Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

April 5

French translation

Could someone translate this for me? It is in French. Google translate makes no sense.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Paa a Teuruarii était de la lignée royale de Huahine. Roonuiariiatua a Terearii I" Teramana l'adopta lorsqu'il était enfant. Tera- mana Teuruarii I" l'éleva comme son fils et le mit sous le nom de Teuruarii III sur le trône de Rurutu. Paa Teuruarii III avait pour femme Tenapapua qui lui donna un fils, Epatiana a Teuruarii, qui fut le dernier roi de Rurutu. Puis l'île passa sous administration française, et la république remplaça le roi. Une autre tradition donne une liste légèrement différente : la voici. On notera quelle est de deux générations plus courte. Il y manque le n" 1 (Taneuri) et le n° 7 (Teuirataaroa). D'autres noms sont épe- lés différemment et il ya des inversions. 1 . Taneaura 1 1 . Matairuatea 2. Taneanea 12. Taaitini 3."

Here goes, but it would be nice to know the source (was it from metropolitan France, or Pacific possession with her own patois or creole?) Excuse curly quotes, just trying to distinguish source and object. A couple of Google translate's difficulties will have come from line breaks with a hyphen:

“

Paa a Teuruarii was from the royal line of Huahine. Roonuiariiatua a Terearii I Teramana adopted him while he was an infant. Teramana Teuruarii I raised him like a son and placed him, under the name of Teuruarii III upon the throne of Rurutu. Paa Teuruarii III had for a wife Tenapapua who gave him a son, Epatiana a Teuruarii, who was the last king of Rurutu. Then the island passed under French administration, and the [French] Republic replaced the king. Another tradition gives a slightly different list: here it is. Note that it is two generations shorter. It omits No. 1 (Taneuri) and No. 7 (Teuirataaroa). Other names are spelled differently and there are reversals of order.

”

The last part is hard to figure out without looking at the source page ( 1 . Taneaura 1 1 . Matairuatea 2. Taneanea 12. Taaitini 3. ) —— Shakescene (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also this link from the French stub about Rurutu: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Fr_Polynesia.html#Rurutu (a very partial genealogy in English). —— Shakescene (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jzn. (Dutch abbreviation)

I've seen several Dutch names with "Jzn." appended (typically at the end). The WP article Anthonie Cornelis Oudemans says: "He often used the informal patronymic "Jzn" (for Janzoon) in his publications." What the heck is an "informal patronymic" and why does this one turn up so frequently? And is that really what's going on here? -- Elphion (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of Dutch, but in this case he was named the same as his grandfather, so "Jan's son" tells you he's his father's son rather than his grandfather. Like "Jr" when s.o. has the same name as his father. Common prob'ly cuz Jean/John/Jan (also Jacob, Joseph, etc.) is a common name. "Informal" because it's not actually his name: His legal name was identical to his grandfather's.

If you check out this page, you'll see other such abbreviations, and the bio links tell you who their fathers were: Azn (zoon van Abraham), Bzn (Bernardus), Czn (Cornelis), Fzn (Frederik), Hzn (Hendrikus), Jzn (Jacob), Pzn (Petrus), Wzn (Jan Willem), even Th.Azn (zoon van Thomas Anthony). I don't know if they were all named after their grandfathers – is that a common custom in the Netherlands? — kwami (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See "patronymic" for the meaning of the term. The patronymic used by Oudemans was probably "informal" in the sense that he was not officially named Janzoon by his parents. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies, and the reference to Patronymic, which I would not have thought to check. One can, of course, throw "informal" and "patronymic" at each other and cobble together a hunch about what might be going on. The Dutch section of Patronymic explains that patronymics were the common naming custom until fairly recently in Holland, but what's missing is any indication that the old custom survived as a widespread informal usage (to the extent that it appears even in formal settings) or what purpose it serves. Are the filial bonds in the Netherlands just stronger than elsewhere, or, e.g., are these perhaps used to distinguish people with otherwise similar names? And are they still used today? -- Elphion (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: being named after one's grandparent is indeed a custom in the Netherlands (although not as common as it was), I myself am also named after my grandfather. However, the use of Janszoon etc. is independent from this. Before the use of surnames, this was the common (and official) way of identifying someone. The usage decreased after Napoleon made the use of surnames obligatory, but remained somewhat prevalent in the 19th century. It gradually decreased and was not used much in the 20th century. It is now obsolete. Kwamikagami's description of 'informal patronymic' is correct. However, I happen to have two uncles with the same name, and when necessary, they are distinguished using the name of either their wife or father. Sometimes the patronymic is jokingly used here. -- Lindert (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tequila effect

