Language desk
< August 23	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 25 >

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 24

"Bad" Arabic Translation

This video on Youtube is the song "I won't Say I'm in Love" from the movie Hercules, in Arabic. It's transliterated/translated in the video itself, but as you can see under "Uploader Comments," someone claims that the translation is "really bad!"

To get to the point, my actual question is, is the translation really bad? I understand that it might seem "wrong" for someone who speaks a different dialect of Arabic than the one in the video (Which I assume to be Egyptian, but could be wrong). In addition, if the translation is really that bad...would someone mind translating it? =] Bossadai (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Zum Eckel find' ich immer nur mich"

The sentence in the subject line appears in C. S. Lewis' book An Experiment in Criticism, in the chapter titled "How the few and the many use pictures and music".

The picture, so used, can call out of you only what is already there. You do not cross the frontier into that new region which the pictorial art as such has added to the world. Zum Eckel find' ich immer nur mich.

Lewis is quoting someone and he assumes his readers are educated and will recognize the quote. I don't. I tried it in Google, within quotes, and also with what I take to be the more up-to-date spelling, "Ekel". I found only passages quoted from Lewis' book! I also tried it without the contraction: "Zum Eckel finde ich immer nur mich", and "Zum Ekel finde ich immer nur mich". I can some additional hits, but they don't have the verbatim quote; rather they are pages with some of the same words.

Can anyone identify the source of that sentence? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found something, which seems possible if somewhat unlikely. The English translation of "Encounters with silence" by Karl Rahner uses the line "Again and again, I find only myself" - which is an almost exact translation, and since the book notes it's been translated, and Rahner was German, perhaps that's possible. It's from 1960, a year before An Experiment in Criticism. Maybe they're both quoting something else, I don't know. Whilst Rahner was a jesuit, he was also quite famous for his writings and Lewis was part of the Anglican church at the time and writing about religion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the quote originates from Die Walküre by Richard Wagner. The quote there goes "Zum Ekel find' ich ewig nur mich in allem, was ich erwirke!", which I believe is sufficiently close to Lewis' quote. Gabbe (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possible, certainly pushes the time period back. Seems a little strange Lewis would misquote such a famous work, though, I don't know. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But they mean essentially the same thing. Lewis was probably quoting from memory (back in the days before Google when people actually had to remember things!). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that chapter by Lewis in which this quote appears mentions Arthur Rackham's illustrations of "The Ring" several times, so I'm pretty confident that is what Lewis is referring to. Gabbe (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Translate the quote as "It is only myself that always bores me". A modern German speaker misunderstands it, for the meaning of the word "Ekel" has changed. The language of the quote can be dated quite well: (1) "Eckel" (obsolete spelling, hence well before 1900). (2) In 1800 "Ekel" (recent spelling) meant tedium, disgust, after 1900 (approximate dates) exclusively disgust. In Lewis' quote it is tedium, must hence be before 1900. (3) Usage around 1800 "zum Eckel werden" (ad nauseam, becoming tedious), usage after 1950 "eklig finden" (find disgusting) hence well after 1800 and well before 1950. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The full sentence in the Richard Wagner opera of 1870 is spoken by Wotan (reflecting his role as creator deity): "In everything that I create I find forever only myself, ad nauseam". Lewis quotes only the second half of it "I find forever only myself, ad nauseam". Here another translation With disgust I find only myself, every time, in everything I create. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who replied.

"Disgust" is how I understood "Ekel"; it had not occurred to me that "boredom" would be among the senses. The forms in which I've seen it in print before include "ekelhaft" and "ekelig". At dict.leo.org when I enter "Ekel", I find: disgust, disrelish, distaste, execration, nauseation, revulsion.

