Language desk
< August 18	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 20 >

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.

August 19

Plural of mention

If I heard a speech in which the speaker used the term "grossly outnumbered" 4 times, would it be appropriate to say: "There were 4 mentions of the term 'grossly outnumbered'"? If not, how best would I refer to it? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mentions" is a perfectly fine word. Although, given that there is a use-mention distinction, you would probably be better off saying "the term 'grossly outnumbered' was used four times". ("Mention" implies that people talked about the term four times, not just that they used it four times.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...but if, say, my name was mentioned 4 times, does that mean that they necessarily discussed me (i.e. "talked about" me) four times, rather than just said (i.e. verbalized) my name four times? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's different with names. If your name is used, something is being said about you (you are being mentioned); if 'grossly outnumbered' is used, nothing is being said about 'grossly outnumbered'. I guess my pedantic way of looking at it is that you are mentioned, not your name, but that "X's name was mentioned" has become a common phrase regardless. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mention is fine in either case, what matters is what you wish to emphasize in your statement. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word you're looking for is "instances". However, a much more natural solution is to recast the sentence as Rjanag did: "the term 'grossly outnumbered' was used four times". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mention may be more appropriate than instance, depending on the writer's intention. Or "uses" or all sorts of words. I normally would would say freedom is mentioned X times in the Declaration of Independence, but I would be much more likely to say there are X mentions of freedom than X instances of freedom therein. μηδείς (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I might have mentioned "revolution" twice in my book, but used the word "revolution" dozens of times. That's two mentions, but multiple instances. Likewise, I might have used the word "revolution" in two different meanings, once when referring to helicopter propellers, and the other when referring to an armed uprising, again using the actual word many times. That's two uses, but multiple instances, and two seperate cases of one mention each. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have instances of the word explosion in your book but if you have instances of explosion expect a visit by the police or fire department, whereas mentions of explosion will not draw such attention. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd. Instances of "explosion" cannot be contrued in that way. And yes, mentioning explosions in the right setting will draw A LOT of attention and get you detained. Right now, there could be some Secret Service, CIA or Mossad agent reviewing this very thread. Another word that can be used is "occurrence"Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about three instances of onomatopoeia rather than three mentions of onomatopoeia? If you still don't get the distinction and the ambiguity in what you are insisting on I give up. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You go Glen Coco, from the film Mean Girls

Damian: [delivering candy canes] Taylor Zimmermann, two for you. Glenn Coco? FOUR for you, Glenn Coco! You go, Glenn Coco. And uh... "Caddy" Heron. Do we have a "Caddy" Heron here? Cady: It's Cady. Damian: Oh Cady, here you go, one for you... And none for Gretchen Wieners, bye.

Why is this thing funny? 88.9.108.128 (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, which part specifically, the Glen Coco part? Probably just because it sounds so ridiculous. The movie was written by Tina Fey, and the same sort of surreal nonsense also shows up a lot on Saturday Night Live and 30 Rock. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damian is a traditional comic stereotype, the effeminate gay man. Effeminate men are widely judged to be intrinsically funny. Freud would probably say it's to do with expectations of masculinity being subverted, and for men in the audience there is the nervous laughter arising from fears of being either castrated (i.e. physically demasculinized) or bummed.

"Wieners" sounds like "wieners", which is a common slang term for the penis, and mentioning penises is funny. The word "caddy" sounds a bit funny of its own accord, without sounding like a body part. Likewise, "Coco" is potentially funny, because it's the name of a cereal-shilling monkey, and sounds like baby talk. Mispronouncing people's names is generally amusing, particularly done deliberately with an intention to ridicule (example: the hit BBC TV show Keeping Up Appearances derived most of its humor from people mispronouncing the central character's name "bucket"). And rhyming is traditionally funny, as in comic poetry. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misinterpreted the running gag on Keeping Up Appearances. The name really is "Bucket", pronounced like the thing you use with a mop. However, Hyacinth, being a pretentious social-climber, always insists that everyone pronounce it "bouquet", so it will sound elegant and French. In one episode Richard mumbles to himself that it's "Odd how it was always pronounced Bucket until I married you". StuRat (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

