Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:31, 18 November 2023

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.

November 11

"Over against"

Is "over against" specifically a religious usage? I see it a lot in religious writing (even contemporary) but seemingly nowhere else. 71.126.56.219 (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was the 17th-century way of saying "across from" (that's how I've encountered it). AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes or "opposite":

And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury... Mark 12:41 from the King James Version of the Bible. Although more modern translations came into widespread use in the 20th century, some conservative Christians continue to promote the exclusive use of the 17th-century text; see for example, the King James Only movement. Alansplodge (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to read this blurry text?

Just curious if anyone has super-human vision or a way to read this. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph begins with "After college, Olga was hired by the", something something, "on the campus of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles".

Third paragraph begins with "By the time she retired in 19<xx>" and ends with "still used all over the world today". DS (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In other news, the yearbook spells her name (and her sister I believe) as Hartmann, but later she went by Hartman. Was this common for people to drop letters? Viriditas (talk)|

Misspellings happen all the time. As to this picture, it seems like all of those plaques at Waterloo [Illinois] High are blurry. Your best bet might be to contact them and see if they have a larger version or can provide you with the text. This might be her obit if you're looking for more info.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas -- German-language names generally end in "-mann", English in "-man", so it would have been Anglicizing her name, not dropping a random letter... AnonMoos (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2023 (UT

Correct. My greater point is why, after 18 years, would this happen? In the US, anglicisation at this time often occurred upon entry to the country. Her family had already been in the US for some time. So it looks like it was for another reason. She graduated from the University of Illinois in 1926, and it shows her name as Hartman, so I'm assuming she changed it before she enrolled. What was the reason? Our article on Hartmann says it was a Jewish name. Would she have been discriminated against during college admission, and would simply dropping a letter help her get in to UI? Another thing that occurs to me is that she had other colleagues in her field who had the same name (we see evidence of this in the literature around the 1940s and 1950s). By dropping the last letter, her publications couldn't be confused with other "Hartmann". Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think the Eastern European first names Olga and Frieda would sound fairly Jewish, in themselves. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some more guess work:

"After college, Olga was hired by the Alan Hancock Foundation to work on the campus of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles."
"By the time she retired in 19xx, xx, Olga Hartman was the world's most recognized authority on polychaetous annelids. She published, co-authored or even ..."

All tentative, of course. --Lambiam 12:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, she retired in 1969.^[2] --Lambiam 12:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very first line ends in (as should have been obvious) "graduated from Waterloo High". DS (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know I'm probably imagining this, but is there any chance the first sentence says: "When Olga and her sister Freida Hartmann graduated from Waterloo High School in 1918...? Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems possible, except that I'd expect "Frieda Hartman". The last word on the second line may be "oceanography". On the third line I imagine I'm seeing "shouldn't go to college, especially as women". --Lambiam 04:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How badly do you want this, Viriditas? I'm about 30–40 miles from Waterloo HS, and I could drive down there and ask if they would let me see and transcribe the text. It would probably be easier, though, to phone or e-mail the WHS Legacy Society and ask them for the text. Deor (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, no worries. What I really want is the source text it is based upon (pages 1-27 in Essays on Polychaetous Annelids: In Memory of Dr. Olga Hartman) which is impossible to find. Viriditas (talk)

Here's WorldCat's list of 147 libraries that have the book. Deor (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, but I would have to fly to Oahu. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your user page doesn't divulge your location (though neither does mine). Deor (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. I've been in Hawaii for 23 years, and I've been pretty open about it. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the spelling "Hartmann" found? Note that "Hartman" with one "n" is a not uncommon Dutch name and that "Olga" and "Frieda" are both not unusual Dutch female given names (e.g. Olga Commandeur, Olga Zuiderhoek, Olga Zoutendijk, Frieda Belinfante). --Lambiam 04:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I found both "Olga Hartmann" and "Frieda Hartmann" here. Amazingly, almost everyone on that page has a German surname. The rhyme at the bottom of this page shows that as a high-school student she was an all-rounder. --Lambiam 04:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Around here (north London) there are few if any German residents, but what you see is typical of publications put out by the Jewish community. 2A00:23C4:79CD:B301:C5B0:A9F0:AAD0:3253 (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that. I also noticed this: "Hartman destroyed most of her field notes, correspondence, and other personal records before her death so not much is known about her activities outside of the AHF." Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph, one but last line: "These expeditions took her all over the Pacific ??? and". (I expect it should be within the capibilities of a multimodal generative neural network trained on English texts to produce further plausible reconstructions.) --Lambiam 14:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article includes a little bit of the text from the plaque: [3]. --Amble (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great find, but I'm curious how the author got it so wrong. It says she "earned her master’s degree and Ph.D. in marine biology from Columbia University", but I've seen no evidence of that. She got both her degrees from Berkeley (which I'm still trying to verify). Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pure guess, based on scanty knowledge of medical degrees granted to women in the UK whan that was still widely frowned upon – is it possible that she studied at one university that did not then give degrees to women, but was granted them by another University that did? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just confirmed her MA[4] and PhD[5] at UC Berkeley. It just seems like a weird error for them to make. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it says something to that effect in her bio on the WHS Legacy Wall in the last sentence of the first paragraph; the author in the Republic-Times just copied it:

"She graduated from the University of Illinois with a Bachelor's degree and went on to Columbia University in New York that had Master's and PhD in Marine Biology."

--Lambiam 22:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it wasn't as much of an error as I thought. Just found this: A.B. 1926, University of Illinois; M.A. 1933. Ph.D. 1936, University of California; special study at Harris Teachers College, St. Louis, Missouri, and Columbia University.[6] Not sure what it means. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A.B." is presumably "Bachelor of Arts", written "B.A." here in the U K. Is this the normal American way of writing it? Oxford writes some degrees like this, for example "Doctor of Medicine" is "D.M.", rather than "M.D.", but Bachelor of Arts is not one of them. She definitely got an Arts degree from Berkeley, but since she was a scientist why would she get that? 2.101.9.143 (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See: https://admissionsight.com/what-is-an-ab-degree/ . Whether a particular institution issues an AB or a BA is entirely up to that institution. I can think of several reasons why a scientist might start with a BA instead of a BS: 1) the school they attended only offered BAs, 2) they had not originally intended on going into science, 3) they failed a particular class necessary for the BS but still fulfilled all qualifications for a BA. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the undergraduate links in Olga Hartman, it looks like she was on track for a career in a health or medical field before studying marine biology at Berkeley under S. F. Light. See the category Category:Students of Sol Felty Light to get an idea of the students he trained. Viriditas (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I was clear. I don’t know what this means regarding her work at Columbia or what she did there. I know what the other stuff means. Viriditas (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly normal for a scientist to pursue an Arts degree; e.g. Noam Chomsky, the renowned linguist, got AB and MA degrees from UPenn. Crash48 (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics is or was often considered a social science, so those degrees would not necessarily be considered incongruous. I personally have a B.A. in a "hard science" discipline. I didn't have a choice in the matter, but it was apparently because I took too many humanities electives and not as many science electives as would have been preferred... AnonMoos (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even today, biology majors can choose from a BA or a BS. I should note, that her high school was heavy on natural science (you can look at their course offerings in the yearbook link in her bio), so she had a good background in science before she ever attended uni. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

Other name for "Grammar words"

Hi everyone, is there a better name for what i call "grammar words" (for lack of a better all-encompassing name), and by that I mean pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, determiners etc. They are sometimes also described as the "closed class words". I am looking for a term that sounds much more serious than "Grammar words", which sounds like what a 5th grader would say. Many thanks in advance for your help. --Lgriot (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of speech may be what you're looking for. Recent and more complex analyses also talk about 'open classes' and 'closed classes' of words, as described in the Functional classification section and the following section of that article.{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that another term used for "closed class words" (or at least, something similar to that term) is function words. (I read this stuff on the internet, I disclaim any actual expertise in this area.) Fabrickator (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is the one! It works for me, thank you, Fabrickator ! --Lgriot (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Titles

How come titles of major works are written in italics but titles of minor works are "written in quotation marks"?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgia guy: Because at some time in the past a consensus was reached between contributors to MOS:TITLES that that was how things should be. If you want to change it then, like everyone else, you can start a discussion. Bazza (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me as though he's not asking about style in Wikipedia, he's asking about style in books, magazines, newspapers etc. in general. Wikipedia house style in this matter follows common practice. Why it's common practice is a different question. --Viennese Waltz 13:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before the digital age, a distinction could be made between a single physical entity (a book, a report, a newspaper or magazine, a gramophone record, a painting, ..., something you could move around) and content items as can be presented in such entities (a chapter, an article, a song). The convention was that the titles of physical entities are presented in italics, and those of separate content items not. Inasmuch as the convention is used for digital items, it is by analogy to its application in the analog era. --Lambiam 23:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

Is this text significant?

