Language desk
< July 22	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 23

"I have a boyfriend" and "I have a girlfriend" in Japanese

How do you say "I have a boyfriend/girlfriend" in Japanese? --BiT (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I have a boyfriend" is わたしにはボーイフレンドがいます。/watashi niwa bōifurendo ga imasu. "I have a girlfriend" is 僕にはガールフレンドがいます。/boku niwa gārufurendo ga imasu. わたし/ぼくにはつきあっている人がいます。/watashi/boku niwa tsukiatteiruhito ga imasu can be used too. Oda Mari (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)　[reply]

Why do people who have boyfriends call themselves watashi while people who have girlfriends call themselves boku? +An gr 05:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are Gender differences in spoken Japanese. Furthermore, there are many 'I's and 'you's in Japanese. What I wrote above are most common translations. Oda Mari (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that some (nice) Japanese girls now also sometimes use "boku"?--Radh (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true but rare. It's not a standard usage at all and thought as stupid. Most cases are used in manga, anime and game as a role language. IMHO, girls who use boku in real world don't use it on formal occasion. Oda Mari (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard a lot of Japanese girls use 'boku', but only kids, never adults. It may be that they are influenced by manga, anime, and games, as Mari says, but adult females would never use that word to refer to themselves, if they were mature enough (they, do, however, use it to mean 'you' instead of 'I' when talking to very young male children, and in fact, in Japanese the pronoun system is quite complicated, so complicated that they very often just don't even bother to use any pronouns - but when they do, 'I' can become 'you', depending more or less on what the person one is talking to refers to himself/herself as (whether 'boku' or 'watashi' (or 'atashi' or any other of the many variants), and using the person's name (or status within the office) is actually more common when wanting to say 'you'. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you're probably not being entirely serious, but I'd still like to point out that "the pronoun system is so complicated, the Japanese themselves don't bother with it" is not an entirely fair statement. It's not that they don't use pronouns 100% of the time because they wouldn't want to, it's that their use is not mandatory for understanding, as it is in English. (Again, I realize you know this, I just wanted to point this out so others don't get the wrong impression.) TomorrowTime (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, Tomorrowtime, I will clarify. The reason they are hardly used, is because they are really not necessary in many contexts, just like in English, if you meet someone on the street for example, you might say, 'Hi! Going home now?', where the absence of a pronoun (you) is not a problem because it is obvious you are asking the person whether they are going home or not, and not about yourself (or some other person that hasn't entered the conversation yet). This is what happens regularly in Japanese, and also in a lot of Asian languages.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I understand just enough Japanese words to notice that Hiro's dialogue in Heroes uses more pronouns than I'd expect, presumably because it was written first in English. —Tamfang (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I got the idea from one of Peter Constantine's books on Japanese slang.--Radh (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your debate about pronoun use in Japanese might have a deeper side to it. If the whole concept of a pronoun was introduced into Japanese only when knowledge of Dutch and English changed the way the Japanese thought about their own language and its grammar was remodeled or even created along the European line. And this natural absence of pronouns in pre-contact Japanese has implications (may have impl.) for the question if the Japanese (or all Asians) did/do/can have the concept of a "person" and "identity" in "our" sense. If grammar really rules, determines thought.--Radh (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a word for how an imaginary friend relates to a person?

For instance, Hobbes would be Calvin's imaginary friend in Calvin and Hobbes, but Calvin would be what in relation to Hobbes? I guess just "friend" would work. Or "human companion." But, when writing, it would be nice to have a word - like "Harvey told his "x" that..." to vary things. I also thought of "creator" or "initiator" but neither sounds right - if Snoopy is someone's imginary friend, he is certainly not created by the person using him, and I doubt the second really fits, eitehr, though it's a bit closer. So, maybe just "friend" is best.Thanks.172.162.13.24 (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doppelgänger? Counterpart? Chimera? Bus stop (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hmmm, chimera almost sounds like another term for the imaginary friend, though dopleganger could work, as I suppose one could argue the real person is pretending to be the friend of the other. Counterpart seems even better, though; it seems to convey the sense that the persona nd his or her imaginary friend are really part of each other.209.244.187.155 (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about alter ego? Avatar? Better half? Raison d'être? Origin? Reason for being? Prime mover? Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "real friend" as the opposite of an imaginary friend? If Hobbes is Calvin's imaginary friend, then Calvin is Hobbes's real friend. Or is there a better word for non-imaginary? +An gr 14:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reality-oriented? Reality-oriented friend? Bus stop (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imagining friend? Proteus (Talk) 21:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about host or host? —Tamfang (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

threat

Why are threats often euphemised, even when the person making them is very angry? Here are examples of what I mean:

"You will be in your room, very sore" vs. "I will hurt you and send you to your room" "Your face will look like the one in this picture" vs. "I will punch you in the face"