Hello. I want to know an etymology of expression "efecto tequila" or "tequila effect". From spanish forum I found out that it's not a traditional spanish idiom, so may be you can help me. Besides I will need a source of the explanation.--Yourist2 (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tequila Effect is used to describe the domino effect that triggered economic crises in Brazil, Argentina, and other neighbouring regions in Latin America in 1994. Leading up to the economic crisis which triggered the Tequila Effect was President Carlos Salinas de Gortari’s administration. His government was corrupt, with members of government receiving bribes and appropriating government funds for personal wealth. I guess it was called 'Tequila' as reference to Mexico.See here. Richard Avery (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right, you want specifically the etymology. I am not sure a clear etymology will appear on any site. But my opinion is that 'Tequila' refers to Mexico (assumed national drink) in the same way that someone might (slightly) humourously refer to the 'Vodka effect' if it had happened in Russia or the 'Scotch effect' if it had happened in Scotland. Newspapers, magazines, they always want a catchy headline, a cute catchy name. Richard Avery (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I heard it is called so because one drink drags another. But unfortunately I can't find source, that can proove it.--Yourist2 (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that suggestion on the Spanish discussion. I understand the term (Tequila Effect) was first coined by an American magazine or paper so it is perhaps unlikely they would have used a reference to a (not very common) Spanish saying. Richard Avery (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heads of Agreement

I just asked this on the article's talk page, but no-one has posted there for four years, so maybe here....

Why is a Heads of Agreement called a Heads of Agreement? The words don't seem to relate to the meaning much at all. HiLo48 (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found a cite explaining exactly why they call it that, but the sense I get is that it's analogous what we might call a "heads up". It's a non-binding understanding between two parties of their broad intentions in regard to a certain matter. It's early advice about where they're heading. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always assumed that "heads" here means "document headings" or "document outline" i.e. it is a list of items on which the two parties aim to reach an agreement, although the full details of the agreement are not yet known. So "heads of agreement" = "agreement headings". Gandalf61 (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think the relevant sense of head is that which is recorded as sense 27 in the OED (2nd ed.): "One of the chief points of a discourse; the section of it pertaining to any such point; hence, a point, topic; a main division, section, chapter of a writing; a division of a subject, class, category"—the point being that the document sets forth the general topics or points that will form the basis of the specific details included in the final agreement. Deor (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, I suspect that's getting closer to the core meaning. It's a use of the word head I don't think I've come across before though. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

Pinyin "iong"

In the Pinyin article, "iong" is placed under the "Finals beginning with ü" section, but is analysed as i + ong (which seems more logical). Why is this so? I have never heard it pronounced with [y].

Also, why is "ong" always analysed as "ueng" and given to be pronounced as [ʊŋ]? To me, it sounds more similar to [ɔŋ]. Double sharp (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first issue you identify looks to me like an error, though I don't have the expertise to fix it properly. As for your second question, I agree that this vowel, pronounced by native speakers, is not exactly [ʊ]. However, it is also certainly not [ɔ], even though it is spelled with 'o' in Pinyin. I think that it is a near-back vowel like [ʊ], but a bit more open than [ʊ]. The vowel is more central and closer than [ɔ]. I cannot find a symbol in the International Phonetic Alphabet vowel diagram for the appropriate position in the diagram. I think [ʊ] is an approximation for a sound that apparently lacks a standard IPA symbol. Marco polo (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not [ɔ]. If you pronounce a word like, say, xiong, with a real [ɔ] (the sound in "caught", at least if you're from the eastern United States), you get something that sounds very rednecky and not Chinese. I don't think there is an [ɔ] in Chinese except maybe in the interjection 哦. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's definitely not [ɔ]. But it really doesn't sound like [ʊ] at all, and anyway I said "more similar". I agree with Marco polo. (About "iong" being placed with the finals beginning with ü, this may be inherited from zhuyin, where "iong" is written as "ㄩㄥ" (üeng).) Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a matter of phonological analysis. Chinese is tricky in this regard, because there isn't much morphology to shift sounds around and see which is an allophone of which. So claims tend to be based on what makes the analysis simple or beautiful, rather than on any direct evidence. I'm not convinced a phonemic analysis (whether /üəŋ/ or /ioŋ/) is terribly insightful in such situations. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

