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

February 21

German. IPA for the name in the Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau article

Hey. Know anyone who could contribute IPA for the name in the Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau article? Tks! • Serviceable†Villain 04:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Presumably along the lines of [diːtrɪç fɪʃɐ diːskau] (may need to be modified slightly to accord with a German pronunciation transcription standard, if Wikipedia has one)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say [diːtʁɪç fɪʃɐ diːskaʊ̯]. A trilled R is only found in dialects and considered archaic in the standard language, people use it for broad transcription in English as well. As for diphthongs, it's conventional to indicate their weaker parts. A look on the German Wiktionary might help. --2.245.151.57 (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AnonMoos and IP (talk) • Serviceable†Villain 09:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Psychic

Does describing someone as a "psychic", without other comment or qualification, imply an acceptance that they have supernatural powers? Should a term such as "claimed psychic" or "supposed psychic" be used instead? 109.153.229.129 (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Everyone (mostly) knows that these so-called supernatural powers are a humbug, so "psychic" implies how they make a living, it doesn't necessarily imply they have actual powers. Certainly you could have a context where "claimed" or "supposed" might go along with it. But as there is no such thing as a "real" psychic, those adjectives could be considered redundant. In fact, their real "powers" are psychological - the ability to trick people. As a mild comparison we often call illusionists "magicians", even though we know there's no actual "magic" involved. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And people who used to believe in 'magic' but stopped, are called 'disillusionists'.... :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And the boy wins a cigar! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"Claimed psychic" and "supposed psychic" sounds like a double fraud: you're falsely claiming to be one of the people who falsely claims to have second sight. Not redundant in that usage (although bizarre; why would you claim that?), but I agree with Bugs that the suggested usage would be. Nyttend (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, if 'claiming' in your vocabulary automatically means 'falsely claiming', then 'falsely claiming' would mean 'falsely falsely claiming, ad infinitum. A person who has arrived at an airport, but has been taken away by immigration officials because he has trouble finding his travel documents, could claim to be French, for example. The officials would say 'He claims to be French'. This doesn't make it automatically false, it just means the person has not provided any viable proof yet. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 15:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant: by "falsely" I meant if the claim's wrong, but I guess I left out a link in my thought process. By saying "claimed psychic", we're saying that the person claims to be one of those people who claims to have psychic powers. Consider saying "Nyttend claims to be a plumber" — if I make that claim right now, I'm lying because I'm not a guy who's in business to fix pipes etc. If I open a plumbing business tomorrow, I'm a plumber, and there's no need to use "claimed" anymore to describe me, regardless of the fact that I am unable to fix pipes etc. In the same way, if we can verify that Joe Bloggs is in business to predict the future with supernatural powers, we need not use "claimed", regardless of the fact that he's unable to predict the future with supernatural powers. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that's overly convoluted. As far as I'm concerned, a psychic is someone who has psychic powers. Whether there actually are any such is completely irrelevant to the definition.

In a context-dependent way, "psychic" has a secondary meaning of "someone who makes a living selling claimed psychic prognostications", but that's just a sort of shorthand. The primary meaning is someone who has the powers. Again, for the purposes of understanding the concept, it matters not at all whether this class is inhabited. --Trovatore (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

When deciding how to use the word "psychic", we have to distinguish between the noun and the adjective. Saying "Joe is a psychic" means that he's one of these people who advertise that they have second sight, while saying "Joe is psychic" means that he indeed has second sight. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I totally disagree. Both mean that he has psychic powers. As I say, in context, you might use that "one of those people" meaning, but it's a secondary sense. On their face, both statements mean basically the same thing. --Trovatore (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

OED disagrees with you. "Psychic" as an adjective in this sense (as opposed to older senses unrelated to this issue) is identical to "psychical" sense 3, which is Of, relating to, or designating faculties or phenomena, such as telepathy and clairvoyance, that are apparently inexplicable by natural laws and are attributed by some to spiritual or supernatural agency; involving paranormal phenomena of the mind, parapsychological. However, "Psychic" as a noun in this sense is A person who is regarded as particularly susceptible to supernatural or paranormal influence; a medium; a clairvoyant. Whether or not the regard is correct isn't relevant; either way, he's a psychic, medium, clairvoyant, etc. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on. OED cannot possibly have meant that being regarded as clairvoyant makes you a clairvoyant. That's just absurd on its face; you have to give them credit for not saying nonsense. They probably slipped the "regarded as" in there just to avoid the impression that they were actually asserting that such people existed. --Trovatore (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. Noun definition 2 for clairvoyant, One who possesses, or is alleged to possess, the faculty of clairvoyance. Definition 1 is unrelated. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's just wrong. If you don't have clairvoyance, you're not a clairvoyant. --Trovatore (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• How many psychics have closed their businesses down "due to unforeseen circumstances"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do psychics need me to call them, not not the other way around? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Leaving out "claimed" allows people who do believe or "aren't sure" to believe you are affirming that person has supernatural abilities, and does come across that way to some stronger skeptics. Adding "claimed" lets people who do believe see that as a standard disclaimer ("oh, we know, but until the rest of the world is enlightened..."), satisfies skeptics, and helps people who "aren't sure" know that supernatural powers are only claimed not proven.

I would argue that the "aren't sure" category is probably the largest part of the three groups, thanks to stuff like the Ten percent of brain myth, which is why stuff like EST, Miss Cleo, and other charlatans can make a(n in)decent living these days. If asked by a skeptic, they'll say they're just "not sure, don't know," and affirm that there are a lot of charlatans out there -- leading skeptics to see the "aren't sures" as knowing better when they really do not. Put them next to a believer, and they're open to the possibility.

It is for this middle group that adding "claimed" is of the utmost importance. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Want to make sure my nikkud and Arabic vowels are correct

So I've decided to vowel the Hebrew and Arabic names of a site. Do these vowels look accurate? Hebrew: תֵלְ כַבְרִי‎; Arabic: تَلْ ألْقَهوَة‎. And yes, I know that practically speaking, it doesn't matter which -a or -e sound nikkud you use so long as it's in the proper sound range, but I want to be accurate. Also, the Arabic should be in accordance with the Shaami dialect. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Adar 5775 16:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was able to guess that you mean Tel Kabri (a name previously unknown to me), so it can't be too wrong. Is the šǝwa on the final lamed necessary? —Tamfang (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Tel Kabri article is one I focus a lot of attention on in my editting and I didn't want to annoy people by linking it over and over and over and I didn't wikilink all the terminology as I figured anyone familiar enough with Shaami would know what all the various terms mean anyway. You mean at end of tel/tell? That's a schwa? (I admit not being as familiar with the schwa as I should be) I thought it was a sikkun and its Hebrew equivalent meaning no sound after. Can't I fully vocalise as if it were something in the Holy Qu'ran? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 3 Adar 5775 06:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Per Even-Shoshan's "New Dictionary" (1999) Tamfang is correct about the superfluous schwa under the final lamed and I've already removed it from the page. "Kabri" being a proper name, I have no vowelized reference text indicating the first-syllable vowel. If there's no definitive reply here soon, I can cross-post that part of the query to the Language refdesk on the Hebrew Wikipedia. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing, my Hebrew arguing skills are in need of some practice. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 3 Adar 5775 14:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Is that the name of Tel Kabri in Arabic? It looks like it says "Coffee Hill". The vowels are right though - but don't you need a sukun over the H? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It would literally be mound of the coffee. That specific translation is sourced to Khalidi 1992, click the ref link. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 3 Adar 5775 14:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

See the article Tell, which explains what תל is, and cites its vocalized form as תֵּל. It is also there in תֵּל־אָבִיב (Tel-Aviv).

