Language desk
< December 14	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 16 >

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 15[edit]

Words coined by children[edit]

I'm aware of googol's coinage by a nine-year-old. Does anyone know any other dictionary (!) words (in any language) coined by children. Or teenagers, I guess (but I'm already aware of Rimbaud's encrapuler et al too). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a new coinage but a new usage: in 1930 the name for the newly discovered what-was-then-called-planet Pluto was thought up by the 11-year-old Venetia Burney. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy and mama and papa, arguably. -- BenRG (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Children can surely be credited with many examples of Inventive spelling. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those examples (particularly Pluto and Wendy). I guess I'm looking for examples that can be attributed to a known child or adolescent with a name. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks U.S. Embassy "Cables"[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This appears to be a content dispute, not a reference desk question. Take to the appropriate article talk page or MOS talk page, please. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reading articles about the wikileaks, there is no explanation of what "Cables" means. It is obviously not referring to bundles of copper wires which is the literal definition. This technical jargon needs to be at least explained in its initial usuage of the word "Cables," e.g.

The US Embassy Cables - "Cables" being technical jargon for "secret communications" - were leaked by....

If someone could address this, it would make understanding the articles a lot simpler. I don't know how to add to Wikipedia, so I'm leaving this in your fine hands. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.219.99 (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technical terms in wikipedia are most often best explained by a link to a page describing the subject matter. The link should be to Diplomatic cable. The Wikileaks now has such a link; United States diplomatic cables leak already had one. Good call.--Tagishsimon (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, wikilinking a technical term is not an excuse for not explaining it. Readers shouldn't be expected to click through a bunch of pages to understand an article, and often the linked-to article is more complicated than the first article, sending readers on a never-ending wild goose chase through the encyclopedia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Consider the article eye. Would you put inline explanations of the very many bluelinked terms? Meanwhile the articles in question provide amply sufficient context to understand the term absent a visit to the definition page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the term is necessary to understand the article and is not clear from the context, an explanation should be required. If the term is not necessary (such as one of several examples of something), a wikilink is sufficient. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I am with Tagishsimon here. If you know what a "cable" is in this context, you don't need to click on the link. If you don't know and you want to know, click on the link. It is that simple. --Lgriot (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intonation[edit]

I know that in English, the Romance languages, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, you raise the tone of your voice to ask a question. Does the same apply to other languages? If so, why should this seemingly-random intonation rule be universal? --140.180.26.37 (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question, but I'm not sure the premise is valid. I don't know enough about Chinese or Korean, but in Japanese, while it is true that question intonation involves a rise, it is a different pattern from English (the voice rises just for the question particle 'ka'), so I don't think you can talk about a 'rule'. Intonation (linguistics), though not a very good article, has some more information which casts doubt on your general principle, and has a few references, though I've not followed them. --ColinFine (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Strayan, we raise our tone when making any sort of statement. (or possibly ?). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not universal. Russian, for instance, has a very different question intonation than English. In questions containing an interrogative word ("what?" "who?" "where?" etc), you have a drop in pitch towards the end of the sentence. In questions without an interrogative word, you have a sharp rise on the first syllable of the word that's being emphasized/question, followed by a sharp drop and low intonation for the rest of the sentence. Using English-style question intonation both sounds a little odd (definitely a foreignism) and often doesn't even convey the sense of question—it sounds more like you're just making a statement. Voikya (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In French class, we were taught that intonation is only one of three ways to ask a question. You can also invert the subject and verb ("Have you the right answer?") or add "Est-ce que" ("Is it that") to the front of your statement to turn it into a question. --Thomprod (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is still intonation with those forms, though. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Fusha Arabic, the word 'hal' makes any sentence a yes/no question. No intonation is needed. --Soman (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my French phonetics class, we learned that in a yes or no question "Did you eat lunch today?", you raise the sentence at the end. In open-ended questions, such as "How much does this cost?" you drop the intonation at the end. One also raises the intonation at various points within the sentence, so (in Standard French at least) it would be "Pourqoui est-ce que l'homme [up], qui a faime [up], mange ce fromage? [down]". That, in case you are curious, should mean "Why is the man, who is hungry, eating this cheese?" Falconus^{p t c} 16:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Hungarian the voice is up on the last-but-one syllable, not the last, the last is clearly a step down from the previous one --Lgriot (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nasal "yes" by African-Americans[edit]

