Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of language.

Welcome to the language reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers,
  • 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 are not a substitute for actually doing any original research required, or as a free source of ideas.



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.
 
Choose a topic:
 
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual


July 18[edit]

Hebrew pronunciation[edit]

I'm writing a musical setting of Psalm 117 using the Hebrew words (see s:he:תהלים קיז), so I'd like to confirm the pronunciation. I'm going for a relatively careful Standard Israeli Hebrew pronunciation, appropriate for singing. The words are:

הַלְלוּ אֶת יְהוָה כָּל גּוֹיִם, שַׁבְּחוּהוּ כָּל הָאֻמִּים. כִּי גָבַר עָלֵינוּ חַסְדּוֹ וֶאֱמֶת יְהוָה לְעוֹלָם. הַלְלוּ יָהּ

As far as I can determine, the pronunciation is:

[halɛˈlu ʔɛt ʔadɔˈnaj kɔl ɡɔˈjim, ʃapˈxuhu kɔl haʔuˈmim. ki ɡaˈvar ʔaˈlɛjnu xazˈdɔ vɛʔɛˈmɛt ʔadɔˈnaj lɛʔɔˈlam. halɛˈlu ˈja.]

Anyone who knows both Hebrew and IPA: does that look right to you? Any corrections to make? Thanks! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker of Hebrew but my Hebrew professor was Israeli and a native speaker of a Mizrahi dialect. I would use [ħ] for ח and [ʕ] for ע. While these pronunciations are heard less and less in generic conversational Standard Israeli Hebrew, they are nonetheless used in Standard Israeli Hebrew by Mizrahi, educated Sephardim and even some Ashkenazi, especially in careful liturgical readings. Also, I think שַׁבְּחוּהוּ should sound more like [ʃabᵊˈħuhu] but a native speaker should double check that.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 11:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Since the people who will be singing this piece are native speakers of English and German, I think it would be asking too much for them to produce /ħ/ and /ʕ/. That's why I went for the more conventional Ashkenazi /x/ and /ʔ/. The coverage at Shva#Pronunciation in modern Hebrew is what led me to believe שַׁבְּחוּהוּ is a three-syllable word in SIH, although of course it was four-syllable /ʃabbəˈħuːhuː/ in Tiberian Hebrew. I hope a native or near-native Israeli speaker can help out. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the glottal stop is phonemic in Modern Israeli only in narrow contexts like [lirʔot] "to see" vs. [lirot] "to shoot" (and I'm not too sure how often that distinction is maintained in ordinary casual speech). AnonMoos (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: OK, but even if it's not phonemic, is it there phonetically at the beginning of a vowel-initial word and in vowel hiatus? In other words, even accepting that וֶאֱמֶת יְהוָה is phonemically /vɛɛˈmɛt adɔˈnaj/, is it still phonetically [vɛʔɛˈmɛt ʔadɔˈnaj]? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
It would only phonetically be there in very careful speech. Last time I was in an Israeli synagogue, they didn't pronounce [ʔ] in these environments. The same applies to [h] by the way. --82.24.249.51 (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Angr -- even when it's pronounced in those contexts, the situation wouldn't be too different from standard German, which is not usually considered to have a glottal stop phoneme... AnonMoos (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@Angr: A native Hebrew speaker is here.
  1. The Israelis regard the Bible as an originally Oriental text (BTW, Mizrahi means Oriental), so an Israeli professional reader tends to prefer the Mizrahi accent when reading Biblical verses (Synagogues are an exception, where the local tradition is usually preserved, depending on whether the worshipers in the local synagogue are Ashkenazi or Mizrahi). However, the Ashkenazi accent is more common even when reading Biblical verses, although it's regarded as less professional (when reading Biblical verses).
  2. In professional Biblical liturgical readings, the ʔ for א (when not being a vowel) is much more preferable (from a professional viewpoint), yet not necessary (mainly in fluent speech).
  3. The same is true for /ħ/ and for /ʕ/: it's always preferable to pronounce the ח and the ע (respectively) this way (from a professional viewpoint) when reading Biblical verses, yet it's not necessary to pronounce them this way, mainly when the reader prefers the more common pronunciation to the more professional one.
  4. As for /ʃabbəˈħuːhuː/ for שבחוהו: This pronunciation is considered to be more professional, hence more stylistic in liturgical readings, so it's preferred when reading Biblical verses, but /ʃabˈħuːhuː/ (or even /ʃabˈxuːhuː/ in the Ashkenazi version) is acceptable as well. However, replacing an original /b/ by /p/ before a voiceless consonant, is regarded as an informal colloquialism (something like /ɑ:v'binðɜə(ɹ)/ in English instead of /aɪhæv'binðɜə(ɹ)/ in a very formal speech), so most Israelis try to avoid this informal replacement in liturgical readings.
  5. The same is true for replacing /s/ by /z/ before a voiced consonant, so the word חסדו should be pronounced with /s/ rather than with /z/, when reading Biblical verses.
  6. /ʕaˈlɛnu/ (or /ʔaˈlɛnu/ in the Ashkenazi version), is the "correct" pronunciation of עלינו in Biblical readings (because the Yod is never pronounced when following /ɛ/ in Classical Hebrew), and is preferred by professional readers of liturgy and of the Bible. However, in non-professional readings, native Hebrew speakers (mainly Ashkenazi speakers) may use the diphthong /ei/ (when a Yod follows /ɛ/), including in liturgy.
  7. /halɛluˈjah/, is written and pronounced as one word, that ends with /h/, which may be omitted in fluent speech only, as well as in non-professional readings.
Hope this helps. 185.46.77.25 (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it does, thanks! The piece will be performed in an Anglican church service, so it will be a liturgical setting, but not a Jewish one. So I'm looking for a balance between a relatively formal pronunciation (as befits sacred music in general) and avoiding sounds that native speakers of English and German won't be able to manage (/ħ/, /ʕ/, and word-final /h/). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
When will the piece be performed? Btw, if you give up the /ħ/ and the /ʕ/, then you can give up the glottal stop as well, because it's less common than them. 185.46.77.25 (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know when it'll be performed yet. Sometime in October or November, probably. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Good luck. 185.46.77.25 (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Meaning of "Auslander Bonzen raus"[edit]