Regarding כברי, there's the article Kabri, Israel, which gives the vocalized version as כַּבְּרִי.

As seen in these spellings, dageshes (central dots) inside the letters כ and ב indicate that they are hard ("k" and "b"), as opposed to soft ("kh" and "v"). The same goes for ת, although the historical hardness-softness distinction with that letter is no longer there in Modern Israeli Hebrew.

The book Практическая грамматика языка иврит (Practical Hebrew Grammar) by Baruch Podolsky (1985), too, agrees that the schwa (shva) under the ל is superfluous. It says that a shva is not normally written under a final letter, except under a final ך (e.g. בַּעֲלֵךְ), or when two consecutive consonants occur world-finally (e.g. אָמַרְתְּ), or in the pronoun אַתְּ.

As far as the Arabic is concerned, the definite article al- has a hamzat waṣl, which may optionally be indicated with a ص over the alif (ٱ), but is never represented with a ء over the alif (أ).

There indeed should be a sukun over the ـهـ.

The ل in تل is geminated, so there should be a shadda indicating that. However, no sukun should be there in that word, because after the geminated ل there is a case-dependent vowel.

The fully diacriticized version of تل القهوة, for the nominative case, would be تَلُّ ٱلْقَهْوَةِ, pronounced tallu-l-qahwati (or, utterance-finally, tallu-l-qahwa) in the standard language.

Given that there are two historical /l/'s in the root of tel/tall, I'd think that the ל in תל must be geminated as well, like the ل in تل is (a gemination would likewise be indicated with a dagesh in Hebrew: לּ). However, the above articles and citations show no indication of that. I can't comment why this is so. --Theurgist (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Theurgist -- Already in the recitation pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew transcribed by the Masoretes, word-final geminates were simplified in pronounciation, so dagesh can generally occur only in the word-final consonants בגדכפת (where it does not indicate gemination), and in ה (where it's actually mapiq, not dagesh). AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. So we have עָזַז (two ז's), עַזִּים (with gemination), and עַז (no gemination). Makes sense. --Theurgist (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me just clarify that in Modern Hebrew, the gemination (consonant elongation) has generally disappeared, so a consonant marked with a gemination-indicating dagesh is generally pronounced as a regular consonant (see Dagesh#Dagesh hazak, Modern Hebrew#Dagesh). --Theurgist (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"So"

Why do Americans very often start a sentence - and completely new topic - with the word 'so', which in British English means 'the next sentence I am going to say is a consequence of the one previous, for which you will already have been informed of the context', whereas, typing something here, like 'So, I went to the store...' when starting a post, is really nonsensical. It means the same as 'Therefore, I went to the store'. 'Therefore'? 'WHEREFORE'? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 17:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You find the same thing in Italian. In my experience, it's not uncommon to begin a sentence with allora which is the same as so in that use (quindi is how you express the idea of one thing having relation to another—Piove, quindi porto il mio ombrello—it's raining, so I bring my umbrella). I don't know if it's the same in French, but a lot of expressions and idioms in American English are also found in Standard Italian and seem like they've been in Italian longer than our lexicon and so it might be the case that it started with first generation Italian-Americans and then became part of the normal way of speaking. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Adar 5775 17:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

But quindi isn't always about a causal relationship. Sometimes it just means that something came after something else.

Oh, I thought you were saying that people started a sentence with quindi without justification; you meant allora. OK, that's a different question. I usually interpret that allora to mean "yeah, so what I'm about to say is not directly related to what we've been talking about, which honestly I don't care about, and I'm going to say this instead". That seems different from the English "so" under discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

French speakers will also commonly start a conversation with "alors" the way english speakers do with "so" and italian speakers with "allora".--Cfmarenostrum (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I often hear the same thing in portuguese with "então". Is french contaminating my portuguese or do spanish speakers do the same with "entonces" ? Use it as an interjection? --Cfmarenostrum (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have never heard entonces "then, therefore" used to start a conversation out of the blue in Spanish. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Entonces, el gato pilota, el gato que pilotaba un coche.... --Trovatore (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Trovatore can you give the full context for this? I assume it has some pretext, and doeasn't just come out of the blue? μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

See Toonces. --Trovatore (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

In Spanish pues is used in this same way like "so" in English. Vrac (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not only Americans who have developed this intensely irritating habit of beginning sentences with inappropriate "so". I increasingly hear it in the UK too. 109.153.229.129 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome for that, McDonalds, Burger King, and Krispie Kreme as well. Oh, and Whole Foods. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Adar 5775 18:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously so has meanings other than the two you mentioned, as in phrases like "so be it", "so long as", "it's been so long since...", "so long" [goodbye], etc. What's one more? It annoys you not because of any intrinsic illogicality but simply because you hear it in adulthood and didn't hear it in childhood. Be careful lest you turn into that stereotypical old guy railing against today's youth (such people have existed in every generation, of course). Anyways, wikt:so's earliest (and only) citation for this usage is from 1913 (in a novel by Joseph C. Lincoln). -- BenRG (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's best to put such things in small text so they can't be interprated as incivility or attacking the OP. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Adar 5775 18:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I smallified one sentence that I didn't need to write. -- BenRG (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not completely clear from the entry, but it looks as though the "so" of "so be it" may be the earliest Old English meaning of the word. Since you speak Japanese you know that Japanese sō has a similar meaning, but it can't be used to mean "therefore"—that wouldn't make sense. It's not immediately clear how one gets from that sense of "so" to "therefore", but I'd guess (with no evidence) that it might have evolved from a phrase like "that being so". "That being so" could plausibly also be used to cancel the previous topic of conversation, which is one aspect of the sense of "so" that you asked about. The broader meaning "apropos of nothing" could derive from that. But I'm just guessing. -- BenRG (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mention Japanese. The sō of Japanese means 'in that way', and comes from さよう (as in 'sayounara' - used a farewell greeting, but literally meaning, 'if that is the way things are'). Sō desu ka? 'is that the way things are?'. 左様でございあますか？ is the elevated style of the previous example. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 20:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that the phenomenon is much older, it's just deprecated by grammarians as "colloquial" and unsuited for written English. As there is no such thing as punctuation in spoken language, sentence boundaries are often marked by some kind of clitic.

