Language desk
< February 20	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 22 >

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.

February 21

Conjugation

It is clearly better to be well-hung than to be well-hanged. Are there any other words that change meaning dramatically depending on how you choose to conjugate them? --67.185.15.77 (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines, it's better to have a ringed neck than a rung neck. LANTZY ^TALK 06:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's wrung neck. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, you're right. Also, 'ringed' is derived from the noun rather than the verb, so it doesn't really count. LANTZY ^TALK 18:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See bid at List of English irregular verbs. -- Wavelength (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wrought" vs. "worked", both past tenses of "to work". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein as the original post, how about "beat" versus "beaten"? He was dead beat when they leapt on him, so could not prevent himself from being badly beaten Ka renjc 20:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could extend that to The deadbeat was dead beat when they leapt on him, so could not prevent himself from being badly beaten. (The beat in deadbeat is not a verb, but it shows another use of the word.) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Transliterations

Hello,

I don't speak any arabic but am quite interested in how its transliterated. Given that there's quite a lot of freedom in things like this, why is it accepted practise to transliterate words like Al Qaeda and Qatata into english using Q (with no proceeding U) and not K? It seems bizarre they're romanicised using letter combinations that don't exist in English. On a related point, I've seen both Koran and Qu'ran, but to me these should sound different (with the second being kw-ran). Does anyone have a plausible explanation? 81.140.37.58 (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a fairly simple one: 'q' and 'k' are different letters in Arabic, 'ﻕ' (qaf) and ﻙ (kaf) respectively, with distinct sounds - IPA /q/ and /k/. 'Koran' is a historic spelling that's inconsistent with a proper transliteration. --Pykk (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The English-speaking world has never come up with any Arabic transliteration scheme that makes everyone happy. Don't think it ever will.--K.C. Tang (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that second one should be "Qur'an" rather than "Qu'ran" (with a hamza rather than an apostrophe if you want to be pedantic about it). Deor (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No transliteration scheme for any language will make everyone happy. But I think the q/k scheme is actually a pretty good transliteration. It preserves the distinction between the original letters for the Arabic speaker, without causing any real trouble for the English speaker who may not be able to distinguish them. Contrast that to, for instance, writing the Polish 'ł' as 'l', which ruins the distinction as well as the pronunciation! --Pykk (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Romanization of Arabic. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A list of links to similar articles for other languages is at Category:Romanization. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

81.140.37.58 -- When the original Phoenician alphabet was borrowed to write the Greek alphabet, there were two letters in the Phoenician alphabet used for writing k-like sounds: kap כ and qop ק. These letters originally wrote two quite distinct and separate sounds in the Phoenician language, but the Greek language only had one single /k/ phoneme, so that only one of the two letters was strictly needed in writing Greek. In the early history of the Greek alphabet, the redundant extra letter was employed by using qoppa to write a "k" sound before an "o" or "u" vowel, and using kappa to write a "k" sound everywhere else. Qoppa was later eliminated from the standard Ionic version of the ancient Greek alphabet, but before that happened, it was borrowed into the Etruscan and Latin alphabets, eventually resulting in the modern English habit of generally using the letter q only before the letter u.

However, in the 19th century, European scholars of the Semitic languages connected the Latin letter "Q" with its source in ancient Phoenician qop ק, and so began using the letter "Q" to transcribe the corresponding letters in a number of languages, such as Arabic qaf ﻕ. Eventually this scholarly practice started influencing the general-use transcriptions of various names, such as "Iraq" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in most modern colloquial Arabic dialects, Arabic qaf ﻕ doesn't have its classical pronounciation as a voiceless uvular stop, but instead has become a "g" sound, a "kh" sound (IPA [x]), a glottal stop etc. That's part of the reason why there are so many spellings in the Latin alphabet of the name of Gaddhafi (strict scholarly transcription qaððāfī or al-qaððāfī)... AnonMoos (talk)

Liyannaj?

What does 'Liyannaj' mean in (Antillean Creole), used in 'Liyannaj Kont Pwofitasyon'? Could it be 'Committee', from Arabic لجنة? --Soman (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One site has "Il y en a contre la profitation" = Liyanna Kont Pwofitasyon. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you know that the "j" is before the "n" in Arabic lajna لجنة -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i can read that. However, the 'y' in Liyannaj probably has a 'j' sound. --Soman (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would tend to doubt it, since the use of the letter "y" to represent a "zh" or "j" sound seems to be mainly confined to southern hemisphere Spanish, while the language of Guadeloupe would be likely to be written with French orthographic conventions in mind... AnonMoos (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be French lien "link" + -age, though I don't know whether the word lien(n)age actually exists in French (or how many Ns to spell it with if it does). —An gr 19:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in my Petit Robert. —Tamfang (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liyannaj comes from "lien", and means a bonding or union. The name could then be translated as "union against exploitation". See here for the word used in another context. --Xuxl (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English language question - differences in speech and conversation

In what way does the way a 16 year old speaks differ from the way an 18 year old speaks? Thanks. Clover345 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably nothing. Speech patterns, such as dialect and idiolect and the like are probably all set long before even 16. 18 year olds may have somewhat greater exposure to vocabulary, and so may know a few more words, but otherwise I would say the differences are far smaller between a 16 year old and an 18 year old than between two 18-year olds who come from different parts of the world. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of males, an 18-year old may have a slightly deeper voice than a 16-year old. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they are brothers one of them may use unusual vocabulary and synonyms. That would usually be the older one, doen't have to be, though. Think of Peter and Andy in FoxTrot. With a 2 year difference the pop culture buzzwords they'd use would probably be quite close. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the suffix "Jr."

