Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Language desk
< February 27 << Jan | February | Mar >> March 1 >
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 28

[edit]

anyone know Russian?

[edit]

Can anyone tell me what the "Barynya" song actually says? Lyrics here: [1]. They read:

Thanks! 109.128.222.233 (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't translate, since it's too long, but I want to point out that this is far from canonical lyrics (there aren't any, really, since it's a folk song). It may or may not be the original lyrics, but these would be unfamiliar to an average Russian who is familiar with the song. But, briefly, it's a song about a love affair between upper-class people, but the song is clearly written by a peasant. --99.113.32.198 (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yeah I noticed it's not actually what my song is saying (I can sound out cyrillic). Could you link a more 'canonical' version of the lyrics? Finding such is beyond my ability... 109.128.222.233 (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't attempt a translation either, not because it's too long, but because my Russian is really shaky. From what I was told, after hearing the song performed by the Sharomov Vocal Ensemble, the chastushka lyrics can vary, and in fact that is part of their appeal. This link has some information, and the "Saturday Affair" version in Russian and English. And "сударыня" ("sudarynya") means "madam", the link doesn't translate that part. (We also have a short article on barynya, though it doesn't answer your question directly). ---Sluzzelin talk 08:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of the song as posted here: an officer looked at a lady through the window, she was excited, she called him, he came to her, they enjoyed each other's company. Local colour: they also drank tea and coffee together.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim girl names

[edit]

I'm writing a story and one of the characters is a Muslim girl. I don't speak Arabic, so I have no idea what to name her. --75.15.161.185 (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could check out wikt:Category:English female given names from Arabic... Lexicografía (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or Category:Arabic feminine given names, Category:Iranian feminine given names, or Category:Turkish feminine given names here at Wikipedia, depending on the national background of the Muslim girl in your story. Pais (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would add to the lists: List of American Muslims, Category:British_Muslims, if the story is set in the west. You could check the background of notable individuals to see if they match. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because she's a Muslim doesn't mean she has to have an Arabic name... 86.179.119.44 (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. My cousin is a muslim girl (with one muslim parent) and has a perfectly Han Chinese, not-even-remotely-Arabic name and also a second perfectly English, not-even-remotely-Arabic name. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think key Muslim female names would be Khadija, Fatima, Aisha, etc..., spellings in Latin letters depend on the country in question. --Soman (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can past tense and present tense come togethor in a common written piece.

[edit]

I have noticed in the writings of some extremely writers that they use past tense and present tense in the same article. I have also a read few stories where the narration is made with the help of both past tense and present tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.243.44.210 (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an example? Usage of tense varies a lot with context and what the speaker or writer is trying to convey. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the question. If you have noticed it, why are you asking whether it can happen? Looie496 (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely what writers? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several different tenses can be used in one sentence; no problem: I saw your question, I am now typing a response, I will soon see the result.--Shantavira|feed me 10:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a sentence can have multiple tenses, but I would challenge someone to do that in an independent clause. That "sentence" above should ideally be separated by semicolons, making them clauses anyway. In general, mixing tenses in one clause or thought is ugly and a bit disconcerting to the reader. Badly written articles jump all over the place within paragraphs and I sometimes find that painful to read. Sandman30s (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the above comments, and I am now fed up with the topic. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Shantavira's and Q Chris's examples are fine. What bugs me is when a careless author decides to use the historical present, then forgets he's doing so and lapses into the past tense for a few clauses, then suddenly remembers he's supposed to be using the historical present again. (In general, I find the use of the historical present in narrative an annoying affectation 9 times out of 10, but if you must use it, at least use it consistently.) Pais (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely said, thanks. This is what I was thinking of but couldn't quite place it. Sandman30s (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Americanisms... again

[edit]

