Language desk
< July 4	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 5[edit]

Vowels[edit]

As a school child, I was taught (and made to memorize in a rather sing/song fashion) that the vowels of the alphabet were "a, e, i, o, u, ... and sometimes y and w". Can anyone give me examples of the letter "w" serving as a vowel? They did not simply add the "w" in to make the poem/song actually rhyme, did they? Thanks. (Question assumes the English language.) (JosephASpadaro 21:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)) a, e, i, o, u, and somtime y, and w are the vowels its true i woudlnt lie when you learn to read you are going to see vowels and consenents!! -(:[reply]

cwm springs to mind. DuncanHill 21:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And W#As_a_vowel_in_English will tell you more. DuncanHill 21:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W is a vowel in Welsh (eg mwng). Totnesmartin 22:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"W" can be a Semivowel, which is the second part of a dipthong (i.e. "cow"). Katya 23:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess ... but Welsh is not English ... does that really "count"? (JosephASpadaro 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Cwm and crwth are established English words; look in any good English dictionary. Words that originated in foreign languages are adopted into English all the time. And then there is the diphthong ow, as mentioned by Katya above, which occurs in many words of ancient Anglo-Saxon origin, such as all four words of "How now, brown cow". —Bkell (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well apart from cheating foreign words (I don't care how established, their use of w is not an English use, e.g. the English word for cwm is combe), w naturally comes as a dividing sound between vowels in dipthongs, so it is sometimes difficult to differentiate. For example the word vowel (vah-w-ul? or vaul?) it looks like a consenant, but vowel rhymes with foul (when I say it atleast) which has no consenant, and owl which has the w like a vowel. I think it refers to something like this. Cyta 07:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The "owl" example makes sense. It is pronounced ow ... wool. Hence, 2 syllables, 2 vowels. Makes sense. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 07:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yes that is called a dipthong. I only read about these recently so many vowel sounds we think of are actually longer. Try holding the vowels longer, for dipthongs it's impossible to sustain the original vowel sound. There are also triphthongs! Cyta 07:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it means anything, when I was in my early days of schooling learning the vowels (about 18 years ago), I was taught "a e i o u, and sometimes y." There was never any mention of w, I suppose, since it appears only in words that young readers would never encounter. (In fact, those words are new to me even now!)--El aprendelenguas 21:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps -- but "owl" is a common enough word for young children. (JosephASpadaro 01:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Cyta, the words "combe", "coomb" and "comb" are all variant spellings meaning the same thing as the Welsh word "cwm". But all four words, including "cwm", are accepted members of the English lexicon. If you disregard all borrowings from other languages, there wouldn't be a great deal of English left. Remember also that many of those borrowings occurred before there was such a distinct entity as "the English language", so why should we accept pre-English borrowings but not post-English borrowings? The borrowing process not only continues unabated but is more prevalent now than ever. That's one of the things that makes English such a live, flexible language. (Oh, and as we're discussing vowels and consonants, it's spelled consonant, not consenant. It's ultimately from the Latin sonare, to sound. :) - ). -- JackofOz 02:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also learned "A, E, I, O, U, and sometimes Y," with no mention of W as a vowel. If odd or unusual words serve as evidence, we can add sometimes M, sometimes L, sometimes R, and maybe even sometimes P. --Reuben 16:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... that's pushing it ... (JosephASpadaro 01:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As I reflect, I guess I went to a great (i.e., progressive) grammar school! And, not for nothing, the learning device actually did rhyme. (JosephASpadaro 01:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ya vs. ahora[edit]

According to my Spanish dictionaries, "Ya" and "ahora" both translate as "now." Are they interchangeible or not?

"Ya" can also mean "already", among other things; its translation is very context-specific. "Ahora" pretty much always means "now", although it can be more like "soon" or "just now" depending on the tense of the verb it is with. So, no, they aren't interchangeable. Mike Dillon 01:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Mike said. I would go further and say that although "ya" technically can be used to mean "now", rarely is it used this way in everyday conversation. In normal conversation, you can expect "ya" to mean "already", "ahora" to mean "now" and "ahorita" to mean "soon". Context note: This is from my experience with Mexican Spanish - usage may vary according to location. 152.16.188.111 03:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main idiom I'm familiar with for "ya" meaning "now" is "ya es tiempo de", as in "Ya es tiempo de salir": "It's time to go now". It would still make sense to translate that as "It's time to go already", but I think "now" is a more common way to express that notion in English. Mike Dillon 14:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am married with a child - English grammar[edit]

