also there's 否, "nay", which is used for voting on things and only in compounds in speech. I have honestly never looked at our Chinese grammar articles so I'm not sure how thorough our own stuff is. Folly Mox (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is 別 short for 不要, "don't"? I can't remember but that sounds not entirely inaccurate. Folly Mox (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right I forgot in speech 沒有 is sometimes contracted to 沒, so it can be used as a negation word on its own, as in "沒事": "no problem". Folly Mox (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

沒有 is also used for negating quantities, like "沒有人", "沒有那麼多", and several other things besides. I should probably stop before I remember more undergraduate Chinese at everyone one use case at a time. Folly Mox (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of that as one other use of 有 – it is used where in English you would use the form "there is". So instead of "there is food on the table" you would say 桌子上有食物, literally "the table top has food". And 沒 negates it: 桌子上没有食物， "there is no food on the table". The other major use I know is describing completed actions in the past, i.e. things described using the perfect tense, which also uses "have" in English. --2A04:4A43:90AF:FAB6:D12C:EFE3:C0C2:2409 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the existence or presence of something is such a common use for the verb 有 that I didn't think about it. I will clarify that the perfective aspect has its own particle, 了, which English speakers learning Chinese tend to want to be past tense, but isn't. In formal written Chinese this function is typically accomplished with 已, but it precedes the main verb rather than taking a clause-final position. Folly Mox (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought of a fourth question recently. Is 是 only used when the would-be object is or at least contains a noun? I know it isn’t used with just adjectives (for example, you don’t say 他是高). Primal Groudon (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, normally; it's not ungrammatical though, when used with an adjective it makes the statement very emphatic. Also sometimes it arises when translating a phrase with an adjective as the Chinese equivalent uses a noun: "I am English" -> 我是英国人.--2A04:4A43:90AF:FAB6:D12C:EFE3:C0C2:2409 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been awhile since I've had to deal with spoken modern Chinese, but it feels low key ungrammatical to me: 他是高的 feels more natural. One thing to keep in mind is that adjectives aren't substantially their own category: they can all be used as verbs, depending on the construction of the sentence. Folly Mox (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

Ideographic theory

So, I read a very interesting book titled Ideography and Chinese Language Theory by Timothy Michael O'Neill, and I realized there's a rather large hole on Wikipedia concerning how autochthonous Chinese language theory historically presented itself, rather than just stating received structures. I know one book isn't enough to write an article based on, and I'm looking in the index, but is there any books, in English and I'll really try to read one in Chinese if those're my options, on 'Chinese language theory', per se? The Erya, how Confucians saw language as a tool for administration, etc. Remsense聊 02:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The book is an expansion of the author's original ideas developed in his 2010 Ph.D. thesis.^[6] I have found only somewhat fleeting references. What would be the precise topic of the article? Not only do you need more than one source for any statements included in the content – possibly also to account for multiple points of view – but also multiple sources establishing the notability of the topic. --Lambiam 08:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! I suppose the topic is, well, Chinese language theory. Autochthonous Chinese linguistics over history, their own views on how language worked. Remsense聊 18:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this title is ambiguous. "Broken windows theory" should be parsed as "(Broken windows) theory" – a theory related to broken windows, although some will say this theory is itself broken. "Critical race theory" is not a theory related to critical race; it should be parsed as "Critical (race theory)" – a critical approach to race theory. So is the topic "(Chinese language) theory" or "Chinese (language theory)"? --Lambiam 21:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aye! I would say it's probably more like Language theory in China. Remsense聊 21:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So is your topic like "how Chinese scholars perceived the Chinese written language as conveying the ideas behind it"? I low key feel like the earlier bits of Qiu Xigui's Chinese Writing (2000, transl. Jerry Norman and Gilbert Mattos) touch on the history of that, but it might have been the other Jerry Norman book Chinese. I'm not super sure what your search terms are going to be. "文字學" will get you a lot of stuff adjacent to what it seems like you're looking for. You could also start with Xu Shen and work your way outwards, or find Qiu Xigui's bibliography and start going through that. There are definitely English language sources about this, but it's not super clear what topic you're trying to get at.

For funsies: in the late 1930s, Herlee G. Creel and Peter Boodberg had a protracted back-and-forth nerd fight in the journal T'oung Pao about the nature of Chinese characters, to the point where the journal's editor told them in print that he was over it and they'd have to continue their argument elsewhere. Source (TWL link). Folly Mox (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much as always Folly! Remsense聊 18:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I was wrong about where in the book it takes place, but an overview of the history of Chinese theory about Chinese characters from the Zhouli to Chen Mengjia is at Qiu Xigui (2000). "Chapter 6: The classification of Chinese characters". 文字學概要 [Chinese Writing]. Early China Special Monograph Series, no. 4. Translated by Gilbert L. Mattos; Jerry Norman. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 151–171. ISBN 1557290717. Folly Mox (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the bibliography, I'm seeing the following potentially applicable English language source: Chao Yuen Ren (1968). Language and Symbolic Systems. Cambridge University Press. The bibliography is of course almost all Chinese language sources. Folly Mox (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Long U palatal question

A lot of the times when the English long U sound is written with the letter U, it palatalizes the preceding consonant. Here are some examples:

B: Bureau

C: Curate

D: Schedule (I personally think this sounds more like a J than it does a palatalized D)

F: Future

H: Human

M: Music

P: Purify

T: Picture (this sounds more like a CH than an actual palatalized T).

