Language desk
< July 30	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	August 1 >

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.

July 31

English-Volapük translator

Is there such a thing as an English-Volepük machine translator? I have found online dictionaries but am just wondering if such a thing exists. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a bit of a look but couldn't find one, at least on the Internet. Automatic translation is in fact a rather difficult problem, and even with the best efforts the results often leave something to be desired; so for a less well-known constructed language like Volapük, you may find that nobody has taken the time to do so yet. It would be nice to have one though. :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 07:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the grammar of Volapük is essentially that of Western European languages, a crude machine translation to English using simple word lookup would probably be adequate. It shouldn't be too hard to program. What would you need it for? SamuelRiv (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bite. Please tell me what is Volepük? This section is the only place I can find in Wikipedia where the word Volepük appears. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A constructed language - see Volapük. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a localised version, too! User:SamuelRiv makes a good point, I hadn't thought of just doing a simple lookup. The vo Wiktionary has 23,225 articles, but is light on English translations. You might do better getting the translation lists from the b:vo:Vödabuk Linglänapük-Volapük and b:vo:Vödabuk Volapük-Linglänapük dictionaries on vo Wikibooks, unless there are machine-readable lists somewhere already. I could help with the coding, but it looks like a SMOP ;-). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact or Opinion?

This may be a popular question around here, but I didn't see it posted, nor did the articles on Fact and Opinion help. If this question has been answered before, a link to the answer would be much appreciated.

Fact or Opinion: Michael Jordan is a good basketball player.

Fact or Opinion: Donovan Bailey was a fast runner.

Fact or Opinion: Christian Bale is a good actor.

Fact or Opinion: Swimming is a good way to keep fit.

For all of these, I can definitely see these statements argued as either fact or opinion. Michael Jordan's stats, awards and championships; can they be used as evidence to call him a 'good' basketball player? What if someone had the opinion that in order to be good basketball player, you needed to be able to *insert criterion that MJ does not meet*.

"swimming is a good way to keep fit" - I think it's possible to argue that swimming is a cardiovascular exercise, and thus a good way to keep fit. But on the other hand, the qualifier 'good' really throughs me for a curveball.

Somewhat inane questions, but hopefully someone will be able to answer these. Thanks 67.204.199.165 (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that they're all opinion. They're all subjective. How fast is fast? Bailey isn't fast compared to, say, a jet. What does it take to make you a "good" actor? All of this, of course, is just my opinion.Paragon12321 (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, strictly speaking these are all opinions, although each of them can be backed up with facts as supporting evidence (Jordan's and Bailey's statistics in comparison to other athletes; Bale's awards and positive reviews; studies showing the cardiovascular benefits of swimming, etc.) —An gr 05:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The no true Scotsman fallacy might be related to this. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 06:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some things are more easily measurable than others. Sports performance would generally be in the former category. Acting would definitely be in the latter. It's one thing to get good reviews and make squillions of dollars, but does that necessarily say much about acting ability? Is Beethoven a "good" composer? Some people are bored to death by his music, but others are transfixed. In matters of personal taste, which is very relevant to the arts generally, the "good/bad" spectrum doesn't seem to have much if any relevance. Far better to make factual statements such as "I like/dislike Christian Bale's movies" or "I like/don't like van Gogh's paintings" than judgmental ones such as "Christian Bale is a good/bad actor" or "Van Gogh is a good/bad painter". -- JackofOz (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are definitely opinions. What I would consider a fact would be something like "Donovan Bailey was the fastest runner in the 1988 Texas state 200m competition." because you can check if it was true or not. "95 % of the people surveyed by X on the 15th of Feb 2008 said that they thought that Christian Bale was a good actor" is a fact. Not your example. "A majority of doctors recommend swimming as a good way to keep fit" can be a fact, if you can back it up with a reference. Not "Swimming is a good way to keep fit". Sorry if you think I am far to uptight with the way I require things to be expressed, but I find ambiguous words like "good" only useful when they are used following very careful consideration. --Lgriot (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the only options to pick from are "fact" or "opinion", then opinion (as everyone notes above) is the correct choice, but I think a more useful term would be "hypothesis". Hypotheses are not truly facts or opinions, but are statements that can be tested and either supported or unsupported by evidence. Because you examples list hypotheses for which there is a lot of good evidence, there is a tendency to think of them as facts, hence your confusion. Matt Deres (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with the thrust of that. But some things can't be hypothesised (or if they can, they become the black holes of hypothesis; the light of fact can never escape, so there's no point, really). A hypothesis that "Christian Bale is a good actor" could never be proven, not even if 95% of the world agreed with it. The other 5% might think he's crap, and their opinion (which is all this one can ever be) is no less valid than the others. (Hmm, memo to self: Must write a book called "The Black Holes of Hypothesis". No idea what it'd be about, but it's a great title.) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would arrange them, as follows, from least opinionated to most:

Swimming is a good way to keep fit.

Donovan Bailey was a fast runner.

Michael Jordan is a good basketball player.

Christian Bale is a good actor.

The swimming statement only needs a few disclaimers that it might not be heatlhy for some people, such as those who can't swim, but it's quite a provable fact that swimming can improve the health of most people. The running statement is fairly provable, as well. I don't think anyone would interpret this as a comparison of his speed to that of a jet, but rather to other runners. There is the complication that speeds of sprinters and marathon runners are quite different, and measured in different ways, too, so it does need to be stated as to what type of running is under consideration. Being a "good" basketball player is more subjective. That could mean scoring more points, bringing in more fans, setting a good example to children, making lots of money, etc. It's difficult to evaluate the statement factually without knowing what they meant by "good". Being a good actor seems to be completely subjective. StuRat (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"He would later say"

This is a quote from the article Ne me quitte pas, about a song by Jacques Brel.

It is considered by some as "Brel's ultimate classic". He would later say in an interview that the song is not a love song, but rather a song about the cowardice of men.

I find the construction "he would later say in an interview" distracting and annoying, compared to "he said in an interview" or perhaps "he once said in an interview".

Is there any advantage in the longer form? Comments please. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One advantage would be to contrast that statement with an earlier statement (like "It was initially thought to be a love song but he would later say in an interview...) but it doesn't do that. FWIW, I find "it is considered by some as" more annoying. Recury (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "It is considered by some" are just weasel words, and the second sentence doesn't really connect or flow from the first one. They could both be rewritten.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as is kind of usual with pretty vague sentences like this, there's no citation for it. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the "ultimate classic" line is in fact in the article referenced by the footnote. Of course using one article as the basis for the phrase "considered by some" is a bit of a stretch. The second sentence was introduced in this edit, so perhaps only that editor could tell us what he really meant. There might be a place for the construction "he would later say", but it's not in that article at that location. --LarryMac | Talk 20:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Negation and the lack thereof in natural languages

Are there any natural languages which don't have words or affixes equivalent to "not", "un-", and others whose purpose is to denote negation? Conversely, are there any natural languages which lack semantically unrelated pairs of opposites(like "good" and "bad"), but have to use Newspeak-like constructions which would literally translate as "ungood" and the like? 207.233.87.226 (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably impossible to give an authorative negative answer to any question of the form "Are there any natural languages which ... ", because even in the unlikely event that somebody is familiar with the feature in question in every described language, there are still large numbers of natural languages which expired with no surviving records. However, I should be surprised to find a language with no means of expressing negation. On the other hand, I should not be greatly surprised to find a language with no such suppletive pairs. --ColinFine (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a language (possibly West-African, perhaps Twi but I don't remember well) which forms negation solely by change in tone. Duomillia (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't answer to your question, I can tell you that Korean has a verb for "does exist" and also another verb for "does not exist". You can of course use negation with either of them. --Kjoonlee 16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Is there is a semantic difference between "not does-exist" and "does-not-exist"? Or between "does-exist" and "not does-not-exist"? —An gr 16:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenlandic only have words for "being bad" and "being ignorant of" and no words for "be good" or "to know" - in order to express those concepts you must negate the words for "bad" and "be ignorant of"·Maunus·ƛ· 16:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll need to use Korean, or I'll start getting confused.

