Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 21

Were the concepts of "pitch accent" and "syllable" recently introduced from the West in Japanese linguistic science and grammar?

I was intrigued by the fact that Japanese linguists use the Western borrowed term "akusento" to refer to the pitch accent of Japanese? It seems hard to believe that for all those centuries Japanese linguists and grammarians never thought of studying pitch accent which is a prominent feature of most of the dialects of Japanese. (Korean linguists were certainly aware of the pitch accent of Middle Korean: pitch accent was even marked in some early Hangul texts). If that is not the case, and Japanese linguists have been aware of the pitch accent since the beginning of native linguistic science, then how come the Japanese do not have their own native term for the pitch accent?

Anecdotally, while young Japanese people who study linguistics or even study to become teachers, even primary school teachers, are taught about the Japanese pitch accent, the way the standard language and the dialects differ, etc. many regular Japanese people, particularly fairly old ones, still subscribe to the notion that Japanese pitch contour is a monotone. It is somewhat amusing to see them try and "help" foreigners learning Japanese with artificial demonstrations of how Japanese "ought to be spoken" that so obviously have nothing to do with the way they actually speak.

In the same vein, when was the concept of "syllable" introduced in Japanese linguistics? Is there even a native term for the concept of syllable?

In general Japanese people are aware of kanas (moras) because it is kanas that are written and it is in terms of kanas that the pronunciation of kanji (for example) is described. The so called syllabaries of Japanese are actually "moraic syllabaries". Japanese poetry counts kanas not syllables. Regular Japanese people seem to be completely ignorant of the concept of syllable. For example everyone knows To-u-kyo-u (the capital city) is 4 kanas (and so 4 moras) long but I've never ever heard anyone mention the fact that it has 2 syllables.

178.51.16.158 (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess Japanese could often have borrowed English terms, due to them being more specific than similar Japanese, often Chinese-derived, homonyms. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

From what I've read, pitch accent in Japanese has a low "Functional load" (as Martinet would express it), and there are significant numbers of people who speak a form of Japanese close to the standard, but without pitch accent. As for borrowing the term from a European language, the fact that it's not a concept which is needed when analyzing the Chinese language could be relevant. (Of course, the concept "syllable" is quite relevant for Chinese.) AnonMoos (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

For many languages the notion of syllable is rather artificial. Even if it isn't, it may be unclear. How many syllables do English library and Turkish sıhhat have? What are the constituent syllables of the Dutch word voortaan? Since the concept is not particularly meaningful for the Japanese language, it should not be surprising that its speakers are unfamiliar with it. The useful concept known to most Japanese is the on, a concept of which English speakers are generally quite ignorant.  --Lambiam 12:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your insightful comments. Still, my basic questions are yet unanswered: Are the concepts of "pitch accent" and "syllable" a relatively recent borrowing from Western linguistics or not? (If they're not, and you do have examples of the use of these concepts in traditional Japanese grammar, what is the traditional terminology?) 178.51.16.158 (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Japanese uses 音節 (onsetsu) for the concept of a syllable, possibly with the kanji borrowed from Chinese but with unrelated readings.  --Lambiam 02:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The Japanese term for the syllable is 音節. Funnily enough, the mora is known as モーラ, though the term was coined for analysis of Japanese. Nardog (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The Japanese term 拍 (haku) is also used for a mora.  --Lambiam 02:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I would hesitate to say it "is" used, rather than "was", so far as I've seen. Nardog (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. And how about the pitch accent, アクセント? No native Japanese equivalent? And most importantly, no attestation of it being dealt with in traditional Japanese grammar prior to Western contact? 178.51.16.158 (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I found this paper (Sugitō 1983) pretty informative. She notes 日本大辞書 (1892) was the first dictionary to mark accent, which it called 音調. But she also cites a paper from 1915 already featuring the term アクセント in the title. Nardog (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I've always been intrigued by this and have asked around for years without ever getting any answers. Finally you've provided some real data. Thanks again. Is 音調 also the Chinese term for "lexical tone" (one of the tones that Chinese "monosyllabic words" have, e.g. like the 4 tones of the standard language)? If it is, then I would guess this phrase is also used in Japanese to refer to those Chinese tones? Which might explain why they thought after awhile that it'd be more specific to adopt the Western term for the Japanese pitch accent? I can see the term 音調 is also used in Korean, hence the same questions? Standard Korean no longer has a lexical pitch accent but Middle Korean did (that was even at times notated in hangul) and some dialects still do, so Korean must have terminology for that.

Incidentally, are you somewhat familiar with the linguistic literature of the Tokugawa (Edo) period? Not only for Japanese but also possibly for Chinese or Sanskrit or other languages? If you are do you know if there are any Edo-jidai Japanese descriptions or grammars or textbooks of the Dutch language? Tokugawa scientific activity was not completely isolated from the West since the Japanese were importing Dutch books on science, medecine, mathematics, technology, etc. (as far as I know that imported learning was called "Rangaku" or "Dutch science"?) through Nagasaki (more exactly Dejima) so some Japanese people must have had some command of the Dutch language if they were to make any use of those books? How were they getting it?

178.51.7.23 (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I might have meant "distinct" rather than "specific", when I think about my phrasing, as well. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The modern term for phonological tone is (トーン or) 声調. I had never heard of 音調. I also saw 語調 in some papers by authors Sugitō mentions (particularly 井上奥本), but it now only means tone of voice or choice of words in general.

I'm no expert on Japanese history but there was Kokugaku, with Kamo no Mabuchi and Motoori Norinaga discovering Lyman's law in the 18th century (hello Stigler's law). Note modern Western linguistics didn't start until William Jones connected Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit in 1786, and monolingual dictionaries of contemporary languages had just started to become a thing in Europe; there probably didn't yet exist a large body of research into Dutch or any vernacular and I doubt the Japanese had much to learn from them. King Sejong was ahead of Europe by centuries. Nardog (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Two questions

1. Are there any French loanwords in English where French hard C was changed to K when it was borrowed to English?
2. Why most languages do not have native words for continents where they are spoken? For example, neither Finnish nor English have native word for Europe, nor does Swahili have native word for Africa.

--40bus (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@40bus: As an ordinary, little-knowing person, I think the 2. is quite obvious: when languages were emerging, people didn't know there is such thing like 'a continent' and that they were living on one. So there were no such concept known to them, consequently no need to invent either a general word 'continent' nor a specific name for the one where they lived. --CiaPan (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I wonder how much the word continent was used before the Age of Sail! —Tamfang (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Thre only one that springs to mind is "skeptical" from the French sceptique. Here in Britain, the usual spelling is "sceptical", but apparently the "k" variant was preferred by 19th-century lexicographers in America, out of deference to its Greek roots. [1] Alansplodge (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Your link asserts that skeptical derives directly from Latin rather than from French. Is the <c> really pronounced /k/ in French? That's not what I would have guessed, though I suppose otherwise it would sound the same as septique, assuming that's a word, which would probably not be desired. --Trovatore (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm that the "c" in "sceptique" is silent in French and that the word is a homophone of "septique", as used in "fosse septique" (septic tank). Xuxl (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Italian has an advantage over French here, in that the predictably formed cognates scettico and settico are pronounced differently in the first consonant ([ʃ] vs [s]). --Trovatore (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

December 22

To borrow trouble

I recently had occasion to use this phrase, which I believe I learned from my grandma, and it occurred to me I wasn't sure everyone knew it. I went and looked it up in Wiktionary, and found a definition I consider wrong, which I corrected.