Lookee, searching for "So I went" brought up Jeremiah 13:5. (Is Template:Bibleverse broken?) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Seamus Heaney translated the introductory "Hwaet!" in Beowulf as "So." --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 December 31#So.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Wavelength. Discourse connective, unfortunately, has been turned into a redirect to Conjunction (grammar). Predictably, Language Log covers the topic as well. Whenever somebody complains about the way the young'uns talk, I immediately think "Recency Illusion"! Thanks, Language Log. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirected to discourse marker instead. — kwami (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, "so" as an introductory particle is well-attested historically, having been used by Shakespeare, Swift, Sheridan and Byron (cites available in the OED), but that dictionary suggests some modern usage derives from Yiddish. Dbfirs 19:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Interesting point about Yiddish; is so (zo?) also used this way there or does English so copy the behaviour of Yiddish nu?

There's also wikt:so#Interjection, by the way, and note wikt:Talk:so#"So" instead of "Well". Is there a difference between this drawn-out Sooo, ... and unstressed So I went ...? Or is that one stressed, too? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• In addition to the above link by Wavelength to the prior discussion, and Dbfirs' useful comment we have the rather poorly documented article discourse marker which largely addresses only English. Attributing this to Americans as if it were some sort of leprosy to which the British are just now being exposed is absurd. The use of discourse markers pre-dates Indo-European. According to Raimo Anttila's Historical and Comparative Linguistics, practically every sentence in Hittite begins with su "and", ta "then" or nu "and now". [Greek sentence particles (kai, gar, al, de...) are well known as are the sentence initial iam, nunc and postpositive particle tamen, autem, enim, quidem, ergo, vero, igitur, etc., of Latin. German has plenty of discourse particles, ja, aber, doch, etc.

The purpose of such particles is to place information in attitudinal relation to prior statements, or, in the case of so, to introduce a new topic:

Hi, Honey, I'm Home (attention)

So, what should we do for dinner tonight? (new topic)

Well, I'm in the mood for steak. (response to same topic)

You know, we could go to that new place downtown. (reminding of known fact)

But they are very expensive. (objection to previous statement)

Or we could go to the hibachi grill you like. (introduce alternative)

Except we just ate there last week. (objection)

So, how about chicken? (attempt to introduce new topic)

No, I really want steak (rejection of new topic)

Then what about the hamburger joint instead? (recognize consequence of prior statement)

Now that's an idea. (emphasize response)

Okay, settled. (express final agreement).

Note that the American discourse particles could be omitted from the above, leaving the robotic RP version, with all the same factual information but all the emotion of a Vulcan marriage contract:

Honey, I'm Home.

What should we do for dinner tonight?

I'm in the mood for steak.

We could go to that new place downtown.

They are very expensive.

We could go to the hibachi grill you like.

We just ate there last week.

How about chicken?

I really want steak.

What about the hamburger joint instead?

That's an idea.

Settled.

μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hm? Hittite is Indo-European ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see how you could think I was implying that (it wasn't), but I was in a hurry to save what I had written before you responded in my mid argument since the current blizzard is wreaking havoc with my DSL. μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

dozens of etymologies for nu- from Japan to Finland, and Greenland west to England, in PIE, Uralic, Altaic, Eskimo and Nivkh
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
PIE Hittite: nu 'nun; und' (Friedrich 152) Tokharian: A nuṃ, nunak, B nano, nänok (PT *nuno, -kä) 'again, even' (Adams 330); A nu, B no (PT *nū) 'however, but' (Adams 347) Old Indian: nū, nu now';nū́ tana−new, recent', nūnám `now, at present' Avestan: nū 'nun'; nūrǝm, nūrąm 'jetzt, nun' Other Iranian: OPers nūra 'jetzt, nun' Old Greek: part. nü, nün encl., adv. νn',adv.nǖ̂ njetzt' Slavic: *nъ, *nū, *nɨ̄́nē Baltic: *nū, *nu Germanic: *nu, *nū; *nu-x Latin: nunc, novus Uralic Finnish: nyky- 'gegenwärtig', tätä nykyä 'gegenwärtig, vorläufig', dial. nyt, ny, nyy 'jetzt, nun' Estonian: nüüd, dial. nüü 'jetzt' Mordovian: ńej (E), ńi (M) 'jetzt, nun; schon' Udmurt (Votyak): ni (S J), ńi (G) 'schon; mehr, nunmehr, weiter' Komi (Zyrian): ńin, nin (S), ni̮n (Peč.), ńi (P) 'schon, bereits, (nicht) mehr' Turkic: *jub-ga Mongolian: *niɣu-n Tungus-Manchu: *nebi Korean: (younger relative) *nǝ̄- (Proto)-Japanese: *nípí- Eskimo Proto-Yupik: *nuta- Meaning: new 1, just now, right now 2 Sirenik: nutǝ́ʁǝcǝ́χ, nutaʁraχ [Vakh.] 1 Chaplino: nutáʁaq (t) 1, nutān 2 Naukan: nutáʁinʁaq 1, nután 2 Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik: nuta[ʁ]aq 1, nutān 2 Chugach (Birket-Smith): nutāq 1, nuttan 2 Central Alaskan Yupik: nutaʁaq 1, nutān 2 Nunivak (Peripheral): nutaʁaq* 1 Proto-Inupik: *nuta- Meaning: new 1, young person 2 Seward Peninsula Inupik: nutāq 1, nutaʁaq 2 SPI Dialects: Imaq nutáq* 1, W nutāq* (āk, āt) 1 North Alaskan Inupik: nutāq 1, nutaʁaq 2 NAI Dialects: B, Ingl nutāq* 1 Western Canadian Inupik: nutāq 1, nutaʁaq 'infant' WCI Dialects: Cor, M nutāq* 1 Eastern Canadian Inupik: nutāq 1 ECI Dialects: Lab nutagak* 'infant', NBI, SB, Iti nutaʁaq 'infant' Greenlandic Inupik: nutāq (nutâq*) 1, nutaʁaq 2 Nivkh Naf (Gruzdeva, 40) I remain thoroughly unimpressed. The Proto-Turkic "cognate" does not even contain a nasal. But we're veering off topic, very widely, so let's better finish here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Well, Proto-Turkic doesn't have a native /n/ phoneme, it has changed to a 'y' sound, here transcribed with a "j". You can hardly fault me for answering your question, but do feel free to ignore the answer. The website you link to is irrelevant, since this form is found in hundreds of dialects showing expected sound changes (like the Turkic one) not just two randomly sampled languages that show no other cognates. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC) The point is that the resemblance is statistically irrelevant, even if borrowing could be ruled out (which is impossible). A single initial phoneme does not suffice. Also, you have artificially inflated your list with the enumeration of equally irrelevant descendants when listing Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic, Proto-Turkic/Proto-Mongolic/Proto-Tungusic and Proto-Eskimo(–Aleut) as well as Proto-Nivkh (or some kind of reconstruction; preferrably not only modern Nivkh), and perhaps a few select descendants in brackets, would have sufficed. But again, this is completely off topic, so I'm hatting the whole part. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC) You've already shown your total ignorance in the matter with your rejection of the Turkic form because it lacks an /n/ when the entire proto-language lacks that phoneme. I have dozens of proto-language dictionaries for languages worldwide, especially Eurasia, and unless you are accusing people like Michael Fortescue and Edward Vajda of making up their research you have no claim. Where is your counter evidence? What is your alternative hypothesis? Hundreds of forms for scores of roots like water, name, dog, bear, fish, tile, hair/feather, go, etc., (which I can provide to anyone who emails me) exist within and only within the Eurasiatic macrofamily. You quote a study that says any two singular languages are likely to have a few similar roots. I agree with that, namely 'habere/have and dies/day in Latin and English which are known coincidences. But when you get hundreds of dialects showing scores of roots of roots with regular correspondences like the Turkic form here and deny them because the odd resemblances is possible you're providing a silly, pathetic, a priori reason to disbelieve anything that equally proves English mine and German mein are unrelated. After all, Finnish has minun and Turkic has benin/menin, so all these terms must be borrowings. You are not even interested in the evidence, so I am not interested in anything you have to say. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have too much of a problem with your example dialogue. What drives me nuts is this sort of thing: "What kind of music do you like?" / "So I like all kinds really ...". 109.157.12.51 (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't sound natural to me, I would expect "So, what kind of music...? Well, I like...." It may be a dialect question. Valley girl had some weirdities. In Philly a long time ago people used to say "How?" (as they do in some other European languages) instead of what when they didn't hear your last statement. So I won't say that sentence is not possible, but I can't say I've heard it. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You're very lucky. Perhaps this contagion hasn't yet spread to the area where you live. If it does, and once you start noticing it, I promise you it will drive you nuts too. 109.157.12.51 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A link to a video of someone actually speaking that way would be helpful. I have explained the phenomenon, shon it existed in Hittite, Greek, Latin, and German, and that such words exist in Lingustic families all across northern Eurasia. Some sort of source from anybody else here would be interesting. And it's not that I am lucky; I just don't know too many teenagers. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• To answer the original question: the word "So" in this context is called a Speech disfluency and serves the same purpose as "um..." or "like..." in some dialects. It is merely the speaker "filling" dead space in his speech while composing his thoughts. --Jayron32 22:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not correct, Jayron. The specific context was the beginning of a conversation: "So, I went to the store...' when starting a post" where it introduces a new topic. If someone were to start all their sentences with "so" it would be a disfluency, but that is not the case in the OP's first example. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it could be, like, worse, you know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

