Language desk
< October 20	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 22 >

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.

October 21[edit]

What does one call the term that causes the emergence of a complementary retronym?[edit]

When the term "electric guitar" became nearly as popular as the original unmodified word "guitar", the term "acoustic guitar" emerged because "guitar" (unmodified) was considered ambiguous. "Acoustic guitar" is labeled the retronym. What is "electric guitar" labeled?

Certainly, both "electric guitar" and "acoustic guitar" are neologisms. But I think it would be useful to have a word to denote the neologism ("electric guitar") that caused the retronym to come into being. I looked around and didn't find any such word. Before I coined one myself, I wanted to make sure that there wasn't one already out there. So I am asking here.

Thanks. --Nick (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

electric g. is the top neo log, acoustic g. the bottom neo log? terrible joke, i know--Radh (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There must be stacks of similar examples but I'm racking my brain to think of one. In the classical world, there's no need to disambiguate "guitar", because works are almost always written for acoustic guitars, and that's the default assumption. Occasionally, composers include an electric guitar in an orchestra, and in that case it's spelled out. Electronic keyboards have become so common in popular music that I wonder if people ever feel the need to refer to a traditional piano as an "acoustic piano". (I'm just waiting for the day when someone refers to Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto as "Concerto No. 3 for Acoustic Piano and Orchestra by Sergei Rachmaninoff".) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JoO, do you mean artistic musical composer Rachmaninoff's Musical Concerto numerically No. 3 for Aurally Acoustic Instrumental Piano and Combined Musical Instrumental Orchestra? I epistemically know it well enough, but approvingly like his numerical number 2 better.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How remiss of me, Noetica; of course that was what I meant! Maybe I was just coming out of a hypnotic trance. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what they're called either but I can certainly think of two examples used in Texas (where I grew up): "snow skiing" (to distinguish it from "water skiing", which is often called simply "skiing" there) and "hot tea" (to distinguish it from "ice tea", which is often called simply "tea" there). —An gr 06:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare field hockey, which is apparently what Norteamericanos call what the rest of the English-speaking world refers to as hockey. And compare ice hockey, which is what the rest of the English-speaking world calls what Norteamericanos refer to as hockey. (See Hockey. Hokay?)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the world of music, I once heard someone on TV being asked what their hobbies and interests were. He said "Oh, I really love music, I have it on all the time <yada yada>. I also like listening to classical music when I'm in the mood". -- JackofOz (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When a newly fashionable word, a loan word or something is used, the normal word in a culture suddenly looks old fashioned: chill-out for ruhen, Kids for Kinder, Kietz for Stadtteil. There might be a linguistic term for that?--Radh (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. I'm more confident that there is no existing word, so I think I'm going to coin one on my blog. See my similar question (and the two neologisms that are my current front runners) at alt.english.usage: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/browse_thread/thread/b5af8adbc86cbaae/20261279ee832707?#20261279ee832707 . --Nick (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin initials[edit]

What do the initials "P.f." and "L.n." stand for in Latin names? For example:

(None of those articles say anything, by the way.) — The Man in Question (sprec) · (forðung) 08:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on the Humanities desk. It means "Publii filius" and "Lucii nepos", i.e. "son of Publius" and "grandson of Lucius". Adam Bishop (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Romans had a way of abbreviating many praenomina to one or two letters -- and Gaius was abbreviated to "C" (for reasons having to do with the early history of the Latin alphabet), which has given rise to the pseudo-form "Caius" (something which is pretty much guaranteed to be bogus wherever it occurs, other than in the name "Gonville and Caius", where it's actually just a fancy-shmancy pseudo-Latinate way of spelling "Keyes")... AnonMoos (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency of Initial Letters of the Alphabet worldwide & on wikipedia[edit]

I am interested in finding out the frequency of initial letters of the alphabet used in words in various languages worldwide on the internet.

Some information is available for English, for example on wikipedia here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_analysis) BUT this only covers the general frequency of the letters NOT the frequency of initial letters in English.

