Language desk
< December 8	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 10 >

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.

December 9

Identification of Language in a Song

Does anyone know what language is being sung in this YouTube video? One of the comments says it's 'Gaelic' - it doesn't sound like either Irish or Scots Gaelic to me. I was thinking it may be Welsh. Also - and I know this part of the question belongs on the Entertainment desk but I hate cross-posting - does anyone know who the singer is? To me it sounds remarkably like Miyuki Nakajima, but why she would be singing in Welsh is beyond me. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Welsh, I'd say it probably is Gaelic, either Scottish or Irish, I can't tell the difference. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The singer's name is Campbell, so I'm just guessing she is Scottish. Roger (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the name 'Campbell'. Ok, it is either Irish or Scots Gaelic after all.... cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like someone named O'Higgins is Irish or someone named Fujimori is Japanese? Seriously, even if she is Scottish, there are lots of singers that sing in languages other than their native language. --Jayron32 13:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, my conclusion above was for the language (which is what the question was about), not the singer's nationality (which I didn't even ask for). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenna Campbell[1] is a prominent Scottish Gaelic singer. Alansplodge (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is she the lady who sang the song? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more digging in the bowels of Google finds Joe Campbell[2] who composes music for the Blood Transfusion Service ads. This one[3] seems to have the same tune without the lyrics. Another advert composer, Karl Jenkins, used to make up languages for his ad tunes, so it could be anything. Alansplodge (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work, Alan. There's a contact address on Mr. Campbell's site, and I have sent him an email. Hopefully I shall be able to post the answer here and put that lovely 'Resolved' badge up top :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nihongo translation please... ^_^

Hello! I want to know what the image in this page says: http://www.ntv.co.jp/kasoh/kanran/index.html Sorry if it seems too long for you to translate, but I don't know any other way to find out... -.-; Thanks in advance~!! --Kreachure (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title says they are looking for members of the audience for the Great Fancy Dress Party Awards. They are filming on the the 26th of December 2010 in JCB Hall, Suidoubashi, Tokyo. It says you are to apply by putting your name, telephone number, the number of people, and how old everyone is on a postcard. The address and closing date is below that. The rest is just general rules for entry into the competition. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doumo arigatou gozaimasu! m(_ _)m --Kreachure (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My stab at this second bit is "thank you very very much". ? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, PalaceGuard, but strictly speaking, the OP should have used the past tense 'gozaimashita', as what I did for him had already been completed :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-l (at the end of a word) in English, Spanish and Catalan

How does the -l (at the end of a word) compare in English, Spanish and Catalan. Officially, it is transcribed the same (in the dics that I checked). But it sounds slightly different among these languages. Where is the difference? Mr.K. (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the others, but in English, word-final <l> is pronounced as the dark L [ɫ]. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan final l is also velarized/dark - spanish final l is just plain alveolar in most dialects, in some new world dialects it becoems almost like an American r.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you are telling a non-Catalan, Spanish speaker to pronounce the English final -l, can you recommend safely to put the tip of the tongue on the teeth? Mr.K. (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, what distinguishes the Spanish final l from the english is that the root of the tongue is retracted in the English -ll so that the velum is engaged. Both the spanish and english l has the tongue tip in contact with the alveolar ridge behind the teeth.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could ssafely tell him that, I suppose. My view is that the tip (or the crown) of the tongue is put a little more behind (alveolar). But, as Maunus has put it, there are many dialectical variants. You may want to check this great site (applet from this other site). Pallida Mors 17:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

who or whom

Which would I use here?

The movie is about a colonie of ants _____ are being bullied by grasshoppers.

Accdude92 (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would use 'who', as it is the subject of the passive construction 'are being bullied'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!Accdude92 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably also want "colony", not "colonie". Lexicografía (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the distinction between who and whom is evolving. There was a time when such word pairs as who/whom and will/shall had clearly distinctive meaning. In the past century such distinction has evaporated, even within formal communication. It will probably not be long before whom goes the way of thou and ye and other archaic constructions. --Jayron32 19:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colony is a single entity, the verb should be "is", not "are". And I would use "which" instead of "who". Corvus cornix_talk 19:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whether it is the colony that is being bullied, or it is the ants themselves that are being bullied. It could be a colony of (ants that are being bullied by grasshoppers). —Bkell (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use "that" instead of "which" or "who". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people will tell you that parenthetical clauses should always begin with "which" or "who", and non-parenthetical clauses should always begin with "that". These people should be ignored, or if you prefer publicly mocked. Marnanel (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about....The movie is about a colony of ants being bullied by grasshoppers. Buster7 (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In traditional grammar it's definitely who, and whom is wrong. For me as a German this distinction is very easy because in German it's much more alive than in English. But as has been mentioned above, usage in English is changing, and it is no longer the case that whom is necessarily the accusative or dative (direct or indirect object case) of who. Instead, whom can now be used to mark an elevated level of speech even where it used to be ungrammatical.