C. S. Lewis has been credited with eidetic memory. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I presume he's paraphrasing rather than misquoting... Gabbe (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German plural

Being a fan of Kraftwerk, I recently listened to "We are the robots" on Youtube. I actually listened to the German version. The lyrics go "Wir sind die Roboter". Now I know enough to know that this translates to "We are the Robots". But, with my limited knowledge of German, I thought that the line should be "Wir sind die Roboten". So I go along to Google translate and entered in "Wir sind die Roboter" and get "We are the Robots". But then I entered "Wir sind die Roboten" and got the same translation! What gives? If both endings are correct, how do I know which one to use? 121.45.168.224 (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate is being generous. Only Roboter is correct; there is no German word Roboten. Pais (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have never heard or read "Roboten", and I am sure it's simply wrong. Roboter is both singular and plural. It's not clear to me what the plural would have been if "Robot" had been chosen for the singular. It could have been "Robote", "Robots" or indeed "Roboten". If the singular were "Robote", then the word would likely be female (Roboter is male) and the plural "Roboten". Hans Adler 11:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Das Robot, die Roböter :-) Pais (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More seriously, "robot" and "roboter" both come from Czech "robot", which goes back to "robota", which roughly means "work" with the connotation of serfdom or feudal duty. In the German version of A Clockwork Orange, and from there in some forms of German youth slang, "roboten" is used as a verb for (unpleasant) work, as in the hit song Hier kommt Alex by Die Toten Hosen. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Schulz is correct in all regards.BsBsBs (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Czech word robot is surely related to the Russian rabota and rabotat' (work, n. and v.), and the German arbeit. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, and apparently also to Russian раб "slave" and ребёнок "child" and Greek ὀρφανός "orphan".[1] Lesgles (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from Korean

Hey, I was wondering if someone could translate this into English. http://comic.naver.com/webtoon/detail.nhn?titleId=350217&weekday=tue 63.225.145.24 (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire page ? That's quite a lot to ask. It starts with something like this:

2011 Miss reel fragment:

The Miss reel ghost story was provided by the authors. This summer it will send chills up your spine.

StuRat (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who/Whom in clauses

When deciding on who/whom, are clauses treated as their own entities or are they tied to the verb in the main sentence? For example, Searching for the very souls / Whom already have been sold. I think of they/who and them/whom when trying to figure this out, so if the clause is independent, I would say They already have been sold, in which case I would use Who. On the other hand, the clause is attached to the very souls, which I think is the object of the sentence? In which case I would say Searching for them, and then use Whom. Just wondering which is correct, since in the real life example, Whom was used, but it sounds odd in my ear. — Bility (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The case of who(m) depends on the relative clause itself, in this case "who have already been sold". The object of "search for" is "very souls", while "who" is the subject of "have been sold". "Whom" is wrong here; it may be a hypercorrection on the part of someone who doesn't know when to use "whom" and thinks it sounds more sophisticiated to just throw it in anywhere. Pais (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I thought that was the case, but wanted to make sure. Cheers, — Bility (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I recognize that as a line from a Bob Dylan song (I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine), and when it comes to Dylan's use of language, all bets are off. He probably knew the rules but didn't care much about them. Looie496 (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. In fact he does it twice just in that one song! — Bility (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In interrogative sentences, the usage of "who/m" - depends on context, and can't be established by syntactic rules. E.g. the single-word sentence: "who/m?" does not let one know whether a "who" or a "whom" should be used, as long as one has not read a previous sentence or a following sentence.

However, in non-interrogative sentences, the following rule may help:

The "who" can be used, if - and only if - it does not truly-follow a preposition (does not truly-follow, i.e. would not follow - if one removed any parenthesis from the original sentence; E.g. the "who" in the sentence: "The person - I'm looking for - who is looking for me, is John", does not truly-follow a preposition, because the phrase "I'm looking for" - is just a parenthesis in that sentence - i.e. the sentence would still make a sense even without that parenthesis).
The "whom" can be used, if - and only if - it is truly-followed by a noun/pronoun (is truly-followed, i.e. would be followed - if one removed any parenthesis from the original sentence; E.g. the "who" in the sentence: "A person who - I think - is a cop, met me yesterday", is not truly-followed by a pronoun, because the phrase "I think" - is just a parenthesis in that sentence - i.e. the sentence would still make a sense even without that parenthesis), or by the word "and " (as in the sentence: "The person between whom and whose spouse I'm sitting is John"), or by the word "or " (as in the sentence: "The prince to whom - or to whose children - the money shoud be given, is the first-born prince").

