Language desk
< March 15	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	Current desk >

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.

March 16[edit]

A few surnames[edit]

Hello. I need help with the Spanish pronunciation of a few surnames, presumably Basque:

Mikel Arteta Amatriain - is it [amaˈtɾja.in] or [amatɾjaˈin]?
Markel Susaeta Laskurain - is it [laskuˈɾa.in] or [laskuɾaˈin]?
Iker Muniain Goñi - is it [muˈnja.in] or [munjaˈin]?

[amaˈtɾjain, laskuˈɾain, muˈnjain] (with the [ai] diphthong) are definitely wrong. The [i] is a full vowel in this context, but stress seems to be variable. I did my research, but the results are inconclusive (at least to me).

Can anyone help? Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I can help but note Miguel Induráin writes his name with an accent. He must consider his name ends with the diphthong ai plus n and as a word ending in n that palabra, absent an accent, would be llana so apparently he feels he needs to accent the diphthong ai to make it a palabra aguda. The fact that the Laskurain, etc. do not use an accent may just have to do with Basque orthography as the Lascuráin (which is the Hispanized form) do use an accent: Pedro Lascuráin. My guess is, in the Spanish form of the name (as opposed, possibly, to the original Basque form) the ai must indeed be a diphthong. Basemetal 12:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Basemetal: Thanks. I didn't expect to hear that, but it makes sense. Stressed [a.i] doesn't look very Spanish to me, but I could've sworn that that's one of the variants I heard on YouTube. Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr KEBAB: It seems Basques have a diphthong here[1][2][3]. Plus about that ending[4].--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"doesn't assume", in one word (or two words, of which the second one is a preposition).[edit]

Possible?

E.g. He doesn't assume that my assumption is true.

Please notice that when one doesn't assume something, this doesn't mean they disagree with it. They may also ignore it. However, the verb "ignore" is not the one I'm looking for, because it's not semantically equivalent to "not assume"; Check: "He ignores me", that cannot be replaced by "He doesn't *assume me". HOTmag (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The OP changed the example sentence more than 24 hours after posting it and noted the fact below. It originally read "He doesn't assume my assumption." Akld guy (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes it hard to follow the argument. That is why it is probably better, as a general practice, to strikethrough then to delete outright. Like so, for example: He doesn't assume ~~my assumption~~ that my assumption is true. This is only the case though when the correction comes long enough after the original posting that several editors have had time already to contribute responses to the original example. Basemetal 08:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - but your sentence doesn't mean anything in English. When you assume something, in the sense of accepting it yourself, it refers to something about yourself: you can assume responsibility, or power, or control. It really doesn't seem to work in terms of whether or not you agree with the proposition that someone else has assumed to be correct. You quite definitely cannot say "he doesn't assume me." Wymspen (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're talking about. I said that "He ignores me", cannot be replaced by "He doesn't *assume me" (because "He doesn't *assume me" is ungrammatical). In other words, "ignore" can't be replaced by "doesn't assume". That's why I'm looking for a verb other than "ignore", that can replace "doesn't assume". HOTmag (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He rejects my assumption is a better way to say it. Akld guy (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already said in my first post, when one doesn't assume something, this doesn't mean they disagree with it. They may also ignore it. Please notice that the same is true for "reject": when one doesn't assume something, this doesn't mean they reject it. They may also ignore it. HOTmag (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"rejects" is much too strong for what HOTmag has in mind. "embrace", "accept" or "utilize"/"use" would all be better choices. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you've confused "doesn't assume" with "assume". Please notice that all of your suggestions ("embrace", "accept" "utilize", "use"), can't replace "doesn't assume", but rather "assume" (at least sometimes). HOTmag (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? "doesn't embrace", "doesn't accept", etc. work just fine. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already pointed out, I'm looking for "one word". See the title of this thread. HOTmag (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Share. Henry ^Flower 16:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Share what? Please see my response to Wymspen.~~ It seems like you've confused "doesn't assume" with "assume". Please notice that "share" can't replace "doesn't assume", but rather "assume" (at least sometimes), while "doesn't share" is two words, rather than the single word I'm looking for. HOTmag (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point - there are two meaning of "to assume" (and of its derivatives) and you have created a phrase "he does not assume my assumption" in which you are using both of those meanings together. I doubt anyone would actually do that, because it sounds very strange and doesn't make any obvious sense. Wymspen (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He does not assume my assumption [to be true]. Sorry for the misunderstanding (I'm guilty). Anyways, I'd changed it before you responded. HOTmag (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say you make the assumption tomorrow it ain't gonna rain. Do you want something which says your friend believes that on the contrary it is gonna rain? Or something that says your friend has, contrary to you, no definite opinion as to the weather tomorrow one way or the other? He doesn't share my assumption (which was offered by Henri Flower) can mean both. It does not necessarily mean that your friend makes the definite assumption that it is gonna rain. Basemetal 09:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by "doesn't assume that so and so" I mean "has no definite opinion about whether so and so". Please notice that "share" can't replace "doesn't assume", but rather "assume" (at least sometimes), while "doesn't share" is two words, rather than the single word I'm looking for. HOTmag (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about He dismisses my assumption? Basemetal 09:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the verb "dismiss" is not semantically equivalent to "not assume"; Check: "The company dismisses bad workers", that cannot be replaced by "The company doesn't *assume bad workers". HOTmag (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about He disregards my assumption? Basemetal 09:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The verb "disregards" is not semantically equivalent to "not assume"; Check: "He disregards my pleas", that cannot be replaced by "He doesn't *assume my pleas". Basemetal 09:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about He brushes off my assumption? Basemetal 09:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The verb "brushes off" is not semantically equivalent to "not assume"; Check: "He brushes off some dirt from his shoes", that cannot be replaced by "He doesn't *assume some dirt from his shoes". Basemetal 09:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GREAT !!!!

