Language desk
< January 12	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 14 >

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.

January 13

Application

What is App.?174.3.101.61 (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, apparently. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that, "Apparently, it means apparently", or "It means apparently, apparently"? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I'm in a generous mood today. Please interpret it in any way that gives you pleasure. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Was it ever otherwise Jack? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semivowel alternations

What I'm trying to do at our approximant consonant article is show examples where a semivowel alternates with its corresponding vowel. As you can see, I've got examples from Spanish for /i ~ j/ and /u ~ w/, a French one for /y ~ ɥ/, and an American English one for /ɚ ~ ɻ/. These alternations differ from arbitrary pairs of examples because they show a change the occurs upon suffixation. What's missing right now, though, is examples of /ɯ ~ ɰ/ and /ɑ ~ ʕ̞/ alternations. I'm not familiar with languages that have these pairs. Can anyone help? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 05:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Semitic languages I'm somewhat familiar with, a voiced pharyngeal often induces an "a" type coloring in an adjacent vowel, but I don't think a pharyngeal can be usefully said to "alternate" with [a], and I'm not sure what that would really mean... AnonMoos (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An alternation with [a] would mean that when (nonce-affix) -oqe is added to (nonceword) ava, the result would be avʕoqe; the insertion of [ʕ] in hiatus (avaʕoqe or avoʕaqe) would be close enough, I think. Short of that, do you have an example where the addition of an affix triggers this a coloring? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any language in which an [a]-vowel is transformed into a voiced pharyngeal consonant by a phonological rule, and I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't any. In the Semitic languages, only a restricted subset of consonants are allowed to appear in inflections, and pharyngeals are not in that set (though [h] and the glottal stop are). The typical situation where you get [a] coloring is when a non-[a] vowel appears in a form derived from a consonantal root without pharyngeals, such as "k-t-b" or whatever, while [a] occurs in the corresponding position of the form derived from a consonantal root with a pharyngeal consonant. By the way, in some languages for some purposes, the non-pharyngeal [h] can induce [a]-coloring in an adjacent vowel. AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portray or depict?

I've been toying with the idea of submitting a move request for List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. As I see it, the article name should be "List of films depicting paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors". Characters portray, films depict. Is my thinking flawed or would there be general agreement on this point? Maedin\^talk 09:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'd support that, "depict" is more neutral. "Portray" has a slightly arty tone to it. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say actors, not characters, portray. —Tamfang (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"re" case

(silly me, I'd posted this at the humanities desk)

Is there a name for a grammatical case equivalent to 'regarding, concerning, about'? As in a special case for X in "I have a message about X". kwami (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The prepositional case performs this function in some languages, but not in English. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't mean in in English. But in place of a preposition: a form "message John-[re]" which would mean "a message re John". Which case would that "-[re]" be? I don't know that there even is a name, which is why I'm asking here.

Or it might be restricted to linking a noun to a predicate, something like "to fear X, be worthy of X, to talk of X, think of X", etc, but specifically with a relationship of "concerning X", not also as a general dative or ablative. Kinda like a topic marker, but a case rather than setting up a topic-comment construction. kwami (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of grammatical cases#Morphosyntactic alignment lists Oblique case and

List of grammatical cases#Relation lists Ablative case. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I doubt it's something we have a dedicated article on. At least, there's nothing in our case template, or on our list (closest maybe is causal, but that only covers some of the functions). kwami (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from case grammar, the available cases and their names and functions vary from language to language. While there is a degree of commonality, especially between related languages, the answer to questions like this will often vary from language to language. Offhand I can't think of a language which expresses this with just a case inflection, (but somebody will no doubt reply with an obvious instance), so there will be little reason to have come up with a name for one. --ColinFine (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Latin is extremely rusty, but isn't there a special use for Dative where it is like "X in reference to Y"? Falconus^{p t c} 02:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There probably is. But I'm looking for the word you'd use for a case that is dedicated to such a role, not a more general case that can also be used that way. kwami (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're looking for the "dative of reference", which indicates who benefits or loses from an action. Ecce dedi vobis omnem herbam afferentem semen super terram... ut sint vobis in escam. Look, I give you all seedbearing plants on the earth... to be to you for food. Marnanel (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ilaksh, a case-heavy constructed language, uses a "referential case", though this would probably be an invented term for that purpose and not an established term in linguistics. -- The Great Gavini 16:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. That's along the right lines, though I was hoping to find s.t. in a natural language. It seems rather odd, with the variety of cases in the world, not to have this. kwami (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation rule?