Conclusion: when the "who/m", both - doesn't (truly) follow a preposition - and is (truly) followed by a noun/pronoun, both "who" and "whom" are possible.

Therefore, "whom have already been sold " - is both odd and incorrect. Where is the noun/pronoun (or the "and/or ") after the "whom"?

Hope this helps.

HOOTmag (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good rule of thumb, but there are apparent exceptions: "I am the sort of person for whom editing Wikipedia would be the greatest torture imagineable". Admittedly, "editing" here is a verbal noun, but it still has the form of a verb. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No exceptions. Just read my rule again, after adding the phrase "or a verbal noun" - after the phrase "noun/pronoun"... :) HOOTmag (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb is even simpler. "Who" belongs to the same class as "He" or "She". "Whom" belongs to the same class as "Him" or "Her". If you would use "he" to make a statement, use "who" to ask the question. If you would use "him" to make the statement, use "whom" to ask the question. "Who gave it to you?" "He gave it to you." "You got it from whom?" "You got it from him." --Jayron32 21:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about "The person whom he sees is me"...? HOOTmag (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use "that" instead. No confusion about usage. --Jayron32 00:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that your rule does not work, as far as my sentence is concerned. HOOTmag (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's what I call the "butler's whom", as in whom shall I say is calling?. I'm not quite sure what to make of that one. Is it just a mistake? Or is "say is calling" being treated as a phrasal verb with an object? --Trovatore (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a mistake, another hypercorrection. Usually it would be whom before shall I, as in Whom shall I ask?, and that pattern gets carried over to a different case. Pais (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the "whom" in Trovatore's sentence is wrong. Just think about: "Who do you think is calling?" You can't answer: "I think, him is calling" (i.e. you can say that, but it's wrong...), so the interrogative sentence can't be: "Whom do you think is calling?" HOOTmag (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You all might be interested in James Thurber's notes about who and whom (end of page), although I don't recommend that you take his advice seriously. Lesgles (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

anyways

The number of people who use "whom" and "who" wrongly is appalling. The problem is a difficult one and it is complicated by the importance of tone, or taste. Take the common expression, "Whom are you, anyways?" That is of course, strictly speaking, correct — and yet how formal, how stilted! The usage to be preferred in ordinary speech and writing is "Who are you, anyways?" "Whom" should be used in the nominative case only when a note of dignity or austerity is desired. For example, if a writer is dealing with a meeting of, say, the British Cabinet, it would be better to have the Premier greet a new arrival, such as an under-secretary, with a "Whom are you, anyways?" rather than a "Who are you, anyways?" — always granted that the Premier is sincerely unaware of the man's identity. To address a person one knows by a "Whom are you?" is a mark either of incredible lapse of memory or inexcusable arrogance. "How are you?" is a much kindlier salutation.

— James Thurber, Ladies' and Gentlemen's Guide to Modern English Usage

I take particular delight in this, because I, having learned English entirely as a foreign language, know fully well how to use "who" and "whom" correctly, unlike many native English speakers. It must be because in my native Finnish, the respective words for "who" and "whom" ("kuka" and "ketä") are distinct, because of the inflective nature that the entirety of the Finnish grammar obeys. Having learned the fourteen cases of Finnish noun inflection by heart, it isn't very difficult to transfer the idea of them to other languages. Of course, it is difficult when these languages have the notion of grammatical genders (such as masculine/feminine/neuter in German or den/det in Swedish) which does not exist at all in Finnish. I can never remember which word belongs to which case. JIP | Talk 19:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, all of that confusion in English, is caused by the fact that there are cases in which "who" and "whom" are correctly interchangeable - e.g. in the sentence: "The person who/m I see" (and generally: in every sentence in which the "who/m" - both doesn't follow a preposition and is followed by a noun/pronoun), whereas this correct interchangement is possible in the "high" language only, never in the colloquial language (in which one never says: "The person whom I see").

Are "kuka" and "ketä" sometimes interchangeable? If they are, is this interchangement possible in the colloquial language?

My guess is, that every language which does enable such a correct interchangement, but in few cases only, and in the high style only, confuses its speakers...

