Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:28, 15 July 2013

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

July 8

Is Ian McShane rhotic?

The actor Ian McShane is a native of Blackburn, Lancashire. In all the roles I have seen him in, his speech has been rhotic. Is that his native accent? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be characteristic of Blackburn. There are some interviews on YouTube, and his current accent sounds RP English with mild elements of Northern English and trans-Atlantic (he's spent time in America). I'm not hearing rhotic: in this video he definitely pronounces "doctor", "character" and "Gimbert" non-rhotically. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, that's really nothing like a Blackburn accent. You can read about the Lancashire dialect and accent in our article. I had hoped to be able to find a more typical Blackburn accent on YouTube but I'm struggling. However, try this. The man in the overalls and flat cap is Fred Dibnah, who has a particularly strong Bolton accent. Some of the other men in the video also have typical Lancashire accents. Note, however, that there is quite a large amount of variation in accent in quite small areas of Lancashire - a Blackburn accent will sound quite different to a Bolton one - but the Bolton accent is closer to a Blackburn accent than Ian McShane's, who has obviously had a long course of elocution lessons. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Japanese in the sentence?

What is the full Japanese sentence in this page in this book? I captured "それらには?え(ば or ぱ)南ア国内におケろ「日本人会」（The Nippon Club of South Africa）や「日本人学校」（Japanese School of Johannesburg）や日[...]" but I can't get all of the characters, and they are hard to read.

I'm quoting a sentence for the article Japanese School of Johannesburg.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"それらには例えば南ア国内における「日本人会」(The Nippon Club of South Africa)や「日本人学校」(Japanese School of Johannesburg)や日[...]". --Kusunose 16:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 9

Books entirely in IPA

Are there books in English or other languages printed entirely in the International Phonetic Alphabet? I've seen some time ago some children's English books in the IPA (as I can hardly remember these were Winnie the Pooh or Alice in Wonderland or something) but now I can't find them.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain that those children's books were not in the Initial Teaching Alphabet (ITA)?

—Wavelength (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. These were freshly printed, a sort of typographic experiment, with the standard English IPA transcription (maybe slightly simplified, I'm not sure), there were even used capital letters as well as standard punctuation.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing I can think of is the journal Le Maître phonétique, which I learned about on this blog post. Lesgles (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Evertype (talk · contribs) is working on an IPA edition of Alice in Wonderland, but I can't find it listed at his company's homepage, so I guess it hasn't been released yet. You could ask him for more details. Winnie-the-Pooh is still under copyright, so you would need permission from Walt Disney to publish that in IPA. Angr (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney??86.156.86.12 (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Disney owns the copyright - see this article. Milne sold it to Stephen Slesinger in 1930, and his widow sold it to Disney in 1961. Tevildo (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world would be the point of making readers suffer through the author's choice of vowel allophones? God forbid the Author is from Buffalo NY, or Bayonne NJ. Imagine reading an entire book in a strict notation of Bill Clinton. Ah feel yoah pain. μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! Yes, I've just found with Google the post about this book at John Wells's blog. Exactly this I've seen. I'm not sure whether it wasn't at Everson's site and I've seen it at Wells's or Everson later deleted the presentation of the book from his site. Though it seems it is the only book in the English IPA transcription at all.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there was a curious book entirely written in an IPA predecessor: The essentials of phonetics by Alexander John Ellis. Exactly this was the reason for opening the topic.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can read text in the Shavian alphabet at http://shavian.weebly.com/index.html.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I knew about this system, but I've never seen any texts in it. Looks like some alien alphabet from space-fiction. I hope it will be used for English in the future. :) --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the Wells blog post, and anyone who expected me to read that RP version of Alice in phonetic IPA would have to pay me more than they would if they wanted me to read it in Spanish. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm preparing an edition of Alice in IPA. Also one in Unifon, in Shavian, in Ewellic, and in Deseret. :-) Shavian and Ewellic are nearly ready for publication; the others are still being edited. -- Evertype·✆ 08:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you want to simplify and rhoticise your transcription? I believe length marks are redundant here. And well, leaving all /r/s will be more convenient for rhotic speakers. Non-rhotickers can simply give up postvocalic /r/s and lengthen previous vowels in their mind while reading.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He probably wants to imitate Lewis Carroll's accent as closely as possible. If he wants to do a book in rhotic IPA, it should be something by an North American or Scottish or Irish author. Also, RP in IPA is well documented and highly standardized so it's comparatively easy to decide what's "right" in RP. Angr (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a phonetic, rather than a phonemic transcription, which would be far less annoying. With practice it would become much easier, but at this point, my reading the phonetic transcription comes out sounding like someone mocking an Englishman who's had a stroke. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being fair, it is very common quantitative-qualitative phonemic transcription widely accepted in modern English dictionaries. For learners who acquainted to it this book won't be difficult to read, however it will for English speakers outside of England (or its South-East, strictly speaking). Frankly, I don't clearly understand what for this book is printed. I thought it's an experiment for writing English phonemically instead of its horrible spelling, but it seems it isn't. Learner's dictionary transcription is not so convenient for writing and reading hole books in English, it's a little redundant as I've already said.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is most definitely a phonetic, not a phonemic transcription. A phonemic transcription, if read by an RP speaker would produce the same result, but not if read by a Northerner or an American. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Different accents/dialects have different phonemic sets. Caught and court in RP and other non-rhotic accents both has three phonemes, but three and four respectively in GA and rhotics. Some have no /ɔː/, some have no /ʌ/, many have different mergers and splits etc. But still it is possible to write with inter-dialect notation. Everson's version of Alice is in RP phonemic transcription. If it were in phonetic one it will have three allophones of voiceless stops ([p, pʰ, p̚ ]), different degrees of length ([iː iˑ ɪˑ]), much more unstressed vowel allophones etc.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again it is phonetic because he gives specific off-glides of long vowels, rather than just indicating them as long, when all dialects agree on the long vowel phoneme (for example, long 'o' can be /ou/ or /o:/ or /eu/) but differ phonetically in how they express it. As for aspiration, it's pretty much the same everywhere, so he doesn't give a narrow transcription of that trait. As for differing rhyme sets in the 'a' vowels, that is easily handled by using more phoneme symbols than may exist in any one dialect, and telling people to ignore the difference between say, /a:/ and /ar/ if they don't have one. (I.e., let them treat those symbols as homophones if they like.) μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a book, but David Madore's webpage has IPA versions of The Chaos by Gerard Nolst Trenité. Gabbe (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

apparition vs. appearance

Is the word "apparition" just a fancy term for "appearance"? How does this word come to be? And why are there two nouns for the infinitive verb "to appear"? Below, I use the terms in sentences.