Does-exist 있다
Does-not-exist 없다
Does-exist NEG 있지 않다
Does-not-exist NEG 없지 않다

There's not much difference between 3 and 2. ~~However, you can use 3 to say "it's not there; it's somewhere else."~~

But if you compare 1 and 4, then it's a bit like comparing "existant" and "not nonexistant." If you say 4, it's like saying that there is something instead of nothing. --Kjoonlee 04:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a strech: in Chinese (Putonghua), there is no "no" there. One can say "is not," "not have," "not correct," "cannot," "not able," "don't want to" and "not" a lot of things, but a straight "no" is a contraction of one of these phrases. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Like 不 doesn't mean 'not'? And what about　没? Are you not clear on some sort of concept? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Givnan (talk • contribs) 20:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Tolstoy's name

The article on Leo Tolstoy gives his name a number of ways:

Leo Tolstoy, or Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (September 9 [O.S. August 28] 1828 – November 20 [O.S. November 7] 1910) (Russian: Лев Никола́евич Толсто́й, Russian pronunciation: [lʲɛv nʲɪkɐˈlaɪvʲɪtɕ tɐlˈstoj] listen

I'm sure it's correct, but I've got a few niggling doubts. I have seen his name written as Lyoff, and it seems that Alexandra Tolstaya wrote his name that way when writing English. Now, her spelling makes sense to me: that his name would be Лёв with a yo. Of course that letter can be written with an plain е, but is still pronounced the same. Also, is not the в at the end of his name devoiced? How did Tolstoy write his own name? — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In formal writing, his first name is Лев, with a plain "ye". Лёв, with a "yo", seems to be a diminutive; Russian Wiktionary provides more diminutive forms: Лёвка, Лёвушка. Russians love diminutives and it seems natural that Alexandra would use one when writing about her father. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, final consonants are normally devoiced in Russian, so -ов and -ев endings are usually pronounced with final /-f/; but though spellings in '-off' are not uncommon for English names of Russian origin, they are not usual when transliterating Russian names into English. --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although Лев would, in isolation, normally exhibit devoicing of the /v/ to [f], it's transcribed as voiced because the following word begins with a voiced sound. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that right? I'd have thought that, when it comes to transliteration, words are considered in isolation. More than that, individual letters are considered in isolation. Which is why the way a word is transliterated is not guaranteed to represent the way it's pronounced. Take genitive adjectives ending in -ого (eg. русского), for example. They're transliterated letter for letter as -ogo (russkogo), but pronounced more like -ava (rooskava). I think this is closer to the reason why Л-е-в is transliterated L-e-v and not the way it's pronounced, L-ye-ff. Sergei Rachmaninoff had the right idea, though, when he came to the West. He chucked the transliteration rules out the window and chose a spelling that more accurately reflected how his name was actually pronounced, at least as far as the ending went. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Aeusoes is talking about the phonetic transcription [lʲɛv nʲɪkɐˈlaɪvʲɪtɕ tɐlˈstoj], not the transliteration Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy. —An gr 14:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all, for helping me with these niggling questions. It's good to know that the article is right, and why it's right. As I now understand it, the final consonant of Tolstoy's first name would be devoiced if his patronym were omitted: Russian pronunciation: [lʲɛf tɐlˈstoj]. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish wrestling name translation

I took spanish in highschool, but I don't remember very much of it. My Mexican aunt knows I can't speak it very well, so i always try to come up with some weird phrase just to make her laugh. I've been using this one for years to make my army buddies laugh, but I've never used it around her since I don't get to see her very much. Please tell me if this sentence seems grammatically correct to the Spanish speakers out there: "¡Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor!"

Should it just be "luchador" or should it be "luchador libre"? I have a family reunion coming up and I want to get it printed on a t-shirt along with a luchador libre mask just for the hell of it. I'm sure she will get a kick out of it. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking it would be 'mi nombre de luchar... or something like that. Definitely not luchador nombre, since luchador is not an adjective. Corvus cornix_talk 19:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say:

(If you're a guy): "¡Mi nombre de luchador es Amolador de la Carne y traigo el dolor!"

(If you're a girl): "¡Mi nombre de luchadora es Amoladora de la Carne y traigo el dolor!"

