Language desk
< April 25	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 27 >

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.

April 26

Downward Comparisons of Plural Nouns often treated as singular.

A few months ago, I asked a similar question here concerning Plural nouns that are usually treated as if they were singular.

I'm still somewhat confused, however, as to whether one would prefer the adjective less or fewer with them.

The general rule is that fewer is preferred with plurals. Certain plurals treated as singular, though, seem so abstract to me that less sounds better.

e.g. "less data" vs. "fewer data", "less mathematics" vs. "fewer mathematics", "less aerobics" vs. "fewer aerobics."

Does anybody here know what dictionaries, usage guides, or style manuals say about this? Pine (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, data can be treated as an uncountable noun (data is stored), or a plural form of the countable noun datum (data are stored). So I would say less data in the former case, and fewer data in the latter one --151.56.72.91 (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also read Mass noun#The words fewer and less. Hope it helps :) --151.56.72.91 (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be pointed out that mathematics is not in fact a plural in contemporary English. What's a mathematic exactly? Nothing, of course. So mathematics is a mass noun construed as singular.

Etymologically, of course, it's plural. --Trovatore (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and as far as I can tell, the same reasoning applies to 'physics', 'gymnastics', etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest language?

What is the fastest (natural) language, both in terms of how fast the words go by (i.e., probably a syllable timed language), but more importantly in terms of how fast meaning can be conveyed, how concise the language is. Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, that's definitely not Italian. --a native Italian speaker, 01:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that Italian tends to have a somewhat lower information density than (for example) English, if measured by information per syllable. The other side of the coin, though, is that because Italian has a small number of vowel sounds (five to seven, depending on accent) and they are quite distinct, Italian can be spoken quickly without losing clarity. So probably the information per unit time is similar. These are my personal subjective impressions; I'd be interested to know whether the question has been rigorously studied. --Trovatore (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that even in English, different people manage to convey things at different speeds and efficiencies. Just think: "I'm Falconus" versus "My name is Falconus". Essentially the same, with perhaps a very slightly nuanced difference in meaning. Yet the latter has 50% more syllables. If you can't tell, I tend to be rather verbose. So, by this logic, it's shorter to say "I'm Falconus" than "Ich heiße Falconus", but "Ich heiße Falconus" has the same number of syllables as "My name is Falconus". In French, it's "Je m'appelle Falconus", which depending on regional dialects has, I believe, either five or six syllables. My question would be if certain languages are better suited at being concise, or if it just depends on the speaker. As an example of a language that may in certain cases be more concise, I find that Latin often is very succinct. ~~"Puer puellam videbatur"~~ (edit: "Puer puellā videbatur" - sorry, it's been awhile) is, if my memory is correct, best translated as "The boy was being seen by the girl". Obviously, in that case, it's far shorter just to say the Latin. "Falconus sum" is also short, but "Meum nomen Falconus est" is a longer way to state my name. Just food for thought. Falconus^{p t c} 05:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is beside the point, but "Nomen mihi Falconus est" is more idiomatic. —Angr (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have to say that I have not had much opportunity to develop my day-to-day conversational Latin. I'm intrigued that they use the dative pronoun there; I have seen different ways to express one's name in a few different languages, but that's a new one to me. Falconus^{p t c} 14:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Sometimes the dative case is used as if it were genitive. In Italian we call that dativo di possesso (= dative indicating that someone possesses something). In this case, your name belongs to you --151.56.88.10 (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think sign languages tend to be quite information-dense, but it takes longer to make a gesture with one's arms and hands than with one's tongue, so that probably slows them back down to a speed comparable with spoken languages. —Angr (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scouse --138.217.223.214 (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a living language by any means, but Old Chinese might fit the bill. It was made of mostly monosylabic words and works in old chinese are very dense in meaning, so spoken old chinese probably is a good canditade. Rabuve (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe that all languages have essentially the same information density, in terms of information conveyed per unit of time -- I believe this is set by people's ability to integrate information cognitively. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabuve -- However, old Chinese is reconstructed as having very complex syllables, so these would not necessarily have been commonly pronounced at the same rate as the relatively simple syllables of modern Mandarin... AnonMoos (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syllables of Old Chinese are more complex than syllables of Modern Mandarin, but at maximum they would have four phonemes (CCVC), which doesn't make them any more complex than Vietnamese or Khmer (and considerably less in general). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really what the article says... AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I neglected semi-vowels (didn't know how to notate them), and forgot about the odd 's' at the end, but this still does not escape the fact that Old Chinese was monosyllabic, and most of the sound combinations shown in the article are pretty straight forward, unlike those of Khmer and Vietnamese, which can and do take some time to pronounce (milliseconds, of course, but still, time). In any case, though, any answer to this perennial question would just be dogging the fled horse, because quite simply it will always depend on the speaker. Not the language. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malayalam (as fastest words go by)? --Soman (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I elect Pirahã's whistled language in terms of phonemes. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to determine this scientifically, you'd have to take some widely translated book, acquire translated copies of it, get someone to read a sufficiently long passage out of each one while you measure the time, and compare. – b_jonas 09:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italian pronunciation and IPA for the name "Cocchi"