But the issue is, so, it couldn't be, so, worse, you know? μηδείς (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Do people not say "um" or "like" or "uh" at the beginning of a sentence? --Jayron32 01:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course they do, but not normally when starting a conversation without a prior context. I am talking at the dicourse level, not at the level so independent sentences with no context. Nor do they usually use so repeatedly and in the middle of sentences the way they use "um" when they are just pausing because they can't think on their toes. You are quite aware, Jayron, that the dialog I provided is a normally structured one for modern general english. I'd be quite interested in seeing a video where someone says so repeatedly, when well, or, especially, um would be expected. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Or "well", which serves the same purpose, but those are all usually in response to a question. I gather that the OP is griping about someone starting the conversation with "So..." Can't say I've heard it that much; but either way it's hard telling why the OP finds it so irritating, given there are much more annoying things in language usage. But to each their own. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think there is almost nothing more annoying. Possibly ending each sentence as if it is a question is about as annoying. Oh, that and saying "The thing is, is that ...". 109.157.12.51 (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

More annoying than "like" every two or three words? More annoying than "uh... you know..." which athletes in particular seem afflicted with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the OP thinks this is a particularly American thing. I've heard so used in this way (that is, as a speech disfluency) on both sides of the pond. In general, I have noticed that speech disfluencies can be used as ways of acquiring or maintaining the floor in a conversation, which may be the rationale for starting a sentence (or even a conversation) with so. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 03:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The annoying habit of ending a sentence in a way that sounds like a question (it's called "High rising terminal" - a trait of "Valspeak") seems to be likewise a way of communicating, "I'm done with the sentence but there's another one coming." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

As an extreme and satirical similarity, Professor Irwin Corey (who is now going on 101 years old) would sometimes start a lecture with, "However..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Chris Puplick is an Australian former politician, who was appointed to the Senate, then defeated in his bid for a full term, then later re-elected. For his maiden speech the second time round, he started off with "As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted ...". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sentence shortening help or correction

Hello,

I need to write the following in the shortest manner possible as all sound a bit too much for me.

"Everyone will be justified on Judgement Day, whoever done things knowingly, unknowingly, intentionally, unintentionally, overtly, covertly, purposely, consciously, subconsciously, in an unconscious mind."

If the sentence cannot be shortened and if it is okay then please let me know if I there is anything else I can add using 'commas'.

Regards.

(Angelos|Angelus (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC))

"Everyone will be judged on Judgement Day for their unconscious as well as their conscious actions." is a shortened form that seems to get your meaning across. (I'm not quite sure what you meant by "justified".)Itsmejudith (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess I meant 'judged'... Thank you. -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

Maybe Justification (theology)? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll read through it... -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

"Judgement Day applies to all our actions, conscious or not." StuRat (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

True! -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

"Judgement Day shall account for all acts - witting or unwitting." Trying to be King Jamesish. Collect (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll use these two words; sounds good... -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

Yeah, "all" covers those things nicely, if you're not trying for parallelism. If you are, it might be best to split the two with "or" or "and", between commas. Knowingly and unknowingly, intentionally and unintentionally, etc. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to use both; and or. -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

Thanks peeps. I'm gonna use the original sentence. What Judith mentioned, I recalled Bugsy mentioning something similar to another sentence I posted some time ago, which was similar to the original sentence I posted here seeking help for, and he mentioned to use the word 'intention'. After reading Judith's post, and Hulky's posts, I realised that I'll put my original sentence at the beginning, and statements such as Judith's and Bugsy's, I will insert it as I go along with the matching fields...

Kind regards!

(Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

Resolved

"Hulky", eh? I guess it doesn't sound totally weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:46, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

in short bro, if you mind I won't write it anymore... P.S - Don't worry, I'm not gay! -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC))

"Everyone will be judged, for everything." Iapetus (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds very basic... -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC))

February 22

How do speakers of tonal languages sing most kinds of songs?

