Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 January 7

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.

January 7

Not quite homonyms, homophones or homographs

I’ve been reading Homonym and refreshing my memory about the various related terms.

There’s a tiny little bell tinkling at the back of my head that tells me there are some words that are pronounced one way in a certain context, and a different way in another context, but are spelt identically and have identical meanings in both contexts. Not just related, but identical. I’m not talking about the different pronunciations that apply to the same word in different countries, but precisely the same linguistic environment. I can only imagine that a special pronunciation might apply to some stock phrase or fossilised expression, and the usual pronunciation applies in all other cases.

Can I think of any examples of what I’m talking about? You guessed it. No. Does this ring any other bells out there? -- (Jack of Oz ) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Read"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead and produce spring to mind as well. --Jayron32 02:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, aren't these all examples of homographs (though "read" and "lead" and "produce" are heteronyms), that is, all examples where the meaning changes? Jack was asking for examples with identical meanings in both pronunciations, or a term for this phenomenon. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No, I don't think any of those qualify. /red/ applies to the past tense, /reed/ to other tenses, so they don't occur in the same contexts. "Produce" with the stress on the first syllable is a noun; with the stress on the 2nd syllable, it's a verb. So again, these are different words that do not occur in the same contexts, and they can't be mixed and matched.

What I'm talking about, and I have to use a made-up example because I can't think of a real one, is a case like: We always say /hed/ for the word "head", but in some specific context we say /heed/, but it still means exactly the same thing as /hed/. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The exact same sense, of the exact same word, in the exact same environment (same speaker?)... Sounds pretty rare, if it happens at all. Perhaps in some linguistic expressions like "paaahk the caaah in Haaaahvahd Yaaaahd" where even some Bostonites wouldn't normally say it that way. Lexicografía (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "blessed," which is usually pronounced as one syllable (/blɛst/) but as two syllables (/ˈblɛsəd/) in phrases such as "Blessed are the peacemakers"? —Bkell (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Several "-ed" words are like that. "Cursed" comes to mind (the opposite of "blessed"). In print they used to (and maybe still do) put an accent mark on the "e" to indicate the alternate pronunciation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Now, that's the sort of thing I'm after. Any other examples of this? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"The," which is usually some unstressed thing like /ðə/ or even /ə/, but specifically stressed as /ðiː/ in phrases like "My name is Bruce Dickinson—yes, the Bruce Dickinson." —Bkell (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Likewise with "a", which is "uh" normally, and "long a" for emphasis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never really heard 'blessed' as /blɛst/ except in the past tense verb form. And as for 'a' and 'the', pretty much any word can be emphasized that way by changing from the normal, somewhat slurred or hurried pronunciation to a fully enunciated pronunciation. Lexicografía (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, changing a word's pronunciation for effect is often done. However, I've heard "blessed" as "blest" many times. The ones that come to mind immediately are lines from songs: "Blessed be the tie that binds...", "It's all right, it's all right, you can't be forever blessed", etc. Sometimes words are pronounced differently just to make them fit the meter of a song (see the "Everyday" thread farther up the page.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) So you have heard 'blessed' as /blɛst/, then, Lexicografia. Or are you saying that the "blessed"s in "blesséd are the peacemakers" and "I have been blessed with good health" are sufficiently different in meaning to render this not a candidate for my question? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(I like this question, by the way. For more examples, you might try asking it also in alt.usage.english.) Similar to stressed the and a, mentioned above, are words enunciated for foreigners or the young, in noisy settings, or when speaking to someone outside one's own social or dialectical circle. (And, similar to the and a mentioned above, that's not a great answer :-) .)—msh210℠ 08:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Stressed "the" has the semi-famous (and wildly confusing to rhotic speakers) example of: "He's Winnie ther Pooh. Don't you know what "ther" means?" Marnanel (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest "defense", which is typically accented on the first syllable in the context of American football and probably some other sports, but on the second syllable in just about any other context. Compare "zone DE-fense" in football, "Sicilian de-FENSE" in chess.

In the British military, the rank of "lieutenant" was traditionally pronounced differently in the Army and Navy (with the Navy version being closer to the American one). However, this is arguably not "the same meaning" since most of the ranks in the two services do not correspond, and anyway, it appears that this variation within the same country is obsolete. --Anonymous, 04:50 UTC, January 7, 2010.

