Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 August 28

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.

August 28

German orthography

I have few questions:

• Are there any native modern German words with the pentagraph tzsch (like the surname Nietzsche) or the tetragraph zsch (like in the toponymy Zschopau)?
• Is the digraph ey (for example in Reinhard Heydrich) supposed to be always red as ei (like in Einstein)? Is it used in common words?
• Is there a word containing all the umlaut vowels (ä, ö, ü)?

--151.51.19.149 (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Not that I can find in a dictionary. The German article de:Digraph (Linguistik) only mention those two native examples. The other examples seem to come from English or other languages. The article on German orthography says both are pronounced like the trigraph "sch" with a "t" in front.

2. "Y" is currently only used in borrowed and foreign words and proper names, so it wouldn't appear in common words. German orthography says "ey" and "ay" are always pronounced the same as "ei" and "ai" (like "i" in English). I think "ey" and "ay" are archaic or otherwise no longer in use.

3. I don't think it's possible. (Wasn't there just another question like this?) Two animals have two special characters: "Tausendfüßler" (centipede/millipede) and "Glühwürmchen" (firefly), and I'm sure there is more. Xenon54 / talk / 13:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I found "Putzschere" ((scissors for cutting candlewick) in the dictionary, and there must be many more like that! Ehrenkater (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Although that's a compound word (Putz + Schere) rather than a true pentagraph as in Nietszche. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, although isn't Nietzsche formed from "Nietz" + "-sche"? You can always make up compound words that will satisfy 3. too, eg "Löschhütchengeräuch", the noise made by candle snuffers :) Ehrenkater (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The noise made by candle snuffers. You have created a completely new image; thank you. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Jokes about Scotland/Scottish People in the German Language

A German-speaking coworker and I have been spending our down time reading jokes in German. We've noticed one thing that we cannot explain: that there seem to be so many jokes about Scotland or Scottish people. Is there a reason for all of this attention being payed to Scots? It seems sort of random, given that Germany really doesn't have any historical connection to Scotland at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.200.5 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What website did you find (if you are reading the jokes online)? The only logical explanation I have is that you stumbled a website devoted to Scottish jokes, or a Scottish section of a larger jokes website. <stereotype>Of course, Scots are far from the hardest people to make fun of, what with their funny accents, quirky "pants", and affinity for golf.</stereotype> Xenon54 / talk / 13:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

<stereotype>Actually, I think when anybody but the British jokes about the Scots it's almost always about their supposed stinginess. I would imagine the jokes the OP has been reading are mainly about that, as well. </stereotype> TomorrowTime (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just watch The Simpsons and you'll see all variety up jokes about Groundskeeper Willy, from language jokes ("Keep Oot", "your dog pooped all over the floor and I just 'ate it !"), kilt jokes (while watching "upkilt.com" -> "Eww, this lass could do with a bit a groundskeeping ... wait, that's Willy !"), to Scottish temper (his fights with his estranged brother the gravedigger).StuRat (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget their thriftiness and them playing the bagpipes. An instrument you squeeze with your armpit is just made for jokes...and don't even get me started on haggis. :-) StuRat (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Then there was the more obscure thing in Monty Python, about an extraterrestrial turning all the world's tennis players into Scots so he could win Wimbledon - because everyone knows (or at least everyone in the U.K.) that Scots are not very good at tennis. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Is my memory way off, or was the extraterrestrial an enormous blancmange? Jwrosenzweig (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

They needn't have gone that far. No Briton has won the Wimbledon male singles final since almost time immemorial. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well both these old saws are being proved wrong at the moment: Andy Murray. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope he makes it. They had similar high hopes for Tim Henman but he went the way of all his predecessors since Fred Perry in 1936. No Briton has even made it to the final since Bunny Austin in 1938. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Here in Germany the primary if not only stereotype about the Scots is indeed their stinginess. There's even a discount store here called Mäc-Geiz (with "Mäc" being the Germanified version of the Gaelic surname prefix Mac, and Geiz being the German word for stinginess). Their logo is a stereotypical Scotsman in tam o'shanter and kilt. No one seems to find this offensive, either; can you imagine the hue and cry if they had called their store "Geizberg" or "Geizowicz" and had a logo showing a stereotypical Jew? +Angr 09:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sweden and France also have stingy Scots jokes in abundance-- perhaps it's become a universal stereotype in Europe. Similar jokes are also told in France against the Auvergnats, and in Spain against Catalans; I believe early American humor also took aim at over-thrifty Yankees.