How in the world do speakers of tonal languages sing most kinds of songs? Wouldn't the tonal aspect of their languages make that very difficult, if tone is of the utmost importance in their languages? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Can't speak for other languages, but in Mandarin you would just sing without the tones. The meaning is usually clear from the combination of words and the context. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It's the same for modern Thai/Lao songs. Meaning is clear from context (the same is true for the hearing impaired who have to read lips, btw). In some traditional Thai and/or Lao music forms, however, (such as mor lam) the melody of the song is often determined by the tones of the words. Also interesting is that in Thai poetry, the โคลง meter prescribes certain tones for specific syllables.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 08:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Previous reference-desk threads here, here, and here. There may be others. Deor (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

cuckoo sign

I'm confused. What exactly does the "cuckoo sign" (A gesture, consisting of a twirling motion of a finger near the temple) refer to? Wiktionary asserts that the gesture indicates that "that a person may have a screw loose", which would explain the twirling, but not the cuckoo, unless the lunatic's brain is likened to a cuckoo clock (I seem to remember that from old cartoons, but I couldn't give an example). The equivalent German gesture is tipping, not twirling, one's index finger against the forehead and relates to the expression einen Vogel haben, which supposedly relates to an old superstition that birds may be nesting in the lunatic's head, but if the bird is ever specified, it's not a cuckoo, but rather a tit. Any ideas anyone? Also, is the tipping gesture really uncommon in North America? What about Britain? Tip or twirl? --Janneman (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"Cuckoo" is an old slang term for "crazy"[1] and possibly the inspiration for the terms "kook" and "kooky".[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

mm, yes, and also for cuckold, but then the cuckold gesture or "horns" is something entirely else, which confuses me even more...--Janneman (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Forget "cuckold". The word "cuckoo" means "crazy", as used in America. As in "has a screw loose", "not playing with a full deck", etc. If that twirl is called the "cuckoo sign", it's because they both mean "crazy". Here is a rendition of "The Cuckoo Song", which Laurel and Hardy used as a theme. It even has words, including "I'm cuckoo and you're cuckoo". Perfect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

In areas of America with a large hispanic presence it's called the locomotion. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

When I was at school, there was a more complex variation, with an accompanying chant: "Tap tap (tapping the temple with right forefinger) curly-wurly (making the twirling gesture described above) cuckoo! (pointing forward at forehead height with the same hand, mimicking the action of a cuckoo-clock)". It was used to harass or heckle people who were regarded as 'crazy'. And the connotation is definitely, as Bugs says, that of the bird itself. 'Cuckold' is unrelated; 'kooky' might or might not be. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

From Etymology Online - cuckoo (n.): " Slang adjectival sense of "crazy" is American English, 1918, but noun meaning "stupid person" is recorded by 1580s, perhaps from the bird's unvarying, oft-repeated call". Do you actually have cuckoos in America? Alansplodge (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

yes. --Jayron32 12:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

See Cuckoo#Distribution and habitat for the American cuckoos, of which some are Brood parasites. Shakespeare used the "stupid person" sense in Henry IV, Part 1 "A horsebacke (ye cuckoe) but a foote hee will not budge a foote". Dbfirs 12:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I should have read my own link. Further to User:AlexTiefling's childhood remembrances, in my 1960s childhood in London, the same gesture meant only "a screw loose". An accompanying ditty (sung to the tune of the Westminster Quarters) went: "Ding dong, ding dong, / Your brain's gone wrong; / There's a screw loose, / Now it's no use!". I haven't heard it since I left junior school though. Alansplodge (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the gesture itself has been around a lot longer than the label "cuckoo sign". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

February 23

English pronunciation of given name "Liza"

Take a look here. Thanks.--Carnby (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As Adam Bishop has indicated on that talk page, Ms. Minnelli's name is pronounced /ˈlaɪzə/ (like an aphetic version of the name of the main female character in My Fair Lady). Deor (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Khmer neak

Can anyone give a range of meanings for this - sorry I can't do Khmer script, but I mean the neak as in neak ta, neak thom. 12:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

អ្នក (Khmer pronunciation: [neə̯ʔ] or neak), has a wide range of uses in Khmer, some of which include:

• a neutral (i.e. between equals; polite, but not necessarily formal) 2nd person singular pronoun ("you").
• functioning as a sort of kinship term when addressing an older brother-in-law (husband of an older sister) or, less often, an older sister-in-law.
• as a general noun, it means "person" or "people".
• an agentive particle used to create nouns: កីឡា (keilaa, "sports") ~~> អ្នកកីឡា (neak keilaa, "athlete"); កោះ (kah, "island") ~~> អ្នកកោះ (neak kah, "islander").
• spelled នាក់, a classifier for people (commoners only, there are different classifiers for royalty, Buddhist clergy, etc.)

The neak in neak ta can't really be analyzed separately. It would just be "you grandfather". Neak ta is a complete term in and of itself that can mean "ancestor spirits", "village spirit", "guardian spirits", etc. Context is usually sufficient to determine which spirits are meant, but it can be clarified when needed: អ្នកតាព្រៃ, neak ta prey("forest spirits"). Neak thom is an example of the agentive particle. Thom means "big" or "important", neak thom is "an important/powerful person, dignitary or high-ranking official".--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 02:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very comprehensive. PiCo (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Filmographies, not just for films anymore?

After looking at this edit where the editor replaced the word "Filmography" with the more verbose "TV and filmography", I started wondering if the term 'filmography' could be applied to TV shows as well. So, I looked the word up and it does seem to refer simply to films. Is there a change going on in the language that would have it include TV shows as well? I often see it the fields combined here on Wikipedia but what about the English speaking world outside of WP? By the way, I would have changed it to simply 'filmography' because I feel the longer form is too clunky but I don't really have anything other than my opinion to back me up. Dismas|^(talk) 12:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I blame IMDb for this. They mix them together over there. It might be worthwhile to discuss this at the film project and see if we should move the TV credits to their own section. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is probably a question for the appropriate MOS talk page. I see nothing wrong per se with Film and TV if that's what's involved, or Selected Works or one could even say Videography although filmography seems to be the expected word, and not normally to include TV. For example of why not to do this, consider one section that included all of Bette Davis's films and TV appearances in cameos and on talk shows. It would be a horrible mess. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers is the appropriate place; I'm going to start a discussion there. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A lot of television production still uses film, right? I don't see the problem. Take a look at Category:Filmographies and its subcats. The title format is often "Joe Blow filmography" even when there are TV roles, or even completely non-film formats like radio and stage. Others have resorted to clunkier, if more inclusive, titles. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Identification and self-identification

In the translation of languages, and even within one language, people have a tendency to use whatever other people call them (which may be good or bad) and use the terms to describe themselves. Linguistic reappropriation is similar in concept, but it focuses on a bad word that later turns into a neutral or good word or just a word for self-identity. Is there a broader term for reappropriation that does NOT have to come from a bad label? English speakers say "China", referring to the Qin dynasty, the first imperial dynasty, but Chinese speakers say "中国", which is translated literally as "Middle Country" or "Middle Kingdom". English speakers say "England", but Spanish speakers say "Ingleterra". That at least sounds like a literal translation. Ingle. English. Terra. Land or earth. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The broadest word to describe the concept of which you are speaking is called an ethnonym. That article has links to a variety of origins of ethnonyms as well as classes of sources of ethnonyms. --Jayron32 18:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, the Spanish is Inglaterra, which is a calque of Englaland.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