But searching, it does seem like the "wrong" definition may actually have some currency in the wild.

My understanding is that to borrow trouble (against tomorrow/against the future/etc) is to spend a lot of effort worrying about or preparing for an adverse event that may never happen. I think this is clearly the definition that makes the most sense and is best historically grounded. Similar sayings include Jesus ("sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof") and William Inge ("worry is interest paid on trouble before it comes due").

The other understanding is that it means "stir up trouble". A Quora post I found claims that this is actually the older meaning, which it dates from the 1850s, whereas the "worry" meaning it dates to the 20th century. This rendering, to me, makes much less sense — in what way is this supposed to be "borrowing"?

Anyway, I would be interested to know if high-quality attestations can be found for the "provocation" meaning, and how it might have come about if it actually predated the "worry" meaning. --Trovatore (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

To me the 'stir up' makes sense. 'Borrowing' implies that you now actually have something: if you just worry about something, it may never materialise, but if you talk and/or act in the wrong ways, potential trouble may become actual. I (in the UK) have always read/heard the phrase as being about bringing trouble upon oneself unnecessarily.

The saying is an example of an idiom, where the literal meaning is not (at least any longer) what it actually means. Both individual words, and idioms and other sayings, can drift in meaning over long periods. They may also differ in current varieties of English.

Many expressions in English originate from sailing. The nautical meaning of borrow, "to approach closely to either land or wind" is quoted in the OED from William Henry Smyth's The Sailor's Word Book of 1867 and obviously describes a manouvre with some risk; See also the golfing use of the word – the amount a ball on a sloping green will drift to one side of the hole, which the putting player must compensate for. (If the player compensates too much, they are said to have "over-borrowed".)

May I gently suggest that if you want to correct (or otherwise edit) material in Wiktionary, you should (as here) do so only on the basis of published Reliable sources, not on "what you (or your Granny) know". Many (all?) families have their own internal expressions and word meanings, and every individual has their own idiolect – ones different from yours (or mine) are not automatically "wrong". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary has no "reliable sources" requirement.  --Lambiam 14:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I made a suggestion, rather than issuing a ukase. Although Wiktionary does not have that formal requirement, it would be improved if editors there chose to follow it anyway. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't really know the norms on Wiktionary in detail. I believe though that it's based on "attestations" rather than "sources". The only real sources for meanings of words are usually -- other dictionaries, which has an obvious circularity problem. (Similarly, at Wikipedia, which is a tertiary source, we should not ordinarily be relying on other tertiary sources).

As to the merits, the point is that "borrowing" innately involves the idea of the future. You borrow against income you expect to have tomorrow. If you're just creating trouble from scratch, that's not being a borrower, that's being a producer. But if you worry about something not under your control and that may never come to pass, that's borrowing that potential trouble from tomorrow, and making it actual trouble (for you) today. --Trovatore (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The two senses coexist on a dictionary page hosted by Collins, which has,

1. Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition: "to worry about anything needlessly or before one has sufficient cause";
2. Penguin Random House/HarperCollins: "to do something that is unnecessary and may cause future harm or inconvenience".

Sense 1 is also found in Longman: "to worry about something when it is not necessary".^[2]

Sense 2 is found in Merriam–Webster: "to do something unnecessarily that may result in adverse reaction or repercussions".^[3] Dictionary.com has the stronger "Go out of one's way to do something that may be harmful".^[4]  --Lambiam 12:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The earliest use I found, from 1808,^[5] is about unnecessary worry.  --Lambiam 12:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Idioms are often literal nonsense. Back and forth implies returning before departing: Wiktionary's definition is "From one place to another and back again", not "Returning from a place and then going to it". Head over heels is the normal configuration for a human, and indeed the expression has inverted over time from an earlier heels over head. You can easily and naturally have your cake and eat it too. The difficult thing is eating a cake that you don't, at that point in time, have: or eating a cake and having it later, too.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

 

The two senses have in common that the subject is doing something unnecessary, and that someone sees potential trouble ahead. In the first sense it is the subject who sees the (unprovoked) trouble, and what they do is worry. In the second sense it is the speaker who fears trouble if the subject does a provocative act. (The speaker may in this case coincide with the subject.)

Looking at books of idioms, it looks almost as if a switch-over occurred between 2008 and 2010.

For the worry sense:

• 1977, Early American Proverbs and Proverbial Phrases.^[6]
• 1995, The Anthracite Idiom.^[7]
• 2008, Idiom Junky.^[8]

For the provoke sense:

• 2010, Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms.^[9] (labelled "North American")
• 2013, The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms.^[10]
• 2015, Professional Learner's Dictionary of Spoken English.^[11]

These are "mentions", not "uses", and not usable as attestations on Wiktionary. For attestations of the "provoke" sense:

• 2016, Stacy Finz, Borrowing Trouble. Kensington, p. 22:^[12]

  Brady hadn’t bothered to change his name, figuring it was common enough. But he stayed off Facebook and Twitter. When Harlee Roberts had wanted to write a feature story about him for the Nugget Tribune, he’d politely declined. No need to borrow trouble.

• 2024 June 11, Kristine Francis, “7 Little Johnstons Recap 06/11/24: Season 14 Episode 14 ‘Burpees and Burp Clothes’”, Celeb Dirty Laundry:^[13]

  Brice didn’t want talk about it because he thought it was borrowing trouble.

• 2024 August 7, Colby Hall, “Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary Defends Kamala Harris Avoiding Press to Fox News: Her Campaign is In ‘Euphoric Stage!’”, Mediaite:^[14]

  From O’Leary’s perspective, shared during Wednesday morning appearance on America’s Newsroom, Harris is enjoying so much momentum at the moment, things are going so well for her since she became the nominee; she has little reasons to borrow trouble by taking tough questions during a press conference or a journalist willing to challenge her.

 --Lambiam 13:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Against this is the fact that I (a Brit) have taken the expression to have the 'provoke' sense since the early 1960s. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you find earlier uses of that sense in published sources?  --Lambiam 23:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

One "borrows" trouble from the future, often unnecessarily. It seems pretty straightforward to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

But it's obviously not using "borrow" in the most normal way. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Repetition

Does English use do-support when the verb is repeated? Can the main verb also be repeated? For example, are the following sentences correct?

• This is why this street has the name it has.
• Jack likes it more than Kate likes.
• I drink milk and you drink too.

--40bus (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The first is correct, the latter two are not.