OK just some random thoughts (sigh)... why do Americans say "math" and everyone else says "maths"? After all it's short for mathematics, not mathematic. Why do Americans drop the h in herb? Then you should be calling Herbie an 'urbie' :) Sandman30s (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the second one, it's because herb was borrowed from French herbe, which has a silent H (the H was dropped already in Vulgar Latin probably in the 1st century AD or so). The pronunciation with /h/ as heard in Britain is a spelling pronunciation (a non-historical pronunciation influenced by the spelling). For the first, it probably has to do with the fact that Americans treat mathematics (as well as other fields with apparently plural names like politics and linguistics) as grammatically singular: "Mathematics is a difficult subject", not "Mathematics are a difficult subject" (or even "Mathematics are difficult subjects"). One of the most salient differences between American and British English is in subject-verb agreement. Pais (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
British also treat mathematics as a single subject. I think the mathematic/mathematics is just a difference without reason after all Americans treat physics as a single subject without shortening it to physic. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, are you under the impression that Americans say mathematic? No, we don't. The short form is math, the long form is mathematics; both forms are construed as singular. --Trovatore (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word "math" dates to at least 1847 according to the Oxford English Dictionary, while "maths" is attributed to only 1911. So the question is not why the Americans say "math" but why the British chose not to use a word that already existed. Similarly, the British only started pronouncing the "h" in herb in the 19th century; the U.S. pronunciation is the original. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the British already had a word "math" meaning a mowing (hence "aftermath"), and dating from 1305 or earlier. The British colloquial abbreviation (with the "s") is possibly borrowed from French who also retain the "s" and were using the abbreviation in the mid-1800s. (The French mathématiques is plural, of course.) Dbfirs 08:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the fact that "mathematics" is a singular noun is the reason why the abbreviation is "math" in American English, not "maths". There's just no reason to keep the -s when the word is abbreviated, since the word is ultimately a single morpheme (it's {mathematics}, not {mathematic}-{s}). The form "maths" would make sense to me only if "mathematics" were also treated as a plural, so that {mathematic}-{s} is shortened to {math}-{s}, without any awkward cutting out of the middle of a morpheme. But that's just my American perspective! Voikya (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell from Google, though, (at least some) Americans do use the analogous abbreviation "stats" for the discipline of statistics. Algebraist 15:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but statistics is sometimes construed as a plural noun; mathematics effectively never is. --Trovatore (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Mathematics" is usually singular, but was used as a plural as early as 1697 and as late as 1971 in OED citations. Dbfirs 08:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my (UK) experience it is still used occasionally as a plural - for example "The mathematics of the situation are such that....." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I meant in American usage. Just the same, I probably wouldn't object strongly to the example sentence, but I'd be very unlikely to produce it myself.
Statistics is an interesting case. It's true that, when used in the plural, it usually means something other than the field of study, something more like a collection of numbers. "He's one of those ballplayers whose statistics are more important to him than whether the team wins." And nevertheless, the field of study is more often shortened to stats rather than stat. --Trovatore (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm going to take a WAG here and propose that the reason for the prevalence of stats for the field of study is a contamination from stats in the sense of sports, which most people learn about before they learn the academic discipline. --Trovatore (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said, the "h" in UK "herb" was inserted as a result of spelling pronunciation - and, like "hour", "heir", and "honour", it originally didn't have one. However, the re-introduction based on spelling has also occurred in "humble", "hotel", "habit", "horizon", "horrible", "host" etc., and all of these are pronounced in the same way by both British and American English; in fact, when you think of it, only a handful of all the Romance loans with originally mute H have preserved their H-less pronunciation in any kind of English. The preserved H-less words like "heir" and "herb" are the anomaly. BTW, contrary to the OP's suggestion, the name "Herbert" has nothing to do with herbs. Since it's of Germanic origin and French pronunciation tended to retain the Germanic Hs ("H aspiré") for quite some time, I guess it must have had an H in Norman French, and that H was safely delivered into English without further vicissitudes of fortune.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the re-introduction of initial 'h' pronunciation is not universal (yet). Many people, including myself, omit it when the first syllable is not stressed, and both speak and write 'an' rather than 'a' preceding it. Thus: "an [h]oTEL" but "a HORrible . . .", etc. This is/was perhaps more prevalent in the older members of the notionally better educated classes where knowledge of French is/was de rigueur. Single syllable words in this schema necessarily restore the 'h', but a few words like "heir" mysteriously buck the trend. Doubless a professional linguist would know why - off to peruse the archives at Language Log! 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I'd forgotten about that (or rather about how it's connected to the whole thing). I don't think this is about knowledge of French, though: after all, you don't need to know Old Norman French to pronounce the first consonant in 'gentleman' correctly, and that sound phoneme didn't even exist in English before William the Conqueror turned up, AFAIK. Do you also "drop" the H sentence-initially (as in "Hotels are very useful..." or "Historically speaking, ...")?