I think what the OP is trying to get at, is if there's a neutral term for using another culture's ethnonym for you to describe yourself, other than reappropriation. For example, how some western Japanophiles call themselves Gaijin. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Gaijin is perfectly normal for us foreigners who live there for a while and actually make an attempt to assimilate (unlike most, who are only there for a year or so). Newcomers tend to find it offensive, despite the fact that the word merely means 'foreigner', which is exactly what they are. Anyway, I fail to see how the word 'China' could be considered bad - OK, China is not an imperial nation (so they say), but it's still the word used in English, so they accept that, because there is no other word for China in English (besides Cathay, and other archaic words). China calls the UK 英國, 'YingGuo' for phonetic reasons, in the same way as China may have been named after the 'Qin' Dynasty. I still fail to see your point that 'people use terms that other people call them to refer to themselves' as 'China' is not called, for example, 氣愛那 in Chinese. Your other example of Inglaterra being Spanish for England also does not become an example in your question, as worded. Inglaterra was called Inglaterra because it was called Englalond before the word Inglaterra was introduced into Spanish. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 23:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My point was not to say that "people use terms that other people call them to refer to themselves' as 'China' is not called, for example, 氣愛那 in Chinese", whatever that is supposed to mean. My point was to say that Chinese speakers call "中国", a term that bears no allusion to the Qin dynasty, whereas the English term "China" does. And I never said or implied that "China" or "中国" was bad. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, then, it's not reappropriation, is it, as the two terms are completely unrelated. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 00:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's even closer. The UK is often named "England" in foreign languages. 英国 (Yingguo) is derived from 英格兰 (Yinggelan, "England"). The official name would be 大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国 (Great "Buliedian" and Northern "Aierlan" United Kingdom). 法国 comes from 法兰西共和国 "Falanxi" Republic (France), 德国 comes from 德意志联邦共和国 "Deyizhi" Federal Republic ("Deutsch"land, Germany) and 希腊 Xila (Hellas, Greece). It's a mix of phonetic transcription (of either how the country call itself or the English name) and translation of meanings. Chinese doesn't allow consonant clusters and has undergone palatalization (e.g. gi, ki, hi became ji, qi, xi). Many countries would be transcribed differently if there wasn't already a name since there are syllables closer to the actual pronunciation. --2.245.102.193 (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but usually when in China, we would use the short name 英国 (Yingguo) to say where we are from, which is actually far more understandable and palatable to the locals than 大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"Inglaterra" is cognate with "England", as "Spain" is cognate with "España". But as noted, some country's names are totally different from what we call them, thanks to ancient assignations which persist to this day. My German colleagues, when speaking English, would call their own country "Germany" even though they call it Deutschland; and speaking to them (in English) and happened to call it "Deutschland", they found it kind of disconcerting (possibly because I wasn't pronouncing it the right way). And it's like when we call the Hellenic Republic "Greece", Misr/Masr "Egypt", and Nippon "Japan". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Why would they call their country "Deutschland" when they speak English? Obviously they would use a term you understand easier. --2.245.102.193 (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Slight correction. Cognates are words that derive from the same root. Terra is not cognte with land, but rather with thirst--meaning "dry". The proper term here is calque, which is a literal, word for word substitution--a borrowing of meaning, but not form. μηδείς (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, as both I and Bugs have said, when it comes to the name of countries, we call them by whatever name we have historically called them, whilst they may (and usually do) have their own name for it, and when speaking in the respective languages, each would use both. @OP Your examples were not relevant. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 02:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think "Japan" and "Nippon"/"Nihon" are fundamentally the same word, aren't they? 109.157.10.148 (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

They are exactly the same word (日本), just different pronunciations, and can be used interchangeably. Incidentally, the word 'Japan' is related to the word 'Nippon', as it comes from an older pronunciation of the Chinese for 'Riben' (Japan), which was something like 'nyitbon', from whichever dialect it came. The 'ny' became 'J' in Portuguese. Compare the old name Zipangu (日本国).KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 05:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems I did not express myself clearly since your "incidentally" is the whole purpose of my comment, which was to query the apparent suggestion in the previous post that "Nippon" and "Japan" were etymologically different words. 86.150.71.35 (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Also see exonym and endonym.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 19:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

To whom is Michael J responding? —Tamfang (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I've seen a reconstruction of the first element as /nziet/ (with some odd diacritics that I don't remember). Successor languages lost either the /n/ or the /z/. —Tamfang (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, Tamfang, I chose a 'y' instead of the ʐ that I should have used. I just couldn't find it. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I know very little Japanese, but when I was in lockup I befriended an American Lesbian who had served in Japan. I asked her to confirm that "Atashi wa gaijin desu" was correct. She told me I should say "Boku wa gaijin da." When I speak to Hispanics I say my family are puros gringos, "pure gringos". μηδείς (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what gender you are, Medeis, but the first example is correct for female speakers, and the second for male speakers using the more humble male pronoun 'boku' than the less humble male pronoun 'ore'. However, this is a phrase I would only ever use on the phone, as when speaking to someone face to face, my caucasian features would make the explanation unnecessary. Language teaching materials are very often not very good, and use useless phrases to illustrate their points. "This is a pen" in Japanese is 'kore wa pen desu.' When I was teaching in Japan, I was half expecting someone to say, "Yeah, we know, that's what we call it in Japanese." KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 18:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed someone might catch that, and had I said watashi it would have also implied something, as does my use of "lockup" (which is not quite accurate either), but the salient point was that the lesbian said that she herself used boku, which was the joke. My real question to her was not about the verb or pronoun, but about gaijin. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. A lot of 'tomboy-type' Japanese female children use 'boku', and in Nagano, old women use 'ore' to refer to themselves (I have never met a lesbian Japanese, but I am sure they have the same 'gender roles' as western lesbians). 'Watashi' is perfectly OK for both genders. 'Watakushi' is even more formal, yet OK for both genders. 'Gaijin' is perfectly acceptable, however, it is short for 'gaikokujin', which actually means 'foreigner' or more specifically 'someone from another country'. Newcomers tend to pseudo-translate 'gaijin' as 'outsider' (which could be a literal translation if you are super-sensitive and unable to understand that words can be shortened). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My lesbian tutor was an American, probably descended from the British Isles, not a native Japanese. μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Calling oneself a "gringo" is probably also a good ice-breaker. It's harder to be labeled when you've already done it yourself. (Kind of like when Brits call us "Yanks" and think they're insulting us.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a common topic, actually. A while back (a few years ago), there was a question here asking if us Brits find the word 'Brit' offensive, but we don't, because that is actually what we call ourselves. I've had this conversation numerous times with 'yanks' in real-life, too. We don't mind it at all. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 18:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Lily-livered limey.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Bah, Jack, don't complain. You steal a loaf of bread and we send you off on a lifelong holiday on a huge tropical island for free. We have to pay for it. Bloody Ozzies, don't know they're born... :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

February 25

Translation of a word to 'royal Thai' and 'religious Thai' please?