It does refer to a web page here (http://pages.central.edu/emp/LintonT/classes/spring01/cryptography/letterfreq.html) which provides general frequencies and also the 10 most frequent initial letters:

Start of Word Letter Frequencies Letter t a i s o c m f p w Freq 0.1594 0.155 0.0823 0.0775 0.0712 0.0597 0.0426 0.0408 0.04 0.0382

From this several questions:

1) Is it true Wikipedia does not have info on the frequency of initial letters In English (ie I would like to initial frequencies of ALL 26 letters not just the top 10 in English) ?

2) You article has some interesting comparisons on general letter frequencies across several languages, any idea where I might find a similar comparison for initial letters?

3) My ultimate goal is to investigate the frequencies of ALL initial letters in ALL languages used on the internet. Sounds like a BIG project right? But maybe there is a way to arrive at an approximation for wikipedia... ie what are the most common Initial letters in ALL articles on wikipedia in ALL languages used on wikipedia and their frequencies? This would provide a data set for Wikipedia which would be interesting and might reflect the frequencies on the web in general...

Anyway, not sure if there is someone out there who can help with this or knows the answers, but I thought I would try as these are some interesting questions you may be able to shed light on.

If so I would be very curious to know the answers.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Careyz (talk • contribs) 14:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all linguists... Does anyone have any thoughts, leads, or feedback on this question? Inquiring minds want to know...

A particular apostrophe problem[edit]

There is a UK Government Department called the Department for Children, Schools and Families. What is the correct way of showing this in the possessive? Is it acceptable to write e.g. "The Department for Children, Schools and Families' logo is colourful"? This makes it 'look' as though the logo belongs to plural families. Writing "The Department for Children, Schools and Families's logo is colourful," looks plain odd. There is a clear way around this ("The logo of the Department for Children, Schools and Families is colourful.") But in more complex (or just different) sentences this might be an unappetising formula. So if an apostrophe is the right way to go, where should it go? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In formal writing you would avoid it and use the "of" formation. In informal usage you can do it exactly as you suggested. It only looks odd because you don't often form possessives of phrases that long. But possessives of phrases that long's formation is just like possessives of anything else. (Grin.)

Since possessives of singulars ending in S can take either a 's ending or a bare apostrophe (boss' and boss's are both correct), and "The Department of..." is singular, another choice is to put 's at the end: "The Department for Children, Schools and Families's logo..." Personally, even though I normally use the 's form, I think this looks hideous. --Anonymous, 16:47 UTC, October 21, 2008.

I'm not sure what you mean by:

"The Department for Children, Schools and Families' logo is colourful"? This makes it 'look' as though the logo belongs to plural families. (my bolding)

"Families" is already plural. Adding an apostrophe to the end makes it a possessive, not a sort of super-plural. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The possessive does not belong to "Families", it belongs to "Department for Children, Schools and Families"; just as in "the King of Spain's daughter", it is the King who has a daughter, not Spain. The questioner's problem is that this seems less obvious for the longer example with a plural final element.

Taking a slightly simpler example of the same type, Google "and the * first album" and pick professional-quality matches:

Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers’ first album Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
Bob Marley and the Wailers' first album New York Times
Siouxsie And The Banshees' first album The Guardian
Sioux and The Banshees’ first album Popular Music (Cambridge University Press)

so the convention seems indeed to be to form the possessive of the noun phrase by forming the possesive of its final noun. This more-or-less matches the Chicago Manual of Style, §7.25:

In compound nouns and noun phrases the final element usually takes the plural form. If plural compounds pose problems, opt for of.

jnestorius^(talk) 22:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting to sidestep such a problem is usually (though not always) an option. Nevertheless the problem still demands a solution, if only for theoretical completeness. The article Apostrophe deals pretty thoroughly with these matters, I think. I cannot agree that The Department for Children, Schools and Families's logo is a realistic option. Written form should follow spoken form, and for that reason I reject also my boss' demands are reasonable unless one would actually say that.