However, unfortunately, "great" cannot be replaced by "Thank you Basemetal for the adequate answer I've been looking for". HOTmag (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know; Check: "My Great Dane has been sleeping on the sofa all afternoon", that cannot be replaced by "My Thank you *Basemetal for the adequate answer I've been looking for Dane has been sleeping on the sofa all afternoon". Basemetal 13:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm claiming. HOTmag (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In formal debate, when the debater "doesn't assume" X, this means that the debater's conclusion does not depend on X. It does not mean that the debater believes X to be correct or incorrect, accepted or rejected, believed or disbelieved. It's a shorthand for "X is not part of my argument, so discussing it is a strawman." "Ignoring" is probably the best single-word replacement, but "doesn't assume" has a stronger implication that X was actually considered and then held to be irrelvant. "Ignoring" (or more strongly, "even ignoring") implies that "assuming X would bolster my argument but I don't wish to use it." -Arch dude (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deductible, Deducible, Deductable, Inferable Does this thesaurus site get it wrong ?[edit]

The theasus thesaurus.plus claims that inferable is a (near) synonym for deductible. I think this is wrong, they probably mean deducible rather than deductible, and that a deducible is something that is taken from a gross amount (like insurance excess, taxes, etc).

Having posted this on Facebook it's clear that my friends had all sorts of different opinions, some agreeing with me, some saying that deductible could either mean inferable or an amount deducted, and one saying that deductible could only mean the same as inferable and that the right word for an amount deducted was deductable. Who is right? -- Q Chris (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deduct and deduce have the same root (Latin deducere) - but have been distinct since the 17th century and no longer carry the same meaning. Infer is certainly a close synonym of deduce, but deduct now has a totally different meaning. You might find that in older texts (KJV, Shakespeare?) they are used interchangeably, but not in modern usage. The same applies to deductible and deducible (the -able endings are either errors or alternatives, depending on your degree of pedantry). However, if you deduce something you have made a deduction - and if you deduct something you have also made a deduction! Wymspen (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do all languages have more consonants than vowels?[edit]

