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

June 16

antonyms

looking for antonyms of "control"68.151.25.115 (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You've been provided links to thesaurus websites in your prior questions about antonyms. Are these sites not giving you the answers you want? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Louis Pierre Vossion

Can someone help me translate the handwritten texts in this image? Please place in the image description as well. Is Louis Pierre Vossion in the assembled group?--AlohaKavebear (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

- Îles Hawaï - Mgr Gulstan Ropert, des Sacrés-Coeurs de Picpus, est depuis 37 ans dans les îles. Il fut l'ami du R.P. Damien, martyr. - L'évêque catholique d'Honolulu - le doyen des Missionnaires (58 ans dans les îles). Le chef de la Division Navale du Pacifique et l'Etat-Major du Croiseur Français Duguay-Trouin, Nov. 1898 - (L. Vossion (?) Consul de France (?). Akseli9 (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong ship - must be French cruiser Duguay-Trouin (1873) for which we have no article. Rmhermen (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No, Louis Vossion is not on the picture. Perhaps he's the one who took the picture? Akseli9 (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The name of the file is "Documents iconographiques rassemblés par Louis Pierre Vossion", i.e."pictorial documents assembled by Louis Pierre Vossion". So, the picture may simply have come into his possession in his role as French consul. --Xuxl (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"centralized" antonym

i often hear "decentralized" computing etc. but isnt there an antonym to "centralized" without using a prefix?68.151.25.115 (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"Distributed"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"Dis-" is a prefix. Rojomoke (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Not in its English usage. Distribute comes from the Latin distribuere, where the dis- is a prefix (meaning "asunder"). But in English you can't knock off the prefix and have a sensible verb - to tribute, anyone? Phil Holmes (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

How about "localized"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Or regionalized. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

See: Distributed computing — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:8C81:A23:E9F2:E55E (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "eighth"

In everyday speech, we simply say it to rhyme with faith. However, a few Wikipedia articles say that this word is property pronounced with a t+th. Any sources saying that this is still the standard pronunciation?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have sources to hand, but I can certainly report that I pronounce it /eɪtθ/ even in fast speech. --Trovatore (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Ditto on pronunciation. I checked four dictionaries, all giving /eɪtθ/, none giving /eɪθ/. I'm not sure I've ever heard /eɪθ/. -- Elphion (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

(added) American Heritage gives both pronunciations. -- Elphion (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary gives both for the US but not for Britain. Loraof (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The only pronunciation I have commonly heard in England has the t+th sound. If I heard it as ryming with faith, I would assume that someone with a lisp was trying to say "ace" Wymspen (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Must be a regional thing. I only pronounce it to rhyme with faith. (I grew up in upstate New York and upstate South Carolina.) Loraof (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The only pronunciation I have ever heard in America has the t+th sound (U.S. south central, southwest, midwest, west). —Stephen (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Here in the UK, only /eɪtθ/ is correct (per OED). No-one would rhyme it with faith unless they had a speech impediment or possibly were speaking very quickly. Dbfirs 20:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

(Detroit) I also pronounce it the "t+th" way. However, note that it may not be easy to hear the diff, so that if somebody hears it in childhood as just "th", they may start to say it that way, especially before they see how it's spelled. Same with similar words, like "heighth" (although "height" is more formal). StuRat (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no such word as "heighth". Height is not simply formal, it's the only version. Unless you're an American, and then anything goes. Akld guy (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, some Cockneys say ""heighth" - it's used in A Clockwork Orange (the book): "dressed in the very heighth of fashion" [1]. But you're correct, it's incorrect. Alansplodge (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Being from Detroit, that would make me a 'merkin. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you even comprehend what you were attempting to do? That is, mislead the unwitting reader not proficient in English that "heighth" is merely an alternative to the correct "height". You are either an uncaring idiot or one of those Americans bent on perverting everything in the rest of the world to the American way. I strongly suspect you are not an idiot. So stop with the misleading. There are rules in English. Your localized perversion used by a tiny fraction of the world's population is no substitute for what the rules of English say. Akld guy (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

So Americans may make up a small percentage of the world's population — but something close to two thirds of native English speakers. That said, "heighth" is not standard in American English either, so even if we did want to make the world speak AmE, it wouldn't include "heigth". --Trovatore (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not include all Americans in "tiny fraction of the world's population". Did you take the time to read what I wrote and ponder it for a moment or two, or just jump to a kneejerk defensive reaction? Akld guy (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It may not be standard in the UK these days, but the OED gives it a British history going back to the 13th century:

c1290 S. Eng. Leg. I. 266/190 Fram þe eorþe heo was op i-houe þe heiȝþe of fet þreo.

Later examples cited:

1667 Milton Paradise Lost viii. 413 To attaine The highth and depth of thy Eternal wayes.
1673 J. Ray Observ. Journey Low-countries 76 Stakes or Poles of about a mans highth.
1809 J. Roland Amateur of Fencing 22 It depends on the person's heighth.
1890 J. D. Robertson Gloss. Words County of Gloucester Hecth, height.