Hi! There´s a question about English in DE-Wikipedia´s "Auskunft" that can hardly be answered by us Germans - but you might be able to help. I´ll try to translate it: In recent TV-series from the US, female african-american actors increasingly use a nasal "Mmmmmh"-sound, that seems to be an affirmation (meaning "Yes"). On the discussion page, we wondered a) if the use of this form is actually restricted to (female) african-americans? b) if it is a new development? Perhaps one of you locals has any ideas, Besten Dank, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This form is a variant of the expression often spelled unh-huh or uh-huh, which is an affirmative meaning, more or less, "yes". I think you are describing a variant that uses the rising intonation (first syllable low pitch, second syllable medium pitch) of unh-huh but without every opening the mouth. (Its negative counterpart is uh-uh, with a generally falling intonation pattern). This set of utterances is probably a borrowing into American English from one or more tonal African languages, originally via African slaves during the 17th and 18th centuries. It is in use among all American, black and white, though exaggerated versions of these utterances are stereotypically found among African Americans. In fact, you will find animated versions of these expressions among American whites, too. (See this reference and this discussion.) Marco polo (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is common in British English too, and on that basis, I doubt that it derives from tonal African languages. I think it is much more likely related to a more general usage of pitch tone variation to indicate yes/no, good/bad etc. Compare 'ah-ha!' with 'uh-oh!'.

I agree it's definitely not uniquely African nor American (or even African American) it's widely used in many varieties of English. Roger (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question immediately above this one, on 'intonation'. is discussing much the same subject ... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of this expression in varieties of English other than American English is hardly evidence against an African origin. If this was an African loan into American English, well established in American English by the 19th century, it would not be the only example of borrowing from American English into other varieties of English since the 19th century. People in the UK and other parts of the Anglosphere have seen Hollywood movies and American television shows, too. Marco polo (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Identical "tonal expressions" for yes / no also exist in German. As in English, there is a rising intonation for yes and a falling intonation for no. Generally, they are associated with the appropriate (nodding / shaking) movements of the head. Admittedly, there is a slim possibility that these "words" were introduced by US American (possibly African American) military forces stationed in Germany / Austria. I (having spent my infantility in the US sector of Vienna) doubt it, but maybe a Swiss ref desker (like Sluzzelin) or a person from the former GDR could clear that up. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They also exist in Afrikaans. I suspect this phenomenon may have a much older history and emerged in the Germanic language family at a very early stage of their shared history. More research needed... Roger (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think the original poster was talking about a single-syllable grunt. I use this sometimes; I don't associate it specifically with African-Americans. Actually the first person I remember using it regularly was an Indian guy (as in from India). I think it's become more common in recent years, but I'm not sure of that. --Trovatore (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(OR warning) I was using these sounds long before I ever knew what "African Americans" were, and certainly long before I ever saw or heard anyone from the American or African continents (even on TV -- yes, I can remember the first TV I ever saw), but in my native area (a Yorkshire dale in Cumbria) a rising tone indicates a question, with the affirmative having a flat or falling tone. I tend to no longer use these because they are commonly misunderstood without the associated gestures. Dbfirs 00:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if anyone has totally grasped what the OP was asking about; here is a parody of it from Family Guy. It's extremely difficult to find clips of real people doing this, but, well, any sort of comedy with African-American women is bound to have a few examples. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Marco Polo provided a good answer, but to summarize: the lengthened, exaggerated version is seen as typical of some African-American women (African American Vernacular English), but uh-huh and uh-uh are of course common among all English-speakers. I would also like more evidence for the supposed African derivation, but it is interesting that the first of these two quotations from the OED also gives that explanation (the second gives a little more information on the phonetics).

"1969 D. Dalby in A. Dundes Mother-Wit (1973) 139/1 African usage can also explain the frequent use by Americans of the interjections uh-huh, for ‘yes’, and uh-uh for ‘no’. Similar forms, especially for ‘yes’, occur in scattered parts of the world, but nowhere as frequently and as regularly as in Africa.

"1982 J. C. Wells Accents of English III. vi. 556 There are also the grunts sometimes spelt uh-huh and uh-uh respectively. The first, ‘yes’, is phonetically [ˈə̃hə̃, ˈʌ̃hʌ̃, ˈmm̥m], hence nasal or nasalized; it usually has a rising tone pattern.‥ The second, ‘no’, is [ˈʔəʔˈʔə, ˈʔʌ̃ʔˈʔʌ, ˈʔmʔˈm]‥; it is not necessarily nasal, and has an accented final syllable, with an obligatorily falling tone pattern." Lesgles (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the single-syllable version or the more recent two-syllable "uh-huh"? Dbfirs 07:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all convinced that "uh-huh" and "uh-uh" are of African origin, as Brits have been know to use them as well. But there's no question that a lot of African-American nuggets have been brought into white America over the decades. Endless musical influences, for one. And catch-phrases, like being "dissed", or being "down with that", or slurring the mundane "what's up?" into the stylistic "whuzzuuuup?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apprehension[edit]

In English, If ur speaking about someone in the police force or someone else doing apprehensions, what is the right words to use in front of apprehension?