My capitalization isn't that important, though, if you plan to put it on a t-shirt. I haven't heard a Spanish speaker use amolar to refer to grinding meat, but its use as such could grab a more humorous effect, so it's okay.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a guy, so it's luchador. From what I understand (and I could be wrong), amolador de la carne means "meat grinder". Thanks for the help! --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to a quick search (including a link to the Spanish Wikipedia), meat grinder is picadora.Baranxtu (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "fraternities" mean outside of the U.S.?

Currently the term "fraternities" redirects to Fraternity, which is sort of a disambiguation page, but mostly just a poorly written mess.

Everyone in the United States knows that fraternities refers to a type of student organization. But does the term--NOT the singular term "fraternity," but specifically the plural form--have any other connotations outside of the U.S.? In other words, would an Englishman say "The Masons and the Oddfellows are two different fraternities" or would he just say they are two different "societies" or "fraternal organizations"? Bear in mind that I'm not asking if it is possible to use "fraternities" in some other sense than clubs for college boys--I am merely asking if it is commonly used as such.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it is. I would understand it if used, but I don't think I would use it in that sense. (UK English) --ColinFine (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it used in a religious context, such as organisations like Oblates but not for masons etc.hotclaws 01:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is actualy the disambiguation page Fraternity (disambiguation) Note one of the links is secret societies so yes fraternities include the Masons and the Society of the Golden Dawn.Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some definitions of fraternity (OED)

A body or order of men organized for religious or devout purposes.

A family of brothers

The relation of a brother or of brothers; brotherhood.

The state or quality of being fraternal or brotherly; brotherliness.

A body of men associated by some tie or common interest; a company, guild

A body of men of the same class, occupation, pursuits, etc.

When to write HUMID and when to use MOIST ?

I'm confused over when to use which word..

I know the word Humid can be used when describing air that is HOT and DAMP, but in my text here, it is not hot.. it is more of a typical fall/autumn weather, chilly and wet.. is MOIST the right word to use?

"The morning broke foggy, but the fog cleared up not long after daybreak on what was a chilly, bleak morning. The air was MOIST and the ground slightly muddy after a bit of rain had fallen during the night."

if not moist, then what word is the better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.179.83 (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use moist to describe air--it's generally used to describe solid and semi-solid substances. I think "damp" or "misty" might be more appropriate.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! :) damp doesnt feel right, but misty is just what i needed :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.179.83 (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. "Clammy" is yet another option. now who will answer my question???--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikify edit here: dear poster, suggest keep to normal par breaks to avoid scroll-hogging, thanks : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My wife was very often moist, sometimes clammy, and the odd time damp, but never humid. That should give you some idea of how to use the words.ChokinBako (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely images there, Givnan. With weather, we say "the air is moist" but "the weather is humid" or "it's a humid day today", but not "it's a moist day today". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mac /Mc

Can anyone please explain why some Scottish names are prefixed as above; why some are Mac and others Mc.

Many thanks--Artjo (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see if Family_name#Scotland_and_Ireland answers your question. Corvus cornix_talk 20:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cant promise you my asnwer is a correct one but I believe MAC is more commonly used in MODERN day in countries such as for example the USA. While MC came to use in days of old in scottland when people there lived in clans. I believe it meant "son of" so if your last name was Mcgregor, it meant you were the son of Gregor. Just like the use of O' in Ireland, such as O'Brien. So MAC has probably come in modern time and doesnt have any special meaning..

As I said i don't know for sure, but hopefully my answer helps a little.. But I do know for a fact that MAC is more common in USA (and possibly other english talking countries too) while MC is more seen in Scottland

