Language desk
< February 3	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 5 >

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 4

span

whats this mean voce entende quando voce masturba-se — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy35750 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate renders it from Portuguese as "you understand when you masturbate" -- which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, at least without context. Looie496 (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

apparently, it makes more sense when you're masturbating. That you don't understand it means that you aren't. --Jayron32 06:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a term for words that exist almost solely in certain phrases?

Resolved

– 72.72.212.98 (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, "eke" is almost never used nowadays except in the phrase "eke out". Some words are "semi-obselete" in this way. Is there a word in linguistics for this phenomenon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.212.98 (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil word. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 72.72.212.98 (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous abbreviations

I came across the following sentence in some work notes on a client of mine:

She's paid $190 to work online, uploading data onto Ebay.

At first, I thought it meant she is being paid $190 to do this work. But reading further, I realised it means she has paid $190 out of her own pocket to register in some scheme, whereby she uploads data and gets paid whatever for doing it.

It highlighted the different meanings that apply to abbreviations ending in 's. The 's can be short for is, or for has. Usually, it's quite clear which meaning applies:

It's a nice day could not possibly mean It has a nice day, only It is a nice day.
He's already eaten his lunch could not possibly mean He is eaten his lunch, only He has eaten his lunch.

And so on for most similar examples.

But sometimes it's truly ambiguous, and my top example is one such case. She has paid is an active past tense construction; She is paid is a passive present continuous tense construction that means the opposite of She has paid.

Are there any other examples of ambiguous abbreviations? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Contraction (grammar)" (permanent link here) says the following.

In strict analysis, contractions should not be confused with abbreviations or acronyms (including initialisms), with which they share some semantic and phonetic functions, though all three are connoted by the term "abbreviation" in loose parlance.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a sentence with an ambiguous contraction.

He'd read ten pages per day.

Here are two possible expansions.

He had read ten pages per day.
He would read ten pages per day.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That one only works in print, but it's still a good'un. Thanks, Wavelength. Any others? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 18 additional examples. He'd bet two cows. He'd burst two cows. He'd cast two cows. He'd broadcast two cows. He'd cost two cows. He'd cut two cows. He'd hit two cows. He'd hurt two cows. He'd let two cows out. He'd put two cows out. He'd rid two cows of fleas. He'd set two cows out. He'd shed two cows. He'd shut two cows out. He'd slit two cows. He'd split two cows. He'd spread two cows. He'd thrust two cows.

Please note that the past tense of lead is led, and the past participle of lead is also led. (See wikt:lead.) I have often seen led misspelled, possibly from confusion with the name of lead, the 82nd chemical element.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I am revising my previous message.)

Here are two additional examples. The Saxon genitive is not a contraction. The verb fly is an ambitransitive verb.

I heard Fred's trained monkeys. (I heard that Fred has trained monkeys. I heard the trained monkeys of Fred.)
I see Fred's flying kites. (I see that Fred is flying kites. I see the flying kites of Fred.)

—Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'd hope in secret. (We would hope in secret. We had hope in secret.)
How's this fish eaten? (How is this fish eaten? How has this fish eaten?)

Ka renjc 16:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think had (or any form of have) can be contracted to ’d when it's a full lexical verb with a direct object like hope, so "We'd hope in secret" can only be "We would hope in secret". Pais (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not officially, but I've seen constructions like We've provisions to spare for a stranger. I can only speculate that someone (especially in UK variants of English) might use something like We'd some hope that he might make a mistake, though it dwindled day by day. I wouldn't find that construction to be very distracting, much less outright wrong. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 18:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of examples out there. Just off the top of my head, Alfred Noyes' The Highwayman, verse 2: "He'd a French cocked-hat on his forehead, a bunch of lace at his chin". Ka renjc 18:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The contraction of forms of have when they are full lexical verbs rather than auxiliary verbs is ungrammatical in United States English. I doubt that it is idiomatic in Canadian English either, although Canadians have more tolerance for British forms. Marco polo (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See q:The Wizard of Oz: "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."

—Wavelength (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No relation. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

A bit late to respond to this, but that quote from the Wizard of Oz is not current American English. That construction sounds archaic, or perhaps British, to Americans. No American born after about 1910 would use that construction. Marco polo (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two additional examples. The practice of g-dropping can cause ambiguity. See also hypercorrection.

