Language desk
< June 17	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 19 >

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 18[edit]

What is so special about accents, that makes them so difficult?[edit]

How does it come that many people are quite good in some aspects - vocabulary, syntax - of a foreign language, but still have a foreign accent - sometimes quite thick and even after several years? --Mr.K. (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make a distinction between writing/speaking and reading/listening. As far as writing/speaking is concerned, some people find it much easier to write than to speak, because the ability to write correctly requires "mental" talents only (grammar, syntax, vocabulary etc. - assuming that the motoric ability "to move the hand when one writes" isn't that difficult task), while the ability to speak requires also special "motoric" talents (mainly: accent). On the other hand, as far as reading/listening is concerned, one may find it much easier to understand what one reads than what one hears, because the ability to understand what one reads - requires just the ability to distinguish between visual nunaces - the reader determining one's own speed of reading, while the ability to understand what one hears - requires the ability to distinguish between acoustical differences (reflected by nuances in accent) - the listener being unable to control the rate of speech. To sum up: As far as writing/speaking is concerned - mental talents are (for some people) more available than motoric ones, and as far as reading/listening is concerned - visual differences are (for some people) much easier to notice than acoustical ones. HOOTmag (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HOOTmag has given a very nice technical description of what makes pronunciation qualitatively different from syntax. I would add that teaching methods also share some blame in taking an extremely permissive approach to bad pronunciation and exposing new language learners to artificial language environments in which competent speaking skills and accurate language production are of little concern. Some people are barely even aware that different languages are composed of different phonetic building blocks that must be given special attention. And since pronunciation relies so much on motor skills and muscle memory, bad habits fossilize quite early on, and people don't even realize just how far off their own pronunciation is. Paul Davidson (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your addition. HOOTmag (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every language has its own set of points of articulation. At a very early age we learn where to e.g. place our tongue when pronouncing the sounds of our native language and these are hard-wired in our brain. When learning another language this language usually has a different set of points of articulation. If one of the sounds of the foreign language lacks in the native language the speaker may resort to a sound known from his native language with a slightly different point of articulation. You can try to hit the exact point of articulation required by the foreign language but this usually requires some more effort everytime you pronounce the sound (until the foreign point of articulation is hard-wired in your brain, which can take some time). It's just easier to use the points of articulation known from your native language. They require less effort.

Why does the accent last? If you once realize that everybody understands you despite the accent there is not much motivation to put effort in improving your pronunciation. Accents are a feature that is prominent but it has less effect on intelligibility than wrong syntax or lack of vocabulary. --::Slomox:: >< 14:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some related topics are Broca's area and Wernicke's area.—Wavelength (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another related topic: Critical_period_hypothesis#Second_language_acquisition. Some OR, regarding speaking Norwegian with an American accent: I've listened to Norwegians who have emigrated to USA at an early age (presumably in their twenties), who have been interviewed on Norwegian TV, speaking Norwegian. They speak Norwegian with an American accent, that is (to a Norwegian ear) virtually indistinguishable to that of a Norwegian-speaking American who has moved to Norway at a similar age. --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sounds that the human is able to produce. As a young child you can distinguish between these sounds easily; as you get older, your brain gradually begins only hearing the sounds relevant to the language(s) that the person speaks. The difference between a "p" sound and a "b" sound are very obvious to English speakers. It makes the difference between "bat" and "pat". The difference between an aspirated "p" and a nonaspirated "p" (I believe it's saying "p" and extending it with a breath; we don't worry about it in English, so I may not have a good understanding of it) is something that absolutely cannot change the meaning of an English word, and indeed, if I aspirated a "p" when it's not normal to do so, you probably wouldn't even notice. Yet, in some languages (~~Thai~~ Vietnamese, if I remember correctly) the difference is as major as b/p to us, and changes the meaning of the words, and in other languages "p"/"b" will not change the meaning of a word. The "r" that we use in English is somewhat rare in the language world, and to some cultures is difficult to distinguish from an "l". Part of learning another language is learning the sounds that you are not trained to hear, and that can be a tremendous challenge for some people. Somebody, correct me if I am wrong about the p/pʰ (aspirated "p") or anything else for that matter. Falconus^{p t c} 23:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are they not innate to articulators as such a variation to be produced? Although there may by some instances in other languages, I agree that these allophones in English are not trained to hear, which is a predictable phonetic realization that is natural to its phonemic environment.

