Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 December 12

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.

December 12

Analogous malapropism

I am trying to think of an analogous malapropism, but more universally recognizable, to that presented by people's use of "Wiki" as a shortening of Wikipedia when referring to this site, e.g., "how does wiki handle articles that are about X". This is common and we have an essay about it with a poorly constructed analogy that is out of place. I've been racking my brain but haven't come up with a parallel example. Can someone help me think of an equivalent jarring shortening of a single name of something for use in a sentence like: "To any seasoned Wikipedian or reasonably advanced Internet user, hearing someone use "Wiki" generically as a nickname for Wikipedia is as odd sounding as hearing "X" used to mean Y."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the most obvious one is probably using "America" to mean the United States of America. But that one is widely used, so it's probably not appropriate in the sense you mean. How about - "To any seasoned Wikipedian or reasonably advanced Internet user, hearing someone use "Wiki" generically as a nickname for Wikipedia is as odd sounding as hearing "football" used to mean Australian rules football." (it's not even often called that in Australia -it's called "the rules"). Grutness...wha? 00:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes; what's a malapropism to one person may not be to another. For example, "collecting unemployment" sounds very odd to my ears (unemployment is the state one needs to be in in order to qualify for an unemployment benefit) - but it's a widely used expression in "America". Btw, that game you referred to is never called "the rules", just "rules", or "Australian rules" or "Aussie rules" or "AFL", or, most commonly, "football" or "footy". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are decent but not quite parallel and somewhat like those I've been thinking of (and rejecting). I'm really looking for a single word/title that contains a starting portion that has a generic meaning that you would never use as a stand in for the whole. "'Wiki'pedia": wiki is part of the same single title. So I'm looking for "'something'xxxxxx" where that's one word/title and that starting portion has a generic meaning.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I just thought of "Smithsonian". Doesn't have quite the right feel but it's closer to what I am looking for.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"...as odd sounding as hearing "bio" used to mean biologist. ("bio" having the generic meaning of something else, biography, e.g.) not quite parallel, but hey... 00:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.191.239 (talk)

As odd sounding as hearing "Canute" used to mean "King Canute". 81.131.11.150 (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[Not a very useful comment:] I've noticed several such truncations, but I just can't recall them at the present. Watch this space. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, for Fuh's purposes inventing a new one will do. So, saying "Wiki" for "Wikipedia" is like saying "water" when you mean "watermelon", or "grape" when you mean "grapefruit". Or "ass" when you mean "aspirin", or "butt" when you mean "butter", or "dick" when you mean "dictionary" (but I've actually come across that one, spelled "dic", as a joke). Or "kiwi" when you mean "kiwifruit" (except Americans actually do that). Or, of course, Fuh when you mean Fuhghettaboutit. --Anonymous, 05:26 UTC, December 12, 2009.

I've got 2 examples from German. In German, a steinkrug literally means stone (stein) mug (krug), but in English we just call it a stein - a stone. And the other example escapes me at the moment, I'll be back! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably not quite what you want, but: The universe coeds in their mins, their mids and their mics munching bags in the delicate to stud tog for an ex were fran when they saw the decal-covered automob col with the semi that was hauling turns, speaks and micros to a disc in Indian, Indie. The semi was on auto and the para driving the Mini was on his mini googling for a semi near his off. Just his luck that the pol who came to invest wasn't a met but a stat troop and his blood al was in ex. Since he had two domes on his rec, a law who was inc. and an ambit, vindictive prose, the par was conned by the jury and condo'd by the just to the maxi of a dec in the pen, while the Team at the semi—repped by a form law part of the just—got on mo of prob by pleading no. "This court's a jo," mutted the old sold to a repo as he wanded out of court, "and the Just is just a bush-lea come." After reading this quo on the fro page of his morn new, the fur just summed the def back before the ben to rev his bail, to sent him to sev mo mos for con of court, and to war, in high indig, that "this should prove a a bit less to the next par who tries add my court without prop reg for my rob.") —— Shakescene (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

