Language desk
< June 10	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 12 >

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.

June 11

500-word Swadesh List?

I read yesterday that the Swadesh List started out with 500 words! Did Mr. Swadesh leave any records as to what those 500 words were? Subliminable (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may help if you told us where you read that yesterday, as the article here gives no indication that that be the case. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read it in Campbell's 2004 tome Historical Linguistics: An introduction. You can find the page here.

Another page that cites this information: Talk:Swadesh_list Subliminable (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it's mentioned on the talk page of one of our articles, yet not in the article itself, you may want to ask the person who mentioned it to a) see if you can get it included in the article ; and b) find out where he/she got this information from. You may find that they got it from the same source as you, in which case you may hit a dead end, but it's worth a try at this stage. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-ization

hangulization, romanization, cyrillization. What other terms are in use for other scripts? 70.162.12.102 (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sankritization? --Soman (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must mean Sanskritisation. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arabization can mean several things, one of which is "the transliteration of loanwards into the Arabic alphabet". ---Sluzzelin talk 09:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding some limited use of "kanaization" and "katakanaization". Warofdreams talk 11:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about transliteration to the Greek writing system? Hellenization usually means something else. I did find some usage of the word grecization in this sense, but I'm not sure it is commonly used by scholars. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, Sinhalization and Tamilization are usually socio-political concepts, but here are some script-related uses of those words - Tamilization, Sinhalization (that last one also mentions nativization). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Oooh, I just saw Marco polo used hellenization in the transscriptive sense, one thread below :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 13:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Therapeutiae

May someone know the original Hebrew name of this Jewish sect, please? Or in Arabic? --Omidinist (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philo of Alexandria didn't say. but the usual English spelling is Therapeutae. Since they were not necessarily exclusively Jews, and are attested in early Roman Egypt, their name might not have had a Hebrew origin at all (and certainly not Arabic). By the way, we still don't really know the original Hebrew or Aramaic form of the word "Essene"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have been very much part of the Hellenistic world, whose common language was Greek, and are not particularly associated with the lands where Hebrew was once spoken. The origin of their name is probably Greek, though one scholar has argued that their name is a Hellenization of the Pāli term Theravada. For that matter, the common language of Judaea (and Samaria and Galilee) at the time of the Therapeutae was not Hebrew, but Aramaic. Marco polo (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Therapeutae" itself is certainly Greek (though its exact meaning isn't totally clear); Omidinist was asking if it was a translation/calque from another language. I don't think we have any specific evidence that it is... AnonMoos (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments. --Omidinist (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

quaid e milleth

What does the (Arabic?) honorific "quaid e milleth" mean. I read somewhere it means Leader of the nation/faithful. Would appreciate a precise English translation--Sodabottle (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Leader of the Nation" is correct. The first word, quaid (which is not correct), is qaed in Alqaeda. --Omidinist (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, quaid and qaeda are not the same. Quaid ('Commander') is قائد whilst qaeda ('Base') is قاعدة. The is a wiki article on millet, which can be translated as 'nation', but not exactly in the Western sense. --Soman (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry. I correct myself. They are two different words. And nation in an old sense might mean Umma (followers). --Omidinist (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth the ALA-LC transliteraton of the Urdu is qāʼid-i millat. --Cam (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best first language

1. What is the best first language to have if you want to learn new languages? I first thought of something like Italian or Russian, with a lot of deeply related languages and not "corrupted" by multiple language families mixing (like what happned in English ;) But what about learning a not related language? It could be a dead language or conlang since this is hypotheticla 76.230.7.123 (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to question 1), it is unlikely that you will get a definitive answer, since none of us is familiar with all of the world's languages. That said, I think that the "corruption" of English actually makes it a good starting point, since it has cognates with much of the basic vocabulary of both the Germanic and the Romance languages. Another possibility would be a language close to Proto-Indo-European such as Sanskrit. Sanskrit would offer cognates for the vocabulary of all Indo-European languages and a key to the original grammar of those languages, though on the other hand many of them have changed so much that that the cognates would be hard to recognize. Sanskrit would still be a good gateway to the many Indo-Aryan languages and to a lesser extent to the kindred Iranian languages. As for question 2), syntax is an element of grammar (which also includes areas such as morphology), so it's hard to know what you are asking. Also, it is hard to quantify or compare the complexity of different elements of grammar. It is true that Latin has very flexible syntax (though whether its syntax is more flexible than that of any other European language, I don't know). However, Latin has a relatively complex and inflexible system of morphology. Marco polo (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "conlang" (constructed language) suggests the OP is already familiar with deliberately created languages like those Arika Okrent describes in her book, In the Land of Invented Languages. As she points out, many of these have a much smaller vocabulary than naturally evolved languages.

Not only do I agree with Marco Polo that it's unlikely you'll get a definitive answer, but I'd go further to say that any acceptable answer depends on what you mean by "best" and what you mean by "learned." Okrent, for example, learned enough Klingon to pass a certification exam. My hunch is that she's not holding phone conversations, much less getting ready for an extended voyage on a Klingon starship.

