Language desk
< July 15	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 16[edit]

What language is this?[edit]

It's from a song by Ser (a mysterious dark ambient, post-black band from nowhere, nothing is known about him/her/them, other than their bandcamp, which contains no information).

Lëna lôsha Ècrhãnaclirhm
Lhàtrhaliáien erhla lënvëth Lássm vendrãtëfvtä
Nüv’lhesstafv, vièn dähh Shvossëë ghedèn vae fälle
Átrhimesen’ôfösst valièn evlû vällërhda

Vae lhvenlãsse essilhlja
Lënvorh ãnva larãna Lerianávã echävvêlãrra
Ëfd lhellate vae aun lôrh Shrhésseicm larh erhla lürh earônen sám Leafosem bonstruváiendádlhe… ríev lhbrétten

Seite Dóvelen lhvenléczëëlû lôrh Orkhardm
Lôsha Orkhardm fön Orhvëdsem acëlámsaran
Lesha Calless leva-trhassija lhmólhveret na énklavërh
Ríev lhènshtanen
Sombrhámsanánten… emblassëfvtän… cheildëfvtän… enryálhëfvtän……. ävááëfvtän……. ätubêlëfvtän…….

Ervezja.

-- 89.34.59.102 (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is fascinating. I opened Google Translate and pasted the text in one line at a time. For the first two lines it detected the language as Albanian; when the third line was pasted it changed its mind and said it was Luxembourgish; when the fifth line was pasted it showed the language as Corsican; and when the tenth line was pasted it said it was Sundanese! But it didn't actually provide an English translation at any point: most of the words were just copied into the output, which is what Google Translate does when it can't identify a word. So I'm thinking it isn't any of those languages and we're just seeing its wheels spinning, so to speak. And the Ser disambiguation page doesn't mention any bands, so that's no help. --174.89.49.204 (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to clarify, I added a line each time, I didn't clear the form before pasting the next one.) --174.89.49.204 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do actively listen to black metal and its various sub-genres. I have not heard of Ser. Encyclopaedia Metallum has been searched and comes up with La Ira del Ser and Razón de Ser both labeled as from Argentina. Please provide a link to where you heard the song and I may be able to help more. P.s try Lascar from Chile, great stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.130.137 (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Quenya? --147.142.218.189 (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of Quenya too, but if so, it's been heavily massaged (I suspect it's really just a few sequences like '-lãsse' that suggest that). I think it's made-up gibberish, or just possibly a real text that's been (as I said) massaged. I can see why TG thought Albanian: that is the only language I am aware of that uses 'ë' (except where it is a diaeresis on a digraph, as in French 'Noël'); and Albanian also has the digraph 'sh', otherwise rare in Europe. It is the combination of diacritics, and some of the digraphs, which persuade me it is not an existing language. --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The diacritics might be heavy metal umlauts: I wonder what happens if they're stripped out? I was also reminded of Quenya, so has anyone investigated a possible Finnish connection? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.197 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun, I made a copy of the lines with all diacritics removed, and pasted it into Google Translate line by line (again, appending the new lines, not clearing). After one line it thought the language was Russian; after the 2nd line it changed to Hindi; after the 4th line it changed to Luxembourgish; after the 5th line it changed to Corsican; after the 6th line it changed to Kannada; and starting with the 7th line it settled on Malayalam. And when it thought it was Malayalam it actually gave an English translation for one line -- the 5th one, "Vae lhvenlasse essilhlja" -- as "You can easily find out". But if I delete the other lines and paste that one alone, it decides it's Latin (translating "vae" to "alas", but failing on the rest of the line). It I tell it it's Malayalam it translates as "You can easily find out", but if I tell it to translate "You can easily find out" into Malayalam, it says "niṅṅaḷkk eḷuppattil kaṇṭettān kaḻiyuṁ"! I know no Malayalam, but my guess is that it's still spinning its wheels and this is not meaningful. --174.89.49.204 (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be assuming it's a language from planet Earth. Our knowledge of languages from other parts of the universe is a little scanty just at the moment, but I suggest we keep an open mind ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's definitely not Klingon. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteen vowels, strange consonant clusters; I incline to think it's not a language at all. — Having listened to the song, would you say this is a plausible transcription? —Tamfang (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bandcamp page has a "Contact Ser" link through which one can email them and ask them. That being said, and although this does have some of the traits of a natural language, I'm pretty sure it's a made-up language. The song title is "Ethê vae venléca ecilhlja" and the album title is "Âvééchrhûlein aun Ryánlhem", neither of which seems any more meaningful. --Theurgist (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The person who posted the YouTube video and lyrics was posed the question, and he/she replied "Albanian." Whether they meant the band or the language or both, is somewhat unclear. [1]. Ditch ∝ 02:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is most certainly not Albanian. There are maybe 2 or 3 words in there that happen to be words in Albanian, but that is certainly coincidence. I think it's reasonable to assume it's all made up. --Terfili (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning and Usage of "chiagne e fotte"?[edit]