Ethnic humor seems to focus mainly on three principal aspects: stupidity, laziness, and avarice. An interesting barometer of popular values.Rhinoracer (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget sexual perversion. —Tamfang (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Best textbook for beginner learning Italian?

I'm an adult British-english speaking beginner wanting to learn Italian on my own, not in a class. What would be the best textbook or learning material to use? The main criterion would be something enjoyable to use, so that I am not tempted to give up. Contatti looks appealling, but a reader's review on Amazon co uk says it is not suitable for non-class reading as a lot of it is taught by role-play. I would be happy to use children's material, and as I said earlier the main criterion is something easy to study, rather than something formal and compact that I would probably give up on. And which would be the best dictionary to use please? 78.146.67.62 (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I studied Dutch using Linguaphone and after just 6 weeks I was told I was speaking like a native. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest anything that includes an audio version, as however good the phonetical descriptions of a foreign language, nothing beats actually hearing it from native speakers. I for one am currently using one of the Assimil series to learn Moroccan Arabic. The format appeals to me: there are usually grammar and vocabulary sections, whilst the approach is based on real-life situations (unlike some of the older text books where you can decline irregular verbs in the subjunctive whilst having the correct form of the adjective in the neuter genitive but be incapable of buying a loaf of bread). Just my 2 dirhams. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As to children material, I warmly suggest the short movies of the little dog "la Pimpa", by Francesco Tullio Altan (who is mainly a satirical cartoonist,btw, maybe the most important in Italy today). As soon as you can understand the language, you'll be delighted by their lovely kind of childish irony. You can find them and have a look on Youtube. --pma (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a textbook, but LiveMocha has free online lessons, using an approach similar to Rosetta Stone's. These include audio and also the opportunity to record your voice and receive feedback from skills speakers of the language you're learning. (They also have an option to pay for tutoring.) --- OtherDave (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Electronic comparison of pronounciation

I remember a computer CD for beginners learning French being given away with a sunday newspaper. It was said that it included the feature of being able to use it with a microphone to evaluate how close your pronounciation was to the pronounciation(s) on the CD. I imagine at least two pronounciations were give, for men and women. Is this feasible, and are such cds or similar available for other languages please? 78.146.67.62 (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Rosetta Stone has a feature like that. It's ridiculously expensive but worth it if you need to learn a language fast. Xenon54 / talk / 14:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mandarin and Rosetta Stone