The newspaper claims that there have been UFO apparitions in the neighborhood.
The newspaper claims that there have been UFO appearances in the neighborhood.

Sneazy (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"apparition" is usually used for things that are ghostly, supernatural, etc. 86.146.104.35 (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such as claimed apparitions of the Virgin Mary, Jesus, etc, which are said to just materialise out of nowhere, and later dematerialise just as mysteriously. Whereas, an entertainer who makes an "appearance" at a shopping mall can be seen quite plainly walking onto the stage. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An apparition is an appearance out of nowhere, an appearance can mean that, or how one looks at the moment. Does the OP lack a dictionary? μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am just going to assume that the two terms can be used interchangeably. So far, no one has complained about my usage of the two terms in the two above sentences. Sneazy (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they can't really be used interchangeably, but "UFO apparitions" will probably fly heh heh heh because UFOs are thought of as being in the same rough category as the supernatural, in spite of the fact that there's nothing inherently supernatural about the notion of an extraterrestrial spacecraft. --Trovatore (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they can't be used interchangeably in all contexts. See [1] and [2]. I don't think I've heard of a UFO apparition; probably a "sighting". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, I do not see how any of us should prevent the OP from using the terms interchangeably, as he threatens to. μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are not interchangeable,[3] although they come from the same Latin root. Basically "apparition" is a subset of "appearance", as in "unexpected or startling appearance". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall hearing the term "apparition" used for UFO's. The term "sighting" is what I would expect to hear. Although a UFO could be spooky too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These two nouns (wikt:apparition and wikt:appearance) can be compared with two other nouns (wikt:specter and wikt:spectacle).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPA questions

1. I am from southern England, and I pronounce "fast" as fɑːst, judging by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_for_English. How is the characteristic US pronuncation rendered in IPA?

2. In that table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_for_English, the vowel (+"r") of "north", "born" and "war" is presented as different from that in "force", "boar" and "more". In which version(s) of English is there any difference between those? 86.146.104.35 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fast is almost universally /fæst/ in the US, but see Northern cities vowel shift and listen to John Goodman's pronunciation of the /æ/ vowel when he does his local as in The Big Lebowski.

According to my mapping of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_for_English, /fæst/ is the way it is pronounced in northern England, but to me that sounds quite distinct from the US pronunciation, so I had discounted that. To me, the US version sounds more like fɛjəst -- but really, as I say. I don't know how to write it. 86.146.104.35 (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In most of northern England (and Wales), the vowel is just /a/ not /æ/. Dbfirs 07:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I best understand the the difference between /a/ and /æ/? 86.128.6.65 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The vowels of trap and cat are phonemically /æ/ in General American and Received Pronunciation. The situation is more complex with /a/. In General American it is the phoneme found in father for those who don't have the cot-caught merger. (For those Americans who don't merge the vowels of hotdog, the first is /a/ and the second is /ɔ/. But those who merge them may say /hatdag/ (Midwestern) or /hɔtdɔg/ (Boston).) The British treat these vowels differently. In strict phonetic transcriptions, most English 'a' vowels are off center from the /a/ found in continental languages. But broadly speaking, in American and British you can think of /æ/ as the vowel of cat, and /a/ as a vowel close to that of father. We have plenty of British here versed in linguistics, they may be better at commenting here than I am. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I can't visualise any difference between the vowel in my (southern English) pronunciation of trap or cat and the northern English pronunciation of fast, both of which are quite distinct from my pronunciation of father. 86.128.6.65 (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The vowel in "father" is long (/a:/ in northern English and Australian). /a/ is just the short version of this (as in northern trap, cat and fast) though some older northern dialects do pronounce "father" as /faðə/ (short a) instead of the more general /fa:ðə/. Dbfirs 21:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the difference is only one of length? Is there no example of /æ/ in RP or British English in general? What dialect does IP 86 speak? μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I was writing about northern English, not RP (or IP 86's accent) which uses /æ/. Whenever I read pronunciations, I mentally convert /æ/ to /a/ for my local pronunciation in which /æ/ would sound foreign. Dbfirs 21:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The girl on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMPgtHIjHQg is from Liverpool (as she says, she does not have a very strong accent compared to some Liverpudlians). At 3:00 she says the words "bath", "grass" and "dance", which in the UK tend to follow the same pattern as "fast". To me, those vowels sound like I say "cat" or "trap" (/æ/), and not much like a short version of how I say "father", so I am still kind of confused. I think I'm quite poor at identifying differences in speech sounds, though, so am I mishearing it? 86.128.6.65 (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scouse has some idiosyncrasies that are not shared by most of the remainder of northern England. I know only the older versions of Scouse, so I can't comment further. ( ... from the linked article: "The Scouse accent of the early 21st century is markedly different in certain respects from that of earlier decades.") Dbfirs 05:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That girl is not a scouser at all. She is what we scousers call, a 'woollyback'. I am a scouser, and her accent nowhere near resembles mine. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except for a few tell-tales, and her very obvious use of /a/ for /æ/ (e.g., rhyming and with wand), she could almost pass for American, especially with her very Americanized mannerisms. Odd she got the woodlouse question correct (we call them rolly-pollies (with long o/os)) then confused the critter with an earwig. Daddy-long-legs is also the correct American term for a harvestman but her stories about their venom and lifespan are old wives' tales. μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To get back to the point, what IPA vowel sound does she use for "bath", "grass" and "dance"? 81.159.105.254 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's using either an /a/, or maybe an /ɑ/ which is a more back version of that vowel. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it's definitely not /æ/? I don't think my ear can distinguish the difference... 81.159.105.254 (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northern UK English does not have /æ/. We use /a/ or /ɑ/, as Medeis says. It almost verges on /ʌ/ in some cases. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English language in England seems to disagree, saying:

In general, Southern English accents are distinguished from Northern English accents primarily by not using the short a in words such as "bath". In the south-east, the broad A is normally used before a /f/, /s/ or /θ/: words such as "cast" and "bath" are pronounced /kɑːst/, /bɑːθ/ rather than /kæst/, /bæθ/. This sometimes occurs before /nd/: it is used in "command" and "demand" but not in "brand" or "grand".