I need the proper pronunciation of Cocchi Americano, an aperitif wine from the Asti province of Italy. I have seen it reffered to as being pronunced "Co-key", but this is obviously not the official IPA for Italian. The word "Cocchi" is a name, so regional pronunciation may not be that of Asit province. Thanks. Colincbn (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "k" sound in the first word is geminated. The "o" sound is an "open o", roughly the "caught" vowel for Americans who distinguish "caught" from "cot". --Trovatore (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that then, the IPA would be [ˈkɔkki ameriˈkano]. Lesgles (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thanks a million! I'll add this to the article now. Cheers Colincbn (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does this line mean?

In 99 words for boobs, there is the line "Schwag the showgirls show in Vegas". What does this mean? Is it supposed to be a term for boobs? --KnightMove (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schwag is swag - booty, the goods. In this context, the answer to your question is then yes. Henry ^Flower 16:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And what is the literal meaning of this expression? I fail to understand it. --KnightMove (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Literally it is "Items/Goods that the showgirls show/display in Las Vegas". Dismas|^(talk) 11:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

language

What is the purpose of using the word "affair" in the following sentences ? The debate was a pretty disappointing affair. The party turned out to be a quiet affair. Can we not say the above as, The debate was pretty disappointing . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.88.150 (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a synonym for 'event' as referenced here: (Freedictionary.com: affair). The sentences could also be structured as you have suggested with little difference to the meaning --138.217.223.214 (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original meaning of the word affair is "business" or "commercial transaction". As such, when applied to events that one might expect to be entertaining or exciting, it is a little disparaging. Marco polo (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Japanese

