Language desk
< June 18	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 20 >

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.

June 19

Most readable writing system

A native Chinese told me that reading fantizi is faster than reading jiantizi. I can imagine that reading kanji is faster than kana. Are there any comparisons among different writing systems? (Of course, each would have to be rendering a language for which it is normally used, but I can imagine that there are some ways to estimate the effect the language has, either by comparing languages that use several writing systems, or by a similar experiment where test subjects listen to a recording of the language that is played at different speeds.) — Sebastian 03:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something to consider is that one might be more familiar with reading a certain type of writing than another, and that could vary from person to person. Some seperate Chinese forms of writing involves symbols which could represent more or less items...I don't actually speak or, in this case, read, Chinese, but know a bit about how it works ;)--

Solar Sunstorm

03:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are personal factors, but I am interested in those factors that are independent of that. Similar experiments with shorthand and typewriting show that there are such factors. Even if I'm very familiar with calligraphy, I won't be able to beat your shorthand; and I think similar experiments showed that QWERTY is not the fastest keyboard system, even though many people are very familar with it. These factors go beyond mere personal factors. — Sebastian 04:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that brail is faster than many visual forms of reading. And you're right that QWERTY isn't the fastest system; it was implemented to stop the keys of a typewriter getting jammed when two letters next to each other were used in quick succesion. There is now a keyboard designed to be the fastest to type with, but it is still uncommonStoreye 09:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did mean Braille, didn't you? -- JackofOz 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to read "router"?

Somebody asked this, but I just couldn't answer. It seems that many dictionaries don't mention this word. By its meaning, it would be /ru:ter/; but since there is a word "rout", some people also call this device as /rauter/. Is it true that both are acceptable?--61.92.239.192 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience it is more common for it to be said roo-ter in British English (as in a route to a destination) and row-ter in American English. Sorry no good at IPA/whatever it is called. I think both are perfectly acceptable. You say potato I say potato and all that...ny156uk 08:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Western US, I've never once heard the "roo"-ter pronunciation. And the thing was probably invented out here, so… [upon checking out our article on the matter, it says that the very firest router was invented in the Eastern US, and then the first multiprotocol rotuer was invented out here in the West. Either way, the router is an American invention] The Jade Knight 09:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty silly argument. I might as well say that aluminium was discovered by a British scientist, so Americans should all pronounce it the British way. Marnanel 13:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Route" is pronounced the same way as "root", so therefore "router" is pronounced just like "rooter". (In American English however, "route" is pronounced like "raute", where as "root" is pronounced as it is spelt - so over there "router" is pronounced like 'rauter'.) --203.208.110.207 09:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In British English, the word route (meaning path) is pronounced IPA: [ɹuːt], while the word rout (meaning disorderly retreat) is pronounced [ɹaʊt]. In US English, the latter is pronounced as in British English. However, route is pronounced either way in US English; it has a variable pronunciation. Moving on to the word router, it is clear that its pronunciation in US English can also be variable. However, it seems that the pronunciation [ɹaʊtɚ] is standard. In British English, [ɹaʊtə] is the pronunciation for the power tool, whereas [ɹuːtə] is used for the communications device. — Gareth Hughes 10:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In New England (northeastern US), "route" is usually pronounced [ɹuːt] or (more often) [ɹuːʔ]. However, "router" (the electronic device) is usually pronounced ['ɹaʊ dəɹ] or something like ['ɹʌʊ dəɹ] by those who speak rhoticly and ['ɹaʊ də] or ['ɹʌʊ də] by those with non-rhotic speech. Marco polo 14:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know IPA and might be repeating stuff. What I have noticed is that route in the US is pronounced both ways (such as Route 66 being root 66), as Garzo said, except when you say reroute/re-route, then I've never heard it pronounced as re-root. Same with router, it's never pronounced as rooter in the states that I have heard. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the US technical community, I have heard both pronounciations for router (the data communications device.) In the woodworking community I have never heard a wood router called a root-er. The wood router predates the router. -Arch dude 02:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a British English user, I cannot remember ever using route as a verb, so the word router will always be ɹaʊtɚ, partly too (as above) with deference to those who created the technical term and indeed item. Theediscerning 22:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean, Theediscerning, that you will always pronounce the word as [ɹaʊtɚ] (should you need to pronounce it at all) then your statement is unexceptionable, though your hearers may conclude that you acquired the word from Americans. If you are asserting that the word in British usage will always be [ɹaʊtɚ], then you are plain wrong. There are probably British network specialists who say ɹaʊtɚ, just as there are British computer scientists who pronounce 'z-buffer' [zi: bʌfə]. But in my experience the piece of network equipment is invariably [ɹuːtə]. --ColinFine 00:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australians usually pronounce 'route' as 'root' but will usually pronounce 'router' as 'rowter', because a rooter in Australia is someone who is actively engaged in the sex act. Natgoo 20:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the perspective of a computer geek in the Mid-Atlantic US, I encounter the noun route pronounced sometimes as [ɹæut], but more often as [ɹut]. I've never heard anyone call the networking device a [ɹutəɹ], only a [ɹæutəɹ]. But, on the other hand, If a telephone operator were saying, "Hold on, and I'll route that call through," it would be rendered as [ɹut]. PaulTanenbaum 23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of an Australian "rooter" already being in use - a router (pronounced "rowter") in the UK at least is a small hand held power tool used in carpentry so is already in use. A router for an internet connection, however, as any (British) IT engineer will tell you, properly pronounced (in the UK) as "rooter" as it "routes" connections. Pretty self explanatory. Obviously pronounced different in other countries as any word with a common route (wahey!!). As for "It was probably invented there anyway" It's a bit like saying "The car was invented in Germany so we're all wrong - it's an Auto, not a car!" the words were already in use before, the invention was to aid that use! We all know where the word came from, what is the language called again?

