Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 April 18

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 18

Hebrew help

What is the Hebrew in http://www.threecupsoftea.com/wp-includes/images/Hebrew.JPG that is a translation of the title "Three Cups of Tea"? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If you mean you need an inscription of the Hebrew-language book title, here it is: שלוש כוסות תה. A transliteration would be shalosh kosot te (שָׁלוֹשׁ כּוֹסוֹת תֵּה). --Theurgist (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

In other words, yes it is a translation of the title. --Soman (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Schwas in metrical English poetry

How are schwas treated in metrical, rhyming English poetry?

The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English lists hour as a one-syllable word , and flower as a two-syllable word (for hyphenation purposes). The British English pronunciations are given as /aʊə/ and /'flaʊə/ respectively. I take the use of the stress marker to indicate that they are one foot and two feet respectively, with flower divided /'flaʊ-ə/.

This puzzles me. It seems to me that hour has both a dipthong and another (very short) vowel. Even allowing for the many oddities of English, shouldn't it be a two-feet word? Is there any general principle for the treatment of schwas to explain this? Should these words have been rhymed according to norms of English poetry?

A search of the Ref Desk archives turned up a discussion of the norms of rhymes in English poetry which is worth reading.

Matt's talk 03:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that there's any consistent difference in number of syllables between the words; they're both bisyllabic in American English, while in British English there are bisyllabic and monosyllabic pronunciations for both words, I would presume. (American English does monosyllabicize the one word "our", by making it be pronounced the same as "are" in less formal or more rapid speech...). AnonMoos (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos, I agree that there's never much consistency in pronunciation! The Longman's gives the American English pronunciations as /aʊr/ and /'flaʊər/, which makes hour definitely one syllable, but flower two syllables. I don't think there's a significant American vs British difference here, and it still doesn't explain whether a schwa can be absorbed into the previous foot. Matt's talk 04:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

In Received Pronunciation, /aʊə/ and /aɪə/ are usually considered to be triphthongs, which by definition are monosyllabic. Not everyone distinguishes the vowels in hour from those in flower, but the distinction does seem to apply to much of English poetry. There are plenty of exceptions, though, such as Shakespeare's Sonnet 5: "Those hours that with gentle work did frame...", where hour is clearly meant to be read as hower. And many poets have rhymed hour with power, flower, etc.[1][2] Note, however, that foot has a different meaning; a foot can be two or more syllables long, and can include parts of several words. Lesgles (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a really helpful answer. Thank you, Lesgles. Matt's talk 02:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone remember this ?

SRA Reading Lab

When I was nine, back in 1977, our teachers got us onto reading what they called S.R.A. books, which were used to assist us in reading comprehension. They conisted of may be laminated pieces of cardboard, colour coded, where a given colour represented a certain reading level, and we would read the story on the card, then were to answer questions about what we read to determine our level of understanding of the story, such that if we did well, we could move on to the next level of card. I recall colours like Gold, Red and Aqua - the first time I had come across that colour - a kind of greenish blue like teal or turquoise. All I could see was the article on the book Mr. Bush read to the kids in Florida the day of nine eleven ( I understand he was criticised for that, in not getting up to go immmediately but perhaps he simply did not want to disappoint the children by leaving early, relaising there was not much he could do right away, since as it turned out they had him on Air Force One for over six hours before they deemed DC safe enough to return to in any case. Some of course could suggest his very presence might have upset the kids, but one can see they looked pretty happy to have him there ) The article says the book read was of the SRA type published by McGraw Hill, and I recall the stories were certainly not of New Zeland - we had other books for that. Does anyone anywhere recall the S.R.A. books I am referring to ? Thanks. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 06:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember doing those when I was in second and third grade (which would mean 2000 and 2001). I have never heard of my peers past those years using SRA books. bibliomaniac15 07:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the "SRA Reading Laboratory". I recall those from many decades ago. The Science Research Associates article summarizes the various twists and turns that company took. It is apparently still in this business, although it's not clear if they're still using the colorful cards or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