Is there a rule as to when the second syllable gets the emphasis? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In English? kwami (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English probably has more exceptions than it has rules, but unabridged dictionaries sometimes have information like that; patterns to look for. There are some examples in the previous section. And "example" itself is an example. But that might just be coincidental, as it's often the next-to-last syllable that gets emphasized. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Such a rule does not exist in any language, to the best of my knowledge. Some have a rule that the final syllable is stressed, some the penultimate, and others the first, but none that specify the second syllable. Why? --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 20:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are languages (a lot of Native American languages, for example) where the second syllable is stressed if the first syllable is light, but the first syllable is stressed if it's heavy. I don't know of any language where the second syllable is always stressed regardless of syllable weight. +An gr 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Languages with basic second-syllable stress are certainly uncommon,. but there have been claimed to be a few, such as Southern Paiute and Dakota.... AnonMoos (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you record a record, the verb form has the stress on the second syllable, while the noun form has the stress on the first syllable. --Kjoonlee 04:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this is true for most (though not all) English disyllables. A verb has final emphasis, a noun has penultimate. Steewi (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Initial-stress-derived noun. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In English, emphasising the second syllable usually makes a sentence sound weird. However, in some languages such as the Mayan language, the second syllable is often emphasized, though not always, sometimes it is the last syllable. For example, Chichen Itza. ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Translation

Can someone who speaks Arabic tell me what the following means: منيح منيح :) أنا مصري.

Thank you! Luthinya (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what منيح means (someone's name, maybe? what's the context?), but انا مصري means "I'm Egyptian." Wrad (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate doesn't have a meaning specifically for منيح, but it says the trisyllable m-n-H has a meaning of "grant" (like the verb to grant something). Steewi (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm Egyptian" is correct. منیح (manih) means generous; it should be a name here. --Omidinist (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are ships feminine in American as they are in English ? And why ?

Hello my dear Pytias. Please excuse my poor English, I'm French. I've some questions about the sexe of ships.

1) An English man explain me it's useless trying to understand why ships are femenine in English, but anyway if you have ideas about that I'm eager to get new ideas on that.

2) MAIN QUESTION : A friend of mine who says she is bilingual American-French because she had lived in the USA from 0 to the age of 8 didn't know that ships are feminine in English. Would that mean that in American ships are not always feminine ? ( In fact I think she shows off when she proclaims she's bilingual )

3) What about other English speakers : Indians, South Africans, and so on...

4) Do you use feminine for all kinds of boats, rowing boats, sailing boats, boats for children

P.S.: I wrote Pytias at the beginning of my letter because the equivalent of the reference desk in the WP:fr is "L'Oracle" referring to Delphi.--82.216.68.31 (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, ships have been referred to as "she". This is, however, changing. The current recommendation of the Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), which is widely used in the U.S., says "When a pronoun is used to refer to a vessel, the neuter it (rather than she or her) is generally preferred." As for the origins of the tradition of using "she" in referring to ships, CMS says "Pronouns enhance personification when a feminine or masculine pronoun is used as if the antecedent represented a female or male person (as was traditionally done, for example., when a ship or other vessel was referred to as she or her.)"

So the choice is she or it, and it remains a personal choice, with people advocating for their personal preferences with varying degrees of vigor. On the one hand is tradition; on the other, gender equality. Take your choice, and you've chosen your pronoun. - Nunh-huh 23:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. since you seem to want help with English, it may not be too offensive for me to add the following points:

You probably meant Pythias, an allusion which unfortunately too many English speakers won't recognize, but which is still nice :)
It is probably better to refer to a ship's "gender" rather than "sex" - Nunh-huh 23:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably meant the plural of Pythia, not Pythias, Aristotle's wife. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)It seems to me that two things are true for English usage of she for vessels.

Not everybody uses this pronoun, especially people unfamiliar with boats or sailing.
The usage is not exactly parallel to grammatical gender featured in Romance languages like French. It seems more like an attempt at anthropomorphizing the ship, giving it human characteristics and projecting a certain will to it. I suspect that only named ships are referred to as she.

This is coming more from someone with minimal experience with boating, so perhaps others could substantiate my claims more. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seagoers are indeed far more likely to insist on she, and it is indeed for anthropomorphological purposes....for whatever reason, sailors are more likely to conceptualize their relationship with a ship as with a woman than with a man.