In such cases, I'm pretty sure any transitive verb still requires its object to be explicitly stated. Remsense ‥ 论 08:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, the what in I know what you know preposes what is called a fused interrogative content clause. I don't go down syntax rabbit holes enough... Remsense ‥ 论 08:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

In this sentence, the interrogative content clause is the object, what you know. The word what is a fused relative pronoun, not a clause.  --Lambiam 11:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The other two would normally be phrased as:

• "Jack likes it more than Kate does." (Or less commonly, "Jack likes it more than Kate likes it.")
• I drink milk, and you drink it too." Clarityfiend (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Or, "I drink milk and so do you."  --Lambiam 11:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Or "I drink milk and you do too". Pondering this street has the name it has, "I drink milk you drink" makes sense, and has a similar structure, but not the required meaning.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I consider the repetition of wording a sort of emphasis. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The third sentence is grammatical but may not mean what you think it means. (Intransitive "drink" in English tends to mean "drink alcohol", quite likely to excess.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the intransitive "go" (Does your wife go? She sometimes goes, yes.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Aye aye nudge nudge say no more.... --Trovatore (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

But does your wife come? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Wiktionary lists 46 intransitive senses.  --Lambiam 01:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

In my dialect of (American) English I think I would prefer does even in the first sentence, i.e. "This is why this street has the name (that) it does.", without necessarily considering 'has' wrong. As others have said, the lack of repetition of the direct objects is a bigger problem than not replacing the verbs with a form of 'do'. It makes the sentence sound wrong or have another implication (as "drink"=consume alcohol to excess) rather than just sound non-native. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The possibility to use lexical (i.e. non-auxiliary) have without do-support ("At long last, have you no decency, sir?") is quite exceptional; it is unique in this respect among lexical verbs. Colloquially, this is far more common in British English, but seems to be dying out also there, sounding stiff.  --Lambiam 02:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That sounds a bit categorical. There are a lot of archaic-sounding, but clearly grammatical, uses that allow such constructions. Stuff like know you not that I must be about my father's business?. It's not something you would likely say to communicate ideas in any ordinary context, but it's still completely clear what it means, and the syntax still works. --Trovatore (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, "not likely" is too weak; "no way" comes much closer. If "know you not" sounds syntactically acceptable to some, it is only because it is familiar from the syntax of the 1611 KJV, Wiſt ye not that I muſt be about my fathers buſineſſe?,^[15] with the familiarity kept alive through reuse in later revisions, such as Webster's revision from 1833 (knew ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?.^[16]), an archaism that, including the archaic ye, is retained in the 21st Century King James Version.^[17]  --Lambiam 01:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I disagree; know you not is syntactically acceptable. If you use it in casual conversation, you're obviously making fun, but it's not nearly as obscure as (say) "wist", and maybe less than "ye". --Trovatore (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Demonyms

How are demonyms of overseas territories determined? Are people from Isle of Man, Channel Islands and British Overseas Territories "British"? Are people from all French overseas departments, collectivities and territories "French"? Are people from both Caribbean Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten "Dutch"? And I have never seen demonyms formed from French overseas department names, such as "Réunionian", "Guadeloupean", "French Guinanan", "Mayottean", "Martiniquean", so are their people just "French"? Is this same from overseas collectivities and territories? --40bus (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Demonyms are generally listed in the articles. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no system to it. The inhabitants of Corsica are French but still have a demonym, Corsican. The demonym Curaçaoan can be used for the inhabitants of Curaçao. In both cases these terms are ambiguous, because they are also used for members of specific ethnic groups.  --Lambiam 01:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Most regions, islands, cities, etc have demonyms, and even for those that don't, you can always say "a <toponym> person" or "a person from <toponym>" if you want to be more precise than just indicating the country. Or if you're asking whether those people are legally full British, Dutch and French nationals, then WP:RDH or WP:RDM would be a better place for that. --Theurgist (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

40bus -- The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are under the British Crown, but technically they aren't part of the UK. The demonym for the Isle of Man is "Manx" adjective (as in the famous tailless cat), "Manxman" noun, but you wouldn't be able to predict that. AnonMoos (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Although Manx people (and Channel Islanders) are British Citizens. [18] Like everything connected with British governance, it's a tottering pile of complex traditions and reforms; we have never re-started with a clean sheet, and don't intend to either. Alansplodge (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

P.S. The French have the lovely word "DOM-TOM" to describe non-Hexagonal territories. On Wikipedia, that redirects to Overseas France, which might answer some of your questions... AnonMoos (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Martiniquais, Guadeloupéen and Réunionais are commonly used in French; I guess you just don't run across their English equivalents that often. For Mayotte, which has been in the news a lot of late, the demonym is "Mahorais" for some reason I haven't explored. Other overseas territories have demonyms as well (e.g. Guyanais); this goes even though their inhabitants hold French citizenship. Xuxl (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

American citizens include Californians, Texans, Rhode Islanders, Pennsylvanians, etc. Australians include New South Welshmen, Queenslanders, Victorians, etc. The Soviet Union was populated by Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians, etc, all of whom were Soviet citizens. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 15:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Georgians could be both Sovietans and Americans, though... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Similarly the French include Normands, Lorrains, Bourguignons and whatnot; though I am not aware of demonyms for the newfangled départements. —Tamfang (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Luckily French Wikipedia is. --Antiquary (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Mahorais comes from Mahoré, the Maore Comorian name for Grande-Terre (and consequently the entirety of Mayotte.) GalacticShoe (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

December 24

Language forums

I was just reading this list of still active web forums, unfortunately there's no language section. What language, linguistics, etymology, and lexicography blogs and forums are there? Epigraphy? Deep knowledge and open attitudes are best. Temerarius (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Linguist List hosted some lively discussions in its early days, but by the time I stopped receiving it, it was mainly for conference announcements, job offerings, book announcements etc.; I don't know what it is now. Language Log is still operating, but only approved people can start new topics, and it's focused somewhat on Chinese language and linguistics in recent years. AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

There are also general question-answering websites such as Quora, but I don't know if any of them contain an interacting community of people with linguistic expertise. Back in the day, there was also Usenet's "sci.lang", but I haven't participated there for many years, and 2024 seems to be the year when general-purpose Usenet became definitively defunct (only certain niches survive). AnonMoos (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

December 25

Ways to improve proposed Help:IPA page

I currently have a draft of a proposed Help:IPA page for the Kannada language, and I was referred here by @Hoary to seek advice on ways I can improve it for potential inclusion in the Help: category. Any advice or criticisms would be much appreciated.

Link to draft: Draft:Help:IPA/Kannada Krzapex (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Krzapex. I have little knowledge of Dravidian languages, but I do have some comments about your draft.

• "suit" is not a good choice for English approximation, because it has variant pronunciations as /sut/ and /sjut/.
• I doubt that most English speakers could even tell you what the Korean currency is, and would be unsure how to pronounce it. According to Wiktionary, the currency is pronounced [wʌ̹n] in Korean, and /wɑn/ in AmE, /wɒn/ in BrE - none of them quite the /(w)o/ you want. I think the BrE "want" is probably closest, but I don't know how to convey that to an AmE speaker.
• I really don't think that "Irish 'boat'" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is a good match for /aʊ/
• 'Hungary' has the sequence /ŋg/ in all varieties of English I've ever heard, and certainly in RP/ "Hangar" does not have the /g/ in most varieties of English (except in the Midlands and North West of England).
• your use of "th" to key the dentals will not work for most English speakers outside India (and maybe Ireland). To most Anglophone ears, the salient feature of /θ/ and /ð/ is their fricative nature, not their dental articluation, and if you write "th" you will get θ or ð.