Agreeance

Is agreeance a word and if so where is it used and how does its meaning differ from agreement? 112.215.36.178 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be you misheard "a grievance" ? Of course, lawyers, politicians, and businessmen seem to like to use overly complex language to confuse people, so it wouldn't surprise me if they invented this, too. StuRat (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a fair few Google book hits for "agreeance". There seems to be some suggestion that it is actually an old form, and, indeed, some of the book hits are from the 19th century. [1] calls it "now rare". 86.160.85.108 (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers in particular like to use obsolete words, or even a dead language (Latin). StuRat (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[OP] Just to clarify, I googled this before I came here to ask the question. It seems that although some dictionaries don't list the word and it is sometimes listed as a common mistake in grammar guides, it is listed as an obsolete word in the OED and it is common in some areas. I'm from Queensland in Australia and although I would never use the word myself, I hear people from other states say it all of the time. In some of the forums that I found throug google searches I found people from various places strenously rejecting the word and others conversely bemoaning the grammatical elitism of not accepting it. I'm interested to know who has heard it used, whether they think it sounds correct and where it is used. There was also some suggestion that the meaning is different from agreement in that it refers to an unwritten pact more than a formal contract. 112.215.36.178 (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying an "agreement" is always a formal pact ? That's not how I use it. StuRat (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how I use it either, but this was suggested by some other Australian English speakers. I think that assertion is absurd on its face given the existence of phrases like a gentlemen's agreement. 112.215.36.178 (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am in total agreement with that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The specific instance that prompted me to think of it today was actually not an Australian English speaker at all though. My wife was watching the US American show Dancing with the Stars and one of the judges said "I'm in agreeance with everyone else up here". Hearing that made me wonder if it is widely used outside of some parts of Australia. 112.215.36.178 (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am from the UK, and to me it sounds ungainly at best. If I heard it used I would probably think it was a mistake, or some sort of misguided attempt at a fancy word, rather than a legitimate use of a "now rare" form. Of course, I could be wrong. 86.160.85.108 (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard it (in the UK) either. A quick Google reveals that someone called Fred Durst of a popular musical ensemble called Limp Bizkit, created a rumpus by using "agreeance" publicly at the 2008 Grammy Awards. This prompted "the North American editor of the Oxford English Dictionary" to spring to his defence.[2]. Alansplodge (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an example of linguistic change. Whether or not "agreeance" has a legitimate history of existence in the language, if a lot of people are using it now, we might as well consider it to have (re-)entered the language. If the trend stays stable or grows, you can bet it will eventually make it into all of the dictionaries. All words started with someone either making them up or taking them from another language. Evzob (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the "making them up" bit is not always a conscious act of creativity; far from it. Usually it's simply an error, made by someone who assumed such a word already existed. In their way, the lower education standards and the increased levels of community ignorance we see all around us (despite the instant availability of almost all information) have given people unwitting licence to create a whole pile of words that would probably not otherwise have been created. This may be a good thing or a terrible thing, depending on your point of view. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's definitely not always a conscious act of creativity - usually not. But I wouldn't frame it as a result of lower education standards. Compared to the vast majority of history (or even "Modern" history), education standards today are extremely high. It's just that as much as prescriptivists try, you still can't stop language change. Evzob (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of African-American first names

I've just read a news story involving a group of young African-Americans, whose names included DeKendrix, JaMarcus, Latevin, and LaDarius; as far as I'm aware, the use of the De, Ja, La etc. prefixes is a purely African-American phenomenon, and the fondness for 'names of non-western-European origin' also seems particularly common among African-Americans.

Linguistically, are names of this style 'genuinely African' names which have been preserved? This seems unlikely to me, since I've never come across such names in the (southern) parts of Africa where I've lived, or among Black British or Caribbeans. If they are a purely modern phenomenon, how old is it?

(I'd prefer to keep discusison here linguistic; while the social reasons for the phenomenon may be fascinating, I suspect that they would introduce a substantial risk of thread drift). Henry ^Flower 11:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources seem to suggest that this trend is purely African-American, as opposed to a preservation of African culture. The motivation in inventing these names is suggested to be a concious move away from names considered to bring to mind so-called slave names by evoking the African-American culture of the South, and in particular the French heritage of Louisiana and New Orleans - hence the French-sounding 'De' and 'La' prefixes.

