Language desk
< October 31	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 2 >

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.

November 1

UIR WORDS

The letter combination –uir- seems very uncommon in English. I can think of the following cases:

Acquire
Enquire
Inquire
Muir (surname)
Quire
Require
Squire
Squirm
Squirrel
Squirt

and their derivatives. Are there any others? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

esquire ? I hold off from trying harder - I imagine there is 'an app' for this somewhere on the internet, some sort of crossword/scrabble solver ?Sf5xeplus (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'app' must be here --Omidinist (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here are the results from that app. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piggybacking here — how do folks here pronounce squirrelly? To me it has three syllables. I was kayaking with my dad one time and a girl told us that a patch of water ahead was "squirly", which it took me some time to connect with the word squirrel. --Trovatore (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3, swirly has 2 - I think squirly (not squarely) is not yet a word, but would have 2 too.Sf5xeplus (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has two syllables for me, although it seems like it should have three (just like "squirrel" is only one syllable even though I feel like it should be two). Anyway, acquire, inquire, and require come from Latin, where the root verb is actually "quaerere", "ask". (This is also the root of "question", "inquest", "request", "inquisition", etc). "Squire" is from Latin "scutiger" ("shield-bearer"), with some bits lost, as usual, through its transmission to English via French. Another English one is "Quirites", a poetic name for the Romans, which also comes directly from Latin. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel is 2 syllables is most non-US dialects. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me squirrel seems a little ambiguous, in the sense that if someone were to say squirl I would hear squirrel anyway, and probably not notice. But I do notice squirly (like swirly with a k); that one's clearly distinct from squir-rel-ley. --Trovatore (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where I picked up some of these distinctions that don't seem to be terribly common in the areas I've lived. There's a woman at work by the name of Dawn; most of my co-workers confuse me by calling her Don, and I don't know any Don among our colleagues. My sisters pronounce mirror as though it were a Soviet space station. I make a clear distinction between the first words of Los Angeles and Las Vegas (but it's not the one Brits would make). That sort of thing. --Trovatore (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Los" and "Las" are very different on this side of the pond. Possibly they are pronounced similarly in some regions of both our countries. Dbfirs 08:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but for you Los probably rhymes with dose, no? That's not the distinction I make at all. For me Los uses the caught vowel, whereas Las uses the cot vowel. Probably the majority of Californians have the cot–caught merger, and I'm not exactly sure why I don't. My sisters have it. I'm not sure whether my parents do/did. --Trovatore (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I pronounce "Los" like "loss" and "doss", but I may not be representative of some of my compatriots. Like you, I prefer clarity in pronunciation rather than conformity to local norms. Dbfirs 08:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quirky wuirds. It's a simple matter to do a wildcard search on onelook. There I find you've missed: buirdly, cuirass, daiquiri, equirotal, faquir, guirland, guiro, jequirity, quira, quirinus, quirites, quiritation, quirl, quirpele, quirt, squirarchy (government by squirrels?), squireen, and tenuiroster. Some of those are archaic, and some are also Scots. 213.122.55.156 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

After grepping through the "Webster's 2nd" online word list and eliminating words mentioned above and (by hand) those derived from them, I've found ~~one additional commmon one -- quirk --~~ and a bunch of obscure words (along with their derivatives, which I omit): acquirenda, aguirage, bequirtle, cuir, decemuiri, equiradial, equiradiate, equiradical, fuirdays, inquirendo, muirburn, muirfowl, quirinca, quiritary, quirquincho, squirk, squirr, tenuirostrate, and unguirostral. --Anonymous, 08:45 UTC, November 1, 2010.