LIkewise. This question brings back memories - really good, positive, happy memories - that I've not consciously had for approximately 50 years. WP's a great place for that. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I used SRA materials when teaching high-school English in Kansas in the early 1970s. The SRA kit included diagnostic material to help determine a student's reading level, which is what the colors represented. Each level had several readings with related comprehension tests, which I believe were mainly objective questions rather than essay questions. I used the SRA package to allow students to work independently, focusing my time on those who were not yet at grade level in reading. I seem to recall short booklets, rather than simply cards, probably because these were secondary rather than primary school materials. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it my imagination, or was there also an automated version, where it would read to you, then beep, then you would be asked a question and push the right button ? At first this seems like an odd way to do reading comprehension, without any actual reading, but it could be useful in distinguishing reading problems, like dyslexia, versus a failure to comprehend. StuRat (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Taking the OP literally: I remember a color-coded reading series from about 1969. —Tamfang (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a more useful (sub)title. StuRat (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The cards were being used in Canada (distributed/published by Scholastic) as early as 1955. I first saw them in Grade 3. Bielle (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That is all excellent, and thank You all so much ! I had figured the system was international, since we were given local, Australian, European and North American stuff to read at different times, and it does bring back happy memories - the strange thing is at the time when one is young, we do not always think how happy we later think we were - it is more the Nostalgia that perks us up, since as those of us older than thirty can testify, being young was never always a picnic, but if our fond memories outweigh those others, then it cannot have been so bad. I guess not one of us hasn't wished we could go back and appreciate the good old days a bit more, knowing what we know now. This positive response leads me to another question. About two years later, in 1979, at Intermediate when I was 11, our teacher read us a story about Hippopotami ( more dangerous than crocs it is said ), in a school swimming competition - obviously humanised river horses these - and one had his togs ( swimming trunks ) pulled off him in the pool by a bully ( as if being made naked was really embarrasing for a hungry hungry hippo. The books were illustrated in form similar to the Hairy Brigands or Where the Wild Things Are, among others, but I cannot remember the author or title, after over thirty years. Any ideas ? In fact this also brings to mind a story we were read back in the previous school in the mid seventies about two space men or moon children named Alpha and Beta. Does anyone recall that one as well ? It is amazing how much we are taught in school like that, and what there was available, like the cuisonere rods - I think that is how it is spelt - multi coloured wooden and or plastic with magnets, each colour and size indicating a length and therefore a whole number. We even had another teahcer later try that controversial experiment that lady did in 1968, where she ostracised I believe blue eyed kids to show how people were disadvantaged by racism. He picked the best kids in the class - those used to praise and who had earned it, and disadvantaged them, but did not carry it on too long. It is always interesting just to think back about such things Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 05:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

For the curious, the querent is referring to Cuisenaire rods and Jane Elliott's racism experiment. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Who are you calling a querent ? But yes - I thought her name was Elliot, and I believe she had a point, but I also understand some parents were upset about it because they had not been consulted. Although it may also simply be because even though they were not themselves cross burning Klanners, they did not seem to regard equal education for all as a priority - politicians as well. One thing I don't understand, how when cuts need to be made, it is to things like health and education, not politician's salary and such. Not investing in our childrens' future makes it more expensive overall. The Cuisenaire rods were cool, too. An advantage of proper educational funding. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 05:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

pronunciation of "Æthelberht" and "Attenborough"

How do we pronounce "Æthelberht" and "Attenborough" (like "Edinburgh"?)? Thank you so much. --Aristitleism (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how Æthelberht pronounced his name, but in modern British English it's ETH-ul-but. Richard Attenborough pronounces his name AT-un-bruh. SaundersW (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean to make the R silent in Æthelberht ? I've always thought it should be pronounced AYTHELBERT, but we may never know how it was pronounced back then. StuRat (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