It's taken a long time. (It has taken a long time. It is taking a long time.)
He's given a lot of money. (He has given a lot of money. He is giving a lot of money.)

—Wavelength (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but in those cases, the written versions would differ. The 2nd alternatives would be "It's takin' a long time" and "He's givin' a lot of money". No? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The textual versions would differ, whether or not the g-dropping is accurately represented in the text. (Someone might look at taking and giving, and pronounce them with g-dropping.) Only the spoken versions are examples, just as only the textual versions with read (mentioned earlier) are examples.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In many forms of British speech, the words would be somewhat distinguished by the vowels of the last syllable even with [ŋ] -> [n], unless there were further fast-speech reductions... AnonMoos (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everyone, for some very illuminating information. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also this edit summary—where'd that come from [sic]—by User:David Fuchs at 19:37, 9 February 2011. The contraction where'd can mean "where had" or "where would" or "where did", because the verb come has the same form as its past participle.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish nasals and [ŋ]

Is the Spanish [ŋ] descended from Latin nasalization just as the French nasalisation is? Also, when I was learning Spanish I was never told of any nasal vowels, and yet your article Spanish phonology claims they exist in Spanish. Why is this? Thanks.24.92.70.160 (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[ŋ] is the 'ng' in sing, and doesn't exist as a native phoneme in either Spanish or French. In other words, although this sound may occur before g or k, it's simply a variant of /n/ and doesn't affect meaning. Just like in English, nasal vowels may exist phonetically in Spanish, but it's usually a side affect of preceding a nasal consonant and doesn't affect meaning the same way French nasal vowels do. Bʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{Speak up!} 22:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Spanish phonology does say, however, that in some dialects of Spanish, word-final n before a pause may be realized as [ŋ] or as nasalization of the preceding vowel in some dialects, e.g. nación may be [naˈsjoŋ] in some dialects and [naˈsjõ] in some dialects. If you weren't told about this when you were learning Spanish, it's because you weren't learning those dialects. —Angr (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Spanish, for example, features [ŋ] prominently. Rimush (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24.92.70.160 -- Spanish dialectal [ŋ] comes from Latin nasal consonants. Ancient Latin vowel nasalization (mainly occurring when word-final "m" was preceded by an unstressed vowel, in which case the "m" was deleted and the preceding vowel nasalized in some pronunciations) does not seem to have affected French or Spanish in any noticeable way that I know of... AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the city of Urbino have an adjective in English?

I'm wondering whether there is a derivative adjective form for the city of Urbino, Italy à la Paris-Parisian. 'Urbinian' is my fIrst impulse, but it doesn't seem to have much currency -- but what else could it be? Urbinese? Urbinish?! Italian the adjective is 'urbinate', itself unusual with respect to other geographic adjectives; might 'Urbinate' work with the -ate suffix in English?

Clearly an urgent problem.

Grazie mille. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr211t (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess Urbinese on the basis of Milan/Milanese, Urbinese is used for example here --131.111.184.8 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Urbinian" gets a number of Google Books hits and seems to be the usual English demonym (adjective and noun). Rafael Sabatini even wrote a story titled "The Urbinian". Deor (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no entry for Urbino at List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think in such cases you are allowed to simply pick your favorite version. I like Urbinate; it has the advantage of being (similar to) the Latin spelling used by Cicero and Pliny. Lesgles (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Lesgles. Those fluent/literate in English are familiar with the various adjectival forms described, and should apprehend one novel to them, even if newly coined for a place relatively obscure in the Anglophonic sphere (such as Urbino), or a place newly invented (as in a work of fiction). However, it would be advisable to use the unadorned place name shortly prior to first deploying whichever adjectival form is chosen, or listeners/readers may instead guess that the novel (to them or in absolute terms) adjective has some other meaning they don't know, related perhaps to 'urban' or 'urbane'. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend "Urbinian". It's more euphonious than alternatives like "Urbinish" or "Urbinite". "Urbinate" might work as an adjective, but not as a demonymic noun, and usually the noun and adjective have the same form in English. Also, "Urbinate" suggests the possible meaning "similar to something Urbinian": consider the word "Italianate". --Anonymous, 05:16 UTC, February 6, 2011.