--Antiquary (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

And on checking the British Newspaper Archive I find they break down the number of hits for heighth like this:

1700-1749: 58
1750-1799: 685
1800-1849: 1101
1850-1899: 1310
1900-1949: 610
1950-1999: 23

Difficult to draw statistically meaningful results from that without knowing how many newspapers they looked at in each period, but at any rate it looks like heighth was not too uncommon in British English up to the early 20th century. --Antiquary (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

And I find over 5 million Ghits for heighth. Far less than height, but still rather significant usage. That, along with the historic usage, would seem to qualify it as a "variant, now chiefly AmE". StuRat (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Am I correct in saying this is the only English word where "th" is pronounced /tθ/? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't know, but no counterexample comes to mind. Actually I can't even think of another example of the /tθ/ cluster, with any spelling. Seems like it ought to be spelled eigtth. --Trovatore (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

If you mean with minimal departure from current standard spelling conventions, it should be "eightth"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, right. I thought something looked funny but couldn't find it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Naughth?--Wikimedes (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

While the words width and breadth are spelt with -dth, I think the pronunciation is /tθ/. —Stephen (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Where I come from, the "d" in those words is enunciated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, who says "with" and "breath" for those words ? StuRat (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably the same ones who say "strenth" instead of "strength". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, even if these words were spoken that way (which they're not), this would not be a counter-example for my question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

True. For that matter, how many English words end in "hth"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The answer appears to be 13, with 9 of them being words ending in "eighth" and the other 4 being non-standard spellings as discussed earlier.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Joining the chorus: We do not rhyme it with faith in Western Canada, either. t-th is it. Mingmingla (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Midwest: we say eight-th, although we've heard eigh-th in some regions. We also sometimes hear height-th rather than height, but that's considered a hick expression. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• I, an AMERICKAN, and say eight-th, but I have heard eith. 14:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

---

By the way, "eighth" is pronounced as if spelled "eightth", while "Matthew" is pronounced as if spelled "Mathew"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Now, that is an interesting observation. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The origin of Matthew/Mathew may help.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"Here in the UK, only /eɪtθ/ is correct (per OED)", says somebody above. I don't think that the OED is designed to be, or should be, used in this way. The OED doesn't purport to be a guide to how all non-trivial British groups of L1 English speakers say words both deliberately and rapidly. I think I say /eɪtθ/ but I wouldn't be at all surprised if an analysis of my actual output revealed that I sometimes said /eɪθ/. As for other words with the /tθ/ cluster, I suspect that my commonest pronunciation of "width" is /wɪtθ/. I'm not even sure that a true [wɪdθ] is possible for monoglot L1 English speakers; but the distinction (if any) between relevant allomorphs of /t/ and /d/ can be problematic. More.coffy (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The OED gives the standard pronunciation. If there was a widespread alternative, it would be stated there. I agree that there are wide regional variations in pronunciation of many words, and that consonants might often be omitted in rapid speech, but the OED is generally considered to be the authority for those who wish to use standard English. I don't use OED pronunciations for my local dialect, but I do for more formal speech. Like you, I struggle to pronounce width as /wɪdθ/ (though I do try). The OED does allow /wɪtθ/ as an alternative for those of us who tend to unvoice the plosive. Dbfirs 08:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 18

"pendejera" (Venezuelan slang?)

1. 2017 June 16, “Parecemos, pero no somos, y si fuimos, no somos más”, in El Nacional[4]:

   Así se hace cómplice necesario y responsable del intento desesperado para engañar, confiando en que esos millones de ciudadanos hambreados, maltratados, gaseados, apaleados y reprimidos, incluidos los pocos maduristas que reverencian sin cavilar, síntoma clarísimo de pendejera vocacional, van a tragarse semejante fábula retorcida sin aviso ni protesto.

What does this mean? "Pendejera" is the name of the plant Solanum torvum according to es.wikipedia but that doesn't seem to be the meaning here. DTLHS (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This source translates "pendejera" as: cowardice, unmanliness ... lack of character, namby-pambiness — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:8C81:A23:E9F2:E55E (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• "pendejera - English Translation - Word Magic Spanish-English Dictionary". www.wordmagicsoft.com.

I wonder whether that source applies to Venezuelan colloquial Spanish though. Obviously, pendejera is derived from "pendejo". That Wiktionary entry lists various meanings, and "coward" is attributed to various countries, but not to Venezuela which is specifically listed for only one meaning there: "dickhead (stupid person)". Similarly, Spanish Wiktionary only mentions Venezuela for the meaning "falto de inteligencia, entendimiento o astucia".[5] In this Chilean article the Venezuelan linguist Maylen Sosa explains the Venezuelan connotations of "pendejo", "a mild insult to disqualify someone". Perhaps I'd translate "pendejera vocacional" as "vocational stupidity" or "vocational dickheadery", but not "vocational cowardice" ---Sluzzelin talk 09:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Pendejo (m) and "pendeja" (f) are the more common slang terms (the word for slang in Spanish is "jerga" by the way), and is a catch-all term meaning dumbass, idiot, moron, spineless, etc. I'm not Venezuelan but the addition of the ending '-era' would literally translate to 'one who does' (and if it was a male, it'd end in '-ero'. I'd take it to mean "one who commits stupid acts." The Spanish language is very fluid in Latin America so it's very common to have some slang be very regionalized and other slang very wide spread. UltravioletAlien (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