On the right side surrounding the photo here?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 00:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What photo? If you're referring to the "newspaper" page in the comic's second panel, it's a form of pseudo-Latin placeholder text, though it doesn't seem to be Lorem ipsum, exactly. Deor (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought it might be. The photo was most of the second panel.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better image here, I think. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it's something produced by a "lorem ipsum generator". If you search for some of the words and phrases, you can find many examples online. [7]. It seems to have a list of Latin words from lorem ipsum as well as some others, which get mixed up at random. --Amble (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 16

Do U C ? Besides English, are there other languages that use the verb Do as an auxiliary verb in "do you see" and likewise?

Additionally, are there languages that use their word for "whether", also as a question word functioning like how the English auxiliary word "do" functions in "do you see" and likewise? (i.e. instead of asking "do you see?" a speaker of that language should ask: "whether you see?", meaning "do you see?")... HOTmag (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HOTmag: I know a language that does not even use the 'you' pronoun to ask "do you see?" Not sure, however, how many other such languages exist.

--CiaPan (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this any different than pro-dropping? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answering a question orthogonal to the one asked. —Tamfang (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can, however, use either 'whether' or 'you', or both, to add specific emphasis - compare a simple 'See?' as a variant of 'Do you see?' in English. --CiaPan (talk)

What do you mean by "we"? I'm sure I don't belong to what you call "we", because I've never heard anybody say "whether see?", meaning "do you see?". HOTmag (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HOTmag:

We, native Polish speakers. --CiaPan (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, how could I guess you were a native Polish speaker, you didn't say that in advance...

Anyway, do native speakers say "whether [you] see" (i.e. "do you see?"), using the same word they use for "whether" when they say "I don't know whether you see"? What is this Polish word, by the way? HOTmag (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word in Polish is czy and as CiaPan noted, it can be used both in the sense of "whether" and to ask yes/no questions. Examples:

I don't know whether you see. Nie wiem, czy (ty) widzisz.
Do you see? Czy (ty) widzisz?
Whether you see it or not, it is still there. Czy (ty) to widzisz, czy nie, to i tak tam jest.

Polish is a pro-drop language, so in all examples I put the word for "you" in parentheses, as it would normally be omitted. In informal speech, the czy in questions may be omitted as well; in this case, the interrogative nature of the sentence can only be inferred from intonation (or, in writing, from the question mark). — Kpalion^(talk) 13:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. HOTmag (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HOTmag -- see article Do-support for negative and interrogative uses. It's unique among well-known European languages, as far as I know. For the other thing you're asking about, see "Interrogative particle" on article Interrogative word... AnonMoos (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. HOTmag (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Welsh makes extensive use of the auxiliary gwneud ("do, make"), but not in the same contexts as English: only a handful of verbs are conjugated in the past tense in everyday speech: gwneud is used for other verbs. Middle Welsh IIRC did something similar, but I'm not sure in what contexts. ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. HOTmag (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HOTmag: For an interesting discussion of this, read Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue by John McWhorter. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the finger really pointing at?

I briefly alluded to this matter @ here in 2012, but I'm after some more information.

When someone responds to statement X in terms such as "I fail to see why X", they're not just disagreeing with their interlocutor, but doing so in a condescending and patronising way. Without actually spelling it out, they're telling them they're wrong. Yet, the literal meaning of "I fail to see why X" is admission of failure on their own part.

What's it called when the literal words of a statement refer to some failure or error on the part of the speaker, but the real meaning is a failure or error on the part of the person they're addressing? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I knew a scientist, no longer with us, who used to respond to a muddled argument with, "I am not smart enough to understand this." --Lambiam 22:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)}[reply]

I suspect what I'm going to say is not what you're looking for, but I may describe the phenomenon you're pointing at - as a polite criticism - or as an alluded disagreement. I know it's a too general description, whereas you are describing a more specific phenomenon - being a special case of the more general description I've suggested. HOTmag (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-apology apology seems relevant. --Crash48 (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Rhetorical) Aporia? ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz -- A general mismatch between the expected literal or literal-ish meaning of a sentence and the actual communicative function of the sentence is known as "Illocutionary force", discussed in our Illocutionary act article. I'm not sure whether there's an accepted term for specifically what you're asking about... AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a facetious remark if the opposite is meant and it is not to be taken literally. But I fail to see why this expression, when sincere, would be patronizing and condescending with civil discourse (given that most people are not righteous narcissists). Still, it can certainly be abused by condescending righteous facetious narcissists. More or less so? The complete context in what is meant and said seems to matter a great deal here. Modocc (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure you're right. It's usually trotted out with the negative meaning, but I can see it could also be neutral. Hardly ever positive, though, I'd have thought. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Litotes? Understatement? From Litotes:

In the book Rhetorica ad Herennium, litotes is addressed as a member of the Figures of Thought known as deminutio, or understatement. It is listed in conjunction with antenantiosis and meiosis, two other forms of rhetorical deminutio.[10] For example, a very accomplished artist might say "I'm not a bad painter", and by refraining from bragging but still acknowledging his skill, the artist is seen as talented, modest, and credible.