MAKING apprehensions

DOING apprehensions

PERFORMING apprehensions

Or could more than one of these three variants be correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.123.152 (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Far, far better than any of those three variants would be the following:

APPREHENDING.

If you insist on using apprehensions plus a verb instead of the verb apprehend, then I suppose making or performing would be awkward but okay. Doing sounds extremely awkward. Marco polo (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to me at all; apprehension is a state of being, not an action. One cannot do/make/perform it. One can have an apprehension about something or be apprehensive. It means to have a negative or fearful expectation: An apprehension of disaster. Roger (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary allows apprehension as "The seizure of a person, a ship, etc., in the name of justice or authority; arrest. Const. subj. gen. of the actor, obj. gen. of the person arrested, the latter being more frequent: ‘The king's apprehension of Pym,’ ‘Pym's apprehension by the king’." DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The noun is standard police jargon. However, so is the verb apprehend or apprehending. Marco polo (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be at all surprised to hear police persons talking about "effecting an apprehension".

@ Marco polo: "Doing apprehensions" does indeed sound extremely awkward. But no worse, really, than "doing due diligence", a repulsive phrase that's been dumped on us by unthinking corporate dolts. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of seeming not to answer the OP's question, as a native speaker of American English I'd never say any of those (making, doing, or performing apprehensions). I'd say "making arrests." --- OtherDave (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that arrests is more natural, but police are fond of apprehensions, which is actually a somewhat broader term than arrests, including seizures both of persons and of possessions. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an apprehension could result in a mere "detention" rather than an arrest (which triggers more rights). —Tamfang (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In cop-talk, Effecting an apprehension of the perpetrator is probably standard. :) Corvus cornix_talk 22:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real cops or Hollywood cops? Roger (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by others here, I would think the cops would be more likely to take the active-voice approach and say "apprehended the suspect". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Making/effecting/doing/whatever-ing apprehensions" is still active, Bugsy. "The suspect was apprehended" - that would be passive. Or even "An apprehension was effected". The difference between "The detective apprehended the person" and "The detective effected an apprehension of the person" has nothing to do with active/passive. It has more to do with Plain English vs. corporate gobbledygook, wank-speak or officialese. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old English word definition[edit]

And sche bare hir first borun sone, and wlappide hym in clothis, and leide hym in a cratche, for ther was no place to hym in no chaumbir.
I realize "chaumbir" is old English or middle English, however I am interested in the modern definitions.--LordGorval (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber is from the french for room. Considering that many modern translations of the passage state there was "no room availible", see NIV and NASB and New King James Version all translate it as "room". --Jayron32 16:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Chaumbir" is, as noted, simply our modern word "chamber," though used in its old sense of a room in a house, especially a bedroom or other private room. Some other modern meanings of "chamber" are here. A literal translation of this Middle English passage is, "And she gave birth to her first-born son, and wrapped him in cloths, and laid him in a cratch, for there was no place for him in a room." A "cratch" generally is a rack or crib to hold fodder for horses and cattle, although the word can also refer to a manger, which is a long open box or trough for this purpose. John M Baker (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., thanks.--LordGorval (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed a couple of days ago, the terms "creche" and "cratch(e)" have the same origin, and are considered equivalent to "manger". If I'm reading your comments right, they really are the same thing, except maybe some variation in shape and size. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After my catholic upbringing in the 1970s and 80s in the UK, I grew up thinking a 'manger' was actually a crib that you put babies in. It was only pretty recently (relatively speaking) that I actually found out it was something that cattle, etc., feed from. I can only assume that our teachers just expected this sort of thing to be common knowledge amongst kids in the city from the age of 3. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how often in modern English the term "manger" is used in any context other than the Nativity? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So seldom that the word is now popularly understood as a poetic synonym of "cradle". But apparently the word retains its original significance in agricultural circles, or did until very recently. A citation from Farmers Weekly, 3 January, 1986: We must do something about the troughing, both to improve intake by having feed constantly in the manger, and to cut down labour. LANTZY ^TALK 02:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up on a farm with an old-fashioned barn, and we had mangers in which we put ground feed for our animals. I guess we also had cratches to hold their hay, but we didn't call them that; we just called them racks. John M Baker (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that manger is cognate to the homographic French verb meaning "to eat" may help people remember what its actual meaning is. —Angr (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]