German translation of a Kennedy quote

Could somebody give me a good German translation of the following phrase from this speech by Kennedy: "yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand mankind's final war" — What would be the most literal equivalent to hand here?--Erdic (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

First thought: I do not think it will be done with just translating "hand" here....the whole sentence would be something like "stay your hand, knave" e.g....with the meaning of "am Handeln gehindert sein, werden". Lectonar (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

One translation found in several books [6] has "das den Ausbruch des letzten Krieges der Menschheit noch hemmt" (for "that stays the hand of mankind's final war"). This seems a fairly decent translation. What makes the phrase difficult to understand (to German non-native speakers of English) is maybe not so much the meaning of "hand", but the transitive use of stay in the sense of "keep sth. back". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I found it difficult to understand too, but the JFK Library confirms that you've lost an "of" in that quote; "stays the hand of mankind's final war" makes more sense. Alansplodge (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all very much — now I do see the sense! Best--Erdic (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

June 19

Job descriptions

In the last century, the Surveyor of the Fabric of Westminster Abbey was Doctor Donald Buttress, while the Archbishop of Manila was Cardinal Sin. Do people's surnames influence their choice of occupation? 86.176.19.17 (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

See Nominative determinism. Rojomoke (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Translation from Arabic - 'sabih'

What does it 'sabih' (or something like that) mean? I don't know how it's written in Arabic. I know it can be a given name, but it should also have meaning as a word. --194.224.153.207 (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably Sabeeh. HOTmag (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

This wikt:صبيح.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Danish or Norwegian?

I have a citation as follows:

Indberetning om en stipendierejse til England for at studere Gouins metode for undervisning i sprog (Quousque Tandem No. = Norske univ. og skoleannaler, 1894

Google guesses the the first part to be Danish, and the second ("Norske univ. og skoleannaler,") to be Norwegian. Assuming the question makes sense for an 1894 text, which language are these really? Thanks, Henry^Flower 12:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm Danish. "Quousque Tandem" is Latin. "No." is not a Danish abbreviation but may in some contexts be used instead of "nr." (number, Danish: nummer). Everything else including "Norske univ. og skoleannaler" is valid current Danish (univ. must be short for universitets). I don't think it's valid current Norwegian but I don't know about 1894. Norway was Danish for centuries until 1814 and the languages are very similar. See Languages of Norway#Norwegian language struggle. "Norske" means Norwegian which may be why Google guesses Norwegian. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

No. may not be a Danish abbreviation, but it is a perfectly good Latin one for numero, which makes sense as part of the Latin phrase. Wymspen (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Also see Numero sign. Lectonar (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all (especially PrimeHunter) -- that's very helpful. :) Henry^Flower 15:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Henry Flower: It's actually both Danish and Norwegian, since written Norwegian Bokmål is very close to written Danish (the two languages differ mainly in pronounciation), and was even closer to Danish during the later part of the 19th Century (see Riksmål). In modern Norwegian Bokmål the word "stipendierejse" would be spelt "stipendiereise", but in 1894, when the text appears to have been written, the former, i.e. pure Danish, spelling would probably have been used. Which means that I, because of the "Norske univ. og skoleannaler", would classify the text as being in Norwegian. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

A bit off-topic, but see A language is a dialect with an army and navy. Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are classified as separate languages, and not a common Scandinavian language as it once was (see Old Norse), for political reasons, but actually differ less from each other than a number of dialects of the German language differ from each other, with Norwegian often being described as an intermediate stage between Danish and Swedish, by using Danish words (and orthography) but pronouncing the words the way a Swedish-speaker would... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

what's the rule?

Do you say

Do the same things that the parents do.

Or

Do the same things as the parents do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.147.143 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Both those expressions are valid but both are rather clumsy. It is not necessary to repeat "do". It would be better to say "Do the same as the parents". Also "the parents" sounds rather odd as it is not clear whose parents are being referred to. It would be more usual to hear "Do the same as your (his, her) parents".--Mrs Wibble-Wobble (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a matter of opinion; I prefer the original versions. I don't have a source for this, but I have the impression that British people are more likely to prefer the shorter versions. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with your last comment. Check: The grandparents "do the same as the parents". HOTmag (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you are trying to combine two phrases, each of which is quite clear, and thereby causing some grammatical confusion. Either say "Do the things that your parents do" or "do the same as your parents do" - you don't actually need to say "the same things" Wymspen (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

How to pronounce the word "Jesuism"

I was just reading the Wikipedia article called "Jesuism" but can't seem to find out in any of my searches how that word is pronounced. Just wondering if that info could be included, please. Or, would you happen to know of any other site where the pronunciation is given?