SaundersW said that he was providing the pronunciation in modern British English. In standard British English (or Received Pronunciation), R's are not pronounced after vowels that are phrase-final or that precede consonants in a word or phrase. (The post-vocalic R was pronounced in Old English and is still pronounced in most varieties of American English and in some other varieties of English, but it was lost in London and other parts of England in early modern times.) If Aristitleism wants an American pronunciation for Æthelberht, then it would be either ETH-ul-burt or ATH-ul-burt (in which the first syllable is the same as the first syllable in athlete), depending on the source. As for the original pronunciation, most historical linguists think the initial vowel was closer to the initial vowel in athlete than to the initial vowel in ethics. Also in Marco polo (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My copy of the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary says that the proper present-day pronunciation (in IPA) of Æthelbert (notice the lack of "h") is /ˈeθ ᵊl bɜːt/ in British English and /ˈeθ ᵊl bɝːt/ in American English. Gabbe (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In Old English, orthographic "h" in such contexts ("berht") was pronounced as [x]... AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Japanese translation

I need to translate

遥か古代に降臨した1体の天使デジモンより地中のもっとも深く暗いところに封印されていた。

Right now, I have "It was sealed underground in a deeper, darker place than the angel Digimon that descended in the distant past." However, I'm not sure if it should be "It was sealed underground, in the deepest, darkest place, by the angel Digimon that descened in the distant past," or something else entirely.

Thanks.98.222.213.161 (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The ja sentence is a very bad one. If it was used "もっと" instead of "もっとも", it is perfectly OK and the translation would be the first one. The original sentence could be translated like this: It was sealed underground in a deeper, darker place than the angel Digimon that descended in the distant past. The place was the deepest, darkest in the underground. Oda Mari (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Intelligibility of French

Hello all! I read in a source somewhere that spoken French is some percent intelligible to Spanish speakers who have never studied French, but unfortunately I forgot the percentage :( I know that it would only be an estimate (after all how does one measure intelligibility), but can someone help me track down the source, or a similar source with such a percentage? Thanks. PS: I would also be interested in the mutual intelligibility of spoken French to other Romance languages. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Which french language do you refer to? There are numerous French languages spoken across France. While nearly all of the people in French are able to speak both the Official Academy French and their local language, people who speak local languages closer to Spain are likely to have more understanding of Spanish languages as well. It's nearly impossible to seperate "The Spanish I know because I speak Academy French" from "The Spanish I know because I speak Occitan" since most people can switch between their local language and the Prestige dialect without even thinking about it. Many of us speak differently in a job interview than we do drinking at the local pub with our pals, or conversing with our parents. Its the same worldwide. See Diglossia. --Jayron32 14:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

However, I think we can say with some assurance that spoken Standard French has virtually no mutual intelligibility with spoken Standard Spanish, assuming that a speaker of either language has had no prior exposure to the other language or to regional dialects that might have some mutual intelligibility with either language. For that matter, spoken Standard French has virtually no mutual intelligibility with any other Romance national language. There is probably limited mutual intelligibility between speakers of Standard French and speakers of Occitan without prior exposure to one another's languages (though in practice there are probably no speakers of Occitan who lack exposure to French). I was able to find some statistics stating lexical similarity among Romance languages in percentage terms, but no percentage statistics on mutual intelligibility between spoken French and other Romance national languages (perhaps because the percentage would be 0%). See this blog, which cites the Italian Wikipedia. I haven't taken the time to check sources cited by the Italian Wikipedia. As for lexical similarity, it is not a good index for mutual intelligibility. For example, the French word for "water", eau (pronounced "o"), is lexically similar to (derived from the same historic word as) the Spanish agua ("a ɣwa"), but the two forms have diverged so much that they are no longer mutually intelligible. Marco polo (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this stuff is nearly impossible to study; find me the mature adult French speaker who has never heard that "agua" is Spanish for water. In the modern world, people get exposure to more languages through the media, and in order to do the study properly, you'd need to find that person who speaks Standard French as a native language, and have never been exposed to even one word of the Spanish language in their whole life; so we can definitively say "This person knows these Spanish words because of their intellibility in French." versus "This person knows these Spanish words because they have been exposed to them used in context." I have zero formal training in Spanish, and yet living in the United States I can make out enough words to understand an occasional something; it's not because of a similarity to English that I understand some Spanish; its because I have been exposed to Spanish that I do... --Jayron32 15:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As Marco Polo has already pointed out, with absolutely no knowledge of French, a Spanish speaker's understanding of spoken French should be close to zero. However, nowadays most educated people have had some exposure to French. Due to both languages being closely related, little knowledge allows quite a bit of comprehension. --Belchman (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he has asserted that, but he has not given evidence of that. Presumably, one would have to orchestrate a valid study to that effect, and unless and until we see any such study, this is just Marco Polo saying it is so. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced one way or the other, I just maintain that we need to remain perfectly and totally agnostic on the issue of mutual intelligibility until some convincing data on actual speakers is provided. I have not said they are mutually intelligible, nor have I said they are not. I have merely doubted the ability to assert such a fact one way or another given the unlikelyhood of constructing a study of actually speakers that would represent a scientifically valid controlled study. Again, perfectly willing to accept the results of such a study should it be provided. I just don't want us to make definitive statements of fact (one way or the other) without evidence. --Jayron32 22:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion, sir, and you're free to have your own. But I can't think of any reason why it should be of interest to anyone here. --Belchman (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Our article on lexical similarity might steer you in the right direction (at least it has percentages), although as Marco Polo points out it's not a good index of spoken intelligibility. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A Romanian friend claims to be able to understand spoken Spanish, despite having never studied the language. He admits that the Spaniards couldn't understand his Romanian! Alansplodge (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This makes perfect sense as Spanish and Romanian are peripheral Romance languages, i.e. they have both missed certain innovations that are shared by French and Italian, and they both have relatively standard phonology for a Romance language. The problem with Spanish and French is that the phonology of spoken standard French is really odd, which makes mutual intelligibility with its cousins very hard.Hans Adler 09:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