Of course, the whole problem with "English approximation" is that you are trying to capture distinctions that are completely imperceptible to most Anglophones. I see that Help:IPA/Hindi and Urdu addresses this problem in notes, and I think this is the better approach. ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

December 27

Weird sentence

I recently removed this wording from an article because it looked on the face of it like a grammatical error, but reading closer, I see that it is likely correct but still confusing:

• "He thus became a permanent ambassador at the at the time itinerant royal court."

Should it be left as is, or is there another way to write it that is less confusing? Viriditas (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"He thus became a permanent ambassador at the royal court, which at the time was itinerant." --Wrongfilter (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Another way to say it would be to hyphenate at-the-time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I have to admit this sentence threw me for a loop. It isn't often I come across something like this. Does it have a linguistic term? Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not quite Garden path, but close.

I might have minimally amended it as "He thus became a permanent ambassador at the then-itinerant royal court," but Wrongfilter's proposal is probably better. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

While yours is better than mine. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"ambassador to" would be better than "ambassador at". DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The wordy option (not always the best idea) is to replace at the time with contemporarily. I wonder if there's an equivalent word without the Latin stuffiness. I considered meanwhile, but that has slightly the wrong connotations, as if being an ambassador and having a royal court were two events happening on one particular afternoon.

Edit: I mean yes, that word is "then". But here we have a situation where if the word chosen is too fancy, the reader isn't sure what it means, but if the word is too unfancy, the reader can't parse the grammar. Hence the use of a hyphen, I guess. Card Zero  (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It is a rather common rule/guideline/advice to use hyphens in compound modifiers before nouns,^[19][20][21] but when the first part of a compound modifier is an adverb, there is some divergence in the three guidelines linked to (yes but not for adverbs ending on -ly followed by a participle; mostly no; if the compound modifier can be misread). They all agree on happily married couple (no; mostly no; no) and mostly on fast-moving merchandise) (yes; mostly no; yes). They are incomplete, since none give an unequivocally-negative advice for unequivocally-negative advice, which IMO is very-bad use of a hyphen (and so is very-bad use).  --Lambiam 07:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas, have you now edited the article text? None of the rest of us can, because you haven't identified or linked it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That is resolved. In the course of finding this I did a search for "at the at the" and fixed five instances that were errors.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

December 29

A few questions

1. Are there any words in German where double consonant is written after ⟨ei⟩, ⟨au⟩,⟨eu⟩ and ⟨ie⟩?
2. Is there any natural language which uses letter Ŭ in its writing system? It is used in Esperanto, a conlang, in Belarusian Latin alphabet, in McCune-Reichschauer of Korean, and some modern transcriptions of Latin, but none of these uses it in their normal writing system.
3. Why does Lithuanian not use ogonek under O, unlike all other its vowels?
4. Why do so few languages use letter Ÿ, unlike other umlauted basic Latin letters? Are there any languages where it occurs in beginning of word?
5. Are there any languages where letter Ž can occur doubled?
6. Are there any languages where letter Ð (eth) can start a word?
7. Can it be said that Spanish has a /v/ sound, at least in some dialects?
8. Are there any languages where letter Ň can occur doubled?
9. Are there any languages where form of count noun depends on final digits of a number (like it does in many Slavic languages) and numbers 11-19 are formed exactly same way as numbers 21-99? Hungarian forms numbers like that, but it uses singular after all numbers.
10. Why English does not have equivalent of German and Dutch common derivational prefix ge-?

--40bus (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

ad 10.: Old English had it: wikt:ge-#Old_English. Then they got rid of it. Maybe too much effort for those lazy bums. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, English dropped it. Maybe it got less useful as English switched to SVO word order. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

It disappeared early in Old Norse, as well. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The reason that "ge-" got dropped in English was because the "g" become a "y" (IPA [j]) by sound changes, and then the "y" tended to disappear, so all that was left was a reduced schwa vowel prefix. AnonMoos (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

ad 1.: You mean within a syllable? Otherwise you'd have to accept words like vielleicht. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Strauss / Strauß, which except for a name can mean 'bunch' or 'ostrich'. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

One can find plenty of references stating that a diphthong is never followed by a double consonant in German, including the German Wikipedia. The two examples given don't contradict this, since ß isn't a regular double consonant (as it does not shorten the preceding vowel), and the two l in 'vielleicht' belong (as already implied by Wrongfilter) to different syllables. People's and place names may have kept historic, non-regular spellings and therefore don't always follow this rule, e.g. "Beitz" or "Gauck" (tz and ck are considered double consonants since they substitute the non-existent zz and kk). -- 79.91.113.116 (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

ad 4.: Statistics? Only few languages written in the Latin alphabet use umlauts in native words, mostly German and languages with an orthography influenced by German. Similarly, only few use Y in native words. Very few use both. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Swedish has both umlauts/ diaeresis and Y (and occasionally Ü in German names and a miniscule number of loanwords, including müsli). Swedish still didn't see a need for Ÿ (and I can't even type a capital Ÿ on my Swedish keyboard in a regular way). 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

A similar situation applies to 40bus' native Finnish. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

ad 7.: Seems to be used as an allophone of /f/ under certain circumstances. It's used in Judaeo-Spanish, if it is to be considered a dialect, rather than its own language. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding 10: Middle English still had y- which goes back to ge- "Sumer is icumen in" (here it is spelled i-); it is still used in Modern English in archaic or humorous forms like: yclad, yclept, and other cases (see the Wiktionary entry I linked to). 178.51.7.23 (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

2 & 6: The Jarai language marks short vowels with breves (while leaving the long ones unmarked) so it uses ⟨ŭ⟩ (and ⟨ư̆⟩), while the now-extinct Osage language has initial ⟨ð⟩s. The Wiktionary entries on individual letters usually provide lists of languages that use them. --Theurgist (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

December 30

Teaching pronunciation for Spanish in 17th c. France and Italy?

Although it seems that Spanish 'x' and 'j' had both taken on the sound of a velar fricative (jota) at least among the majority of the population already in the course of the 16th c. (is this correct?) the French and the Italians pronounce the title of Cervantes's novel "Don Quixote" with an 'sh' sound (which was the old pronunciation of 'x' until the end of the 15th c.; the letter 'j' was pronounced like French j like the 'ge' in 'garage'; Judaeo-Spanish still uses these pronunciations).

So I've been wondering: Why do the French and the Italian use the archaic pronunciation of 'x'? Is it because this was still the official literate (albeit a minority) pronunciation even in Spain or had that pronunciation already completely disappeared in Spain but was still taught to students of the Spanish language in France and Italy?