Is the sentence "I am married with a child" correct ? Does it convey that I am married and have a child? Can it be used in place of "I am married and I have a child" ? -- WikiCheng | Talk 05:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more colloquial form would be: "I am married and have a child" or even "I am married, with one child." I can't say that your example is wrong, but even just inserting a comma: "I am married, with a child" looks better to me. Bielle 05:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be confusing for old-timers who refer to being married with someone, rather than married to someone. That is, it might be interpreted that the person's spouse is a child. Unlikely, but possible. -- JackofOz 05:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, then, a presenter at a NAMBLA convention might want to use the comma to distinguish between two plausible meanings. Joe 00:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Bielle; correctness aside, "I am married with a child" seems more conversational, less formal, more colloquial. Of course you can add a comma, but as written "I'm married with two kids—I can't just fly halfway around the world whenever I like!" describes one situation with two facets, rather than two situations. Tesseran 06:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it could be wrongly interpreted (by someone who is not proficient in English). I wanted to know if the sentence is grammatically correct. -- WikiCheng | Talk 05:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is grammatically correct. There was even a TV show called Married with Children but I wouldn't take that as an endorsement of your grammar, TV shows have made mistakes before. I agree with Bielle a comma would clear up confusion. PS Jack, is 'married with' possibly an Australianism? I am not exactly an old timer but I have never heard this, it sounds more American English to me as a Brit (like talk with)? Cyta 07:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks perfectly correct to me.

I have never heard someone say "maried with" when indicating their spouse - one is "married to" someone. DuncanHill 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I am married and with child" would indicate that one was pregnant. DuncanHill 13:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be candid, I can't say I've ever heard any live person say this either. But I have read it in books and plays, such as Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 2:

O, that this too too solid flesh would melt ... That it should come to this! But two months dead: nay, not so much, not two ... Frailty, thy name is woman! ... O, God! a beast, that wants discourse of reason, Would have mourn'd longer -- married with my uncle, My father's brother, but no more like my father Than I to Hercules: within a month ... But break, my heart; for I must hold my tongue.". -- JackofOz 12:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the OED: 1. intr. a. To enter into the state of matrimony; to take a husband or wife. Also with †to, (Sc.) †upon, with (now usu. regional). [Sc. is Scottish.] Tesseran 06:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard non-native speakers, including, I think, French speakers, perhaps because se marier avec is used with some frequency in informal speech, use the married with locution to refer to marriage on a few occasions, but I would imagine that the most frequent use by native speakers of with is in the figurative context, as, e.g., in the Martha Stewart line of mousetraps marries/weds utility with beauty. Joe 00:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin translation?[edit]

I wonder if anyone would be so kind as to help me translate the sign "Mind your head" (when, for example, a doorway is low) into latin? Thank you!

How about cave ad capitem? --Anonymous, July 6, 2007, 08:05 (UTC).

No, caveo means "beware, be on one's guard", and it doesn't take ad, and the accusative of caput is caput. Cave caput and Cave ab capite would mind "Be on your guard against your head" (as if warning you that your head was about to attack you). I think Cura caput would come closer to "watch your head". —Angr 14:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the inflection; I forgot heads were neuter. But I checked caveo in Cassell's Latin Dictionary before posting, and it does have at least one example with ad similar to this (although with an abstraction, not a body part; I don't have the dictionary with me now to quote it exactly). As the meaning of "mind" in this context is "be on your guard", not "take care of", I think cave ad caput is correct. --Anon, July 6, 21:30 (UTC).

I have Cassell's too; I found the quote you mention (I see cavere is used with ad in this sense; I hadn't looked far enough down in the entry!). The quote is "satis cautum tibi ad defensionem", which is from Cicero's prosecution of Gaius Verres; it has been translated "that you had taken sufficient precautions for your defence". I guess "Mind your head" can be paraphrased "Take precautions for your head", though it sounds a little too organized and pre-planned. I've looked through a lot of sources and haven't found any examples of someone saying, "Watch out!" in Latin. Maybe we could simply rephrase the sign the questioner wants to paint and have it say simply CAPVT DEMITTE "Duck your head". —Angr 06:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been decades since I had to learn Latin, but what about the form "(animum) attendo", or "ad caput (animum) attendite" for "mind your head"? (Not sure about the word order) ---Sluzzelin talk 15:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that too, but that's really "Turn/Direct your attention to your head". —Angr 16:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Lewis & Short attendo can also be used without animum in the sense of to mind, give heed to.[1] This absolute use can take the accusative: Caput tuum attende. Another possibility is animadverto.[2] --Lambiam ^Talk 17:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a particularly low ceiling above a stairway in the building for our faculty (where Latin is very important), on which someone has posted a sign saying, as Angr suggested, "cura caput." Adam Bishop 22:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]