81.159.104.78 (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That section of the article seems to be comparing the south-east with RP. The northern short "a" is /a/ or /ɑ/ as mentioned above. Dbfirs 16:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what accent do you think it is saying has /kæst/, /bæθ/? 81.159.104.78 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RP (excluding south-east). (I must listen to Lilibet more carefully!) Dbfirs 06:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Received_Pronunciation#The_BATH_vowel, there is some debate about whether /bæθ/ etc. can be allowed as an alternative to /ɑː/ in RP. However, when making a general distinction between RP and other varieties of English, it would be very strange to characterise RP as using /bæθ/ etc. It don't think that's what English language in England can be saying. The only interpretation that maks any sense to me is the one I originally assumed, i.e. that northern English uses /bæθ/ etc. 86.146.106.166 (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, I think you might be correct, though~~ the OED does allow /bæθ/ as an alternative, presumably for RP. I wonder who uses /æ/ (other than Americans). What does it sound like in a British version? How does it differ from the standard northern English /a/? The article to which you link quotes Malcolm Petyt. I'll see him tomorrow, so I'll ask him. Dbfirs 21:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the trap=bath split article, /bæθ/ would be expected in Ireland. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Malcolm (our cited expert) today, and he confirmed that /æ/ is the old RP pronunciation from fifty years ago. He said that very few in the UK still use it. RP speakers in the south adopt the south-eastern /ɑː/ and northern RP speakers often make do with their native /ɑ/. Dbfirs 18:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. Does he mean that /æ/ is the old RP pronunciation for speakers from southern England? I can't imagine that at all. Also, do you (or anyone else) have any hints about how I can differentiate /æ/ from /ɑ/? 86.169.185.180 (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's exhausting listening to recordings trying to spot "bath"-type words! I think "last" is in the same family, though, and at 4:15 here you can hear Queen Elizabeth in 1957 saying /lɑːst/, as expected. It would simply be weird if she said /læst/ there. 86.169.185.180 (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she definitely uses /ɑː/ there. Malcolm did reproduce the (perhaps older?) RP /æ/ for me, but I'm not sure whether I can pronounce it myself. I don't speak true RP myself (I didn't learn it until I was in my late teens), and I'm not at all expert at IPA, in fact I struggle to distinguish the subtleties, so perhaps someone else can advise? Some of the American pronunciations of /æ/ in Wiktionary sound more like /ɑ/ to me. Is there a pondian difference in interpretation? Dbfirs 07:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the /fɛjəst/ you mention is exactly the vowel found in the NCVS I mentioned John Goodman having (more at /fɛəst/ and even higher in some dialects). You will especially notice it since it stands out. Even in my native dialect it is tensed; see especiallyTrap-bath_split#Trap.E2.80.93bath_split re Philadelphia. But the underlying and unmarked American pronunciation is /fæst/; a three-way distinction between /fæst/, /faðər/, /fɔt/ ("fast", "father", "fought"). How those vowels split, shift, and merge will tell you where an American originates. μηδείς (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the 2nd see the map.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Medeis indicates, there isn't really a single American pronunciation of the vowel in fast. News announcers and educated people speaking carefully will produce something like [æ], but in practice most people pronounce a diphthong or even a triphthong, which varies considerably by region. Marco polo (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Americans might pronounce the a in "fast" different regionally, but they should typically rhyme it with cast, aghast, last, mast, Nast, past, passed, sassed, vast, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us who have the Philadelphia version of the trap-bath split do not rhyme the lax vowel in sassed with the tense vowel in the other words you mentioned. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

verb conjugation?

Which of the following is correct, or are both correct, or is it a difference in American and British English?

There have not been any reports..."

There has not been any reports...”
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtamad (talk • contribs) 06:04, 9 July 2013

Verbs must agree in number with their subjects, so it can only be "There have not ...". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, the waters have been very muddied by people appending "there's" to singular and plural subjects alike. It's not that hard to say "there are" when it's plural, really. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With present-tense "be", "there's" is now almost universally the predominant form in spoken colloquial English – and not surprisingly so, because it's just the final logical consequence of the long-term syntactic reanalysis according to which the word "there", and not the following NP, is really the syntactic subject of the existential construction. But with perfect constructions such as "have been", that trend is nowhere near as strong, and the presence of negation, like in the OP's example, would further reduce the likelihood of a singular form, because it blocks contraction to "there's been". Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There's not been any reports" sounds perfectly natural to me... Though I'd probably use "There haven't been any reports" if contracting, or "There have not been any reports" if not. MChesterMC (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking "What do native speakers do?" or "What do educated native speakers consider correct?"? If you are asking the first question, then you can get away with your second sentence on either side of the Atlantic if you want to sound uneducated, but your first sentence sounds more natural. If you are asking the second question, only your first sentence is considered correct. Marco polo (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself saying things like "There's apples in the fridge" not because I'm uneducated (I'm not) but just because as a rhotic speaker I seem to have a constraint against geminate [ɹ]: *[ðɛɹɹ] is ill-formed, and *[ðɛɹəɹ] is insufficiently contracted as it's more than one syllable, so the optimal output for there're is [ðɛɹz]. But I wouldn't do it before not, because there aren't is available as an option. Angr (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I do say there're all the time, where I have two syllabic /r/s in a row, which rhymes with how I say error. I had a co-worker once who had the marry-merry-Mary merger. She just about fell out of her seat when she heard me tell a client "/ð'r̩r̩ 'r̩r̩z/ in your order." At first she couldn't figure out what I had said. Instead of "th're're err'rs" with four syllabic /r/s in a row, she insisted I say "their are air ores". I told her to go back to South Dakota. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, so as not to confuse the questioner, educated English speakers (other than linguists) would consider "There has not been any reports" to be grammatically "incorrect". Don't you agree, Angr? I don't think it is fair to questioners who are probably learning English and who ask for a prescriptive judgment of grammar to respond that a usage is correct because some native speakers produce it, when we know full well that an English-language learner adopting that usage will be found amiss by educated native speakers who aren't linguists. Marco polo (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree: "There has not been any reports" is not standard English and I would not recommend a learner to use it in either speech or writing. But don't be surprised if you hear native speakers say something similar anyway. (I do think it's important for learners to learn the standard language, but it's also important for them to be aware of things they may hear from native speakers that they probably shouldn't imitate, at least at first.) Angr (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's probably not a good idea to get into designations like "educated", which carry classist/elitist connotations. "Standard" vs "non-standard" (i.e. the way it's usually said) is more to the point - and "There has not been any reports" is non-standard, both from descriptive and prescriptive viewpoints. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

