Language desk
< May 22	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 24 >

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.

May 23

Irish orthography

What's the difference between Eoin and Eóin (with the fada). I can't find/understand the difference on Irish orthography. I noticed without the fada is used much more. Is it proper usage with the fada? I'm hoping some Irish speakers can clarify this for me. 216.160.55.34 (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a shot at this, but my Irish is elementary, so someone may need to correct me. Eoin is pronounced more or less as the English say "Owen". The purpose of the fada is to mark the -o- as long. But when you get three vowels together, usually only the one with a fada on it is pronounced. There's no difficulty about pronouncing Eoin, so we can live without the fada. Is that it? Xn4 11:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The fada is superfluous here and completely incorrect as far as I'm aware. Fribbler (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A search of Vicipéid (the Irish Wikipedia) gives hundreds of instances of Eoin, none of Eóin. Xn4 14:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eóin is the older spelling. Long [o:] used to be spelled "ó" after broad consonants and "eó" after slender consonants, but because it was largely redundant, the accent got dropped (even Patrick S. Dinneen's 1927 dictionary doesn't use it). There are very few words where "eo" represents a short vowel: seo "this", anseo "here", deoch "a drink", and eochair "a key" may be the only common words where "eo" is short. —An gr 16:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In line with what Angr says, see Eóin.com - "Eóin is the oldest and most consistently-used Gaelic form of John in both Irish and Scottish Gaelic". So the fada clearly isn't 'improper', it's old-fashioned. Xn4 18:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, though, they're comparing Eóin to other equivalents of John, like Iain in Scottish Gaelic and Seán in Irish, rather than to the fadaless spelling Eoin. —An gr 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exdent: True it was the older spelling, though anseo was also spelled anso in pre-1960s Irish (Ulster and Connaght). The massive changes instituted by the caighdean reforms of the niineteen-sixties changed an awful lot of spellings. I prefer the new spellings :-) Though I accept the historical, of course. Is Mise le meas, an Fribleair . Fribbler (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is this guy's name correct with the fada? 216.160.55.34 (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; as far as I know, Scottish Gaelic (as opposed Irish) still puts an accent mark over the o in the "eo" digraph. However, a recent spelling reform abolished the acute accent in Scottish Gaelic and replaced it everywhere with the grave accent. So "Eóin" is an outdated spelling in both languages, but in Irish the newer spelling is "Eoin" and in Scottish Gaelic it's "Eòin". —An gr 21:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed on another page that we have a user here called Eóin. I'll alert him to this, and we'll see if he has anything to say! Xn4 00:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban him! Disregarding accepted orthography? I think not! :-) Fribbler (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He may be very elderly... but no, I think I hear the sound of a horse-whip being swung through the air. Xn4 00:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to disappoint but I have absolutely no knowledge of Irish! I'm from the states and received the name from my parents after they took some Irish language classes. I know my birth certificate has the fada but most other ID forms lose the fada or any other diacritics for that matter. I've been told that the fada is correct but then again I really don't know what I'm talking about. ~ Eóin (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too spell my name Eóin and I'm irish so we'll just leave it there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.232.64.5 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking bitch vs. fucked bitch

Why do we say the first more often than the second? Mr.K. (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because 'fucking' is a standard English intensifier that can be applied to more or less anything, especially insults, while 'fucked' is a word with a fairly narrow range of meanings. In addition, 'fucked' is normally used predicatively ('that bitch is fucked'); for attributive use, 'fucked-up' is more natural with roughly the same range of meanings. Algebraist 14:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"F###ing" is not in intensifier in this context—it is an adjective indicating that the person/object it applies to is despised by the speaker. "F###ed" means something different and is ambiguous. It may mean that something is very wrong with the person/thing the word applies to. It may also mean that the person/thing was victimized, abused, or betrayed. It may also be literal, meaning that the person/thing is the object/patient of a sexual act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.237.229 (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Bitch' already indicates despisal, which is intensified by 'fucking', hence my claim. Algebraist 14:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, intensifiers are adverbs modifying adjectives making the latter stronger or weaker. Here "f###ing" is an adjective modifying a noun—not in the right category to be an intensifier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.237.229 (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usages may differ here, but the OED lists 'fucking' as an intensifier under both adjective and adverb. Indeed, the first quote under 2a. Used as an intensifier is 'fucking bitch' (well, '******* b—h' actually, but the inference seems sound). Algebraist

It is most definitely an intensifier. No two ways about it. If it was an adjective it would mean 'a bitch (who is in the act of) fucking'. Quite simple.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that 72.78.237.229 is wrong. You can say He's a fucking student. Theres nothing in the word student thats particularly negative, but you do get the impression that whoever said this doesnt like students. The word intensifier is a vague grammatical term (defined notionally). Words like very have also been termed intensifiers (as in He's very nice). What is being "intensified" by these words are different. fucking is expressive (it tells you about the speaker's attitude) while very is not.

I dont think that fucked and fucked up are equivalent. He's fucked and He's fucked up mean different things. – ishwar (speak) 20:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The neat thing about fucking is that it can be spliced in the middle of words: in-fucking-credible, unbe-fucking-lievable, tre-fucking-mendous, etc. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See tmesis (and there's a word that looks like it needs something thrust inside it to complete it)! --Anonymous, 05:57 UTC, May 24, 2008.

In my linguistics classes, this was actually called "infixing." — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An infix is normally an affix, not an independent word. kwami (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

t-fucking-mesis t-fucking-schmesis! This is not the point of the question! :) --ChokinBako (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the question, probably because "bitch" implies the person in question is already efft (ruined, despised, has offended in some way and is probably rooted). Efft isn't usually an adjective, but effing is and can be attached and repeated ad infinitim in many dialects. Rucked if I know, though... ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised this f-ing question got so many answers! Sandman30s (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commented editions of English literature

What is the most prominent edition of commented English literature? (Something equivalent to the "Letras Hispánicas" of "Editorial Cátedra" in Spanish. Mr.K. (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or like the Bibliothèque de la Pléiade for 'classic' French literature? We don't really have an equivalent in English, but for many important books of the kind you mean a good critical edition is published by the Oxford University Press, including a series called the Oxford World's Classics. I wouldn't suggest that the OUP has a general pre-eminence, but it shouldn't let you down. For early texts, there's the wonderful Early English Text Society. Xn4 19:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The texts in Norton Critical Editions are accompanied by good annotations, along with related criticism. For American literature, the Library of America volumes are similar to what you're looking for. Deor (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]