When you have the suffix "Jr." after a person's name, are you supposed to include a comma or not? Thus, is it correctly "John Smith, Jr." or "John Smith Jr."? Specifically, this question is geared toward the Wikipedia convention for the correct title of an article. The article in question is Lillo Brancato Jr.. Also, Wikipedia rules and conventions aside, what is the correct format in "real life"? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I can't find anything in the Wikipedia MoS. I really mean I can't find anything in the Wikipedia MoS. There's no index, and information is scattered all over the place. I guess standard practice in the US has always been "John Smith, Jr." The junior is parenthetical, so it also takes a comma after it: "John Smith, Jr., was in attendance." Nowadays you also see it the way your article has it, but I don't like that because it looks like the junior is part of the name. The Chicago Manual of Style says that commas "are no longer required". The Associated Press Stylebook says flat out to omit the commas. So, I'm officially a dinosaur now. No commas: "John Smith Jr." (I don't know whether the British use "Jr" for "Jr." or not.) While we're on the subject, "III" and the like never did take commas. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Senior and junior, a comma is included in Wikipedia articles. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to cause trouble, I seem to remember that the (former?) editor of Smithsonian signs his name N N jr. —Tamfang (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(with no stop) —Tamfang (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Much appreciated. You have answered my questions about this. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

think

hi! i've been hearing in many places the form thinked as past tense. is that correct? thanks! Ricardofrantz (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's possible as a playful or facetious form, but "thunk" would be more usual in that role. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought "thunk" was a slang word.. I would use "thought". Queenie ^Talk 20:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't express myself clearly. "Thinked" is wrong. So is "thunk". There are times, though, when an English-speaking person will misconjugate for humorous or derisive effect, and in the case of the verb "to think", the usual misconjugation for the simple past is "thunk", but "thinked" is also possible. I only mention the misconjugations because they are attested and are used, wrong though they are. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unleth, of courthe, you are a lithping thubmarine captain. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See List of English irregular verbs. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thank you! Ricardofrantz (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength were you thinking of List of English irregular verbs? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was thinking of List of English irregular verbs, which was deleted 01:01, 23 February 2009.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Internet Archive Wayback Machine. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czech nickname for Josef (or ?)

Several characters in Jiří Weil's novel Život s hvězdou (Life with a Star) call protagonist Josef Roubicek by the same nickname – but what is it? I only have access to Ruth Bondy's Hebrew translation (1990), in which it appears (unvocalized) as פפיק. I'd like to know if it's related to the name "Josef," and whether it's particularly affectionate, juvenile, or associated with other qualities. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be "pupik," which means "belly button" in Czech as in Yiddish? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close. I'd wager it's "Pepík", a Czech nickname for 'Josef'. The "-ik" ending is diminutive, so it does have an affectionate quality, like all nicknames. You'd have to ask a Czech, but I don't think it's particularly juvenile; at least in the Polish case, I know plenty of adult Poles who are more often referred to by their corresponding -ek nicknames ("Tomek", "Wojtek") than their given names. --Pykk (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty convincing, as another character (Czech factory worker), also a Josef who points out that their names are identical, is addressed by a workmate in coversation by the same or similar name (since the Hebrew text I'm reading is unvocalized). Perhaps someone with a copy of the text in a Latin-script language would confirm? -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's close to the Spanish "Pepe", which is a nickname for "José". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably an affectionante hypochoristic for someone who's actual name is Josef. But "Pepik" may be also used pejoratively in Czech, in a meaning equivalent to "hillbilly", even if the person's actual name is not Josef. In Polish, "Pepik" is a derogatory term for Czechs and Slovaks in general. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So similar to the use of the nickname "Joe" (for Joseph) in English to address or refer in a jocular or derisive tone to a man whose first name is unknown, possibly as to a yokel; likewise in third-person monikers such as "Joe Blow" or "Joe Shmo." --Deborahjay (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous nicknames for Josef in Czech. The most frequent ones may be Pepa (with no diminutive suffix), Pepík (with a diminutive suffix), or Pepíček (with an even stronger diminutive suffix, used primarily for children, or ironically). However, other nicknames (such as Pepča or Pepan) can be formed occasionally. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 08:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Correct?

Strictly speaking, is the word "their" in "Due to their recent rapid sales growth, retail stores are increasing their stock of popular items" grammatical? A SAT book claims that because "items" is another plural noun in the main clause, "their" is ambiguous. I think that because "their" is the last pronoun of the dependent clause and "stores" is the first noun of the independent, there's no cause for confusion. Can somebody explain? --99.237.96.81 (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Context removes ambiguity. Are we selling more stores or more items? While, if we diagrammed the sentance and ignored the actual words, the actual antecedant of "their" may be ambiguous, in actual usage only one antecedant makes sense. Real words often remove apparent ambiguity where theoretical sentance structure would imply it otherwise exists. Consider a similar sentance "Lots of people eat bagels with their hands". Whose hands? The bagel's hands or the people's hands? Only one antecedant makes sense, so since bagels don't have hands, we automatically "know" which antecedant "their" is refering to... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is that an introductory prepositional phrase refers to the subject of the sentence. Not a "rule", exactly, more like an observation that helps the doubtful writer avoid producing danglers. A reader always takes the introductory phrase to apply to the subject following. In the sentence "Due to their recent rapid sales growth, retail stores are increasing their stock of popular items", the antecedent of the first "their" is unambiguously "retail stores" (even though "retail stores" comes after the pronoun). The second "their" also has "retail stores" for an antecedent. The SAT book got this one wrong. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]