What does "Auslander Bonzen raus" mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clipname (talkcontribs) 12:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It must be "Ausländer-Bonzen raus"; it means "foreign capitalists, get out!" It's hard to tell if it's a right-wing or a left-wing slogan, since the German right wing would only be interested in getting foreigners out (regardless of whether they're capitalists or not), and the German left wing would only be interested in getting capitalists out (regardless of whether they're foreign or not). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Apparently the culprits are left-wing radicals protesting against the gentrification of Berlin-Kreuzberg: https://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/article209800933/Kommentar-Kreuzberg.html. Marrakech (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Oddly, German Bonze, which seems to be a disparaging word for rich people, seems to be cognate with bonze, who are ascetic Buddhist monks (though the term is somewhat dated; it particularly calls to mind Thích Quảng Đức, whose self-immolation played a major role in the start of the Vietnam War). --Trovatore (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
You are right. The German wiktionary says: "von japanisch 坊主 () → ja [ˈbɔːzu] „buddhistischer Mönch, Priester“, über portugiesisch bonzo → pt [ˈbɔ̃zu] und französisch bonze → fr [bɔ̃z]; das Wort ist im Deutschen seit dem 16. Jahrhundert belegt, in der neuen Bedeutung (Funktionär) seit dem 18. Jahrhundert." Marrakech (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Traditionally, in German "Bonze" means rather a mighty apparatchik, anyway the functionary of a mighty institution abusing his power and not doing any good. The shift to rich persons in general is indeed typically left-wing, however there are many modern right-wing extremists practicing Querfront (~Third position) - absorbing left-wing positions and terminology. --KnightMove (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Either way, though, it makes very little sense to me. Buddhist monks are neither wealthy nor conventionally powerful. I tried reading the German article, both in the original and through Google Translate, and I really couldn't find any explanation. Can anyone provide any insight as to how this got started? --Trovatore (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the development it went through was "Buddhist monk" > "priest" > "hypocritical priest" > "hypocritical influential man" > "rich man". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
In French as well, "bonze" has a secondary meaning of "big shot". The meaning seems to have gone through the changes described above, from "Buddhist monk" to "exceedingly serious person" to "someone who pontificates and thinks highly of himself" to simply "big shot". See here [1]. --Xuxl (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess that's sort of followable. I still think the final outcome is pretty incongruous, though. --Trovatore (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Isn't incongruity one of the characteristics of semantic change's outcome? (when it has become final remains unclear) Compare with pejorations in English such as villain ("inhabitant of a farm > peasant > churl > boor > clown > miser > knave > scoundrel"), or lewd (nonclerical > unlearned > uneducated > coarse, vile, lustful), or silly (happy > blessed > pious > > innocent > harmless > pitiable > weak > feeble in mind, lacking in reason, foolish). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Oddly, the spelling "Auslander" hints at an English background. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The meaning could be translated with "Alien fat cats get out!" Political background: German urban real estate prices rised during the last years while the rural real estates with no tourism lost value. Also some Greek tax exiles acquired estates in Berlin making the prices rising. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 11:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