Farging

What does "farging" mean? Is it Norwegian? --124.180.235.124 10:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farge means 'colour' in Norwegian. I think it's more likely you're looking at this. — Gareth Hughes 10:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps from Johnny Dangerously, you farging icehole. 65.203.61.77 21:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World War II related sentence

Have a look at this sentence:

"The Waffen-SS soldiers swore an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, rather than to their country, as did the Wehrmacht soldiers."

What does the subordinate clause express?

a) The Wehrmacht soldiers swore an oath to Adolf Hitler.

b) The Wehrmacht soldiers swore an oath to their country.

c) Both is possible, the sentence is ambiguous.

(PS: I know that in truth a) is the case. This is not in question. I just want a judgement of the sentence given.) --KnightMove 14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on the second comma. 195.35.160.133 15:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Martin.[reply]

c) It is ambiguous. SaundersW 15:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's poorly constructed, and could be ambiguous, I suppose, but to me "as did" implies "in the same way as a previously mentioned subject", so it's option A. --TotoBaggins 15:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for answer a. To get the meaning at b, move "did" to the end: "The Waffen-SS soldiers swore an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, rather than to their country, as the Wehrmacht soldiers did." However, the sentence will easily lead to a misunderstanding, and should preferably be rephrased; for example: "The Waffen-SS soldiers swore an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, rather than to their country, and so did the Wehrmacht soldiers." --Lambiam ^Talk 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clearly ambiguous as written.

In thie case there is a simple way to resolve the ambiguity: since the comma that separates the words "rather than to their country" from the expression that "rather" is contrasting with is optional, remove it. That is, remove the first comma to choose sense a; remove the second one to choose sense b.

However, I think this might still be misinterpreted if sense a is intended. The reason is that there is a much simpler way to express sense a by compounding the subject: "Waffen-SS and Wermacht soldiers swore an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler rather than to their country" (or "Waffen-SS soldiers, and also Wermacht ones, swore..." or other forms like that, depending on the emphasis desired). So if you see the original word order, there is a tendency to misread it as b, as I did originally, by the way.

--Anonymous, June 20/07, 00:55 (UTC).

You (KnightMove) posted the identical question in March on the "English only" WordReference Forum, and did not even bother to fix the grammar error in option c before reposting it here.[1] I agree with Liliput's reply given there (and none of the others). --Lambiam ^Talk 08:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get your facts straight. It was not March, but immediately before I posted it here, and only after that I was informed about the error. There was no necessity to fix it, as the meaning is clear, and I demonstrated by posting this question not to be a native English speaker. --KnightMove 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It would be nice if you give a reason for Liliput's and your opinion (here or there, I really don't bother). There is definitely no English grammar rule I would have learned in 10 years of English language course at school, supporting this opinion. --KnightMove 09:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misinterpreted a date I saw. As to the reason, the English word as can have several grammatical functions: adverb, conjunction, preposition, and pronoun (and it can be the plural of the noun a). We can rule out the role of preposition, while those of adverb and pronoun are hard to separate. With a conjunction, we always retain the normal subject–verb order for the second sentence joined by the conjunction: John drinks vodka like Mary does. You can't say: *John drinks vodka like does Mary. Only with an adverb do we find an inversion: John drinks vodka, and so does Mary. If as is a conjunction, it is synonymous to the conjunction like, but if we replace as by like in the Wehrmacht sentence, it becomes ungrammatical. If as is an adverb here, it is synonymous to and so, and if we replace as by and so the sentence remains grammatical. The Waffen-SS soldiers swore an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, rather than to their country, and so did the Wehrmacht soldiers has only one meaning: a. Likewise, The Waffen-SS soldiers swore an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, rather than to their country like the Wehrmacht soldiers did has only one meaning: b. --Lambiam ^Talk 12:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This explanation in fact convincing, and I agree now - thank you. Only one question remanins: Is The Waffen-SS swore an oath of loyalty to AH, rather than to their country, like the Wehrmacht soldiers did. ambiguous, or also definitely meaning b? --KnightMove 14:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only a case of one too many commas! Definitely ambiguous. Read "The Waffen-SS soldiers swore an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler rather than to their country, as did the Wehrmacht soldiers." for "a" and "The Waffen-SS soldiers swore an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, rather than to their country as did the Wehrmacht soldiers." for "b"

Recently in a book I was reading I saw a word that I had never seen before. I did not write it down, and could not find it in the book again. I do remember that it ended in the letters ....advert. Could anyone suggest any rare words ending in ...advert please? 80.0.132.197 19:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animadvert is a fairly rare word. It generally means "to comment critically (on), to utter criticism (usually of an adverse kind); to express censure or blame" (to quote the OED on the most current sense). Wareh 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, the noun form (animadversion) is not quite so rare. —Tamfang 05:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advert itself was used (according to OED) as recently as 1861 to mean "To turn one's attention in a discourse written or spoken; to refer to...." --Cyrusc 21:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi(?) translation:

Hey, everyone:

I got the following message randomly from someone off the internet, but I can't fathom what is says. It looks like a transliterated Indic language, perhaps Hindi:

kabhi mere saath, koi raat Guzaar, tujhe subhah tak mei karoon pyaar tu hi mere jaan kabhi mere saath koi raat guzaar

If anyone could decipher what it means, I'd be grateful (and rather intrigued)..

--82.46.209.85 21:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the lyrics of this[2] Bollywood film song. --169.230.94.28 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kabhi means sometimes and pyaar means love. (Watching Bollywood has finally paid off for me..) --Kjoonlee 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]