Many thanks! ~ Coleyna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coleyna (talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

A non-IPA representation might be written as "JEZ-you-izm". Wictionary's entry lacks a pronunciation, and the word isn't in my (paper) copy of the OED. Anyone? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.79.194 (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If "Jesuism" refers to the "Jesuits", the corresponding pronunciation should be "JEZ-oo-ism". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

... but it doesn't. That would be Jesuitism, pronounced /ˈdʒɛzjuːɪˌtɪz(ə)m/ according to the OED. Dbfirs 15:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

So "Jeez-u-ism" after the pronunciation of Jesus? That doesn't sound right to me. DTLHS (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that this is a word that could be eligible for Trisyllabic laxing, so it would not be surprising if the first syllable were /dʒɛz/. However, there are exceptions to that rule, so it could also be /dʒi:z/, or both pronunciations may exist in free variation.

In the UK, "JEZ-you-izm" is normal, but given the American tendancy for yod dropping, "JEZ-oo-ism" might be acceptable over there. Alansplodge (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

But very unlikely to be "JEEZ-you-ism". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I've never heard of that one. Alansplodge (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Further, I don't think there's any English word that contains the letter "e", located between two consonants, and pronounced "ee" followed by the second consonant followed by "you". Check: "nephew", pronounced "nef-you", never "neef-you". I will be surprised to come across any exception to that rule (of thumb). HOTmag (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

June 20

"Spare oneself sth"

Hello, would you say "You could have spared [or saved?] yourself that!" or rather "You could have spared that yourself!"? Best--Erdic (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

In the sense that you need not have put yourself through some difficulty, you would say "You could have spared yourself that." The other phrase is perfectly correct grammar - but means something quite different: you have something that you don't need and could have done without it when it was needed, but chose to hang on to it rather than letting it be used. Wymspen (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Wymspen! But wouldn't you then rather leave out "yourself" for the second meaning?--Erdic (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes; in that context yourself more likely means ‘you rather than (or as well as) someone else’, rather than a reflexive sense. —Tamfang (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You could leave out the "yourself" in the second example - but it perhaps serves to emphasise the selfishness. It seems to imply not just that you could have provided what was required, but that you required someone else to provide it even though you could have done it yourself. I accept that the distinctions are rather subtle - as a well educated Englishman I accept that I may read things into a text that not everyone would spot, or even intend in writing it. Wymspen (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your clarification! Kind regards--Erdic (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Erdic, when a ditransitive verb is followed by two arguments without a preposition, the first is the indirect argument (recipient, or beneficiary) and the second the object; so "spare that yourself" cannot have the required meaning, as Wymspen says, Usually there is an alternative form with a preposition and the arguments reversed ("give me the book" = "give the book to me"), but ditransitive "spare" doesn't have this alternative: there is no *"spare that to/from/for yourself" --ColinFine (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, too!--Erdic (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

June 21

Translation from German needed

Hello everybody! Since I am admittedly a bit stuck here with my recent investigation, I would like to give it a try and ask you for a nice translation of the sentence "lass dich von seinem Gerede auf keinen Fall zu irgendeinem Unsinn hinreißen!". I marked the parts that matter to me most. Hoping for your kind support,--Erdic (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

PS: Please feel free to also correct my enquiry as such if you find any mistakes. Thanks a lot in advance!--Erdic (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a native speaker, so someone may correct me, but a translation would be something like "Don't under any circumstances let his gossip draw you into doing something stupid". --Xuxl (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Native speaker: The above suggestion is perfectly valid. My version would be: 'Don´t let yourself (or: don´t allow yourself to) be tricked into some nonsense by his verbiage. Depending on the context there may be better alternatives. Clearly, this is direct speech in a fairly colloquial mode where vocabulary & semantics are both subjective and fuzzy. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Xuxl and Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM: Many thanks for your answers! In the meantime, I found these suggestions. Would you say all of them are idiomatic, too?--Erdic (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

German–American-English online dictionary?

Hello, I have a somewhat fundamental question: Is there any German–American-English [online] dictionary on the market? What do professional American translators use? I'm asking here because up to now, I couldn't manage to find anything of that kind yet. Best--Erdic (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