While we are in a language-learning vein, I want to learn Mandarin. My impression of Rosetta Stone is that it is very good at teaching vocabulary and maybe pronunciation but very weak on syntax and structure. I don't necessarily want to memorize a lot of grammatical rules, but I do want to internalize the most important syntactic rules and, for example, the use of aspect through practice. Am I right that Rosetta Stone won't be much help there? Can anyone recommend a language-learning program that will cover structure as well as basic vocabulary for Mandarin? Thanks! Marco polo (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I use Rosetta Stone (Spanish, FWIW), so will answer on it. (It is also quite expensive and there are probably cheaper things that will work...) It starts with basic words (dog, cat, boy, girl, man, woman) and phrases (a woman under an airplane; a ball on a boy; etc.) and then goes to sentences and gets more complex as you go. (It's designed to teach you the language approximately the same way a baby would learn to speak it as a mother tongue.) And, yes, it is pronunciation-based as well. I've never used it with Mandarin - and as that is totally differnet from what I'm using with Spanish . . . not sure what it would be there. I don't know anything about other programs. They might be better. I don't know. L☺g☺maniac chat? 15:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No experience with Rosetta Stone I'm afraid, but whilst you are awaiting a more comprehensive programme, try out the BBC's free online course. FWIW I have found that small classes of 4-6 with a native speaker trained in teaching their mother tongue as a foreign language (native speakers with good intentions but have no idea about teaching foreign languages tend to tell you "it's just how we say it" or give you erroneous explanations - and that was in a language school!) are the most rewarding and the quickest way to progress, with few enough pupils for the teacher to give you a high level of attention and enough to make rôle-playing interesting. From my experience with various media I have noted huge disparities in guides to pronunciation and as for translitteration from non Latin-based characters... Feedback on your pronunciation is highly desirable, as miniscule differences in inflection can lead to (no exaggeration, real-life example from Moroccan Arabic) describing something as donkey-like as opposed to green. In any case, I hope you find what suits you, as this can vary from person to person, and above all, have fun whilst learning. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Alexandr, I took the liberty of editing the BBC url so "BBC" would show up in the text. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'd prefer to work with audiofiles for now. Maybe I'd consider a tutor at some point. I prefer to progress at my own pace. Also, I actually have some background in Mandarin and would like to skip quickly through the initial lessons. Marco polo (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is a site like ChinesePod, not that I've tried to learn Chinese. As with other sites, it offers levels, from basic lessons for free to internet-phone sessions with a tutor. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're on the fence about buying the Rosetta Stone program, go to LiveMocha. It's a free website that has the basic strategy as Rosetta Stone, allbeit with more interactivity with native speakers to help you learn (though I haven't tried it past the basic RS-esque audio-visual association lessons). I have tried RS for Japanese, and can attest, as the OP suggested, that there is too much focus on vocab and hardly anything on syntax. Spanish is RS's poster child, so it's the best they've got, but the more exotic the language you're learning, the less developed their software is.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 19:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest Routledge's excellent series of books 'Colloquial [language]'. They have Mandarin, and a CD comes with it. You get grammar and vocabulary there, and you go from beginner to fairly decent intermediate in the one book. I've used this series for other languages and can attest that they are excellent to use. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Which versus who

Which of the following questions do you think is more correct?

1. "Which is more likely to be literate, a man or a woman?"

2. "Who is more likely to be literate, a man or a woman?"

Thank you. Marco polo (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The first -- while "who" refers to a person, you do not mention a person per se as much as your question asks about an entity, an example of which is a specific person. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would consider the first correct and the second not, but I would also consider "Who is more likely to be literate, John or Mary"? to be correct. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. That was my thinking exactly, but I have a copy editor insisting on the second form. I will stet the change. Marco polo (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As a freelance copy-editor (and that is as much as I am a freelance zoologist, sociologist and anthropologist :) I find that I'm driven to make changes, and sometimes, I would like to change something that, had it been written in the manner I want to change it to, I would wish to change it to what it is. Now I'm not talking about anything more than style, and this isn't really a style question (I think this is more of a regulation of grammar) -- but it may be that this copy editor is not a stickler for this rule and figures it's more style. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Marco polo, the question is really "Which person", which is why it cannot be "who" ("Who person?" - nah, that doesn't work). Even where we know the choice is between John and Mary, we would still ask "Which of them is more likely", not "Who of them is more likely". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Who" when used correctly can often be replaced by "which person" so that's not really very instructive. "Who person" is wrong, but that's not the question. "Who of them" sounds off, but I'm not sure it's incorrect considering "who among you" seems to be ok. Rckrone (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think "Who is more likely to be literate?" is an entirely reasonable sentence. If I phrased it "In your family, w--- is more likely to be literate?", I think "which" seems awkward, though "which person" is a bit better. "who" seems quite natural, though. I think it depends on how you conceive of the choices, whether as abstract choices ("which") or as concrete people ("who"). You wouldn't answer the door by saying "Which person is it?", would you? :) Indeterminate (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You might, if you're sure that the person at the door is one of a fixed set of people that it could be. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What about "Which one..." ? I'm aware that 'which' can function perfectly well as a pronoun, but treating it as an adjective + pronoun 'one'is less likely to cause discomfort caused by the fact that 'which', as a relative pronoun, is reserved for non-human antecedents. Rhinoracer (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If you take the simple "which" to be an abbreviation for "which sex", I think the answer becomes clear. It's the first one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