On the OP, couldn’t it be said precisely that it relies on the nature of social interaction in which one engages though the spoken aspect cannot fully reley on the same dynamism because it depends heavily on the degree of cue that individual renders to environment? -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what you mean... I am not a linguist, I only have a casual interest. Also, I think I messed up. I don't think it was Thai, but rather Vietnamese. In any case, I am trying to remember what I learned in my Language and Culture class last year. Falconus^{p t c} 02:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Vietnamese it is the distinction between aspirated t (spelt th) and unaspirated t (spelt t) that is phonemic. It is fairly difficult for an English speaker to acquire but can be done with practice. I found having previously learned French helped, because I could pronounce the aspirated t as in English and the unaspirated one as in French. The tones are the really difficult part of Vietnamese for a speaker of a non-tone language, and the difference between short and long a can be difficult too, especially when it is in diphthongs. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-er vs. -eer in English[edit]

manage => manager, fish => fisher, roof => roofer, but mountain => mountaineer, profit => profiteer, auction => auctioneer. Is there a rule or pattern? --173.49.13.168 (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One pattern that stands out is that you add -er to verbs and -eer to nouns. "Verb + er" simply means "one who (verb)". -eer is obviously a different kettle of fish. Paul Davidson (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The -eer form comes from Latin -arius, through French, according to this. This other entry expands on the same idea. And of course there's a very interesting OEtD entry for -er. Which may be indirectly related to French-originated -eer. Pallida Mors 23:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for a specific pattern, I haven't found much [or should I say, anything? :(]. Pallida Mors 23:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One obvious pattern is that there are many more "-er" agentives than there are "-eer" nouns, and that the "-er" agentive noun suffix is more linguistically productive than "-eer" also... AnonMoos (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can see more suffixes at http://www.english-for-students.com/Suffixes.html (1.i. and 5.i.).—Wavelength (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'er' suffix generally follows a verb to denote one who carries out the action of that verb - see your list (even 'roof' is a verb as in 'to roof a house'). The 'eer' suffix attaches to a noun to denote the person who carries out the obvious action associated with that noun. e.g. chariot - charioteer (one who drives the chariot). Or your example of mountain and mountaineer (one who climbs a mountain). 194.223.35.225 (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mental health care: consumer, user or client?[edit]

Is consumer really the best word for people getting diagnoses? Lova Falk talk 14:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your question seems to be asking whether we feel it is the best word, and not whether it is actually the 'official' word or not, so, based purely on POV, I shall say that I object to the use of the word 'consumer', and would prefer either 'user' (more specifically 'Service User', as used here in the UK) or client. If you want to know whether the word 'consumer' is officially recognized nomenclature for users/clients, you may want to contact your local service providers and see if they have any information. You may also want to raise this issue on the article's talk page, as is standard for any article-related issues needing attention. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is wrong with calling people patients? This seems to be pervading all forms of health care. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My local service providers say either patient, klient or brukare. But they don't say konsument regarding mental health care users. ;)