American translators use specialist dictionaries almost exclusively. Which ones depends on your specialty; medical, aerospace, chemical, legal, financial, business, petroleum exploitation, mechanical engineering, and so on. I have always used print dictionaries, and occasionally research some difficult words online. I don't know of any good online technical dictionaries. The only ones I find online are small technical vocabularies. —Stephen (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You could try an online forum, for example this one: [7]. 94.195.147.35 (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Try the Collins German Dictionary online. It has both US and UK English definitions indicated. (e.g. "tap" EN>DE). I use the Collins German Concise Dictionary dico, 3rd Edition (treeware), for independent study as it provides much idiomatic context. There are a number of online DE dicos. Our Austrian interns like dict.cc which is crowdsourced. I prefer leo online, especially for its usage forum. As for the AE vs BE aspect - if you aren't entirely fluent in one or the other version of English, just check the suggested translation in your preferred English-language dictionary. I (= professional Hebrew>English translator) use Merriam-Webster's online for my native US English. For British I used to use a CD version of MS Encarta's dico that came bundled with the treeware World English Dictionary, otherwise I don't know what online options are available. Hope this helps. -- 15:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown: Very interesting, thanks a lot for this insight! I really wouldn't have thought that, but that may indeed explain the lack I revealed here. Best--Erdic (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Deborahjay: Thank you very much for your kind response! Of course, I already knew all of the dictionaries you mentioned since I've been in search of the issue in question for quite some time now. What I for my part can highly recommend besides Collins, which I also use frequently, is PONS online, since they have a very professional editorial staff with native speakers and they do quite a good job with a very comprehensive and differentiated dictionary that considers also very specific varieties (f. i. Australian or South African English) apart from BE and AE. However, it is still a German and not an American product... And then there's also Langenscheidt, the most and longest-established German dictionary for English, also with professional editors, but their translations are occasionally somewhat stiff or unidiomatic if you ask me. Yet this is also a very extensive dictionary – in many cases even more detailed than PONS. dict.cc and leo.org are of course not professional projects, which mainly consist of mostly undifferentiated word lists, and thus, I admittedly have quite some reservations about them. But thank you anyway for your friendly advice! Best wishes--Erdic (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

June 22

V NP = V P NP

Either (A) "The strike lasted two weeks" means the same as "The strike lasted for two weeks" or (B) the difference in meaning is so subtle that I'm not consciously aware of it.

For can't always be used with LAST: "Those shoes should last for till you're 50", for example, is ungrammatical. But most of the time, for seems optional.

It's hard to come up with verb-plus-preposition combinations* where the preposition is similarly unnecessary. FORGET about is one. (When I skimread examples of "forget about" at COCA and mentally remove the "about", the resulting sentences are good and mean the same; similarly, when I skimread COCA's examples of "forget the" and mentally insert "about", the resulting sentences are good and mean the same.)

I can't think of any reason why anyone would compile a list of verb plus preposition sequences in which the preposition is, usually, entirely optional. So there probably is no such list. But does anyone here know of one, or can anyone think of a way in which I could generate such a list without laborious introspection?

* Such a description of course doesn't reflect the structure (PP versus simple NP), but I'm trying to avoid technicalities that aren't needed here. More.coffy (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's fairly common with certain time expressions: "I did it Tuesday" vs. "I did it on Tuesday".

"Forget" (transitive) and "forget about" do not always mean exactly the same thing. "I forgot the coffee" has a fairly strong implication that you forgot to bring the coffee with you, while "I forgot about the coffee" doesn't. AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

One thing which puzzles me is that when Americans say "through Thursday" they mean "up to" and possibly "including Thursday" while the British use this expression to mean "during the course of Thursday". They would say "through to Thursday" to express the first idea. So why do Americans omit the preposition, and how would they translate the British expression "through Thursday" into American English? 94.195.147.35 (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't recognise this as a British expression. Do you have an example? Henry^Flower 15:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the ideas, AnonMoos. But I think my idiolect differs a little from yours. Arriving back from shopping: "Here you are: bacon, coriander, avocados, beer, pineapple juice, soy milk." / "Ah good. But the coffee?" / "Damn, I forgot (about) the coffee." Either would sound perfectly idiomatic to me. However, I do detect differences elsewhere. Wondering whether to make a return visit to a particular restaurant: "The meal was superb, remember? The antipasti, the risotto.... Even the house wine was excellent." / "Well, yes, but what they called 'espresso' was pretty awful." / "Ah yes, I'd forgotten (about) the coffee." Here, omission of "about" might sound slightly strange to me. More.coffy (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I've heard 'should last for till' but it does sound clunky and unnecessary. Dmcq (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither "last for till" nor "lasted for till" appears in COCA. Merely a performance error, perhaps? More.coffy (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Or just speech compared to writing, for instance how often do people use 'till' in writing compared to 'until'? Dmcq (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Reference: see this book, found on google scholar, for a detailed discussion. Don't know if a single-sourced article is permissible, but this might be a good starting point for an article on optional prepositions. Some of the factors in play are cognitive complexity, tense, rhythm, and the involvement of time expressions or causality. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to say that "forget about" something means "to forget the existence or relevance of something", whereas "forget" something means either to forget to bring something, or to forget the details of something. Compare for example "I forgot my password" vs. "I forgot about my password". Iapetus (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your pointer to Google Books, Mr/Ms Not-logged-in. Unfortunately Google Books won't serve this up to me, but maybe I can find a PDF somewhere. More.coffy (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that your suggested difference is too simple, Iapetus. However, I can't immediately come up with anything better, and your example is very good: certainly the version with "about" would sound very odd to me. More.coffy (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Couple more examples in Zero-marking_in_English#Zero_prepositions.70.67.222.124 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The "about" version could make sense if for example I told someone to use my computer for some purpose, but had forgotten that they would have needed a password to do so. Iapetus (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you ... but Wikipedia's treatment of "zero prepositions" is horrible! It starts

In Northern Britain some speakers omit the prepositions to or of in sentences with two objects.