Could I have some confirmation and insights from one or more Italian speaker on here regarding this? Does the expression "chiagne e fotte" literally mean "weap and fuck" or "complain and fuck"? Is it for describing a a situation where someone portrays themselves as a victim and then cries loud to get something since doing so is better than nothing? What real-life situations or notable events has this expression been used to describe or applied to? Has any Italian used this expression in the context of the actions, views, rhetorics of the Italian government during the European debt crisis or the current controversy surrounding the European Union's response to the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic? StellarHalo (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chiagne comes from the Neapolitan verb chiagnere, meaning literally "to cry, weep" and figuratively "to complain, to lament". The standard Italian equivalents are piange and piangere. Fotte come from the Neapolintan and Italian verb fottere, literally "to f*ck" and figuratively "to take advantage from something". So it could be translated as both "he/she cries and f*cks" and "he/she complains while taking advantage". It means playing the victim, indulging in lamentation in a situationwhere you're actually in a convenient position. It's about the attitude of taking pleasure in complaining without reason just for the sake of it, indulging hypocritically in complaining, often (but not necessarily) reaping benefits. --87.16.63.231 (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

England language history[edit]

How far back in time could I (a native English speaker) go and still be able to understand/talk with people in England from the time? Heyoostorm (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Vowel Shift would impose heavy burdens before roughly Elizabethan times, and once you go back to Chaucer, a lot of the "silent" e's are no longer silent. If you mean how far back you could make your basic sentences be understood if both you and the person from the time-period are making a strenuous effort to accommodate to each other's language, then probably the 15th century. If you're referring to natural intercomprehensibility without much effort, it's probably more like the 18th century... AnonMoos (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have a small 1929 book Historical Outlines of English Phonology and Morphology by Samuel Moore, which is obviously not the most up-to-date scholarship, but assembles a lot of data in a fairly easy to understand way (as long as you know the IPA), and would allow you to do some estimating on your own... AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found Historical outlines of English phonology and Middle English grammar (1919) - not sure if it's the same work but it's by the same bloke.

A less scholarly but also less time consuming account is at YouTube - How far back in time could you go and still understand English?. Alansplodge (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little disappointing, I was hoping it would be further back than that. I will definitely look into all these resources, thanks so much- Heyoostorm (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ever-changing nature of idioms, I suspect even going back a few decades could be awkward. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 00:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In written English, most people have little difficulty reading the novels of Jane Austen from 200+ years ago. Where there are problems, it's most often due to a changed way of life (what is a barouche? etc)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (London 1975, ISBN 0 7135 1807 3) has a six-page section titled The History of English beginning on page 25a (if the book had been printed in Britain it would be page xxv). On the day that university researchers announced that they had discovered a new northern dialect spoken by citizens of Liverpool and Newcastle page xxv notes:

In order to see how the old-fashioned quality of language ultimately changes to complete unintelligibility if we go far enough back in time, let us take a retrospective trip into the older stages of English, making stops every two hundred years or so. The passages which will be used for illustration are all quite formal documents-in all cases but one they are public notices or proclamations-so that their kind of language is the kind that changes most slowly...Yet we shall see that when we go back as far as five and a half centuries, even this conservative formal language becomes quite strange.

I can understand 100% of the extract from the Declaration of Independence (1776), 100% of the extract from John Winthrop's Humble Request of his Majesties loyall Subjects, the Governour and the Company late gone for New-England (1630), 100% of the extract from A Cryer Made for a Commune Passage Towards Hareflieu (1415), 56% of the extract from Henry III's acceptance of the Provisions of Oxford (1258), and 71% of Cnut's writ (1020). On page xxix the study notes:

Many of the words have survived into Modern English, with changes in spelling that reflect changes in pronunciation: cyning (king), hlaford (lord), brohte (brought), scolde (should), mlicode (liked), rihtlice (rightly), etc.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.35.118.122 (talk • contribs)

I read Chaucer and Thomas Malory in their original form when I was a teenager; it takes a little practice and the odd peek at the glossary, but it's clearly not a foreign language. As has been pointed out, pronunciation of vowels has changed, but listening to people who are learning English you sometimes encounter some strange sounds without making it unintelligible. Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of conversational English, clearly the major impediment is the Great Vowel Shift. I think you could probably understand Londoners of Shakespeare's time (c. 1600) without too much difficulty, although it would take a little bit of time to get used to the accent and you would miss some words and idioms. It would be a bit like talking to someone from Scotland or Ireland today. They would probably have more difficulty understanding you, since some of your words would be words that hadn't come into use yet. This assumes that you are talking to people in London; regional dialects would be much more difficult. Heck, I can't understand people from Yorkshire or Lancashire today.