There are numerous posts about the who/whom distinction on Language Log, including this one, and also this one with a beautiful quotation from James Thurber. Hans Adler 21:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are any constructed language like math?

My question is strange one, I maybe I will not know how to explain very well it.

Lets go:

There are any constructed language that was created in the same way we created math? So a language created based TOTALLY on abstraction and logical reasoning like the way math was created? 187.118.27.76 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Philosophical language and, for the most famous such effort, An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language. Deor (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many computer languages are so constructed. I have known several serious computer programmers who also took several courses in general linguistics, simply because of the connections between human language and computer languages at a fundemental level. --Jayron32 19:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about Lojban? --N Y Kevin @863, i.e. 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that the languague NEED to be able to work as a human language. And need to be really based on abstraction.
Some constructed languages were made also trying to be minimalistic, to be very simple languagues, to be international auxiliary language, ans this is not important at all. That why, I not, simply got some language from the philosophical language article and started to read about the language.
Also, I am almost 100% sure that this language would need to be a priori language and that this would not use Latin alphabet.
Again, sorry if its too hard to understand what I am wanting. 187.118.27.76 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it not use the Latin alphabet? Marnanel (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because this language would be made in the same way math was created and its problably almost impossible that this would result in the end in a language that use latin alphabet. This would be a huge coincidence. Well there is roman numerals that use roman letters, but the thing is, that the language I am asking like I said before would not try use latin alphabet, to be simple, to be minimalistic or other things, it would be only focus on abstraction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.223.83 (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes here. Is this hypothetical language something which may be spoken aloud, as languages such as French or Latin or English may be spoken aloud? If so, unless its phonemic inventory is particularly large, why would you not want to use the Latin alphabet to write it down? Marnanel (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

187.118.27.76 -- LINCOS is probably close to what you have in mind... AnonMoos (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ham and eggs in old American movies

The characters would sometimes eat "ham and eggs" at diners or similar places. Would ham be another word for bacon, or did it really mean ham? Is ham and eggs still a common phrase or dish? Thanks 92.15.30.71 (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently have ham and eggs for breakfast, especially when at a restaurant. My personal favorite is country ham with scrambled eggs and red-eye gravy. --Jayron32 19:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've had ham and eggs, too. It really is ham, not bacon. Bacon is much more common, though. Marco polo (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The usual choice offered in most parts of the U.S. for those who want something besides starch (toast, English muffin, pancakes, grits, potato) to accompany their fried eggs, scrambled eggs or omelette for breakfast is bacon, ham or sausage. [On the other hand, McDonald's offers a choice between Egg McMuffin (Canadian bacon or else meatless) and Sausage McMuffin. Another variation between different establishments' menus is what kind of sausage, and in what form — individual "links" or a slice of a much larger one.] If the bacon isn't Canadian-style bacon, then it's individual slices (rashers), individually fried, grilled or broiled to some degree of crispness; ham is never served this way with eggs.—— Shakescene (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not a euphemism for bacon (the only ham/bacon confusion in the US is Canadian bacon). The ham is likely to be ham steak (thick pieces of ham), and not (thin) sliced ham (as one might find on a ham sandwich), nor something like prosciutto/spanish ham, in case that's what you were thinking. It would also likely be served warm, rather than cold or room temperature. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, making it gammon and eggs, which is a known thing in the UK (although not necessarily for breakfast). Although the egg served with gammon would usually be fried. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The classic US ham and eggs has the eggs fried as well, although any decent diner would probably allow you to customize them to your liking. I'll note that the illustrations to Green Eggs and Ham show the titular items as clearly ham, and fried eggs (sunny side up). -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and "ham and eggs" is still served (though increasingly rarely) in northern UK, distinguished from the supplanting "gammon" by being traditionally home-cured, with thicker slices than bacon (but not steak), and much, much tastier! Dbfirs 08:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only encounter with "gammon" a U.S. citizen is likely to have had is in a close reading of The Waste Land. Ham and eggs are far more common, both in diners and Seussology.... - Nunh-huh 09:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an American term that corresponds to "gammon"? Or is it just regarded as undistinguished ham? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in normal use, no. If you were talking to a butcher - maybe, but he'd have to be a real butcher and not just "that guy behind the meat counter at the grocery store who will tell you that they still haven't gotten the chicken breast in yet". Our article rather ridiculously implies that Americans wouldn't understand the term "ham" at all and that this is a British usage. Matt Deres (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't clear on what gammon is either (that is a disambig page with a link to ham). The ham article claims it is "cuts" of ham while the ham steak stub article (which term isn't mentioned in the ham article) refers to "gammon steak". Any ham experts out there? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, "ham" is cured and usually cooked (although not always, e.g. Parma ham) and is sold ready to eat, as a large joint or in slices. "Gammon" is effectively raw ham that must be cooked by the purchaser before consumption. A joint of gammon is commonly roasted or boiled; gammon steaks are usually grilled, shallow-fried or griddled. Ka renjc 21:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt about food, I turn to Alton Brown. His show about ham says:

Now by far, the largest groups of market hams are referred to as 'city' hams. Now whether they are "water-added" or "in natural juice," these hams are partially cured in a sweet brine before being lightly smoked and cooked. But these are mild-mannered, crowd-pleasing hams which make up for their lack of depth with a user-friendly versatility. Now city hams usually come in one of two different halves. Now this is a shank end and here is a rump end right here. Now this looks like it might be easier to carve and therefore a better value, but there's a lot of connective tissue in there so I skip it and stick with the shank end. Country hams are a whole other food. First, they are rubbed or packed in a dry cure composed of salt, sodium nitrate, and sometimes sugar and pepper. After that they're hung, sometimes for months, sometimes with smoke, sometimes without. Now during that time, the salt pulls moisture out of the ham leaving it a bacterial desert not to mention a whole lot wider than when it started. The resulting flavors are amazingly complex. It's almost like a small batch bourbon. And the texture has been compared to fine aged cheddar.

And then later adds:

Now unlike country hams, city hams have been cooked but not always to the same degree, okay? They've all been cooked to at least 137 degrees. Hot enough to kill the occasional microbial agent but not hot enough to be called cooked from a culinary standpoint.

So it doesn't seem to be differentiated in quite the same way Brits do it, but close. Matt Deres (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not have "A frog he would a-wooing go" ("Roly-poly, gammon and spinach") in the US, then? Marnanel (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Used to / use to

I am intrigued by the phrasing of the question: "did people used to think the moon changes shape?" Kittybrewster ☎ 19:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "think" is in some ways analogous to the word "say", in some ways it implies a direct quote. If we rephrased the question "Did people use to say "The moon changes shape!"? it would make sense. The change from say to think, in the mind of the asker, does not signficantly alter the relationship between that word and the object phrase that follows it. This may not be strictly formal grammar, but it is consistent and understandable in its construction, kinda like using a word like "mouses" as a plural for "mouse". --Jayron32 19:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unhappy about "did people use(d)". Kittybrewster ☎ 20:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I suspect Kitty is interested in the expression "used to" and what happens to it when it becomes part of a question. Is it "Did they used to" or "Did they use to"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

or "were they used to ..." Kittybrewster ☎ 20:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Used to (or use to) is a very common spoken expression in english, especially informally, and the distinction between them in spoken english is minimal. The difference in spelling them out, based on phonetics, would make it hard to make a distinction between adding the voice stop between the end of "use" and the beginning of "to", especially when the "t" at the start of the word "to" will begin to taken on some voicing as well. Since "use to" or "used to" isn't formal English anyways, I doubt one could apply the strict rules of grammar to it in an unambiguous manner. It's an idiomatic phrasing, akin to "ain't", and so resists analysis by normal means. --Jayron32 20:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rules of grammar apply unambiguously to "use to" versus "used to". When a question begins with the helping verb did, the main verb is always in the infinitive. Therefore, it has to be "Did they use to?" Marco polo (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Would you say "did people pretended to think the moon changes shape?" or "did people appeared to think the moon changes shape?" Dbfirs 08:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "Did people think the moon changes shape?" Kittybrewster ☎ 12:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually heard different people say different things about this. The "pretended/appeared" example above doesn't necessarily apply in this case, because unlike "pretend to" or "appear to", we're not just dealing with a simple verb + "to" phrase. In both "It used to" and "It didn't use(d) to", we're dealing with a single modal particle, pronounced /justu/ in formal English and /justə/ in informal English. If it were a full verb like pretend/appear, we would say /juz tu/ in the negative and /juzd tu/ in the affirmative. The fact is, the /z/ pronunciation is simply wrong, and we're not dealing with something that syntactically is a normal verb. In spoken English, then, it seems hard to deny that there is just a single unit /justu/ that is used in both affirmative and negative. In written English, however, there's a bit of an awkward dilemma, because written English preserves the original state of affairs from several hundred years ago when "used to" was no different than "appeared to", so there's naturally a bit more of a desire to treat "used to" in formal written English as though it were a normal verb. As for why people frequently write "used to" even in the negative, that's probably an influence from the spoken language, where there is no "used to"/"use to" distinction. Voikya (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, "use to" looks awful to me, so in formal situations I'd try to paraphrase to avoid it. Voikya (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The common construction with used to comes from a forgotten meaning of the verb use: to be in the habit. Since the meaning is forgotten and only survives in certain constructions in the past tense, used to is gradually moving towards some other grammatical category. That's why constructions like "Did people used to think" are now more common than "Did people use to think", the traditionally correct version. According to Merriam–Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, "didn't used to" is more acceptable in BE than in AE. But it really appears to be acceptable in all variants. In a recent discussion on Language Log, a comment suggests to me that the old sense of use is actually still alive in Irish English. Hans Adler 22:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why Merriam Webster's dictionary thinks that incorrect usage is more acceptable in the UK. "Didn't used to" would be marked as incorrect in all British schools, not just Irish ones! The "forgotten" meaning is still taught here (though maybe only by pedants?) [4] In formal English, where one wouldn't use "didn't", the correct construction is "used not to ...", though this sounds slightly too formal in some contexts, so I agree with Voikya that a paraphrase is preferable. Is the incorrect form really more common in modern usage? Dbfirs 09:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It virtually never appears in formal written English (but then neither does didn't use to, which is grammatically unobjectionable and not so strange-sounding as used not to). In speech, I think no one really distinguishes, and when the speech is written down, didn't used to can perhaps be thought of as almost as much an error in transcription from speech as an error in grammar. --Trovatore (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) See last link in my post above, which goes to a Language Log post by Mark Liberman that got plenty of insightful comments. In Liberman's idiolect "didn't used to" is correct, and he checked that this appears to be a majority position. (It's certainly true for me as well, although "didn't use to" is of course more logical and must be what I learned at school.)