"So, she won't give us it." (She won't give it to us.)

There are so many confusions (or misunderstandings) within this. More.coffy (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't have much to do with "omitting prepositions". "Give me the coffee" and "Give the coffee to me" are variants in English, and these dialects extend the first construction to cases when the direct object is pronominal... AnonMoos (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I can think of the example of opening times. A Briton would say "9 to 5, Monday to Friday". An American would say "9 through 5, Monday to Friday. In some cases (as discussed above) prepositions are added unnecessarily. The station announcer yesterday morning said "The London, King's Cross train is now arriving into platform 2". The normal phrase is "arriving at", with "arriving on" also heard. This may be the same announcer who recently informed passengers "Your next King's Cross train will arrive at and depart from platform 2". Superfluous speech was the subject of a recent question:

Gilding the lily

What is the origin of this phrase? On 3 January 2015 an unnamed Daily Telegraph journalist wrote:

"Unfortunately this year the almost-full waxing gibbous moon will obscure the display".

Are there any other examples of a writer repeating three times something which was perfectly obvious the first time (the word "gibbous" is superfluous here). 81.151.128.189 (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

If the question is about "gilding the lily", it's a misquotation from Shakespeare's King John, act iv, scene 2: "Therefore, to be possess'd with double pomp,/To guard a title that was rich before,/To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,/To throw a perfume on the violet,/To smooth the ice, or add another hue/Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light/To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish,/Is wasteful and ridiculous excess." I'm sure that there are published triply redundant phrases, and why not? Redundancy is no sin, despite the imprecations of generations of Thistlebottoms. Though I agree the particular example of pleonasm you cite is singularly ungraceful... -Nunh-huh 07:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Turning stops into fricatives

When we correspond stops with fricatives, we usually go with p=f, t=th, and k=German ch. We even sometimes go with s=sh even though they are both fricatives. Naturally, however, the corresponding sounds are p=wh, t=s, and k=h in huge (a voiceless y.) If you don't believe me, try making a stop sound and try to hold it for as long as you can and then if it turns into something different, find what it turns into. Is there any reason the first 2 sentences in this paragraph are true despite the naturalness of the third sentence?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you talking about finding which stops are made at the same places of articulation as various fricatives? What are "corresponding sounds"? In which of its various and nebulous senses are you using the word "naturally"? More.coffy (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The first 2 sentences talk about how fricatives developed from other stops (and one fricative that's not the same as the fricative that developed from it) in the languages that formed fricatives. To understand the third sentence, try making a p, t, or k sound and hold it for a few seconds and guess what different sound it turns into. A p will turn to the wh sound in white. A t will turn into an s. A k will turn into the sound of the h in huge, which is a voiceless y. Try it if you don't believe me. Georgia guy (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Georgia_guy -- First off, a change from a stop to a fricative at or near the corresponding place of articulation is usually called "spirantization". Second, it would be nice if you would use some system of phonetic transcription. IPA or Americanist phonetic notation or whatever, I don't care, but ordinary unmodified English orthography simply doesn't work for this particular discussion. Third, the fricative with the same place of articulation as [p] is [ɸ], not [ʍ]. The [ʍ] sound is an approximant, not a fricative. Fourth, a change from [s] to [ʃ] is usually called a "palatalization", most definitely not a "spirantization". Your "22:37" comments are quite strange, but if they have any point, it's that slightly different points of articulation are often preferred for stops and fricatives. So, for example, bilabial [p] is preferred among the stops, while among the fricatives labiodental [f] is more often found than bilabial [ɸ]. A change of spirantization affecting a [p] sound will often end up with [f] as the result for this reason... AnonMoos (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

June 23

"sports fielded"?

Considering e. g. the article Big Ten Conference, what exactly does the term "sports fielded" in the infobox refer to? I have to admit that I'm German and that I couldn't really find an appropriate translation. Best--Curc (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

How many different sports you can play there, by the looks of it. So both men and women can play 28 different sports. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

If you look in the section "Sports" you'll see the list. Note that not all sports are played by both men and women. Some are just men, some are just women. But it adds up to 28; 14 by men, 14 by women. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

