Language desk
< February 27	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	March 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.

February 28

A few of chinese phrases

Could someone please tell me the meaning of the following phrases: “老师好”， “早”， “同学们好”， “老师再见”. Thanks!Yakeyglee (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can look up the characters but I can't say as to the grammar:

老师好 - teacher good (perhaps good teacher?)

早 - early

同学们好 - classmates good (perhaps good classmates?)

老师再见 - goodbye teacher

(Don't thank me, thank On-Line Chinese Tools.)- Eron^Talk 01:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"老师好" and "同学们好" are greetings to the teacher and classmates respectively. It's like saying, "Hello teacher" and "hello classmates." "早" is "good morning." "老师再见" means "goodbye teacher." bibliomaniac 1 5 01:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, "早" as a character by itself does, in fact, mean 'early', but it would be a rare occasion (in modern Chinese) to hear it said in isolation, and, as we are dealing with greetings here, it is an abbreviated form for 「早上好」, which means 'Good morning.' (around about the only occasion when the character "早" would be heard alone). as Biblio says.--KageTora (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Root words in a polysynthetic language

I just noticed that in the Inuinnaqtun dictionary, published by Nunavut Arctic College, the root word for northern lights is aqhaliaq or aqhalingiaq. While the Kangiryuarmiutun (a dialect of Inuinnaqtun) gives kiguryak (from Ronald Lowe's Basic Kangiryuarmiut Eskimo Dictionary, which is similar to the Siglitun word kiurjait (from Inuktitut Living Dictionary, search for northern lights). The Inuinnaqtun dictionary then gives aqhalialaqijuq to mean the northern lights are out while Lowe gives aqhalingiiqtuq to mean there are northen lights. It's obvious that both of the last two words are derived from aqhaliaq but if the root word is kiguryak how can that be? Both works are accepted as being authoritive so that shouldn't be an issue. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by language has a link to Category:User ik and a link to Category:User iu.

-- Wavelength (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should you expect there to be only one root, and every word with related meaning to be derived from it? In English, the only adjective related to 'law' is 'legal', which in the context of English is from a different root (though they are ultimately related). I realise that this is not quite parallel, because English has a large learned vocabulary, but it is suggestive that things need not be as clear-cut as you are assuming. Another related-but-not-completely-to-the-point example is 'beam', which is derived from the same root as German 'baum', and once meant 'tree', but now has other (derived) meanings. It does however still survive meaning 'tree' in whitebeam and hornbeam, though these names are probably not analysed by most English speakers. --ColinFine (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re legal being the only adjective related to law: There's law-abiding, lawful and (arguably) legitimate. Edit: Some more: lawless, unlawful, illegal and illegitimate. --NorwegianBlue^talk 12:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. The question came about in part because of the Eskimo words for snow fallacy, but also it's not so much that there should be only one root word, but that there is very little difference between Kangiryuarmiutun/Inuinnaqtun, not enough to account for the different word. There are minor differences in speech, but very little, between Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories and Kugluktuk, Nunavut, as opposed to say Gjoa Haven, Nunavut, an Inuktitut community. I did do some extra checking last night. After talking to my ex (from Ulukhaktok) she said that she would use aqhaliaq but wasn't sure why. There are a couple of reasons. First her parents moved in 1959/1960 from the south end of Victoria Island to Ulukhaktok, so they may have used the word. Then she lived for several years in Cambridge Bay and may have picked it up there. The other thing she pointed out, and I should have remembered, is that there is a significant proportion of people in Ulukhaktok from Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories and at least one or two of the elders consulted by Lowe were from the west and he may have just got the wrong word. Of course the logical thing would be to call people in Ulukhaktok and ask them but the people I would need to talk to don't speak English. On thing of note is that the words from the east are all similar and it's only the Siglit and Kangiryuarmiut words that are different. I'll check with the people listed on the babel, especially the two Inupiat ones. I'd be interested to know if kiguryak is derived from Inupiat, and came to Canada with the migration of Alaskan people. Thanks again. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similar sounding terms?