/ʌ/ for the English Northerners

I know that in the north of England there is no /ʌ/, but if Northerners want to speak or imitate RP, what vowel will they produce? Does this difficult for them? Does they substitute it for a vowel known and accustomed to them?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Southerner, so I can and do say strut, mud, dull and gun, but when Northerners try to imitate my speech they generally substitute /æ/. To them I apparently pronounce buck (as in a male deer) and back as the same, whereas I hear them pronounce buck and book as the same (except for some Northerners (or possibly north-midlanders) from around Stoke, who pronounce book and cookie with a long 'oo', as in 'hoot'). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I may just interject as a Northerner - we'd probably transcribe your saying "the back of a buck" as "the beck of a back". The Southern vowels are distinct, just different to the ones we'd use. Tevildo (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Great Vowel Shift hasn't fully happened yet in some parts of the north, and I think I've detected a further shift in some southern pronunciations within my lifetime, though I'm not sure if some are just local affectations or over-corrections by northerners who've moved south. I've heard the word "book" pronounced with four or five different vowels. Dbfirs 23:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I know their /æ/ is more central-lowered [a~ä]. Then their RP-imitated buck should resemble many continental European accents with buck [bäk], though back is usually [bɛk] there in the Continent and back-buck merger doesn't appear but rather beck-back. Am I right?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Many Northern accents do use the /ʌ/ for words with the "ar", car, part, mart, etc. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

I've met Northerners who can produce /ʌ/ quite correctly for the purpose of affecting an RP or other Southern-England accent and don't merge it with any of their existing phonemes. Just because a sound isn't part of one's native phoneme inventory doesn't mean one is incapable of learning it. Angr (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Northern speakers still have /ɘ/ in reduced syllables? How do they say unstressed "a" and "the"? μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of us northerners, after fifty years of practice, can reproduce /ʌ/ quite correctly when speaking to southerners (to make our speech more easily understood), though I certainly don't use it for "ar" words. I'm not sure whether I use /ɘ/ or a normal schwa (/ə/) for unstressed "a" and "the". Is there anywhere that I can hear the difference? Dbfirs 20:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to use the normal schwa there. I find some of the IPA characters hard to distinguish unless I magnify the screen. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a relief! I thought you were asking about something too subtle for my hearing to distinguish! Yes, we use the normal schwa. Dbfirs 21:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Q Chris, do you really mean mid back [ʌ]? Isn't their "a" before "r" more low central [ä] quite equal to their cat, bat etc?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right - I got confused! -- Q Chris (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a French translation

Over at Wiktionary's entry on the French word bernard l'ermite ("hermit crab") I've added the following quote: Il y a un exemple qui me poursuit, sur lequel je reviens le plus volontiers, car je l’estime de nature à prêter grandement à réfléchir : c’est l’exemple du bernard-l’ermite. I translated it "There is an example that pursues me, to which I return all the more willingly because I esteem it for the thoughts it leads me to: this is the example of the hermit crab", but I'm not at all sure that's right. In particular, I'm not at all sure I've understood car je l’estime de nature à prêter grandement à réfléchir correctly. Can anyone help me figure out what it means, please? Angr (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm: something like "There is an example that haunts me (I would choose "haunt" here because the whole text just emits a certain urgency, a reverence to the crab in particular and nature in general), and to which I return most willingly, because I esteem it lends itself to be contemplated upon: this is the example of the hermit crab." I admit my English sounds a bit awkward, but it is an older text I presume. Lectonar (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lectonar! Yes, the text is from 1932. Angr (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last part could be translated a bit better, but texts like this do not lend themselves to literal translation....writing style has changed. And: it was nice talking to you here, directly, after such a long time since the meeting in Berlin....

. Lectonar (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with the slightly different: There is an example that haunts me, and to which I return most willingly, for I esteem it lends itself to great contemplation: it is the example of the hermit crab. Contemplation could also be reflection. Or you could rework the phrase a bit to use the word pondering, it lends itself greatly to pondering but that sounds a bit awry to me. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, after further consideration, I think that it should be for I deem it lends itself to - esteem is not an appropriate translation here, as "j'estime" means something between "I estimate" and "I esteem" (an esteemed estimate). Deem conveys the meaning well and is of a similar level of language. -The poster generally known as 64.201.173.145 198.84.198.188 (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; esteem in that sense is obsolete. I changed it to deem; both you and Lectonar are acknowledged in the page history. Angr (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "deem" a bit, well, officious? To me, it's equivalent to saying "It is so, because I say so". Whereas, the writer is merely expressing his opinion. Wouldn't "consider" or "believe" be better choices? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deem means to form or hold an opinion - it can also mean to judge, either in the sense of exercising one's judgement, or in some cases to pass a sentence ("I deem you unworthy" can be made to sound pretty final), but that's not the primary meaning of the word. It also has a slightly archaic feel and belongs in the same register as "j'estime", IMHO. I think consider and believe are valid yet poor choices, but there are other valid translations: "I find it lends itself" would be the simplest. I think "deem" gives a similar feel to me in both French and English, so that's why I like it best, but it may be different for others. 198.84.198.188 (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with IP198's reasoning. The original French author had other simpler verb options he chose not to use. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deem a majority of two to overrule a majority of one. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 10

Arabic help: Bayan School

What is the Arabic in this image? http://www.bayanschool.edu.bh/templates/ja_university/themes/green/images/logo.png

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madrasat Bayân al-Bahrain, which is the school's name in Arabic. Someone with access to an Arabic font can write it down in Arabic. --Xuxl (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Arabic it's "مدرسة بيان البحرين". Adam Bishop (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To both of you, thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent Russian translation needed

Grateful for any help https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26523028/Image1.jpg

Moondyne (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lamb shoulder on the bone (square cut) frozen
Made in Australia
Keep frozen. Storage temperature -20 C
Net weight: see the other label
Pack date: see the other label
Company name and address:
Factory number: 572
Expiration date: 12 months since packing
--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. Moondyne (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminium

