Language desk
< December 25	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 27 >

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

December 26

Uh huh...

Where did the expression 'uh huh' come from? I've used it all my life, but when I think about it it doesn't resemble any other english words. So where did it come from? Thanks.68.231.151.161 23:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think simple interjections like that, might often be based on emotional onomatopoetic qualities, rather than "logical" word-formation, if you get what I mean... 惑乱分からん 00:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear essentially the same sound uttered by speakers of other languages (for example German and Dutch), with the difference that they keep their mouths closed, making it more like mm-mm. But it is the same two-tone thing, going up by at least a major third and sometimes maybe as much as a fifth. The function appears to be more an acknowledgement "I am listening, please go on" than an indication of agreement with the content. Perhaps this is copied from English, like the ubiquitous OK, or perhaps it has a common older origin. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, Swedish has the same word as German and Dutch here, "mmm" or something similar. Norwegian has a different "mmm" interjection, instead interpreting it as a cue to repeat something not understood completely... 惑乱分からん 13:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a Norwegian, I can confirm that "mmm" (with a rising pitch) is often used to indicate a request to the previous speaker to repeat something that you're uncertain that you understood. However, I thought that that was something that we'd borrowed from English, or something that's pretty universal. "Mmm? what did you say?". "Mmm-mm" (with a different intonation), is also frequently used in Norwegian to indicate that you agree with what the previous speaker said. --NorwegianBlue^talk 19:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking a bit more about it, in Norwegian, the interjection "mmm[-(mmm)]" can have several different meanings, depending strongly on intonation:

"Mmmm" (Pitch rising, then falling:)Something tasty within reach.
"Mmm-mmm" (Both syllables short, the first a quart higher than the second). Negation.
"Mmm-mmm" (First syllable falling, second rising): indicating confirmation, as stated in previous entry.
"Mmm" (falling) Indicates disproval.
"Mmm" (rising) "Eh, what was that?".

My impression is that at least some of the above observations hold for native English as well, but I may well be mistaken. --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now when the discussion is ongoing, I must add, that in Japanese, mmm/uhnn also could mean both negation or confimation, depending on pitch... 惑乱分からん 21:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere (I wish I could remember where), that the expressions "uh-huh" (yes), "uh-uh" (no), and "okay" can all be traced one or more West African languages (perhaps Wolof?), and that they probably spread from African slaves to the rest of the English-speaking American population around 1800 and thence, gradually, to the rest of the world. Marco polo 14:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May we call this the Sabir-Wolof hypothesis? --Lambiam ^Talk 19:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh. Very cute, Lambiam. Actually, I found the reference suggesting an African origin for these expressions: Dalby, David, "The African Element in American English", in Rappin' and Stylin' Out: Communication in Urban Black America. University of Illinois Press, 1972. Marco polo 20:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That particular book by Dalby is an unreliable source. His claims cannot be substantiated. The book has among linguists given rise to the expression "cry Wolof," which means "to attribute incorrect origins to an expression based upon racial, ethnic, or nationalistic pride, rather than on the written record or sound etymological sourcing."

'Okay' is certainly not from Wolof (see Okay and the references therein). I'm very dubious about the others as well - did English not have phatic words before the slave trade? - but I have no hard evidence against. --ColinFine 01:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to even imagine a language without phatics. This isn't one, however—not necessarily: it performs an actual function—assertion of agreement with an utterance... or it can, at least. (I'm sure most of the time it is phatic, a simple acknowledgement to the speaker that you are still paying attention. Which you usually aren't.) They also aren't "onomatopoeic": they don't sound like anything else, so can't be meant to resemble some noise they imitate. I seriously doubt that "uh-huh" and its cousins have any particular "root": they are just simple grunts that possess no other linguistic value in that language, and so have proven useful for such functions. Note that all the above are nasals, as well—they can be uttered without opening the mouth, and so have extremely low effort requirements... which would go a long way to suggest why it is these that are used that way, as opposed to hisses, glottals, etc. So it would be no surprise to see very similar sounds in otherwise unrelated languages... Wolof, say. (P.S. Lambian: "Sapir-Wolof Hypothesis"—I love it.) --Vyasa Ozsvar 01:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Querer in the preterite

