Language desk
< June 5	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 7 >

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.

June 6

Plural of Destruction

Is the following usage of the word "destructions" grammatically correct?

"While they are very similar, only the latter is able to cause epic, city-scale destructions."

Should "destructions" be singular instead? Applefungus (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little strange, but I'd let it stand. It's better than "depredations", it's concise, and we know what it means. The dictionaries I looked at were mute about whether "destruction" can be a count noun. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most dictionaries don't distinguish mass nouns from count nouns. I'd say that "destruction" in normal use is always a mass noun, and this dictionary entry agrees (it uses U = uncountable = mass noun). So you want the singular "destruction" or else a completely different construct like "the epic destruction of cities". --Anonymous, 01:54 UTC, June 6, 2008.

I'm gonna have to agree with singular. The meaning of the sentence is the same if you put destruction rather than destructions (so using the latter isn't going to affect it other than making it seem 'uglier'). Kreachure (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Kreachure said. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd substitute city-wide. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even wide-scale destruction. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Check

I'm doing a translation for one of my friends, but my Latin is somewhat impoverished by my never having taken a class. Can I have some corrections?

"Mercuri ter Maxime, adjutame, Alipes! Dona tutamen caducei sancti tui a socio vehendi."

"O Hermes Trismegistos, Aid me Wing-Footed one! Offer the protection of your sacred caduceus to a fellow traveller."

You can be merciless if I've completely bunged it up. :) Steewi (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: I also wouldn't mind it being made a more elegant translation, if it's not difficult. Steewi (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which way are you translating it? From English to Latin? (I thought the other way around at first.) If E-L, then "adjuta me" is two words. The end right now says "the protection of your sacred caduceus to be carried by a friend", so I think you want simply "...sancti tui conviatori". Adam Bishop (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now that I've had a chance to put some more thought into it: "O Mercurii ter Maxime, adjuta me, Alipes! Dona caduceum sanctum arma mihi conviatori" The "O" more definitely indicates the vocative, and -ius names take -ii in the vocative. You don't need a possessive "tuum" - it's more natural to use it in English, but unnecessary in Latin, since it's obviously not your caduceus! "Tutamen" does mean "protection" but it's not the most usual word, and it seems odd to me to use it with a genitive. I used "arma", which is weapons but also abstract protection, with another accusative in apposition, "grant [your] sacred caduceus [as] protection to me, a fellow traveller." Adam Bishop (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam, that was great help. I was indeed translating E->L, and your corrections make sense. I'll pass the better translation onto my friend. Steewi (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feminine endings in English

Here's a couple that I've been meaning to ask for a long while:

1.I've noticed the forms "or" and "rix" in Latin-origin terms. I'm wondering what the English/Anglisc parallel is. For words ending in "er", is there a disused female form with "rine"? (I've noticed in German the pair Kaiser and Kaiserin).

2.What would be the plural for sisters in the old forms to match "brethren"? (Sestren?) Retarius | Talk 06:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wife of a viceroy is a vicereine. That's probably from French, though. Only example I can think of right now. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1). AFAIK the feminine ending corresponding to German -in is present in Modern English only in vixen, which is etymologically identical to German Füchsin. (2). It's just "sisters". —An gr 06:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Retarius, the archaic plural form of sisters is "sisteren"; used inclusively, brethren means members of the same kind or group, as well as kin which does for both mostly. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English suffix -ess comes from Latin -ix, through French. For example "actor" is directly from Latin, and "actress" evolved from the feminine form "actrix". The suffix -er is the Germanic cognate of Latin -or, I think. There was also an -ina suffix in Latin, although maybe it only appears in "regina", the feminine form of "rex". "Rex" and "regina" turned into "roi" and "reine" in French, hence Jack's example of "vicereine", which is really two words "vice reine", so it does not really have an "-ine" ending in the way you meant. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jack, Angr, Julia and Adam. I gather the modern feminine form would be "ess" then, as in deprecated words like actress, waitress, etc. Retarius | Talk 08:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. (Sequenced the Q & A after getting lost). : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it suits, "actress" is not entirely deprecated. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting little fact by Angr. I didn't know that vixen was the only surviving English word with the feminine suffix "-en". Apparently another lost feminine suffix is -stere surviving in the word spinster (originally female spinner [1] ). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did modify my claim with "AFAIK" (= as far as I know). There may be other words that retain the feminine suffix -en, but I can't think of any. As for -ster, I believe webster and seamster also originally had the same suffix. The former remained in use only as a surname, and the latter got re-marked with -ess to become seamstress. —An gr 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One can only assume that 'webstress' nowadays would mean a female with a good knowledge of HTML.--ChokinBako (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe a female dictionary? :P Pallida Mors 18:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A feminist dick-tionary? An oxy moroness? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far more likely to be perceived as "web stress", something we can all relate to. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. With minimal html, I'd settle for webtrix. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The individual pasta unit