--Error (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

Is the t in match silent??

We often label the t in the word match as a silent letter. However, listen to the ch sound carefully. It has a t at the beginning; without the t sound it becomes the sh sound. If the t in match were objectively silent, it would be pronounced exactly like mash. Anything I am confusing?? Georgia guy (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do? I certainly wouldn't call this t a "silent letter". I suppose some people might, if they already think of the ch digraph as representing /tʃ/, but that's sort of an odd take here, given that "mach" is pronounced -- depends on context, but /mɑːk/ or /mɑːx/ seem like the only real choices.

Honestly the notion of a "silent letter" is mostly for teaching kids; it's not that useful a concept when you look at English spelling and phonology in detail. Is the w in "bow" (as in bow and arrow) silent? The word is pronounced with a diphthong (/boʊ/ or /bɛʊ/ depending on which side of the pond you're on) and it's not completely unreasonable to say that the w stands for /ʊ/, but it's also not completely clear, given that you'd pronounce "bo" the same way. --Trovatore (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm "some people", and I say you have it right in your "I suppose". "Ch" represents the two sounds "tsh", so the T in "match" is silent. "Mach" is irrelevant because it's not pronounced as it's spelled. The spelling corresponding to "mash" is "mash". --142.112.221.156 (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I think that's wrong, or at least a less than useful account. The ch digraph sometimes represents the /tʃ/ consonant cluster, say in the word "chip". But I don't see any justification for claiming that it represents that cluster in the word "match". Where in English does ch following a vowel represent /tʃ/? Let's try a few: Bach, Dachshund, Mach — not coming up with any after "a". How about after "e"? "Tech" is the first one I can think of. No "tsh" sounds yet.

After "i"? OK, maybe "rich"; so this is English and you're going to get a few exceptions, but it doesn't seem to be common for ch after a vowel to represent /tʃ/.

Can't think of any after "o". After "u" there's "much" and "such". So so far I have three words where ch represents /tʃ/ after a vowel, and many more possibilities where it doesn't. Go ahead, play along; see what you can come up with. --Trovatore (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting though — it does seem to depend on the vowel. The ones taught as "long vowels" (for example /iː/ and /uː/) seem to be much more prone to being followed by a /tʃ/ cluster spelled as ch. Reach, leach, mooch, hooch, etc. Or maybe it's not the vowel quality but the fact that the vowel is written as two letters? That would explain "touch". In any case I don't see that this has much bearing on "match". --Trovatore (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a T sound in there. Looking at etymonline, it seems that the roots of a number of these -atch words were originally spelled with a double-C.[8] If the ch in match is considered to already include a T sound, then maybe you could argue that the explicit T is "redundant" rather than "silent". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two or possibly three reasonable readings, none of which are "silent t":

You could take the three letters "tch" as a trigraph pronounced /tʃ/, without worrying too much about which component letter makes which sound. Personally I think this is the most reasonable option. I can't think of any exceptions in English to "tch" being pronounced /tʃ/.
You could analyze it as t+ch, where the ch digraph takes the value /ʃ/, as in "chiffon" or "chanty". That's nice because it's intuitive as to how it treats the t, but it's a little suspicious because of the rarity of rendering ch as /ʃ/ in genuine English words.
You could analyze it as t+ch, coming out as /ttʃ/, more or less as Bugs was suggesting. I don't quite buy it because English (almost) doesn't have phonemic gemination, though if you want to stretch a point you can find some minimal pairs, like "night train" vs "night rain.

