Language desk
< September 26	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 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.

September 27

To comma or not to comma

"However, Conway's younger brother George, and Maria, another beautiful young woman they find there, are determined to leave." Is the comma after "George" correct or not? I don't believe it is, since George is preceded by "brother", precluding any confusion, but another editor disagrees. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not incorrect or correct, it's just a style thing. Having the comma there is a bit more explicit, and avoids the temporarily awkward-looking phrase "Conway's younger brother George and Maria". You could always reshuffle the sentence (depending on what the surrounding stuff looks like) to get rid of this problem. Or you could replace "and" with "as well as". rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks fine as you quoted. Pedants might prefer another comma after "brother", because "George" is in apposition, but I think the sentence reads better as you have it. Dbfirs 07:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, that you should never start a sentence with "however" in the sense of "nevertheless". --Viennese Waltz 12:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Would "nevertheless" be acceptable? If so, what's wrong with "however"? This sounds like the sort of "rule" that old-style prescriptionists try to impose for no good reason. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Nevertheless" at the start of a sentence is fine, but there are a couple of reasons why the same doesn't apply to "however". The first is stylistic, and therefore a matter of personal taste; putting "however" at the start of the sentence weakens the point being made. In the above example, the fact that the people are determined to leave is buried in the middle of the sentence, whereas it really should be leading it off. Secondly, "however" does of course have another meaning ("however you look at it"). The ambiguity between the two meanings can only be resolved by the addition of a comma after "however" when it is used at the start of a sentence to mean "nevertheless". But not everyone would think of adding that comma (although in the example sentence the writer has done). Better to avoid any prospect of ambiguity by moving the "however" to the middle. I would therefore rewrite the sentence as "Conway's younger brother George, however, and Maria, another beautiful young woman they find there, are determined to leave". The sentence is still a mite unwieldy, though, and I might be tempted to recast it again as "Conway's younger brother George, however, is determined to leave. So too, is Maria, another beautiful young woman they find there." --Viennese Waltz 13:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this sense, 'however' has the same function as 'but', but 'but' cannot sit where you currently have 'however' - "Conway's younger brother George, but, is determined to leave". I'd much rather see 'however' at the start, because the primary thing the sentence is, is a contrast with the previous sentence, the key to which is 'however', and if that becomes apparent only after a few words, the whole point of the contrast is lost. You say that 'however' with the 'nevertheless' meaning must be set off by a comma if starting a sentence, but then argue that even that should make way for a repositioning of the word itself. That sounds like double speak to me. I agree that a comma is necessary. As long as the comma is there, I honestly can't see any ambiguity with the other meaning of 'however'. The fact that some people would not think of adding a comma is not an argument for anybody else not to have the word at the start. They don't get to have such power over punctilious punctuators. Why not let the word stay where it most naturally and logically belongs, at the start, but with a comma. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the point of the sentence is to emphasize the contrast with the previous sentence, and that's precisely why the subject of the sentence should go right upfront. We're not given the previous sentence in this example, but I imagine it would say something about a person (or persons) who is determined to stay. The contrast is between those who want to stay and those who want to leave, and that contrast is IMO best served by naming those (or at least one of those) who is determined to leave at the get-go. --Viennese Waltz 21:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare:

"Conway and Alice are convinced the best course is to stay and fight it out. However, Conway's younger brother George, and Maria, another beautiful young woman they find there, are determined to leave."
"Conway and Alice are convinced the best course is to stay and fight it out. Conway's younger brother George, however, and Maria, another beautiful young woman they find there, are determined to leave."

Give me the first version every time. 'However' sitting right up front tells the reader to expect something different from what was in the previous sentence, and then they're gven the details. The second version could be leading up to say that George was of the same mind as Conway; until we get to the 'however'. Also, the 'however' "belongs" to both George and Maria, yet you've given it to George alone; it reads as if George has made the decision to leave and Maria is just going along with him. In my version, it reads more like a joint decision. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the full paragraph, from Lost Horizon (1937 film): Initially anxious to return to civilization, most of the newcomers grow to love Shangri-La, including paleontologist Alexander Lovett, swindler Henry Barnard, and bitter, terminally ill Gloria Stone, who miraculously seems to be recovering. Conway is particularly enchanted, especially when he meets Sondra, who has grown up in Shangri-La. However, Conway's younger brother George, and Maria, another beautiful young woman they find there, are determined to leave. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this simpler example:

"The food was excellent. The service, however, was terrible."
"The food was excellent. However, the service was terrible."