And it further derives humour from the implicit recognition that this is symbolic of U and non-U in general, that Hyacinth belongs to a particular class in the English class system which is constantly the butt of jokes, the lower-middle class (do not be deceived into trying to map the American class system onto this). The basic quality of non-U, lower-middle class behaviours, which are mocked, is an attempt to act and speak in a middle-class manner, starting from a more working-class background. Thus, French forms of words, cleanliness, precious ornate things, are perceived as more middle-class, and necessary to be emulated if you want to be perceived as middle-class and treated accordingly. This leads to extreme hypercorrection, and is perceived as extremely déclassé by the upper-middle and upper classes. As is the nature of things, classes tend to despise those just below them, and strive to be those just above them, and have little problem with the distant classes. The working classes and upper classes share many values and mannerisms which the lower-middle classes especially, and other middle classes to an extent, shun as lower-class. To view Hyacinth as just a pretentious social climber is to underestimate the struggle and agony she goes through to be perceived as middle-class, and try to improve her position in life, and also fails to appreciate how the programme would be viewed by working class and middle class viewers in England at the time. A very (very) rough estimate of her struggle might be arrived at, from an American perspective, by imagining that she is living in the same time period in America (you might have to pick an appropriate location for this to work) and 'passing' as white despite having recent black ancestors. 86.163.214.39 (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Boucquet is actually not an uncommon name in the Channel Islands. μηδείς (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but it doesn't happen to be her name. StuRat (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning

Hi,

In Empress Irene, one can read: Irene was exiled to Lesbos and forced to support herself by spinning.. What does spinning mean in that context ? I don't see how one can sustain himself by rotating :)

Thanks

Pleclown (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be spinning a yarn [ed: literally] I would expect, typical of such stories of women and isolation. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been taking sheep's wool and spinning it into yarn. See Spinning (textiles). --TammyMoet (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean literally spinning a yarn, by the way. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the literal meaning of yarn isn't a count noun, so it shouldn't take the indefinite article. "Spinning yarn" = spinning wool into yarn; "spinning a yarn" = "telling a story". Pais (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation English-->Russian: "Do it for her"

Greetings, fellow editors.

I'm hoping someone fluent in Russian and English can help me find the best translation of the sentence "Do it for her." The current version of Russian Wikipedia's page for The Simpsons episode ru:And Maggie Makes Three gives Ты здесь ради неё, which Google translates as "Are you here for the sake of it." Google's version of the sentence is делать это для Нее, which I believe I saw at one point on the Russian WP, but can't find in the history. I have absolutely no knowledge of Russian, so I'm not sure which is better, or whether there might be a third, best translation. What I'm looking for is the same sort of sense as in the episode: imperative/inspirational, a reminder of what/who really matters to keep doing something difficult, something compact enough to use as a sort of personal motto/slogan/mantra. Any ideas would be most appreciated. Thanks! --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, since this phrase is a quotation, you would want to use whatever phrase was actually used in the Russian-language version of this episode. So go find that and see what it uses. —Bkell (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

…Unless, of course, you aren't seeking the translation for the purpose of including it in the Russian Wikipedia. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were looking for the first time I read your question. Sorry about that. —Bkell (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm not looking for the translation in order to do anything with the Russian Wikipedia. It's strictly something personal, but I would like it to be as close as is possible. I suppose I could try to track down a Russian-language version of the episode and see what was used there, but it would be a difficult search since I do not read, speak, or understand Russian at all. I will try searching on the two phrases and see what kind of results they get. I've also considered asking a few of the category:ru-n Wikipedians directly. Posing the question here first seemed like the simplest potential route to an answer. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wait a few hours, there's a fair chance a Russian speaker will come along who might help. Marco polo (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Ты здесь ради неё" means "you are here for her sake". Google Translation treats it as a question and translates "her" as "it", which is possible, but misleading here. A google search gets this from Russian Wikipedia:

Мэгги Симпсон — Википедия - [ Translate this page ] ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мэгги_Симпсон - CachedMargaret «Maggie» Simpson) — героиня мультсериала «Симпсоны», младшая дочь ... Её неизменная спутница — красная соска, которой она беспрерывно чмокает. ... таблички «Don't forget: you're here forever» (не забывай — ты здесь навсегда), ... Гомера по приказу Бёрнса, и получилось «Do it for her» (делай это ради неё)...

with the specific phrase I have bolded, which is a cromulent literal translation. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Ты здесь ради неё means "You are here for her (sake)". It would need a question mark to mean "Are you here for her (sake)?". Anyway, it doesn't seem to have much to do with "Do it for her". Делать это для неё means "To do it for her". The imperative would need to be something like Cделайтe это для неё. But Russian uses such a wide array of colloquial expressions that the direct, word-for-word translation of our English idiom is probably not what they'd say. Abd they often use the infinitive to mean the imperative. And it all depends on the context in which the sentence appears. So, don't rely much on anything I've said here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that were the statement originally composed in Russian some other more idiomatic phrase would have been used. You can say hazlo por ella in Spanish, but I would not have said that except as a literal translation from the English. "It" is a dummy object in English and translating it is often a mistake. As for the literal Russian translation, doesn't the imperfective aspect make more sense, be doing it for her, rather than get it done for her?

Since no Russian arrived yet, I'll offer my 2c as a fellow Slavic (but only limited Russian) speaker: 1) No, I don't think that there would be an idiom for that. "Cделай это для неё" (singular, intimate Cделай) sounds natural enough to me 2) Perfective aspect would be more likely (since the context as stated on ru:Мэгги Симпсон does not provide much clue): "Cделай" means "do it [once]", while "делай" would mean along the lines "keep on doing it". No such user (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is all helpful. No such user: if Cделай это для неё sounds natural to you, and делай means "keep on doing it," would делай это для неё be acceptable, or would that commit some grammatical faux pas? As a follow-up question, if I were to substitute Эстер for неё, would that mean what I hope it would? Thanks to all. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, делай это для неё would be perfectly grammatical, just less likely to be uttered. You mean, does делай это для Эстер mean "do that for Esther"? Yes it does, but only by chance -- Эстер is a foreign female name ending in consonant, and is thus indeclinable, while для requires an accusative. A native name, e.g. Ирина, would read (IIRC) "для Ирины". No such user (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean genitive instead of your mention of accusative. --Theurgist (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa, leftover from my mother tongue. No such user (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning is definitely imperfect in the context because it means "keep working at the job because now you have a third child to support" and not "get this job done." μηδείς (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to all who have replied. You have been extremely helpful. I don't think I've found exactly what I'm looking for yet, but it's getting closer. I'm doing my best to sift through all the suggestions everyone has provided, stymied by the fact that I can't read a single one of them aloud. I feel like I'm right on the verge of being able to build "You are doing it for her sake," or "you do it for her sake," which would be right along the lines of what I'm trying to get. It's been an interesting journey this far, at any rate. It's neat to think that four words comprised of a total of ten letters could be so tricky to move from one language to another. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse definition dictionary/CoE

A lot of times I have a particular definition in mind, such as "control of the church by the secular ruler", as in the English monarch being head of the Anglican church (there is a specific word for this which sometimes comes up in Catholic writing), yet cannot come up with the word itself. Sometimes you will get lucky on google but usually not. Is there a reference available on line where you can type in a definition and search for a word which fits it? And can anyone think of the word I am looking for in this specific case? μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some writers of a more Orthodox persuasion are fond of the term Caesaropapism. -- Vmenkov (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Governor of the Church of England has the phrase royal supremacy? May or may not be what you want. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New message: For your first question, see Thesaurus.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) To address your first question, I don't know of exactly such a resource, but a thesaurus is often helpful in such situations provided you can think of a word with a meaning vaguely related to what you actually want. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.61 (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but been there, done thesaurus.μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word I am thinking of is a one-word Greco-Romanism, like, but not, Caesaropapism. It refers not to rule of the state by the church but by control of the church by the head of state. It may begin with an E and end in -archy, -ocracy or -ism. And, no, please don't suggest Episcopalianism. It is not a common word, and it does not refer only to the CoE. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uhem, "According to Weber's political sociology, caesaropapism entails 'the complete subordination of priests to secular power.'" - wasn't that what you were asking for? The opposite of the theocracy (control of the church by the head of state).