July 20[edit]

Ambiguity in "everything is $1" joke[edit]

Is there a term for the sort of ambiguity expressed in this joke? Here, the word everything is interpreted as both "each item considered individually" and "all items considered collectively." It doesn't seem like a matter of quantifier scope, but I could be wrong. 2602:306:321B:5970:91B4:C260:DD4A:615C (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The general concept of using ambiguity in the meaning of words for humor is called word play. The intentional use of a word with two meanings so as to play on the ambiguity of both meanings is called a double entendre. --Jayron32 12:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
A double entendre usually has a second meaning which is, in some way, sexually suggestive or offensive. It would not normally be used to describe that particular joke. Wymspen (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
No, innuendo means suggestive or prurient. Double entendre can (and often does) mean "one of which is innuendo", but it is not exclusively so. That is 1) The term does not require prurient intent (though it does often) and 2) there is no term which means "double entendre, but not in a sexual way". The term for "double entendre, but not in a sexual way" is "double entendre". --Jayron32 17:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Entendre means "hearing" or "meaning". So there's no requirement for any salaciousness. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
No, but that is the usual meaning. See: [2] [3]. Incidentally, entendre is actually in the infinitive form and means "to hear", not "hearing". Although standard in English, the expression is actually bad French. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
French also places modifiers after the word in most cases, so it's doubly bad French. --Jayron32 18:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The Oxford English Dictionary defines double entendre:

A double meaning: a word or phrase having a double sense, esp. as used to convey an indelicate meaning.

It defines innuendo:

an oblique hint, indirect suggestion: an allusive remark concerning a person or thing, esp. one of a depreciatory kind.

-- 20:47, 20 July 2017 213.104.204.223

To attempt to answer 2602:306:321B:5970:91B4:C260:DD4A:615C's original question, I believe that "Every individual item in the store is $1" is the distributive reading, while "All items in the store together are $1" is the collective reading, though there appears to be little which is directly relevant to this on Wikipedia (our Quantifier (linguistics) article is very brief)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the Loglan/Lojban artificial language is designed to avoid logical ambiguities, but I don't know how it would do so in this particular case. There's a specific Lojban word joi whose purpose is to indicate collective interpretations, but it's a conjunction, and so probably wouldn't slot into the Lojban translation(s) of the "Everything is $1" sentence... AnonMoos (talk)`
Off the top of my head (and my very rusty memory) Lojban would distinguish "ra le dacti" (each-of the-individual-described-as is-a-thing) from "pira lei dacti" (point-all-of the-mass-described-as is-a-thing). --ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
OP here, thank you both for the informative replies! I knew that the ambiguity hinged on the meaning of "everything" but wasn't sure how to characterize that. 99.33.181.151 (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
A coin dealer claimed that "1920 pennies are worth eight pounds". He was technically correct (one pound was 240 pennies). 92.8.217.19 (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
That's an equivocation on 1920 either as a number or as the name of a year. It only really works in writing, since 1920 the year is almost always pronounced "nineteen-twenty", while when referring to 1,920 items, it would generally be "a thousand nine-hundred and twenty"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Chinese reader wanted[edit]

Hi wikipedians,

is any Chinese-speaker here? Or someone with a good OCR software for chinese?

