Language desk
< February 23	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 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.

February 24

Québécois or Gaspésie expression

My spouse uses an expression he learned as a youth growing up in Montreal. It sounds like the English words "on way don", except with a nasal ending to "don". (Sorry, but I can't do IPA.) He says it is spelled "en oui dans" and means something akin to "are we good to go" or "can we go now". As his spelling in English is, shall we say, suspect, I have little confidence in the French. Does anyone else recognize the expression? Thanks, Bielle (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"En oui dans" doesn't make any sense. The closest expression I can think of is "on y va" /ɔ̃niva/, "let's go", which can also be used as a question: "On y va?" = "Shall we go?" There is also "Va t'en!" /vatɑ̃/ = "Go away!" Lesgles (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In non-IPA, those two expressions are roughly ohng-nee-va and va-tahng". It's possible there's some franglais going on, but I can't imagine what. Lesgles (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was what he meant, too, Lesgles, but he and I both know the "On y va?"/"Va t'en!" expressions, and he maintains they are not the same. I know that "en oui dans" makes no sense; "on yes in" or similar is meaningless in either language. (While his spelling is awful, his ear is excellent and he has a very good québécois accent. It is my transliteration, as well as his spelling, that may be faulty.) Bielle (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could the first part be ennui, as in "I'm bored, let's go" ? StuRat (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sound is right, StuRat, but I can't make it into a phrase that works. For a start, I think "I'm bored" is reflexive (or whatever it might be called today) as in "je m'ennui". Bielle (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passive, surely, not reflexive - the active equivalent being something like "things are boring me". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, passive would be "je suis ennuyé(e)". "Je m'ennuie" is indeed usually called reflexive, although some linguists distinguish between a true reflexive "je me lave" = "I wash myself" and other constructions like this that don't necessarily imply some action done on oneself (see reflexive verb; I think this would be an example of an "autocausative" verb). In French, it is usually called a fr:verbe pronominal, which refers simply to the fact that it contains a reflexive pronoun. You are right, however, in the sense that passive verbs in English are often translated by reflexive verbs in French. Lesgles (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Devant La Télé | Aurélien | Ah oui donc c'est a la dernière coupure pub qu'ils allument la flotte de portables pour "voter" automatiquement ? #DALS. Ah, oui, donc means "Oh, yes, then".

—Wavelength (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got it! Thanks, Wavelength, and to all who have puzzled over this. Bielle (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you're wrong. "On way don" is an English speaker's approximation of "Envoye-donc". In Québécois French, the "v" is pronounced almost as a "w", and the "oye" is somewhat close to "ail" (i.e. the French equivalent of garlic). Plus, the final "c" is silent. Envoye-donc means something like "Go ahead" or "Do it already!", but can also mean "Are you kidding?" if used interrogatively. --Xuxl (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my Google search for envoie donc, I found 2 Chroniques 2:13 Je t'envoie donc un homme habile et intelligent, Huram-Abi, where Je t'envoie donc means "I am sending you therefore". The expression vas-y means "go ahead; go on".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the OP's case, the expression is in the imperative, whereas "je t'envoie donc" is in the indicative. I don't think you will find many examples of the imperative use in print, as it's very much an oral expression used in informal contexts. --Xuxl (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also this thread at wordreference where one contributor translates it as

"In a Quebecer's mouth, Envoye donc! often means come on! When we want to convince someone to do something. As in "Please, pretty please".

And gives the example:

Envoye-donc p'pa! Donne-moi 20 piastres! (Come on dad! Give me 20 bucks!)

---Sluzzelin talk 21:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Actes 10:32 Envoie donc à Joppé, et fais venir Simon, surnommé Pierre; il est logé dans la maison de Simon, corroyeur, près de la mer.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is also a "Bible". See the translation of "enwaille (donc)" / "envoye (donc)" in the article about Joual — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhotacism among native speakers of Spanish