121.220.109.214 (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is to allow time for cogitation. The speaker hopes not to have to have to hurt the other person. Such language is in the spirit of "threat," as you allude. The spirit of threat, if I can be so bold as to say so, is to achieve desired results. It is not for the intended result to be the carrying out of ultimate act included in the threat. The more complicated language I think is to allow cogitation, which is increased by flowery, or indirect language which does not come right to the point. It is intended that the recipient of this language have maximum time and brain processing involvement to come to the desired conclusion, which is to comply with the person issuing the threat. That is my original research on the subject. Perhaps someone has the real answer. Bus stop (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also more effective to let the other person imagine what you actually will do. With "I'm going to punch you," the recipient knows exactly what to expect. However with a more general "Let's take this outside," the recipient is left to imagine all the terrible things that could be done - which usually is more extensive than what the cretin dishing out the threat is capable of doing or even thinking to do. In addition most people dislike uncertainty, and the vague nature of the threat increases the uneasy feeling of the recipient. -- 128.104.112.87 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always liked the inchoate threat made by King Lear (Act 2, Scene iv):

I will have such revenges on you both,

That all the world shall – I will do such things, –

What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be

The terrors of the earth.

Tonywalton ^Talk 22:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from avoiding explicit threats of violence (which are illegal), showing that you haven't lost your temper/cool makes the threat more effective - because it shows you are in a position of power. In the case where someone loses their temper they are more likely to make explicit threats, go red in the face, start shouting etc.. Losing ones temper is often a sign that one has lost control (of the situation) - and by extension, is unable to effecticely threaten/carry out a threat.

The ability to veil a threat shows that you are still in a calm mental state of mind and therefor, makes the threat seem more serious..

However someone that has lost their temper can be much more dangerous in the short term as they may do something regrettable.83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this vein, I recall some of the more indirect threats from skinheads back when I lived in Blighty:

"Anything you want to see before you go blind?"

"Good job you like 'ospital food."

Rhinoracer (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politeness and civility heighten suggested violence simply by virtue of the contrast between the words uttered and the infliction referred to by those somewhat innocuous-sounding words. Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poof

I'd always regarded "poof" as the opposite of "voila", but recently I've found that people also use it in the latter sense. So I wonder if there're some regional differences?--K.C. Tang (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, the usage of "poof" you refer to derives from the use of pyrotechnic smoke devices by magicians and other slight of hand artists. The magician does the set up to the trick, triggers the pyrotechnic which goes "poof", and when the smoke clears the object in question has appeared/disappeared/changed. Frequently the trick is that something disappears, and "poof" is often used in that context, but it can more generally be used in any situation where one wants to imply that something magical or unexplained has happened. By the way, "voilà" derives from the French for "look there", and while used to point to the appearance of something, it does not necessarily have the connotation of unexplained magical happening that "poof" does. -- 128.104.112.87 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

You mean "here's a cake - voila"

And "the cake is gone - poof"

? If so I might use poof to replace voila - as poof I assume comes from the common description of a "cloud of smoke suddenly appearing" - and as such is related to magic (tricks) - thus poof can relate to things appearing and dissapearing (ie it's poof! - exclamation mark to express suprise)

As for voila when something had gone - that would be ironic use I think.

I'd always assumed voila to mean "look - there it is for you"83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve never thought about the magical element. That makes sense. Thanks a lot!--K.C. Tang (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The exclamation POOF! is now only used by gay magicians. Pity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.60.53 (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that should read 'anti gay' magicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.60.53 (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Japanese / Shinjitai

As example here are two Japanese letters in Shinjitai 学 and 団, what were changed out of the Old Japanese letters 學 and 團. My question: what was the Old Japanese letter of Shinjitai 次? Doc Taxon (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same. Simple kanji like 上, 中, 下 were not simplified. Oda Mari (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you by now! Doc Taxon (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what is this: 自然科学研究 in Old Japanese letters. I guess, that the three last letters has been changed. Doc Taxon (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only 学 has kyujitai. So it's 自然科學研究. Here is a converter. Oda Mari (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish translation

Please could someone translate the Swedish phrase "Äventyr i alperna" into English for me, and give me an idea of how it's pronounced. Phonetic pronunciation, please, not IPA. Many thanks. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 19:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means "Adventure in the Alps" or "Adventures in the Alps". It is pronounced something like "eh ven TURE ee AHL pair nah" Marco polo (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Richardrj ^talk ^email 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...in Danish, Hans Christian Anderson's fairy tales are called 'Eventyr'...is there a parallel usage in Swedish?...Rhinoracer (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Swedish, "Äventyr" means "adventure" only, "fairy tale" is "saga"; "konstsaga" if it has a known author, and "folksaga" otherwise. In Norwegian and Danish, "Eventyr" can mean both "Adventure" and "Fairytale". --NorwegianBlue^talk 11:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Languages with only one vowel