I am not sure if anyone addressed the AE vs. BE question, though. Perhaps on this point the British sources are more descriptive and the American sources more prescriptive, and this misled the MWDEU? Hans Adler 10:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Liberman on many of the examples he starred.

Why he used to say to his friends, he used

For getting a dowager, give me Proust --E. E. Cummings

--Trovatore (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed at the figures, and I suspect that there is something wrong with the analysis, but I'm not sure just where the error arises, so I'll not push my opinion until I can prove my point. I also note that the majority of comments seem to be in support of the "10% minority". Wiktionary does allow the "didn't used to" option. Are there other dictionaries in which this construction is permitted? I would be surprised if British sources are less prescriptive. Dbfirs 17:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I learned English as a second language and tend to err on the side of logic. These are two reasons to write "didn't use to". But I don't. To me this indicates that the statistics are correct and "didn't used to" is the majority spelling. Otherwise I would hardly have switched. Now that I am aware of the situation I may switch back.

I have the impression that prescriptivism is generally more rampant in the US than in the UK. The times of Noah Webster's reforms are long gone. The more interesting innovations seem to happen in the UK nowadays, while the US is a lot more conservative in matters of orthography. Hans Adler 19:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... so are most learners of English as a foreign language (and those learners of English as a native language who are still taught "correct" usage) ignoring what they were taught about "correct" usage and abandoning ""didn't use to" in favour of "didn't used to"? I'll do some independent research when I have time because I really find this difficult to believe. If this trend continues, will we soon be writing "useded not to"? Dbfirs 23:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A brief look at Google Books seems to indicate that "didn't used to" is slightly more common than "didn't use to", but many of the "usages" are criticising the usage, or reporting colloquial usage, and seem (to me) to be more American than British. Comparing this to the more formal usage, with "did not use to" getting 14,200 hits against only 1,540 for "did not used to", I conclude that the correct usage based on the dated verb "to use" meaning "to be accustomed" is still much more common except in colloquial language and reported speech. There is no evidence to support the claim that 90% use the "incorrect" form. Dbfirs 08:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off or from

A few days ago, while reading a cricket report, I read the following photo caption (I can't remember which particular players were mentioned): "Player A takes punishment off Player B". To me this sounds like poor grammar, and "Player A takes punishment from Player B" sounds more natural. Are both acceptable? --Si1965 (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The former is colloquial but in no way ungrammatical. I know less than nothing about cricket, but to me the two prepositions convey slightly different meanings: "A takes punishment from B" suggests a somewhat active role for B, as if B were taking the initiative and A were merely allowing it to happen. "A takes punishment off B" shifts the agency entirely onto A, making it sound as if B were an indiscriminate radiator of punishment which A had come and partaken of. LANTZY ^TALK 04:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these rules are just conventions, and that "take off" is common in some dialects, but to me it conjures up an image of Player B as a table from which Player A is picking up his punishment. I would always use "from" in this cricketing context. Dbfirs 08:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is dialect and isn't formal English. In London you might hear "He stole it off me!" when "He stole it from me" would be correct but a bit less expressive. Alansplodge (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely one sells something to Z having bought it from X. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, this was from the normally very correct BBC. I love the idea of an "indiscriminate radiator of punishment" --Si1965 (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]