A lot of Spanish grammar reference books point out that Querer in the preterite means "to try." For example, is quise interchangeable with traté de or is there actually a difference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KeeganB (talk • contribs) 05:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

In a short answer, no, the two are not interchangeable. However, the translation as "tried" in the past can be an acceptable figurative translation in some cases because of the nature of the preterite tense, as in "Quise ir a visitarte, pero no pude." = "I tried i.e. wanted to visit you but I couldn't," but as "Anoche todos mis amigos quisieron comer la sopa para la cena." = "Last night all my friends wanted to have soup for dinner," quisieron does not suggest that they were unable to have soup for dinner (they could either have wanted soup and had soup or wanted soup and did not have soup), whereas the English word tried suggests that they were unable to have soup for dinner. Personally, I would avoid translating querer as tried completely.--El aprendelenguas 23:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference is in emphasis: quisieron has a stronger sense of having made a serious attempt than traté de does—the attempt was made with greater force or intent, in particular the latter. Honest effort or intent need not be present in the case of tratar: "I tried [but my heart wasn't really in it, I did it out of obligation, etc.]". Also, the use of tratar is less common than the use of intentar, though both are essentially the same in meaning. None of the constructions carry any strong implication of success or failure in Spanish. Examples:

"Intenté llamarte anoche"—"I tried to call you last night."

"Quise llamarte anoche"—"I really wanted to talk to you last night" (and made the attempt to, possibly repeatedly).

--Vyasa Ozsvar 01:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would I say this in Dutch?

I'm looking for a Dutch translation of the following verse, I'd appreciate it if anyone could help me out. I don't want to fight / just want a piece of your life / oh, if you come out to play / i don't want you to say anything. / I didn't feel a thing when you told me / that you didn't feel a thing when I told you that / I didn't feel a thing... another breakfast with you. Thanks! --Annabel Lee —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.10.86.63 (talk) 09:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

"Ik wil geen ruzie maken [literally: Ik wil niet vechten] / alleen een deel van jouw leven / O, als je komt spelen / wil ik niet dat je iets zegt. / Ik voelde niets toen je me vertelde / dat je niets voelde toen ik je vertelde dat / ik niets voelde... Nog een ontbijt met jou." Skarioffszky 11:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Skarioffszky, I appreciate it. 202.10.86.63 10:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homely

In American English, homely is an euphemism for ugly, or unattractive. If applied to a woman, does it carry the same connotation in British English, or could it as well mean someone who thinks that it is important that guests feel that they are welcome in her home, and that her home is a homelike place for them to spend their time? 62.16.173.45 19:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it might well be considered a compliment. A homely woman is supposed to be a good cook and to keep the place tidy and well run. Personally I think it is a bit sexist (even if meant as a compliment). A homely man is a darling, good-hearted, but perhaps not the smartest person in town. In any case, although there is overlap, the connotations are a bit different. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Someone close to me once in a discussion characterized herself as a homely sort of person, intended as a statement as to where she put her priorities. However, most of the the persons participating were American, and the "ugly" connonation was so dominant in their minds that they were simply unable to understand what she was trying to say. --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, what about Australian English, what kind of woman is "a homely woman" down under? --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The few times I've heard the word "homely" used in Australian English, it has been used in the same context as in British. Pesapluvo 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In US English, "homely" means "so ugly they need to stay at home" while "homey" means "pleasant, reminds me of home" (when not referring to one's "homies", of course). StuRat 17:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia and New Zealand, "homely" is rarely used, and if you call someone a "homey" it usually means they are British (i.e., they came from the "home country"). Grutness...wha? 11:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I can't recall ever hearing anyone here being described as homely. If they're ugly, we'd be more likely to call them "plain". Btw, there's a TV show on the way here from the US called "Ugly Betty" but from the previews it seems everyone in the show calls her "Beddy". Why didn't they name the show "Ugly Beddy"? JackofOz 01:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin definition: Cost

What would be the equivalent in Latin for the word "cost"?
What is the Latin definition of the word we call: "cost"?
Does the word "cost" come from Latin perhaps from "count"?
Is there a connection of the Latin of "cost" to "hundred"?
Is there a connection of the Latin of "cost" to "cycles"?