[indenting as sub-OP:] The numerals thirteen through nineteen seem to fit your bill, being stressed on the first syllable when the word precedes a stressed syllable ("Thirteen men went to California.", "thirteen, fourteen, ...") or a very short syllable and then a stressed one ("thirteen o'clock"), and on the last otherwise ("thirteen of us").—msh210℠ 08:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How about "either"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.18.23.2 (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that more of an alternative pronunciation. Some people always say ee, some always say ai, and some vacillate (such as Old MacDonald). Now, if everyone always said ee except for one specific expression, where it was ai, that would qualify. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think there might be people who always say "(n)eye-ther", except in the phrase "Me (n)either", where it's "ee-ther". Another example: I know people who pronounce Gaelic "gay-lick" when speaking to Irish people and "gal-lick" (rhymes with "phallic") when speaking to Scottish people, so as to avoid pissing either group off. Pais (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there seem to be four different pronunciations, depending on whether you are referring to the Scottish or the Irish language in English, or speaking Scottish Gaelic or Irish Gaelic. What I don't know is how the Scots pronounce Irish "Gaelic", or how the Irish pronounce Scottish "Gaelic". Dbfirs 17:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I had a Scottish friend who was always very particular about her enunciation, and whenever she referred to any variety of Gaelic, it sounded exactly like "garlic" (non-rhotic, of course) to me. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the Scottish Gaelic pronunciation of Scottish Gaelic (I've heard it on Skye. The first syllable is shortened when spoken in English), so perhaps some Scots don't acknowledge the Irish version? Any Irish Gaelic speakers care to comment? Dbfirs 08:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mississippi is generally /mɪsɨˈsɪpi/, but when, used as a spacer between numerals when counting seconds, often /mɪˈsɪpi/. At least, I think so.—msh210℠ 02:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Which one is correct? (if any)

To which authors do these quotations belong? Which authors do these quotations belong to? (given a list or authors and list or quotations) 77.231.17.82 (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Both are correct. The second is less formal and a long time ago people were taught that it was incorrect, but few people care about preposition stranding anymore. rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What if, the sentences were: "What are you looking for?" / "For what are you looking?" would the sentence with the preposition at the end still be more informal? Are both sentences correct? 77.231.17.82 (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We have to consider the meaning of the word "correct", because it may well depend on the context which is preferable to the other. "For what are you looking?" is pedantically, formally correct, but I can't imagine anyone but the most rigorous, inflexible and unreconstructed termagant demanding it. To anyone else, it would definitely raise eyebrows. The most natural expression is "What are you looking for?" -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So, why is this second set of sentences different from the first set? Are prepositions meant to end a wh-sentence with? 77.231.17.82 (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The pedant's view is expressed in the following ironic sentence - "A preposition is a word one must never end a sentence with." The prefix "pre-" is the clue. Logically (a word that can never really be applied to languages), "pre-" means before. So it can't come at the end. But who really cares? HiLo48 (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So, could we agree that: it is OK to end your sentences with preposition, but it's informal? In some cases, not ending the sentence with a preposition is too pedantic? Any other rules? 77.231.17.82 (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't even say it's necessarily informal. I'd go so far as to call *"For what are you looking?" downright ungrammatical, so "What are you looking for?" is the only option at any register. As for HiLo48's statement that "pre-" means before, so it can't come at the end, in sentences like "Which authors to these quotations belong to?" and "What are you looking for?", the preposition still precedes a trace, so it is in fact still before something - just something silent. Pais (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