In terms of phonemes, is it universal that languages have more consonants than vowels? I could imagine that maybe they have more because humans are able to articulate more distinct consonants. --Hofhof (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Hawaiian language has 8 consonants, 5 short vowels, 5 long vowels, and 9 diphthongs. Loraof (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Hawaiian phonology: "Hawaiian has either 5 or 25 vowel phonemes." You could well count the short/long vowels as one, and the diphthongs are not as much as a phoneme as 'p', 'r', and 'pr' are 2 or 3.--Hofhof (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your general observation seems to be correct and the reason you give namely that there are potentially fewer distinct vowels than consonants seems to be part of the reason, but it can't be the whole reason. For example the languages with the smallest phoneme inventories like the Pirahã language or the Rotokas language make do with about 15 phonemes in total. But there certainly are 15 distinct vowels (as an example: standard French has 15 vocalic phonemes, if you include the nasal vowels, and that's certainly far from a world record). So Pirahã or Rotokas speakers could, purely in terms of the distinct phonemes that are available to them, make do with a phoneme inventory composed only of vowels but they don't, and I'm aware of no language with only vocalic phonemes. (However, what seems also to be true, but don't quote me on that, is that the ratio of consonants to vowels seems to go down as the total number of phonemes goes down). In fact there is, from a purely information-theoretic point of view, no minimal number of phonemes. You could have a language, again, in principle, with only 2 phonemes (just like anything can be encoded with 0 and 1), presumably both vocalic, or at least continuants. In any case there would be an ample supply of vowels for such a language. So your explanation, namely the number of potential distinctions is probably a factor but is probably also not the whole story. Basemetal 15:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many Alemannic German dialects have quite large vowel inventories. Zurich German for example contrasts 10 short and 10 long vowels + a Schwa phoneme, and 8 Diphthongs (giving 29 vowel phonemes), but only 26 consonants. The dialect of Opfingen has fewer vowels, 8 short and 8 long vowels + Schwa, and 5 Diphthongs, but only 16 consonants. Other candidates might be Danish, Finnish, and especially Sedang and related languages. From the above examples, it seems that as long as you count the diphthongs, there are plenty of languages with more vowels than consonants. --Terfili (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we count diphthongs? OP didn't indicate if they were talking phonemes (phonology) or sounds (phonetics) but their rationale ("humans are able to articulate more distinct consonants") points to phonetics. You would then counter: "Ok then, let's count all allophones"... To which I'd, um, rejoin (retort, etc.): "Fine but then all consonant allophones too"... On one hand, even without diphthongs, in the Opfingen dialect (assuming your description of the phonology of that dialect is accurate) vowels still beat consonants by one. On the other hand we could change the OP's "universal" to a less stringent "tendency". Finally, how appropriate it is to be counting diphthongs (for the purpose of this question) could be debated. Basemetal 16:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is probably between phonetics and phonology. If in the set of speech sounds (which is the same for all humans) are more consonants than vowels (which at first glance appears to be the case), then, the tendency will be to have more consonants, but there is no rule set in stone that it should be so.

In the mean time I've found [5] with a list of mostly European languages and their number of consonants and vowels.

Danish, for example has way more vowels than consonants.Hofhof (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fun list. But... For one, there are errors: Hindi (Hindustani) has 12 vowels and 0 diphthongs. Also, they're obviously talking phonology. But how many phonemes you count depends on the description. Arabic: 6 vowels and 2 diphthongs. That's how Westerners describe things. That's not the most efficient description. Arab grammarians take the long vowels and the diphthongs as sequences of the short (for them the only) vowels and the consonants alif, y and w. Then there's no such thing as, say, a long i. There's only i + y. Now you get 3 vowels and 0 diphthongs. Or take the nasal vowels of Hindi and French. If you count nasal vowels in Hindi like they must have counted them for French you'd get 22 vowels because out of the 12 vowels of Hindi 10 have nasalized counterparts. Finally the Danish vowel count (32, and no diphthongs) makes me slightly suspicious: Norwegian (I assume they mean Bokmal, but maybe Bokmal and Nynorsk have the same phonology?) and Swedish are very close languages but with about half the number of vowels. I know no Danish at all so I don't know what's going on, but something doesn't sound right. Basemetal 22:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Danish phonology. The Danish vowel system is indeed very large but also unstable, with several mergers currently in progress. It is possible to analyse it as having over 30 vowels or just 11 depending on whether you consider vowel length and stød to be features of the vowel or the syllable. Double sharp (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russian hand sign?[edit]

Is this a real world hand sign with a set meaning or was it's made up for the movie (Nightwatch, 2004)?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=x0YDuxIAtHw

Languagesare (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a real hand sign, described as The Drunken Neck Tap: You may flick at your neck with your first or middle fingers, or just tap it, and shown also in Eastern Promises, but not all that popular among modern Russians; I'd guess it was much more popular 20..50 years ago. --194.213.3.4 (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Languagesare (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]