You didn't have to mention quirk (quirky being its derivative), because the previous post had already mentioned it: look at the first word in the previous post. Here are two additional words: cuirass, langmuir. Eliko (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let's not be like that, Eliko. You yourself are the third editor to mention 'cuirass'. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are the third editor. I have been the second editor. Eliko (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag provided it first. Then 213.122.55.156 mentioned it. Then you did. That makes 3 mentions. But whatever, you were having a rather unpleasant go at Anonymous, then followed it up with exactly the same faux pas you accused him of. That's why I put you in your place. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse Anonymous of anything, neither did I intend to put them in their place, but rather pointed out that they hadn't had to mention quirk.
I didn't count Rjanag, because they only gave a link, without indicating any specific word.
If we do count Rjanag (who only gave a link), then Anonymous didn't have to mention cuir, either. Again, I don't accuse them of anything, neither do I intend to put them them in their place, but rather I point out that they didn't have to mention cuir, unless we don't count Rjanag (who only gave a link).
Even if we count Rjanag, I'm still the third only, i.e. somebody else preceded me in mentioning the word cuirass mentioned before. Eliko (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. Double sheesh. How about I use your exact words, modified: You didn't have to mention cuirass, because the previous post but one had already mentioned it: look at the 20th word in the previous post. OK. Done. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I wasn't the first editor to mention cuirass, and I hope you accuse me of nothing, just as I accuse nobody. Eliko (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point: you weren't the first editor to mention 'cuirass'. When Anonymous wasn't the first editor to mention 'quirk', you advised him he didn't need to mention that word because someone before him had already done so. Then you yourself immediately proceeded to mention another word that had already been mentioned by a previous editor (or two others, if you count a link). In the spirit of "what's good for the goose, etc", I brought that to your attention, but instead of simply acknowledging it, all you've done is quibbled about whether you were the second or third in line, when all that really matters is that you weren't the first. I couldn't care less about that, but you thought it was worthy of mention when Anonymous did it, so I've applied your "rule" to yourself, but you seem to somehow not like it. If you don't like things being quoted back at you, don't impose them on others to begin with. That is all. I won't be entertaining any more discussion of this stupendously jejune topic. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in any case Eliko was right. What happened was, when I checked to see if someone else had mentioned "quirk", I made the mistake of searching case-sensitively. --Anon, 06:57 UTC, November 2, 2010.

@Jack of Oz,

Unfortunately, you misinterpreted me! Let me quote you:

"instead of simply acknowledging it..."

It seems like you haven't read my previous post, in which I did acknowledge it! Look at the first two words of my previous post ("You're right"). I just added that I hoped you accused me of nothing just as I accused nobody.

"all you've done is quibbled about whether you were the second or third in line".

"Quibbled"? what happened was, when you claimed that I'd been the third editor, then I pointed out that I'd been the second editor - rather than the third one - to mention "cuirass" (because Rjanag didn't mention the word "cuirass"), but this remark of mine wasn't intended to hide the very fact that I wasn't the first editor! You were right! I was not the first editor! However, since it seemed like you had thought I hadn't acknowledged that, then I made it clear in my previous post!

"but you seem to somehow not like it".

If you think that I somehow don't like it, then you misinterpret me! On the contrary! See again the first two words in my previous post!

If you don't like things being quoted back at you..."

Why do you think I don't like things being quoted back at me? I really don't care if things are quoted back at me! You misinterpret me again and again!

"don't impose them on others...".

"Impose"? Where do you see I impose anything? I just pointed out that Anonymous hadn't had to mention quirk, That's all! Where do you find any clue of trying to "impose" anything? Why do you misinterpret me again and again and again?

"I won't be entertaining any more discussion of this stupendously jejune topic".

It's up to you, because I don't impose anything on anybody, just as I don't accuse anybody of anything. Anyway, I agree with you that this topic is stupendously jejune, excpet for my first remark to Anonymous, which they found helpful, as you can realize by reading their last response (preceding my currnet response).

Eliko (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, back to the main game. Apart from my initial list, we’ve come up with the following non-obsolete/archaic words and their derivatives:

cuirass
daiquiri
quirk.

The non-standard examples we found are very endearing, and I'll endeavour to incorporate as many of them into my vocab as I can (you have been warned). Irony: I created the article La guirlande de Campra in April, but overlooked 'guirlande' here as I was regarding it as a French word. Thanks to all. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, it is our pleasure! Good luck. Eliko (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the field of bank or banking sector

Hello there, I am writing an objective for my resume. Which looks like: "To develop a career in the field of bank (or banking sector) that offers both challenges and good opportunity for growth....." I am bit confused about certain sentences which have been marked as bold. Should I choose "in the field of bank" or the latter one? thanks--180.234.48.221 (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is better. "In the field of banking" would also be grammatical. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Bank" is a count noun so it is very rare to use it in the singular without an article, so "in the field of bank" is impossible. "In the field of banks" is grammatically possible, but semantically does not work, because "field of" (in that sense) usually requires an abstract noun. Hence "In the field of banking". As Rjanag says, "In the banking sector" is fine as well. "In banking" will work as well, and is shorter. --ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conjunction question

Which of the following alternatives is better?