Why is this, and why is it that the other main way to spell this sound (the oo digraph) doesn’t result in such palatalization? Primal Groudon (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For your Why is this? question, Phonological history of English close back vowels#Development of /juː/ may be of interest. Deor (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primal_Groudon -- English doesn't have structural/phonemic palatalized consonants, in the way that Slavic languages do. Instead, there was a sonority shift in a previous [iw] diphthong from a falling diphthong to a rising diphthong (i.e. [ju]), as was discussed quite recently here on the Language Ref. Desk (check the archives). That's why it's also spelled "eu" and "ew"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit showed up as an “→‎xx: new section” followed by another edit deleting the xx. Doing this causes it to not appear as a reply to my question when looking at the edit summaries in the page history. There is a reply button at the end of each question and reply. Primal Groudon (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have great problems accessing Wikipedia from home since the stupid December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade. The only way I can do so at all is through an indirect method which is not fully Unicode compliant, so I started a new section so that Deor's "ː" character wouldn't be inadvertently messed up by my adding a reply. I can go into long boring technical detail on this. AnonMoos (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous thread cited by AnonMoos above is at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2023 October 6#English "eu". Alansplodge (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

Italic title?

In the context of Tanya (Judaism), a religious book, should "Tanya" be italicised? The article's body has fifteen appearances with italics and eighteen without, plus occasional appearances in quotation marks. In general, titles of religious scriptures are written with normal text, like the Bible and the Talmud, while titles of ordinary religious texts (including the subject of this article) are italicised like those of other books. However, unlike most ordinary religious texts, this is always called "the Tanya" (not merely "Tanya"), like "the Bible" and "the Talmud", so maybe it doesn't need italics. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the presence of a definite article is mostly irrelevant, if this were always so (keeping in mind the differences between Hebrew and Chinese), the Analects or the Tao Te Ching would never be italicized! Remsense聊 01:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rules are set out in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles of works#Italics. Alansplodge (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But is this a "certain revered religious text"? Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a whitelist, not a blacklist sort of deal. If it looks really odd italicized, then maybe. If not, then it's not on the list. Remsense聊 02:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catalogue raisonné

Can I apply the term catalogue raisonné to a bibliography? Or is intended only for the visual arts? If so is there an equivalent term for an officially recognized list of books? Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term "catalogue raisonné" is used solely for visual artists (painter, sculptors, engravers, etc.) A list of books is a bibliography; it can contain (or be limited to) both books and articles by the subject, or about the subject. Xuxl (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a specific author, you could speak of his complete works. Pallida Mors 21:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A catalogue raisonné is a catalogue of physical objects, whereas a bibliography lists books in a more abstract sense — each of the entries in a bibliography might exist in the form of many physical copies. It seems to me that a catalogue of all physical copies of an edition of a book (such as a catalogue of all extant copies of the Gutenberg bible or Owen Gingerich's census of first and second editions of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium) might fulfil the criteria of a catalogue raisonné. Any objections? --Wrongfilter (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oeuvre. 41.23.55.195 (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

@@ Line 216: / Line 216: @@
 :For a specific author, you could speak of his [[complete works]]. [[User:Pallida_Mors|<span style="background:#000;border:#c3c0bf;color: #fff;border:1px solid #999">Pallida&nbsp;</span>]][[User talk:Pallida_Mors|<span style="background:#fff;border:#c3c0bf;color:#000;border:1px solid #999">&nbsp;Mors</span>]] 21:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 ::A catalogue raisonné is a catalogue of physical objects, whereas a bibliography lists books in a more abstract sense — each of the entries in a bibliography might exist in the form of many physical copies. It seems to me that a catalogue of all physical copies of an edition of a book (such as a catalogue of all extant copies of the [[Gutenberg bible]] or [[Owen Gingerich]]'s [https://books.google.at/books?vid=ISBN9004114661&redir_esc=y census of first and second editions] of [[De revolutionibus orbium coelestium]]) might fulfil the criteria of a catalogue raisonné. Any objections? --[[User:Wrongfilter|Wrongfilter]] ([[User talk:Wrongfilter|talk]]) 21:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
+: [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oeuvre ''Oeuvre'']. [[Special:Contributions/41.23.55.195|41.23.55.195]] ([[User talk:41.23.55.195|talk]]) 06:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 = October 19 =