But "Which sex is more likely to be literate, a man or a woman?" is malformed. One would instead say "Which sex is more likely to be literate, man or woman?" (or "male or female?"). It becomes clearer when you unpack the sentence further: "(A person of) Which (sex) is more likely to be literate, a man or a woman?" That's an awful lot of unpacking to do, so I fully understand why a copy-editor would balk at this slightly awkward phrasing. Normally one would use "Who" in a construction like this; the only thing preventing that is the fact that "a man or a woman" doesn't refer to any particular man or woman, but is semantically a stand-in for "man or woman". -Silence (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think all the comments above about "which person" and "which sex" are beside the point, "Who" and "which" can both function perfectly well as pronouns; but as Silence says, "who" requires a specific answer not a generic one, so would not normally be used for a choice between indefinite phrases. --ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames in the English language

I'm totally fine with "Kenny" for Kenneth and "Sammy" for Samuel or Samantha, but what's the deal with "Jim" for James and "Jack" for John -- I don't see any resemblance. Let's include "Ted" for Edward, such as in Ted Kennedy, in my question as well, and the slight overlap shouldn't be a consideration, unless tedgar and tedmond would be used as well. I first had this question because of Star Trek, and I'll tell you that it took me a really long time while reading Dracula that Jack Seward was the same character as John. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a small group of English nicknames where the first syllable, or something like it, is the initial nickname; and then the first letter is changed (or added). Here are some:

William - Will - Bill

Richard - Rick - Dick

Robert - Rob - Bob

Robert - Robin - Dobbin (that's an old-fashioned one)

Edward - Ed - Ted or Ned

Margaret - Meg - Peg

Mary - Molly - Polly

Mary - Maisy - Daisy (another old-fashioned one)

Ellen - Ellie - Nellie

Anna - Ann - Nan

Martha - Matty - Patty (also short for Patricia, of course)

I know there are more but I can't think of them just now. Jack for John, I think comes from Jacob or Jacques somehow. Jim for James may just be vowel slurring, as with Meg for Margaret, but I can't say for sure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a large number of English surnames that are based on these nicknames - Dixon from Richard, Dobbins and Hobbes from Robert, Dodge and Hodges from Roger, etc. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an article nickname, but it's not very good. --Anonymous, 20:45 UTC, August 28, 2009.

Jack for John is an interesting one. It was originally a nickname, and in many cases still is (he says, referring to his own moniker). But it's become a name in its own right these days. Many babies are christened Jack, relatively few get John or Jonathan. I'll tell you a story that makes this clear. A few years ago I bought a flight under Jack, and when I got to the airport and produced my photo ID, I was told I couldn't get on board because the name on the ID (John) was not the name under which I'd made the purchase. I said that Jack is a very common nickname for John, but that cut no ice initially. I put it to the guy that if my legal name were Robert and I had bought the ticket as Bob, would that have been a problem? Or Jim for James? He said that would have been fine, since everyone knows that Bob/Jim is just a short form of Robert/James. But he said Jack is a name that's considered sufficiently different from John these days, to make it a problem in cases like this. I had to catch that flight, so I ate humble pie and pleaded with him, and he eventually relented after about 15 minutes. Ever since, I've been extremely careful to use my legal given name to book flights. This was not long after 9/11, when airlines were paranoid to the max. -- JohnofOz ... er, JackofOz