With all the talk of pedantry, I'm surprised no one caught the mistake in the header: "Which one is correct? (if any)" would be better expressed as "Which one is correct? (if either)", yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I was a bit tempted to jump on rʨanaɢ's "anymore". But you see that sort of thing alot; almost everyday in fact. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Could've been worse, he could have said "Many people are indifferent to preposition stranding anymore". Pais (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've gotten into a long argument with a friend about that before, I will continue to believe that my usage of "anymore" in situations like that is entirely different than the 'positive anymore' which Pais mentions above and is what most people don't like (I don't accept the positive 'anymore', either). Quantifiers like "few" are negative-like and there is ample consent in linguistic literature that they license negative polarity items [see, e.g., Urbach & Kutas (2010), Journal of Memory and Language; Krifka (1995), Linguistic Analysis], of which "anymore" is one. So I will defend to the bitter end my rightness in saying it, and anyone who doesn't like it will just have to deal! rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think he was griping about your spelling it as one word rather than two, rather than your use of it after "few". Evidence: his own ironic spelling of "alot" and "everyday" as one word each. Pais (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I never noticed. Is this an AmEng/BrEng difference? "anymore" is certainly not incorrect in the way that "everyday" (means something different than "every day") and "alot" (just plain wrong, although granted it is used) are. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to say it should (IMHO) be two words. For what it's worth, Wiktionary gives anymore: "Alternative form of any more". Maybe it arises by false analogy with words such as "anyone" and "anywhere". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, American English distinguishes between anymore (as in "Does anyone read paper encyclopedias anymore?") and any more (as in "I don't like paper encyclopedias any more than you do"). Pais (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense that it's an engvar thing. I noticed that Merriam-Webster's (US-biased) definition wants to claim that "anymore" is more common anymore. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. What does your last sentence mean? I can't parse it, particularly given you've said you deny the positive anymore. Or it some sort of sick joke. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

He's jokingly using positive anymore despite not having it in his dialect and personally disliking it. The sentence means "... wants to claim that 'anymore' is more common nowadays". —Angr (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, like Angr said; I always interpret positive anymore as meaning "nowadays", although since I personally don't have it in my idiolect (even though most of my childhood friends do) I don't really grasp its usage. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"Obsoletized" Adjectives

I once saw in a show, or heard in a lecture, or something, about adjectives that only appear when the noun(s) they modify are on their way to obsolescence. For example (and these are not necessarily great or commonly uttered examples, but...) corded telephone, or desktop computer-- adjectives that wouldn't have been needed except for the onset of newer versions of the thing. Is there an extablished name for this phenomenon in language, and what others can you all think of? Thanks much! Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 14:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're looking for retronym. There's also a list of retronyms in English. --Kjoonlee 14:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Analog clock, conventional oven, cathode-ray tube television, conventional weapon, straight/heterosexual marriage. Pais (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. I love the Reference Desk for this very reason. Thanks guys! Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 14:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much that the items are obsolescent, but that there are new versions that are at least as common. Perhaps "paper encyclopedia" is, or will become, another one; as is sex porn (not a NSFW link) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Right. I just couldn't think of a better word right then to describe what I was trying to articulate. Thanks again, Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 15:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A similar phenomenon (but with a geographic rather than temporal reference) is from a joke I heard on a TV show (I don't remember which one now): "Oh, you're going to China! You'll get a lot of good Chinese food." — "Yeah, but I think they just call it 'food' there." Pais (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That was Friends, in the episode "The one where Rachel finds out" - transcript. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Word starting with "Dimihi...."

What is the Muslim word starting with "Dimihi...." pertaining to Sharia law or government power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.4.108 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dhimmi? ---Sluzzelin talk 16:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Muslim" is not a language. Arabic terms are used in a lot of Muslim countries, so maybe that's what you mean. Rimush (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If the question began "What is the legal term...", would you say "Legal is not a language"? —Tamfang (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I might well say "it is not a legal term", if it were not, by way of clarification. As for the "Muslim is not a language", the concept is perhaps more gently presented as "There is an Arabic word. . .", but, IMO, the form chosen is not "bitey", just factual, and possibly even helpful. Bielle (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If the question began "What is the Indian/European/Asian/African term" wouldn't you say "Indian isn't a language?" --Kjoonlee 02:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not if the term in question is used in multiple Indian languages, or belongs to an Indian/African/etc variety of English (or French) used as an interlanguage; e.g. crore. —Tamfang (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

IMO there's a big difference between "word" and "term". If the OP would've said "Muslim term", I wouldn't have said anything. "Word" sort of implies a language for me. Rimush (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If the OP would've said ... - is that considered standard English in your part of the world, Rimush? Just curious, because I sometimes hear this construction from AmEng speakers. I would always say: If the OP had said "Muslim term", I wouldn't have said anything. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The English in my part of the world (I'm currently living in Austria) is anything but standard. With that out of the way, well, I'm not a native speaker - I learned English as a kid in Romania, but I guess I "perfected" it when I went to high school in NYC. So, yeah, I'm pretty much influenced by AmEng. I don't know if what I wrote is standard or even correct, since my grasp on formal grammar is rather poor. I write/speak the way it looks/sounds right to me (just like I do in my native tongue), so I might've seen/heard it written/being said like that before. I also like tacking 've onto the ends of words Rimush (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The double conditional with the extra "would" is regarded as technically incorrect in British English, but it seems to be increasingly common, perhaps from transatlantic influences. Personally, I prefer the simple subjunctive "... had the OP said ...", but that tends to sound stilted (or can even be misunderstood) in modern British English. I think the construction is probably standard American (as in If She Would Have Been Faithful...), but perhaps a friend from that side of the pond can confirm this? Dbfirs 13:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"If she would have been faithful / if she could have been true / Then, I would've been cheated / I would never know real love / I would've missed out on you" - talk about quintuple conditional :P Rimush (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Our article on American_and_British_English_differences#Use_of_tenses claims that the construction is common in colloquial American English, but that some (not all) grammarians consider it to be incorrect in formal written American English. Dbfirs 13:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