--Doug Coldwell 23:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In English, the word cost is both a noun and a verb. Latin has no such word, so there's no prefect "equivalent". For the noun, there's impendium, merces, pretium or sumptus. For the verb, it's more tricky, because there's no way I know of to say things like "this costs 5 sesterces". Instead, you have to use something like the Genitive of Price to say "I value this at 5 sesterces", or the Ablative of Price to say "I bought this for 5 sesterces".

The origins of the English words cost and count are unrelated. Cost comes from the Latin constare "stand at" (used with the genitive of price); count comes from computare. Constare comes from stare, "stand", so there's no connection to hundreds or cycles. —Keenan Pepper 01:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was useful. Going further and using your examples with the number 5, then "penta-cost" could be then FIVE STAND AT" or perhaps something like "stands at five" or "stand at five". Perhaps that could be taken further then to be or translated meaning close to: "stands for five" or even "stands for five hundred". Would that be correct translating? --Doug Coldwell 12:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pentecost is from Greek πεντηκοστή, which means "fiftieth" (feminine form). It is derived from the word πεντήκοντα, meaning "fifty" in classic Greek, formed from "pente" with a suffix "-konta", indicating multiples of ten and corresponding to the English suffix "-ty". The ending -στ- (transliterated: "-st-") turns this into an ordinal number; it is comparable to the English suffix "-(e)th". Thus, the part "-cost" is formed from the Greek suffixes "-konta" + "-st-", and has nothing to do with Latin "cum-" + "sta-", just like "-tieth" in English "fiftieth" has nothing to do with the German name Tieth. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the GREAT answer. You certainly know a lot more about Latin than I do (since I know basically nothing). Could that then come out as 500 (being a multiple of 10; 10 times 10)? I see you pointed out to me that Pentacost means "50th", however could it be translated or interpreted as 500th. This is important as to the number "500th".... --Doug Coldwell 14:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, pentecost definitely refers to the fiftieth day after Easter (or maybe Passover, see [1]). It couldn't possibly be 500 days after it, because that's greater than a whole year, so instead it would be called the 135th day after the next Easter. As Lambiam said, pentecoste is the Greek word for 50th. The Greek word for 500th is pentacosioste. —Keenan Pepper 17:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keenan: Thanks for your answer. Now I understand the word "pentecost" much better. I am not a religious person, so know not the relationship to Easter. Do have a couple more questions however along these lines: 1) In Latin, what would be the word for "fivehundredth - 500th? 2) In Greek and Latin what are the EXACT words for 500. I assume the Greek word for 500th is that which you gave me above of "pentacosioste", but looking for the word for just 500 (perhaps the same, don't know). I am in the United States in the EST. Are you all in U.S. or Europe (i.e. England)?--Doug Coldwell 20:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Each time in the order masculine – feminine – neuter: Latin for 500th: quingentesimus – quingentesima – quingentesimum. Classic Greek for 500: πεντηκόσιοι (pentēkósioi) − πεντηκόσιαι (pentēkósiai) − πεντηκόσια (pentēkósia). Latin for 500: quingenti – quingentae – quingenta. These forms are all subject to declension according to the grammatical case; the forms shown are for the nominative case. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin is quite simple as five is V, fifty = L and five hundred :D -- DLL ^{.. T} 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Turkish is even simpler as five = 5, fifty = 50 and five hundred :500 --Lambiam ^Talk 23:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lambiam! That's great information and just what I was looking for. I notice in the classic Greek then it looks like (by coincidence I assume) that the number 500 is "pentēkósia" which looks very much like English "pentacost". --Doug Coldwell 22:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not quite a coincidence that the Greek words for 50th and for 500 resemble each other, because they share the part "pentē" meaning 5. But as far as I know, it is a coincidence that the suffixes -ko-st- and -kosi(o)- resemble each other. Perhaps (I don't know) the "ko" has a common origin, but the following "s" is clearly a coincidence. So English "Pentecost" comes from and therefore resembles Greek "pentēkostē" (50th), which resembles "pentēkosioi", "-ai", "-a" (500). The reason for Pentecost being called that is that if you count Easter Sunday as the first day, Easter Monday as the second day, and so on, Pentecost is the 50th day. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about Easter, since I am not a Christian or do NOT have any beliefs for a "religion". Do not attend church and do not belong to any organization or club. Just a simple old retiree doing some investigations for a hobby. Came across all this quite by accident and will call it The Petrarch Code. In reference to Petrarch's "De Viris Illustribus" here are Lives 15 - 19: Gaius Sempronius Gracchus, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, Scipio Aemilianus Africanus, Lucius Mummius Achaicus, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus. Notice how they are in reverse chronological order ("Chronicle"). You now have all 28 Lives. Notice how several of these are also on Petrarch's Latin list starting with Romulus (i.e. Scipio and relatives). Number 2 is of Darius the Great. His time period is about from 530 BC to about 465 BC. This crosses over the year 500 BC. You have shown me that the Greek for 500 is "pentekosia" which is close to "pentacost", like in Acts Chapter 2. In the year 500 BC just happens to be a time when the largest land mass of people were gathered together: "....when the time of pentacost came all the believers were gathered together in one place...". In that time of 500 BC there was the largest ever land mass under one king, Darius the Great. What a coincidence! And too boot, there just happens to be 28 chapters to Acts. Think about this: 40 + 66 = 106 + 28 = 134 (Jerome's Christians). Perhaps "pentacost" is a Code for 500 BC, taken off "pentekos". It then just happens to fit very nicely for the previous chapter of Cyrus the Great and his Cyrus Cylinder of 40 lines (verse 3). --Doug 00:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam: FYI, the quotes for the Captian of Italy called "Cornelius" were from here: http://bible.cc/acts/10-1.htm Also check this out: http://faithofgod.net/TyNT/ac.htm#10:1 which is of William Tyndale about 1525. Also check this out: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=10&version=53 John Wycliffe about 1382. This below has to do with the "Straight Street" that went to "Tarsus" (a.k.a. Taras). http://bible.cc/acts/9-11.htm This has to do with Jerome's De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm Look up Chapter 66, which just happens to be of one "Cornelius", a bishop for Rome. Now here is my question: How many letters to the name of the ancient city of Carthage? Would it be fair to say that these words look similar: "Volume Without A Title" -vs- "Book Without A Name" (a.k.a. "Liber Sine Nomine"). Count the amount of letters for the first starting with "Volume.....". "Liber Sine Nomine" is an epitome of Epistolae Familiares of how many? --Doug 00:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably not a coincidence that the Greek suffixes for -tieth and -hundredth are so similar. The Indo-European word for '10' is reconstructed as 'dekm', for '100' 'kmtom', and for the 'tens' suffix as '-kmta' (I'm omitting loads of diacritics, laryngeals etc). But some scholars think that these themselves are related, and that the 'km(t)' in all three has the same origin. However, the sort of numerology you are indulging in is capable of proving any random idea you choose, and I would respectfully suggest that while you are welcome to play, you shouldn't expect anybody else to take it seriously. --ColinFine 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your answer, however it turns out this is NOT pure speculation. I have stumbled onto something I will call for now "The Petrarch Code". This is a DEFINITE set of rules and a system that follows certain elements and keys. I call it this name because it was Francesco Petrarch that devised these codes. I then use these "Codes" to decoded "Acts of the Apostles". This turns out to be a list of moral biographies of 28 Lives. Petrarch is already known for writing up such lists of Lives.