Exactly one of the candidates Smith, Jones, and Robinson will win the election.
Exactly one of the candidates Smith, Jones, or Robinson will win the election.

The first one seems more logically correct, but something about it sounds a bit strange to me. On the other hand, I'm not sure the second one is any better. —Bkell (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second sounds more natural to me but I would put a comma between candidates and Smith as well as after Robinson because there would be a "spoken" pause there if I were saying it out loud. You could just as easily say "Exactly one of the candidates will win the election" and it would still be correct. Dismas|^(talk) 07:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, the context is actually a mathematical proof, so the sentence is more like "Exactly one of the numbers x, y, or z is even." A comma between "numbers" and "x" doesn't work there (because there are many numbers in the proof, so the phrase "x, y, or z" is not a parenthetical statement—it is critical to the meaning of the sentence and is in apposition to the word "numbers"), and plainly I can't omit that phrase either. —Bkell (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a difference in meaning. If you put "Smith, Jones, and Robinson" (with or without the Oxford comma) in apposition, then you need a comma after candidates, and another after Robinson, and you are saying that Smith, Jones and Robinson are the candidates, one of whom will win the election. (You could, equivalently, put Smith, Jones and Robinson in parentheses.) The second option, with "or" doesn't imply an exhaustive list of candidates, just that one of these three that you have mentioned will win. For the mathematical statement it is perfectly acceptable to omit the conjunction, but if you prefer to include it then I think "or" sounds more logical. Dbfirs 08:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either is fine, or to put it another way, both sound wrong. The phrase "the items a, b, or c" sounds strange in isolation, because it implies the items might fade in and out of existence. "One of the items a, b, and c is blue" also sounds strange, because it's redolent of "a, b, and c are blue". In both cases there's a tension between plural and singular - items conflicts with or, and and conflicts with is, but none of that really matters. 81.131.44.250 (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct, i.e. either is fine. The first sentence states that: In the set which includes Smith, Jones and Robinson, there is exactly one candidate who will win. The second sentence states that: Either Smith, Jones or Robinson, will win. Eliko (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Eliko's interpretation of the first sentence if we use apposition (when the set is the three candidates in the list), but, without the commas, I suppose it could mean "including" (without apposition). Since this is to be applied to a mathematical statement, why not say ""Exactly one of the numbers in the set {x, y, z} ...." ? Dbfirs 12:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that some commas are missing in the first sentence. Anyways, using the braces (curly brackets) { } - is for a mathematical notation. In everyday speech one doesn't use the braces, but rather the and. for example, one doesn't say: "I bought the set {apple, apricot, onion}", but rather says: "I bought an apple, an apricot and an onion". Eliko (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did say "Since this is to be applied to a mathematical statement ... " Dbfirs 09:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the commas: I certainly would distinguish between restrictive and non-restrictive apposition by surrounding "Smith, Jones, and Robinson" with commas if it were a non-restrictive appositive. My intent was for "Smith, Jones, and Robinson" to be a restrictive appositive (there are several other candidates on the ballot), so the commas seem inappropriate. (I apologize for not making this clear in my original question—I hadn't thought of the other interpretation of the sentence.) My question is really along the lines that 81.131.44.250 explores above: Should the conjunction "agree" with the other element of the apposition ("the candidates Smith, Jones, and Robinson"—excluding the candidates Miller, Brown, and Davis) or with the singular meaning of the sentence ("Exactly one of … Smith, Jones, or Robinson will win")? —Bkell (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you don't need commas (surounding the phrase "Smith, Jones and Robinson"), in any case. Anyways, you may use either sentence, because, as I've explained above, the first sentence states that: In the set which includes Smith, Jones and Robinson, there is exactly one candidate who will win, whereas the second sentence states that: Either Smith, Jones or Robinson, will win. Eliko (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could re-phrase as: "Of the three candidates, Smith, Jones and Robinson, exactly one will win." Alternatively, clarify with an "either": "Exactly one of the candidates, either Smith, Jones or Robinson, will win the election." Dbfirs 09:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but in everyday speech (rather than in 'mathematical' speech), when one says: Exactly one of the candidates Smith, Jones, and Robinson will win, one may mean: "Of the three candidates, Smith, Jones and Robinson, exactly one will win". It's not that big mistake, if a mistake at all, as far as everyday speech (rather than 'mathematical' speech) is concerned. Eliko (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, indent error above, though I do disagree with the notion that use of "and" implies that "Brown" could win. Dbfirs 19:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never claimed that use of "and" implies that "Brown" could win. Eliko (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am evidently misunderstanding your sentence: " In the set which includes Smith, Jones and Robinson, there is exactly one candidate who will win". Dbfirs 08:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the following: In the set which only includes Smith, Jones and Robinson, there is exactly one candidate who will win. Note that there may be more candidates, however they are not included in the specific set I'm referring to, which includes three candidates only. Got it? There may be more candidates, but they are not included in the specific set mentioned above. Eliko (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To convey that meaning, I would say " In the set which comprises Smith, et al. ...", thus avoiding the confusion. Dbfirs 10:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and what I claim is that in everyday speech, when one says: Exactly one of the candidates Smith, Jones, and Robinson will win, one may mean: "In the set which comprises Smith, Jones and Robinson, exactly one will win". It's not that a big mistake, if a mistake at all, as far as everyday speech is concerned. Eliko (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I agree with you. That's what I would mean by the sentence, but I would prefer to use apposition if no other candidates exist, or the alternative phrasing if "Brown et al." are other candidates who will not win. I also agree that in everyday speech such pedantic precision is seldom necessary. I mentioned sets only because the OP said that the use was for a mathematical sentence. Dbfirs 08:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bantu noun classes & multiple nouns