I use the above spelling with the British (I believe) pronunciation (and it drives people crazy!) I also see it spelled "Aluminum" - is that just the corrosponding spelling for the other pronunciation? Which version(s) are official and where? Thanks! --Yellow1996 (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Aluminium#Etymology. Lectonar (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling.—Wavelength (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it's just my British favour again; thanks for the info, guys! :) --Yellow1996 (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be worse: "Iodine" as Io-DYNE vs. Io-DEEN. "Iron" as EYE-urn vs. EYE-run. etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

o/~You burnt your finger that evening, while my back was turned... Tevildo (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a seriously obscure oldie. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAOE. Tevildo (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me - and I think most British speakers "iron" and "ion" are homophones. --ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True - I use the former for both of those. I think how I picked up al-u-min-ium was seeing it spelled like that 'aluminium' in the books I read (usually from the 50's to 80's) and pronouncing it as I saw it spelled. If I saw the 'aluminum' spelling more I probably would be saying al-u-minum. --Yellow1996 (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The slightly twisted history of that metal's name may be of interest.[4] All efforts to standardize its pronunciation have so far been foiled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's "comptroller", which is a corrupted spelling of "controller",[5] and which some say should be pronounced "comptroller" and others say it should be pronounced "controller". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, aren't we all comptrollers at times? ;) --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there was also alumium... hmmm interesting stuff! Thanks, Bugs! :) --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching for it to say someone tried again, by calling it "aluminiumium", subtly referencing one of the three little maids from school, but I guess they decided that was excessive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, you're probably old enough to recall the TV shows The Alcoa Hour and Alcoa Theatre, on which, as I recall, the commercials used to mention the company's Canadian affiliate Aluminium Limited. To the best of my knowledge, that was my first exposure to the British spelling of aluminum. Deor (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

Persian help and Arabic help: Titles of HISD documents

What is the Persian title of the following document? http://web.archive.org/web/20120329033744/http://www.houstonisd.org/Multilingual/Home/Parent%20Resources/Parent%20Guidebooks/ParentGuideFarsi.pdf

What is the Arabic title of the following? http://web.archive.org/web/20120229144332/http://www.houstonisd.org/HISDConnectEnglish/Images/PDF/howmaywehelpyou.pdf

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your first link, I found wikt:دفتر (notebook, office) and wikt:چه (because, what?) and wikt:رانندگی (driving) and wikt:أشياء (things, objects) and wikt:دانش (knowledge) and wikt:امتحان (examination) and wikt:زبان (tongue, language) and wikt:انگلیسی (English).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC) and 00:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Persian title is "دفترچه راهنمای اولیاء دانش‌آموزان زبان انگلیسی" meaning "A Manual for English Learners' Parents". The Arabic title is "مرحبآ بکم فی ادارة هیوستون التعلیمیة المستقلة" and the second line "کیف یمکننا مساعدتکم؟". ‍‍‍‍Omidinist (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! One thing I forgot: What is the Persian title of http://web.archive.org/web/20120229144332/http://www.houstonisd.org/HISDConnectEnglish/Images/PDF/howmaywehelpyou.pdf ? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It is "به مدارس مستقل منطقه‌ای هیوستون خوش آمدید. چه کمکی‌ میتوانیم به شما بکنیم؟". Omidinist (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translating Japanese

I'm lost in translation. So, is it correct to translate "日本大好きセリーヌはトークが冴えてましたね" as "not only loving Japan, Celine also has good knowledge about it"? Thanks a million. Arigatō gozaimasu.--124.122.107.154 (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Celine loves Japan and her talk was fabulous. Oda Mari (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be translated as "Celine loves Japan as well as talking", "Celine loves Japan and is skillful in/good at/keen on talking", or something like that? Thank you once again. --124.120.111.229 (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) [reply]

??? Has Baseball Bugs relocated to Thailand? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what's going on. The OP removed the whole thread after it had been answered, and BB restored it so it can be archived. Odd that Sine Bot is attributing the post by Thailand-based IP 124.120.111.229 to BB, though. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're pretty much onto it. The OP had rubbed out the section after he got his question answered, and I undid it since I thought it should go into the archive when the time comes. And because I have autosign turned on, for those occasions when I forget to sign, the bot program tacked my name onto that undo. Strange, but robotically correct, I guess. P.S. I have never, to my knowledge, been to Thailand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it couldn't. It could be...."Celine's talk was wonderful as she loved (knew) Japan", but I cannot translate it correctly without the context. Oda Mari (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a Latin neologism please

Hi - I need a Latin term that approximately means 'those who write on cockroaches'; it can be a binomial species type of name, or a single compound word - up to you.

Gratias tibi ago!

Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blattographers (from Latin blatta, "cockroach")? Are you referring to people who write about roaches or people who inscribe writings on roaches? Deor (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Deor - it's the latter - or else it could be people who write with cockroaches (as opposed to writing with pens). Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

inblattiscriptores, "those who write on cockroaches". singular: inblattiscriptor (not real Latin words).--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally the prefix in- assimilates to the following consonant, so I would expect 'imblattiscriptor'. However, I don't think the prefix in- can have this meaning. It can mean 'to the interior' with verbs of motion, but usually it means 'not'. I think 'blattiscriptor' is the best you'll get, though that is vague about whether the writing is on cockroaches, about cockroaches or even formed out of cockroaches. --ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right about the usual assimilation, sorry. But the in- can have the prepositional meaning in nouns at times (e.g., incunabula), and is not always the negation. Rethinking, I believe inscriptor (one who inscribes) is actually attested (and an obvious construction anyway), so maybe "blattinscriptores" would be better. Anyway, again, not real words. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. blattinscriptores is best. --ColinFine (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps, everyone! So when you say 'not real words' - are you referring to this neologism, or that you're using faux Latin in the making of the neologism? Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that just to mean that it is a neologism for a (more or less) dead language, yes; i.e., that the words do not occur within the corpus of Latin literature. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. One more thing - I know I'm pushing it - but can anyone here speak ancient greek? Is it possible to make the equivalent neologism in Greek? Feel free to tell me to get stuffed in your language of choice. Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ἑπισιλφογράφοι episilphographoi, singular: ἑπισιλφογράφος episilphographos; you might Anglicize the plural episilphographers. Sounds kind of nice. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does! I love words with the oi suffix. Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That must explain why you feel at home among hoi polloi here. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, Jack.Adambrowne666 (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Word etymology