Is there a correct singular form of the word "pasta", and are there singular forms for specific pasta terms like "spaghetti", "ravioli", and so on? (Besides the English "noodle".) I realize that "pasta" and types of pasta are usually if not always mass nouns, but I'm wondering if there's a more precise single word for "piece of pasta" or "strand of spaghetti". 69.111.189.55 (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La pasta is already singular in Italian. The plural form is le paste (It's used in Italian, when you're talking about different kinds of pasta). I don't know whether paste can be used as a plural in English though, I think it's an uncountable noun. Lo spaghetto (the little string) and il raviolo are acceptable singulars (again in Italian, I don't know about English) when you're talking about one piece, just like a corn flake. (There's a spaghetto hanging from your moustache. I don't know, it sounds a bit contrived and hyper-correct to me. What do English speakers think?). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an English speaker (British variety), I would never use 'spaghetto', 'raviolo', and so on, except perhaps facetiously. It always amuses me that the French doubly-pluralise these names, talking about 'les spaghettis' etc. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., signs and menus advertising "paninis" are extremely common. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Blinis" and "pirozhkis" are other examples. They're supposed to be: 1 blin/pirozhok; 2 or more blini/pirozhki. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally occasionally use singular forms of Italian words that are normally used only in their plural form in English, because I enjoy that sort of thing, but I think that it probably does sound contrived and hyper-correct. I think that the prevailing way to express the idea would be "piece of ...", for example, "there is a piece of spaghetti stuck to the pot" rather than "a spaghetto". I have also heard English speakers use the the plural form in the singular, which grates on my ears but is done often enough to be almost "normal". For example, "Would you like a biscotti?" or "There is one tortellini left." Marco polo (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, English has a precise, individual word for "piece of pasta" or "strand of spaghetti". That word is noodle. —An gr 16:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but it is dialectal. If you used the word 'noodle' to refer to something pasta-y 'round here, people would look at you very strangely. 'Noodle' is reserved for those thin chinese things, also found in Pot Noodle. You'd have to refer to 'a piece of spaghetti' to be understood. 79.74.56.70 (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a further comment regarding pasta which can mean dough, pasta, but also pastry in Italian. I think one of the reasons "le paste" sounds alright and is often used in Italian is that, in addition to types, it can also be used for different dishes of pasta, or for several individual "pastries", i.e. pieces of pastry (le paste danesi = "Danish pastries"/"Danishes(?)"). Italian too is normally familiar with the concept of uncountable nouns, and "i latti" ("the milks") for different types of milk sounds wrong in Italian too. Or maybe paste are just too important to be uncountable in Italian. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English speakers may not use spaghetto. But we eat SpaghettiOs. - Eron^Talk 20:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings us to the question of why 'Alphabet Spaghetti' is called 'spaghetti' when it technically isn't spaghetti...--ChokinBako (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it was invented back in the 50s (or maybe earlier) when a lot of people didn't distinguish different types of pasta. It was all just "spaghetti". Or maybe more accurately, the only type of pasta generally purchased by (and often available to) the stereotypical (non-Italian) housewife-mother was actual spaghetti, so anything that came along that was made of the same stuff was referred to by the same name. The marketers knew this, and they didn't want to alienate their potential market by calling it "Alphabet <whatever the correct term is>". By the time the housewives became more educated in the varieties of pasta, it was too late to change the name because "alphabet spaghetti" had entered the cultural hall of fame -- JackofOz (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see versions of 'Alphabet Spaghetti' in different scripts. I wonder what an Arabic version would look like, and would they have beginning, middle and end versions for each letter, where appropriate? Then a kanji version would be interesting. A morse code version would be a bit boring, though. :)--ChokinBako (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, isn't English really the only language whose speakers routinely try to borrow foreign plurals together with foreign words to sound cool or for whatever reason? – b_jonas 08:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even have to be the right foreign plural. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to fry some octopodes for dinner. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what does "they" refer

An entry in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary reads as following:

weal: a sore red mark on sb's skin where they have been hit

I would like to know to what does the word 'they' belong to (to soar red mark or somebody's skin?)