From the article you cite: "In cases in which the action in the if clause takes place after that in the main clause, use of would in counterfactual conditions is, however, considered standard and correct usage in even formal UK and US usage: If it would make Bill happy, I'd [I would] give him the money" - this seems confusing to me, it sounds like you could fit this to apply to most cases where you use the double conditional. Rimush (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This example is in the future (just a shifting to conditional of If it will make Bill happy, I will give him the money), but I see what you mean about the confusion. The equivalent in the past is If it would have made Bill happy, I'd [I would] have given him the money which is considered correct because of the sequence (Bill being happy takes place after he receives the money). In the "Muslim term" example, the saying of the "if" part came first. Another simple example might be "If I had known, I would have said", or you can turn this round to say "I would have said if I had known", but the sequence is the same (the knowing comes first). Compare this with "If you had told me, I would have known" (or, equivalently, "I would have known if you had told me"), where the knowing comes later. Dbfirs 16:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack: "If ... would have ... (then)" is not usual in my dialect, that of university towns in Illinois and California. —Tamfang (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's good to hear, Tamfang. I wonder where it flourishes most. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Unhappily, where I live in rural Ontario, it all becomes (in speech and in writing) "would of", could of" and "should of", and is a very commonly used construction. Five minutes spent reading one of our local papers can have me grinding my teeth and spraying sparks. Bielle (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sad, terribly sad, Bielle. Mainly because we can't afford to be risking our teeth like that.  :) Journos used to have to submit their copy to some higher authority before it ever made it into print. Either that higher authority is equally ignorant and cannot properly call him/herself an authority, or maybe the authority is a spell checker, which would not pick up that sort of error. They call this progress, eh? Hmm ... -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean "would of" in writing instead of "would have"? Euuuuurrg. --Lgriot (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In symmetry, I've seen "'ve" as a reduction of "of" in written dialogue: Son've a bitch! —Tamfang (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

phytoxygraphique

Resolved

What does 'phytoxygraphique' mean? In the article Cambridge University: Rare Books: featured books: Miss Smith the word 'phytoxygraphique' process is described as "... the plants themselves were used to create a life-sized image by being inked and pressed onto a lithographic stone, which was then used to print the plate". I understand the lithographic process but I cannot work out what the word 'phytoxygraphique' means. I cannot find phytoxygraph in the OED or within google. I can understand phyto- meaning 'of plant' and -graph[|ic] meaning 'writ[ten|ing]' though I cannot work out how [o]xy fits in. --Senra (Talk) 22:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Did they use acid? (That's what oxy- means.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that insight Adam Bishop. Yes. A weakly acidic wash is used as part of the lithographic process. I guess this solves my mystery. I am still not sure why phytoxygraph[ic] is not in the OED nor revealed in google searches, though the google search for phytoxygraphique does reveal some French sites --Senra (Talk) 00:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Greek οξυ- can also have the meaning "swift". Just a guess, but perhaps the name was coined because the process is a quick way (when compared to engraving, etc.) of making a graphic image of a plant. Deor (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems plausible too Deor. We seem to have worked out the meaning of the word from its Greek roots. However, as I cannot find the French word 'phytoxygraphique' in the English dictionary (OED) nor within English Google, can anyone translate it into English? --Senra (Talk) 12:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Obvious translation: phytoxygraphic (not a word anybody has ever used so far as I can tell). I thought perhaps the French wikipedia would have an illuminating article about phytoxygraphie, which would say something helpful like "this was invented by a French person and used by a limited number of botanists and artists, all of whom were French, before it went out of fashion", but it doesn't have an article on it, or use the word at all. 213.122.7.185 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Phytoxygraphic has been used a few times as an English translation of the French word (which I assume was coined by the process's inventor, Edme Ansberque). Deor (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice one Deor - finding the inventor nails it for me! Cambridge University seem to like this dude as this report indicates in 2007 they purchased Edme Ansberque, Flore fourragère de la France, Lyon: E. Ansberque, 1866. Thank you --Senra (Talk) 18:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Canadian French

