Language desk
< October 12	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 14 >

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.

October 13

Sounds like

I'm sometimes missing something when reading a WP article (an easy example: Granophyre) and the subject pronunciation is described in IPA. I look at the the IPA symbols and have no idea how to pronounce the subject. Am I in the minority about this? Would it be non-encyclopedic to include a sounds like descriptor? When I encounter this situation would I be diminishing the article to include "sounds like" in small print? Is reading IPA so prevalent that I'm a "dinosaur"? I've seen some articles that include both IPA and "sounds like" but I'm uncomfortable about adding the "sounds like" as I've not found any guidelines. My personal opinion is that the less educated (non-IPA) folks who want to reference WP ought to at least be able to pronounce properly without jumping through IPA hoops so, both should be included -hydnjo talk 02:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way, but there are two problems with "sounds like" methods. First, it's easy to find examples that work for your own dialect of English and not someone else's -- "caught" may or may not sound exactly like "cot", "merry" may or may not sound exactly like "marry" and/or "Mary", "whine" may or may not sound exactly like "wine". Second, there are some sounds in English where there's no combination of letters that clearly represents that sound and no other. For example, suppose someone's name sounded like "thin" except with the "th" pronounced as in "that", and you were writing an article about that person -- how would you write a "sounds like" for that name?

In fact the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) recommendation is that IPA should always be used, but it is acceptable to supplement it with "sounds like" methods if you are careful to avoid problems. --Anonymous, 03:24 UTC, October 12, 2008.

This would be a good discussion to post at the Village Pump (or wherever appropriate), because while I do understand IPA and appreciate it, no single IPA transcription can represent every English dialect. I find it especially annoying that some of WP's articles contain the RP IPA while other contain General American. Perhaps we could begin a project to complement every IPA transcription with a Merriam-Webster-like, WP-approved pronunciation?--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 03:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That no transcription system could apply to all dialects is an issue that has been brought up in regards to our transcription conventions laid out at WP:IPA for English (very close to what you've suggested). Take a look at the talk page there. I think the inconsistancy has more to do with the sheer size of Wikipedia and the inability of frame-pushing transcription homogenizers to keep up than with a standard that accepts variation. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we'd use a scheme that reflects every phonemic distinction made by any dialect, while accepting that within a given dialect some pairs of notations may sound alike. (I've sometimes seen this called diaphonic transcription, though etymologically that seems a bit fishy.) This is possible because pronunciation differences between dialects have patterns; this is also why it's possible to imitate another dialect without first hearing a sample of every word you'll need. The first OED, I believe, has this property; with IPA, it became a Dictionary of Oxford English. IPA allows for different levels of abstraction, though, so probably it's possible to use a version of IPA for what I have in mind. —Tamfang (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Diaphone_(linguistics) and Diasystem, though neither one seems all that great (the Diasystem article seems to define "pluricentric language", not diasystem as such). AnonMoos (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your time, attention and thoughts. Given that, I think I'll just add a phonetic pronunciation where I deem appropriate and not feel badly about it. If I get rv'd I'll not war - one unpronounceable at a time I say! ;) hydnjo talk 23:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to the Village pump per el Aprel's suggestion. hydnjo talk 03:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What language:

"Li donaríem la paraula a Vicky perquè ens presenti la seva empresa." From a speech given in Barcelona, Spain. Grsz ^X 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure, but it could be the Catalan language. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed Catalan. A translation via this website gives us this...:

"We would give the word to Vicky so that he|she|it presents us its|his|her|their company"

Later --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lower case Cyrillic "Te"

I studied Russian at school in the UK about 14 years ago (age 12 to 16!). I remember little of it, other than the lowercase of "Te" was not т but a "m" with a line above. The wikipedia article explains that Slavic and Macedonian alphabets have "ш" with a line above instead of "т", but where does the upright "m" with a line that I was taught come from? Why isn't it in unicode? (My teacher was British, with strong links to Moscow) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.241.182 (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's only used in handwriting, where traditionally the m-looking symbol was used for т, and a larger version for Т. Because it can so easily be confused with ш/Ш, it became the practice to put a bar across the top. These days, it's more usual to find a handwritten symbol that looks, in lower case, like a т with an elongated downstroke. In upper case, a normal capital Т is often found, but a symbol that looks like a large Greek pi (the math symbol - don't know how to reproduce it here) with a middle downstroke, is also found. In printed text, the m version of т still appears in italics, but without the horizontal bar: Roman т becomes italic т. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the font; I see a little T — though I seem to remember that on a previous occasion, when a similar question arose here, I saw m when I used a different computer. —Tamfang (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Te (Cyrillic). jnestorius^(talk) 20:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...ussia?