I would like to get the text from these JPEGs with Simplified Chinese characters:

It has to do with coal.--BiggTime (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This blog sets out the information that is in the third picture. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, what do you need exactly? To type out the texts in the pictures? Alex ShihTalk 11:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: Yes, I need the text. Because I understand Chinese only by translator.--BiggTime (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Can you leave a message at my talk page to tell me what it's for? And then I'll type the text out later. Alex ShihTalk 14:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The pics are also watermarked to the "@yuxerdos" public account on Wechat. --165.225.81.8 (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

July 21[edit]

Latin help, school motto[edit]

Could anyone translate "nullae sine pulvere palmae" for me please? It was the St Austell County Grammar School motto. DuncanHill (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You could find its meaning here. Omidinist (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
And see also Palm branch (symbol). Alansplodge (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Searching Wikipedia articles containing "sine pulvere" shows a number of institutions using a variety of this phrase. Our List of Latin phrases (P) has "palma non sine pulvere", but you'll also find "Nil sine pulvere", "Non Sine Pulvere Palma", "Non sine pulvere palmam" (as well as typos such as "Plama" and "Palman"). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
"Palmam" (accusative case) wouldn't make too much sense unless the word is understood as the object of an implicit verb (not sure which verb it would be). AnonMoos (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you all. I suspect someone at the school was having a little fun with the motto, as St Austell's wealth was built on china clay, the production and transport of which is associated with a lot of dust. DuncanHill (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Appropriate comma use and terminology disambiguation[edit]

Recently, I came across writing a tricky sentence.

  • The man who lives with his girlfriend unmarried has his girlfriend as his domestic partner.

Is it clear that unmarried is modifying girlfriend or man? Maybe I should write:

  • The unmarried man who lives with his girlfriend has his girlfriend as his domestic partner.

Or this:

  • The unmarried man, who lives with his girlfriend, has his girlfriend as his domestic partner.

Or this:

  • The man, who lives with his girlfriend, unmarried has his girlfriend as his domestic partner.

Considering the situation, the "domestic partner" is used to describe the man's relationship to the female as informal and without legal marriage. I think that's different from cohabitation, because I don't think cohabitation has any legal status, unless the government records that as a domestic partnership for inheritance and insurance benefits. If the unmarried couple has a biological child together, the domestic partnership is indistinguishable from marriage. If the relationship terminates, then is that a divorce, or is divorce only for the termination of marriage? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Does your tricky sentence mean that if an unmarried man is in a romantic relationship with a woman, and they both live under the same roof, she is his girlfriend as well as his domestic partner? Marrakech (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes. In that situation, I think a domestic partner is one who lives with another in an informal, unmarried relationship like cohabitation, but it is legally recognized, and both partners may receive inheritance and insurance benefits from each other. Therefore, an unmarried couple is married without the legal process for marriage, and that domestic partnership and marriage mean the same thing, except marriage may require a marriage certificate. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The proper uses of the comma would be:
  • The unmarried man, who lives with his girlfriend, has his girlfriend as his domestic partner. (your second one)
and
  • The man who lives with his girlfriend, unmarried, has his girlfriend as his domestic partner. (which is not any of your examples)
In the one immediately above, you missed the second comma. In that sentence, the word "unmarried" is an appositive and when such an appositive appears in the middle of a sentence, it is usually set off on both sides by commas. --Jayron32 12:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, the strict meaning of the two sentences is slightly different. In the first, the word "unmarried" applies only to the man (his girlfriend could be married to someone else, but he is definitely not married to anyone). In the second, the word "unmarried" apples to the entire phrase "The man who lives with his girlfriend", which means it is applying to the entire situation, and not just one person. That is, he is not married to her, but either or both could still be married (for example, to other people). People may, because of cultural context assume they are identical in meaning, but that requires more than a strict reading of the grammar, but that is not in the actual words themselves. --Jayron32 12:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm unsure if the question pertains only to that particular sentence, or more generally how to unambiguously express the concept? There are thousands of ways to recast the sentence to have clearer meaning and be more general, one of which is the lead sentence in our article domestic partnership: A domestic partnership is an interpersonal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life but are not married. No such user (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
All language is inherently ambiguous. Few utterances can be expressed so it only means exactly one thing. As is credited to Franz Kafka "All language is but a poor translation". This article published by MIT even argues that such ambiguity is necessary. --Jayron32 13:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