AND

Is it correct to use 'they' in the above sentence grammatically?Kasiraoj (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the singular they, which is what you're looking at. In the sentence from the dictionary, sb's stands for somebody's, that is the person who has been hit. As that person's gender is not mentioned, some consider none of he, she or it appropriate for the pronoun refering to that person. So, the pronoun they is frequently used in English to refer to one person of unspecified gender. Some do not like this usage, reserving they for plural, but it is undeniably widespread and generally accepted as a useful convention. Alternatives would be to use he or she, (s)he and so forth. However they is employed, it always takes the plural verb form (they have been hit, not they has been hit). — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The antecedent of the pronoun "they" in "a sore red mark on sb's skin where they have been hit" is "somebody". You have noticed that "they" is plural, and "somebody" is singular. This usage is sometimes called "singular they". Singular they is not used in formal writing, but people say it all the time, and it has been used throughout history by good writers. Singular they is considered informal today. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's becoming more and more common in formal writing, in my experience, as the traditional list of "things you must not write" becomes shorter and shorter. It's a meaningful construction, and is often a more convenient and "plain English" approach than any of the alternatives. Some may argue it doesn't make for good formal writing, but that's another issue. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

walk enclosure

The English translation for Item 144 in the List of Kangxi radicals is walk enclosure. What does that phrase mean? I can't make any sense of it. --08-15 (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like an enclosed walk way, like a colonnade or a cloister. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walk is the meaning of the letter. And the radical is used like a bracket. That's why it's enclosure. Take a good look at the letters. Oda Mari (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that answer will be entirely clear to someone unfamiliar with the way Chinese characters work, so I'm trying again. The meaning of the character is just "walk". It's called an "enclosure" because other characters are derived from it by adding strokes in between its left half and its right half. For example, the character 衎 has a character shaped like a Ŧ inserted into the middle of 行. —An gr 17:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --08-15 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donacor

Anyone know what "donacor" means, and in which language... Portugese maybe? It's mentioned in George Carlin: Again! as a dirty word he considered adding to his list, but I've never heard it before and neither has Urbandictionary. 87.112.34.18 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carny lingo spells it Donniker: "A rest room or toilet. Derived from 'dunnekin,' in common use among lower-class Britons in the 1700s meaning 'outhouse.' Probably derived from 'dung' and "-kin", a suffix referring to a small container or private room (many euphemisms for 'bathroom' refer to it as a 'closet' or 'the small room'). In Australian slang today, an outhouse is a "dunny"." (Another less likely etymology is "down knickers")---Sluzzelin talk 19:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian questions

Note: I moved this section down from to June 6 from June 2 because the discussion was still active and it was getting archived by a bot. —Lowellian (reply) 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am learning about Russian pronunciation and transliteration solely from Wikipedia articles, and I have a whole bunch of questions. Let's start off with this one: Why is "Елена" commonly transliterated "Yelena"? It seems to me self-contradictory: if "е" is "ye", then shouldn't it be "Yelyena" instead? —Lowellian (reply) 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A (quite simplified) answer to this question is that the letter "е" in this name translates to two different sounds—the first one is iotated and the second one is not.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first e represents /je/ (a semi-vowel followed by a vowel), which you can transliterate <ye>. The second e represents /^je/ — that is, the single vowel /e/ preceded by a ~~iotated~~ palatalized (soft) consonant, in this case /l^j/. What's really going on here is that the second e is encoding information about both the vowel and the consonant that comes before it. Most transliteration systems indicate iotation with an apostrophe (Елена could be Yel'ena), but since it's a name an apostrophe would be cumbersome. Strad (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could you explain why the existence of the soft sign is necessary at all? Because it seems to me, couldn't you just always replace, after a consonant, a soft sign with the iotated form of the vowel and get the same effect? Is there any difference in pronunciation between "Ельэна", "Елена", and "Ельена"? —Lowellian (reply) 00:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ельэна and Елена are theoretically equivalent (/jel^jena/), but the combination ьэ does not occur — ь + a non-iotating vowel (а, э, ы, о, у) becomes the corresponding iotating vowel (я, е, и, ё, ю). Ельена would be /jel^jjena/, with both a soft л and the sequence /je/. Strad (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case that last sentence is ambiguous: the sequence лье /l^jje/ does occur. —Tamfang (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean it to mean that those sequences do occur, as with пью "I drink", but that there is no such word or name as Ельена. Strad (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused. You're saying:

1. Ельэна would be /jel^jena/ (except that the combination "ьэ" doesn't exist)