This paper on 'Naming and Linguistic Africanisms in African American Culture' by Lupenga Mphande of Ohio State University discusses the subject in section 3.6 (Present trends in cultural reconfiguring). The Wikipedia article African-American culture#Names also touches on it, although the statements made are currently un-cited. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The linked paper argues that the naming pattern identified by Henry Flower is similar in style to African naming practices, implying deep cultural links, not that the names themselves are derived from African names, which names following Henry Flower's pattern generally aren't. The popularity of names on the De-, Ja-, and La- pattern I think is fairly recent, dating back not much further than the 1960s and 1970s. Marco polo (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it farfetched to imagine that the form might be influenced/reinforced by awareness of Bantu noun class prefixes? —Tamfang (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely, though anything is possible. AFAIK, most slave peoples to come to the U.S. were from West Africa (Modern Senegal, Nigeria, Mali, etc.) wheras Bantu is spoken mostly South/East of there. If I am reading the maps at Niger–Congo languages then most U.S. slave peoples would have spoken languages of the Mande languages family. Of course, the naming practice didn't arise until the 1960s or so, long after onewould expect such language usages to have died out in the U.S. --Jayron32 02:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paper Cucumber Mike linked to above does suggest that there is a substantial Bantu linguistic heritage in the US, and specifically that the prefixes are "similar" to Bantu prefixes in carrying gender implications. On the other hand, the main source for this section is a book called "11,001 Names for your African-American Baby". Whether the similarity is coincidence, heritage, or mock-heritage is unclear. Henry ^Flower 05:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All humans have the same grammatical gender in Bantu, unless it's a diminutive or you're indicating that the person is somehow defective, so that's completely off the mark. There were, however, a lot of Congolese taken in the slave trade, so there is Bantu ancestry in the US. (A lot came from the Solomon Islands, too, which you don't hear too much about.) There are a number of African names that have been preserved among the Gullah, but AFAIK there is no connection between that and the recent invention of African-sounding names. And it is invention: people invent new names because they sound beautiful/African, and some of that may occasionally be a modern influence of African names that people have heard, but in general it's purely for aesthetic reasons and people often try for a name no-one has heard before (though, as you've noted, often following set patterns). The results can be quite lovely, though they may stigmatize the person the way "axing" for a job will (though thankfully this is lessening, as the practice becomes more familiar and is even starting to be imitated by whites) and though there are sometimes unfortunate results.[3] — kwami (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami, Solomon Islands talks about the blackbirding that was used to acquire workers for Queensland and Fiji, but says nothing about any slaves taken to the USA. Can you provide more info on this? Thanks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As article Blackbirding states, it started in the 1860s with Peruvians, at a time when the United States was preoccupied with the Civil War, and Union states without slavery (California, Oregon) were on the Pacific coast. It seems quite unlikely that Polynesians or Melanesians mixed with U.S. Blacks to any significant degree in the U.S. in the 19th century (though they may have done so with Peruvian blacks in Peru). AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My choice of words was careful: I'm not suggesting that prefixed names reflect a practice inherited via slave ancestors. I'm suggesting that Americans of West African descent are no exception to general ignorance as to the differences between West Africa and the rest of Africa. (I once studied Swahili; I had the only blue eyes in the room, but I'd wager none of my classmates had any more East African ancestry than I.) I'm suggesting that the vague idea "every noun has a prefix, it's an African thing" could conceivably be on some people's mind when coining baby's name. —Tamfang (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French help: "Unknown control"

Hi! For File:Mali Azawad rebellion fr.svg I would like to know what "unknown control" is (as in we don't know if X rebel group still controls Y). Is it "contrôle inconnue"? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "Sous contrôle inconnu" (contrôle is maculine). On the map "Tuaregs" should read "touaregs" (with an "o" and no capital "T", because it is an adjective.). "Au of 5 avril, 2012" should read "Au 5 avril 2012" ("of" removed, and no comma). Whereas perfectly comprehensible, in my opinion, it is better French to say "Sous contrôle actuel [des rebelles]" and "Précédemment[/Anciennement] sous contrôle [des rebelles]" than "contrôle actuel" and "contrôle ancien". To be shorter we can say "Actuellement contrôlé" and"Précédemment [/Anciennement] contrôlé". — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I'll let the author of the French version know about your suggestions WhisperToMe (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, AldoSyrt, for that detailed and humbling review of what should be changed. I had translated the new title myself, using my very basic French skills - something I won't try again. :-p And there's no excuse for the "of" typo....whoops. Evzob (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Utot' related to 'toot'?

One fairly common word in Tagalog used by Filipinos for the word meaning a fart is 'utot.' Does the etymology of this word trace to the English word 'toot,' meaning the same thing, or is it a coincidence? The pronunciation of both is pretty close (in this poster's ears). 69.243.220.115 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel onomatopoeia strikes me as more likely. —Tamfang (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

Learning Yiddish

I am interested in learning to speak the central (Polish) dialect of Yiddish. Most books for learners focus on "Standard Yiddish," whose pronunciation is based essentially on that of the Lithuanian dialect. In what ways will pronunciation in the central dialect be unpredictable from the standard orthography of the language?