The first is greatly to be preferred. Just say them aloud and you'll see the difference. The natural intonation of one's voice emphasizes "the service" in the first version, whereas in the second there's a kind of falling off at "the service" which weakens the impact. In the George and Maria example, there's too much going on for it all to be contained in one sentence and I would break it up into two (see my rewrite above). --Viennese Waltz 07:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...is greatly to be preferred" - by whom? If you're going to talk in passives, you just gave up all authority to discuss the finer points of prose. You can do a zillion things in spoken language, precisely because of the availability of vocal intonations, inflexions, nuances and the like, that are denied to the written word. When speaking your example, you'd obviously stress "the service", and perhaps also "terrible". But how do you do that in writing? This example is pretty simple, and it's line-ball. However, in more complex examples like the ones above (or, indeed, this very sentence), it's less arguable that the 'however' should go anywhere except at the start. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin translation

"Sancius…rex Aragonensium" granted privileges to the monastery of San Pedro de Siresa by charter dated 4 Sep 1082, the dating clause of which refers to "regnante rege Sancio cum uxore sua Felicia et filio suo Petro in Aragone et in Pamplona et in Superarbi sive in Ripacorza…domno Garsia fratre regis episcopo in Iaca…domno Sancio Ranimiri comite in Ripacorza, domna Sancia comitissa atque sorore regis presidente in Siresia…Raimundo Beringerii et Beringerii Raimundi fratribus comitibus in Barcelona"(113).

Can someone translate this for me into English? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the form of a bunch of ablative absolutes: "King Sancho reigning with his wife Felicia and his son Pedro in Aragon, Pamplona, Sobrarbe, and Ribagorza; ... Lord García, brother of the king, being bishop in Jaca; ... Lord Sancho Ramírez being count of Ribagorza; Lady Sancha, countess and sister of the king, presiding in Siresia; ... [and] the brothers Ramon Berenguer and Berenguer Ramon being counts of Barcelona". Deor (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: García and Sancha are mentioned in the antepenultimate paragraph of Ramiro I of Aragon. Deor (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that was enough.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pronouncing Eugen

How is the name "Eugen" (as in Prince Eugen and Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk )pronounced?. Is it "Aygen" or "Yoogen"?--Sodabottle (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a German name it is pronounced 'Oygen' /ɔjgɛn/. --ColinFine (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks colin.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How synchronistic! I bought a DVD of Sink the Bismarck! in June, but when I put it on I discovered it was faulty. I didn't get around to replacing it till last week. I finally got to play it for the first time yesterday. There were many references in the movie to the German cruiser the Prinz Eugen, which I had never heard of before. And now, only a day later, up pops Prince Eugen again. Maybe they should retitle the move Synch the Bismarck!-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Actually, the OP was waiting until you got the DVD to work before posting the question, hoping you'd be able to answer. Yes, Jack, we are watching you.... :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sure feels like it sometimes. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The name of the Swedish prince is not pronounced like in German, nor like any of your two suggestions. The initial e and u are separate. My IPA isn't great, but possibly something like: /eʉɧeːn/. A bit like eh-oo-shEHN, or something. The /ɧ/ is a fairly uncommon sound, and I am quite uncertain how to represent the last e sound. Have a look at Swedish phonology and Wikipedia:IPA_for_Swedish_and_Norwegian. (I can't vouch for how he pronounced his name himself, but that is how it is commonly pronounced by Swedes now.)/Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have looked at the articles before giving an answer! But my answer is good for the Austrian (except that I'm not completely sure of the quality of the first vowel). --ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's variously given as [ɔy] or [ɔɪ]. In spoken German, the ɛ would be reduced to a schwa or even disappear. Baranxtu (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the "Eu", but am not so sure about the disappearing ɛ. Are you saying "Eugen" is a homophone of the verb "äugen". I would have said the e is distinctly more audible in Eugen, than in Germanic or less recently imported words or proper nouns ending in -gen such as Rügen (or äugen). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions about accents...