2. Елена is /jel^jena/

3. Ельена is /jel^jjena/

In the case of #3, "е" is itself iotated (/je/). But in the case of #2, "е" is instead iotating the previous consonant rather than iotating itself (/l^je/). What's going on? —Lowellian (reply) 21:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Russian consonant cannot be iotated. "j" in "l^j" indicates softness, and "j" in "je" indicates iotation. Does that help any?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I used the wrong terminology, though my question still stands; let me rephrase: according to the pronunciations given by User:StradivariusTV, in the case of #3, "e" is itself iotated (/l^jje/), but in the case of #2, "e" is instead softening the previous consonant rather than iotating itself (/l^je/). Why does "e" serve a different function in these two cases? —Lowellian (reply) 22:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The letter "е" is never iotated when it follows a consonant; it simply softens the consonant (if that consonant can be softened, that is). Iotation, however, occurs, when "е" follows a vowel or a soft/hard sign, as well as at the beginning of words. Why that is the way it is, I don't know (I just speak the language), but it plays a very important role in distinguishing some words in speech (cf. "песо", peso and "пьеса", stageplay).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this same rule apply to just "е", or does it apply to all the iotated vowels? —Lowellian (reply) 20:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have mentioned it. It applies to all iotated vowels.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, am I understanding correctly that the soft sign in Russian never occurs before a non-iotated vowel? What about the hard sign—can it ever occur before a non-iotated vowel? —Lowellian (reply) 21:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The soft sign does occur before non-iotating vowels, but that only happens in words borrowed (or transliterated into Russian) from other languages (can't even think of an example). Also, the soft sign occurs in Russian words before non-iotating "и" (this is especially common in proper names, e.g., деревня Авдотьино, "the village of Avdot'ino", but also is common when forming the plural form of some words, e.g., воробьи), "sparrows"). As for the hard sign, if there are cases where it occurs before non-iotating vowels, they are most certainly not common at all (and would tend to show up in words, or, more likely, names, of non-Russian origin). Again, can't think of an example off the top of my head, which only proves the point (I'm a native speaker). All in all, the hard sign is not used in Russian all that much, so a learner like you should probably memorize those few common words which use it (съезд, разъезд, подъезд) and forget about it till (much) later in your learning process.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what the hard sign does. Using IPA, wouldn't "сезд" and "съезд" both be pronounced /sjezd/? —Lowellian (reply) 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It serves as a signal that the vowel following it is supposed to be iotated (and that the consonant preceding it should stay hard). Soft sign serves basically the same purpose, except that it softens the consonant it follows. And no, "сезд" (if that were a real word) and "съезд" are not pronounced identically—the former would be /sʲezd/ (soft "с", uniotated "е"), and the latter—/sjezd/ (hard "с", iotated "е").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another use of the soft sign is on final consonants. Before the spelling reform of ~1918, every final consonant was followed by either a hard sign or a soft sign; after 1918, final hard signs were dropped. — Come to think of it, I'm not sure of that: some consonants (including Ш) are always hard, and some (including Ч) are always soft, so maybe they were not marked. —Tamfang (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they were. Like you said, every final consonant was followed by either a soft or a hard sign ("ч" was followed by "ъ", by the way, despite always being soft—e.g. "плечъ", genitive of "shoulders").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the following statement correct?: "All consonants are hard unless they come before a soft sign or soft vowel." —Lowellian (reply) 21:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No (although for the most part this is true). Consonants "ж", "ц", and "ш" are always hard (even when followed by a soft sign) and "ч" and "щ" are always soft.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "ж", "ц", and "ш" are always hard even when followed by a soft sign, what does it mean if they are followed by a soft sign? (Or is it the case that those three consonants are never followed by a soft sign?) Also, in the YouTube Russian tutorial video [2], the guy in it who is teaching Russian at the time 7:00-7:25 says instead that the three consonants that are always hard are "г", "к", and "х" — is he just wrong then? —Lowellian (reply) 22:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they are followed by a soft sign, that is probably just a remnant from some older pronunciation or a spelling convention (but again, I'm no expert on such intricacies). What I can tell for sure is that it has no effect on pronunciation whatsoever; you just need to remember that such words are spelled with a soft sign, is all. As for the youtube video, I can't take a look at it now (as my employer blocks youtube), but if they indeed are saying that "г", "к", and "х" are always hard, then they are terribly wrong. There are plenty of words where these consonants are soft; here are just a few examples: "Геннадий" (Gennady, Russian male name), "кино" (cinema), "химия" (chemistry).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the above question about г х к, they are soft when preceding и or е (or a г/х/к that precedes such a vowel as in мягкий). The fellow in the Youtube video probably said they're never soft because the soft pronunciations are not considered to be phonemic like those of other consonants. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table in the article Russian alphabet gives, in the "IPA" column, both hard and soft pronunciations for most consonants, including "к", but not "г" or "х". So something is wrong there and the inconsistency between "к" and "г"/"х" should be fixed. —Lowellian (reply) 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an oversight to me. I've added the soft forms, which most definitely exist and are quite common.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an oversight. Only [kʲ] is arguably phonemic in Russian. [gʲ] and [xʲ] are allophones. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above, User:StradivariusTV wrote, "Most transliteration systems indicate iotation with an apostrophe (Елена could be Yel'ena), but since it's a name an apostrophe would be cumbersome." What I don't understand is this: by the same logic that writes the interior "е" as "e" rather than "ye" so that we get "Yelena" rather than "Yelyena", then shouldn't "Пётр" be transliterated as "Potr"? But I've never seen such a transliteration; it always gets transliterated as "Pyotr" instead. Why? —Lowellian (reply) 21:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a logical reason for such appoach; it's just one of the things you need to accept :) Note, however, that "Пётр" is also commonly transliterated as "Petr", but that has nothing to do with pronunciation whatsoever.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's a bad transliteration. It's misleading. There's this eternal debate about whether there even is such a letter as ё. Those on the NO side of the argument still have to accept that e is sometimes pronounced "e/ye" and sometimes "o/yo", so in the cases where it's pronounced "o/yo", it should be transliterated "o/yo". We all came to accept names such as Khrushchev and Gorbachev being pronounced "-ov/off"; but wouldn't it have been so much simpler to just spell them as "Khrushchoff" and "Gorbachoff"? We even see transliterations such as "Gorbachёv", which is meaningless since there's no ё in English. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: on the article Yer, under the heading "Modern Russian: Hard sign", the article gives the example:

