Language desk
< September 25	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 27 >

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 26

Name for a Welsh speaker?

Hi - someone who speaks English is an Anglophone, someone who speaks French is a Francophone, so what is someone who speaks Welsh? Thanks for the help in advance! --145.100.194.198 (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that there is no word for this (there isn't for most languages). Note that, for example, wikt:Category:English words suffixed with -phone only has "-phone" words for a very small number of languages. My guess is for most languages we just don't have a word for "person who speaks X". rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can find "Welshophone" references in google, but I suspect that's not in common usage. Wikipedia does have an article called Hispanophone, and the reason I bring that up is that English, French and Spanish are 3 languages that have a long-standng "global" presence. That is, the terms are used for the "English-speaking world", and so on, respectively. The Welsh-speaking "world" I would think is pretty much just Wales. ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Chubut...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag, the ones listed in that category are by no means the only ones. I’ve also found Swedophone, Germanophone, Finnophone, Turkophone and Hellenophone in English Wiktionary. And in French there are Lusitanophone, Magyarophone, Roumanophone, Bulgarophone, Ukrainophone, and I have no doubt there’d be others. I’ve discovered some of these latter words used in English texts too, so Wiktionary needs to be brought up to speed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are also lots of related terms listed in Template:Cultural appreciation. I was just using that as an example. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Cambrophone" has a few Google hits, including one in John Davies' A History of Wales.--Cam (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a few hits for "Cymrophone."--Cam (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm writing a report on Wales and I think Cymrophone or Cambrophone would work perfectly. Thanks again! --145.100.194.198 (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word that occurred to me was "Gallophone", but its meaning would perhaps be less obvious than "Cymrophone". --ColinFine (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evan, Gwyneth, Glenys, Dylan? μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bananaphone?--M @r ē ino 20:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how not to end on a preposition

I had the sentence, "....wishing for someone to talk about photography with" and was happy with it, but it eventually bothered me that I had ended on a preposition. So I changed it to, "wishing for someone with which to talk about photography." But "which" and "someone" don't work, and "someone with whom to talk about photography" just doesn't sound right. What's the best phrasing, please? 82.71.20.194 (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can end sentences on a preposition, even in formal writing. This is one of those proscriptive grammar issues (like "splitting the infinitive") which keeps dragging through the language despite a total lack of actual justification that such usage has ever been expected of English. See Preposition stranding and Hypercorrection#Preposition_at_the_end_of_a_clause. Your initial construction is perfectly standard English, and does not need to be corrected. --Jayron32 20:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for kicks. How about "....wishing for someone to talk with about photography."? But I agree with Jayron32.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many people are uncomfortable with ending a sentence with a preposition, simply because they were taught this was wrong, and that's all the justification one ever needs with such an arbitrary thing as language. For them, it was just as much descriptive as proscriptive, because their fellow speakers never or hardly ever did this, again because there was common consent that it was wrong to do so. So, Jayron, there was plenty of "actual justification that such usage has ever been expected of English". For them, fortunately, an alternative construction is almost always available. But for others who weren't raised under such a tyrannous yoke, it's not a problem that requires a solution. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course there are hundreds of dialects, and some of them likely have proscriptions against ending sentences in prepositions. However, that doesn't mean that such a proscription necessarily exists in Standard English, as such standard is defined by any of the various English style guides which are accepted as authoritative for whatever application or version of Standard English is desired. That is, there do exist some applications where a formal, defined, standard English is called for, and I am not aware of any commonly used style guides which have such a proscription. In fact, some common style guides spend some time debunking the prohibition, because it is commonly believed that such a standard should exist. In other words, yes, you can find forms of English where such a prohibition may exist, but the OP seems to wish to work within a standard form of English, and most style guides don't have such a prohibition. --Jayron32 21:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add a bit, the people at Oxford, who are considered a fairly authoritative source on the English Language, see no problem with ending a sentence with a preposition. See [1]. If it's good enough for the OED people, it's good enough for me. For American English speakers, the folks at Meriam-Webster have likewise come to similar conclusions. See [2]. The folks at the Chicago Manual of Style also agree, see [3]. The CMOS is rather judicious about it, they make it clear that using constructions which avoid sentence-ending prepositions are equally valid as sentences which end with prepositions; i.e. there isn't much demand to change it in either direction. I have been searching online, and through my old dusty MLA copy at home, and I literally cannot find a single style guide which mandates that you should never end a sentence with a preposition in formal writing, there is near universal agreement that you shouldn't worry about the issue. Of course, this doesn't disagree with Jack's point on dialects of English which are not specifically standardized for formal writing purposes. Many of those exist. But in formal writing, the OP is fine to end a sentence in a preposition, or to not, as they see fit. --Jayron32 21:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with all that. But you have also proven my point quite nicely. "... some common style guides spend some time debunking the prohibition, because it is commonly believed that such a standard should exist" - that such a debunking was ever necessary proves there was something to be debunked. That was the "rule" taught in schools and homes that it was a poor use of language to end a sentence with a preposition. We all laugh at "this is something up with which I will not put" (whether it was Churchill or someone else who said it is not material here); that was taking a humorous shot at the extreme use of the "rule". Ordinary non-linguists didn't know or care whether it was a rule or just a "rule", because as far as they were concerned it was an important part of the way they spoke and wrote. The linguistic community is now in agreement this "rule" should never have been imposed in the first place. But guess what, it was imposed, and for a long time. That's historical fact. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All true, and all irrelevent, to answering the question of whether such usage is mandated by formal writing or speaking, as mandated by sources deemed authoritative on the subject. --Jayron32 21:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then what right did you have to say "despite a total lack of actual justification that such usage has ever been expected of English"? I was responding to what YOU wrote, to dispute its accuracy. If what I said was "irrelevent" [sic], then your initial remark must also have been irrelevant (as well as inaccurate). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You are correct. --Jayron32 00:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it PREscriptive? ElMa-sa (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, proscriptive is correct. —Akrabbim^talk 20:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes, in a general sense. In this case it's also proscriptive, meaning a rule about something one ought not to do. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

If you don't want to end on a preposition, "with whom" is entirely correct and it's better than the alternatives you listed. But as the other commenters pointed out, there's not really anything wrong with ending on a preposition. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, why was it ever thought to be incorrect? Why was such a "rule" imposed, and who imposed it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with the split infinitive, the usual justification is that "you can't do it in Latin". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Preposition stranding#Origin of proscription against preposition stranding. —Akrabbim^talk 12:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]