Anyway, I do mean whether it is actually the "official" word or not. I just thought I'd check it here on the reference desk first, before I start a discussion on the talk page. With regard to the word patients, I think there has been a discussion in how the word patient colours the way we see people with a "mental" diagnosis. Lova Falk talk 15:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that would be any more the case than with people with a physical diagnosis, viz. none. People under the care of healthcare professionals have always been called "patients". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether various mental illnesses should be considered a "disease", and the fact that many people working in mental health (at least in community mental healthcare) are not doctors and are not "treating" individuals but helping with life stuff. I worked in community mental health in Pennsylvania for several years, and there "consumer" was the official term and was pretty much the only one used. Not sure about other places, but I imagine it would be similar. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My husband works in mental health awarenesss training in the UK, and the term that comes up most frequently in his material for those receiving treatment is "service user". I'm with Jack on the "patient" thing - if I'm ill and need help and care, I do not want it to be regarded as the same kind of transaction as taking a bus ride or borrowing a library book - but then I still gnash my teeth every time the announcer on the train refers to me as a "customer" instead of a passenger. Ka renjc 19:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag, you would know better than I about the strong campaign over recent decades to educate people to regard mental conditions in the same way as physical conditions - they're just as treatable, just as potentially curable, and the sufferers deserve the same respect as those who have physical conditions, and do not deserve derision or being locked away. They are indeed sufferers of "diseases" in many cases; maybe not contagious diseases, but most physical conditions aren't contagious either. When being attended to by licenced medical practitioners, they are indeed "patients", just like physical patients. And sure, there can be a raft of people involved in their treatment, just the same as with the treatment of physical conditions (physiotherapists, social workers, educators, ...). Those other helpers would use terms other than "patient", yes. But please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and eliminate the doctors from the equation - they do have an important role to play, and the people under their care are "patients". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be a matter of perspective. The kind of work I did had more to do with day-to-day living and carrying out various goal-oriented plans, and less to do with the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders, and people like me (and MHPs and case managers)—the 'other helpers' you refer to—were supposed to use "consumer". As for actual psychiatrists, maybe "patient" is a more appropriate term for them to use, but I don't really have much experience with that end of things so I'm not sure what they use. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just my perception, but from what I notice in the U.S., you're more often a patient when dealing with a physical-health professionals (a physician, a dentist, an optometrist) and more often a client when dealing with mental-health professionals (a psychologist, a licensed clinical social worker). A psychiatrist falls into both categories but the M.D. tends to triumph, and those whom she treats are patients. "Consumer" tends to be the insurance company's perspective. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lena's bizarre accent[edit]

So, I've heard the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 winner, "Satellite", on the radio a few times, and I have to say that Lena Meyer-Landrut has one of the weirdest accents I have ever heard. Could someone more knowledgeable than myself confirm that her accent is nothing at all like a typical German accent (nor any other accent, for that matter). A short sample from the song can be found at: File:Lena_Meyer-Landrut_-_Satellite.ogg (It's even weirder in other parts of the song, though). Thanks, decltype (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds pretty normal, but if pressed I'd say it sounded Indian to me, like something I'd expect in songs sung in English from Bollywood movies. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I heard it, I thought she was doing an impersonation of either Lily Allen or Katy Perry: affecting a Cockney accent in much the same way as Dick van Dyke did in Mary Poppins. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, Lily Allen - definitely! The music style is not much different either. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were also comments about her sounding like Australian singer Missy Higgins. The way Lena says day as [dɑj] is very Australian. Steewi (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese translation request[edit]

File:IMG 2303.JPG

So, while I was in Beijing, I bought a small painting. Nothing terribly fancy, but I like it. A red-flowered tree, with words along the bottom corner. Before I hang it on my library wall, it would be nice if I knew what it says. If it says, "Property of gullible tourist," obviously, that'll only make me love it more. Anybody here read what I am assuming is Mandarin? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is upside-down. The first two characters are 紅/red and 梅/plum. Next two are 報 and 喜/joy (?). It might be "red plum blossom brings joy" . But I cannot read the rest. Oda Mari (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry, I forgot that the scroll-thing goes on the bottom, not the top. I've rotated the picture and swapped it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it. The next three are 庚/Yang Metal, 寅/tiger, 年/year and it means 2010 in Chinese calender. And the last three are 溥？画/paint and it means painted by 溥？. Oda Mari (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I can live with that on my library wall. Thank you very much for the translation. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Correction. The fourth character is 春/spring, not 喜. The correct translation is " Red plum blossoms are telling you (the arrival of) spring. Oda Mari (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is indeed 喜 (joy/happiness) (the long horizontal stroke 2/3 way down gives it away). --Kvasir (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translate from Japanese to English[edit]

ちのうが　たかく　とても　れいせい。たいようの　ひかりを　たっぷり　あびると　うごきが　するどくなる。

Thanks! --75.25.103.109 (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'[He] is highly intelligent, and very level-headed. After bathing a lot in the rays of the sun, [his] movements become astute.' I am guessing this is for a game character? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tsutāja from Pokémon Black and White. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I thought it looked familiar. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]