SPOILER Translation of above misabbreviated gibberish: The univers[ity]e coed[ucation student]s in their min[iskirt]s, their mid[iskirt]s and their micro[skirt]s munching bag[el]s in the delicate[ssen] to stud[y] tog[ether] for an ex[amination] were fran[tic] when they saw the decal[comania]-covered automob[ile] col[lide] with the semi[trailer] that was hauling turn[table]s, speak[er]s and micro[phone]s to a disc[othèque] in Indian[apolis], Indi[ana]e. The semi[trailer] was on auto[matic pilot] and the para[trooper] driving the [Morris] Mini[car] was on his mini[computer] googling for a semi[detached house] near his off[ice]. Just his luck that the pol[iceman] who came to invest[igate] wasn't a met[ropolitan officer] but a stat[e] troop[er] and his blood al[cohol] was in ex[cess of the legal limit]. Since he had two dome[stic assault conviction]s on his rec[ord], a law[yer] who was inc[ompetent]. and an ambit[ious], vindictive prose[cutor], the par[atrooper] was conn[vict]ed by the jury and cond[emne]o'd by the just[ice] to the maxi[mum term] of a dec[ade] in the pen[itentiary], while the Team[ster] at the semi[trailer's wheel]—repp[resent]ed by a form[er] law part[ner] of the just[ice]—got on[e] mo[nth] of prob[ation] by pleading no[lo contendere]. "This court's a jo[ke]," mutt[er]ed the old sold[ier] to a repo[rter] as he wand[er]ed out of court, "and the Just[ice] is just a bush-lea[gue] come[dian]." After reading this quo[tation] on the fro[nt] page of his morn[ing] new[spaper], the fur[ious] just[ice] summ[on]ed the def[endant] back before the ben[ch] to rev[oke] his bail, to sent[ence] him to sev[en] mo[re] mo[nth]s for con[tempt] of court, and to war[n], in high indig[nation], that "this should prove a a bit[ter] less[on] to the next par[ty] who tries add[ress] my court without prop[er] reg[ard] for my rob[e]".—— Shakescene (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That functions badly as a didactic demonstration of anything, because many of the abbreviations are in common use - coed, decal (to the extent that I've never heard the word decalcomania before), auto, para, Mini, semi, met, rec, and mic (although that one is for microphone). Some of the other abbreviations seem to have been crafted specifically to create confusion with existing words, such as "fur" and "war". If the piece is designed to show why abbreviations are bad, it's doing a highly disingenuous job of it. 213.122.7.102 (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

How does this sound: "We're going to Sub for lunch." Incorporates the basic elements of "Wiki for Wikipedia": it's a proper noun (Wikipedia is kind of like a brand name too), the name as a whole is sort of punny, stripping off the end makes it into an inapproriately capitalized common noun. 98.226.122.10 (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Bonus: "I'll have a 6-inch chicken teriyaki and a small Coca"! 98.226.122.10 (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Double bonus: "So, that's one half-foot Chi teri and a small Coca. Would you like French with that?" —— Shakescene (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for responding. I guess I dropped the ball in defining why any compound word isn't apt. To be parallel on all cylinders it needs to function in the same way, the whole word being a proper noun and the shortening working as a descriptor but not as a proper noun nickname, just as you can properly say Wikipedia is a wiki but not the Wiki. The perfect word would share that same type of relationship. Subway is the closest I think anyone's come because it is a proper noun and sub is a word that is involved in what subway produces but it still isn't quite the right form because you can't say Subway is a sub. By contrast, water for watermelon shares none of the same meaning parallelisms. Anyway, maybe there is no perfect equivalent. I don't want anyone to waste any more of their time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I have a better idea of what I was looking for, and the closest I can come is the 1930's British use of "a motor" for "a motor-car" and in the common American of "Social" for "Social Security Number". To get an exact analogy, you'd want a suffix like "-p[a]edia" that can't stand alone (at least in theory) and a prefix that can. Partial examples might be "Governator" (for Arnold Schwarzenegger) and "Fry-o-lator" (although I don't know what the o-lator stands for). Then you'd want the prefix to semi-absorb the meaning of the whole word. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Begging the question

The question is based on a wrong assumption. Calling Wikipedia "Wiki" is not a malapropism. "Wikipedia" is a endocentric compound, with the head as the first part "wiki". Calling a compound word by its head is not a malapropism. It is (to go with the example at Compound (linguistics)), like calling a darkroom "room". — Sebastian 08:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC), rewritten 08:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

After having read the linked definition of endocentric compound, I think you're wrong. "Endocentric compounds tend to be of the same part of speech (word class) as their head", it says. Thus, "Wiki" can not be the head of "Wikipedia" if it were an endocentric compound, because it isn't a noun. Wikipedia denotes a special kind of 'pedia, with 'pedia as the head. But since that is just one half of "encyclopedia", the conclusion must be that "Wikipedia" does not fit this pattern. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand the meaning of wiki. It is clearly now mostly a noun. Check out wikt:wiki; there isn't even a heading for adjective. That said, you have a point, the word can also be seen as having "pedia" as the head word, and while that is not an English word, we can agree to replace this with the noun "encyclopedia". So, semantically, it is a copulative compound.