178.51.7.23 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Might just be an approximation, since French and Italian lack a velar fricative natively. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In French, the protagonist's name is always spelled "Quichotte", never "Quixote" or "Quijote", and is pronounced as if it were a native French word. The article on the book in the French wikipedia [22] explains that this spelling was adopted to approximate the pronunciation used in Spanish at the time. Xuxl (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Which is odd since the final -e is silent in French but definitely not silent in any version of Spanish I'm aware of. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Was final e silent in French at the tme of the novel? —Tamfang (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

178.51.7.23 -- The letter "X" standing for a "sh" sound was still alive enough in the 16th century, that the convention was used for writing Native American languages (see Chicxulub etc)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

VIP

Is the acronym "VIP" ever pronounced as a word, as /vɪp/? --40bus (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In my understanding, only jokingly or as shorthand in environments where the meaning would be understood. You probably wouldn't see it in a news broadcast, but I could imagine it being used casually by, say, service workers who occasionally cater to high-end clientele. GalacticShoe (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

There was a German TV programme called Die V.I.P.-Schaukel, making a wordplay out of the fact that /vɪp/ sounds like Wipp- (from the verb wippen:to rock, to swing; Schaukel is a swing). It was based on interviews with and documentary bits about famous people. But that does not mean that V.I.P. would normally have been pronounced like that. -- 79.91.113.116 (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In Dutch it's always pronounced /vɪp/, which has no other meanings than VIP. It's still written with capitals. PiusImpavidus (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe that is the case for Swedish, as well. Possibly due to the confusion about whether the letters of English abbreviations should be pronounced the English or the Swedish way. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat akin to VP for Vice President, typically pronounced "VEE-PEE" but also colloquially as "VEEP". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

When I was a kid growing up in the UK I used to watch a cartoon called Top Cat (which was renamed Boss Cat in the UK as there was a cat food available called Top Cat). There's a line in the theme song that goes "he's the boss, he's a vip, he's the championship". Or does it say "he's a pip"? Most lyrics sites have it as "pip", but I favour "vip". Decide for yourself here: [23] --Viennese Waltz 10:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that brings back some memories. It sounds like "vip" to me. One thing I'm now wondering: If the series in the UK was called Boss Cat, did they change the song lyrics at all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Not according to my memory, @Baseball Bugs. It was transparent even to kids that they'd been forced to change the title, but didn't change anything else. (The dialogue wasn't changed: "TC"). ColinFine (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Imported American culture rarely see any changes at all. The term "spaz" might have been changed to "ass" or something, occasionally, as "spaz" is considered more harsh in the UK (and "ass" less so)... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

December 31

Spanish consonants

Why in Spanish and Portuguese, /s/ sound can never start a word if it is followed by consonant? For example, why is it especial rather than special I think that in Portuguese, it is because of letter S would be pronounced /ʃ/ before a voiceless consonant, but in beginning of word, /ʃ/ would not end a syllable. But why it is forbidden in Spanish too? --40bus (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

A couple of explanation options can be found in this thread: [24]. I would mention that you can add sc to your list. An sc- at the start of a Latin word was changed into c- (scientia - ciencia), s- (scio -> se) but also into esc (schola -> escuela, scribo -> escribo). -- 79.91.113.116 (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

One might also note the elimination of the Latin -e in infinitives in Spanish and Portuguese (Example: Habere -> Haber, Haver) while Italian kept them. To avoid consonant clusters like -rst-, -rsp-, -rsc- between words which would be a challenge to the Romance tongue, (e.g. atender [e]scuela, observar [e]strellas), the intermittent e may have been required and therefore may have shifted to the beginning of such words. -- 79.91.113.116 (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

There are Italian dialects where final wovels of low functional load regularly are dropped, though. It's common in Sicilian, I believe. Also, I'm not sure on whether the two phonetic shifts would be related. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It's quite normal in standard Italian to leave the final vowel off of the infinitive auxiliary verbs (or other verbs acting in a quasi-auxiliary role, say in saper vivere). But I don't think that's really what 79.91.113.116 was talking about. Anyway if the main verb starts with s+consonant you can always leave the e on the auxiliary to avoid the cluster, similarly to how a squirrel is uno scoiattolo and not *un scoiattolo.

As a side note, I actually think it's the northern dialects that are more known for leaving off final vowels of ordinary words, particularly Lombardian. I have the notion that Cattivik is Milanese. But I'm not sure of that; I wasn't able to find out for sure with a quick search. --Trovatore (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

An AI bot on that Quora link mentions that there are no Latin words starting with st-, I see, which however is blatantly wrong. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

For whatever reason, it's a part of the Spanish language culture. Even a native Spanish speaker talking in English will tend to put that leading "e", for example they might say "the United Estates". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

An accent isn't generally considered part of the "culture" in the broader sense. It's not really part of the "English language culture" to refer to a certain German statesman as the "Fyoorer of the Third Rike"... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

English speakers have typically always mispronounced Hitler's title. In fact, in Richard Armour's satirical American history book, he specifically referred to Hitler as a "Furor". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It is kinda proper English, so when I think about it, a better equivalent might be an English speaker talking in German about "Der Fyoorer des dritten Rikeys" or so... (I need to brush up on my German cases...) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The reason why they do not occur in these languages is that the native speakers of these languages cannot pronounce onsets like /sk/. The reason why they cannot pronounce these onsets is that they do not occur in their native languages, so that they have not been exposed to them in the process of speech acquisition.  --Lambiam 11:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

However, these onsets existed in Latin and disappeared in Spanish so at some point they got lost. See above for a more etymological approach. -- 79.91.113.116 (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It's quite common cross-linguistically to insert a prothetic vowel before some initial clusters. Old French did it (though the /s/ has since often been lost): "étoile"; "escalier"; "épée". Turkish does it: "istasyon". Other languages simplify the cluster: English "knife" /n-/; "pterodactyl" /t-/; Finnish "Ranska" ('France') ColinFine (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The <surname> woman

In a novel I'm reading there are characters who are sometimes referred to as "the Borthwick woman" and "the Pomfrey woman". Nothing exceptional there. But then I got to wondering: why do we never see some male literary character called, say, "the Randolph man" or "the McDonald man"? We do sometimes see "the <surname> person", but never "the <surname> man". Yet, "the <surname> woman" seems fair game.

We also hear these things in extra-literary contexts.