Etymologically speaking, is there any relationship between the word Russia (or Russian) and the word red (which is rus or russo or something similar, I believe, in some foreign languages)? If so, what's the connection between the people (and/or the nation) and the color red? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, see http://www.etymonline.com/ for all your shopping needs. Red comes from a proper PIE root, *reudh, which leads to rufus and ruber in Latin and erythros in Greek. Russian comes from a Finnic word Ruotsi which meant Swede and referred to the Viking ruling class that founded Kievan Rus. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Why do you say "no"? That link that you gave me says: "The word Russian ... [is] perhaps related to the IE root for red, in reference to hair color". (What does "IE" mean?) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"IE" stands for "Indo-European", the reconstructed common source of most European languages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, etymonline.com does speculate that the old name of the "Rus'" Scandinavian settlers in Russia might be "perhaps related to the IE root for "red," in reference to hair color", but no further hints as to who proposed such an idea or how common it is. Certainly sounds dubious to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to check wikt:Ruotsi. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the speculation of the word coming from red, but -dh- from *rheudh in Russian would standardly develop into a /d/. There's no way to explain the ess that way except for borrowing. Meanwhile, ruotsi is the consensus view. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW in Czech (and presumably some other Slavic languages, mutatis mutandis), there is an adjective rusý “red-haired”. This is distinct from rudý “red”, which is the straightforward reflex of *reudh.—Emil J. 16:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, [6] gives quite a few reflexes of *reudh that include an -s- element, such as English rust. [7] explains that as coming from *reudh-s-to-.—Emil J. 16:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford ED says in the entry for Russ: "Old Russian Rus′ is usually taken to be < a stem ultimately of early Scandinavian origin + Old Russian -′ , suffix forming collective nouns" [...] "compare Old Swedish roþer rowing, roþrin, roþin ‘administrative subdivision in coastal Eastern Sweden’, and the first element in Old Swedish rodskarl (Swedish roskarl) inhabitant of Roslagen, all < the same Germanic base as row v.¹; perhaps via a Finnic language, compare Finnish Ruotsi Sweden, Ruotsalainen Swede." And from the entry for row v.¹, ultimately: "< the same Indo-European base as Mycenaean Greek e-re-e, Early Irish ráid, Lithuanian irti, all in sense ‘to row’". I suspect Douglas Harper slightly misread the Russ entry. See *erə- (1), *ere-, *er-, *rē- (3) at [8] for Gerhard Köbler's take on the "Indo-European base" just mentioned. If you want more information, please buy [9], mail it to me, and then I'll oh-so-graciously interpret it for you. -Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the etymology that Neil Oliver gave in episode two of Vikings (TV documentary series) when he talked about the Vikings exploring the part of the world that is now Russia. Richard Avery (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

take life by the hand

Would you please teach me the meaning of 'take life by the hand' in the following sentence. "By no willing of his own he has been compelled to take life by the hand and go down where there has been little save sorrow and degradation.--As a Realist Sees It, Theodore Dreiser"123.221.54.99 (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)dengen[reply]

That's an odd one. It needs more context. But it sounds like a strange variant on "taking the bull by the horns" or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear without context, but the image it conjures for me is of giving reassurance to a timid person who needs to go somewhere they find frightening. by taking their the hand and walking with them. --ColinFine (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound that odd or unclear to me. As I interpret it, it means he took charge or control of his life. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Clarityfiend. A Google search for that exact phrase brings up 3,550,000 results, including several song lyrics and this blog. I also found "Come take life by the hand. Don't wait, time is short. The Communist party calls upon you to take the future in hand. La vie est a nous. Comrades, come with us." (Cinema engagé: film in the popular front). Alansplodge (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image it conjures for me is of somebody taking a small child by the hand and walking them through a dangerous area. Looie496 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

"SDB", what is it

What is a SDB?Curb Chain (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Silver Dangle Beads. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Silent Dut Beadly". KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Safe deposit box? I'm reading it as "I decided to throw it in my SDB..." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe PalaceGuard has it correctly. I'm not sure KageTora followed your link at all... Matt Deres (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient English accent

I heard a rumor that the modern day American accent is actually closer to how English people sounded like pre-revolutionary days. Is this true? What is the earliest recording of an English voice? ScienceApe (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean closer than present-day British English, it's true with respect to some pronunciation features but not others – for instance, the fact that most Americans pronounce their "r"s in words like "car" while most British people don't is a conservative feature, as is the fact that they pronounce "dance" with the same vowel as "man", rather than the same vowel as "palm". But then again, the fact that most Americans have the same vowel in "bother" as in "father" is an innovation, and in this respect British English has remained closer to earlier stages. The way these things can be historically reconstructed has little to do with old sound recordings though. Sound recordings have of course only existed since the invention of the phonograph in the 1870s. You can find a lot of information about these issues in various articles listed under {{History of English}}. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In so far as Shakespeare didn't drop his arrs (rhoticism) and he didn't pronounce bath and grass to rhyme with father as they do in England, but with trap and happy as they do in America, some conservative American dialects are closer in some ways to Shakespeare than is Received Pronunciation. But that's a very complicated issue, and most Ameican dialects have developments in their vovel systems (NCVS, cot-caught merger, etc.) that move them far away from Shakespearean era English. Northern dialects in England that retain the arrs and the old vowels are probably much closer than American dialects--or maybe even some Irish speech. Listen to shakespeare in the original. As for earliest voice recording, that was Thomas Edison. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're (the two of you) obfuscating the issue somewhat by talking about Shakespeare in place of the pre-Revolutionary era. There's almost 200 years of difference between the two of those periods, and the English accent changed significantly in that time gap as well as it has between the pre-Revolutionary era and today. To answer Fut.Perf., yes, the modern-day American accent - or rather, the modern New England accent - is closer to the mid-18th Century English accent than the present-day English accent is (speaking in generic terms, as there are some English accents which differ). The generic English accent has in the last two centuries become non-rhotic, for example, whereas the New England accent is still rhotic - this hasn't changed from the above response. The shift from, say, pronouncing "qualities" as "kwa-li-tyes" (Shakespearean) to "kwa-li-tees" happened before the Revolutionary War, however. The video linked - the Kansas Uni one - is interesting, but not an accurate representation of 1760s English pronunciation. It's a source of some curiosity to me, though, that the New England accent (and from what I gather, American accents in general) does not seem to have shifted much in the last 200 years, whereas the English accent altered significantly in many respects. Falastur2 ^Talk 21:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I certainly wasn't talking about Shakespeare. As for the rest, I'm not sure what you mean by "generic accent", but New England is generally said to be among the non-rhotic areas within the US. And as for "does not seem to have shifted much", as Medeis and I both pointed out, it entirely depends on what areas of the phonology you look at. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which particular English accent are you referring to? England had, and still has, a wide a variety of accents. Bazza (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm just going to strike out my answer entirely. It's not worth the effort it would involve to dig myself out of the hole I just made for myself with my careless response. Please accept my apologies here, all. Falastur2 ^Talk 22:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Scottish accent is much closer and archaic of all.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again: in certain aspects yes (e.g. treatment of /r/, retention of /hw/ vs /w/); in others, not so (e.g. treatment of vowel length, where Scottish English differs radically from pretty much every other accent). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever and Whatsoever