Also, are there any learning materials that give Central Yiddish significant (or exclusive) coverage right from the beginning? They can be in any well-known European language. 96.46.197.161 (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If geolocation is correct: There is a Jewish Community Centre in Huron Street, London, Ontario. One of the staff members may be able to suggest a suitable text book for the relevant Eastern Yiddish dialect. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker of Polish Yiddish, I can assure you that the pronunciation is almost always predictable. In addition, formal written Yiddish is identical in all dialects, though in informal writing or speech there may be different choices of vocabulary. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. It's reassuring to know there's basically only one kind of written Yiddish. Since asking the question, I've looked up some more information about pronunciation. My understanding is that, for example, the vowels in the pairs zok/tu:g, betn/beytn, boym/ho:t and git/bi:kh differ in Polish Yiddish but would actually be pronounced identically (as zok/tog, betn/betn, boym/hoyt, gut/bukh) in standard Yiddish. Do you pronounce them the same way or differently? And are the vowels in these pairs spelled differently? 96.46.197.161 (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gut and Bukh have the same vowel spelling in Weinreich's dictionary (vav without any diacritics: גוט בוך)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't have access to a paper dictionary. Does Weinreich's dictionary indicate the Polish pronunciation of words in some way? If not, do you know of one that does?

Returning to the matter of spelling, this online dictionary spells the words as: זאָק (zok), טאָג (tog/tu:g), בעט (bet), בעטן (betn/beytn), בוים (boym), הויט (hoyt/ho:t), גוט (gut/git), בוך (bukh/bi:kh). At first glance, it would appear difficult to tell which Polish vowel is represented by the vowel letters in these cases. 96.46.197.161 (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English in Bollywood

Resolved

I've seen two recent Indian movies (Dasvidaniya and Om Shanti Om) in which almost a third of the dialogue is in English; I did not detect a pattern in the choice of language for a given sentence. Is this an affectation of show biz, or an accurate portrayal of some stratum of life there?

A couple of times in the latter movie, I heard "Such?" meaning "Is it really true?". Is that the English word such (the semantic drift is not shocking) or a Hindi word that happens to resemble it? —Tamfang (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by looking at Indian English. Alansplodge (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't answer either question, thanks. —Tamfang (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamfang is right. The article could have made a mention of code-switching, but it's not there. It doesn't even have a reference to Hinglish which is what Tamfang might be looking for. sach is a Hindi word pronounced as "such". It is a derivative of the Sanskrit satya (truth). Jay (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks twice! —Tamfang (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered Indians who, in conversation with family members or close friends, switch between English and some Indian language seemingly at random. 86.181.173.112 (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Tamfang (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's called code-switching; happens in many polygot communities. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the word, and heard bilingual conversations often enough when I lived in a polyglot city, but such switching as I've witnessed in person usually seemed to be governed by subject-matter (the speaker might lack domain vocabulary in one language). —Tamfang (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English is often used in Bollywood movies to make a point. There are certain characters that tend to get more English lines than others, to denote social/economic status or faked social/economic status. Usage of English often gets a sarcastic overtone. The usage of English in movies is not exactly the same as in real life, but often a parody of the code-switching of upper class Indians and/or the young and hip. --Soman (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Tamfang (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

Massacre

Is "massa-cree" a common pronunciation of "massacre" in the United States? 87.113.94.245 (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it, and I can't find it any American dictionaries. If I did hear it, I'd probably think the person pronouncing it that way either was joking or had never heard it pronounced and was taking a stab at a spelling pronunciation. Angr (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only place I've heard it is "Alice's Restaurant", where it is clearly meant to be humorous. Marco polo (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have now found it in Webster's Third New International, where it is marked "substandard" (which is pretty strong language for them). So it's not nonexistent, but I don't think one could call it a common pronunciation in the U.S. Angr (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This site has several alleged examples of that usage.[4] It's certainly not commonly used. It's probably used by the folks who pronounce champion as "champeen" - only less so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of vittles, varmints, ornery critters, Yosemite Sam, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Lloyd Bridges in High Noon. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, it makes me think of Walter Brennan. I'm pretty sure that he used the pronunciation in question in some films. And you're right, I seem to recall that that Yosemite Sam (and even Bugs Bunny himself) used it as well. Deor (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Brennan, of course. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese help

Charlie Soong's original name was Han Jiaozhun: 韓教準. The reading of the first character is Hán and the third character is zhǔn. But the second character can be Jiào, jiāo, or jiào - which is it? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also at Soong Ai-ling the children were called Kǒng Ling(?)-something (孔令?) - What is the reading of "ling" while used in a name? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The native Mandarin speaker sitting across the table from me says Han Jiaozhun's 教 is probably pronounced "jiào", and the 令 in Soong Ai-ling's children's names is definitely pronounced "lìng". Note that this is Hanyu Pinyin transcription, not IPA, which would write the pronunciations differently. Evzob (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 10