HOOTmag (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same for me as a German. It's trivial for me to determine the traditional 'correct' uses of who and whom, because it's a distinction (between nominative and dative/accusative) that is still very much alive in German, whereas in English it has died (or been replaced by use or otherwise of to) except for pronouns such as he/him, they/them, we/us etc. For the relative pronoun who/whom we can currently observe how this distinction is dying, or rather being replaced by a new one. It's already possible to replace whom by who in practically all contexts. A lot of native speakers no longer understand the distinction and only know whom as something occasionally heard in very formal contexts. Thus when they want to be formal, many replace who by whom even in situations where it is wrong according to traditional grammar.

Thurber poked fun at this, but could be sure that most of his audience would understand his sarcasm. This is no longer the case. I am sure a lot of educated readers nowadays will be puzzled by the last sentence's proposing "How are you?" as a substitute for "Who are you?" (or rather for the incorrect "Whom are you?"), because they have taken everything before that point at face value. Hans Adler 11:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Language Log has a number of posts on the topic, e.g. this one, and see also this analysis of a dialogue in The Office. Hans Adler 11:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It's already possible to replace whom by who in practically all contexts".

Not in all contexts. A phrase like "from whom?" - will never be replaced by "from who" (and vice versa: A phrase like: "who fell" - will never be replaced by: "whom fell"), even in the colloquial language.

My gusee is that the confusion in English stems from the following fact:

Although "who" and "whom" are correctly interchangeable in few cases only (e.g. in: "The person who/m I see"; or generally: in every sentence in which the "who/m" - both doesn't follow a preposition and is followed by a noun/pronoun), still those (few) cases - of correct interchangement between "who" and "whom" - exist in the formal style only, so the speakers - who are misled by those (few) cases (existent in the formal language only) - may get confused as for the question when exactly "who" and "whom" are correctly interchangeable.

Note that, this confusion wouldn't have taken place, had the (few) cases of correct interchangement between "who" and "whom" - existed in the colloquial language as well, because the speakers would then have been well aware (even just unconciously) of the exact conditions that enable such a correct interchangement.

HOOTmag (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite true. A simple Google search shows that "from who" is already very strong, even though "from whom" is still more popular. And the distinctions you are explaining have nothing to do with traditional grammar, according to which "the person who I see" is just as wrong as "from who". If the former is seen more often than the latter, then I guess it is because "from whom" is more recognisable than phrases parallel to "the person whom I see", and therefore more resistant to change. Hans Adler 20:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From who (in the sense of from whom) sounds weird to my ears, unless you mean: from "who...". Note that WHO means also: "World Health Organisation". The Google search shows mainly WHO in that sense, or in sentences like: Highlights from "who wants to be a president", and the like. Admittedly, I found also: from who - in the sense of: from whom, however, I suspect those who use it are not native speakers.

As for "The person who I see": it is not wrong, because "who" is also accusative, not only nominative. Note also that (in Google search): "The person who I see" is much more common and more frequent than the (relatively) rare phrase "The person whom I see".

HOOTmag (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, "kuka" and "ketä" are not interchangable, because they are in different cases. One is a nominative and the other is a partitive. They're no more interchangable than any other pair of nominative-partitive words. Because English and Swedish don't have inflective endings, and German only modifies the articles, I'll give an example in Latin: it's like trying to interchange "video arborem" with "video arbor". However, there are people, mostly in the Turku area, who say "ketä" when they mean "kuka" but this is non-standard dialectical usage and should be understood as meaning "kuka". JIP | Talk 17:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain in more detail how "the person who/m I see" is grammatically correct with either "who" or "whom", assuming "who" means the nominative case only (otherwise using "whom" would be redundant)? In Finnish one would only ever use the partitive/accusative case here, it would be Henkilö jonka näen in the accusative case, never Henkilö joka näen in the nominative case. Note that in Finnish, kuka means "who?" as a question. "Who" as a a conjunction, such as "the person who/m I see", is joka, which is jota in the partitive or jonka in the accusative. JIP | Talk 19:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information about Finnish.