But considering the t to be silent? No. That's silly. --Trovatore (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, aren't there some phonologists who consider /tʃ/ to be a separate phoneme in English? It even has an IPA symbol, I think, but I haven't managed to find it. --Trovatore (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

I'm actually suprised that some consider /tʃ/ a consonant cluster rather than a single affricate consonant. But then, my native language, Polish, makes a very strong distinction between /t͡ʂ/ (a single phoneme) and /tʂ/ (a cluster). The word czy /t͡ʂɨ/ 'whether', mentioned two threads above, makes a minimal pair with trzy /tʂɨ/ 'three'. In English this distinction is not phonemic, so I guess it's a moot point. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, (Middle) English consonants were doubled in spelling to indicate a short vowel; cf. hater vs. hatter. For the two affricates, normally spelled ⟨ch⟩ and ⟨g⟩, the "double spelling" came to be ⟨tch⟩ and ⟨dg⟩, instead of the more straightforward *⟨chch⟩ and *⟨gg⟩. A very similar spelling rule applies in German, where the affricate normally spelled ⟨z⟩ is "doubled" to ⟨tz⟩, instead of the more straightforward *⟨zz⟩, when indicating a short vowel.

This also explains why Trovatore can find many instances of ⟨-ch⟩ after historically long vowels, but very few after the short ones. A nice minimal pair is beach vs. bitch. 147.234.66.93 (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a lot of sense. I suppose the same goes for ⟨k⟩ vs ⟨ck⟩ (e.g., liked vs licked). — Kpalion^(talk) 13:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a winner! That seems to make Bugs right after all; it's "redundant" rather than "silent". You wouldn't say that either of the t's in "hatter" is silent. --Trovatore (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The trigraph -tch- is quite useful, but is never afaik found at the start of a word. Except for some rusted-on transliterations of a few Russian surnames that start with /tʃ/, such as Tchaikovsky and Tcherepnin. But Chekhov is no longer Tchekhov since wiser heads prevailed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the 19th and early 20th century the spelling Tsjechow,^[9] copied straight from the standard German transliteration, was more common. --Lambiam 00:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious one that comes to my mind is tchotchke, though whether that counts as an English word is debatable, I suppose. --Trovatore (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More than half

When the moon is between half and full I have always referred to it as "gibbous" (with a hard "g"). Holly Willoughby does likewise [10]. The Concise Oxford Dictionary confirms this. However, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (London, 1975) gives "jib-...gib". Do some Americans pronounce this word with a soft "g"? 2A00:23D0:C78:B501:79E1:2FE5:1008:424B (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who lives in North America I've only heard it start with a /g/ instead of /d͡ʒ/. It appears out of the 54 instances noted on YouGlish, only 1 pronounces it as the latter, and that's from a UK field reporter. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary only gives the "hard g" pronunciation, which is what I always assumed. Most words with the spelling "gi" or "ge" and a similar etymological path into English are pronounced with a "soft g" (dzh), however... AnonMoos (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Softly, softly. No one mention GIF. --Trovatore (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

As a counterexample, the US-origin word "Gerrymander" is usually pronounced with a 'soft g', although it derives from a politician surnamed Gerry pronounced with a 'hard g'. I wonder why that came about. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.161.192 (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

Modern Greek transliteration

Some transliterations of Modern Greek keep the ancient vowel sequences basically unchanged, others simply write the five phonemic vowels from the spoken language, and some, like on German Wikipedia, keep υ as y while merging ει, η, ι, οι as i – suggesting a diachronic phase that never existed. Given this range of variation, have any authors opted to split the difference by following the distribution before the final high vowel merger, with ει, η, ι as i and οι, υ, υι as y (e.g. "Óly y ánthropy…")? Lazar Taxon (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the German Wikipedia practice presumably is that words spelled with the letter Upsilon in Greek often appear with a high front rounded vowel spelled "y" in German. I'm not sure what the reason for your hypothetical convention would be... AnonMoos (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 187: / Line 187: @@
 Some transliterations of Modern Greek keep the ancient vowel sequences basically unchanged, others simply write the five phonemic vowels from the spoken language, and some, like on [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Namenskonventionen/Neugriechisch#Transkription German Wikipedia], keep ''υ'' as ''y'' while merging ''ει, η, ι, οι'' as ''i'' – suggesting a diachronic phase that never existed. Given this range of variation, have any authors opted to split the difference by following the distribution before the final high vowel merger, with ''ει, η, ι'' as ''i'' and ''οι, υ, υι'' as ''y'' (e.g. "Óly y ánthropy…")? [[User:Lazar Taxon|Lazar Taxon]] ([[User talk:Lazar Taxon|talk]]) 03:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
-== ss ==
 :The reason for the German Wikipedia practice presumably is that words spelled with the letter Upsilon in Greek often appear with a high front rounded vowel spelled "y" in German.  I'm not sure what the reason for your hypothetical convention would be... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 07:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)