However, the main obstacle to comprehensibility between French and Spanish is not the percentage of shared vocabulary items (which is what lexical similarity measures), but the fact that French has undergone a set of radical phonological changes which are paralleled only to a limited degree in Spanish. If you compare Latin and Spanish forms, you'll find that they often have the same number of syllables (except for loss of unstressed "i" and "u" in medial syllables, which already tended to be contracted in some popular or vulgar pronunciations of ancient Latin), while French has a smaller number of syllables than either Latin or Spanish. French also has such exotica as front rounded vowels, nasal vowels, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

According to some English or American scholars spoken Latin also had nasalised and contracted endings. This theory is based on actual historical evidence such as a classical comedy in which the main joke is that people keep confusing a two-syllable word and a four-syllable word (if I remember correctly). For example all the words ending in -um would have been spoken with a nasalised u and no m sound unless followed by a vowel. It appears that scholars from Romance-speaking countries don't believe this because it contradicts what their classical forebears wrote about Latin phonology -- mostly plagiarised from Greek grammarians. (But this is just the result of my literature research ten years ago when I tried to learn Latin like a living language. I am not an expert, and would be interested in more up-to-date pointers.) Hans Adler 10:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason for that is most likely much simpler, Hans. In Romania they don't dub TV shows and people there learn some Spanish via Latin American soap operas, whereas the only Romanian that a Spaniard will ever be exposed to is the yelling by Romanian gypsies in the public transport of Spanish cities, as simple as that. --Belchman (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Latin nasalized vowels indicated original word-final nasal consonants which have disappeared in both Spanish and French, and so have no real relevance to the differences between Spanish and French. I had more in mind such cases as Latin vinum ("wine", two syllables) becoming Spanish [vino] and French [vẽ] (actually pronounced more like nasalized [væ]). The fact that Latin vinum was sometimes pronounced [wīnũ] doesn't have much relevance to the fact that French has overall undergone more radical phonological changes than Spanish... AnonMoos (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

“Which french language do you refer to? There are numerous French languages spoken across France.” No there isn't. I'm from Nantes, and live in Geneva. French people speak French. And yes, even without any degree in spanish, I am able to understand or catch words from spanish people, if they don't speak to fast, and I'm always able to understand a french speaking person, even a canadian or a vietnamese (As an american is able to understand a british) 80.169.233.244 (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course there are (among others, and most pertinent to this discussion) the various modern forms of the former literary language of classical Provençal. They have a low social status and a lot of people can't speak them, but Occitan and Catalan dialect speakers in the Pyrenees should have no trouble communicating with each other, if there is even a sharp line. I cannot even distinguish (written) Occitan from Catalan. But then of course Occitan is "not French". The French have a knack of calling almost all linguistic phenomena "not French", but in this case I think it's justified.