One meaning of the verb "to field" is to put a team together to take part in a sport - so you can say that a football team fields several youth teams as well as their main team. In this context it indicates how many different sports are played, for each of which at least one team can be fielded. Wymspen (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! So, the expression appears a bit tricky in this context, doesn't it?--Curc (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I have to say that this usage of "field" is unfamiliar to me: I'd say an organization may "field" one or more teams, but not one or more sports. Later in the article it uses the word "sponsored" instead. I think the infobox should be changed to say something like "Number of sports". In addition, the usage of "sport" is problematic, or else the numbers given are wrong. Men's basketball and women's basketball would be one sport, not two. Likewise men's lacrosse and women's lacrosse, and so on. Based on the tables in the article, it appears to me that it should say 18 sports (4 men-only, 4 women-only, 10 both sexes). If 14 men's + 14 women's = 28 is wanted, then "sports" is the wrong word for the label. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A better word than fielded in this case would be 'sponsored' perhaps. But there's no inherent problem with treating the men's and women's sports as distinct, since they do not compete together.--Jayron32 02:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course they are distinct competitions; what they are not is distinct sports, as the label claims. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to write to the Big Ten itself and complain about their own terminology.[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a reference. Really I think what's going on is that they're using the wrong word because there isn't a right word with that meaning, but I'll quit on this. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A much better word, if I've got the context right, would be "hosted". Sports hosted: 28. Akld guy (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

June 24

Equivalent for German adverbial ordinal numbers

Here is another issue I've been puzzling about for quite a while now: Is there an English equivalent form for ordinal numbers used in an adverbial way like in German, e. g. when we write: "1. bin ich müde. 2. habe ich kein Geld mehr und 3. will ich nach Hause" (= "Firstly, I'm tired. Secondly, I don't have any money left and thridly, I want to go home") — though I must say, that this notation is informal, of course! So, do you use numbers this way in English, too?--Curc (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, in English one can write "I don't want to go there because (1) I'm tired, (2) I don't have any money left, and (3) I want to go home", but I think that when reading that aloud, most English speakers would read the numerals as cardinal numbers rather than ordinals. Deor (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

... and the more formal version (firstly ... secondly ...) is normally written in words, not using numerals. I've never seen "1ly" or "2ly" as abbreviations. Dbfirs 19:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Still another version drops the -ly, as in "First, I'm tired. Second, I don't have...". This also is written in words, not 1st, 2nd, etc. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup! ;-) Now, you have in fact solved a real mystery for me, since I couldn't find anything suitable on the web. So thanks once again and have a nice Sunday. Best--Curc (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Or you can use letters of the alphabet: "A, I'm tired. B, I don't have....". Humorously, comedians are known to mix them up: "A, I'm tired, and 2, I don't have...." —Stephen (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

A peculiarity of German (and possibly other Germanic languages):

1. ...

2. ...

3. ...

usw

Translates as "first ... second ... third ... etc. (i.e. though they look like cardinals they are actually ordinals). 94.195.147.35 (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

A Navy report...

In this US Navy article, you will find the following statement: "Missions of the HST CSG focus heavily on maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts, which help establish conditions for regional stability." — Question: Wouldn't "theater" normally have to be placed after "security cooperation", since it signifies a place where security cooperations are performed? Admittedly, I find this construction somewhat strange, but I might be mistaken. What do the native speakers say?--Curc (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• No, it should be exactly as it is, "theater security cooperation" refers to security cooperation in a military "theater of operations", whereas "security cooperation theater" would make no sense at all (at least not in this context). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Then I must have misunderstood something.--Curc (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

antonym of "cogent"

what are the 'antonym(s)' of "cogent"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.25.115 (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@68.151.25.115: Incoherent, unconvincing, invalid. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is the name form kept while the meaning is not translated?

I observe that, in Jewish and Native American and Chinese cultures, people give meaningful names to their children in their own language. Jewish families may give their children Hebrew names; Chinese families give their kids Chinese names; and Native American families give their kids names from specific American Indian tribes. Also, Chinese names are not derived from a standard set of names. They are just made up on the spot in the Chinese language. Though, some logograms tend to be more popular than others, so it is possible to find different individuals with the same given name. But the logogram itself is not recognized as a name. Why do some cultures borrow names from other languages in other cultures, while other cultures create meaningful names in their own language? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• English-speaking families also sometimes invent new more or less meaningful names for their children, but there's less need for a unique given name in "Western" cultures since the number of different surnames is infinitely larger than among Han Chinese (see Chinese surname), where the three most common surnames are used by almost a quarter of the total population (and the 100 most common surnames are used by 85% of the total population), and a large number of given names, and preferably a unique one, thus are needed to be able to tell people apart. And the reason why given names used in "Western" cultures often are of "foreign origin", i.e. in a different language, is very simple, most names in common use are from the Bible. There are some exceptions, though, because many names used in Scandinavia are of Scandinavian origin ( such as "Ulf", meaning wolf, and "Björn", meaning bear). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the number of created surnames will lead people to choose unique given names. According to this [YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p-Jdjo7sSQ&t=6s], the Chinese used to have 12,000 recorded surnames, but 3,100 is currently in use, including the most popular ones. The fact is, when two people marry, one person will pass down the surname to the offspring. In many families, this means the father's family name, as the children are part of the father's family. I am aware that the Chinese has a belief that it is very bad practice to name someone after someone else, because it is a sign of disrespect of the ancestor or historical famous person. Also, the Chinese today may have a formal Chinese name, a Chinese nickname which is used most often by family and friends, and an English name (for doing business). They still make up a name in their own language, though. But the name composition (the individual logograms) is not recognized as one recognized name. In any case, that's not my question. My question is, why English speakers don't name their kids based on English words as a normal cultural practice, not an exception? Maybe someone names their kid, "Pure", instead of "Catherine", which means "pure". 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Most given names used in "Western" cultures are, as I pointed out in my reply above, originally from the Bible, and are not seen as foreign in the countries where they are used, since they have been in common use in Western Europe for almost two thousand years by now (they also differ depending on language, for example Petrus/Pedro/Pierre/Peter, Paulus/Pablo/Paul, Andreas/Andrés/André/Andrew/Anders, Laurentius/Laurence/Lawrence/Lars, so there's a greater variety than many people who are not familiar with European names might think..). As for Chinese surnames I suggest you read the article I linked to, having 3,100 surnames currently in use says nothing about how frequent they are, as can be seen from the statistics I quoted, three surnames account for almost 25% of all Han Chinese, and 100 surnames account for 87% of all Han Chinese (in Mainland China and Taiwan), leaving 15% for the other 3,000 surnames. Compared to in England where the three most common surnames together account for a measly 2.6% of the population, and the 20 most common surnames together account for less than 8% of the population (see List of most common surnames in Europe). Almost all "Western" people also have more than one given name, making it even easier to tell people apart (John A. Doe, John B. Doe, John C. Doe etc...), and nicknames used by family and friends are very common, with all probability at least as common as among Chinese. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 00:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