There's a discussion at the science desk where the OP expresses frustration over the terms hypotension and hypertension. See here. The OP states they sound similar. I disagree. Any linguists around who can explain it? Please add your comments to the Science desk Q. Cheers, Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 03:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a linguist but it is plausible that the speaker's accent can affect the pronunciation and make the words sound similar. It doesn't help that when written they differ by only two letters. It's even worse because the difference is in the middle of the word and none of those differing letters "stick out." (like the letters bdfghijklpqty) Also speakers of other languages may find it hard to hear certain distinguishing sounds. See Non-native pronunciations of English. A classic example is Japanese language speakers having a hard time hearing the acoustic difference between English "r" and "l". I fixed the wikilink to the post.Sifaka ^talk 03:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a nonrhotic accent, the R in "hypertension" is silent, so the only difference between them is a single vowel and an unstressed one at that. In rapid or careless pronunciation unstresssed vowels are often reduced to a schwa, leaving the words completely indistinguishable. It's a bit better in a rhotic accent, but they're still pretty close. I think most people would be aware of this and would try to always enunciate the first O in "hypotension" to avoid confusion, but I can imagine "hypertension" being mistaken for "hypotension" if the speaker was nonrhotic and the listener rhotic. --Anonymous, 06:18 UTC, February 28, 2009.

The difference in pronunciation of the two prepositions from which the prefixes hypo- and hyper- were derived was more distinct in Ancient Greek phonology and is still more distinct in the phonologies of many languages in comparison with many if not most varieties of modern English phonology, with one notable exception being Scottish English#Phonology.

The Russian alphabet has even fewer letters with ascenders and descenders than the English alphabet, and refers to the two medical conditions as ru:артериальная гипотензия and ru:артериальная гипертензия respectively.

If unclear pronunciation by doctors is a medical risk factor, then unclear handwriting by them is one also. Apparently, Wikipedia does not have an article on this topic. (Doctor's Handwriting - MedicineNet - Health and Medical Information Produced by Doctors) (Cause of Death: Sloppy Doctors - TIME)

-- Wavelength (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[I revised my first paragraph to reflect the fact the prepositions did not disappear with the appearance of the prefixes. I revised my second paragraph to clarify that ascenders and descenders are features of letters and not letters themselves. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)][reply]

I'd say that even for rhotic speakers, the two terms sound similar. Remember that for two things to be similar, they have to be different. (Otherwise they wouldn't be similar, they'd be identical – which is not the same thing.) —An gr 09:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr, that should of course be "Doctors' Handwriting" - it wouldn't be too serious if only one doctor had bad handwriting. (I mean it's wrong in the cited article, not that Wavelength copied it incorrectly. Sloppy doctors indeed.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The French words dessous "underneath" and dessus "on top" only differ by a single vowel (or if you pursue linguistic analysis, only by a single phonological feature), yet have opposite meanings (and there's no borrowing from a foreign language involved). AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even more bothersome for English speakers, the two vowel sounds are almost identical to English-speaking ears, much like the Japanese feel about "l" and "r" in English. Of course, the French readily recognize the difference. In "dessous", the second vowel is pronounced like the English "u" or "schwa" sound; and in "dessus" the second vowel is pronounced like the English long-e sound, but with puckered lips. The sounds are made very differently at the vocal cord (which is why the French don't screw this up), but in English we are not trained to hear a difference, ... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second vowel of "dessous" isn't the schwa, the first vowel is. The second vowel is similar to the "oo" sound of "goose". Its difference from the vowel of "dessus" is not at the vocal folds but in the tongue position. In [u] (the second vowel of "dessous") the back of the tongue is raised toward the soft palate, while in [y] (the second vowel of "dessus") it's raised toward the hard palate. —An gr 22:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "dessus" & "dessous" are normally used as "au dessus" & "en dessous" in a sentence differentiating them further. Equendil Talk 17:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See minimal pair, two words that differ by a single sound: live/leave, light/night. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domo