If you are willing to take the time to adjust to the accent, you could go back earlier. Le Morte Darthur (1485) is entirely readable today, even though Malory's accent would have been so different as to render his speech initially unintelligible. Chaucer (c. 1400) poses a heavier burden, but many people today do read it, original spellings and all, although usually with copious notes or a glossary at hand. So eventually I think you could manage to converse in that period, and it would not be the equivalent of learning a foreign language. But anything substantially earlier would have such different vocabulary that learning to carry on a conversation would likely require weeks or months, not days. John M Baker (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an Old English version of Wikipedia, but that version of English predates the versions discussed above. Anyone interested in the discussion might like to see how much of the text they can understand.-gadfium 22:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heyoostorm:, one thing you might not have considered, is the variation in regional British accents now. You didn't say which variety of English you speak, but from clues on your user page, I'm guessing probably American English. There are British accents now, that you would not understand at all, or only the odd word here and there, "London... blah blah blah... Queen... blah blah blah...". This is even true for native British English speakers, who do not understand people speaking in some of the stronger regional accents (Geordie comes to mind).

When the British film Trainspotting (film) came out in 1996, although it's in English, it was sometimes subtitled even for British audiences, because of the strong Scots dialect and accent. See how much you can understand from this video clip of the bar scene in Trainspotting.

When you say, "How far back...", you might have to reformulate what you mean. How far back could you have understood the speakers at the Court, for example. Or how far back, you could have understood someone, anywhere in the country, where they still spoke a variety most similar to yours. Or do you mean, how far back you can understand the written language of the time, which is a much easier question to answer? If you have no special training, it's almost certain you don't understand Old English:

Nu ne ƿandode ic na minum sceattum, þa hƿile þe eoƿ unfrið on handa stod: nu ic mid-godes fultume þæt totƿæmde mid-minum scattum.
— Charter of Cnut

and Middle English might be pretty difficult as well. Here's the earlier period:

"Þa the suikes undergæton ðat he milde man was and softe and god, and na iustise ne dide, þa diden hi alle wunder"
— Peterborough Chronicle

and here's the later period of Middle English, from Chaucer:

This clerk was cleped hende Nicholas.
Of deerne love he koude and of solas; And therto he was sleigh and ful privee, And lyk a mayden meke for to see. 95 A chambre hadde he in that hostelrye Allone, withouten any compaignye, Ful fetisly ydight with herbes swoote; And he hymself as sweete as is the roote Of lycorys, or any cetewale.

— The Miller's Tale (Late Middle English)

Still pretty difficult, although a lot closer to our variety. Here's Early Modern English:

ANd so this lady lyle of Auelion toke her this swerd
that she broughte with her / and told there shold noo man pulle it oute of the shethe but yf he be one of the best knyghtes of this reame / and he shold be hard and ful of prowesse / and with that swerd he shold slee her broder / this was the cause that the damoysel came in to this Courte / I knowe it as wel as ye / wolde god she had nat comen in to thys Courte / but she came neuer in felauship of worship to do good but alweyes grete harme / and that knyght that hath encheued the suerd shal be destroyed by that suerd / for the whiche wil be grete dommage / for ther lyueth not a knyȝt of more prowesse than he is / and he shalle do vnto yow my lord Arthur grete honour and kyndenesse / and it is grete pyte shall not endure but a whyle / for of his strengthe and hardynesse I knowe not his matche lyuynge /

— Le Morte d'Arthur (from Book 2, chapter 5)

So, how well did you understand each one? Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for anyone struggling to translate "cetewale" in the Chaucer quote above, the modern English is setwall, the root of valerian (not much used in modern cooking!); although "roote of lycorys" is much easier. Alansplodge (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all so much for all the help! I'm really amazed at how you all provided so much information. It is true I'm an American English speaker (though I do understand typical British English), and I hadn't even thought about regional dialects. I can read some of the older texts, but that most certainly doesn't translate into actually holding a conversation. I really appreciate all the input that I was given. Heyoostorm (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]