The word is 'moisture'. Can I have the street and rhetorical words for it too please?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

ชื้น is the general Thai word meaning "damp" or "moist". Adding the prefix ความ yields the standard Central Thai word for "moisture": ความชื้น. A general alternative is ชุ่ม, meaning "damp, moist or wet", and it is often combined in the typical Thai way to produce ความชุ่มชื้น (Thai pronunciation: [kʰwaːm˧ tɕ͡ʰum˥˩ tɕ͡ʰɯːn˦˥], roughly khwam chom cheun), "moisture". Another alternative is เปียก, but that can also mean more wet than moist. I'm not aware of a commonly used royal/religious synonym, although a Pali, Sanskrit or Royal Khmer word pronounced as Thai probably exists. When speaking of royalty/clergy, I would replace the common prefix ความ (kʰwaːm˧) with the equivalent Pali-derived prefix สภาพ and use สภาพเปียกชื้น (Thai pronunciation: [sa pʰaːp˥˩ piak˩ tɕ͡ʰɯːn˦˥].--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant - thank you for the thorough answer. Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the name Pólya

The Wikipedia page for George Pólya has the Hungarian pronunciation of the mathematician's surname. Does anyone know how the professor pronounced his name when he lived in the U.S.? --98.114.146.189 (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't find a source for how he said it, but every mathematician in the USA I know has pronounced it similar to /POLE-yuh/ or /PAHL-yeh/ SemanticMantis (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"Fully-springed mattress" or "fully-sprung mattress"?

Hello, again!

[Some time ago], I started a discussion on how English speakers derive adjectives directly from nouns by using the -ed suffix, and how said usage differs from the (somewhat similar) phenomenon of past participles doubling as passive adjectives. Now, a new quirk in the language has caught my eye.

The Oxford American Dictionary, Third Edition gives several definitions for the verb to spring, including "to provide a mattress with springs." Furthermore, it gives sprang or sprung as the only allowable past participles for the verb in question. Also, it separately lists the adjective unsprung, defining it as relating to "a mattress not having springs in it." Now, this strikes me as rather odd.

Since—in the case of mattresses—the adjective relates to springs and not to springing, then wouldn't one say "fully-springed" or "unspringed mattress?"

cf.

Collapsed List of Paradigms
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Present Indicative /Present Subjunctive /Imperative Present Indicative (3rd Person singular) Past Indicative /Past Subjunctive /Past Participle Present Participle to pay [to remunerate] pay pays paid paying Present Indicative /Present Subjunctive /Imperative Present Indicative (3rd Person singular) Past Indicative /Past Subjunctive /Past Participle Present Participle to pay [to seal with pitch] pay pays payed paying Present Indicative /Present Subjunctive /Imperative Present Indicative (3rd Person singular) Past Indicative /Past Subjunctive /Past Participle Present Participle to relay [to lay again] relay relays relaid relaying Present Indicative /Present Subjunctive /Imperative Present Indicative (3rd Person singular) Past Indicative /Past Subjunctive /Past Participle Present Participle to relay [to transmit] relay relays relayed relaying Present Indicative /Present Subjunctive /Imperative Present Indicative (3rd Person singular) Past Indicative /Past Subjunctive /Past Participle Present Participle to spit [to regurgitate] spit spits spat or spit spitting Present Indicative /Present Subjunctive /Imperative Present Indicative (3rd Person singular) Past Indicative /Past Subjunctive /Past Participle Present Participle to spit [to skewer with a rod] spit spits spitted spitting Present Indicative /Present Subjunctive /Imperative Present Indicative (3rd Person singular) Past Indicative /Past Subjunctive Past Participle Present Participle to retread [to backtrack] retread retreads retrod retrodden retreading Present Indicative /Present Subjunctive /Imperative Present Indicative (3rd Person singular) Past Indicative /Past Subjunctive /Past Participle Present Participle to retread [to put on a new tread] retread retreads retreaded retreading Present Indicative /Present Subjunctive /Imperative Present Indicative (3rd Person singular) Past Indicative /Past Subjunctive /Past Participle Present Participle to cost [to be worth an amount] cost costs cost costing Present Indicative /Present Subjunctive /Imperative Present Indicative (3rd Person singular) Past Indicative /Past Subjunctive /Past Participle Present Participle to cost [to estimate a value] cost costs costed costing

I mean, why should we have "fully-sprung mattresses," but not "paid hull decks," "relaid electrical impulses," "spat roast," "retrodden tires," or "recently cost natural-gas reserves"?

Pine (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems like an odd statement either way. Do you have any examples of either usage in mattress advertisements? Though I have to say that a "sprung" mattress would conjure a mental picture of a mattress that's in such bad shape it has springs poking through the material. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I found this ad for[| springed] and this one for [sprung]. Unfortunately, neither manufacturer is headquartered in an English-speaking country, so I'm inclined to take both cum grano salis.

As a side note, however, usage commentator Bryan Garner (whom I've referenced before) [agrees with me]. Do any of you, as well?

Pine (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. It should be "fully-springed", not "fully-sprung". The meaning being conveyed is that the mattress is equipped with springs (or, put differently, has springs as a feature), not that it has undergone some "springing" process or treatment. --98.114.146.189 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Whatever it should be, I can assure everyone that in the UK "fully-sprung" is usual if not universal – as an Ukian born and bred, I've never (in 6 decades) encountered "fully-springed" and would assume it to be mistake by a non-native speaker. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Same in the US. It's sprung; logic be damned. I think "springed" just "sounds weird". It's not that Anglophones can't say it; it rhymes with "dinged", for example. But it's an unusual enough consonant cluster that there's a resistance to it. --Trovatore (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Do English speakers call Saturn the "rung planet"?66.94.28.83 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

No. But I think you knew that. --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, agreed. Sprung is the normal term in English. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And sprung is also usual for vehicles, as a Google search for "sprung automobile" or "sprung carriage" (for example) shows. Deor (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, released on parole, or "sprung from the joint." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

But that's from the verb, not the noun. — kwami (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• The mattress has not sprung, partially or fully. It has springs, like a four-footed animal has feet. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What would be an example of a mattress that's not "fully" spring/sprung? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Foam rubber, or whatever euphemism the manufacturers choose for it. See mattress - "so-called hybrid beds, which include both an innerspring and high-end foams". Tevildo (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Never heard the phrase, and I find it opaque. A "fully sprung mattress" could only be a mattress in which the springs have fully sprung, or s.t. similar. "Fully springed" does sound odd, but I'd at least understand it, though like Bugs I'd wonder what a partially springed mattress would be. (I suppose half-way through its manufacture, before all the springs were added.) — kwami (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with other posters that "fully-sprung" is the normal English term. "fully-springed" is weird and looks like an error. 31.49.120.201 (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Never heard that expression until this question appeared. Must be a British thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• I can't say that I've heard either term, but "fully sprung" sounds to me like something that is broken (i.e. the springs have exhausted their elasticity and are now completely "sprung"). "Fully springed" sounds weird, but I would immediately understand it to mean something that had springs throughout or otherwise had a full complement of springs. Matt Deres (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Regardless of the grammar, I think the "fully springed" term refers to the density or "coil number". The more coils per surface area the better the support and wear. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand fully-sprung mattress to be like sprung dance-floor (which doesn't even have discrete springs) - something like 'made springy'. --ColinFine (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ancient greek

What is the Ancient Greek for feathered?--95.251.178.15 (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest πτερωτός ([3]), which is e.g. used by Herodotus: "Their wings are not feathered [Greek πτερωτὰ, the neuter plural form of πτερωτός] but very like the wings of a bat." Histories, book II, chapter 76 - Lindert (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

but πτερωτός is feathered or winged or both ones?--95.251.178.15 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Or "winged", as in the root of the names used for Pterosaurs.