Right now I'm reading The Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander. One of the things I noticed about his writing style is that he uses "whatever" when I would use "whatsoever." For example (this is just a sentence of my invention): "He paid him no heed whatever for the rest of the voyage." I very rarely see this, and I'm assuming the two words are quivalent when used in this way. But, they wouldn't be if someone said "Whatever!" - they couldn't say "Whatsoever!"? Or could they? Thanks! --Yellow1996 (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tangent comment. This was my favorite series of all time when I was little. I read them into tatters.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary.com has them as synonyms and I've always thought of them as interchangeable, with whatsoever sounding lightly more formal and maybe emphatic to my ear.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think they're essentially synonyms (but with whatsoever being slightly stronger) in essentially every situation except the contemporary "I'm ignoring you" idiom.

“

I took a contract to bury the body of blasphemous Bill MacKie
Wherever, whenever, or whatsoever the manner of death he die

”

— Robert W. Service

--Trovatore (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the whoever/whosoever and whomever/whomsoever split. Citations exist for words such as howsoever, whensoever and wheresoever. Whyever is usually a misspelling of "why ever", but it can exist as a single word. Whysoever is not unknown but is probably archaic. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and the wild winds of fortune shall carry me onward, O whithersoever they blow (Man of La Mancha) --Trovatore (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper thithersoever thou goest. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll have whatsoever he's having"? Nonsense! The longer word is usually an adverb, the shorter usually a pronoun. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP framed the specific use for emphasizing a negative statement, and whether in that context the words were synonyms – not a comparison of the words for all meanings.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. (In the negative case I would only use whatsoever). μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, *you* might, but whatever is perfectly standard in that meaning. --Trovatore (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard it, but it's not something I personally would produce as a "competent speaker". Perhaps it's more common in Britain? "I don't like that whatever" sounds unnatural to me. μηδείς (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That one's bad either way; whatsoever doesn't sound much better. --Trovatore (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of more archaic terms like gotten you'll find in American versus British English. "At all" or "One bit" might be more common than "whatsoever". But the latter still doesn't sound off to me. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't sound good to me. I would accept "I don't like that in any way whatsoever", but in that sentence, replacing whatsoever by whatever seems fine. --Trovatore (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a matter of WP:ENGVAR or even more regional than that. Free Dictionary says American Heritage, Collins and Random House all have separate emphases. We sang the hymn "Whatsoever You Do" in church, but that would only be "whatever you do" in American speech, or at least in my northeastern dialect. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my (British) eyes, "whatsoever" looks archaic, except as an intensifier with no, none, nothing or nobody. --09:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow - great turnout! (Special thanks to Jack for all those new archaic words to use; seriously, I'm always on the lookout for more!) :) Thanks, everyone! --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're especially welcome. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

July 13

Correct usage of the word "why" in a sentence?

Is it more correct to say "Here is a list of reasons why..." or "Here is a list of reasons on why..."? Sneazy (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is definitely wrong. I think the choice is between "list of reasons why" and "list of reasons that". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an explanation that justifies your answer? Or are you just speaking from your intuition? Sneazy (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"reasons on why" does get 3.5 million ghits, so it's obviously a newish development that had not yet hit me between the eyes. On the other hand "reasons why" gets 389 million ghits and "reasons that" gets 127 million. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you base your justification on popularity? In formal English, no matter how popular double negatives are in sentences, they are incorrect grammatically. I am talking about sentences like this: "I ain't got no money, sir."Sneazy (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Correctness", being an arbitrary standard set by style-gurus with no authority beyond what people choose to ascribe to them, is not going to be reflected in popularity. Current English probably is so reflected. --ColinFine (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Reasons on" (in this context) is extremely peculiar phrasing. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The words "on" and "why" after "reason" are usually unnecessary, as is "because". However, the use of "reason", "why" and "because" together is a well established tautological overlap, and is not illegal. "Ours is not to reason; Ours is but to do or die" doesn't quite work. Also it's worth restating that Google result counts are a meaningless metric.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google hit counts are Large Random Numbers™. 86.146.106.166 (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Reasons as to why" would also be valid. I can't say that "Reasons on why" is invalid, it's superfluous and unusual, but personally it doesn't trigger my grammatical alarm. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Reasons on why" is not something that a native speaker of English would say. "Reason for" is acceptable (but not "reason for why"). Not "reason on". I don't know the reason why. I don't know the reason for that. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although "for why" was good enough for William Kethe to include in Old 100th back in the 16th Century: "For why? the Lord our God is good; / His mercy is for ever sure...".[11] Alansplodge (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't accept "reason on why" as standard English, but I don't have a problem with "reason for why". Is there a reason for why you don't like that phrase? The "for" is of course not necessary, but I would mark it as an intensifier. Matt Deres (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would go so far as to say that "reason for why" is not contemporary standard British English. It may be standard in other Englishes, and I'm sure people will comment. Ages since I heard that hymn. "For to do" was also common in the past. "For to hear the fond tale of the sweet nightingale as she sings in the valley below." Itsmejudith (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you - the phrase just illumined a lightbulb in my head that had to be shared. Alansplodge (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Itsmejudith, I yearn to agree with you, but these 2.3 million ghits for "reasons on why" tell me we're a little behind the times. I don't believe these are all non-native speakers of English. Funny, it got 3.5 million when I searched yesterday (see my reference above); maybe, in a pleasing development, it's very quickly losing popularity. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, it must still be going down! I get only 1.75 million for "reason on why" compared with 105 million for "reason why", but Google searches are variable and regional, of course. They tell you what Google thinks you want to hear! I recall being taught that even "reason why" is tautological, and that good writers would simply say "Here is a list of reasons ..." ( for whatever Sneazy's full sentence was). The colloquial phrase "the reason why is because" is double tautology, of course, but it gets over 8 million hits, many of them explaining why it's wrong. "For why?" would be considered poetic or dated usage in modern English. Dbfirs 21:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

"At the museum" or "in the museum"?