The Spanish article is vague and useless, but the English article claims that native speakers of Spanish often have difficulty mastering the trilled R, as in "perro", and sometimes substitute some other sound, namely a velar approximant, a uvular approximant, or a uvular trill. But I've never heard a native Spanish speaker who had difficulty with the trilled R, and I can't imagine what sound they would substitute. (Certainly I can't imagine a Spanish speaker using a uvular R except if he were mimicking French or German.) So if a Spanish-speaking child can't articulate "perro", what sound does he produce? As a non-native speaker, I occasionally find myself saying something like "persho" - have native speakers been known to do that? Or do they simply substitute an untrilled R, so that "perro" and "pero" become homophones? LANTZY ^TALK 13:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Spanish answer, but some speakers of other languages with trilled R have similar issues. For Serbo-Croatian, some (in)famous examples are Vojislav Šešelj, whose /r/'s are mostly [ɰ], as far as I can hear. Here is a YouTube clip of his flame speech, titled Kavlobag-Kavlovac-Vivovitica after the purported bowdews of Gweat Sewbia. Another one is Milo Đukanović, who usually goes with a [ʀ] (Youtube). When I was a kid, I used [ð], but mastered the proper trill around the 1st grade. In Serbo-Croatian phonology, the trill and the tap are allophones, so I wouldn't know about "perro" vs. "pero". Anyway, the failure to produce a proper [r] (or [ ɾ ]) is considered speech defect. No such user (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, a professor of mine from Guatemala said that he did indeed have trouble producing the trilled R [r] as a child and produced the uvular approximant [ʁ] instead. He said that this was a reasonably common speech impediment among children, but that it rarely if ever lasted into adulthood. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've known at least four people who couldn't pronounce the trilled R and all of them pronounced instead a voiced uvular fricative 'French' R. --Belchman (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A semi answer - I have never heard anybody use a uvular sound for that purpose. One option that I generally recommend is a dentalized version to substitute the trilled r and a guttural sound for the non trilled r ("perro" would be something like "perdo" with a very light d, by cause of the dentalization and the "pero" would just be "pero" with no solid hard attack on the r").

This section explains the fenomenom. I have seen quite a number of people using the French sound Belchman describes. It is considered a mild speech defect, or just a funny trait, so to say. Pallida Mors 15:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English for Chinese word 干爹

I am wondering how to put Chinese word simplified Chinese: 干爹; traditional Chinese: 乾爹; pinyin: Gāndiē to English. Basically Gandie should be some kind of father, but it is neither the true father, nor adoptive-, step-, foster-, -in-law, foster-, cuckolded-, social-, etc. A Gandie doesn't necessarily adopt or foster a child. Some online dictionaries suggest that godfather, this may be helpful to understand the relationship, but Gandie is non-religious. The relationship between the 'father', Gandie, varies from adoptive father to a common uncle.--刻意(Kèyì) 14:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The literal meaning is closest to "adoptive father" but the social equivalent is probably most like godfather. Another possibility, depending on context, is patron, in some senses of that word. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The role of a "Godparent" is not necessarily religious, although it started that way. The traditional purpose of godparents is to "sponsor" a newborn, in terms of baptism (which is obviously religious), to ensure the children are well cared for, and also possibly to assume the responsibility of raising the children if the parents die and leave the children orphaned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see a similar parallel in the evolution of the role of "干爹", which is the vernacular version of "义父", which traditionally would have been recognised via a religious ceremony, but has nowadays become an almost purely social covenant, sometimes quite casual. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Word for 24-hour period

As I speak Finnish natively and understand Swedish well, I have noticed that both Finnish and Swedish have a word that unambiguously means a 24-hour period from midnight to midnight. In Finnish this is vuorokausi, in Swedish this is dygn. As far as I understand, these are only used when disambiguation is necessary - in colloquial speech, both languages use the word for "day" (Finnish päivä, Swedish dag), but "day" can also mean the part of a 24-hour period when the sun is shining, in every language that I understand. What is the case in other languages, is there a specific word meaning a 24-hour period, or does the word for "day" have a more precise meaning? JIP | Talk 20:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of recall we had that question before, so someone please check the archives. (It's inconvenient for me to do at the moment, using a cell phone) No such user (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on nychthemeron has further examples (Dutch, Bulgarian, Esperanto). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know, the word day in English is somewhat ambiguous in this regard. If it is necessary to make a distinction, the terms daytime and calendar day will do the trick. Marco polo (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to check out the Wiktionary translations at nychthemeron and day, although I can't vouch for their accuracy. Lexicografía (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to the previous discussion: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2009_August_9#A_kind_of_lexical_gap.3F - with details for some more languages. Jørgen (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar - "without me having to"

Three questions about the phrase "[...] without me having to [...]". 1) Is that correct? Should it be "without my having to"? 2) What's that construction called? and 3) How do you say it in the Romance languages (especially Spanish)? Lexicografía (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those who believe that "correct" and "incorrect" are meaningful concepts in this context usually insist on "my". Gerund#Gerunds preceded by a genitive, but there's little text and no references. --ColinFine (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The waters are perhaps muddied a bit by the colloquial pronunciation of "my" as "me". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. I'm translating a video transcript from English to Spanish and got hung up on that phrase. At first I hadn't even entertained the possibility that it was 'correctly' "my" (the speaker does say 'me' in the video, though). Lexicografía (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not prescriptively (i.e., pedantically) correct, but is common even in non-colloquial, written language.

