Language desk
< June 26	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 28 >

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 27

Phonetic transcription of Norwegian

Can anyone give me an IPA transcription of the Norwegian lyrics to this piece? I tried to write one myself using an online Norwegian dictionary, but I don't actually speak Norwegian and the words are in an archaic Danishized orthography, so it was rather difficult. Thanks. 76.204.127.175 (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your source indicates that the song was published in 1914, but it is not written in Norwegian Riksmål according to the 1907 ortography. It's closer to contemporary Danish than Norwegian. decltype (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with this sentence?

The sentence is: "I don't know Santa Claus doesn't exist". It seems to contain some kind of logical error or possibly even self-contradiction, but I'm not sure how to describe it. 69.109.58.84 (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense but it sounds horrible to my ears. I would say something like "I don't know if Santa Claus exists" but then that's not saying exactly the same thing. Dismas|^(talk) 02:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"whether" is better than "if" in that context, since it's a yes/no choice (there's an unspoken "...or not", and saying "whether or not" is far better than "if or not"). Grutness...wha? 01:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Seems OK to me. Maybe a "that" could go after "know", but it's not essential. That's grammatically. But if you're talking about the truth value of the sentence, I still see no issue. If he did exist, there would be evidence; but the reverse does not apply - there is no evidence for the non-existence of something. Maybe he doesn't exist, but the best we can ever say is that we don't know that for certain, and what you said covers that well. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with it, it's just infelicitous if you drop it out there with no context. Given the right context, it can be perfectly normal. (For instance, "You don't have any proof that Santa Claus exists" "well, yeah, but I don't know he doesn't exist...".) rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong, Kissinger speaks like that all the time. :-) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, there's plenty wrong with it! ;) Grutness...wha? 01:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation; English -> Lakota

What would be the translations of the Golden Eagle (a leadership program at the Dane G. Hansen Scout Reservation that is based of the traditions and customs of the Native Americans) names "Storm Caster" (Caster in this case meaning "someone who casts") and "Beautiful Rose" into Lakota? Also, what would be the pronunciations of the translations? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big band furniture

Typically the musicians in a "big band" of the Swing era would sit behind a sort of waist-high desk, usually decorated with the bandleader's initials, as seen in this photo of British POWs in a camp in WWII-era Germany. Does that piece of furniture have a colloquial name? "Music desk" doesn't strike me as having entered the common parlance and I don't have any period literature handy. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't just a music stand? Exploding Boy (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the Music stand page which describes the distinction, albeit entirely unsourced. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These manufacturers of the things simply call them music stands, although an often-used name for them seems to be "band fronts" (as a Google search shows). Deor (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We call em either 'music desks' or stands. I think the term 'desk' is more descriptive of this sort of stand.--RampantHomo (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese "ph" instead of "f"

In Vietnamese orthography, the letters "ph" are used to represent the voiceless labiodental fricative. I was wondering why whoever decided on that spelling system (Alexander de Rhodes, was it?) chose "ph" instead of just using "f", which isn't used for anything else in Vietnamese and which I'd have thought would be the simpler, more obvious choice. Have there been changes in language which would explain it, or was it just a stylistic decision? -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, Alexandre de Rhodes made prominent contributions, yet he was working on top of an already substantial amount of scholarship and lexicography of Vietnamese done by the Portuguese missionaries--达伟 (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've often wondered this myself, and I don't have an answer. One possibility that has occurred to me (but I have no idea if it's right or not) is that the sound in question may have been /pʰ/ at the time the orthography was devised (just as ‹th› in Vietnamese is /tʰ/ to this day) but it has since changed to /f/ (a very common sound change, which also happened within the attested history of Greek and in the prehistory of the Italic languages like Latin). However, this is pure conjecture on my part. +An gr 18:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouncing s like sh, e.g. in "last" year - pronounced like: "lasht" year, in some American accents.