What is this word in the following sentence that I cannot find in any English or Spanish dictionary: "he (Marquez) struck up a conversation with the major domo of the presidential palace"? Thanks. --Omidinist (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's major domo. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, Major domo is a compound word and so you will not likely find a defintion for domo by itself...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Also, for some reason Major domo redirects to Mayors of the Palace, which is a related, but more specific, term for the Frankish office, while Majordomo is a seperate article. Him.~~ Oh, and "domo" in this case comes from the latin for "of the house". In modern terms, "majordomo" or "major domo" generally refers to the head servant in a household, the one who was in charge of running the entire house. So all of the butlers, valets, maids, cooks, etc. would be under him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Never mind. I just fixed that. Strikethru. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised the article makes no mention of the alternative spelling, major duomo (e.g. as used here). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm - I'm not (surprised). I've never come across that spelling, and the OED doesn't mention it, either as a historical spelling, or in the etymology (from Spanish 'mayordomo' c. 1120 or Italian 'maggiordomo' C13). Since 'duomo' in Italian means 'large church' not 'house', it looks to me very much as if 'major duomo' is a recent hypercorrection. Googling for "major duomo" the example you quoted is the only one in that sense on the first page, and the next example is near the bottom of the second page (Most examples seem to be names of dogs and horses, but some are Italian churches). --ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that is interesting, Colin. I was also surprised to find very few ghits for it when I looked for an example. Up till now, my encounter with this term was through characters in opera (Richard Strauss has two such roles in Der Rosenkavalier, for example), and I am convinced I've mostly seen it spelled "duomo" in that context. However, I can now find only one example of such a spelling on google, and I've now discovered I've misplaced both the programme from the last time I saw it live, and my libretto from the recording of it in my collection. Odd, very odd. My memory must be faulty. Hard to believe, but I suppose it is technically possible. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. But the original title would be 'Haushofmeister' then. (The borrowed version, 'majordomus' is less common, and would refer to the aforementioned 'Mayor of the Palace' type role). --Pykk (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Haushofmeister indeed. But such titles are routinely translated into their equivalents in other languages, even if they still routinely sing the opera in German or whatever the original language was. For example, anglophones refer to the "Queen of the Night" as such, and not as "Königin der Nacht"(this is a role in Mozart's The Magic Flute, which is normally sung in German, even if it's billed under its English title and not Der Zauberflöte). Those particular Strauss roles are known in English-speaking countries as "Major Domo", or, in the version my memory would have it, "Major Duomo". But, as I say, the weight of evidence seems to be against me. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and we feel that this initiative would further the goals of that policy

Is this construction grammatically acceptable? - "and we feel that this initiative would further the goals of that policy" ----Seans Potato Business 12:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's grammatically unremarkable, that is to say, right, but it has other problems. You can't further goals—goals just sit there and wait for you to attain them. "Initiative" is a two-dollar word for the ten-cent word "thing". Replace it with a noun that means what you want to say. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is possible to further one's goals. Initially, we have goal A. Then we do something that broadens our horizons and enables us to have goal B. That would be a furtherance of goal A. But I guess Seans was talking only about the attainment of goal A, not its furtherance to goal B. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This construction would be acceptable to most people, although a few might criticize the use of "feel" (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1836710). Other than that, this sentence uses unobjectionable grammar and would be considered formal English. By the way, in revising this sentence, you would not want to take out "that"; using "that" is the most grammatically correct way to write the sentence. There is no objection to using "further" as a transitive verb. You can see on Dictionary.com that there are no usage notes or labels (nonstandard, informal, slang, et cetera). If you wanted, you could use "advance" instead of "further." I noticed that you referred to it as a construction and not a sentence. This would be completely acceptable as a clause in a compound sentence, but if this is to be a single sentence, keep in mind that some people object to starting sentences with coordinating conjunctions. You might instead write, as a single sentence, "We also feel that this initiative would further the goals of that policy" or "We feel that this initiative would also further the goals of that policy," depending on what came before.71.30.254.216 (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

one word or multiple words that mean New Beginning, Hope, Rebuilding, Courage

Is there one word or multiple words thats meaning would encompass all of the above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertNOP1 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I know of one such word, but I find "thats" as a genitive or possessive form of "that" to be interesting...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See English relative clauses#Grammatical case. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew the basic terminology, and the existence of "whose". AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Reformation" could cover all of those depending on the context, or "restoration". Wrad (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Reformation" (capital R) has a specific, historical meaning. "Reform" is the noun with the more general meaning in ordinary usage. (And then there's re-formation, which is something else entirely). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason it was capitalized was because it was at the beginning of the sentence. "reformation" doesn't have a specific historical meaning. Wrad (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance also has a meaning like that, but is already taken. Steewi (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the English "rebirth" then? Or "renewal"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Words that have travelled a long way