The role of nouns

Hi, I wondered when I saw some pharses like"company houses" and "Norway islands" what is the role of "norway" and "company. I mean they are not adjective,

And another thing, I have noticed that in some dialogs you are able to speak correctly wihout using the Definiteness "some", when you are speaking about plural and it is not specific thing. Exx8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The term "company houses" is common in my country, Australia, particularly in mining communities, to describe those houses owned by the mining company for use by their own staff. Haven't come across "Norway islands". I don't quite understand your other point. Can you give an example? HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can be called a Noun adjunct or Attributive noun (first element of noun-noun compound). However, "Norway islands" isn't really conventional standard English... AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a confusion over the term "adjective", as either the role a word plays, or as a specific part of speech. Under the first use of the word, 'company' and 'Norway' are "adjectives" because they modify a noun. Under the second use of the word, they are simply nouns, albeit nouns in an attributive role. The word "attributive" is also used for adjectives: in 'the red house', 'red' is an attributive adjective; in 'the house is red', 'red' is a predicative adjective. In 'the company house', 'company' is an attributive noun; in 'the house is company' ... well, you can't say that, which is one of the reasons nouns and adjectives are considered different parts of speech to begin with.

Very often when technical terms don't make sense, it's because they have multiple uses, and people mix up those uses without clarifying which they mean. — kwami (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To tackle your second question: the question is not very clear, but I think you are asking whether "some" is compulsory for indefinite plurals? If that is the question, the answer is no, not usually. If you use a plural (or uncountable) noun without any article or quantifier it tends to be a general statement, about all the things, or the typical one. So "children like ice cream" is a statement about children in general: not absolutely every single child there is, but most children, or a typical child. "Some children like ice cream" is more limited and implies that there is a significant proportion of children who don't like it. --ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He remarried to

I saw this usage "He remarried to Martha ..." in Samuel P. Bush#Early life, and found the use of "to" odd. I would have expected "He remarried Martha ..." or "He was remarried to Martha ..." or a comma before "to". I searched the archives and came across Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 2#Remarrying, which touches upon the subject but doesn't say if it's right or wrong. Is this a old world usage? Jay (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, "He remarried Martha" might imply that this was his second marriage to the same woman, while "He remarried to Martha" makes it clearer that the second wife was probably a different woman than the first wife... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but the 'to' is still jarring, and doesn't sound like English to me. I'd go with either the passive or the comma, as Jay suggested. — kwami (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If "remarried" takes a direct object, it can only be the person he was previously married to (and presumably divorced). This is not rocket science, but the way the English language works. If you're cooking and you reheat a dish, it can only be a dish you previously cooked or heated; it can't be some entirely new dish you haven't touched yet. Same principle with marriages. If it's anybody other than his previous wife he's now marrying, it can't be expressed as "He remarried Mary" because that misleads the reader into believing he was previously married to Mary, when he wasn't.

I agree with your conclusion but not your argument, which is about logic and therefore tells us very little about language. Next you'll be telling us that in order to redouble your effort you must already have doubled it. --ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we never say "He married to Jane", so why would we say "He remarried to Jane"? Now, we do say "He got married to Jane", but we still can't say "He got remarried to Jane" unless he was previously divorced from Jane. Some things simply cannot go together; you cannot merge "He remarried" with "He married Jane" into "He remarried Jane" or "He remarried to Jane". The first fails on the grounds of accuracy (except in the special case where two people who were previously married to each other are remarrying each other), and the second fails on the grounds of being non-English. You have to find some other solution. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~He remarried, to Martha.~~ Nah, that doesn't sound right either. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think "remarried to" is more likely to be genealogists' jargon than "old world usage"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion is fed by the fact that "married" has 2 meanings: (a) being in the state of marriage during a period of time, which could be 50 or more years; and (b) participating in a marriage or wedding ceremony, which occurs on a specific day. In meaning (a), we can say "For 35 years he was married to Isabel". The only way we can use the word "to" in meaning (b) is like "On 8 May 1972 he got married to Isabel". If you don't use "got", you've also got to dispense with the "to": "On 8 May 1972 he married Isabel", which would be more likely the construction used in good writing. So, barring the "got married to" construction, the word "to" is used only with meaning (a), but if you're simply stating that he married for a second (or later) time on a certain date and to a certain person, that's using meaning (b), which doesn't use the word "to". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "He later married Martha". Angr (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A wikipedia search of "remarried to" (within quotes) shows 804 results, of which I'm sure a good portion will be this genealogist usage. Jay (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French R