By the way, when I first came to Spain and realised people there didn't understand any of my languages, I could make myself understood with French with an Italian pronunciation. Hans Adler 12:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Singular us?

In watching some British television programs recently (I'm American), I've noticed a usage that seems rather curious to me: that of apparently using the word "us" to mean "me". A character might say, "Give it to us", when there are only two people there, the speaker and the listener. Can anyone tell me anything about this usage? LadyofShalott 14:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is quite common in a number of regions, particularly London. I think it is used in constructs like "give us ..." but not usually like "give it to us" (sorry I don't know the grammatical terms for this). You would say "give us a drink", "give us a clue" but not "give any spare copies to us". I think it is normally used informally. This is all from personal observation, so I may not have it quite right. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See Majestic plural. --Jayron32 14:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No I don't think it is that. If anything you would use it in common company! -- Q Chris (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

People often use prestige terms in colloquial usage, sometimes for ironic or comical effect, sometimes to be subversive. Just because common people use the Royal We doesn't mean that they aren't using it because they are "common". --Jayron32 14:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is unlikely that a character, or person, would say "Give it to us" - they are much more likely to say "Give it us". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The OED describes it thus under "us", at definition 7: "Eng. regional, Sc., Irish English, and colloq. Chiefly in unemphatic use (freq. with give): me; to me." The first quotation given is from William Carr's Dialect of Craven (1828). Lesgles (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I knew about the "royal we", but this is not it - it's the common use that Q Chris and Lesgles describe. The regions listed in the OED help explain part of what I noticed: in Hope Springs, it seemed to be the Scottish people (and not the English) who used it, but then an Englishman used it in MidSomer Murders. Thanks, y'all! Do you know anything further about the origins of this usage? LadyofShalott 14:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm from the US so I don't know much about this expression; I have mostly encountered it in a few set expressions (or at least what I thought were set expressions) like "Give us a kiss!". I also remember that the character Gollum used the first-person plural to refer to himself (although I guess he had his reasons...).

Also I feel I should point out, at least here in the US we also have singular "we" but in a different context, as a second-person singular ("now what are we doing here?" when 'you' have been caught in the act of something...) rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

True, and that (rather obnoxious) use is covered in Majestic plural#The patronizing "we", but with the "And how are we feeling today?" medical use. (Ugh!!) LadyofShalott 15:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think most British English speakers would be familiar with this usage from the phrase "Gissa job" used in Alan Bleasdale's Boys from the Blackstuff. As to its origins, I can only offer that it seems to be generic across the UK as I've heard it used by speakers from all dialects and all countries of the UK. So maybe defined as slang rather than dialect. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Singular "us" is common in Geordie (see vocab section) and Mackem (WP:OR), where it is not only used in stock phrases such as "give us a kiss". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

When two kiss on the lips, they are both getting kissed, so "us" can just be a normal plural there. A kiss anywhere else is singular, though, unless they swap positions and kiss the other way around. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Singular us" is not unusual at all in northern Nova Scotia. "Give us a step (do a step dance), give us a tune (play the fiddle)," with "give us" sounding almost like a single word (givvus). There's a similar use in Auld Lang Syne:

And there’s a hand, my trusty fiere !

and gie's a hand o’ thine ! gie's = give us

And in Jim Malcolm's more recent Jimmy's Gone Tae Flanders

When Jimmy¹s home from Flanders we¹ll be sat down by the table

And we¹ll coax him to his fiddle: "Jimmy, gie us the Bonawe Highlanders."