How should we name categories like Category:Self-propelled artillery at the Panzermuseum Thun and Category:Tanks in the Bovington Tank Museum? And is there any difference in preposition usage between categories with exhibits inside the museum building(s) and outdoors, like here? Ain92 (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is little difference between the two, and in most cases either preposition will fit. "At" makes more sense if the exhibit is outdoors, but even then no-one will complain about misrepresentation, because something can be "in the museum" if it is in the museum garden or courtyard. Generally, I slightly prefer "in". Itsmejudith (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A possible distinction, but one which I doubt is systematically made, is that something "in" a museum might be presumed to be part of that museum's permanent inventory, while something "at" a museum might instead be on loan, perhaps as part of a travelling exhibition. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.246.168 (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Events happen at museums, objects are displayed in them, and redirects exist to cover differences in usage. Simply create a redirect. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The makers of Night at the Museum and the writer of the book on which it was based may or may not have given this question a great deal of thought. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I read about difference in usage between in and at in Common Mistakes in English by T. J. Fitikides: "We use in to describe the physical location of something as part of a larger thing or place (like Liam has a flat in Paris). We use at when we're talking about an address, a public place or building (a bus stop, the Post Office, the library etc.) and cases in which the location is irrelevant but what we do there is what matters (school, the dentist, dance class etc.)". Omidinist (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "at the museum" means located anywhere within close proximity of the museum, where 'proximity' is a relative term; "in the museum" means located specifically within the museum building, or some other definitive boundary that constitutes the 'museum'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic title question

What is the Arabic title of the document at http://www.csdccs.edu.on.ca/publications/depliant-cic-FR_AR.pdf ? (See third page) Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic is " !عائلة واحدة و متعاونة...إنها عائلتك". Adam Bishop (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adam! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct English nomenclature for land forces of the Third Reich?

In English-language articles dealing with the Second World War, what is the correct term to use for (a) the regular army (b) the military SS (c) the various home defence units (d) formations combining any of these? --Hors-la-loi 18:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

I believe we use the Germans terms.

Wehrmacht
SS
Volksgewehr

KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wehrmacht actually refers to the armed forces as a whole. I think German Army is more common than Heer, but for the rest, the German names are usually used. (b) would be the Waffen-SS. I'm not sure what the OP means by (c) and (d), but see Volkssturm and Wachdienst. Volksgewehr is the name of a shotgun. Lesgles (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alle Angaben ohne Gewehr. Angr (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation question

How do we pronounce the name Mannlicher? his family were firearms makers. our guys are snickering, saying "man licker" can this be correct? 24.166.97.24 (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can we possibly tell how a particular person pronounces his name? There's a more-or-less normal way to pronounce it in German (with some variation as to how the 'ch' sounds in different parts of the German speaking world), and if the person in question is German, that will probably be the way to do it. But if he is English or American, it is anybody's guess how the family have decided to pronounce it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends, how far are you and your guys from Intercourse? μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Near there, I think, but a long way from Condom. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And half a world away from Fucking. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

And how long have you been waiting for that? The poor Fuckingers, always having their sign stolen by rampaging British tourists.....and I might just throw in Bitsch (yes, the pronounciation in German is like your word for the female....), and the fabulous Wank mountain. Lectonar (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The John F. Kennedy assassination rifle was (apparently erroneously) referred to as a Mannlicher-Carcano, and as I recall, the first syllable of "Mannlicher" was stressed, and the "ch" part was part of the third syllable, not the second. Hence, MAN-lih-cur. Also spoken faster (being one word instead of two) than if you were actually trying to say "man liquor" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think in German the name would simply have be "Männlicher", with the the dreaded umlaut. With the umlaut replaced with the "a", "man-liqour" comes quite near, pronounciation-wise. Lectonar (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the German name of the company Steyr Mannlicher and its founder Ferdinand Mannlicher didn't have an umlaut. The German pronunciation is [ˈmanlɪçɐ]. The second half doesn't really sound like "licker"/"liquor" in German because the "ch" part is not a [k] but a palatal fricative, roughly like the devoiced glide sound that you can hear between the [k] and the [u] in a word like "cure". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or like hue for many people. — Lfdder (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was a bit unprecise..."man liquor" would come near if you had english-language users pronouncing it, not Germans. And thanks for the link: I did not even know about this Austrian aristocrat. Lectonar (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if people familiar with the name didn't pronounce it "man-lisher" which is about as close as you can get to the German in American. Like "Boehner" being called bay-ner. That being said, this guy is presumably an expert and can be expected to have heard others name the gun, and he does call it a man licker, even with a separate accent on the verb! μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually the licker-pronounciation might just be a tongue in cheek thing, as in: "You have been licked (by this fabulous gun). That is why we call it a man-licker". Lectonar (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pimsleur manual for Conversational and Basic French CDS

I recently borrowed two items from the library here in Toronto: Conversational French and Basic French. Is there a website which I can download the manuals for those two? --Donmust90 (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

www.pimsleur.com. Specifically, this page. Tevildo (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

Which one is grammatically correct?

I am new in Wikipedia.

or

I am new at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.100.37 (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I am new to Wikipedia" would be better than either of the above. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be "new at" something implies you are inexperienced and may make mistakes. The be "new in" wikipedia would mean someone just recently created an article about you. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case shouldn't that be "newly" though? 64.201.173.145 (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 19:54, 15 July 2013 edit Lfdder (talk \| contribs) 14,867 edits →pronunciation question ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:28, 15 July 2013 edit undo 64.201.173.145 (talk) →Which one is grammatically correct? Next edit →
Line 266:		Line 266:

	::To be "new at" something implies you are inexperienced and may make mistakes. The be "new in" wikipedia would mean someone just recently created an article about you. [[User:Medeis\|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis\|talk]]) 18:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)		::To be "new at" something implies you are inexperienced and may make mistakes. The be "new in" wikipedia would mean someone just recently created an article about you. [[User:Medeis\|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis\|talk]]) 18:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

			:: In that case shouldn't that be "newly" though? [[Special:Contributions/64.201.173.145\|64.201.173.145]] ([[User talk:64.201.173.145\|talk]]) 20:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language: Difference between revisions