But we don't even have to go to semantics: Just think about what Wikipedia is: We all know that Wikipedia is a wiki as well as an encyclopedia. So, here's an equivalent sentence that I like for its symmetry: Calling Wikipedia "Wiki" is as right or wrong as calling Wikipedia "pedia". — Sebastian 11:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

People speaking in this abbreviated way would tend to supply the other half by context. So users looking encyclopedic facts up might say "I looked it up on wiki", and the fact that wiki means an encyclopedia would be implicit, while a team of software authors gathering statistics about the usage of different implementations of the wiki software might say "and here's the data for 'pedia". The latter kind of situation is rare, but the former is enormously common. 81.131.11.150 (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so if we accept "wiki" as a noun, it sort of boils down to whether Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is edited and presented in the form of a wiki, or if it is a wiki whose content happens to be an encyclopedia. And that is a bit based on how you see Wikipedia. I guess people who use the expression "Wiki" to mean Wikipedia could be accused of having their focus not on building an encyclopedia, but on the fact that they can edit it./Coffeeshivers (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. More likely, they just like to abbreviate words with the beginning. As in "teen" for "teenager", or "twen" for "twentysomething". — Sebastian 18:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Going with someone's previous suggestion: would it perhaps be comparable to assuming that "cola" — i.e. "I'd like a small cola" — always means "Coca-Cola"? Coca-Cola is a type of cola, and like Wikipedia it's sometimes misabbreviated this way. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a very appropriate comparison! (My examples were not quite serious; I wanted to counterbalance the extreme examples above.) — Sebastian 06:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This all reminds me of Adobe's futile attempt to get people to stop using "photoshop" as a verb. Instead of "I photoshopped it" you were supposed to say "I edited it using the Adobe Photoshop™ software package". The only people who might have paid the remotest attention to this diktat were those in a business relationship with Adobe; for the rest of us, language went on evolving its own sweet way through common usage as it always does. Incidentally Coca-cola is commonly abbreviated to "coke", which the company seems happy with, and that's just as well because there's bugger all they could do to stop it happening if they weren't. 213.122.49.177 (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

But that last is at least partly because they had the foresight to trademark Coke when they noticed it taking off as an abbreviation, thus preventing other companies from referring to their own cola as coke. This is why other companies have to use cola. Coca-cola protects the Coke name every bit as much as the Coca-cola name, preventing it from becoming genericised. Adobe worry that people using photoshop as a verb don't care whether they actually used Photoshop or Gimp or some other software: they would probably be quite happy with its verbing if they could limit it to their own product. 81.153.82.148 (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix

What's the deal with the German word Phönix - is it a "back-transcription" of Phoenix, where oe is used sometimes for ö?

Thanks. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"ö" originally stands for oe - the double dots in "ö" have evolved from the letter "e" - see Double dot (diacritic)#History_2. Thus, Phönix is no exception: German spells all words that were spelled with "oe" in Latin with "ö": Ökonom, Diözese, Amöbe. — Sebastian 09:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And "y" in Greek words is pronounced as "ū"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And of course where the letters ä/ü/ö are not available on computer keyboards, they are often substituted (or more correctly: transcribed back) with ae/ue/oe though its considered bad form.--91.6.26.221 (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Why bad form, if the available technology does not allow umlauts? I ask as a Brit who lived in Mönchengladbach in the late 1970's and who doesn't recall any proscriptions against the alternative two-letter forms. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So what's with diploë? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If you mean, why the umlaut (aka diaeresis), this diacritic is usually used in English not to modify the pronunciation of the marked letter (as in German above), but to indicate that the pair of letters of which it is the second is to be pronounced separately from the first, the two being pronounced as a Diaeresis rather than either together as a Dipthong (where they are different letters) or as a Short vowel (where they are the same letter): for example, 'coöperate' (also written as 'co-operate') rhymes with "dough-obligate" rather than "whoop-a-rate" as 'cooperate' might be read (and where *coperate* would rhyme with "hop-a-gate" or "lope-a-bait").