This particular list of 28 Lives starts with the very FIRST great Persian king called Cyrus the Great. This is "Acts" Chapter 1 and is a time period of about 580 BC going forward to about 530 BC. In "Acts" Chapter 2 it is of Darius the Great. This time period goes from about 530 BC to about 465 BC. This then crosses over 500 BC. The first verse in Chapter 2 has the wording of approximately (depending on your version)"....at the time of 500 BC they were all gathered together in one place...". This is substituting in "500" for "pentacost". The Chapters are in the correct order, so there is NO speculation here. The next "Acts" Chapter 3 is of "Artaxerxes I Longimanus". His time period is from about 465 BC to 424 BC. The Persian rulers then keep going in reverse chronological order until the FIRST great Macedonian ruler, Philip II. No speculation. It just happens to fit PERFECTLY in at the second Chapter of Acts for the time period that crosses over 500 BC, "pentekosia". This word of "pentekos" is VERY close to "pentacos" so is DEFINITELY the Coded word meaning that of 500 BC. The Petrarch Code element here is that the two words are very similar. Petrarch even coined the phrase Babylonian Captivity. This to him meant the Avignonian Captivity or the Captivity of Avignon of the papacy into Avignon. Petrarch felt it sould be in Rome instead. So as you can see here Petrarch used words that were similiar. Coded word looks or sounds similiar to the hidden word.