In Bantu languages, what verbal (et al) concord is used for phrases consisting of more than one noun which do not belong to the same noun class? I'm familiar with the "Fifty women and a rooster" rule for Romance languages, but how do the Bantu languages deal with this, especially considering that most noun classes aren't necessarily used for humans? Cevlakohn (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but I'm interested to find out. I'll ask one of my colleagues. Steewi (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gioja

How is the surname of José Luis Gioja pronounced in Argentine Spanish? How would it be pronounced in Italian? The same as Gioia, or differently? LANTZY ^TALK 14:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way I hear Mirtha Legrand pronouncing it at the beginning of this clip it sounds like /joχa/ (to be rhymed with Rioja). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, her pronunciation seems largely hispanified. I was curious because I've heard names like "Cavallo" very scrupulously pronounced /ka'valo/ instead of /ka'baʃo/ or something like that, and I was wondering if it was standard Argentine practice to pronounce Italian surnames in a more or less Italian way. LANTZY ^TALK 17:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though Gioja is almost surely derived from Italian Gioia, not many Argentines would get the connection, specially considering the current orthography of the name. By the way, Argentines do more or less well at geminating the Italian ll, but perform very poorly at getting Italian groups -cc-, -ch- and -cch- right. Pallida Mors 20:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the "-ja" is apt to cause confusion, but I would have supposed that the initial "Gio-" would be a dead giveaway of Italian origin. Mirtha Legrand's pronunciation seems to encapsulate that uneasy hybridity, since she pronounces it like "yoja" instead of "jioja". As for the geminate ll, is that obligatory? For instance, if someone were to pronounce "Cavallo" in the manner suggested by Spanish orthography, would he actually be regarded as incorrect? Or is it merely an optional refinement dictated by personal taste? LANTZY ^TALK 22:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, when you're speaking Italian? It's obligatory, at least in "standard" Italian. In some regional pronunciations (I hesitate to use the word dialect because Italian dialects are often mutually incomprehensible languages) it may disappear.