In the case of 'diploë', if it were written 'diploe' it might be read by someone unfamiliar with the word (as I was until now) as rhyming with "hip-low", whereas the spelling 'diploë' indicates that it's to be pronounced as something like 'dip-low-ey'. It's often seen in technical/scientific words deriving from Greek (e.g. the older spelling of 'Zoology' which is 'Zoölogy', both correctly pronounced as "zoo-ology" - 'Zooology' would of course look silly), but is also useful in the case of other ambiguities. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Some anglo-celtic surnames had it as well - Brontë, to stop it being pronounced bront. No such need in Goethe, since everyone knew it was a German name and the final e was pronounced. Incidentally, why didn't he spell it Göthe? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Because his father didn't? :-) Bielle (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The use of the umlaut as a diacritical mark above the letter developed quite late, and presumably after the surname had become established. The spelling of names is likely to be less susceptible to spelling reform than ordinary words. -Ehrenkater (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I mean, if "oe" was considered "bad form", why was it not dispensed with at every possible opportunity? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

@87.81: where do you get that 'correctly pronounced "zoo-ology"'? My mother would have disagreed emphatically with you, and so does the OED (which says zəʊˈɒlədʒɪ, pop. zuːˈɒlədʒɪ'). The 'zu:-' is a spelling pronunciation, and my guess is that it became common only after 'zoological gardens' was shortened to 'zoo'. --ColinFine (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to define the precise pronunciation of the first vowel, Colin, which I agree varies; I was only alluding to the fact that the overall word 'zoology' is pronounced with two vowels before the 'l', not as if rhyming with "cool". I was avoiding IPA partly because I'm not particularly IPA-adept and partly because many readers are completely unfamiliar with it. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that "diploë" is not a German word - German does not have an "e umlaut". So the discussion of what ä/ö/ü mean in German doesn't carry over to "diploë". -- 128.104.112.87 (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Onomastics

As far as I know, personal names evolve along with their language of reference, so Latin names were adapted to current Italian (Aemilianus => Emiliano), Norse ones to Swedish (Þórbjǫrn => Thorbjörn), Anglosaxon ones to English (Eadweard => Edward). Now, my question is: did this occurred also to Ancient Greek/Modern Greek? Are modern Greek given names exactly the same (the ones still in use of course) as Ancient Greek? --151.51.10.133 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they evolve too. One example is Eleftherios Venizelos, where in the Greek spelling the "eu" is pronounced in modern Greek as "ef" and the "B" is pronounced "V". I don't think "Eleutherios" was an ancient name though, so that's not the best example...but yes they do evolve. Of course, they also use ancient forms (like Athina Onassis Roussel), just as we do (like Cassius Clay). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Roman Empire word

What would be a 7 letter English word that would represent the Roman Empire as would be ruled by Augustus and those afterwards?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Principate. Why 7 letter? --88.74.26.169 (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It solves a puzzel I am working on. While Principate is a 10 letter word, "supreme" does have 7 letters and looks like would fit the question. Its meaning is At the greatest, most excellent, extreme, most superior, highest, or utmost and Dominant, having power over all others, which fits the question. Thanks for idea.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "highest" also seems to fit.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tyranny? Marco polo (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Bingo!--64.138.237.101 (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

English in Mexico

are food products in Mexico written in both English and Mexican? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gramof7 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't answer that, but I would suggest you look at this section of our article on languages of Mexico. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no such language as Mexican. Most Mexicans speak Spanish. Most food products in Mexico have labels in Spanish, but some food products—those that are also sold north of the border in the United States—have labels in both English and Spanish. Marco polo (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What does 萬疆無壽 mean?

I found the phrase 萬疆無壽 written on one of the bowls in my house as a part of the design. They're evenly distributed around the outside of the bowl. What does this phrase mean? I tried to look it up on the internet but I couldn't find any English pages that mentioned the phrase. I think I got them in the right order, as what I could get out of the Chinese search results, but it's possible that they're not as there's no clear indication where you start reading the four characters; they're just in a circle around the bowl. I was able to find out the definitions individually, but I wasn't able to find out what the phrase meant as a whole. Thank you! 141.155.144.124 (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the correct order is 萬壽無疆. It means (roughly) Long Life No Hardships. I'm tempted to think that if it were 萬疆無壽 it would have meant All Hardships No Life. I'm not sure that's correct, though. --Kjoonlee 03:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the meaning it has in Korea, but might not be the same in China. See what PalaceGuard008 has to say below, please. --Kjoonlee 10:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW 萬壽無疆 seems to be the "Chinese Traditional" way of writing it, and 万寿无疆 the "Chinese Simplified" way. --Kjoonlee 03:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me.. When I was about twelve I thought 萬壽無疆 meant "be healthy." So on seolnal, I said to my parents, "May you be in 萬壽無疆 this whole year!" I wished them a long life of one year... Silly me. --Kjoonlee 03:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I beg to defer. 萬壽無疆 seems to me to mean "long life without limits". 疆 means territory, border, limit. I've never seen it being used in the sense of "hardship".

