Language desk
< November 11	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 13 >

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.

November 12[edit]

Chimata de uwasa no[edit]

I am having much difficulty trying to figure out what 巷で噂の means in English. As far as I can tell, it's a common idiom in Japanese, but I can't find a meaning anywhere, not even through contextual clues I could find online.--十八 07:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See these. [1], [2], and [3]. Oda Mari (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate gives "the rumor in the streets". Looie496 (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have or I have got?[edit]

I have a grammatical question that's been bugging me for over three decades. When I was growing up in California I was taught to say I have; yet when I went to England people said instead I have got; whereas in Ireland everybody said I've. Let me give a specific example,. USA: I have two sisters, UK: I have got two sisters, Ireland: I've two sisters. So which of these is correct? My daughter here in Italy is being taught in school to say I have got two legs, I have got two arms, etc. At home, however, she hears me say I have. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with prescriptivism aside (especially the "Highlander Rule" - "there can only be one construction"), I don't agree with your analysis. As a Northern Irelander who lives abroad around many Americans, I would say that "I have got" is somewhat common in the UK as well as Ireland, but not so much in the US. But it is not as concrete as you make out: I don't doubt you'll hear any of the three anywhere. See Differences_between_American_and_British_English#Use_of_tenses. "I've" is simply a contraction of "I have", so it's not so much about geography. People don't really get taught any "national standard" as such, so "I was taught..." is hardly an authority. But that's my tuppence. -- the Great Gavini 08:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what does prescriptivism have to do with it? Jeanne didn't make an "analysis" of which was right or wrong, so what's there for you to disagree with? And I certainly don't see what you mean by "people don't really get taught any 'national standard' as such"—huh? Standard language, anyone? rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She asked "which of these are correct?", so evidently she was expecting some authoritarian diktat rationalising one use at the expense of others, so, yes, prescriptivism has everything to do with it. I disagreed with her analysis that the tripartite division she describes exists, based on our article ("USA: I have two sisters, UK: I have got two sisters, Ireland: I've two sisters") and her erroneous generalisation that "in Ireland everybody said I've". And as for "standard language": whose version, and whence the authority? I personally "was taught", at various times, that "TV" for "television" is unacceptable and acceptable, but I'm old enough to know that's individual teaching opinion and no authority, and that English is not guided by one single principle. What you call "standard English" is a nebulous, shaky balance between justifying rules by popular opinion ("that's now considered unacceptable and minority use is archaic/dialectal") and its polar opposite ("people today are being misled and the expert minority are conserving a old etymological tradition which isn't archaic"). But you yourself sound like you wanted an implied rule based on arbitrary criteria ("I say ...", "I hear ...", "I was taught...", "Dictionary/Book x says..."), and in that I cannot satisfy. -- the Great Gavini 09:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point. If you grew up in the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, or another predominantly English-speaking nation, you certainly went through school learning a national standard and not, say AAE. The very fact that they are the main languages of education is one of the things that defines standard languages. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I got the point: I personally "was taught", at various times, that "TV" for "television" is unacceptable and acceptable, but I'm old enough to know that's individual teaching opinion and no authority. Clearly "TV" cannot be both standard and not in BE. The posters below also share differing perceptions of a national standard. Likewise, the OP recalling being taught "I have" cannot surely be applied everywhere in the US and in AE, and it can hardly be applied to English taught in, er, Italy (Italian Standard English, anyone?). Why, indeed, would standards be gauged at a national level, anyway? Some sort of sovereign power I'm not aware of? -- the Great Gavini 07:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but which is correct usage I have or I have got?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say (in the UK) either of 'I've got a car' or 'I have a car', in contrast 'I have got a car' would only be said for emphasis. Mikenorton (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting discussion thread here. I think Jeanne's analysis is "correct" (that is, that "I've got two sisters" would be used colloquially in the UK, more often than "I have two sisters"), but I don't think it's "correct" to think that either form is "correct" - they are just different styles. One of many differences mentioned in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I once got into an argument with my son's English teacher who insisted that I was in the wrong for teaching my son to say I have when the English textbook published in the UK said I have got. I had told her I have was correct, but that I have got is used in the UK for emphasis.