Bill Bryson tells a similar story about being denied frequent flyer points because the checkin staff could not understand that William Jefferson Bryson was the same person as Bill Bryson. My husband, another Bill, has struggled with paying Bill cheques into William bank accounts and with ID that describes him as Mr B... rather than Mr W... I suspect JackofOz has the right of it, and society's increasing tendency to give children nicknames as their given name is causing those nicknames to become names in their own right. Look at Prince Harry - how many of the Harrys named after him have "Henry" on their birth certificates? Karenjc 21:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh - I've just thought about Nancy for "Anne", and "Ned" for "Edward" (as above). These are said to have formed by metanalysis from "mine Anne" and "mine Ed(ward)", just as "an apron" fromed from "a napron". It only explains a few, though. Karenjc 21:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll just point out that the topic (sort of) of this thread, the word nickname itself, is another example, being derived from "an ekename". Deor (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And if anyone is wondering what that could possibly have to do with eke out, I'll happily tell. But I hate to be a bore. —Tamfang (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The article diminutive is excellent for explaining how my first name becomes Sasha (amongst other things) in Russian, but rather weak on explanations for English first names (that being the epitomy of British understatement). -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that Alexandr is right and that many of these variants (probably including Nancy) were formed hypocoristically. Ehrenkater (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that nicknames like "Nan" for Ann (or Anna, Annabel, etc.), "Ned" for Edward, "Nell" for Ellen, etc. are from "mine Anna", "mine Edward" etc. which got transformed into "Nan" and "Ned". That would explain some odd ones. Have you looked at Wiktionary's extensive list of nicknames for "Elizabeth"?! It's almost funny.  :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 00:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I'm sorry, I didn't see Karenjc's comment. But (s)he is right. *sheepish grin* L☺g☺maniac chat? 00:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the dictionary.com entry. Jack comes from Janken that is Jan (John) + kin (as in a relative). Jacob and John are two different names with completely different etymologies.

Also keep in mind that Ted probably originally came from Theodore (the Th > T change isn't too outlandish given the spelling)

I've always found the nicknames that don't take the first syllable to be interesting. There's Topher from Christopher, Gretchen from Margaret and Theo from Matthew (Okay, I made the last one up, but it could work, right?). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about Drew (Andrew), Sandy (Alexander), Becca (Rebecca), Tori (Victoria)... --TammyMoet (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, and all this time I thought Sandy was from Cassandra. I've never heard an Alexander called Sandy. Do you mean Alexandra? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Sandy#People under "Men:", you'll see it's not just a woman's name. For example, Sandy Wollaston was an Alexander, and Alexander Patch was called Sandy. +Angr 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought that "Sandy" was the archetypal Scottish nickname (with competition perhaps from "Jock")—the popularity of medieval romances of Alexander the Great in Scotland having led to many children's being given the name Alexander—just as "Taffy" is for a Welshman and "Paddy" for an Irishman. Deor (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Lyle --TammyMoet (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandy is a male character in the Wrinkle in Time series, main character in Many Waters. L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

With regards to Jack/John, it's probably from far back enough when you remember that it comes through Greek yuchanon (thus also Johann, Joaquin, Eoghann, Ivan, etc.). The velar/uvular sound that's dropped in John still comes out in the nickname. With regards to Robin->Dobby, Richard->Dick, etc., it's from when the English /r/ phoneme was a tap or a trill rather than an approximant like it is today (as it still is in Scottish English). A tapped rhotic is easily confused/mixed with a voiced dental stop (i.e. /d/). This is common in a number of languages (particularly Indian languages)where there is free variation between the two. With regards to Will-Bill, it's sensible to think of it as the /w/ being pronounced as /v/ (as in Wilhelm) and then undergoing fortition (hardening) to /b/. Elizabeth->Buffy is the last syllable alone with /θ/->/f/. Martha->Patty and Margaret->Peggy is also fortition of the first phoneme (like Gaelic mutations). I'm still lost on the last step of Mary->Maisry->Maisy->Daisy. Steewi (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of John and its congeners coming through Greek, and I'm a bit dubious because of that 'u' in the first syllable: Hebrew 'Yochanan' has the 'o' of most of the modern versions. But I may be wrong.

I think you're trying too hard with the initial changes in hypocoristics. You can account for 'Robin' -> 'Dobby' but not 'Robert' -> 'Bob' for example. While the processes you're mentioning may have had some contribution, I don't think the changes can be accounted for phonetically. Note that other languages have their own ways of forming hypocoristics (I'm thinking of Waiting for Godot, originally written in French, where Vladimir and Estragon call each other 'Didi' and 'Gogo' if I remember correctly. Compare 'Fifi', 'Lulu' etc.) --ColinFine (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)