--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Touché! I do somewhat when speaking carelessly in my default inherited near-Cockney (my family was too peripetatic in my childhood for me to develop my own permanent regional accent, so I acquired my Father's), but not when speaking more carefully: evidently sentence position is also a factor in the mix. Re the French influence, I was not suggesting an 800-year-old legacy from Norman French, but rather a 19th/20th-century affectation by upper-class Francophone English (in the modern sense) people and their genteel petty bourgeois imitators like myself. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point, the pattern of spelling with H without pronouncing it is in fact an 800-year-old legacy from Norman French. If any (phonologically adapted) post-Medieval loans from French (such as "hotel", perhaps, but hardly "historical" and "habitual") display the same pattern, it's only because they have joined the old pattern of "heir" and "hour". By the way, if imitation of modern French pronunciation had been intended in most of these cases, I think that people would have also pronounced "horizon" with stress on the last syllable and a nasal; in general, such recent loans are characterised by a much more consistent French-like pronunciation, e.g. "hors d'oeuvre".--91.148.159.4 (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting. I hadn't been aware of the Norman-French pronunciation retention before, but I now see that the article Phonological history of English fricatives and affricates alludes to it, though not with explicit mention of the 800-plus-year span. I had imagined that the Normans, with their own Norse/Germanic heritage, had tended to pronounce their nominally French h's, perhaps because of my familiarity with the emphatically anglicised pronunciation of English heraldic terminology which, of course, they introduced. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At that time, not only the Normans, but also the French pronounced their H's in words of Germanic origin (e.g. in hardi from Germanic "hard"); that's because the French themselves were of partly Germanic (Frankish) origin, too and their phonology at the time was influenced by the Frankish language. However, as for words of Latin origin, the H's had stopped being pronounced already in Vulgar Latin and were just present in the spelling (French hôte from Latin "hospes"). So French back then had a split similar to the one that English has now. I think it's highly unlikely that the Normans could have eliminated the split by re-introducing the Latin H's from the spelling, because literacy was much lower at that time and the generally accepted gap between spoken and written language was much wider. In modern-day French, the Germanic H's have also disappeared, but the words still behave differently, because the Germanic H's (still traditionally called "H aspiré" in contrast to the "H muet", although neither type is aspirated and both are mute since at least the 17th or 18th century, I'm not sure exactly) don't allow liaison (although the two groups have become somewhat confused, of course): e.g. le hardi, but l'hôte. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[dʒ] did exist in Old English, but not as a separate phoneme. It was an allophone of /j/ after /n/. The modern English words hinge and singe are directly inherited from Old English words that had [dʒ]; and the Old English word for "angel" probably had it too, but the Modern English word was probably re-borrowed from Latin, not inherited from Old English. —Angr (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I see that this is the most common view in recent textbooks (though specifically hinge is said to have no precedent in OE in the dictionaries I checked). Personally, I'm used to a more "archaic" interpretation of the OE pronunciation, with palatal or palatalized plosives c/kʲ and ɟ/gʲ instead of the affricates tʃ and dʒ; certainly ɟ/gʲ or something like dʝ seems a more natural allophone of /j/ than [dʒ] does, although of course it did eventually end up as a dʒ. In any case, as you said, it was just an allophone, and in particular it could never have occurred word-initially as in Norman loans like "gentle", there being neither a preceding /n/ nor a possibility for gemination there.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An initial H is even added by some where it doesn't belong, as in the word "aitch" itself, and (supposedly) in old-fashioned Cockney. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, another discussion forlornly looking for logic in the English language. As an Australian, I've always felt that Math just looks weird. In fact, I'm Maths teacher who just handed my students a worksheet from the web which has Math on top. One of my students asked me about it. I just said "Americans are different". Hope no-one's offended. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Canadians also say math. --Trovatore (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did mean North American... thanks for an interesting discussion on a somewhat whimsical topic for me at least. Sandman30s (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a famous maths series from the 20th century is Bourbaki's fr:Éléments de mathématique, where the "mathématique" is singular. Apparently the goal was to emphasize the unity of the field via the title. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Maths" is harder to say than "math". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's why so many young Britons are studying maffs instead. LANTZYTALK 18:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except those who speak Multicultural London English, who prefer "matts". I wonder if Baseballbugs can get his tongue around "baths"? Alansplodge (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or "Goths take months to make Corinthian plinths". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, that article says MLE does have th-fronting. —Angr (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it does. The reference provided quotes this as a case of "levelling" - ie existing local dialect being included in immigrant speech. My observation is that the most enthusiastic MLE speakers (of whatever ethnicity) who wish to affect the manners of a Jamaican gangster in the style of Ali G, use "d" and "t"; whereas those with a bit more Cockney in their speech retain "v" and "f" for the soft and hard "th" sound. Sorry I'm not really familiar with the linguistic jargon. Alansplodge (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veni, vidi, vici - I came, I saw, I won?