It is even used distinctively — capello cap, cappello hair (sorry, got that backwards — capello is "hair" as in "one of the hairs on your head"; cappello is "cap"). --Trovatore (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Lantzy: Well, Cavallo is a very well-known public man, and his last name has been always pronounced in the abovequoted way; hence, the only motive I would see in someone pronouncing the name the other way is just the humourous one.
I'd say that most renderings of Italian-originated double els would go the Cavallo way. Take notice that I have said above that "Argentines do more or less well" geminating the sound, so, you'll find a gamut of durations of the geminated ll.
Speaking of the sociological perception of Spanish-based or Italianized pronunciations of names, it clearly depends on a series of factors: the most important one being how most of the population pronounces the word. I'll put two examples: it's possible to hear cultivated Argentines pronouncing the last name Bianchi as [correct original] /βianki/, but even they will surely refrain doing the same with Carlos Bianchi. This player's last name has always been publicly rendered as /βiantʃi/ [like in cheese] by the press. So, going the former would sound as hypercorrected.
However, I have heard many (not all) sports journalists pronounce Alejandro Montecchia's last name as indicated by the Italian origin, more or less like /montek-kia/. Hence, a /montetʃia/ is not technically incorrect, but many will frown upon your style. Pallida Mors 09:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. So it varies from case to case, and you just have to know. It reminds me of the case of José Padilla, whose name everybody in the press used to pronounce /pə'di:.jə/ in approximation of the Spanish pronunciation, until some reporter discovered that Padilla himself, for some inscrutable reason, preferred the pronunciation /pəˈdɪl.ə/. Perhaps because it sounds more Islamic. After that, I remember an NPR newsreader mentioning the name, in the correct but incorrect-sounding fashion, and then hastily adding, "We happen to know, that is how he pronounces his name," as if to dispel the impression that he, the newsreader, was making a crude error. LANTZY ^TALK 14:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the extent to which languages sound alike

When I hear native speakers speaking Spanish, and when I hear native speakers speaking Hebrew, the languages sound very similar to me. I have two questions: (1) Why? Is it because the sets of phones used (or used in abundance) is similar (and sufficiently different from that used in English, my language, to make me note it), or because the patterns of stress is similar (and, again, different from English's), or what? (2) More generally, is there any measure devised of the extent to which languages sound alike?—msh210℠ 18:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes languages sound alike, is primarily their common phonological system (consonants and vowels). For example, Spanish and Modern Hebrew - about which you're asking - sound alike, just because of their having the same phonology: they have the same set of consonants (including /x/ which is missing in English, except for the /x/ in the word loch), and also have the same set of 5 vowels: /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ (while English has 11 vowels, and some dipthongs missing in Spanish and in Hebrew). However, note that Spanish speakers, as well as Hebrew speakers, won't be able to "hear" this similarity, just as you won't be able to "see" the similarity between your face and your parents'/siblings' faces, although foreigners will. As for English, I suspect there is no other language which may sound (to a foreigner's ears) similar to English, mainly because of its special set of 11 vowels, and because of its special /r/, which is really existent also in Chinese, but Chinese has an absolutely different vowel system (and also has its special tonal system absent in English), so Chinese can't sound similar to English, even to a foreigner's ears. Eliko (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That "r" you speak of in English might be the reason that a Spanish-speaking guest on Carson once (possibly Fernando Lamas) said that to a Hispanic's ears, English sounds like "barking dogs". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, try to say "burrrrrrrrrrr"....

When pronouncing it in a French accent, you don't sound like a dog, whereas, when pronouncing it in an (American) English accent you do sound like a dog :)

Eliko (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on "/r/, which is really existent also in Chinese" Eliko. There are no trills in Standard Mandarin. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin has some accents. Listen to this speaker. Cohneli (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding no other language sounding like English. I think it depends on the variety of English, some Northern British dialects sound Germanic to me. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

24.92 – I don't think Eliko was claiming that either English or Mandarin has a trill, but rather, that the English rhotic consonant (which people often write as "/r/", without implying a trill) is similar to a consonant found in Mandarin. Lfh (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two languages don't actually sound all that similar to me. Spanish doesn't have a "back" r, or a [s]/[š] contrast, or non-allophonic [b]/[v] contrast, while modern Hebrew doesn't have a [ð] sound, or [č] affricate, or ñ, or "trilled" r. In terms of phonotactics (patterns of sound occurrences), the two languages are quite different, with modern Hebrew having a much higher frequency of consonant clusters and freer occurrence of word-final consonants, as well as medial glottal stops or syllable-break contrasts (however one wishes to describe the pronunciation difference between לירות vs. לראות). I suspect that [x] occurs rather more frequently in spoken Hebrew than spoken Spanish, and it's more usually uvular [χ] in Hebrew in any case. Hebrew also has a rather restricted occurrence of words ending in word-final unstressed vowels as compared to Spanish (except in names), etc... AnonMoos (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The two languages don't actually sound all that similar to you, because you're not a foreigner. However, they do sound similar to the OP's ears! I've already clarified that in my previous response, havn't I? Anyways:

Spanish doesn't have the "back" /r/, just as formal Hebrew speech doesn't: listen to the news in Hebrew on the radio! The OP may have meant that when a foreigner listens to the news in Spanish and in Hebrew, the listener finds them similar.
Spanish does have the [š], in the cluster [tš], e.g. in the word "mucho", and the like.
Spanish does have both [b] and [v], whereas the fact that this distinction is allophonic only, can't be noticed by a foreigner's ears, about which we're talking!
Modern Hebrew does have the [č] affricate, e.g. in the word [čuva] (=an answer), and the like.
Modern Hebrew does have the [ñ] sound, e.g. in the word [iñan] (= a matter), and the like.
Modern Hebrew does have the "trilled" /r/, in the formal Hebrew speech, e.g. on the radio (listen to the news in Hebrew). The OP may have meant that when a foreigner listens to the news in Spanish and in Hebrew, the listener finds them similar.
Re the glottal stop, yes, but it's quite rare in Modern Hebrew, and is only used when a confusion may arise. Re [ð]: yes, and you forgot to mention also [θ]. Regarding the uvular [χ], phonotactics, and likewise: Yes, you are right, but don't forget that we are talking about a foreigner, like the OP who's a native English speaker, and who's more influenced by the identical vowel system, than by the phonotactics or by the (rare) glottal stop (which is generally skipped) or by the exact difference between the almost-identical sounds [x] and uvular [χ], both of which are not existent in the OP's native language. Anyways, as I indicated above, I agree that Modern Hebrew doesn't have [ð], and that Spanish doesn't have the glottal stop (being rare in Hebrew), and that's why those languages sound "similar" (to a foreigner's ears), rather than "identical".

Eliko (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never taken a day's lessons in Spanish in my life (though I live in an area where many people do speak it), and I'm not remotely fluent in Hebrew (most of my studies having been in ancient Biblical Hebrew rather than modern Israeli), but I could probably tell apart Spanish and Hebrew most of the time on the basis of two or three normally-spoken sentences. And some of your points do not really apply -- if [š] is freely occurring in Hebrew, but confined to the unitary affricate [č] in Spanish, then its status is not at all comparable between the two languages. Similarly, Hebrew does not have a unitary ñ palatal nasal sound, but rather merely an [ny] consonant cluster. And Spanish spoken in the area where I live does not have a [θ] sound. I'm not saying that User:msh210's perceptions aren't genuine, just that if he has a little more exposure to both languages, then he'll probably fairly soon be able to tell the languages apart most of the time, as long as he's somewhat observant (but without actually needing to fully learn either language). AnonMoos (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was talking about a "foreigner", I didn't refer to somebody familiar with those languages (as you are familiar with them), but rather to a foreigner, e.g. to the OP. All of the differences between both languages (e.g. the difference between [ny] and [ñ], or the difference between a "free" [š] and a [š] followed by [t], and likewise), are really differences, but they are still slight differences, which are not noticed by a foreigner. Anyways, I agree that if the OP had a little more exposure to both languages, then they would probably notice that Hebrew doesn't have the [ð] and the like, and then they would fairly soon be able to tell the languages apart most of the time, even without actually needing to fully learn either language. However, in such a case I wouldn't call them a foreigner. Eliko (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that I would confuse the two languages, merely that they sound similar. I have, let's say, to pay attention for a second to know which is being spoken. That doesn't happen with native-speaker-spoken English and Spanish, for example. Thanks very much for your replies, folks, they've IMO satisfactorily answered my question 1. But no one has yet answered my question 2: anyone know?—msh210℠ 16:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek sounds more like (European) Spanish to me, because of the [θ] and the s's. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandywell Stadium