Does Standard French use the fricative or approximant? They have the same IPA symbol, so I can't tell which it's supposed to be. --108.206.4.199 (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The French "R" is almost always a "trilled R", see Trill consonant, I believe that standard Parisien French uses the Uvular trill, though some varieties (notably Quebec French and the varieties spoken in New England that I grew up hearing) use the Alveolar trill or "rolled R" more commonly associated with Spanish, and others still use the more Germanic sounding "gutteral R". The article French phonology covers this and more, some of these forms are interchangable to the "French ear", i.e. in free variation. Free variation roughly means that exact pronounciation of "R" will change depending on which sounds surround it in speech, and these different forms are recognized by native speakers as the same phoneme. --Jayron32 04:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The uvular trill is considered a bit old-fashioned nowadays in French, it certainly isn't the most common one (and the alveolar trill would be considered a very strong regional marker, either of the south or Canadian). To answer your question: the fricative and the approximant both occur, but I have no idea which one is more common (and those two are hard to tell apart anyway). Have a look at this thread too. By the way, Jayron32's definition for "free variation" seems more like the definition for allophony. Free variation means that you can use either sound in any word, irregardless of the surrounding sounds (i.e. you can pronounce rouge as [ʁuʒ],[ʀuʒ],[ruʒ],[ɾuʒ] etc without it sounding strange). An example of allophony would be that the uvular-r is devoiced in French when it follows a voiceless consonant as in trois [tχwa]. --Terfili (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The devoicing suggests it's a fricative. It's always sounded like a fricative to me, but that doesn't mean much. — kwami (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

captions

how di find archive movies with captions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancigcing (talk • contribs) 04:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular "archive movies" you are looking for ? I'd try a Google search with the title of the movie, the year, and the language you want for your captions. Or you could search particular movie databases, like IMDB or Netflix. Note that captions are far easier to get if you view movies on DVD/Blu-Ray than they are on streaming video. With streaming, you often get no captions or it's set to one language, with no choice, while DVDs often have several choices for captioning. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need help in understanding these sentences.

What the meaning of "up and down" in these sentences? sent.#1.The bicycle uses a neuro-headset, commercially-available, and the headset does not know human ideas of “up” and “down.” sent. #2 A person has to train with the system of his own “up” and “down” thoughts, readable to the bike. What's the meaning of this sentence? "Miller was thinking of a reproducible pattern as he said, “I found the thing that works best for me is: I actually envision arrows, almost.” Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.240.243.100 (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to answer this without seeing the full article. It probably refers to controlling some aspect of the bike's functionality, e.g. speed up or down. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Up" and "down" simply mean "up" and "down", e.g. the concepts. The device in question (neuro-headset) reads your brain but since every person's brainwaves are different when they think of the concepts "up" and "down" the machine will have to be trained to recognize each user's unique brain-pattern. You put on that headset, and intensely imagine "up", and then you tell the headset "whatever it is you are reading right now, that's my way of thinking of 'up'; so next you read the same brainwaves, the intended command is 'up'." This Miller advises people to imagine arrows; it would just as well work with imagining trees, clouds, lizards, or toasters, as long as you teach the machine that "toaster" means "up" and you manage to think of exactly the same toaster next time (>"reproducible pattern"). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhi and Gujarati language similarities

Is there similarities between Sindhi and Gujarati languages like vocabulary or are they completely different because Mohd. Ali Jinnah of Pakistan spoke Gujarati with Gandhi and yet he was Sindhi? I am confused about these two languages. Please help me understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.51 (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(The OP was advised to ask this here, but it has already been answered at the Humanities desk. --ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

April 11

Chinese names for places in North Korea?

Kim Chaek University of Technology gives what appear to me to be Chinese versions of the names of certain places at the university. Is it common for Chinese characters to be used for names of places in North Korea? I understand that Korean was formerly written in Chinese characters, but the university is far newer than the Hangul, so I'm guessing that these aren't old names. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are not Chinese version. They are Korean names written in hanja and the pronunciation of those names is different from Chinese. I don't think the names in hanja are used in North Korea today as NK abandoned the general use of hanja soon after independence. See also Korean mixed script, Sino-Korean vocabulary, and Sino-Xenic. The names in hangul should be needed in the article, but at the same time, the hanja names are correct. Oda Mari (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend -- before the late 19th century, Hangul generally had only somewhat niche uses, and the great majority of writing in Korea was done in Chinese characters. "Seoul" is infamously one of the few significant Korean place names which does not have a traditional Chinese-character counterpart. However, Chinese characters are relegated to a strictly-historical role only in writing the Korean language in North Korea, and they are more decorative than truly functional in current South Korean practices... AnonMoos (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about punctuation (again)

Can someone tell me if the punctuation is correct in the sentence below? I know (—) are supposed to be used for an interrupting train of thought, but I'm not too sure how to handle them when it comes to commas:

This emphasis on Manjusri’s scholarly abilities is not only based on his position as the Bodhisattva of Wisdom—derived from his mention in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra (c. 100 BCE), but his appearance in the Vimalakirti Sutra (c. 100).

