Language desk
< May 20	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 22 >

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.

May 21

IPA generator

Is there an IPA generator that you guys use when answering questions? What got the idea into my head was the Christine (name) article. Dismas|^(talk) 00:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no such thing (at least, not an accurate one). This was recently discussed here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arg. Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 04:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

named after / named for

I've long been under the impression that "named after" was an Americanism, but recently I heard an Australian use the phrase. Is this person an anomaly, or is the phrase widely used in Australia? LANTZY ^TALK 01:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly answering your question, but to me as a native British English speaker, "named after" seems a more common usage than "named for", which though by no means unknown has a slightly old-fashioned feel. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed?! That's not at all what I'd thought. I had always thought that British speakers said "named for", and found "named after" to be bizarre and counter-intuitive. LANTZY ^TALK 04:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly answering it either, but linking to two previous discussions on this topic: Nov '06 and Feb '07. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I had it backwards. Interesting. LANTZY ^TALK 04:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Named after" is standard for this Australian. Steewi (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one too. Buildings are named after people; mountains, lakes, rivers, highways and so on are named after people. New-born babies are sometimes named after a grandparent or other relative. Occasionally, very occasionally, we hear of a baby being named for a relative, but it sounds Britishy to my ears. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would always say named after - and I am British. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've always thought that "named for" is exclusively American. Is it used anywhere else (other than in imitation of American usage)? Dbfirs 09:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French inhale - Etymology

As was already asked at Talk:French inhale, what, if anything, does this smoking trick have to do with France or the French language? How did it get it's name? -- œ ^™ 10:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess: Jean Paul Belmondo in Breathless? (Cookatoo) --91.113.95.174 (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC), oops --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

common burial

This stub suggests that the term is equivalent to German Gemeinschaftsgrab, that means a variant of burial where several persons are buried near each other, with no distinct individual graves, but some personal remembrance to each person. A style of interment that is chosen deliberately for cultural reasons, completely distinct from mass graves.

However, I didn't find this term yet in any online dictionary. Is it really in use and understandable?

--Ikar.us (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the only edit of its creator.

In a translators' forum where I had asked, too, they doubt the existence of the word, too, and suggest multiple burial instead.

Any objections from here?

--Ikar.us (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Common grave" is used in the UK[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. This example emphasizes that they are anonymous graves for poor people. I'm searching for the term for something like in this image. No individual graves, but a headstone for them all together. They (or the bereaved) chose this kind of grave deliberately. Can the term be expanded to this kind of graves? --Ikar.us (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to my dictionary, the English term for Gemeinschaftsgrab is communal grave. But I cannot tell whether this term can be used for the graves which Ikar.us has in mind. (My dictionary is Langenscheidts Großes Schulwörterbuch Deutsch-Englisch, ISBN 3-468-071325-3) -- Irene1949 (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to doubt the word. Cassell's (1966) gives gemein as "common, mean, low, vulgar, base," Gemeinde as "community, parish, municipality," and "Gemeinschaft" as "community, association." So the "gemein" part of the word could have the positive connotation of "in common" (community, parish) rather than the negative conotation of "mean, low, vulgar, base" implied in "mass graves." 63.17.49.5 (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR on my part, but I wonder if the number of people buried has some bearing on this. Both "the 250 people who died of cholera were buried in a mass grave" and "... in a common grave" look OK to my (UK) eye, but "the six unidentified people who died in the fire were buried in a mass grave" looks odd, whereas "...in a common grave" doesn't. Tonywalton ^Talk 14:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Words like "Gemeinde" as "community, parish, municipality" may have no negative connotation, but I think that a "grave which is paid by the Gemeinde" does have a negative connotation. These graves are supposed to be cheap and not very beautiful. And for many people, being unable to pay for the grave of one of their next relatives, would be a reason to feel ashamed. -- Irene1949 (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Bihari Mritak - translation of 'mritak'

The article about Lal Bihari's 'death' includes this line 'In 1980 he added the word "mritak" ("dead") to his name...' - I'm wondering if a better or more idiomatic translation of 'mritak' would be 'deceased', as in Lal Bihari, deceased. What do people think? Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps late Lal Bihari? --Ikar.us (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that it's already translated like this in the article!? --Ikar.us (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I'm suggesting an amendment to the article - change from 'dead' to 'deceased' in the above sentence. Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Late Lal Bihari clearly lacks the violence that mritak conveys. It's a situation as described in Dead Souls by Gogol. So I think, even if you use late, the literal translation should be given in parenthesis. 117.204.84.237 (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian surname spelling

I'm trying to trace an old friend of Norwegian origin. However, I can't recall how his surname is spelt. Knowing this would obviously help. It was pronounced 'fossgard'. Does anyone know how this might be spelt? With thanks. Dalliance (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fossgård", or simply "Fossgard", are two possibilities. According to Statistics Norway, there are 66 and 17 people, respectively, with that surname in Norway. decltype (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Well, Fossgard is a Norwegian surname, spelt just as you had it. Fossgård is also a surname, but would be pronounced more like Fossgourd. Most English-speaking search engines will not distinguish between a and å. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fossgaard (pronounced the same as Fossgård) is another possibility (there are 9 of them according to the website decltype mentioned). Mikenorton (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have thought of that - aa is the same as å, which was developed as a way of representing the sound given by aa. DuncanHill (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, much appreciated. Dalliance (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]