OK, y'all, how's your Gaelic? Does anyone know if the Irish name for the stadium is "Tobar an Fhíoruisce" and that it translates into English as "the well [of] pure water"? I could have posted on the Irish wikipedia, but as it's all in Irish that puts me at a handicap. Thanks, all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Irish is scant, but just from reading Seamus Heaney I can tell you that "Anahorish" (anach fhíor uisce) means a "place of clear water". Assuming that Seamus Heaney is not a gobshite, it would therefore seem likely that a valid idiomatic translation of the stadium's name would be something like "Clearwater Well" or "Well of Pure Water". Either would be valid, because "fíor" literally means "true", as in Flann O'Brien's "truly true Gaelic Gaels who speak in true Gaelic Gaelic about the truly Gaelic language". Here is a company that uses the term, and even uses the translation "true water", whether out of pedantry or pretentiousness I can't say. As for "tobar", it certainly means "well", but I believe the word casts metaphorical shadows which I'm not qualified to expound upon. It has been used, for instance, in the titles of anthologies, as the word "treasury" would be. However, in this instance it's probably just a straightforward literal "well". It's curious that the Irish name would not be a direct translation of the English name, or vice versa. Perhaps "fíor uisce" is here used as a tongue-in-cheek translation of "brandy"? LANTZY ^TALK 22:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't always have a direct translation for English words into the Irish language or vice versa for example and using the alcohol theme, Whiskey is "Uisce beatha" which translated back is "Water of Life". Or another example were we have 2 different ways to say Dublin "Dubh Linn" or Baile Átha Cliath. Mo ainm~Talk 13:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I imagine that recent, perfunctory, bureaucratic translations are quite often literal or hyper-literal, so the fact that this translation isn't literal strongly suggests that it is "organic", that "Tobar an Fhíoruisce" is or was the authentic, everyday toponym of the area where the stadium was built. Of course, the only way to know for sure would be to find an Irish-speaking denizen of Derry. LANTZY ^TALK 14:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's probably needed, then, is for someone to go to the Irish wikipedia and ask them what's up with the Irish name. That should answer the question and also hopefully satisfy the current complaints at the article. I'm sure the reason it's hard to find a "reliable" source is simply that it's not very important. It's just a trivial fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English is tolerated at the Irish Wikipedia, so you can feel free to post questions there. But Irish Wikipedia is also fairly low-traffic, so it might be a long time before anyone notices and answers your question. Anyway, I can't confirm that Tobar an Fhíoruisce is the Irish name of Brandywell Stadium, but I can confirm that it means "Well of pure water". —Angr (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French 's'

In certain words (for example, garçon, sur, sortie, some better examples that I can't think of right now), even though their IPA transcription is /s/ the English s sound (represented by the same character) seems too "thin" or "weak" compared to how I perceive native speakers rendering, which is warmer or "fuller". I substitute a sound which has no IPA character that I know of; I will try to describe it. The tip of the tongue is very lightly pressed to the back of the bottom teeth such that the tongue is slightly arched. The upper teeth are very close to touching the tongue, but airflow is redirectioned and not obstructed. The lips are tight and in a shape like the beginning of the /w/ sound, and do not move from that position (i.e., there is no release as in the full w sound), but they are not extended as if kissing. The sound is otherwise produced like the normal /s/. This gives it a slightly lispy quality, but by no means as whistly as the /ʃ/. Is this a correct realization of the French s? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing sounds like a labialized s to me, [sʷ], but maybe I'm wrong. My intuition is that the "stronger" sound of a French /s/ comes more from the following vowel than from the /s/ itself, but I haven't studied French phonetics formally so I'm not sure what the academic literature has to say about this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct form

Are the following statements right?:

"Achieved a certificate in General English Course with the British Council, Bangladesh in a class at the level of Intermediate"
"Achieved a certificate on Basic Photography Training Program, held by Notre Dame Nature Study Club, Notre Dame College, Dhaka."

thanks--180.234.56.75 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "Earned (or awarded) a certificate in the intermediate-level General English Course offered by the British Council, Bangladesh". "Achieved" doesn't really go with "certificate". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my (Brit Eng) experience, "..in a class at the level of Intermediate" would be more usually expressed as "..in an Intermediate-level class". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a British-english speaker I would write: "Awarded a certificate in the Intermediate General English Course of the British Council, Bangladesh." I assume the course was at intermediate level, rather than the grade of award being intermediate. 92.29.115.229 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- So what about the second statement?--180.234.55.190 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Awarded a certificate in the Basic Photography Training Program of the Notre Dame Nature Study Club, Notre Dame College, Dhaka." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]