Language desk
< September 17	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 18

Spoken Language Recordings?

Hello...does anyone know of a website or other place that has a list of recordings of languages recorded that are accessible? I'd like to be able to browse through a list of languages and decide I want to hear what a particular one sounds like. Is there any such place? Hires an editor (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind listening to Christian evangelical materials, Global Recordings has samples of hundreds of languages and varieties that can be downloaded. Steewi (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came across a soundboard that had loads of different farmyard/household pet animals on it and country flags. You chose the country and the animal and clicked - it then played you the 'sound' that that language uses to mimic the animal's noise (like in England "oink oink" is a pig noise but in other languages they don't say "oink oink" they say - well whatever). Unfortunately I can't track it down online anywhere - it wouldn't be more than a line at a time but it's a fun little board. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could play around with the different languages at the BBC World Service [1]. DuncanHill (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For English see Wikipedia:Spoken articles. Some Wikinews stories are also spoken. Maybe other language editions of our projects also have spoken versions? NerdyNSK (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

definite article with proper nound

University of Oxford is the name. Can you say the University of Oxford or the Oxford University? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.254.84 (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my Google search for "article proper name", I selected the page titled "Article" at http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/articles.html. Maybe it can help you.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not quite in the same class, but in the U.S. we say "the University of Kansas" but "K.U." (without an article). I've never heard anyone call it "Kansas University." As for your question, I'd say "the University of Oxford" is fine; "the Oxford University" doesn't sound quite right, but that's just my opinion. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are various universities in Australia officially known as "The University of X" that are commonly referred to as "X University" (without any "the"). Those where X = Sydney, Melbourne, New South Wales, Queensland, New England, Adelaide and others, all fall into this category. But where X = Canberra, South Australia, Western Australia and others, they don't generally get this. I have admittedly heard people refer to "Canberra University", but people from Canberra never say this, and it's a good way of identifying newcomers to the city, who may not be aware there are at least 5 unis in Canberra. My experience of international universities suggests there's also a dual approach there. I've never heard anyone refer to the universities of California or Paris as "California University" or "Paris University", but we do hear "London University" and "Prague University". We've all heard about people going to "Oxford" or "Cambridge". In those 2 particular cases, it's generally just the name of the place that's used. When someone says "He studied at Oxford/Cambridge", it's understood to refer not to some other educational institution that happens to be located at Oxford/Cambridge, but specifically to the university there. If the "Oxford/Cambridge University" form is used, it doesn't include the "the". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"California University" is a fictional construct that has been used in a number of TV series and movies to refer to a non-existent school that sounds like the real thing. There is a California State University system which is a different thing altogether. Corvus cornix_talk 20:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ohio State University is very proud of its definite article and uses it at every opportunity. —An gr 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same with The University of Western Ontario, even though everyone calls it "Western". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always called it Oxford University (or just Oxford), following the example of Oxford University Press. I guess I'll have to be more careful. My university definitely has an article, but it's exceptional in having more titles - The Australian National University. Steewi (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even in that case, the "The" is decapitalised in the context of a sentence (except where it's the start of the sentence, of course). It's "I did my Masters at the Australian National University", not "I did my Masters at The Australian National University". The acronym is ANU, not TANU. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Open University is an example of a university which officially and legally uses The, and when used in this style then it is always capitalised even mid-sentence because it is the real name of the university organisation, but in practice or non-legal contexts everyone just says Open University or OU (or "the Open University"), albeit it's probably not a good example as Open is not a place. If in doubt use whichever style preferred by the university. I think the University of Place style is the older more traditional style, while the Place University style is the newer less accurate/desirable usage. Keep in mind that there are many other educational institutions in Oxford, including Oxford Brookes University, which are unrelated to the University of Oxford. Also keep in mind that there is no relation between the name of a publishing house and the name of a university. To my mind, the style University of Place denotes some recognition from the official city or national government or an ancient/old university, and if it is The University of Place then to me it denotes a very good university, while Place University to me probably means a university which is too new or too modern-looking. But these impressions do not necesarily have anything to do with reality. I don't know whether other people have the same mental connections with these name styles. But because I have these mental associations, I find it strange to see a University of Place being named a Place University or a The University being referred as just a mere University as to me it would denote a demotion of status or even some form of POV on part of whoever uses this style. However, I am not so absolute, sometimes even I write or say Place University if I am too boring to type or say the of, without trying to imply a demotion of status in this way. NerdyNSK (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgetting that there's a whole swag of universities that are not named after a place, but after a person - e.g. Harvard University, Macquarie University, Curtin University, Edith Cowan University. These never take "the", and it would be absolutely wrong to say "[the] University of Macquarie" etc. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Esperanto humour story

Does anyone know where I can find a link to this humourous Esperanto story? It's about a magic birch tree by the side of a lake, and there is an action day for it, and the result is a long compound word (magic lake tree action day) which in Esperanto is made up entirely of rhyming words ("magolagofagoagotago" or the like) but I can't seem to find it again. Thanks! Duomillia (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, here it is: [2] not thirty seconds later! Duomillia (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

words that should mean the opposite

Is there a specific term for words that would be antonyms if you looked at their structure but are really synonyms? Such as meliorate / ameliorate, flammable / inflammable, one way mirror / two way mirror. Nadando (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False friends? How odd, I've never even heard of 'meliorate'.Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "amelioriate" would only be expected to have an opposite meaning if it had a Greek prefix attached to a Latin stem -- but it actually has a Latin prefix attached to a Latin stem. Similarly, "inflammable" has a prepositional prefix (not a negative prefix). AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite examples: "to / unto" and "till / until". —An gr 08:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can say something bluntly and pointedly at the same time. —Tamfang (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autantonyms are something like this. I didn't understand Angr's point about 'to/unto' and 'till/until' until I thought about them. --ColinFine (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are words with homographs that are also antonyms (e.g. "fast" can mean moving quickly, or being completely stationary). What we're looking at here is non-homographic word pairs that look like antonyms but are in fact synonyms. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metric language question

