Language desk
< January 10	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 12 >

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.

January 11

St John

Hi I've just learned that the first name "St John" is pronounced "Sinjin". This is not clear in the wiki disambiguation of this entry, unless I am missing something. Also, I would like to know the etymology of this pronunciation, if anyone knows? It's bound to be interesting how someone can have such an unusual first name and pronounce it like that. Sandman30s (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a relevant (but unreferenced) blog post here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article St John (surname) does mention this pronunciation. Pais (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which helpfully is the same article as Sinjin. It's also mentioned in List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations. I see a parallel with Sinclair_(surname), which says that name is a contraction of St. Clair. It might indicate an English imitation of a foreign pronunciation - how would a Norman say "Saint John"? 81.131.11.15 (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A (medieval) Norman would probably pronounce Saint Jean something like sɛ̃n dʒɛɑ̃n. Marco polo (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've always thought the name was pronounced Sinʒən, ~~which is even closer to the Norman~~. Dbfirs 17:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, in Norman French, the consonant that is spelled 'j' in Standard French is pronounced [dʒ], which is the origin of the English pronunciation of that consonant. Marco polo (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I've striken my error I was really commenting on the claim that "Sinjin" represents modern the pronunciation. Is this common in the USA? Dbfirs 08:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that there's really a distinction between [ɨ] and [ə] in my dialect, but the short-lived 1960s U.S. sitcom O.K. Crackerby! featured a character named St. John Quincy, and my recollection is that the name was pronounced /'sɪndʒən/ on the program. Deor (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The politician Norman St John-Stevas had his name pronounced "Sinjun" by newsreaders (sorry, I can't do IPA). A well known story about this kind of pronunciation is here; 'It is said that when Horatio Bottomley called on Lord Cholmondeley he was greeted at the door by a butler. "I've come to see Lord Cholmondeley," said Bottomley, pronouncing every syllable. "Lord Chumley is not at home," said the butler. "Then would you please tell him Bumley called?" came the reply.' Alansplodge (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hear a difference between "Sinʒən", "/'sɪndʒən/" and "Sinjin", but perhaps others don't? Dbfirs 09:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masters degree - correct use of apostrophes

Hi,

I'm just being super anal here whilst writing a personal statement. Where would I insert apostrophes in the phrase "Masters degree"?

On a similar note, where would the apostrophes go in the following sentences:

"...as well as Masters credits towards a Masters degree in education..."

".... I will complete a masters level dissertation on a similar subject due for completion at the end of the year..."

I ask as everyone seems to have a different idea, as the word "masters" is only ever used in this context with the s on the end, so I am unsure whether the apostrophe is before or after the s in this case.

many thanks for any help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.137.35 (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Master's degree, the degree of a master. I guess "masters' degree" would make sense in an unusual context, if you were talking about the unique entity, the degree which all masters attain. 81.131.11.15 (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "masters'" would ever be correct. We have inspectors general and attorneys general as the plural for those compound nouns. We also have sisters-in-law but not sister-in-laws. In this example, the plural goes to the degree, not the master. We would never have masters' degree or masters' degrees but we would have master's degree and master's degrees. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't quite get your meaning. I was thinking of "the degree of the masters", if that makes things any clearer, equivalent to "the handbook of the pedants", which would be the Pedants' Handbook. 213.122.45.159 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation is "a/the degree that declares you to be a Master", it's directly analogous to a "Doctor's Degree" that confers the status (and title) of "Doctor". Roger (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If one were to write a handbook for pedants to use (any takers?), I suggest it would be called "The Pedant's Handbook", not "The Pedants' Handbook" or "Pedants' Handbook". Compare "The Gourmet's/Glutton's Guide to Good Eating in Greater Gulargambone", or "The Angler's Guide", or "The Editor's Guide". These sorts of books are intended for as wide a readership as they can manage, but are read by one person at a time, and are thus targeted at many individuals rather than at a group of people as such. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fair enough. "Master's" in all possible circumstances, then. 213.122.28.103 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems at least 4 people have come up with the term "pedants handbook" - 3 of them use no apostrophe at all; the other chooses pedants'. They're obviously not pedantic enough, and I can see I'm going to have to rewrite the rules of pedantry for them. At last, my life's purpose has finally revealed itself. Pedantry will rise again and regain its place in the pantheon of highly respected disciplines. I foresee chairs in pedantry being endowed at the great universities and places of learning. People will ask young children what they want to be when they grow up, and their parents will puff out their breasts with inordinate pride when said chidren reply with equal pride "I'm going to be a pedant!". Ah, life is beautiful once more. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the websites of Oxford and Cambridge Universities seem unsure on whether it's "masters degree", "masters' degree" or "master's degree"[1][2][3][4][5]. Cambridge seems to prefer it without an apostrophe. To avoid doubt, write "Master of Arts degree" or "Master of Science degree", or look at your degree certificate/prospectus/registration documents, or check your awarding institution's preferred spelling elsewhere.