--- OtherDave (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Also "Give us a bash at the bangers and mash me mother used to make." Alansplodge (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Eastern European map

[[I've requested some help with a Lithuanian translation of a map here; however, I think this is the place to find Lithuanian speakers (or perhaps similar languages). They're all placenames. Thanks Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You can find Lithuanian speakers at Category:User lt.—Wavelength (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nouns indicating residency

What is the term for words like "New Yorkers", "Floridians", or "Californians" -- where a noun is modified to indicate a person who lives in that location? Is there a complete list of modifiers? How could one tell with certainty what local residents are called -- or is it left to local residents to decide? For example, without looking it up, how could I tell what Las Vegas residents are called? Las Vegans? Las Vegasites? Las Vegars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.172.65 (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The word is demonym. As far as a "complete list", such a list is likely outside of the scope of Wikipedia. Some places have more than one term, and given the millions of named places in the world, having a comprehensive list of demonyms at Wikipedia would get very quickly unweildy. --Jayron32 17:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names.—Wavelength (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumably leaving out terms like "Louisvillains", "Charlottans", "Baltimorons" and "Parisites". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And if you call someone a Michigander, be prepared to duck. StuRat (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget "Massholes", who of course reside in the State of Massatwoshits. --Jayron32 20:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I live in a town called Maffra, so naturally we get called "Maffradites". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As in "tell your sister to bring her Maffradites with her" ? StuRat (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I once saw a book that was entirely a demonym reference. I don't recall the title. I believe the governments of France and Quebec keep official lists of demonyms for all of their towns. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Japanese translation

I'm trying to translate "このため統治を失った四聖獣による覇権争いが起こったが、現在ではその均衡が保たれている。"

I have "The Four Great Beasts lost their rule because of this, causing a struggle for hegemony, but an equilibrium is maintained at present."

Can "統治を失った" also mean "lost their ruler", or does it only refer to the power of authority, rather than its person?12.53.10.226 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ruler is 統治者 in Japanese. But I cannot tell what is correct as I don't know the context. Oda Mari (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Gotten" not standard?

In this article, it says that "gotten" is considered non-standard in American English. Is this true? I just did a quick search on google scholar, google news, and google books and found it is fairly commonly used. Eiad77 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards: the article says it's not used in BrE but is used in AmE. This is also what you find in the google results (for example, Google News, the first page of results I saw for "gotten" was all US publications). See also http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/gotten.html . rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Gotten" is used in the senses of becoming and obtaining (acquiring), while the senses of obligation and having (simple static possession) use "Got". AnonMoos (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The article does seem to say that the Compact OED says that gotten is "often regarded as non-standard" in North American English. Unless that includes Canada and "often" includes the fraction of North American English that comes from Canada, I think the Compact OED (assuming it really says that) is simply wrong. In fact I think it's wrong for Canada too, but I'm not quite as sure on that point.

It would be interesting to see the actual quote from the Compact OED; maybe there's some context I'm missing. As AnonMoos says, it would indeed be nonstandard to say *I've gotten to go to court tomorrow or *I've gotten a nasty case of the flu today (unless you mean that today is the day you fell ill). But no one says that, so it doesn't seem likely to be what they're referring to. --Trovatore (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the OED does not prescribe English usage; it merely describes how the language is currently being used. I think it's not at all unlikely that it contains quotations using gotten. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not just "currently being used", but (quoting our article) "...usages and variants in all varieties of English past and present ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. What it's wrong about is, it claims gotten is "often regarded as non-standard" in North American English. That's just false. Gotten is perfectly standard in North American English, and essentially universally so regarded. --Trovatore (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that was exactly my point. Eiad77 (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's dictionary of English usage (1995 edition; on Google Books) says "Gotten has been under attack in American handbooks as somehow improper" and cites various American authorities who oppose its use (McCracken & Sandison in 1917; Einstein in 1985). They also refer to the word's long history and cite other sources that approve of it, but while there is good reason for accepting "gotten", it is not universally approved of. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The OED cites usages of "gotten" as the past participle of the verb "to get" dating from 1380 to about a hundred years ago. It was once standard in British English, but has gradually fallen out of use except in some dialects, and is now regarded as incorrect in formal British English (along with "putten" that is still sometimes heard). It is retained as standard in certain phrases such as "ill-gotten gains". I've always thought that the older British usage (which is used 24 times in the King James bible, and is still common in northern English dialect) has been retained as standard in the USA. Dbfirs 16:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As a professional editor working in the United States for the past 16 years, I have never encountered a style rule against the use of gotten in the senses that it usually carries in American English. Nor have I ever encountered a copy editor who attempted to correct that form. It is universal in spoken and written American English as the past participle of get, with the exception of the set form have got/has got, indication possession. In the senses of get meaning "receive" or "become", gotten is the standard past participle in American English, regardless of the personal quibbles of any (Anglophilic?) individuals. Marco polo (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of the Compact OED to check the claim. It is not made in the big OED. Dbfirs 22:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Shorter OED, 6th ed, 2007, says: Acquired, obtained, won, esp. in a specified manner. Now rare exc. in ill-gotten. LME.