Note that I'm not talking about the phenomenon of Yod-coalescence, like in "assume" (which may be pronounced like "eshoom" in Australia and NZ and also in Cockney), but rather about words like "last" year, which have nothing to do with Yod-coalescence, and are nevertheless pronounced - in a few American accents - as if the "s" were "sh". Do you know of some more details about this phenonemon, mainly about its geography in US (or in any other part of the English speaking world), and about the phonological conditions for it to occur? Wikipedia says nothing, as far as I know. HOOTmag (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Living in the US, I haven't really heard this phenomenon, except prior to a word that begins with yod, as in your example: "last year"--the yod from "Year" probably triggers a patalatization of the s in "last."--达伟 (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it, except from those with ill-fitting dentures, in any of Canada, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, England or Scotland. Bielle (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it a lot, mainly from ex-President Bush, and from many other Americans, even when the next word does not begin with a yod. Here is a video, in which you can hear the guy say, at 1:22: "and I've been asked to talk about whether there's a losht (=lost) generation of workers or not, well here's the answer to that: there could be, unlesh (=unless) you prepare otherwise...". The first word ("losht"=lost) is a stronger evidence (than the second one), since the next word begins with no yod. HOOTmag (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's just my ill-fitting hearing aids.:-) Bielle (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you're kidding, but I'm serious. Do you, like me, hear him say "losht", "unlesh" ??? HOOTmag (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Previous ref-desk thread that may be of interest. Deor (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, they mentioned also "shtrong", which I forgot. HOOTmag (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that this is a feature of some individuals' speech (isn't Sean Connery rather famous for sh-ing his s′s?) rather than a feature of any American dialect or "accent". Deor (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Philadelphia dialect#Consonants (permanent link here), "the sibilant /s/ is palatalized to [ʃ] (as in she) before /tɹ/. Thus, the word streets might be pronounced "shtreets" [ʃtɹits]." See also Phillyspeak and search for "Shtreets".—Wavelength (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an American in the Southeast, I find both pronunciations ("last" "lasht") to be perfectly acceptable before a word starting with "y". In fact, I suspect I may do this myself. Falconus^{p t c} 04:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note...in the video above, you do realize g in generation is an affricate, which can cause palatalization. Also, the shtrong or shtreet ("strong" or "street"), etc. pronunciation is common in the New York City area a swell; moreover shtrength ("strength") seems to be widespread throughout the United States.--达伟 (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese reading help

In regard to the Chinese name of Diho Square (顶好广场) in the Houston Chinatown - I know the readings of the first, third, and fourth characters are dǐng, guǎng, and chǎng. But what tone of "hao" (second character) is used? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tone is third: hǎo. However, because of this, this changes the pronunciation in this combination of the word dǐng to second (i.e., díng) and that of guǎng to second also (guáng). See tone sandhi.--达伟 (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see - thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difference.

What is the actual difference between sodomy and buggery. My BF says there isnt any.--RampantHomo (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buggery refers specifically to anal intercourse (noting that it is slang, and may not always be used in precisely that way). Sodomy is a broader term which refers to any non-vaginal form of intercourse, including oral and manual stimulation. If you've given/gotten a blowjob, you are, technically speaking, a sodomite but not a bugger (buggerer? not up on British English). --Ludwigs2 00:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... Sodomy is even more general, including "inter-species intimacies" (how's that for a euphemism?) often unfairly attributed to farmers in isolated areas. Dbfirs 07:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...giving a new twist to the time-honored term, animal husbandry. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In these gender-neutral times, it's strange that hasn't morphed into 'animal adultery'. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Guys, I need to point out that the term 'animal' is considered offensive. the correct phrasing is "differently-speciesed individuals". --Ludwigs2 20:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

It's not that new a twist. As long ago as 1959, Tom Lehrer told about the doctor whose "educational career began interestingly enough in agricultural school, where he majored in animal husbandry, until they caught him at it one day". +An gr 20:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, in Sodom, did they used to do all this stuff with animals etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RampantHomo (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]