Born and raised in the United States, and was thinking about other English-speaking countries and how we perceive their accents. What parts of the countries are we getting their accent from? For example, when we in the US think of a Canadian accent, we all think of that same accent. I assume that accent doesn't apply to all of Canada, so what part of Canada is it from? What about for other countries, like Australia, England, etc? Also, what do other countries typically think of when they think of a US accent? Do they think of somebody talking with a Southern accent, or a New York one, or what?

Another related question, when I watch old movies, they seem to talk differently. Did people in the fifties have a different accent than people nowadays, or is that just the technology muddling the sound? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.241.54 (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, accents certainly change over time, and the date of an old movie can often be approximately determined from the accents. British "Received Pronunciation" from fifty years ago now sounds somewhat stilted (though some still speak it). The BBC now encourages a much wider variation in regional accents (and even a foreign one). Here in rural Northern England, I have difficulty distinguishing between Northern American and Canadian, though the accents of Southern American English are easier to identify (in many cases) from this side of the pond. Dbfirs 18:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See General American. Rimush (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this question about movie accents about five times recently...and we always point to Mid-Atlantic accent for that one. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The stereotypical Canadian accent is an Ontario accent, I think, specifically a Toronto accent. As for "English accents", there are of course many of them, but I think most Americans, if they reflect on English accents, will be familiar with two of them: a working-class accent, which is more or less Cockney; and a more refined accent, which is Received Pronunciation. Estuary English, falling somewhere in between, might be most Americans' idea of the default "English accent". Most Americans will hear other regional English accents as somehow English (without recognizing the differences among them), though I think Americans might misidentify accents from the far north of England as Scottish. Marco polo (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the stereotypical Canadian accent, with the weird vowels (like the very strong pronunciation of "aboot") is actually a rural accent, from Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta (i.e. "central Canada"). The Toronto accent is more like general American. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to Adam, who I think is actually Canadian. Marco polo (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! The Toronto accent, by the way, depends mostly on your pronunciation of "Toronto". There are a few "right" ways (various pronunciations, but the second T is always assimilated into the N), the "wrong way" (the way Americans usually pronounce it), and somewhere in the middle, the way other Canadians (and especially newscasters) say it. I'm not sure there really is otherwise a "Toronto accent". The current mayor has a folksy rural Canadian accent - but his parents were American and English. The Prime Minister is from Toronto but represents Calgary, and has no particular accent at all. There are so many immigrants in Toronto, and people from all over Ontario and the rest of the Canada, that you'll hear dozens of different accents every day. But I would still say that if there is such a thing as a native Torontonian accent, it's very close to General American. (From watching too much American TV, probably.) Adam Bishop (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! I've always pronounced it "Tor-on-oh". I'm a US American and have only spent about 2 days total in your country. By the way, I stress the second syllable. Dismas|^(talk) 06:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think "Torontonian accent" isn't a real thing, at least not yet. Toronto is so multi-cultural that anything resembling a specific "accent" is blown away by the fact every is speaking English as a second language (a bit of exaggeration, but not much). I was thinking of people I know in Toronto when I started replying and noticed that more than half of them are ESL and almost all of them come from outside the city. When speaking clearly/formally, I pronounce it toh-RON-toh, but if I'm not paying attention, it can slip into tah-rannah (no stress). Matt Deres (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pronounce the t before the final letter in Toronto, Sacramento, and Atlanta. I pronounce the t in the prefix inter (as in international and Internet) and the t in winter. I pronounce d and t after n in probably every English word where they occur. However, I am aware that they are sometimes elided in the pronunciation of Winter Wonderland. See also The Lawrence Welk Show#Format, paragraph 1 (permanent link here).

—Wavelength (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Southerners always leave off that final "t", and in the case of Atlanta, the first syllable too, becoming "Lanner". Lexicografía (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God they don't live in the Antarctic. They'd hardly pronounce the word at all. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the original questions, there is some relevant information in Dictionary of American Regional English and at Forvo.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is refutal a word?

Microsoft Word is underlining it... 92.229.12.55 (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is; however, refutation is much more common. Lexicografía (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED dates it back to 1599, and agrees with Lexicografía's definition. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Is there a free OED available online ? 124.253.135.137 (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, in the UK at least, your local public library is likely to have a subscription to it that you can access online with your library card number. 95.150.23.4 (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]