Seagoers are also more likely to insist on a "boat"/"ship" distinction, in which the former are small vessels, and the latter large. Some define a ship as a vessel large enough to carry a boat. Others might claim that ships are seagoing vessels, while boats are not. These folk would refer to "ships" as "she", but would be a bit less likely to refer to "boats" as "she". But these distinctions are not observed in the everyday speech of landlubbers. - Nunh-huh 23:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true, as per Rex Harrison in The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (film) that "sailors" is "a landlubber's term" and that they prefer to be called "seamen"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I cannot say if Rex speaks true or no. But generations of punsters would be thankful if he is correct. - Nunh-huh 02:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that took over an hour. Where was everybody? As you may know, "seamen" are men who work at sea, while "semen" is from the Latin for "seed". Anyway, I'm curious to know, but I suspect no one here knows. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bells are "she" to ringers, at least in the phrase "Look to; treble's going; she's gone." But I believe that this too is anthropomorphism. Marnanel (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are all bells considered feminine? I've only heard it in that phrase (and occasionally with "treble" replaced by "two" when there are insufficient ringers to ring all the bells). I wouldn't be surprised if the tenor was considered masculine. Big Ben has a man's name, after all. --Tango (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may not matter. The USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) has a man's name, and is nonetheless "she". - Nunh-huh 02:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to remember: I think I once rang backwards, and they said "tenor's going, she's gone" just the same. But of course this is anecdotal. Marnanel (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the Pytias reference - perhaps the RD is being referred to as "da Big Cheese"? As for sailing vessels, I'm told that my grandfather (who sailed with the Merchant Navy all his life) averred that only two types of vessel could be referred to as "he"; gravy boats and mail boats.Tonywalton ^Talk 00:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my (American) ear, calling any vehicle by "she" is acceptable, but not mandatory. That includes mainly boats and ships, but also airplanes, spaceships, and, rarely, cars. The only vehicle I can think of where "she" is definitely out of place would be a train. Falconus^{p t c} 02:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why leave out trains? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It just sounds wrong to me, though I guess with the actual locomotive it works fine. Falconus^{p t c} 03:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She'll be coming 'round the mountain when she comes... Buddy431 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, point taken. Falconus^{p t c} 04:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

How does a train drive six white horses? --LarryMac | Talk 13:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my (Australian) ear, it's much the same: 'she' or 'it' - but never 'he'. Funny that - another example of utterly unconscionable discrimination against maleness in all its forms. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, really! When do we get our turn to be thought of as property? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning, Will Robinson! In the current atmosphere, do not attempt to burn your boxers in a plane. - Nunh-huh 04:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I (Texan) drive an old Ford Econoline van, and it's got lettering on the side, left over from its previous career as a catering van. Since it's got a name, which everyone uses to talk about it, it's already a bit anthropomorphized. Thus, a lot of people - American people - when they ask me how (or whether) the van is running, refer to it as a "she". I think they're assuming that I do the same thing ship-captains do, in thinking of the vehicle as a woman, but I don't. I consider it an "it", and I think of myself as progressive-minded when it comes to gender issues. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I find it so weird when men who already have a relationship with their pickups that verges on romantic, add testicles to it. Weirdly homoerotic. But maybe that explains the embrace of the term "teabagger" by some of the tea party folks... Guettarda (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do what? O_o

As for my van, there are two stickers on the back, where you would expect sex parts. One is a band sticker for Ween, with their name emblazoned over their phallic-looking mascot, the demon-god Boognish. Next to that is a sticker from a feminist skit-comedy troupe that used to operate out of Austin. Their name was "Viva La Vulva", and the sticker says "Vulva", under the traditional woman silhouette that indicates women's restrooms. That way, I can point out to anyone who seems confused that it's got both boy and girl parts, and is hence an "it" (and probably disqualified from Olympic competition). -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truck nuts. I thought you said you live in Texas? :) Surely they're as bad an Oklahomans... Guettarda (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I live in a college town, and I guess I've got selective blind spots. Growing up here, they're useful.

As a Texan, I can't accept "as bad as Oklahomans" though. We're badder. :D -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone once told me, "A Texan is a wetback who never made it to Oklahoma." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, it might be wabbit season 'round here. Texas is home to the world's largest fleet of pickup trucks with gun racks, and we're on the lookout for varmints!

There's an anecdote (likely aprocryphal) about a county in West Texas that used to have a law against driving around drunk shooting guns. Drunk driving was ok, shooting while driving is of course fine, and drunk shooting is good times. All three though? That's just irresponsible. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't surprise you that there's a work of art that explores part of the subject mentioned in your first paragraph, starting at about the 2 1/2 minute mark.[1] Be aware that this film was made during the War. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the original question, as others have said, the use of she for ships is optional and is not the same as grammatical gender in French, but is instead a matter of personification. I can well imagine that an 8-year-old child whose family were not sailors or otherwise maritime would never have heard that some English speakers personify ships as women. Those people who do personify ships might also personify small sailboats, but to personify toy boats or rowboats, I think, would be considered humorous. Finally, I don't think that there is much difference between British English, American English, and other varieties of English on this question. I think that the personification of ships in all countries is optional and mostly practiced by people closely involved with ships and boats. Marco polo (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she"). -- Wavelength (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American English is not a distinct language from English, albiet a dialect, and English words do not automatically have any masculine or feminine identities, as they do in French. Usually, we refer only to humans and animals as male or female. Ships and veichles are not the only objects sometimes referred to as "she", some countries are also referred to as "she" or "it" (although some countries are self-described as the Fatherland), and hurricanes are often referred to as "he" or "she" depending on the name of the storm, but usually as "it". There are very few neuter nouns in French, but nouns in English are usually always neuter, meaning they have no identity applied to them. Ships often have a "gender" or "sex", but only by tradition. En anglais, les noms ne sont pas masculin ni féminin, parce qu'en français et espagnol les noms ont une sexe mais pas en anglais. ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]