Language desk
< January 9	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 11 >

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.

January 10

Mark II

I didn't know whether to put this in Language, Science, or IT/Tech, but it's about a name so I'll put it here. I'm trying to name something for a work of fiction, and want figure out if it would appropriate to use "Mark II" (or "Mark 2/MKII/MK2) at the end of it's name. The Mark II article is for a telescope, which makes sense but doesn't give me the information I'd like to know on the subject. I'm assuming "Mark II" is used to name a reconstruction or a advanced second version of a piece of machinery, like 2.0 is used to name a software upgrade. Can anyone give me more information? Thank you. Miriam The Bat 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we disregard gospels, popes, and the military use (M-1 rifle), your assumed use is entirely correct. In particular, Mark (N+1) is an improved design of Mark N, where the connotation is that this is some cutting edge state of the art high-tech piece of sophisticated equipment custom-built in a lab by a dedicated team of scientists and technicians. It sounds rather mid 20th century. Examples are the Colossus Mark II, the Harvard Mark II, and the RCA Mark II Sound Synthesizer. Of course, the designation has also been used for commercial purposes, as with the Jaguar Mark 2. I think that in most cases "Mark (N+1)" did not start out as a name, any more than kids being named "Junior", but rather as just a distinguishing element. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A man I know has a son named Mark. After the birth, he was asked if this was his first child. "Oh yes", he said. "Definitely Mark 1." --Anonymous, January 10, 2007, 07:36 (UTC).

If its a work of fiction then of course you are free to name stuff as you choose - after all the author is the god of his fictional world. However if you wanted to use real world practice then I'd suggest doing some research into the industry and/or country of origin of this improved product - some places may use 'mark II', so may prefer 'version 2', 'model 2' or using an internal codename; e.g. the first Pentium IV model was codenamed "Willamette" --Neo 11:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plural form of "you" as used in formal deference

Can anyone shed some light on the usage of the plural second-person pronoun, rather than the singular, in formal/polite speech and writing, as evidenced in the Spanish "ustedes" and the Finnish "te", especially considering how unrelated these languages are? Does the same occur in any other distinct language groups? Is there a name, or accepted explanation for this phenomenon? 84.43.101.148 03:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a little further digging, and to my great pleasure, I found T-V distinction! However, please don't let my autoanswerment preclude any interesting comments by refdesk frequenters which might not be included in the article. 84.43.101.148 03:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your coinage "autoanswerment" has been noted. JackofOz 03:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm all over that. Anchoress 09:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner is still soliciting commentments. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you're expecting 10 of them. Clarityfiend 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point, but strictly speaking isn't usted/ustedes actually 3rd person rather than 2nd? (I'm not a Spanish speaker.)I don't know if this affects the questioner's point. Maid Marion 12:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish usted/ustedes is not an example (except in an indirect and roundabout way) of the distinction 84.43.101.148 is asking about. Usted has 3rd person conjugation and historically it comes from a third person form, Vuestra Merced, Your (plural used as formal singular) grace. Use of 3P as 2 P formal is found in many other Romance languages: Portuguese, Italian, Catalan) and also in German. I think that this distinction has not really been well studied in contemporary sociolinguistics. Anyone wanna write a dissertation? mnewmanqc 15:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi has this. आप (āp) and तुम (tum) are both grammatically plural and are more formal than the singular तू (tū). My understanding is this extends to other Northern Indo-Aryan Languages. In fact plural agreements are used to denote respect and formality in many language constructs in Hindi. For example the plural form in आप कैसे हैं? (How are you?) is also seen in वे बड़े आदमी हैं (He is an important man, or overly literally, he/they are an important man). 'He is an important man' could also be said as वह बड़ा आदमी है which by using the singular agreements would not denote the additional respect that the plural form would. - Taxman ^Talk 16:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe, at least, I think that this construction is connected to the "royal we" or Pluralis majestatis. Conceptually, I think the "royal we" implied "I and my people" while the respectful "you" may imply "you and your people" ("your people" not necessarily only meaning "the people of your nation", as it might in the case of royal personages, but by extension, "you and your dependents" with regard to people due respect). It would not be surprising for this usage to crop up outside of Europe, even without the tradition of royal use of plural pronouns. It is also plausible that this usage extended from Europe as far as South Asia. Does anyone know of similar constructions in Middle Eastern languages?