Krikkert7 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have any real idea what you're talking about, it's probably more helpful not to post anything than to write misleading and inaccurate conjecture. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mc and Mac are used in both Scotland and Ireland (land of the micks as my grandfather might have said in a less politically correct time). See Family_name#Scotland_and_Ireland - in some cases the spelling difference may have indicated a male or a female but often it is just difference in the translation for/by the English speakers. Rmhermen (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More likely just spelling variations. "Mac" in Scottish Gaelic means "son." Tha mac agus nighean againn -- "We have a son and a daughter." M'c and M' were common abbreviations according to Ewan J. Innes. The further back you went, the likelier records would be in Gaelic (e.g., Macdonald as Mac Domhnaill; I've never seen the claim that Mc is "old" and "Mac" more modern. For what it's worth, all my grandparents spoke Scottish Gaelic. OtherDave (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that Mc was older. I was just trying to indicating that Mc is not only Scottish but is so common in Ireland that it was used as a term for Irishman. Rmhermen (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Mc is far more common in the U.S. In the 1990 census data, 143 of the top 5000 names use Mc while only about 10 use Mac. And 25 McNames are each more common than the most common MacName. Oddly McDonald (117 most common name in the U.S.) is the most common Mc name while MacDonald is the most common Mac (but only the 821 most common name). Rmhermen (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, either Mc or Mac is a relatively recent re-spelling of how a person's name was actually spelled during their lifetime. A case in point is John Macarthur, the English-born (to Scottish parents) Australian wool pioneer. Despite a lousy personal reputation, he became super-iconic (he made it onto our currency for a long time) and he's been known by the "Macarthur" spelling for over 175 years. But he spelled his own name "M'Arthur" for most of his life (whether he pronounced it “Martha” or some other way, I couldn’t say). He occasionally varied it to “MacArthur”. The spelling “Macarthur” (with a lower case "a") became established only very late in his life. Most sources (including our article and its links) make no mention of this (I've now done something about that), but here are a couple: [1], [2] -- JackofOz (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The variant Mak is also sometimes encountered, such as Sir Thomas Makdougall Brisbane, who also married a woman named Makdougall. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that guys!--Artjo (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sometimes this is shortened to 'mic' (possibly the origin of the word 'Mick' meaning an Irishman), and in the Isle Of Man it is shortened even further to just 'k', which is why so many people in the Isle Of Man have names beginning with 'K'.ChokinBako (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German question

In the question "Was kaufen Sie ein?", what does the "ein" mean or what purpose does it serve? Couldn't you just say "Was kaufen Sie?"? Dismas|^(talk) 23:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"einkaufen" is specifically shopping rather than any other type of purchase, so my guess is that it's a specifier, but my German is pretty rusty. --Rodhull andemu 23:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einkaufen is a separable-prefix verb—whenever it is the main verb of a clause, ein is taken off and put at the end. In this particular case, einkaufen is mostly synonymous with kaufen (so you could leave off the ein), but in other cases the meanings are different: Wer brachte die Hühner? (with bringen) "Who brought the chickens?" but Wer brachte die Hühner um? (with umbringen) "Who killed the chickens?". Strad (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Einkaufen" refers primarily to shopping for the daily necessities - foodstuffs, toilet rolls and the like. You would not use it when purchasing a pair of trousers, a new TFT monitor or a book.

It is a bit like "go" and "go out". In either case you are going somewhere, but you would use "go out" solely in the context of entertainment. You wont be "going out" to the dentist (unless you are a masochist). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That answers the wonderings I've been having about "zu" in sentences using the verb "horen"... Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 21:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madarin "一"

Is it true that "一" is pronounced with different tones depending on the tone of the word following it? If so what rules are there? And how important is it to do so? --212.120.246.239 (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In general, it would change from first to second tone when followed by a fourth tone character. This is very important for 1st year Chinese exams. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it DOR. It also applies to 不，七 and 八, for which it is occasionally called 'yibuqiba tone sandhi' (一不七八变调). That means that 一条 has the pinyin yítiào, not yītiào, and 不对 is búduì, not būduì. Steewi (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

一条 is pronounced as yītiáo, not yítiào. I suspect you may be thinking of 一跳 (yítiào), as in 吓一跳. --Bowlhover (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I mussed up. Thanks for the correction. Steewi (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More info - Speakers of Chinese don't necessarily know that they are making the change. They are taught in school about it, but won't always remember; it's just something they do. Note also that the yibuqiba sandhi is primarily a characteristic of Standard Chinese (i.e. Putonghua) and Beijinghua, and might not be used by speakers of non-standard varieties of Beifanghua. It's important to know for exams and to know of its existence, but in speaking to Chinese people, they're not likely to notice whether you do it or not. Steewi (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it with 七 and 八, but everything else listed is pretty much universal from my experiences. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]