As for your request: "Who" is both nominative and accusative (that's why the phrase "the person who I see" is grammatically legitimate), while "whom" is both accusative - and all of the other cases - except for nominative. Note also that (in Google search): "The person who I see" is much more common and more frequent than the (relatively) rare phrase "The person whom I see".

HOOTmag (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that "who" is both nominative and accusative, but not any other cases, and "whom" is both accusative and all the other cases, except the nominative, i.e. the following?

word	nominative	accusative	other cases
who	yes	yes	no
whom	no	yes	yes

The situation in Finnish is different, the pronouns have different forms for the respective cases. For example:

word	nominative	accusative	partitive
kuka ("who?")	kuka	kenet	ketä
joka ("who", "which" as a conjunction)	joka	jonka	jota

But the basic grammar rule should be the same, i.e. in "the person who/m I see", "who/m" is in the accusative case, not in the nominative case? JIP | Talk 18:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as far as the Nominative and Accusative are concerned. However, as for the "other cases", the situation is a little bit more complicated, as follows:

Indeed, "who" can't be used - instead of "whom" - in the "other cases" (i.e. except Nom. and Acc.), when the preposition comes first, e.g. in "to whom", "by whom", etc. (rather than: * "to who", "by who", etc.). However, "who" can be used in the "other cases", when the preposition is detached, i.e. when it comes at the end of the sentence, e.g. in "The person who I'm talking to". For more details, see our Summary in Wikipedia.

To make the definitions more clear-cut, more universal, and more useful (without using the very idea of "cases", but rather by using sintactic rules only), I would say the following:

In interrogative sentences, the usage of "who/m" - depends on context, and can't be established by syntactic rules. E.g. the single-word sentence: "who/m?" does not let you know whether a "who" or a "whom" should be used, as long as you haven't read a previous sentence or a following sentence.

However, in non-interrogative sentences, the following sintactic rule may help:

The "who" can be used, if - and only if - it does not truly-follow a preposition (does not truly-follow, i.e. would not follow - if you removed any parenthesis from the original sentence; E.g. the "who" in the sentence: "The person - I'm looking for - who is looking for me, is John", does not truly-follow a preposition, because the phrase "I'm looking for" - is just a parenthesis in that sentence - i.e. the sentence would still make a sense even without that parenthesis).
The "whom" can be used, if - and only if - it is truly-followed by a noun/pronoun (is truly-followed, i.e. would be followed - if you removed any parenthesis from the original sentence; E.g. the "who" in the sentence: "A person who - I think - is a cop, met me yesterday", is not truly-followed by a pronoun, because the phrase "I think" - is just a parenthesis in that sentence - i.e. the sentence would still make a sense even without that parenthesis), or by the word "and " (as in the sentence: "The person between whom and whose spouse I'm sitting is John"), or by the word "or " (as in the sentence: "The prince to whom - or to whose children - the money shoud be given, is the first-born prince").

Conclusion: when the "who/m", both - doesn't (truly) follow a preposition - and is (truly) followed by a noun/pronoun (or by "and/or "), both "who" and "whom" are possible.

HOOTmag (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is "post-traumatic shock disorder" actually a real term?

So once upon a time, I remember hearing the phrase "post-traumatic shock disorder." I got the impression that it was either the British or Australian term for post-traumatic stress disorder -- or possibly an early classification of the same condition, which was eventaully abandoned for the current formation. My Google/Wikipedia dives haven't produced anything. Can anyone verify this for me, or is my mind just playing tricks on me? Thanks. --Brasswatchman (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google and Google Scholar for "post-traumatic shock syndrome" turns up some uses, which mostly appear to be synonymous with post-traumatic stress syndrome. (In fact, one even uses "PTSD" as the abbreviation for "post-traumatic shock syndrome".) rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Googling with the term in quotation marks yielded many results, some of which seem to use it as a valid term. --LarryMac | Talk 17:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

aha, shock syndrome, huh? My thanks to both of you. --Brasswatchman (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I never would have thought to search for "syndrome" if not for Google's auto-complete... rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plurals of -y surnames

So, most -y nouns become -ies in the plural: country > countries, sentry > sentries, family > families ....