The term "winged" might have implied "feathered". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "πτερωτός" can also be translated as "winged", depending on the context, like πτερόν (or modern Greek φτερό) can mean both "feather" and "wing". It's actually common that a word in one language lacks an exact equivalent in another. I cannot find anything closer to English "feathered". It's clear however, that "πτερωτός" does mean "feathered" in some contexts, and people translate it as such, e.g. in the Herodotus quote, or this one from Plutarch: "And yet we see that they who hunt wild beasts clothe themselves with their hairy skins; and fowlers make use of feathered [πτερωτοῖς] jerkins;" ([4]). - Lindert (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"Don't Know They're Born"

I've used a phrase up above as a jokey reply to Jack's jokey reply to a comment I had made. The phrase is in the title here. This got me thinking. Where does this come from? It's generally used by older people talking about younger people, and how the older people perceive that the younger people have life easier than the older people did. Does it mean something like, "They haven't lived a REAL life yet" or something? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A quick search indicates it was first used by Eden Phillpotts in his 1912 novel The Forest on the Hill (where one of his characters uses it to refer to the rich, rather than the "young people today" of the modern idiom). I would interpret it along the lines of "If we compare our lives to theirs, they do as little work/suffer as little discomfort/have as few responsibilities as an unborn baby." Tevildo (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I've heard it from a fifty-ish guy, referring to his twenty-ish son. Something like "He doesn't think he can die, but he doesn't even know he was born." Couldn't appreciate the value of life itself in the light of the here and now, I took it. Just nodded, didn't ask.

Both still alive, not sure if the son knows he was born yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

As for the referenceable and British, this backs up the "had it easy without realizing it" meaning. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

The version I've most often heard is "He doesn't know he's alive". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

February 26

Cerdeña and Córcega

Does anyone know why the names for Sardinia and Corsica underwent a shift from /s/ to /θ/ in Spanish? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Anything to do with the Castillian lisp? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the answer requires a little more than just a reference to the rise of the dental fricative in Spanish. Typically, the Spanish soft c (pronounced as /θ/ in Northern Spain) derives from Latin words with C (that is, a hard /k/). As is explained at the Wiktionary entries for Sardinia and Corsica, the names come from Latin with /s/ (spelled s). In other words, this is strange because it's common for sounds to go k > θ in Spanish, but not k > s > θ. The important changes leading up to the Spanish pronunciation with /θ/ might have preceded the 16th century. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This is speculative, but this has to have a complex history. This is not the normal phonological development from Vulgar Latin. My guess is that Castilian was isolated from the Mediterranean during the early years of the Muslim conquest, and the native names for those two islands might have fallen out of use in the language, since there would have been no contact with them. Later, Castilians may have picked up the spoken names of the islands from a Romance language, such as Catalan, where "c" before "e" or "i" was already pronounced [s], without knowing how the names of the islands were written. Given that the sequence [se] (spelled either "se" or "ce") in Catalan was at the time often pronounced (in words spelled "ce") [s̪e] in Castilian, those Castilians might have assumed that the syllables should be pronounced [s̪e] in their language and spread that pronunciation in the Castilian-speaking region. In Castilian, [s̪e] later became [θe]. See History of the Spanish language. Marco polo (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Sardinia#Medieval history, these two islands were linked as the Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica and the crown "given" to the Kingdom of Aragon. Marco may be on the right track here as it seems the two names probably developed in medieval Aragonese and/or Catalan and then were adapted at some point into Castilian based on those pronunciations, instead of from the Latin or Italian.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 02:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hector and hectoring

It's not exactly a compliment to call someone hectoring, but Wiktionary says the term comes from the Iliad's Hector, who has been revered as an exemplary figure over many hundreds of years and across cultures. How would his name come to be associated with something petty and negative? --BDD (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

According to oxforddictionaries.com, "Originally denoting a hero, the [noun] sense later became 'braggart or bully' (applied in the late 17th century to a member of a gang of London youths), hence 'talk to in a bullying way'". In contrast, Etymonline says the verb sense is "in reference to [Hector's] encouragement of his fellow Trojans to keep up the fight". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The connection, as per the EO link, seems to be that the Greek hero Hector was known for exhorting his comrades into the battle. Sometimes there's a fine line between leadership and bullying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not for Teddy Roosevelt. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Could also be seen as an example of pejoration (only brushed in the article on semantic change, but see one table with "Some examples" (silly, lewd, villain, ...). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks all. It would help to see early usages of the word, but I can definitely imagine that it was once used in a more positive sense, started to be used sarcastically, and is now a negative term. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

February 27

Identificacion de una sello

ver sello no. 16

Búsqueda asistencia con la lectura del texto en este sello no. 16. Yo leo: «Serie 5», «SOCIEDAD (...)RAL DE CU(...)NES PROGRESO», «50», «CINCUENTA CENTIMOS». El logotipo fue utilizado por la Asociación General de Electricidad en 1888, ver [5] o [6]. Gracias. --91.50.31.10 (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I interpret the question as, "Identification of a postage stamp -- [I need] search help reading text on this stamp number 16. I read: 'Series 5','SOCIEDAD (...) RAL DE CU (...) NES PROGRESO ','50',' FIFTY CENTIMOS [cents]". The logo was used by General Electric Association in 1888, see... Danke, y'all." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that first part reads Sociedad General de... then maybe Correos, which would refer to the post office. But I'm not finding anything on Google so far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Sociedad general de cupones 'Progreso'". [7] --Amble (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Progress Coupons"? As in the GE slogan, "Quality is our most important product"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Gracias --84.58.246.235 (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

pronunciation

What is the correct pronunciation of the word Orre(from Pokemon)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C541:CC60:4897:AF86:CD38:DFCF (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

All Japanese is pronounced the way it is written, so it would be 'O-rr-e'. Like Spanish 'Olé', but with a trilled 'r' instead of an 'l'. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Does "rr" exist in Japanese? As far as I can tell (e.g. [8]), in Japanese it is オーレ, Ōre. 86.155.201.148 (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Really, an Alveolar_trill? I bow to your experience in Japanese. I only watch Anime, but I would say at most it's an Alveolar_flap. The latter article even gives Akira as an example in Japanese. An American could get by with pronouncing ⟨ɹ⟩ (as in 'red', Alveolar_approximant) or even ⟨d⟩ (as in 'dog', Voiced_alveolar_stop) if they can't manage the flap. I think of it as an r that just barely hints at a d, which is easier for me to do if I'm saying the word loudly or quickly. But really, OP should just watch Pokemon and other Anime in Japanese with subtitles, and then they won't have to ask us how to pronounce things ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Watching anime wouldn' t help me in this case, since Orre is only mentioned in two video games with no voice actors.I'm the OP. Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)