Incidentally, the English "you" is also derived from a plural pronoun of respect. In late Middle and early Modern English, "thou" was the 2nd person singular nominative, and "thee" was the 2nd person singular oblique, at least in familiar forms of address. There was a 2nd person plural ("ye" nominative and "you" oblique), which was used formally with singular referents at least by early Modern English times. (This distinction is evident in Shakespeare, for example.) The 2nd person plural oblique form went on during the 17th century to supplant all other 2nd person pronouns in standard English. Marco polo 18:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that Spanish usted is an example of the distinction 84.43.101.148 is asking about since they used it as an example in the question. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In English, I would think that "you...all" is the usual plural form. There are frequently words between you and all, as in "You are all invited to my birthday party". Slang forms include the contraction "y'all", as in "Y'all are invited to my birthday party", and, more rarely, "yous", as in "Yous is all invited to my birthday party". StuRat 05:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there's no standard second person plural pronoun (notice, StuRat, that you can replace "you" in your examples of you all with "we" and it is still grammatical, making the "you" simply a plural pronoun homophonous with the singular). Y'all is southern (and I don't let non-southerners use it in my presence) and youse (or youse guys) is more northeastern. Another way to pluralize the second person pronoun (and the method I use in my dialect) is you guys as in "you guys are in the way" and "you guys ought to abandon this whole feminism thing and get me a beer." Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The French "s"

I know this is easily found but I cannot spot it at the moment...Why in French words "bete" "Aout" and such is the "s" missing from the English equivilants "beast" "August" and so on...The reason is at the back of the mind but I can't remember....Any help? doktorb _words^deeds 11:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In those words a trace of the missing s can be seen in the circonflexe: août, bête. In Old French an s followed by a consonant became silent but lengthened the preceding vowel. See Use_of_the_circumflex_in_French#Disappearance_of_the_.22s.22. Skarioffszky 11:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the reply doktorb _words^deeds 12:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further definition on the name "Christ"

Looking at the Biblical names it shows the meaning as "anointed". Looking up "anointed" it means: to choose formally; anointed a successor. Can I get a better definition on the meaning of this word, other than meaning Messiah? "Jesus Christ" then is "deliverer chosen formally", or "help chosen formally". Explanation.--Doug ^talk 19:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, anointed means "smeared with oil". "Christos" is a direct translation into Greek of the Hebrew "mashiakh", the root of our word Messiah, which originally meant "covered with holy anointing oil". In biblical times, people were smeared with this oil as a way of consecrating them or making them holy. This ritual was performed on kings at their coronation. Marco polo 20:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Books of Samuel talks about Samuel anointing David with oil in secret because he had been chosen by God to replace Saul, though King Saul was still alive at the time. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Labov

Can anyone enlighten me as to the correct pronunciation (in IPA) of his surname? The spoken article pronounces it /lə'bəʊv/, which sounds far more French than I thought a slavic surname should sound. Is it correct? --Estrellador* 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciation used by linguistics lecturers when I was at university in the United States was /lə'bʌv/. It may not be the original pronunciation, but immigrants to the United States (or their children) often adopt a different, less alien-sounding pronunciation for their surnames. Marco polo 03:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. My linguistics professors use /ləˈbɑv/... --Miskwito 04:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could try e-mailing him and asking him. [1] Nohat 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interview by Matt Gordon with him here [2] that settles it pretty definitively. It's [ləbov]. BTW, the interview is well worth reading. mnewmanqc 15:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that simple. It's not clear if the interview is using IPA or the weird phonemic notation that Labov himself uses, wherein the symbol /o/ corresponds to the vowel in COT, in which case (IPA) [ləˈbɑv] would be closer. Nohat 00:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the context it's clear because the question was "Do you pronounce your last name [ləbov] or [ləbɑv]?" So yeah, the last syllable rhymes with "grove". —An gr 13:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a weird phonemic notation. It's a notation of linguistic variables, the (o) comes from the Middle Enlgish short O. The point is that when you compare different dialects, a purely phonemic notation does not work because the phonemes vary. So in some US English dialects father and bother have the same first vowel. In others, they don't. So it's helpful to use (ah) for one and (o) for the other. He used to keep it clear by putting it in ( ) although now, he's mixing them by using //. I am not sure why. mnewmanqc 01:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]