Also, a national church closely integrated with the state would often be referred to as the "established church" (of which the Anglican church is one, and the Russian Orthodox church was, and to an extent de facto still is). However, depending on the state, the "established religion" may have both the shades of the church's influencing the governance of the state (as in, Blue Laws, control of the marriage/divorce laws, "legislating morality" in general, having the state serve as the tithe-collector - see church tax) and of the state's influencing the church (you take the King's money, you do the King's service - as in making sure to say the right things from the pulpits, and having troublesome priests/mullahs quietly transferred to Chukotka or Kalimantan). The term the US Constitution uses is the "establishment of religion" (as in, something that the state must not do). -- Vmenkov (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The general problem with such a reverse look-up dictionary is that many different definitions could apply to any given word. So, there's no guarantee that your def would be one they used. This is similar to the problem of finding spelling corrections for a word spelled improperly. The best a spell-checker can do is find words close to what you spelled, which may or may not be the word you had in mind. So, what Google does is probably the right approach, but just be aware that this still won't always produce correct results.

You might be able to reduce the bad hits by specifying your favorite dictionary after the "site:" keyword, to restrict the Google search to just that site, such as "site:onelook.com". (It would be nice if Google could provide an option to search all dictionaries, but nothing else.) Note that this approach doesn't increase the number of good hits, however.

Another approach might be to do a search under "church power structures" and read up on them. StuRat (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the Byzantine Empire, and I would suggest "ecclesiarchy" or "ecumenism" although they don't quite fit either. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: "Erastianism". I did the Google search "caesaropapism synonym" and found this site with the answer: [1]. Note that "Byzantinism" is another synonym listed. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.onelook.com/?w=e*ism%3Acontrol+of+the+church+by+the+secular+ruler&ls=a 86.181.169.99 (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Erastianism, that's it! Now, other than Google itself, (and thesauri, of which I have been aware since elementary school) is there indeed some sort of reverse conceptual dictionary, especially by definition, not synonym, that anyone knows of? μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the link above to OneLook's reverse dictionary feature, or is that no good for you? 86.181.169.99 (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed that, took it as part of StuRat's comment, will try it out. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems helpful, have bookmarked it for future use. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

"Meksika" / "Tekhas" - why not "Teksas" / "Mekhiko" ?

A few days ago I asked about the pronunciation of the Russian for "Texas", which appears to have been borrowed directly from Spanish, since it uses kha. Why, then, is the Russian for Mexico "Мексика"? I would have expected precisely the opposite: that the word for Mexico would more closely resemble the Spanish, and the word for Texas would more closely approximate the anglicized pronunciation (as in the Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian "Тексас"). My best hypothesis is that "Мексика" was borrowed from the French "Mexique", whereas "Техас" was a later borrowing directly from Spanish. Is this possible? While we're at it, is French responsible for the Bulgarian "Аржентина"? LANTZY ^TALK 21:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you'd expect these names either to reflect the native or the French pronunciation. But as I noticed when we discussed the names of the letters and discussed the Russian ones, some seem closer to French, some German, some Latin. Russian could very easily approximate either the Spanish or the English for Texas with 'Тэхас or 'Тэксас, but it doesn't, with an oddly palatalized first vowel and final stress. It looks to me like the particular source for the borrowing depends on historical accident, and that many of the forms undergo nativization and a shift in accent which screws things all up. You find the same in English--although in English, hyperforeignism (Taj Mahal > Tazh Mahal) is more often to blame. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I discovered when I was there a couple of years ago, the 2nd syllable of Mahal is pronounced like "hall" (as in city hall), not "hahl" as we always seem to do. Also, the 1st syllable of Taliban is apparently pronounced "tall" (as in tall trees). I wonder why we fail to recognise either of these prons. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Mēdeís, hyperforeignism as in the ubiqitoid "beige" pronunciation of "Beijing" (of which most Beijing residents are incapable, since that voiced fricative is absent in the Mandarin repertoire). Compare the infamous short "poon" in "Punjab"; compare the hypoforeignism in many Australians' pronunciation of "Guantánamo" as "Guontonomo". And American ways with non-English "o" generally, on which don't get me started. Noetica^Tea? 00:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another one that always intrigues me is pronouncing the Buenos of Buenos Aires as if it has some connection with the word "bwana". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give the IPA? I especially have no idea what you mean by the Buenos Aires remark. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think our Jack means something like /ˈbwɑːnəs/. We note that /bw/ does not occur at the start of any English words other than "bwana", and the less assimilated "boîte", "bois" (in forms like "bois brûlé", "bois d'arc"), and "boiserie". Note also the "air" pronunciation of that "Aires". O, and compare "wort" being pronounced like "wart" – strange, because that goes against the precedent of every other "wor-"-word. Noetica^Tea? 01:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, jeez, I have never heard that. I might react violently, call for seppuku, you know. Oh, my.