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather surprised that your son's English teacher objected to the omission of "got" because all three usages are common in the UK, the contraction "I've" being informal, of course. Only "gotten" would be considered an Americanism, or local UK dialect, because that usage has died out in most areas of the UK. Dbfirs 09:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., "gotten" isn't used in cases of static possession ("I've got a book") or obligation ("I've got to go"), only in other situations, mainly becoming ("I've gotten married") and obtaining ("I've gotten two Fabergé eggs with great difficulty"). By the way, "I have got two sisters" is stylistically rather peculiar, since it sends a mixed message (the "got" possession construction = low style while lack of contraction = high style)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the same as the (old) usage in some English dialects. Dbfirs 13:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't surprised considering the general incompetence of most teachers here; when I challenged the woman to say something in English her accent was so incomprehensible that I seriously thought she was speaking another language far removed from English. Then I discovered she had never once visited a country in which English is the native language so....(shrugs shoulders in Gallic fashion)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which is correct, but if I was writting or speaking formally, I would use "I have" and when speaking conversationally I'd say "I've got" (London, England). Alansplodge (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its probably a regional/class thing. I can't imagine a Cockney saying "I have a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts" -- Q Chris (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not - it should be "luverly", otherwise one loses the scansion :-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am British. I prefer I have - especially with sisters. A better example would be a map. Where is Smith Road? I am not sure, but I have a map. The teacher sounds daft (personal attack). Kittybrewster ☎ 11:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would never use I have got in a Wikipedia article. I am reminded of the Beatles song Another Girl which opens up with the line Oh I have got another girl. I also recall having watcheda tv interview of Prince Charles and Princess Diana shortly after William's birth. She tells the interviewer that William "has got a little toy whale which is his favourite toy". So it's obviously not a regional nor a class issue.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Maybe "educational achievement" rather than regional or class? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quotation from C. S. Lewis's Studies in Words (1960) that I offer merely as an indication of one man's perception of a distinction in the constructions' usage in a particular case: "The language which can with the greatest ease make the finest and most numerous distinctions of meaning is the best. ... It was better to have the older English distinction between 'I haven't got indigestion' (I am not suffering from it at the moment) and 'I don't have indigestion' (I am not a dyspeptic) than to level both, as America has now taught most Englishmen to do, under 'I don't have'." Deor (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were at a job interview I cannot picture myself telling a prospective employer that "I have got experience in......"; instead I would say "I have experience......."--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, but if I were the interviewer, I would not think less of a candidate who used the "got" construction (unless, of course, I was interviewing for the post of teacher of English!) Dbfirs 13:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was compelled to berate one of my daughter's English teachers for telling her that bird was pronounced beard!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of a school do you send your daughter to? (later) Sorry, you did say in Italy, so that explains the pronunciation. Bird is pronounced almost like beard in standard Scouse here in the UK. Dbfirs 13:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience of the UK usage, but in America there is a clear difference between "have", "have got" and "have gotten". "Have" and "have got" (which is almost always abbreviated to 've got - to say it fully as "have got" would sound odd) mean simply that you possess something; "have gotten" means that you only recently have acquired something. Lexicografía (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the usage is exactly the the same in some northern English (UK) dialects where the older "gotten" is retained, except that "have got" would sometimes be used when "talking proper". Dbfirs 13:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, your child's teacher is wrong. Also, while there may be a slight tendency toward -'ve got/-'s got in UK English and a slight tendency toward have/has in US English, it seems clear that both forms are perfectly acceptable and indistinguishable in meaning in both countries. The -ve got/-s got form sounds more colloquial to an American than have/has, though both forms occur in colloquial American English. Written American English definitely prefers the form without got. What does not occur in contemporary American English is the stand-alone form I've. In American English, I've can only occur when have is a helping verb or part of a verb phrase such as -ve got. Marco polo (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a subtlety in English here that get blurred over by most people. For instance, the following three sentences all mean slightly different things:

I have a Job - (I am employed - possessive)
I got a job - (I found employment - acquirement)
I have got a job - (Yes, I am employed - emphatic possessive)

In most cases the distinction between these cases is irrelevant - the nuances are conveyed by context and body language - and so people don't worry too much about fine-tuning the usage. that means that different locales adopt different usages by convention rather than by language pragmatics. Your child's teacher is not wrong, she's either invoking a local usage convention or she's using the emphatic possessive intentionally (possibly to offset children's tendency to use 'I got' as a possessive). --Ludwigs2 17:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how I got a job really fits here — that's the simple past of get, which no one has really mentioned. The one you left out is I have got(ten) a job, using the present perfect of get. In American English there is a clear distinction between I've gotten a job (present perfect of get) versus I've got a job (almost indistinguishable from I have a job, possibly slightly less formal). (Standard) British English does not use gotten, making I've got a job slightly ambiguous between the two meanings, though the I have a job meaning is presumably the one that will ordinarily be heard.

Ludwigs, is English your native language? If not — and particularly if it's German — the simple-past-v-present-perfect distinction may not be intuitive to you. But it's a very well marked distinction in English (though the demarcation is slightly different between American and British English). --Trovatore (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, my native language is American. I only speak English under duress. --Ludwigs2 15:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the distinction is irrelevant because the nuances are conveyed by context and stress. I can make each usage serve for each sense just by altering the stress. Dbfirs 20:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My child's teacher was basing her belief that I have got was correct because the textbook said it was the correct form!! I pointed out that the textbook failed to state that I have got is British colloquialism used (mostly informally) to add emphasis to I have, which is standard English usage and not American dialect as the misguided woman had claimed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I still wonder is if "I've got" is really more common in British English than in American English, as the OP claims. Anyways, sentences like "You haven't a brother", or: "Have you a brother?", are British rather than American. Eliko (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - as a British English speaker I would never say "You haven't a brother" or "Have you a brother?" and would always insert a "got". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But as a Brit, have you ever heard elders (in UK) say that, without inserting the got? Eliko (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when have the Irish become British? I never said the British used I've a brother or sister, I said the Irish often use this colloquially. I cannot tell you how many times I was stopped in Dublin and asked Have you the time?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when have I claimed you claimed the British used "I've a brother or sister"? I've only claimed you claimed "I've got" is more common in British English than in American English. I also added another comment (having nothing to do with your claim), that sentences like "You haven't a brother", or: "Have you a brother?", are mainly heard in UK rather than in US. Eliko (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not far off being an "elder" myself; I can just about imagine my grandmother (1896-1984) asking "have you a brother?", but it would sound strange to me coming from someone of a younger generation than hers. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd been American you couldn't have even imagined your grandmother say that! "Have you a brother?" sounds odd to American ears even when coming from grandparents. This is the same with: "You haven't a brother". Eliko (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Business[edit]

I'm working with a XIX century article, and it involves the relations of different people at the XIX century Buenos Aires, such as nobility, military, lawyers, etc. One of the groups I have to talk about is the group of people that manages international trade, buying commodities to foreign ships and selling them (or, more exactly, managing the network to sell such things in the land), and influencing the economic policies. Which would be the best word to name them? I have found many, such as merchant, trader, businesspeople, vendor, wholesaler, etc; but I should choose one and be consistent MBelgrano (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the word "merchant" would have been used in the 19th Century - have a look at this[4]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of 'Bispham'[edit]

Is it authentically /ˈbɪspəm/ as given in the article for Bispham, Blackpool? Certainly I heard this almost exclusively when I visited there (surrounded mostly by outsiders), but I also collected the pronunciation /ˈbɪʃəm/ ('Bish-am') from a local male in his 30s, and I'd always believed it to be the latter. Does anyone have citations either way? Thanks. – Regregex (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I lived in the area, I always thought it was Bisp-ham. 212.123.243.220 (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what "authentic" means in this context. The pronunciations of British placenames by their inhabitants usually varies over time, as evidenced by varied spellings in documents from (or sometimes before) 1086's Domesday Book and subsequently - these are usefully summarised in the Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names and doubtless elsewhere. They may also vary according to the social class of the speaker and to whom the speaker is addressing (as people vary their register). Moreover, the pronunciation(s) used by non-inhabitants may correspond to one (or more) of those aforementioned, or perhaps be different again, and visitors may mis-hear and mis-record local pronunciations (hence some of those wildly variant spellings in Domesday etc - Norman-French clerics struggling to transcribe Anglo-Saxon sounds).

As a few ObPersonal examples: natives of Anstruther and its locality refer to it as "Einstər" to each other, but rhyme it with "Bans(tr)other" to perceived outsiders such as myself - a Sassenach who lived in Cellardyke for a couple of years - and affect not to understand said outsiders' attempts to say "Einstər"; the RP/Southern pronounciation of Shrewsbury in the latter half of the 20th-century rhymed with "grows Murray", but by many of its inhabitants and by many non-RP speaking people in general was and is pronounced to rhyme with "grew slurry"; most people in Hampshire as well as further afield now pronounce Cosham with a "sh" sound, but one of my friends who was brought up there sticks to the evidently older pronunciation of "Cossam". 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very many local place names in the UK have a local dialectal pronunciation and a separate "correct" pronunciation that many locals use when talking to outsiders. The latter is normally considered the more "correct" pronunciation, but the former might be more "authentic". It depends what you mean by these terms. I suspect that this is the difference between the two pronunciations that you have heard, so both are valid in different ways. I would say /ˈbɪspəm/, but I don't live there. As in the case of Masham the original "ham" is retained (no "sh" sound), but the "h" is not sounded. Dbfirs 09:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Wells's pronunciation dictionary gives only [ˈbɪspəm], but says that as a family name it's sometimes [ˈbɪsfəm]. No mention of [ˈbɪʃəm]. —Angr (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers. IP 87 and Dbfirs, I'd not considered the matter from that dimension. So a local pronunciation is sometimes used as a shibboleth – my school had one, come to think of it. I've always been mortified of mispronouncing a local name and approached this question out of concern for local customs being 'swamped by naïve tourists' who go away and copy their 'mistake' into their encyclopedias :) – Regregex (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]