[edit]

I know that translations are by their very nature a very tricky business (tradutore, traitore) but could someone explain why Veni, vidi, vici is usually translated as: "I came, I saw, I conquered" instead of: "I came, I saw, I won"?

I mean I asked a couple of posts above (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Latin translation) about the translation of "I won" into Classical Latin (I had a hunch but I wasn't certain) and the answers seem to indicate that "I won" is perfectly acceptable. I suspect that the translation is influenced by the context. Could someone please enlighten me about some of the details? Much obliged. Flamarande (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC) PS: I don't know any Latin so keep it simple, please.[reply]

This probably doesn't answer your question, but there's a common misunderstanding (at least, I assume it's a misunderstanding after having done two minutes' research on Google) that this expression refers to the invasion of Britain -- in which case "conquered" sounds much more apt than "won". 86.179.119.44 (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just one example: An Abridgment of Leverett's Latin Lexicon (J.H. Wilkins and R.B. Carter, 1840) gives the following intransitive translations of vinco (apart from multiple translations for transitive usage):
"To conquer, get the victory, be victorious, in the field, in a combat or contest; [...] To conquer or win; 1. At play [...] 2. In a lawsuit [...] 3. In the senate, To carry the day, prevail [...] and generally, To carry the day, carry one's point; hence, vince viceris, have your own way, carry your point, as you will, when a man yields unwillingly or contemptuously [...] 4. To conquer, win, gain one's end or wish"
The omissions are mostly exemplifying literary quotes in Latin. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One formal consideration choosing "conquer" might lie in the fact that it's an alliteration with "came" (though "saw" is not, so this won't reflect the triple alliteration ("v.., v.., v...") anyway. Moreover, "conquered" allows for the phrase to end in a trochee, like the Latin original. This is mere speculation though; I have no reference for either possible reason. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another famous use is "in hoc signo vinces", where it is also typically translated "you will conquer" or "you will be victorious". Adam Bishop (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I recommend speaking both versions out loud. Though Caesar reportedly wrote it down, rather than spoke it, the sentence clearly employs rhetorical devices, and is meant to ring in one's ears. Put some gravitas and determination in your voice, pretend you're Caesar (or John Gielgud), and note the difference between the yawny double diphtongued "I won" and the crisp pair of plosives in "conquered". ---Sluzzelin talk 20:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Caesar ... having defeated the Ancient Britons ... set the memorable Latin sentence, "Veni, Vidi, Vici," which the Romans, who were all very well educated, construed correctly. The Britons, however, who of course still used the old pronunciation, understanding him to have called them "Weeny, Weedy and Weaky", lost heart and gave up the struggle, thinking that he had already divided them All into Three Parts.

In case anyone asks, the unsigned above is a quote from 1066 and All That. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verb objects

[edit]

Is it right that in "I fell thirty feet", the phrase "thirty feet" is adverbial and not the object of the verb "fall"? If, so what sort of grammatical test can we apply to prove this? I'm looking for something a bit more concrete than just "it doesn't feel like a proper object". 86.179.119.44 (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. A few ways to see this: 'Fall' is an intransitive verb [2], meaning that there is no direct object. A (slightly informal) test we can apply is listed in our article direct object: 'A direct object answers the question "What?"'. So in "the dog bit the man', 'man' is the answer to 'what did the dog bite?'. Only Transitive_verbs take direct objects. The corresponding question that 'thirty feet' answers is "to what extent did I fall?", which indicates that 'thirty feet' is an adverbial phrase, because it delimits the action of the verb. Also, 'fall' is sightly abnormal in that the subject_(grammar) is also the patient_(grammar). Does this help? SemanticMantis (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm familiar with the distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs, though I would argue that "fall" is intransitive because it is observed not to take a direct object, not that "fall" cannot take a direct object because we already know it is intransitive, if you get my distinction. However, the "what" test seems good. I wonder if there are any exceptions to that? 86.181.203.84 (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: "I'm not sure whether to cook fish or meat tonight. What do you think?"
B: "I think fish."
86.177.104.235 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes prepositions are omitted. I fell (on) Thursday (by) thirty feet.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the party, and tangential: "fell" as a transitive verb means to topple, to bring down, to kill. (Paul Bunyan felled trees. David felled his foes.) In sewing, you can also fell a seam (create a seam by turning the raw edge of fabric under). --- OtherDave (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2011_February_28&oldid=1073938722"