Here is an interesting case. Suppose there were a band called Mommy and Me. We would not want say:

Mommy and My new drummer.

We would say:

Mommy and Me's new drummer.

Another one, with a band called Theirs and Ours. Which would we say, and write? This:

Theirs and Ours' new lead guitar.

Or:

Theirs and Ours's new lead guitar.

Or:

Theirs and Ours new lead guitar.

To sidesteppers I issue this challenge: suppose that you had simply to write from dictation, without any alteration, the spoken words Theirs and Ours new lead guitar. You do have to supply appropriate punctuation! The apostrophe in English is not omnipotent, and some cases have no comfortable solution. Why should we expect it to be otherwise?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the comments, and sorry if my original question caused some confusion. I have asked colleagues here what they would say (out loud) and almost all - save one oddball - said "families" not "families's", as it were. So I'll take that as my answer. Of course, in writing, the convention of referring to Gvt departments by initials - so "DCSF" - helps too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols on Wiki globe[edit]

Are all the symbols correct on the Wiki globe?

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. The symbol labelled as ה (he) on the chart actually shows ר (resh). Neither fulfills the demand that it be "a symbol used for the first letter of Wikipedia in a language or character set", as Wikipedia is called ויקימדיה in Hebrew and װיקיפּעדיע in Yiddish, both of which start with the letter ו (vav). — Emil J. 15:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the symbol labelled as В does not remotely look like one. It seems to me to come from some Indian or other south Asian script. — Emil J. 15:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC) It could be Kannada (kn): ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ. — Emil J. 15:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with the Semitic examples, the symbol labelled by a يا ligature in a fancy font actually shows just ي, and Arabic Wikipedia "ويكيبيديا" starts with a و. Similarly for Persian (fa). — Emil J. 15:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese ワィ would be pronounced 'wai', but this character combination (with the small イ) is impossible. If the イ was normal size it would be 'wai'. The Wikipedia one is purely fictional. 'Wi' should be 'ウィ'.--ChokinBako (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For added info: The nrm Wikipedia starts with "v" in one dialect, and with "ou" in another dialect (a digraph). The Jade Knight (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Occitan does not use "o", but "w". This makes the Norman Wikipedia (in Jèrriais dialect), the only Wikipedia (so far mentioned) to start with O (in the form of the digraph "Ou"). The Jade Knight (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the Klingon Wikipedia was shut down years ago. jnestorius^(talk) 22:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might try on Image talk:Wikipedia-logo-en.png or meta:International logo contest/Final logo variants/Nohat; or even on User talk:Nohat, the user who created it (no longer very active). jnestorius^(talk) 22:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that there is a detailed discussion of the logo on WP:Wikipedia logos, which in particular implies that the description given in the image posted by Wavelength is wrong, it is an outdated attempt by somebody to decipher the logo, and should not be taken seriously. A discussion of errors in the logo can be found in meta:Errors in the Wikipedia logo, and a proposed fix at Image:Wikipedia-logo thue.png. — Emil J. 10:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos of nothing... but it strikes me as strange that no-one has ever seemed to have pointed out the striking similarity between the Wikipedia logo and the album design for Do It Yourself (The Seahorses album). Nanonic (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm ... very interesting. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

الموسيقى[edit]

'لو سمحتو ضروري اعرف جواب هذا السؤال ما هو الفرق بين السماعي الثقيل و البشرف ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟ من فضلكم تجاوبوني بسرعة ايضا اريد تعريف كل من الدف و الرق و المزهر ان لم اخطأ في كتابتهم ..... واذا هنالك فرق بينهم ما هو الرجاء الاجابة باقصي سرعة شكرا شكرا' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayf (talk • contribs) 20:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Perhaps. But can you re-phrase the question?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section header is "Music" (al-muusiiqaa), but the question is not easy for me to understand, and Google Translate doesn't help too much (except of course, the final two words, شكرا shukran previously discussed here). AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]