Are there any languages which only have one vowel? If not, what is the language with the smallest amount of vowels?--99.251.239.89 (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the third paragraph of the section Vowel#Use_of_vowels_in_languages, a few languages have only two phonemic vowels, but the article does not mention a single-vowel language, and I doubt there is one.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 22:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, in the mid-20th century structural linguistics period, a number of languages of the Caucasus mountains area were analyzed as having very few vowel phonemes (these languages can have various phonetic vowel qualities, but most of them can be analyzed as contextual allophones influenced by surrounding consonants). There was a kind of standing in-joke among linguists that Kabardian might be analyzed as having only one vowel phoneme, but I don't know if that was ever proposed in a serious way.... AnonMoos (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there also an extreme version of the laryngeal theory claiming that the only Proto-Indo-European vowel phoneme was *e? — Emil J. 10:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only because it treated the vowels [i] and [u] as syllabic allophones of the semivowels /j/ and /w/, which seems to me to be begging the question. +An gr 13:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) It did, but that's not the problem, that much is standard treatment in mainstream PIE phonology, and there are good reasons for that: /j,w/ have similar distribution to the other sonorants /r,l,m,n/, which also have syllabic allophones [r̩,l̩,m̩,n̩] in the same contexts as [i,u]. The problem is how it did away with /o/ and /a/. — Emil J. 13:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the book Proto-Indo-European Phonology by Winifred P. Lehmann (which speaks, however, of "Pre-IE" at that point). AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks for the pointer. It's even available online: [1]. — Emil J. 14:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AnonMoos, I don't think that's a "joke". In A Grammar of the Kabardian Language (University of Calgary Press, 1992), the author actually spends four pages to discuss why the one-vowel theory (or "Predictable Schwa Hypothesis") doesn't work (pp.19-22).--K.C. Tang (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The person who originally proposed it may have been entirely serious; however, the idea came to be a kind of professional in-joke among linguists (see "Dates in the Month of May that Are of Interest to Linguists", etc...). AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there would be a language with only one vowel. One of the primary sources of language is the world around the people who speak it, hence onomatopaeia. We would need vowels just to copy - and therefore describe - the world around us. However, it is an interesting question, though, because why does a duck only quack, and not queck or quick or quock or quuck? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Norwegian they queck. --NorwegianBlue^talk 19:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hagar The Horrible's duck always said 'Kvack'..._{Ah, but,according to the article, he is a German duck.} :) --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But German ducks say "Quak" with a long /a:/ - interestingly enough, German frogs say the same thing. +An gr 08:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

de:Hägar der Schreckliche German ducks quack with a short "a" (at least in Northern Germany) rhymes with English duck. Frogs quak with a long /a:/. Iteresting googling revealed that German ducks even quak with a dialect in the South. :-)71.236.26.74 (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Hagar's duck: Donald Duck also says "kvakk" in Norwegian translation. Non-cartoon ducks, however, say "kvekk", as do frogs. --NorwegianBlue^talk 09:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that because Donald Duck is American, so he should speak with a foreign accent in Norwegian translations?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A duck has a nationality, eh? Interesting concept. It never occurred to me that Donald spoke with what I would call an American accent. In fact, I could never make out a damn word he ever said - so he might as well have been speaking Martian for all I knew. (On the other hand, Bugs Bunny was certainly American - or at least American-sounding - so you may have something there, Kage Tora.) -- JackofOz (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason I mentioned it, is because the article on Hagar states that his duck says 'kvack' because he is German, and must speak with an accent. I assumed this may be the same thing with Donald in Norway. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Margerine-- hard or soft?

Is the 'g' hard or soft? Or does it depend on the type of margarine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.60.53 (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my part of the world, it's pronounced like a "j". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered why the g is pronounced soft (j or IPA [dʒ]), but as written should be pronounced hard (g). I'm in Canada, and have never heard a hard g pronunciation. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a weird exception to the rule that G is "soft" only before E and I (and of course not always then, cf. get, give). Likewise, the rule that C is always "soft" before E and I has a few weird exceptions: Celtic (in some meanings for most people), sceptic (in the British spelling), soccer, arced/arcing (forms of the verb "to arc"). Then there's facade, which is frequently spelled that way rather than façade in English. +An gr 05:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's gaol, pronounced like jail. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that TV ads for margarine in the early 1960s (in the UK) sometime used the hard G. Even then it sounded stilted and wrong, as the soft-G pronunciation was well-established in everyday speech. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, because we'd never think of pronouncing Margaret with a soft g, yet both words derive from the same root. "Margaret's margarine" must confound newcomers to the language. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In French, 'Margarine' has a hard 'g'...and the stuff was named and invented by a Frenchman. Something to do with 'pearls'. Rhinoracer (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have followed Marjorie and Marjoram rather than Margaret. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese it's pronounced with a hard G, too, and this carries over into their English. Now I'm in Korea, I have recently found that Koreans do the same, as it is 마가린 (ma-ga-rin) in Korean. This is probably because of the English spelling and obviously not the pronunciation. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In German it's a hard g as well. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My late grandmother (English, born 1919) always pronounced it with a hard G, and it always sounded odd to me (born 1963). I've heard others of her generation do the same, so I suspect the hard-G pronunciation was indeed favoured for a while in England during her younger days. During the privations of WWII margarine would have been far more regularly seen, requested and discussed than the elusive butter, so I've always assumed her pronunciation dated from this period, during which time she ran her own home for the first time and worked as a cookery teacher. Ka renjc 15:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]