Hi. I was watching a TV ad for a Japanese car. An engineer was talking about the car they had designed. The ad was in Japanese with English subtitles, but I noticed that he used a couple of English words and an English phrase in his description, namely engine, design and can-do (as in can-do attitude). Are these words used in everyday Japanese?81.152.252.58 (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be talking about the Toyota adverts. The mixture of English and Japanese in those adverts is actually normal - words like 'engine' and 'design' are loanwords from English. Also, there are lots of buzz-words like 'can-do' (and actually Toyota specifically has its own jargon). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OP here. Many thanks KageTora, it is the Toyota adverts I was referring to194.176.105.55 (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta be the Mazda adverts because one of the loan words was "rotary", and only Mazda use a rotary engine - that's the main thing he was talking about. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just guessed it was Toyota because I've only seen adverts for Toyota on telly recently (I really don't watch much telly), but in any case, are you sure? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ad is repeated ad nauseam during ITV4's cricket coverage, and was on the screen just after I hit "save page"! I see the reference to Toyota's rotary engine, which must be very recent indeed. It's not in common use, unlike Mazda's. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it must be a Mazda advert, because I very much doubt Toyota would be advertising something they developed in the 1970s! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They may well have done, but did they put it in a racing car and win Le Mans with it? That's in the advert as well. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the advert under discussion. Sussexonian (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen it on TV about two minutes ago and came here to say that it is definitely Mazda. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side-note, but in the advert, the man says 「英語で言えばキャン・ドゥーですね」, which means 'In English this would be "Can-do", right', as he is introducing a buzz-word. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the same advert that I saw, I'm surprised that they think that the concept of "Hiroshima spirit" would sell cars to Britons. Not everyone can have forgotten why we needed to bomb the place. Alansplodge (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know it may sound odd, but the idea is not 'why we needed to bomb the place', but what happened afterwards and the city's very admirable recovery. I still remember buildings were around Liverpool City Centre which had been destroyed in the blitz when I was a kid (massively badly made sentence, but you'll get my point). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point. I'm just astonished that they thought "Hmm... Japan, World War II, good selling point". I find it annoying that the Japanese appear (to me) to hold the atomic bombings in complete isolation from preceding events. Maybe I'm just getting old. Alansplodge (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the idea that 100,000++ innocent women and babies should be wiped out in an instant, and the survivors and their as-yet-unborn children should suffer massive pain, deformities and shortened life spans - all because of the actions of some of their menfolk - that seems to be a very old idea, Alan. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As compared to 100,000+ Allied soldiers being killed by the Japanese D-Day that was averted by using the Bomb? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities". Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Babies don't fight in any army, mate, and so long as American soldiers don't make a habit of gang-raping and then killing children, many of those kids who died in that bomb would still be alive regardless. I won't mention the countless gang-rapes of Japanese children by American soldiers in Okinawa since the occupation began and still continuing up to the present day, because none of those kids were killed. Just scarred for life. This is a very serious and ongoing, endemic problem, and one of the many many reasons the Japanese have a perennial vote on whether to keep the Americans in Okinawa or to kick them out forever. It almost seems like these days, if you are a pedophile you have two career options: join the priesthood, or join the American Army, or Marines, or whatever they are. Same thing is happening in Korea now. It happened in Vietnam (and nearby Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia, leading the aforementioned countries to getting a reputation for child prostitution). It is happening in Afghanistan. Iraq. Anywhere where American troops are stationed, kids are getting raped. Here's hoping the Libyans will have enough foresight to evacuate their kids to a really faraway land before American boots get on the ground. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are missing the point entirely. Hiroshima has not only regained its status as a central hub of industry in Asia, it is also a symbol of peace for the Japanese. Go to Hiroshima one day and you will see. When I was at school in Kobe, my school took us on a trip to Hiroshima specifically to see the peace memorials there. The church in Hiroshima - basically the only building left standing after the bomb - is still there. We have an article on it at Hiroshima Peace Memorial. At the epicentre there is a memorial for all the people killed in the bomb - a statue of a bomb with children playing around it - and just next to that is the most horrific museum you will ever care to visit. Then there is Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. The idea is, the Japanese have a terrible past, but so do we all (and us British have a particularly horrific colonial past - such as inventing concentration camps and tying Indians to the front of cannons just to make a point). They have fixed the problems caused by their past - most of them anyway - and are going forward to a prosperous future as a nation of pacifists. The Japanese have worked hard to redefine their image in the world and become a major economic power. That is something to be proud of. We, however, hold nuclear weapons and have been in a continual state of war since the Romans arrived. And Liverpool - my city - was once an industrial centre - a major European industrial centre, with a car industry that even the Germans envied, and that has all gone. Hiroshima did very well, considering. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who you're talking to. Japan has done a remarkable job of converting itself into a peace-loving nation. Ironically, I wonder if that would have happened without the Bomb? Anyway, when our President said, "We stand with the Japanese people", to me that indicated how far we've come in 65+ years. At the Minnesota Twins home opener a few weeks ago, the flag was raised by a WWII veteran who had survived the Bataan Death March. Right after that, there was a moment of silence in respect to the victims of the earthquake and tsunami. I'm sure when the guy was being forced to march in that horrific event, the idea that we could be allies with Japan was the farthest thing from his mind. Having said all that, I get a little annoyed with folks who Monday-morning-quarterback the Bomb. It was a good military decision. We had to end the war. We didn't start the war. The Japanese attacked us, and we had to do something. And 4 years later, the Bomb ended it, sparing a D-Day style invasion that could have killed hundreds of thousands more. The people of Japan allowed their leaders to drag them into that devastating war, and they paid dearly for it... and learned from it. I'll concede that I'm not sure the US has learned that lesson yet. Maybe someday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bugs, my indent looked like it was addressed to you. It was addressed to AlanSplodge, whom, incidentally, I thought was the one who posted your post, which is why I indented as such. Sorry. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monday-morning-quarterback? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See "armchair general" -- a more military metaphor. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these can be verbed? Incidentally, my mum took me shopping for a new three piece suite and I told her I really didn't care which one we got so long as it fitted in my tiny room. Seriously, for their purpose, they are all the same. I was accused of armchair generalization. :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]