But Peter is still a derived name. It does not have a meaning in English. It is an Anglicized form or variant of a Biblical Hebrew name, and this name is circulated around in the population. Jewish families and Chinese families often give their children names in their own language - Hebrew or Chinese. My original question was about the form of the name being passed down or transliterated, but not the meaning (translated). 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Peter is not "an Anglicized form or variant of a Biblical Hebrew name", but rather derives from a Greek origin having nothing to do with Hebrew. 185.27.105.184 (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• After looking at your contributions and finding that all you ever do here on Wikipedia is asking questions at the "Reference desk", questions that in many cases are at least borderline trolling, I have decided to not spend more time on you, so if my answer wasn't to your liking I suggest you use "Google" to find more information elsewhere. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 00:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel that way. You have the right to decline answering the inquiry. I feel that I have not expressed myself very clearly, and don't know how to express my actual question very clearly, so I'm just going to let go of this question. Even in real life, I may ask a question, and some people will give an answer. In my head, I would be like, "That's not what I said." Sometimes, I wonder if people really understand my words or if they are answering me based on what they think I'm asking. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Given names necessarily reflect the choice of the parents, so this provides some indication of their attitude toward both ancestry and surrounding culture. For the latter, you can search on the web _popular_given_names_ for a particular country and year - for the USA, the basic data comes from the Social Security Administration website. See also the WP pages List of most popular given names and List of most popular given names by state in the United States. For recent births, consider the impact of global culture. When my Hebrew-named, Israeli-born daughters visit my birthplace, America, where there are few Hebrew-speakers even among Jews, their names are perhaps recognized as feminine for ending in "-ah" but their meanings and significance are wholly inscrutable. Back in Israel, any Hebrew-speaker will identify a given name as biblical or religious vs. sourced in nature, geography, history/literature, trendy, or unique - likewise the practice in recent decades of unisex names or giving typically male names to female children (but not the reverse). -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Your question was not really clear, but I'm sure you meant to ask "When foreign names are converted to English, why is the name form kept while the meaning is not translated?" First, we are generally not interested in the meaning, but in the person's identity. The English approximation of the name is important, not the meaning. Once a foreigner has an official English name, he can then ask his friends to call him whatever he likes ... Mr. Swamp-East Mao perhaps. But Mr. Mao (or Mr. Hair) probably would not like to be called Swamp-East in English.

As for Native American names, their naming conventions are quite different from English names. Native Americans have numerous given names in their lifetime, including one or more secret names that is only shared with their medicine man, but they do not have surnames at all. The Bureau of Indian Affairs forced Native Americans to invent and adopt surnames for the purpose of identity, and since they had no sense of surnames, they made up rather odd names based on relationships (his-grandson, their-child, etc.), or a physical defect (tall-man, big-nose, yellow-woman, and so on), or a vocation (gambler, farrier, silversmith, and so on), but usually in their respective language. Then the BIA prohibited the use of diacritics or anything that would be difficult for a European-American to spell and pronounce, so their names were written in ways that made them hard to identify as meaningful in their native language, such as Begay (Navajo name, more properly wikt:biyeʼ, "his son"). After a couple of generations, the family forgets the meaning (since a name like wikt:Begay is not recognizably Navajo anymore) and just automatically gives their name as Begay. If you ask them what Begay means, they often don't know. By this time, the family is giving their children common English names (although the choices may be different from the names preferred by European-Americans because culture keeps the groups apart). —Stephen (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)