"Corruption" isn't a term I'd use for naturally evolved languages; incorporating and adapting words from other languages is one way they evolve. It's all relative, which means that to some extent a language is a dialect with an army and navy. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied, over the past seven+ years, Spanish, French, Latin, and German. Latin was, while regrettably not at all practical, it may have served me the best of any of those, because it required me to learn a lot about how a language is supposed to work. Before I studied French and Latin, I pretty much assumed that learning a second language was mostly just memorizing a list of vocabulary and putting it together. I assembled a bunch of words directly out of a French-English dictionary into a "sentence" and was very puzzled when my teacher had no clue what I was talking about. Learning Latin, because of the nature of the language, required me to be able to know darn sure what a subject was, what a direct object was, and even what things like datives, passive constructions, genitives, gerunds, gerundives, and others (the list is long) are. I learned none of those things in my "English" lessons. That meant that it was very simple to pick up another language textbook and easily understand what it was trying to tell you about the grammar of that language, if that makes any sense. I know what an accusative noun form is, so I need only to learn how to construct one in German, and not so much time learning "what the heck is this accusative." That's not to say that they are used exactly the same way, but it's close enough to get a running start. From that regard, Latin was a very good language for me, and it helps immeasurably with Romance languages. I can get meaning from many of the written Romance Languages, and I get the feeling that they would be simple to learn (I know French sure is) after learning most of the Latin grammar and a lot of Latin vocabulary. In reality, learning any second language should be a good one to learn; some will certainly be much more challenging than others, but they ALL are perfectly valid forms of communication. "Dead languages" won't help you to communicate effectively with very many people, but they certainly can help you to learn a lot about their descendants. I know this is long and rambling... I'm a little tired, and I am not doing well at being concise today. Let me know if I need to clarify anything or everything. ~~65.87.167.166 (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)~~ sorry... Forgot to log in... Falconus^{p t c} 00:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how good you are at languages and what you want it for. A well-developed conlang like Esperanto is great if you've had trouble with languages in the past; it might help you break down the barriers that are holding you back. (Similar to the points about Latin above, but more accessible.) If you have already learned other languages, Esperanto would be child's play. If you want a language with challenging syntax, an Altaic-type language like Turkish, Japanese, or Korean would be worth checking out: you can translate from English in your head for a language like Italian, but not for those. — kwami (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a different angle, English is the best language to know for most languages, because the materials for learning other languages are usually most accessible in English. There are exceptions, of course - information on Siberian languages is primarily in Russian, and most information about Tocharian is in German. Steewi (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language with most rigid syntax

2. This is totaly unrealted to the first but what language ahs the most rigid syntax and grammar? I am told of the Western languages latin has the most flexible, what has the least? 76.230.7.123 (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation help from German

In reference to this question I asked over at the Miscellaneous desk, I would require help for translating the reply I got from the German railways. I got the most of it, but here's the bit where I need help:

Für Ihre Internetbestellung wird von uns selbstverständlich der günstigste Preis ermittelt. In der Bestellmaske können Sie zudem im Feld "Wünsche an das Servicecenter" vermerken, dass Sie für die gewählte Verbindung zunächst eine unverbindliche Preisinformation haben möchten. Unser Service-Team wird Ihnen dann den entsprechenden Preis nennen und erst nach Ihrer ausdrücklichen Zustimmung die Fahrkarte ausstellen.

I think this means:

We will naturally offer you the cheapest price for your Internet booking. In the booking form you can note in the field "Wishes to the service centre" that you would like non-binding price information for the chosen connection. Our service team will then give you the corresponding price and only send the tickets with your written permission.

Have I got this right? I'm especially concerned about the middle sentence. Does unverbindlich mean that I do not commit to actually buying any tickets merely by sending a booking request? It's the similarity between the words Verbindung and unverbindlich that's throwing me off here. JIP | Talk 20:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your translation is correct. German Wiktionary gives "unverbindlich" as "nicht verbindlich, ohne Festlegung" -- "not obligatory, without commitment". Besides, if receiving the price information obligated you to buy a ticket, they would not have to ask for your permission to send the tickets. Xenon54 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Your interpretation is more or less correct, though by clicking "Wünsche an das Servicecenter" you are not sending a booking request but simply a request for price information. You don't commit "zunächst". "Zunächst" wasn't translated in your version. It means "in the first instance" or "for the moment", implying they hope your request will turn into a booking request and become "verbindlich" (binding) soon. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The similarity between Verbindung and unverbindlich is basically a coincidence. Verbindung means "connection", in this case an Internet connection, while unverbindlich means "non-binding", i.e. without any obligation. The two words are etymologically related, but in this context they have nothing to do with each other. +An gr 23:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two other small corrections: You have translated the last word in the passage above, ausstellen as "send", but in fact it just means "issue". Their statement does not specify whether the tickets are to be sent, or whether they will be held for you to collect at the station, or whether they will be issued in some other way. Also, they say that they will issue the tickets "erst nach Ihrer ausdrücklichen Zustimmung". This doesn't mean "only with your written permission". It just means "only with your express permission/agreement". Considering that this is an Internet transaction, your express permission or agreement might not take a "written" form; it could be the result of clicking a box with a label something like "Ich bin mit den Bedingungen einverstanden und will die Fahrkahrten zum gegebenen Preis jetzt buchen". Marco polo (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

‘Verbindlich’ may be little bit strong, rather ‘Verbundlich’?

Just to mean: “Für Ihre Internetbestellung wird von uns selbstverständlich der günstigste Preis ermittelt. In der Bestellmaske können Sie Ihere Wünsche im Feld "Wünsche an das Servicecenter" vermerken, wenn Sie die gewählte Verbindung zunächst eine unverbindliche Preisinformation haben möchten. Unser Service-Team wird Ihnen dann den entsprechenden Preis nennen und erst nur nach Ihrer ausdrücklichen Zustimmung die Fahrkarte ausstellen.” -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]