Literally, the characters mean respectively "ten thousand", "years of life", "no", "borders".

To the OP: you are reading the inscription backwards. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, in Korea 만수무강 (萬壽無疆) is used to mean "long life, no hardships" regardless, and is written in Korean dictionaries that way. So maybe the meaning is different in China, then. I'd never guessed. :) --Kjoonlee 10:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Does 疆 mean "hardships" in Korean? That meaning is not listed in Wiktionary. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. 만수무강 (萬壽無疆) is listed in Korean dictionaries as a 4-letter-phrase which means "long life no hardships" and I doubt people know what the letter means on its own. --Kjoonlee 09:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should question the accuracy of those dictionary translations. Inaccurate translations are quite common—I've seen a lot of bad translations, both to and from English. PalaceGuard008's translation from Chinese to English is correct. --173.49.9.184 (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no sir, not at all, wrong assumption. They're absolutely correct Korean meanings. --Kjoonlee 17:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Kjoonlee, every bowl I've ever seen with Chinese characters use the traditional ones. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - even in mainland China the inscription is printed in traditional characters. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Anything calligraphy-ish tends to be in traditional. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Past simple

Not trying to be racist or anything, but I've noticed that Americans of East/Southeast Asian origin tend to use the past simple/preterite/imperfect (or maybe it's another tense, I'm not good at grammar) wrong, specifically in the interrogative form, but also in the negative. E.g. they say/write "did he wrote?" instead of "did he write?" or "did this occured?" instead of "did this occur?" Is there a reason as to why they do this, or why they do it more than other ethnic groups? I've noticed this in people who otherwise spoke perfect English. Rimush (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I question your definition of "wrong". It is a dialect of English that differs from "standard" American English (or any other "standard" version of English that I know of), does that make it wrong? Are the French wrong for saying "bonjour" when the correct word is "hello"? That's a trick question - the French are always wrong. ;). --Tango (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, then is it generally recognized as a dialect with different grammar from General American English, like AAVE? Rimush (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What about "three dollar" instead of "three dollars"? Commonly heard spoken by people of Asian origin. Is this a "dialect" or is it simply "wrong"? Not everything can be put down to dialectal variations. Some things are just, well, wrong. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that several 'Asian' languages do not pluralise nouns as (for example) English does, relying simply on the accompanying number or other quantity indicator. Certainly in Hong Kong and Singapore in the 1960s, where I lived as a child, most local people who had learned to speak English outwith formal academic instruction would routinely say "three dollar", etc, as I would if speaking 'Pidgin' (not quite full-blown Chinese Pidgin English) to them. The fine English idiomatics of such basic differences seem particularly hard to get right; c.f. Russian speakers of otherwise near-flawless English who often slip up on articles, which Russian lacks, sometimes omitting them where usual or inserting them where not. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) While we can prompt the OP to reformulate his association of nonstandard with wrong, his basic question of why this happens isn't an untoward one.

I notice that what's happening seems to basically be a retainment of the past tense conjugation that would otherwise transfer completely to the auxiliary DO. English has an auxiliary "dummy do" that takes the verbal conjugation while the verb returns to the infinite form; this happens with certain kinds of questions ("did he eat it?") as well as with negation ("he didn't eat it") and emphasis ("he did eat it"). My guess as to why these speakers do this is that it has something to do with the Southeast Asian languages that have a presence with their past and their ethnic community. These languages often don't form sentences in the same way and a number of them don't conjugate verbs in the same way. It's a subtle "error" when learning English so an otherwise proficient speaker may go past people's ears most of the time, especially in speech so that, as Tango implies, there may now be a specific ethnolect of English-spoken-by-Americans-of-Chinese-heritage because this happened so often. The relevent term is negative transfer, by the way. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've heard native Dutch and German speakers make the same mistake. I have the feeling that it's much more common with "strong verbs", so "Did you saw?" is more likely than "Did you looked?". --Atemperman (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)