50.4.236.254 -- presumably a domestic partnership in the usual sense only exists if they're both unmarried, so I don't really understand the importance of restricting the word "unmarried" to apply to only one of the two. AnonMoos (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a bit of a narrow view of the world. There are plenty of what's being referred to as "domestic partnerships" where no, one or all members are married (or otherwise formally wedded in whichever legal jurisdiction they reside). And who says domestic relationships involved just two people: [4]? Bazza (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
See Domestic partnership, where the very first sentence of the article is "A domestic partnership is an interpersonal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life but are not married (to each other or to anyone else)." Such restrictions would not apply to other terms, such as "cohabitation" mentioned by 50.4.236.254... AnonMoos (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
That, of course, depends on context. What is meant by any of those terms in a specific context may not be identical to other contexts. Legal frameworks vary by jurisdiction, common usage of a word differs from specific legal definitions, etc. --Jayron32 15:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
(EC) That definition seems to be jurisdiction-dependant, and the article mainly US-based; all very interesting nonetheless. I'm not aware of any formal or legal definition of "domestic partnership" where I live, and there are plenty of people here who are married to one person but in what might be referred to in everyday speech as a "domestic partnership" (although more commonly just as "living together"). There is for "marriage" and "civil partnership", both between two people; and there is the concept of a partnership in common law but it has limited formality. Bazza (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Jayron says that married people who are not married to each other could still "for example" be married to other people. That suggests a third alternative. What is it? 92.19.168.169 (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
To be more specific: Picture Bob and Alice, being legally married. Then picture Bob and Alice stop cohabitating, and then Bob begins cohabitating with Carol. Carol knows nothing of Alice, and in good faith, the two establish a legally binding cohabitation, (of whatever terminology exists in your jurisdiction, such as domestic partnership, civil union, common law marriage, etc.). That second relationship is still valid even though Bob is still currently in a legal marriage; legal obligations Bob incurs to the relationship and to Carol are not invalidated because Bob was married while in the relationship. Such situations come up in palimony and child support suits. See, for example, here which discusses the law in Colorado (other jurisdictions may vary, of course, but we only need one positive example to prove that the principle exists). To wit, Colorado law defines a "putative" partner as one who, while technically not part of a valid relationship (because a prior relationship was not legally terminated), is still owed the same rights as any other partner. Simply put: a partnership of this sort may be legally valid even if one of the partners were married ahead of time. It isn't universal, for example if the second partner knew about the first's standing relationship (in that case, it would not be a domestic partnership in good faith). But there are cases where the rights of a domestic partner have been upheld even in the case of the other partner still being married. --Jayron32 17:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I would say "The man who lives unmarried with his girlfriend has his girlfriend as his domestic partner", with no commas. Of the four sentences provided, the first two are correct (with a slight difference in meaning), but the second two are punctuated incorrectly. —Stephen (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The unmarried man lives with a domestic partner, his girlfriend. Akld guy (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
To the first question, I'd say that unmarried in the original sentence modifies lives. —Tamfang (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

July 22[edit]

Second person narratives[edit]

Since I study in a bilingual environment, disagreement has arisen between my English and Chinese teachers on the subject of whether narratives can be written from a second person perspective. Is there any existing debate on this issue, or is there a definitive answer? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about the debate, but our article/subsection Narration#Second-person does mention Bright Lights, Big City (where, it has to be pointed out, the second person narrator is addressing himself as "you") as well as poems and tons of songs of course (random example: "Every Breath You Take"). ---Sluzzelin talk 05:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Every Breath You Take has lines like "..I'll be watching you", so it's mixed 1st and 2nd, at best. StuRat (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Paul Auster in Winter Journal uses the same technique of addressing himself in second person [5]. No such user (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Edna O'Brien's A Pagan Place and much of Italo Calvino's If on a winter's night a traveler are written in the second person. A new novelist called Angelina Mirabella has explained "Why I Wrote a Novel in Second Person". --Antiquary (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
French Wikipedia's article récit à la deuxième personne has some more examples such as Hawthorne's short story "The Haunted Mind". That article writes that Henri Bachelin's novel Le Serviteur (1918, winner of the Prix Femina) was the first narrative entirely written in the second-person point of view. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Sluzzelin and Antiquary for your replies. Interestingly enough, it was the English teacher who said that it is technically impossible to write in the second person. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You might also consider the genre of Gamebooks, such as "Choose your own adventure", a sort of role-playing game in book form, in which the narrative is often in the second person. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}