What does ussia mean? In the Russia, Prussia context, not the rapper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.193.191 (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've broken the words into the wrong units. The correct way to break them up is as "Rus" and "-ia" and "Prus" and "-ia". The Rus were a group of Norse invaders that settled in the region of Moscow and Kiev during the viking expansions of the 1000's and 1100's. Thus "Russia" is roughly "Land of the Rus". The Prus were a native Baltic people who settled in area around the modern cities of Gdansk and Kaliningrad. Thus Prussia is "Land of the Prus". Interestingly the modern states bear no connection, ethnographically speaking, to their names. Russia is of course a Slavic nation, not a Scandanavian one, and the 19th century Prussia was a German nation, not a Baltic one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This brings up the question of why some countries which bear no resemblance to each other except in their geographical proximity have similar sounding names, like Iran and Iraq.--ChokinBako (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Arabic, Iraq begins with a voiced pharyngeal, has a short vowel in its first syllable, and has a prefixed definite article, while none of that is true of Iran, so that the names are really not very similar at all: العراق إيران -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English to Welsh translation please

My Welsh is only at conversation level and I need the following translating for my website journeyofabook.com :

Please write in your native language.

Thanks St91 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The web has lots of good translators, at least for word-for-word translation (many screw up idiomatic translations). The site InterTran which I use regularly comes up with the following English-to-Welsh translation:

"Blesio dorri i mewn 'ch brodor dafodiaith". Have no clue how accurate that is. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not very. Remember "People called 'Romanes', they go, the house" from Life of Brian? I'd use [Ysgrifennwch yn eich mamiaith, os gwelwch yn dda.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) —An gr 20:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a separate article Romani ite domum, but it got merged... AnonMoos (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angr's translation is much better. The Jade Knight (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that centurion bother to make a distinction between accusative and locative, when the case ending is the same anyway? Or is that the joke? My Latin teachers were never like that.--ChokinBako (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the theory behind it is the important thing. The nominative and vocative of "Romani" are the same too, but they're careful to point out that "Romani" is in the vocative in "Romani ite domum". —An gr 10:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "Ysgrifennwch yn eich mam-iaith, os gwelwch yn dda", but that is fairly formal. I don't know much colloquial Welsh. --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Intertran translation takes words, regardless of context, and gives the translation word-for-word literally. That translation really is fairly worthless. Be careful about internat translations, the one last corner of the internet where reform is needed! doktorb _words^deeds 19:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comma or no comma?

"The question is not whether minimum sentences are inherently in keeping with the principle of restraint, but rather whether restraint is used when setting a minimum sentence." Do I need a comma after "rather"? I don't think I do, but "rather whether" seems like an awkward, tongue-twisting construction. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Rather' is redundant in this sentence- 'but' already establishes the contrast. You should cut 'rather' out of the sentence entirely. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But if you do keep rather and put a comma after it, then you need one before it as well. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that rather needs either two commas or none, and that rather is redundant, but I disagree with FisherQueen's explanation. It is not the preceding but that makes it redundant, but rather the following whether, as Cherry suggests. There are a number of optional words in English which can tag the endpoints of paired elements, as in the following:

not X but [rather] Y
not only X but [also] Y
[either] X or Y
[both] X and Y
if X, [then] Y

The optional element is useful if the first [X] element is so long that it might be difficult to parse where it ends and the second [Y] element begins; or if X itself contains and, but, etc. In the original example, the X and Y elements are both demarcated by whether, so there is no possibility of such confusion. jnestorius^(talk) 20:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everybody. I took out the "rather" and it sounds much better. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inherent-ly is sure-ly wrong (?), it is also complete-ly überflüssig.--Radh (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Inherently" seems fine to me. "The question is whether sentences are inherently in keeping..." The sense is similar to "whether they are by their nature..." or "whether they are essentially...." --- OtherDave (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]