Or, should it be...

... Bodhisattva of Wisdom—derived from his mention in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra (c. 100 BCE)—but his appearance in the Vimalakirti Sutra (c. 100).

Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second one. You wouldn't switch from the dash to the comma, you need a pair of dashes. The comma is kind of redundant here since its purpose, to provide a break in the sentence, is served by the second dash. --Viennese Waltz 04:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German sein in the past tense

I'm confused as to the difference between the German verb sein (to be) in the preterite ("Ich war") and perfect ("Ich bin gewesen") tenses. Preterite#German is not much help. Could someone explain the difference, and give me an example of a sentence in which each would be used? Many thanks. --Viennese Waltz 11:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the time they're interchangeable - and not just for sein but for all verbs. In the southern part of the German language area, the simple preterite is used very little, but it's fairly common in the northern part. Thus in explaining why one was absent from work or school, someone from Berlin or Hamburg will be more likely to say "Ich war krank", while someone from Vienna, Munich, or Stuttgart will be more likely to say "Ich bin krank gewesen". I would strongly disagree with what Preterite#German says, "Use in speech is regarded as snobbish and thus very uncommon." That may be true in the south, but here in Berlin, the preterite is quite common in everyday speech and isn't snobbish at all. But it is true that in the northern varieties (and the standard written language), the perfect is used when you want to emphasize the consequences that a past action or state has on the present. So in the north, a speaker might distinguish between Ich war krank ("I was sick, and it's over now and no longer has an effect on my life") and Ich bin krank gewesen ("I've been sick, and even though I'm not any more [if I were, I would have said Ich bin krank in the present], it's still having ramifications"). Certainly any time you'd use the perfect in English, you use the perfect in German, but you also use the perfect in German sometimes when you'd use the simple past in English. But since you live in Vienna, you needn't worry about it too much. You can always use the perfect when you speak; you only need to passively recognize the preterite when you encounter it in writing. Angr (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks Angr. --Viennese Waltz 13:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified:

The preterite (ich ging …) describes an action which is completed.

The perfect (ich bin … gegangen) describes an action which started in the past and is still continuing OR it describes a past (and completed) action when the phrase is used as a preamble to some present consequences.

In colloquial German the perfect is rarely used (this applies to Austro-Bavarian, but not to Northern German usage; as Angr has mentioned). In all informal communications, the perfect is used in place of the preterite, at least in Vienna.

The perfect can also be used as a future tense (but maybe we skip that for the advanced thread :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "In colloquial German the preterite is rarely used", it's the perfect that's rarely used. Angr (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether Cockatoo accidentally mixed up perfect and preterite in his reply, but since the original question was about the verb "sein", it should be mentioned that in colloquial German (at least round where I live - Southern Germany), you practically never use the perfect form of "sein" although you almost exclusively use the perfect forms of all other verbs. Thus:

You always say "Ich bin nach Hamburg gegangen" and almost never "Ich ging nach Hamburg"
But you always say "Ich war in Hamburg" and almost never "Ich bin in Hamburg gewesen" (it's a bit more complicated than that because there are situations where you have to say "Ich bin...gewesen" - the meaning is subtly different. But that's something for the advanced course, too - as a rule of thumb, always say "Ich war [something/somewhere]", and you'll pretty much always be correct).

The distinction between "sein" and all other verbs isn't exactly logical, it's just a quirk of spoken everyday German you have to get used to. -- Ferkelparade π 14:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's identical to the distinction in English between "I was" and "I have been". Looie496 (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Speaking wikipedia check out a table for me...

Hi all, I'm looking for a spannish speaker who might be able to tell me if the table at Down_syndrome#Signs_and_symptoms, is relatively accurately source (helpfully the source is on google books preview at [5])? Thanking you in advance… Fayedizard (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prepositions

Is it okay to end a sentence with a preposition? --108.206.4.199 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when doing so makes the sentence less awkward. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preposition_stranding#Preposition_stranding_in_English has a bit of info (and suggests it's ok) but it's not a great article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill is claimed to have said of the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition, "this is the kind of tedious nonsense up with which I will not put". Looie496 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 12