What's going on here? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Traditinal gender roles, I believe. Men inherit their father's surname, while women change theirs by marrying into a new family, on some level being treated as possessions, I guess. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

A possible reason is that, particularly in former eras, men generally had a particular occupation or role by which they could be referenced, while women often did not, being 'merely' a member of first their parental and later their spousal families. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Another aspect is that these are usually intended as, and understood as, pejorative or disrespectful ways to refer to someone. There's no need to spell it out as, e.g. "that awful/appalling/dreadful Borthwick woman". Those descriptors are understood. How subtle our language can be. I suppose the nearest equivalent for a male referent would be their surname alone, but that would need a context because it wouldn't automatically be taken as pejorative, whereas "the <surname> woman" would. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

There's also the fact that this is not only understood as a negative towards the woman, but also an insinuation that the man is "lesser" because he can't control "his woman".--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

That hadn't occurred to me. In the book I referred to above, the Borthwick woman is definitely not attached to a man, and the status of the Pomfrey woman is unknown and irrelevant to the story. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is a use of "the Abernathy man", here one of "the Babson man", and here one of "the Callahan man". These uses do not appear pejorative to me.  --Lambiam 12:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

That sounds not perjorative by avoidance or distancing, but like a "non-definite" (novel? term) similar to "A certain Calsonathy," or "If a man comes by, tell them..." (this a nongendered pronoun regardless of gendered referent; feels newish)

Temerarius (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

They were chosen to refer to specific individuals, but for the second I apparently have copied the link to a non-example. For the other two, they are Floyd Abernathy and Leonard Callahan. A better B example is "the Bailey man". Here we do not learn the given name, but he is definitely a specific individual. And here, although we are afforded only snippet views, "the Bailey man" refers to one Dr. Hal Bailey.  --Lambiam 19:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Further to Jack of Oz's and Lambiam's observations above [in passing, I can't find the relevant usage in Lambiam's third link], for a male equivalence one might also use near synonyms like 'chap' or 'fellow'. "That Borthwick chap . . ." would be a casual and neutral reference to someone not very well known to the speaker or listener; "that Borthwick fellow . . ." might hint at the speaker's disapproval. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The use in the third link is the spoken sentence "He works during the day to [sic] the Callahan man that does the carvings." It occurs just above the blank line halfway down the page.  --Lambiam 19:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

English vowels

There are some dialects which have /yː/ and /øː/, such as in South African and NZ English, but are there any dialects that have /ʏ/ and /œ/? --40bus (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

There are some examples listed in the relevant IPA articles. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

January 1

Fraction names

How do English speakers say fractions of units? For example, is 50 cm "half a metre", and 150 cm "one and half metres"? Does English refer to a period of two days as "48 hours"? Is 12 hours "half a day", 36 hours "one and half days" and 18 months "one and half years"? --40bus (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes to all, except that it would be "one and a half" rather than "one and half". Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One does not say "one and half metres" but "one and a half metres". One can also say "one and a half metre" or "one metre and a half". Likewise for "one and half days/years". In "two and a half metres", one only uses the plural form. Note that "48 hours" can also be used for any 48-hour period, like from Saturday 6am to Monday 6am.  --Lambiam 12:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Is then 75 minutes "one and a quarter hours"? Is 250,000 "a quarter million"? --40bus (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

In British English at least, 75 minutes = one and a quarter hours, or an hour and a quarter; 250,000 is a quarter of a million, or two-hundred-and-fifty thousand. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Also in British English, "eighteen months" would be more usual than "one and a half years". It's common to give the age of babies as a number of months until they reach the age of two. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

All those usages are also found in America English. Also "a quarter million" is not uncommon in casual speech whereas "a quarter of a million" sounds formal. However, "three quarters of a million" is the only correct way to refer to 750,000 with this idiom though the 's' in quaters is often not audible. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

In Finnish it is common to give age of one-year-old babies as mixed years and months, such as "yksi vuosi ja kuusi kuukautta" ("one year and six month")? Puolitoista vuotta is very commonly used to mean 18 months. Also, puoli vuorokautta is 12 hours and puolitoista vuorokautta 36 hours. Does English use day to refer to thing that Finnish refers as vuorokausi, i.e., a period of exactly 24 hours (1,440 minutes, 86,400 seconds), starting at any moment and ending exactly 24 hours later? --40bus (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

In English ages between one and two years are more often given in months than mixed months and years. I.e. "18 months" is more common than "a/one year and six months" but both are heard. A one day period is more often called 24 hours because "day" would be ambiguous. "One day later" could mean any time during the next day. But using "one day" or "exactly one day" in that meaning would not be obviously incorrect either. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

To my annoyance, "24 hours" and multiples thereof are often used as synonyms of "day(s)", not for precision but because more syllables make more importance. —Tamfang (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The two pronunciations of Hebrew letter Het in Ancient Hebrew?

The Hebrew letters Het (ח) and ayin (ע) had two different pronunciations each in Ancient Hebrew: the Het could be pronounced like Arabic Ha (ح) or like Arabic kha (خ) while ayin could be pronounced like Arabic ayin (ع) or like Arabic ghayin (غ).

For ayin the clue that this was the case is the transcription into Greek (e.g. in the Septuagint) of Hebrew words like the names Gaza, Gomora, etc. compared to modern Hebrew Aza, Amora, etc. The Greek gamma is in fact a reflex of the ghayin pronunciation. When the letter was pronounced ayin it was not transcribed, e.g. in Eden.

But how do we know for Het? What are in the Septuagint transcribed Hebrew words that indicate that the letter Het had two pronunciations? In other words what are the two different transcriptions of letter Het in the Septuagint that are a clue to that fact? If I had to adventure a guess I would guess that the pronunciation Het was not transcribed (except possibly for a rough breathing), while the pronunciation khet was transcribed as a khi, but I don't know, and I can't think of any examples, and that's exactly why I am asking here.

178.51.7.23 (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Didn't Biblical Hebrew survive as a liturgical language? Maybe that proviced pointers. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

No, not phonologically. From the point of view of the phonology you're mixing two meanings of "Biblical Hebrew" here. The pronunciation used when the text were composed and the ritual pronunciation of the text nowadays. That has nothing to do with the ancient pronunciation and in fact has developed differently in different traditions (ashkenazi, sefaradi, yemeni, iraqi, persian, etc. none of which preserves the double pronunciation of Het and/or ayin) which obviously cannot all be different and yet be identical to the ancient pronunciation. In any case I now changed "Biblical" to "Ancient". 178.51.7.23 (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The het in הָגָר‎ (Hagar) is not transcribed in the Septuagint: ῎Αγαρ (Agar), while חֶבְרוֹן‎ (Hebron) is transcribed as Χεβρών (Khebrōn).  --Lambiam 13:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

In Hagar you don't have a Het (8th letter) but a heh (5th letter). However I think the idea is good. 178.51.7.23 (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Oops, yes, mistake.  --Lambiam 13:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Did you check the breathing in Greek Agar is soft? I would say that's a surprise. 178.51.7.23 (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I did. The Vulgate has Agar. See also Ἄγαρ on Wiktionary. I suspect, though, that when the Septuagint was originally produced, breathings were not yet written.  --Lambiam 13:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

חַגַּי‎ (Haggai) is transcribed as ᾿Αγγαῖος (Angaios), Aggaeus in the Vulgate.  --Lambiam 14:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Biblical Hebrew#Phonology mentions the pair יצחק = Ἰσαάκ = Isaac vs. רחל = Ῥαχήλ = Rachel with non-intial ח. Another example of initial ח as zero is Ἐνώχ (Enoch) from חנוך. –Austronesier (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This conversation brings up the question "Does the LXX contain transcriptions?"