(As an aside, this sort of question should not be answered by reasoning from the meaning of the phrase, but by consulting appropriate reference material. Reasoning about the English language is often foolhardy.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Document received by mothers of killed soldiers

What is the (English) name of the document mothers or other family members receive upon the death of their sons in military service? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.207.146 (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a page on death notifications, but after reading it I am still unclear whether that name is only used in the United States, or more widely. --Antiquary (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We also have Memorial Plaque.—msh210℠ 19:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "death notification" is the generic term. The actual procedure has changed over the years, though. Nowadays the rules require that the notification of next-of-kin be delivered in person. In World War II, as I understand it, the first message was often delivered by telegram. Looie496 (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A personal recollection from WWII here. More modern procedure is here. Alansplodge (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Réales / realism

I'm puzzling over VOX-ATypI classification. Searching Wikipedia for "realist typeface" produces lots of sans-serif faces which would be classified as "lineal", a.k.a. "neo-grotesque", under the Vox scheme (the kind of thing found in modern newspapers, or on road signs, or made specially for use on computers). The article Adrian Frutiger explicitly refers to "the realist (neo-grotesque) model". Contradicting this, according to Vox, "realist" (and "réales") is a synonym for "transitional" (a type which has serifs, and dates back to Louis XIV). I'd like to add a few words to the article to clarify this. First question: reale is Italian for royal, does it mean the same in French? Babelfish says no, but La Réale (1694) implies otherwise. Some random website says réales is a neologism coined by Vox, but is it in fact obsolete French? Second question: bit obscure, but does anybody know where the other meaning of "realist typeface", the one which equates to "lineal" or "neo-grotesque", originates (or was popularised)? Is it from realism (arts)? 213.122.45.159 (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The French for royal is "royal(e)" (gender dependent e). This is unsurprising as the English word derived from the French. I believe that the other Romance languages use some variations on "real" to mean royal, however. I believe that this "real" has no connection to the English word "real" meaning genuine. --Jayron32 18:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it hasn't. English real comes from Latin res, "thing", while royal et al. come from Latin rex (or related Latin words), which is seemingly unrelated.—msh210℠ 19:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was fairly confident Vox's term meant "royal", ~~I just wondered what (if anything) to cite when I say this~~. Reading the article about the galley more carefully, it has a re-usable reference connecting the term to Louis XIV and royalty. More difficult is completing this sentence: 'The term "realist" in the Vox scheme means royal, and refers to serif faces resembling those of Louis XIV, but the same term is commonly used to refer to neo-grotesque faces, because ...'. I could skip the "because" part, but then it would lack a reference. I might put it in anyway. (Edit) I think I understand - various terms for serif typefaces are re-used as subcategories of sans-serif, presumably because of closeness to the serif version. Confusing. 213.122.45.159 (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is obvious in Romanian: real is real, royal is regal. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Trésor de la langue française says that the French word is borrowed from the Spanish real, and that the sense used by Vox refers to the fact that "Plantin cast this type for King Philip II of Spain." Lesgles (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion of the also-related term "regal",[6] it's not hard to imagine that "real" as we use it could be connected with "royal" in antiquity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, awesome. Very useful reference. 213.122.41.59 (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikt:real, real is Old French, Spanish, and Portuguese for "royal"; in Spanish/Portuguese real means both "real" and "royal". The coin called "real" gets its name from the Spanish/Portuguese word meaning "royal". I can easily imagine that the name for this kind of typeface is a loanword from Old French or Spanish/Portuguese. I had wondered myself why realist fonts are called that; I didn't see what made them more "realistic" than anything else. It's nice to know the actual etymology. Pais (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currency in a number of countries suggests its official nature by being called a "Royal" or a "Crown". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is another sense of the word "real" (realise) in the Romance languages; a verb meaning to make <something> real in the sense of "making it happen" or "creating". This sometimes leads to odd translations into English such as: "The artist realised his masterpiece when he was only 22." It takes a little thought to figure out it actually means: "The artist created/executed/made his masterpiece when he was only 22." Whenever I see this type of error I wonder if the reverse translation of the English sense of "realise" (become aware of) into Romance languages causes as much confusion: Just imagine how "The alchemist realised his mistake only after the explosion destroyed his house." would read if incorrectly translated into French. Roger (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's first definition of "realize" is "to bring into concrete existence: accomplish", which seems to be the meaning you're talking about. It's not a mistranslation if it has that meaning in English too. Pais (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Romanian verb a realiza means both "making it happen, creating" and "become aware of". Rimush (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OED is free for a few weeks