As for Romance languages, that might depend on the language, and I'm not a native speaker of any, but I believe in French it would be something like sans que je [...] (literally, "without that I ..."). rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Spanish you could do much the same thing, using a subjunctive: "sin que tenga que..." (literally, "without that I have to...") or "sin que me oblige a...", which is a bit more formal. There's also an infinitive expression that is basically a verbatim equivalent of the English gerund expression: "sin mi tener que..." However, this locution is somewhat colloquial and stigmatized by prescriptive grammarians. LANTZY ^TALK 12:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no objective reason why this should be considered incorrect (and a more authoritative source than Wikipedia would be desirable). "Without me doing X", and the phrase it negates, i.e. "with me doing X", are just as logical as the Latin ablative absolute and the Ancient Greek genitive absolute, which they closely resemble (the preposition being replaced by case markers). Treating the entire group of subject plus predicate (the latter being transformed into a participle) as the complement of a preposition is a fine way to express that it is the entire situation expressed by the (non-finite) clause as a whole that the preposition refers to. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, by the same logic, one would have to object to "I saw him doing this" or "I saw him do this" and instead insist on "I saw his doing [of] this". In both cases, we are talking about strategies for the nominalization of a clause, making it non-finite in order to be able to use it, in one case, as the complement of a preposition, in the other, as the object of a verb. There's absolutely no reason why one should only be allowed to make the verb and not the subject the formal head of the phrase that represents the clause; in both cases, we are expressing indirectly, through pseudo-subordination, what is actually the subject-predicate connection. The fact is that most languages tend to regard a finite clause as the ascribing of the property/condition of Predicate P to Subject S, and this logic, typical for nominative-accusative languages, justifies the same subject-centredness in the non-finite clause, rather than treating the subject as a mere dependent of the verb.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well if you want sources, Burchfield in Fowler's Modern English Usage, 3rd edition, s.v. "Possessive with gerund", devotes more than two pages to the historical (about Fowler's dispute with Otto Jespersen) and current statuses. His "Further outlook" section says "The possessive with gerund is on the retreat, but its use with proper names and personal nouns and pronouns persists in good writing. When the personal pronoun stands in the initial position it looks certain that the possessive form will be preferred for a long time to come, eg His being so capable [rest of examples omitted]. The substitution of Him [...] would take [the sentence] into a lower level of formality." --ColinFine (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this was informative. Note that saying that the possessive persists in good writing is not the same as saying that the non-possessive form is bad writing; the author feels the need to add a case where the construction is "really" wrong, namely initially. "Merriam-Webster's dictionary of English usage" (1995) has a very informative article about the hysteria about this construction (ironically, it seems to have started in the 18th century with people trying to ban the variant with the possessive). The article ends up recognising pretty much everything as correct, but observing that the non-possessive with pronouns is less common in formal writing and conveys emphasis (but their example of emphasis, "I can't see me letting X do this", does not seem very convincing). All in all, the whole thing seems to have been a typical case of a prescriptivist phobia that people slavishly follow just to make sure they err on the safe side and aren't labelled ignorant.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation - related to question above

In "...without me having to...", I pronounce it haffing (voiceless), but in "...without my having to...", I pronounce it having (voiced). What is going on here? I know I read something ages ago about haff vs have, but why does it change when I change the pronoun? (I am not Lexicographia) 86.166.42.200 (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified speculation based on self-observation: you (and I) think/know that it should be pronounced v; when speaking unselfconsciously the more colloquial "me" and unthinking use of the f predominate, but when consciously using the more correct "my" - perhaps in more formal contexts - we also speak more carefully and deploy the v. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The verb have in the phrase "have to" has become grammaticalized into a separate auxiliary verb independent of other instances of have. Over time, the v has assimilated the voicelessness of the t so that it's pronounced more like haff, even when there is a pause between the words. This, and the lack of such assimilation in a phrase like "I have two bees" (vs. "I have to be") shows that this is /f/ pronunciation is part of the deep structure, rather than because of a rule that devoices a /v/.

As a verb, it is still possible to add -ing. Since there isn't a regular grammatical rule of voicing /f/ when adding -ing (chaffing, miffing, toughing, coughing, etc), it would be unintuitive to pronounce it with a v , though prescriptive grammar might prescribe this pronunciation (as well as weighing in on the me/my usage in this context) so that the variation is one of style shifting between greater and lesser formality. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 15:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]