BTW, those of us who don't participate in the cot–caught merger find men named Don who call themselves Dawn just as suspect as the rest of you. Makes it hard to enjoy watching The Kids in the Hall. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've previously complained here on how names of countries are written in Indian languages. For example, a Hindi-speaker would have rather little problem pronouning 'Cuba' in similiar way as in Spanish original and writing it as 'kuba' in Devanagari. However, the word has been imported via English and is written as 'kyuba'. --Soman (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turnabout is fair play. If it weren't for French and Latin English would have little problem with the more accurate Koln, Munshen, and Ossteryke. μηδείς (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Old English (at least West Saxon) didn't have [œ] or [ø], while French does. French also has [y], so it can't be held responsible for the loss of it in English. Pais (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point was more about the consonants than the vowels. Koeln and Minchen might better capture the vowels and Eastreach would make a lot more sense than the Latin Austria. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then for than

Something I've noticed time and time and time again is the tendency of some people to write "then" when they mean "than", in comparative constructions like "<Something> is better/higher/cheaper/whatever than <something else>". And I wonder why they do it. I imagine there's no single answer. Having come to English as a later language would account for a lot of it. But what about the native speakers who write this? What accounts for that? Do they actually say "then" (despite the standard pronunciation being "than")? Or it is just a schwa, which they transcribe as literally as they can, in the same well-intentioned spirit as "You shouldn't of done that"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that's it. Unless they are stressing it for some particular reason, no one says "ðæn" for "than"; the vowel is usually reduced. When reduced, it sounds pretty much the same as "then". rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New message: This has been discussed before.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most things have been said before, including this (and that too). For "than" as "then", compare "women" for "woman", which I have observed in the spelling of female tertiary students under my care. Noetica^Tea? 00:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How forgetful of me to forget these things. But at least it shows I'm not the only person to be perturbed by these then/than events. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without revisiting the old threads, (1) then and than are developments from the same Old English root, and (2) the reduced version of than is yet another instance (not mention) of strong/weak form variation found in English. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting. I never knew they were related. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the etymology on line discussion: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=than. Note it says there was no distinction between the two in spelling until ~1700. Also, not that "then" in German is dann. In my dialect, "than" is always pronounced "then" or "th'n" and only pronounced "than" as a stage pronunciation or as an emphasized citation form by educated speakers. μηδείς (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Th'n" I readily accept, but do you really say what sounds like "This book is better then that book"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, [ðɛn]. The words many, any, an, and, catch, and can (v.) all have the /ɛ/ of "best" in my dialect. (In fact, I would never use an /æ/ in those words unless I were intentionally using a stage voice or clarifying myself to a speaker of another dialect.) Yet the noun can (as in of soup) has the standard /æ/. I also distinguish between a tense fronted /æ/ in halve, bad, man, bath, glad, past and a lax /æ/ in have, cat, sad, back and happy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad-lad_split#.C3.A6-tensing. The words halve and have are a minimal pair distinguishing two /æ/ phonemes for me, but not can n. and can v., because the vowel in can v. is a lax /ɛ/. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]