Temerarius (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? 178.51.7.23 (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

"Transcription" is perhaps not the right term. We have an article on Latinization of names, but AFAIK nothing similar for Greek. (Hellenization of place names is about a 19th- and 20th-century policy of replacing non-Greek geonyms by Greek ones, such as Βάρφανη → Παραπόταμος.) The Hellenization of Hebrew and Aramaic names in the LXX combines a largely phonetically based transcription of stems with coercing proper nouns into the straightjacket of one of the three Ancient Greek declensions.  --Lambiam 00:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

See "On Polyphony in Biblical Hebrew" (PDF here) for a discussion by a distinguished scholar (Joshua Blau), arguing in great detail for the polyphony of ח (and also ע), representing both a pharyngeal consonant and a velar fricative in "literary" or formal Biblical recitation Hebrew down to the late centuries B.C. AnonMoos (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. But except for the front and back covers (first two and last two pages) the PDF file is absolutely illegible. Were you able to get legible PDFs of this article?

Was this 1982 article the first time someone realized that these two letters were "polyphonic" in Ancient Hebrew?

I was once browsing through a Hebrew dictionary (the well-known Even-Shoshan) in its ca. 1960 edition and (looking in a grammatical-historical appendix in the last volume) it didn't seem like the author of the dictionary was at all aware of the "polyphony" of those two letters in Ancient Hebrew.

But when I looked in a ca. 1995 edition of that same dictionary (in a one volume so called "merukaz" edition, incidentally) that "polyphony" was clearly alluded to.

Avraham Even-Shoshan, the author of the dictionary, died in 1984 so I don't know if it was he who changed things there (not impossible, as he had two years to do it), or if it was someone after his death (there were new editions of the dictionary as late as the 2000s).

In any case I imagined that between ca. 1960 and ca. 1995 something had changed in our knowledge of the pronunciation of Ancient Hebrew but I didn't know whose contribution it was.

178.51.94.220 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The built-in PDF-viewers of some browers (Opera, Chrome) indeed display this document atrociously, but after having saved it locally, I could easily open it with all kinds of PDF viewers and get a legible view of it. Blau devotes four and a half pages to the history of research velar transcriptions of ayin. –Austronesier (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It worked. Thanks. 178.51.94.220 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The PDF worked fine for me. I strongly doubt that 1982 was the first time, because scholars would have been able to compare Septuagint transcriptions to proto-Semitic reconstructions decades before that... AnonMoos (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

There remains the question why the first editions of Even-Shoshan didn't seem to know about this. 178.51.94.220 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Meaning of "fauve" in native French and in Ionesco's "Rhinoceros"?

In his play "Rhinoceros" the Romanian-born French playwright Eugène Ionesco uses the word "fauve" to refer to the rhinoceros as if it just meant "wild animal". I would say no native French speaker would do that: am I right or wrong? To me "fauve" would be used mostly for big cats (tigers, lions, leopards). Maybe for bears and wolves? (Not totally sure though). But "fauve" would never refer to just any large dangerous animal like Ionesco (who was not a native speaker of French) does. What do you say? 178.51.7.23 (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking up French Wiktionnaire and some French dictionaries, it does indeed seem that "fauve" is an acceptable - albeit perhaps dated - way to refer to ochre or wild animals in general, not a non-native misunderstanding. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Use of Old Norse in old Rus'?

The first rulers of Rus' were Swedes (the Varangians), for example Rurik and his descendants. Is there a record of when they stopped to speak Old Norse? What are some Old Norse words in Russian that came with the Swedes (as opposed to later borrowings from Swedish possibly)? (I know of Rus' and the name of Russia itself it seems. Any other?) How about Russian personal names that go back to Swedish ones? (I know of Vladimir which goes back to Valdemar. Any other?) 178.51.7.23 (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

To start you off, Wiktionary have a Category:Russian terms derived from Old Norse. --Antiquary (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

According to wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/Voldiměrъ, that derivation from Valdemar is something that "some sources speculate", and elsewhere (wikt:Valdemar) the borrowing is claimed to be the other way. ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

How about Oleg (from Helgi?), Igor (from Ingvar?), and of course Rurik (from ????) Incidentally, is Rurik a name that is still used in Russia these days? 178.51.7.23 (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This whole question is contentious, partly because of the sparsity of sources and partly because of political considerations. Some Soviet historians in Stalin's day appeared to believe that Viking assimilation with Slavic culture had been almost instantaneous because, I suppose, they wanted the foundations of the Russian state and nation to have as little foreign influence as possible. Russian historians still tend to argue for a more rapid assimilation than their Western counterparts do. However, there's a discussion of the language question by Elena A. Melnikova here which concludes that "By the mid-tenth century the Varangians became bilingual; by the end of the eleventh century they used Old Russian as their mother tongue", and my old student copy of E. V. Gordon's Introduction to Old Norse agrees that "the Rus themselves gradually lost their Scandinavian traditions and language; they must have been almost completely merged in the Slavonic people by the beginning of the twelfth century." [25] --Antiquary (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

English tenses

Does English ever use perfect instead of imperfect (past) to describe events that happened entirely in the past but still have connections to present time, such as "this house has been built in 1955", "Arsenal has last won Premier League in 2004", "When has Arsenal last won...", "this option has last been used three months ago", "humans have last visited Moon in 1972", "last ice age has ended 10,000 years ago"? And is simple present of verb be born ever used, since birth happen only once? And would sentences like "I am being born", "She is born" and "You are being born" sound odd? --40bus (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

No to the first (except among the "unedumacated"). As for the second, I'm not sure this counts, but there is the religious "She is born again." The rest sound bizarre. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not right as the question is stated. It's often fine to use use the present perfect (that's the better term than just "perfect") to describe events that happened entirely in the past. Say I have been promoted to colonel; you can use that if you're still a colonel, even though the promotion itself happened in the past.

What makes those sentences sound wrong is the explicit date on the sentence. That makes it very difficult to use the present perfect in idiomatic English. --Trovatore (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

If I study really hard, someday I will become underedumacated. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Another question: why in English Wikipedia, events listed in year articles are in present tense, but in Finnish Wikipedia they are in past tense? --40bus (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Present or past tense is acceptable in English (why, I have no idea). Getting back to the original topic, the title of the first chapter of David Copperfield is "I am born." Clarityfiend (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This is the so-called historical present or narrative present. --Trovatore (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The worst of it, often seen on the internet, is using past and present tenses in describing the same event, such as in a movie plot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that there are differences between British and American English in the use of the present perfect vs the simple past in such sentences. In American English all your examples sound wrong and should be simple past "this house was built", "Asenal last won", "When did Arsenal last win", "this option was last used", "humans last vistited", "the last ice age ended". When I see imperfect I thin of the past progressive tense: "was being built", "was winning", "was being used", "were visiting", "was ending" which wouldn't work in your example sentences. But I may be incorrect since my knowledge of grammatical categories is based on Classical Latin rather than modern descriptive linguistics. As for "be born", all your examples are perfectly good English. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

While I do think BrE uses the present perfect a bit more than AmE, I don't think that's really the issue here. I'm pretty sure (one of our British friends can correct me) that the first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth example sentences in the original post would also sound odd (if not outright wrong) in BrE. Again, the problem is not the fact that the action is entirely in the past, but that the sentence contains an explicit marker of time in the past (1955, three months ago, etc). The third sentence, when has Arsenal last won, I'm less sure about; I find it marginally acceptable, though it would be much more idiomatic to say how long has it been since Arsenal last won.