Why does Canadian French call lunch and dinner dîner and souper rather than the correct dejeuner and dîner? --75.60.13.19 (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Correct" is a matter of where you learned your French (or English, or Spanish . . .). See Quebec French. Bielle (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

déjeuner and dîner both come from disjejunare meaning to break a fast, so it makes more sense to do it earlier in the day. Why do the Franciens do it wrong? —Tamfang (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if the French terminology in Canada were influenced by the (somewhat variable—see the articles) English usage of dinner and supper to refer to the two meals. Deor (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In the XVII century, in France, what was called dîner and souper is now called déjeuner and "dîner". It is still the case today in some rural populations. — AldoSyrt (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

According to this source, the time at which lunch was eaten gradually got later in Paris, until dîner started to be used to mean dinner. Despite what AldoSyrt writes, the Canadian usage is the majority one in all francophone countries other than France, and in many regions of France outside Paris. So I guess it all depends on what your definitions of "rural" and "some" are! 82.120.58.206 (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I wrote only about France. In the XVII century French speaking people either in France or in Canada use the same words with the same meanings. For me it was obvious (I was wrong) that one can infer that the meanings shifted in France and not in Canada since then. I lived many years in the North and in the North West of France (refer to the above source), and most of urban people in these regions don't say souper for dîner. Hence "rural" is "not urban", and "some regions are "those mentionned in your source". Finally I must admit that I was lazy and made a rough translation from the TLFI: Nos ancêtres du XVIIe siècle, dont nos populations rurales ont encore conservé, en général, la terminologie sur ce point particulier, appelaient dîner le repas que nous nommons aujourd'hui déjeuner, et souper le repas du soir, désigné maintenant par dîner (A. DAUZAT ds Mél. Huguet, Paris, Boivin, 1940, p. 59). — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"L'évolution accélérée que connut le micro-champ lexical des noms de repas en français parisien à la fin du 18e s. ne fut pas suivie dans les autres pays francophones, ni dans plusieurs villes et régions de France. En effet, le mot dîner désigne encore pour plusieurs millions de locuteurs français le repas de midi, et ce, en dépit du fait que le système parisien se soit imposé comme seul emploi non marqué en français de référence. Dans les relevés de régionalismes, le mot apparaît à la nomenclature d'un très grand nombre d'ouvrages, souvent accompagné de précieuses marques d'usage, v. DRF. FEW 3, 94b ; TLF" [1]. Note the mention of "villes." Français de référence means the language as reflected in general dictionaries published in France.82.120.58.206 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Cette évolution de la pratique sociale fut à l'origine un phénomène strictement parisien, qui n'a été suivi, avec quelque retard, que dans les grandes villes françaises ; à la campagne et en dehors du pays, l'ancien microsystème lexical déjeuner / dîner / souper s'est maintenu avec une certaine vitalité, même si le nouveau système petit déjeuner / déjeuner / dîner – qui dans plusieurs régions s'y est superposé – est devenu le seul emploi non marqué du français de référence et fait partie de la compétence à tout le moins passive de nombreux francophones. Il est difficile d'évaluer avec précision l'usage réel de l'ancienne terminologie dans le français des régions de France. Les enquêtes DRF 1994-96 ont permis de relever des pourcentages de connaissance supérieurs à 90 % dans le Nord et la Picardie, la Basse-Normandie, la grande région Rhône-Alpes, les Alpes-Maritimes et le Midi pyrénéen ; en Provence, près de 70 % des témoins ont aussi déclaré connaître cet emploi. On ne sait malheureusement pas toujours si les réponses des enquêtés reflètent leur compétence active ou seulement passive. En outre, le fait que le verbe, contrairement au substantif, ne soit pas véritablement marqué dans certains contextes à interprétation univoque (quoi qu'en disent certains dictionnaires), rend encore plus ardue l'interprétation de ces résultats. Voir dans le DRF, p. 352a, la liste des sources de français régional où nous avons relevé le mot, parfois accompagné de marques d'usage ou de brefs commentaires. L'ensemble de ces données (enquêtes, glossaires, attestations littéraires [v. ci-dessus]) permet de tracer une aire septentrionale englobant la Normandie (et quelques points isolés dans l'Ouest), la Picardie, le Nord (en contiguïté avec la Wallonie) et la Lorraine, ainsi qu'une très vaste aire méridionale allant du Jura et de la Savoie à l'est (en contiguïté avec la Suisse romande) jusqu'à l'Aquitaine à l'ouest, en passant par le Lyonnais, la Provence, plusieurs points sud et nord-languedociens et la région Midi-Pyrénées. Parmi les grandes villes de France, seuls Nancy et Lyon pratiquent encore sporadiquement l'ancien système. Les sources à notre disposition pour les villes de Marseille et Bordeaux ne mentionnent pas cet usage. Il est permis de supposer que, d'une manière générale, l'usage rural est resté assez fidèle à l'ancienne terminologie, à tout le moins en dehors de la grande région parisienne, même dans les zones pour lesquelles on ne dispose d'aucune donnée positive sur le sujet ; dans les villes, en revanche, l'usage parisien a été «parachuté» avec succès presque partout en s'étendant sur les zones environnantes ; il s'est en outre imposé partout en France dans la langue de l'hôtellerie et de la restauration, ce qui ne manque pas d'exercer une forte pression sur l'emploi archaïque." So it is true that in most big cities, the old system is no longer used. However, it is used actively in Lyon and Nancy to some extent, it is widely understood throughout the country, and is widely used in rural areas, perhaps in most areas outside greater Paris. One would presume that it is also used in some smaller cities. [2]82.120.58.206 (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As it is clearly mentionned, "to know/to understand" (compétence passive) is not the same as "to use actively" (compétence active). — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's funny that you say "until dîner started to be used to mean dinner", given that exactly the same process of shifting the main meal went on in some areas and classes in England, making the word 'dinner' ambiguous as an indicator of meal time, but unambiguous as an indicator of whenther it is the main meal (in the UK). In terms of 'dinner being the most substantial meal of the day', dîner did and still does mean 'dinner'. :) 86.163.214.50 (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware that dinner could be used to mean "meal around midday," at least in the North. However, since it can't in my own variety of English, I didn't bother saying "supper," as perhaps I should have. 82.120.58.206 (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Jour vs. journée