94.12.80.244 (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Monique Wittig, a French novelist, played with language and stretched it, using a non-gendered pronoun (on, which is freighted with other connotations, and can best be thought of as third person[6]). At least two of her works, L'Opoponax and Les Guérillères, were translated into English using the second person[7]; I believe but am not certain that these translations were by Helen Weaver and David Le Vay, respectively. This claims that an unrelated English-language novel entitled Despair uses second-person narration too. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
My copy of Les Guérillères ISBN 2-7073-0042-X places greater emphasis on the pronoun "Elles" (3rd person plural feminine) than on "On" (impersonal 3rd person, also 1st person plural in speech), as far as I can see by flipping through it. In the English translation by David Le Vay that I have (published by Avon/Bard books in 1973), "Elles" is usually translated by "The women" at the beginning of a paragraph, and by "they" elsewhere. Neither the English nor the French version is a second-person narrative in any conventional sense, as far as I can see. If Wittig plays around linguistically with quasi-pronominals, it's by frequently invoking feminine plural forms which exist in French, but are infrequently used (such as "quelques-unes"), as far as I can tell at my level of French comprehension (by no means equivalent to that of a native speaker). AnonMoos (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Donald Barthelme's short story "Träumerei" is another example. Deor (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Carbon Caryatid: From my understanding of French "on" is grammatically third person and first person plural in meaning, so it should be seen as a first person perspective albeit plural which is kind of special ("on" and "nous" being similar but I think "on" can be used to generalise a group of people whereas "nous" is more specific, might have mixed it up though). @Deor: Thanks I'll check it out. @IP: That's what my Chinese teacher suggested, books where you select the ending are often written in second person. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The links I provided above are to literary criticism of Wittig, not copies of the books in question. English language litcrit of French pronoun choices: one coinage describes on as "monomorphous diversity".
Blog lists of novels making extensive use of the second person are Atwood to Tolstoy, The Power of You, and Good Readds Second Person. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

July 23[edit]

Placement of the adverb "not"[edit]

Why is it so common to place the adverb "not" in a position that makes it appear to modify something other than what it's intended to modify?? Let's look at this statement as an example:

The game of 8-ball is not called 8-ball because it uses only 8 balls plus the cue-ball; it's called 8-ball because it is won by pocketing the 8-ball.

Is this sentence good grammar?? The adverb "not" in this sentence is intended to modify the subordinate clause beginning with "because". However, it appears to modify the verb+object phrase "called 8-ball". Yet, it's the preferred placement over the following variant, where it is clearer that "not" modifies what it's supposed to modify:

The game of 8-ball is called 8-ball not because it uses only 8 balls plus the cue-ball; it's called 8-ball because it is won by pocketing the 8-ball.