As to "imperfect", this is a little complicated. The imperfect tense in Italian, and presumably in the rest of the Romance languages, indicates a continuous or habitual action, or a background description. In Latin it was much the same, whereas the Latin perfect indicates a completed action in the past. The present perfect (or analogous construction) entered Romance languages later, maybe with medieval Latin or some such, and differs from the perfect by the emphasis on the importance of the event to the present time.

In German and English, there was never an imperfect tense per se; it was conflated with the simple past (preterite), which is the closest to the Latin perfect tense. It's true that you can use the past continuous or "would" or "used to" to emphasize certain aspects of the imperfect, but at the simplest level, the Latin perfect and imperfect are merged in English, with the present perfect being distinct from both.

Modern Romance languages keep all three tenses in theory, but usually pick one of present perfect or preterite to use overwhelmingly in practice (alongside the imperfect, so they simplify to two conversational tenses). Both French and the northern varieties of Italian rarely use the preterite in conversation, and I think Spanish (especially Latin American Spanish) rarely use the present perfect. However as far as I know they all use the imperfect and keep it separate, which was one of the hardest things for me to get right learning Italian. --Trovatore (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I think one can say, What have the Romans ever done for us, and when have they done it? Similarly, Sure, Arsenal has won the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, but when has Arsenal ever won the UEFA Cup?.  --Lambiam 12:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

To my ear there's a difference in acceptability between when has Arsenal ever won?, which is unassailable except by Arsenal fans I suppose, and when has Arsenal last won?, which strikes me as borderline, the kind of thing that sounds weird and you're not sure why. I guess it must have something to do with the word "last" but I don't have a well-developed theory of exactly what it has to do with it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Centuries

Does English ever use term 2000s to refer to period from 2000 to 2099? Why is 21st century more common? And is 2000s pronounced as "twenty hundreds"? --40bus (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

There is some ambiguity with 2000s; it could also refer to 2000 to 2009 (vs. 2010s), so that may be why 21st century is more used. It's pronounced "two thousands". Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

If 1900s is pronounced as "nineteen hundreds", then why 2000s is pronounced as "two-thousands"? And 2000s is sometimes used to represent the century, and the decade could be disambiguated by saying "2000s decade", "first decade of 2000s", with basic meaning being century. --40bus (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It could be, sure. And it is, sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

“One thousand nine hundreds” has six syllables, “nineteen hundreds” has four, saving two. “Two thousands” has three syllables, “twenty hundreds” has four, adding one. People just pick the shorter option.

BTW, 2000s refers to the period 2000–2099, but 21st century to 2001–2100. It rarely matters. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

xkcd:1849. Nardog (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

For me, the '00s (decade) are the "noughties". Probably I would call the '10s the "twenty tens" or "new tens". (Dunno why I feel the need to disambiguate from the 1910s.) Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel like "noughties" or "aughties" never really caught on. But it's almost time for the '00s nostalgia craze, so I suppose they'll come up with something. --Trovatore (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

As a side note, I once read (possibly in an SF fanzine) that when Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick co-wrote the film and novel 2001: A Space Odyssey, Clarke expected people to pronounce the title "Twenty-oh-one . . ." (as they do for 1901, for example), not "Two thousand and one . . .". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That story sounds familiar. Clark maybe didn't count on the public to keep it simple amid the grandeur, so to speak, of reaching a millennium. There's a late-1940s cartoon called "The Old Gray Hare", in which Elmer is taken into the future. The "voice of God" tells him, "At the sound of the gong, it will be TWO-THOUSAND A.D." That was the predominant media usage by the time it actually arrived. The "Y2K problem" or "Year two thousand problem", for example. By about 2010, the form "twenty-ten" had become more prevalent. As suggested above, one less syllable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Back when it was 2008 (say), I would've said "two thousand and eight", but now that that year is in the past I'd say "twenty oh eight". Double sharp (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I still say "two thousand and [number from one to nine]", but it might be just me, or a wider 'elderly Brit' thing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep. One thing I recall is that Charles Osgood was kind of an "early adapter" to that style, saying "twenty-oh-one" and so on. Now, pretty much everyone follows that norm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Are 20th century years ever said like "nineteen hundred and twenty-five" for 1925? Does English put "hundred and" between first two and last two number in speech? --40bus (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I seem to recall that Alex Trebek used to say years that way. Maybe it was a Canadian thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Only in the most formal contexts; but see the 1973 song, Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-Five which I suspect used that style to aid with scansion. Alansplodge (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

An example of this very formal date usage is in this US Presidential Proclamation:

"In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this twelfth day of February, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-two..."

Alansplodge (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I often say, we need a wildcard digit other than '0'. I often write "197x" and "200x" but would not do so in an article. —Tamfang (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

January 3

Why is it boxes and not boxen?

Why is it foxes and not foxen? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is it sheep and not sheeps? HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't forget the related term "sheeps kin". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I thought the plural of sheep was sheeple! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Possibly because "box" has its roots in Latin.[26] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, foxen is a word, just uncommon. GalacticShoe (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Because Vikings. Maungapohatu (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Someone wrong -- You can look at Old English grammar#Noun classes to see the declensions of a thousand years ago or more. The regular pattern of modern English inflection comes from the Old English masculine "a-stems". The only nouns with a non-"s" plural ending in modern English (leaving aside Classical borrowings such as "referenda" and unassimilated foreignisms) are oxen, children, brethren, and the rather archaic kine, which have an ending from the OE "weak" declension (though "child" and "brother" were not originally weak declension nouns). There are also the few remaining umlaut nouns, which do not have any plural endings, and a few other forms which don't (or don't always) distinguish between singular and plural. In that context, there's no particular reason why "box" should be expected to be irregular. However, the form "boxen" has been occasionally used in certain types of computer slang: http://catb.org/jargon/html/B/boxen.html -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Likewise, VAXen, Unixen and Linuxen are geeky plurals of VAX, Unix and Linux.  --Lambiam 15:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

January 4

Pronunciation of "God b'wi you"?

How do you pronounce "God b'wi you"? For example in Shakespeare's Henry V, Act 4, Scene 3, Line 6 (Oxford Shakespeare). The pronunciation I hear in one recording is "God by you". Folger's Shakespeare has "God be wi’ you" in writing (you can find that text online at www.folger.edu). Does that indicate a different suggested pronunciation? How would you pronounce "wi'"? Are there other variants? (Either in the text of this play or anywhere else.) There's a "God be with you" entry in Wiktionary but none of these variants are recorded. 178.51.8.23 (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

David Crystal's Oxford Dictionary of Original Shakespearean Pronunciation has [ˈbɪjə] for be with ye/you. Nardog (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)