At the Oxford English Dictionary website at oed.com, access is free through February 5, by using trynewoed for both the username and password. Thanks to kottke.org for the pointer. I would have posted to the Language RD talk page if there were such a thing, but the only talk page is general and I thought it was more appropriate to just post this here. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the useful info. It works. I have a library subscription, but this will be very useful for those who don't. I assume that the OED are advertising their new smarter website. Have you posted the info to Wiktionary? Dbfirs 08:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Recently I met" vs. "recently, I met"

I have the impression that the difference "Recently I met" vs. "recently, I met" is a BrE. vs. AmE kind of thing. Is this impression right? Quest09 (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think either way is right. But I would be ignorant of a British/American distinction. Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the British might be more likely to say recently I have met, which would sound odd on this side of the Pond. But I'm not sure they would; I might be overgeneralizing from just and already. --Trovatore (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to answer Trovatore: as a Brit, I can say that 'recently I met' is fine, and in fact means something entirely different to 'recently I have met'. The word 'recently' does not require the present perfect in Br.Eng., as would be the case with 'just' and 'already'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I think there's still a difference, then. My intuition is that in AmE recently I have met is almost ungrammatical; the word recently functions like a definite time in the past (even though a "vague definite time" and even though one that is specifically recent), and therefore requires the simple past. --Trovatore (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an Engvar difference. Both are acceptable. Comma usage varies widely between individuals, and in this case the examples differ in things such as focus (the latter stresses "recently" more, whether by a comma in writing or a pause in speech) and formality (the latter seems more formal--particularly if it were in a context such as a text message from a cellphone, where people often omit punctuation). rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but British English speakers used to overuse punctuation marks so much that in about 1955-60, perhaps due to the Suez Crisis, their supplies ran low and they've been having to get by with underpunctuating ever since. Okay, they might have a different version of the reasons for the change, but it is real. So, seriously, I think a British person would be more likely today to write it without a comma. --Anonymous, 01:04 UTC, January 12, 2010.

Americans can also write it without the comma (and personally I would). In our case the reasons are different. Because of the education crisis and insufficient funding in U.S. schools, we've been forced to cut punctuation from the language programs. (And besides, calculate the number of hours in your life spent reaching for the comma or period keys while typing...all that time could have been spent typing words instead! Next, spaces are going.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, despite all that, millions of adult people insist on perversely inserting an apostrophe into the possessive pronoun "its", where it's not required. They put in stuff that shouldn't be there, and take out stuff that should be there. "Whatever the rules are, let's do the opposite" : the classic definition of linguistic rebelliousness, normally an attribute of teenagers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack I thought you of all people would know that natural language has it's in's and out's! rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]