But -y surnames stay that way: "The Caseys and the Kellys are two well-known local families", not "The Casies and the Kellies ...". Why don't they change?

This doesn't seem to be covered @ English plural. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has to do with preserving the integrity of the proper noun. The other example I've seen is "the two Germanys" (i.e., East and West). It's mentioned as an exception to the "ies rule" in English plural#Regular plurals. Lesgles (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is integrity an issue here but not with improper nouns? There's no such thing as a familie or a countrie, but we aren't fazed by families or countries. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was that the Harrys of the world, or the people of Germany, might be offended if their names are changed to meet the needs of English inflection, whereas no one really "owns" words like family or country. I admit it's a weak argument. Lesgles (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

◤Some surnames ending in y are French (for example, Thierry) or Hungarian (for example, Nagy).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I'm not sure what difference that makes when we don't change English surnames either. "The Berrys were eating berries". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the plural of money? I've seen both moneys and monies, and I can't bring myself to think that monies is a real word, but it's used often enough that I guess it's been added to the language. It just looks wrong to me. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Monies" is a perfectly cromulent word. See, for example, OALD, CALD or M-W. Gabbe (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My surname is Fly, and despite the word "flies" no one referring to the extended family would write anything but Flys. Go figure! Pfly (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Toronto Maple Leafs will resume play when the autumn leaves are falling." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By spelling their plurals differently, we acknowledge the players are not actually leaves, and people named Berry are not actually edible fruit, and people named Fly are not actually annoying, disease-spreading pests (well, not all of them, anyway -:). That makes sense for the human names that are the same as non-human objects. But what about the Barrys, Kerrys, Terrys, Henrys, Sallys, Marys and Cathys of the world? There's nothing non-human to distinguish them from, and no need to have a separate pluralisation rule. But we do it anwyay. Whence did this rule arise? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Pfly (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an issue of recoverability. The Barrys have to be distinguished from the Barries, the Marys from the Maries, the Cathys from the Cathies (some people do spell it Cathie), and so on. If you say "There are three Henries" in this room, Henry may object that he isn't a Henrie. Pais (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. It's easy to find examples of a pair of proper nouns ending -ie and -y that create ambiguity, but it would be difficult to find a pair of ordinary (improper?) nouns with the same potential to create ambiguity. "This circuit has an inductance of three henries" causes little confusion, because most of the audience can be expected to be acquainted with the henry in question and to be confident that there is no unit called the henrie. Even if a pair of -ie and -y homonyms, with different meanings, existed (I can't find one), context would almost certainly point to the right meaning. Personal names can't be relied on in this way, since there are so many of them and in many contexts one person will serve conceptually just as well as another. This doesn't explain what's wrong with writing "The two Germanies", except I suppose you gotta have a system. Card Zero (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the question is backwards. It's more like, "Why is 'y' the singular of so many 'ies' plurals?" And I suspect the answer is in modifications of the Latin-via-French origin of many of those words. For example, library comes from Old French librarie[2] and the plural in both English and French would be libraries. Somehow, over time, words like librarie became library in English. Note that the old French province we call "Normandy" is spelled Normandie in French. If there were two of them, we would call them the two "Normandys" and the French would call them the two Normandies. The article on plurals states that proper nouns are pluralized "regularly", implying that the y-to-ies is an irregular (though obviously very common) form. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to refer you to the Lord of the Rings Bilbo's famous mistake, at Bilbo's 111th birthday party speech, he called his guests whose surname was Proudfoot "the Proudfoots" and was quickly corrected "Proudfeet!" Simply seems that they wanted their name to be declined and not retain it's root unchanged. Why? Go figure. --Lgriot (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the same could apply to groups of people named Bowman (but not Archer) or Seaman (but not Sailor) or Palfreyman, Chapman, Goodman, Badman, Hoffman and lots of others. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I wonder if Randolph Mantooth and his family call themselves the Menteeth. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs -- It's ultimately due to the influence of certain old French spelling practices according to which the letter "i" was often replaced by "y" at the very end of a word, but not in the middle of a word (though there's little trace of this in modern French spelling). AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]