In this variant, the adverb "not" clearly appears to modify the clause it's intended to modify. Why, then, is it not the preferred way to say a sentence like this?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Human language is not the same as theoretical logic. Linguists have written whole books on "negative scope" or "quantifier scope", and how and why negative words and quantifying words are not always located where they might be expected to be located based on theoretical logic. In English, the word "only" is often located even farther from where it would logically be expected to be located than negative words are... AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
For example... (using the word "only") Georgia guy (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
There are many examples where "only" seems to be able to wander semi-freely through a sentence without having much effect on the meaning: "I only saw one movie" vs. "I saw only one movie" vs. "I saw one movie only" etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Naturally, the first of those sentences means "I only saw one movie; I didn't rate it or anything similar." The second, in contrast, means "I saw only one movie; I didn't see any other movies." Georgia guy (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
To get interpretations such as "I saw the movie without doing anything else with it" or "I perceived the movie with my sense of sight alone", normally the word "saw" would have to be pronounced with some form of emphatic-contrastive stress.
There theoretically could be subtle differences in meaning between the three sentences in my message of "00:28, 24 July 2017", but as they are commonly used by current-day English speakers (without any special emphatic-contrastive stress), in practice they're quasi-synonymous. AnonMoos (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The word "not" modifies the entire clause "[is] called 8-ball because it uses only 8 balls plus the cue-ball". In other words, it is NOT the case that it is called 8-ball because it uses only 8 balls plus the cue-ball. Your analysis that it modifies only the fragment "because it uses only 8 balls plus the cue-ball" is inaccurate. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Please notice, that if we had deleted the "not" (so that the sentence would have said: "It's called 8-ball because it uses etc."), then the sentence would have meant as following: It's called 8-ball and that's because it uses etc. Therefore, when adding the "not" before the "called", it may (also) mean as following: It's not called 8-ball and that's because it uses etc. Indeed, I wouldn't rule out your interpretation, but the OP's interpretation is possible as well, in my view. HOTmag (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not called 8-ball and that's because it uses etc. - weird. That makes no sense to me. A native speaker would never say that. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh really? Would they never say "It's not called 8-ball and that's because it uses etc."? Can't a native speaker say "two plus two equals five"? Of course they can, if they haven't studied Math yet! Anyway, I mean that: the game is not called 8-ball, and the reason for this fact, is because the game uses etc. I agree with you that such a sentence would sound illogical and contra-intuitive, but you cannot say that a native speaker would never say contra-intuitive sentences. This has nothing to do with being a native speaker but rather with being logical. HOTmag (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, but, as AnonMoos pointed out, theoretical logic doesn't always dictate Human language. In any event, Fowler's Concise Dictionary of Modern English Usage actually features "Because after negatives" as something that "can technically cause ambiguity because it is not clear whether the reason given is an invalid one for a positive statement or a valid one for a negative statement." It adds: "However, the context will often make the meaning clear." I think the context makes the meaning sufficiently clear in Georgia guy's example. Fowler does suggest "When necessary, a comma will usually remove any ambiguity: The graphic equalizer is not for every hi-fi-customer, because it does require some skill, time and patience in usage—Gramophone, 1976". (That particular solution works for a valid reason of a negative statement, but not for Georgia guy's example). -- 07:14, 24 July 2017 Sluzzelin
theoretical logic doesn't always dictate Human language. Exactly! That's what I'm claiming. So, a native speaker may say "two plus two equals five" (because theoretical logic doesn't always dictate Human language), and may also say "It's not called 8-ball and that's because it uses only 8 balls" (because theoretical logic doesn't always dictate Human language), and may also say "It's not called 8-ball because it uses only 8 balls", while meaning: "It's not called 8-ball and that's because it uses only 8 balls" (because theoretical logic doesn't always dictate Human language). To sum up, we agree. HOTmag (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
It's poorly worded. Don't lecture the reader on what it is "not". Simply define why it's called 8-ball and leave it at that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

July 24[edit]

Vietnamese IPA phonetics[edit]

Could someone check the IPA in this passage from Facebook_real-name_policy_controversy#Vietnamese?

In January 2015, a 23-year-old Australian bank employee claiming to be named Phuc Dat Bich posted a photo of his passport identification page to Facebook,.. The BBC reported that in Vietnamese the name is pronounced similarly to "Phoo Da Bi" (IPA: /fuq˦˥ ɗat˩ ɓic˦˥/).[14] ... Subsequently "Phuc Dat" published a further message admitting it was a hoax.

Several of the IPA symbols in the pronunciation gloss don't appear in Help:IPA_for_Vietnamese so I'd appreciate if an IPA cognoscente could verify them. Thanks! 173.228.123.121 (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The only information I have on Vietnamese pronunciation is what is in "The World's Major Languages" edited by Bernard Comrie, but IPA [q] is almost certainly bogus. A number of pronunciations might be possible if the full diacritics of Vietnamese orthography aren't included... AnonMoos (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Wiktionary has a module that automatically generates IPA from Vietnamese orthography. The results are at wikt:User:Angr/Phuc Dat Bich; however, it is very likely that the original Vietnamese spelling has various diacritics which will change the pronunciation. So, is the u in the first name actually u, or is it ư? Is the d in the second name actually d, or is it đ? Is the a in the second name actually a, or is it â or ă? Do any of the vowels have any of the tonal diacritics? Without this information, there's no way to know exactly how the name is pronounced. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Spanish demonym for people from Wales and Gaels[edit]

In Spanish, are the words Welsh/Gaelic, or being from Wales/from Gaels, homonymous? --Hofhof (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)