What's the difference in meaning between the French words jour and journée? --75.60.13.19 (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article on this pair, and three similar ones. Bielle (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the French pronunciation of "gn"

Why does the seemingly arbitrary combination "gn" represent the "ny" sound in French? --75.60.13.19 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not really arbitrary, since words with that combination in French come from a Latin word with the same spelling (lignum, dignus, etc). It may have already been pronounced that way in Latin; don't the other Romance languages also have the same sound? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The English adjective magnificent is a synonymous cognate of words in French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. In the French and Italian words, gn is pronounced [ɲ]. In the Portuguese and Spanish words, gn is pronounced [gn].

—Wavelength (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

However, that was kind of a scholarly borrowing direct from Latin into the relevant languages (certainly in English and French), and was pronounced based on established spelling patterns for the languages as applied to the classical spelling; it did not go through the medieval sound changes that explain why Latin "gn" became pronounced as [ñ] in French. Latin "gn" does not become Spanish and Portuguese "gn" in words that went through the medieval sound changes (as opposed to spelling-based loans direct from Latin)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Because ancient Roman "gn" (which usually represented a pronunciation like [ŋn], by the way) became [ñ] in the historical evolution of French phonology. So Latin agnus (plus suffix) becomes French agneau (modern pronunciation [año]), etc. In Portuguese and some southern French languages, the spelling is "nh"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And using "lignum" as an example, the equivalent is "ligne" in French, "legno" in Italian, "linea" in Spanish, and "linha" in Portuguese, all with the "ny" sound. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean leña in Spanish, not línea (=line), Adam. ;) Pallida  Mors 00:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Some explanations at List of Latin digraphs#G and Nh (digraph)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"Legno" in Italian means wood, not line. Are we sure we are talking about the same cognate? --Lgriot (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what "lignum" means, so I assume so. (Adam appears to have made a slip with the Spanish word but not apparently with the others.) Marnanel (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)