In metric countries, how do they generally refer to people's height? For example, if somebody was 5 ft. 10 in., would people give his height as "178 centimeters" or "1.78 meters" or "1.8 meters"? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may well vary from country to country, but here in Finland, I'm used to "1.78 meters". -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, in day-to-day contexts it tends to be "1.78 metres" (that's when it's not "5 ft. 10 in."; the majority of people still can't quite relate to a metric height). But police warnings and Crime Stoppers bulletins etc pretty much always say "178 cm". (In case you were wondering, we do spell it "metre", reserving "meter" for a measuring device.) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jack, mostly. We usually refer to people's height colloquially in feet and inches, but official contexts will use metres. If I'm talking in metres myself, I'll say "one meter seventy-eight" most often, or "one hundred and seventy eight centimetres". Steewi (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Australians still reckon heights in feet, it seems counterproductive for the police to give suspects' heights in centimeters, doesn't it? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is the same. No one ever measures a person's height in metres but you'd see it in something like a police report or some other official document. Everyday use of metric is kind of funny here; height and weight of a person is always pounds and feet, but for anything larger than a person I would only understand metres. I understand if a building is 100 metres high, but I don't know how far 100 feet is. We measure distance in kilometres but I have no idea how long a mile is. For the temperature of a pool I only know Fahrenheit but for the air I only know Celsius. I know litres rather than gallons, but I know cups and teaspoons rather than grams. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ Mwalcoff: Yes, indeed; I've often thought exactly the same thing. But we've been officially metric for over 25 years now, so I guess it's government policy to always use metric, if for no other reason to discourage people from thinking in the old system. TV reports of suspects at large sometimes appear as "1.78 metres (5 feet 10 inches)", but that's happening less and less. I suppose in a generation's time it will no longer be an issue. If we're measuring a block of wood, it would usually be so many metres or the equivalent number of centimetres. But human heights seem to be a different matter (as are the lengths and weights of new-born babies; a baby weighs so many pounds, but an adult weighs so many kilograms). I'm not sure how we'd go when measuring the height of a blockhead. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've had baby measurements in both, sometimes at the same time. When my son was born they gave us both metric and imperial measurements for his length and weight; and the other day the doctor measured his length in inches, but the circumference of his head in centimetres. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up with metric, but similarly, heights of people were in feet and inches, and babies weights in pounds and ounces. This is still fairly common in speech and everyday life, although metric is used on health charts and official documents. I can't visualise a 1.78m person, but perhaps people younger than me can. (I visualise other things in metres though.) Imperial terms are still used colloquially: "he stood a few feet away", "penny for your thoughts", "I could hear you for miles", "get plenty of mileage from that idea" (We also talk about a car's mileage too: "What's the mileage?" "Oh, 50,000 K.") But to answer the question: if metric is used, can be expressed either as "1.78 metres", "178 cm" or "one metre seventy eight" Gwinva (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French: Un metre soixante dix-huit. (1 metre 78); Un metre quatrevingt (1 metre 80). --Lgriot (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese: Um metro e setenta e oito (1.78m) . Hús ö nd 01:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In South Korea height is measured in centimeters. 178 is baek-chil-ship-pal. or "hundred-seven-ten-eight." --Kjoonlee 12:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese a person's height is also measured in centimetres. 178cm is 'hyaku-nana-juu-hachi senchimeetoru', 'hundred seven ten eight centimetres.' When talking about taller structures, such as buildings, metres are used, of course (as in Korean), and I believe a person may say 'juu-nana ten hachi-juu' when meaning 17.8m, where the 'ten' means 'point'.--ChokinBako (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Greece most people probably say "one and sixtythree" (ena ki exintatria) to mean "1.63m". "one hundred sixtythree centimetres" (ekatonexintatria ekatosta) is also a possibility, but would probably be expected only be certain people who want to be exact, like doctors or scientists. NerdyNSK (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian: En sekstitre ("one sixty-three") for someone 163 cm tall, to ti ("two ten") for someone 210 cm (not that there are that many of them). Very few people here would be able to visualize what "six feet tall" means. (though I appreciate the metric system and grew up with it I think this is one area where it is too "scientific" - the centimeter is too accurate for measuring a person's height for everyday purposes. The three-centimetre interval provided by Imperial measurement seems much more practical in everyday use. Of course the benefits of using metric is larger overall as conversions between units are easier and so on, so this is mostly an academic point. Oh well.) Jørgen (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In German, [Eins achtundsiebzig] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) ("one seventy-eight") and [Ein Meter achtundsiebzig] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) ("one meter seventy-eight") are the usual constructions. In response to Jørgen: in the U.S., people usually round off their height to the nearest half-inch (1.27 cm) anyway, so the precision comes out about the same as rounding off to the nearest whole centimeter. I share your complaint about the metric system being too scientific for everyday use, but with respect to temperature. When discussing the weather, the Fahrenheit scale provides a very nice range from "too freakin' cold" at 0°F (−18°C) to "too freakin' hot" at 100°F (38°C), with a good average temperature for a fall or spring day right in the middle at 50°F (10°C). The Celsius scale seems arbitrary in comparison. —An gr 11:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]