The reason this particular date is so important is that at the year 500 BC it just so happens to be when there was the largest land mass of people EVER under one ruler. No other time in the ancient world (or even in the modern world) has there EVER been such a large land mass of people under one ruler. They being "gathered under one place" is CORRECT since they were under the Persian King: Darius the Great. So putting in the Greek word "pentekos" (meaning 500) here for "pentacos" is chronologically correct. If this word were in the First Chapter or the Third Chapter then my theory would NOT be correct, however it is in the CORRECT place of Chapter 2: which would be for the time period of Darius the Great from 530 BC to about 465 BC; crossing over the time of 500 BC. They were all DEFINITELY "gathered together in one place" in the largest Empire ever. --Doug 19:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ji

My boss and her husband are of indian descent and I know that they speak, to an extent, punjabi and hindi. They are seperated but work together, but my boss refers to her husband as something like Ji or Jee, which is not a shortened form of her husband's name. Any ideas?

This isn't realy an answer, but in Hindi, namaste means ~~goodbye.~~ hello. Namasteji is a more polite version. --Kjoonlee 04:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many Indian women, who follow traditional norms, do not refer to their husband by name, instead they use some other term to refer to them. "jee" is generally used after the name of a person to show respect, so to an Indian, exposed to the tradition, the usage would sound quite normal. --Vineet Chaitanya

Also for some more info see जी, our sister project Wiktionary's entry on the word in Hindi. - Taxman ^Talk 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking to namaste and telling me namaste can mean goodbye too, but no thanks. --Kjoonlee 00:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like Vineet said, "ji" is a term of respect. On the topic of referring to husbands, it is true that in Indian culture, women don't usually refer to their husbands as an equal. While a husband would refer to his wife by her name, a wife would use the respectful form of the pronoun to talk about her husband. Hope that helps. FruitMart07 04:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. "Ji" often appears as a particle attached to a name as well, generally a combined indicator of respect and affection: "Gandhiji," for instance, would come out as roughly "revered/beloved/honored Gandhi." I believe that it is generally used only with intimates or familiars, though it sometimes is applied to a public figure that is well-liked (as with Gandhi). The use you've observed suggests it can be used by itself, sort of like "dear" or "honey" is in English, at least in some of the languages or speech communities of India. --Vyasa Ozsvar 01:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

putting words

can i put any word in the search box

I don't see why not, however, some phrases may not have articles. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 02:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy when you try this : put your search words in a search engine, but restricted to WP, e.g. type this in google : "site:en.wikipedia.org search word". More & better results guaranteed. -- DLL ^{.. T} 21:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Language

How do you say "how do you say this?" in Thai?Jimmoore37 03:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Khun) pʰood wah yang rai ?

(คุณ)พูดว่าอย่างไร

pʰ is for aspirated [p] --Manop - TH 06:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is (Khun)/(คุณ) in parentheses? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Thai context, many times pronouns 're omitted. You can say either Khun pʰood wah yang rai ? or pʰood wah yang rai ? . They're the same meaning. --Manop - TH 02:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hindi lecturer position

Sir, I am Indian national, working in the Aligarh Muslim University,Aligarh, India. I want to know about the sites of Germany Universities where the requirement of Hindi language lecturer exists.

A quick search under "Hindi Studium" (Hindi study) in Google produced the following hits: Heidelberg, Bonn, Hamburg, Mainz, Leipzig, and Kiel, on the first two pages alone. To produce a more comprehensive list, look through List of universities in Germany, and click on the links for each university. You might skip the specialized technical or scientific universities and academies. Each article should have a link to the university's website. It would help to know German, but you can try searching university websites with the term "Hindi" and see what you find. Marco polo 17:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]