I'm looking for some examples of English words that were borrowed/derived from another language, but came to that language from a third language, and came to that language from a fourth language, and so on, as far back as we can go. It doesn't matter if there have been various spelling/pronunciation/meaning changes along the way, as long as a continuous history can be proven. What is the longest "linguistic journey" of any such word? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of actual mileage traveled, a word like Chocolate, which enters English via Nahuatl via Spanish is probably a pretty good one... but in terms of steps that only 3. However, depending on how you define "language" then nearly every word is going to have countless steps. For example, most core words in English can be traced back English <- Middle English <- Anglosaxon <- proto-Germanic <- proto-Indoeuropean or something like that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's more interested in borrowings between separate languages, rather than in-place gradual linguistic evolution. One that occurs to me offhand is that the Sumerian word transcribed as E-GAL "palace, temple" went through several different varieties of Akkadian and several different varieties of Aramaic to end up as Arabic haykal هيكل -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite example of a well-traveled word is apricot. We got it from French abricot, which is from Spanish albaricoque, which is from Arabic al-barqūq, which is from Greek praikokion, which is from Latin praecoquum, making it a doublet of precocious. —An gr 22:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, the web page @tmbchr » Word Origin: Parasite contains the following statement.

Interesting aside, the word “church” has the longest etymology in the entire work, running about 4 pages in the original. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article, Orange (word), describes its history as "Orange derives from Indian, tamil naranthai to Sanskrit nāraṅgaḥ "orange tree", with borrowings through Persian nārang, Arabic nāranj, Spanish naranja, Late Latin arangia, Italian arancia or arancio, and Old French orenge, in chronological order." Rmhermen (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late Latin borrowed from Spanish? Weird. 202.40.14.58 (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word sugar comes from French sucre, which comes from Latin succarum, which comes from Arabic sukkar, from Persian shakar, from a word originally meaning "grit" or "pebble". LANTZY ^TALK 00:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chess, checkmate, artichoke? Apricot was interesting. Thanks, Angr. Steewi (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like word pairs that kind of come full circle. Like 'beef'->'boeuf'(fr)->'bovis'(lat)->'bous'(gr)->'*bu' (PIE), originally onomatopoeic for the sound a cow makes. Then there's *bu->'*ku' (proto-germanic)->'cow' and *bu->'moo'. So: 'moo', 'cow' and 'beef' all have the same origin! --Pykk (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*bu → *ku ?! My teacher didn't cover that clause of Grimm's Law. — Ah, okay: according to the nearest dictionary, the /b/ in bos comes from PIE /gʷ/, which would give Germanic /k(ʷ)/. — But I doubt that Latin took bos from Greek. —Tamfang (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All nice examples. Thank you. "Church" looks particularly daunting, Wavelength. I think I'll leave it for a rainy (Sunday) afternoon, if you don't mind. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

你家有没有宠物吗？

Is 是，我家有两只猫。an appropriate and grammatically correct answer to the question 你家有没有宠物吗？Or do you say 是的，我家有两只猫。 or 有的，我家有两只猫。?Yakeyglee (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

你家有没有宠物吗 is ungrammatical. It should be either 你家有没有宠物? or 你家有宠物吗?

A grammatical answer to the first question (你家有没有宠物? ) should be 有的，我家有两只猫, or 有，我家有两只猫.

A grammatical answer to the second question (你家有宠物吗?) should be 是的，我家有两只猫, or 是，我家有两只猫; 有的，我家有两只猫, or 有，我家有两只猫 are also acceptable.

That is to say, as a matter of grammar, "有没有" cannot go with "吗" in the same sentence, and 有没有 is answered with 有 or 没有, whereas 有...吗 can be answered with either 是 or 有 (or their negative counterparts).

Generally, you can choose to end a "有没有" sentence with an additional "啊?" but not "吗". Both "有没有" and "吗" are question indicators and having both is tautological.

The exception is where "有没有" is used along with another questioning component, e.g. in "有没有发现什么吗？". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]