That's the definition for the adjective. Dbfirs 19:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

SOED again:
gotten verb pa. pple: see get verb.
get /0gɛt/ verb. ... Pa. pple got, (now N. Amer. & dial. exc. arch. & in comb., rare in branch IV) gotten /ˈgɒt(ə)n/. ME.
IV Special perfect uses. ... has got, have got (colloq. simply got), has or have, possess(es). E17. ▸ b has got to, have got to (also simply got to), has or have to, must (be). Cf. gotta. colloq. M19.
Mitch Ames (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the definition from Oxford's free online dictionary, which I believe is the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the find. That is what it seemed to say. OED messed up badly on this one. --Trovatore (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I wonder if they meant to say that gotten is regarded as incorrect when used in the "possess" sense. The full OED makes no such claim. Dbfirs 19:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose they could have meant that, except that no one really uses it in that sense. It's strange to say that a usage is "nonstandard" when it's almost unattested in the first place. --Trovatore (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point! My suggestion doesn't sound convincing, even to me. Perhaps they were just reporting the M-W entry mentioned above. They are also incorrect about "gotten" not being used at all in British English, though only dialectal remnants remain of the once-widespread usage, including in the "possess" sense. Dbfirs 07:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"I've gotten" means something different from "I've got". The latter means "I possess". Michael Hardy (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in America "gotten" means "obtained" (exclusively) (see Trovatore's correction below), but in older British English and current dialect the American distinction is not valid. Dbfirs 11:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not exclusively "obtained", no. It's the general past participle of get. The phrasing have got refers to possession or obligation, and is not heard as a past participle of get.

As evidence for what I say, note that I get slandered, libeled would render in the present perfect as I've gotten slandered, libeled, which has little to do with obtaining. --Trovatore (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

How many fingers have you got? I've gotten. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand ... oh, what a surprise, five fingers there too.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Officious pedants (of which fortunately this page has gotnone) seem to have only goteight plus two thumbs. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "I've gotten used to it by now" is very common; it might carry a slightly different nuance (of being inured to something by repeated exposure) in North American English from "I've got used to it by now" (where the exposure might be more a continuous rather than a repeated one). Strictly Original Research and speculation on my part. Also consider the Nicene Creed or Apostle's Creed whose Tudor or Stuart form — passed on in many churches and recited aloud every Sunday — refers to Jesus Christ as being "begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father..." [begotten meaning "born"]. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't really conclude much from what happens with compound words. Forgotten is standard in all English varieties as the past participle of forget.

Behold Man...God-summoned, yet God-bound...to be the creature of his own ideas...BY THIS DIVINE COMPLICITY — BEGOT --Trovatore (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I came to the U.S. from London at ages 6-8 and then at age 11; my mother (raised in London by two Scots who were very keen on good English) considered "gotten" to be incorrect, although H.W. Fowler didn't actually condemn it. Thinking the matter over, there's a useful distinction that can be made by keeping "gotten" — compare "I've got rhythm" (the Gershwin song is actually I Got Rhythm) with "I've gotten rhythm": the speaker of the first might always have had rhythm (being born, or begotten, with it), while there must have been some time when the speaker of the latter had no rhythm, or at least less rhythm than he or she does now. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I've got in the sense of I have is not a regular use of the present participle of get, but a fixed phrase. American English keeps got for the fixed phrase, and uses gotten in all cases for the regular past participle. --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I gotta agree. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)