съёмка (s'yomka) "filming"

But according to the "Transliteration table" in the Romanization of Russian article, ъ is transliterated, in all seven transliteration systems given in that table, as double prime ʺ , not single prime ʹ , which is instead used for the soft sign in all seven transliteration systems. So why is the transliteration in the "s'yomka" example above given as single prime rather than double prime when it is for the hard sign? —Lowellian (reply) 01:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's got to break it to you: Wikipedia contains errors, and likely always will. —Tamfang (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not in so much an error as an informal simplification. Using a double prime to transliterate a hard sign is technically correct, but can be perceived as overly pedantic in common use. Of course, an encyclopedic article (such as yer mentioned above) should be overly pedantic, so I have made a correction.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nothing should be overly pedantic, but sometimes simple pedantry has its place. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are the following three statements correct?

The eleven vowels are а, е, ё, и, й, о, у, ы, э, ю, and я.
е, ё, й, ю, and я are the iotated forms of, respectively, э, о, ы, у, and а.
и is also a hard vowel but has no iotated form.

—Lowellian (reply) 21:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[You might want to move this thread back to /Language]

"Й" is not a vowel, it is a semivowel. The rest of the list is correct.
"Й" is not a iotated form of "ы". The letter "ы" does not have a iotated form in Russian. The rest of the list is correct.
Not sure what you mean by "hard vowel"—if you mean that the consonant followed by an "и" remains hard, then the statement is incorrect. The letter "и" always softens the consonants (those which can be softened, that is). It does not have a iotated form in Russian.

Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I moved this back to /Langauge as suggested, though I think this discussion should be over soon; most of my questions have been answered. :)

Anyway, oops, silly me, I mistyped and accidentally switched й and и in statements #2 and #3 above. Okay, new revised versions of the statements, fixing that and trying to incorporate the corrections that you noted:

The ten vowels are а, е, ё, и, о, у, ы, э, ю, and я.
е, ё, и, ю, and я are the iotated forms of, respectively, э, о, ы, у, and а.
й is a semivowel. It is not itself iotated, and it does not have an iotated form.

This is correct, now, right? The article I (Cyrillic) states "Although in isolation [и] is not preceded by the /j/ semivowel like other "soft" vowels [...] in Russian it is considered the soft counterpart to ы".

—Lowellian (reply) 23:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks correct to me. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, и is not a iotated form, and ы does not have a iotated form. --Lambiam 11:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on your analysis. In most analyses that I've seen regarding Russian phonology is that both represent the phoneme /i/. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the boldfaced comment above about the IPA in the article "Russian alphabet"? I boldfaced the comment because it's the only comment to which no one has responded, and I'm afraid it was overlooked because this is such a long thread/section. I will de-boldface that comment once someone responds to it. —Lowellian (reply) 19:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have de-boldfaced that comment, since someone has responded to it. :) —Lowellian (reply) 00:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]