Language desk
< June 15	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 17 >

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.

June 16

Everybody Loves Reimund?

Raymond claims it's the English version of the French Reimund. I find this a tad suspicious, since there is only one Reimund in both the English and French wikipedias. You'd think there'd be at least a few more if that were true. Can somebody shed some light? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EO says it's from Old French "Raimund".[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand Bugsy's link correctly the name came into French from the Frankish language. The same I gather from here where there's a list of Raimunds (lots of them) most of whom were French (at least for the middle ages).--Zoppp (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't become too tied to spelling for old names. Prior to the 1700's, there was very little standard orthography in many Western European languages. The same person may have a name spelled different ways. In doing research for the Plymouth Colony article, contemporary documents splled the name "Myles Standish" with both a "y" (Myles) and an "i" (Miles) with little consistancy; sometimes the same writer would use both spellings. If you go back farther, you'll likely find even more variation. --Jayron32 18:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A search of the French WP under "Raimund" shows eight people with that name who have articles about them. Maybe we should insert the alternate spelling. Alansplodge (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those Raimunds are mostly German rather than French, it's pronounced differently, too.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of alternative spellings..... Richard Avery (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the modern French spelling of the name is identical to the English one, that's why there are few French wiki results for Reimund and Raimund (and most of them are mediaeval or German).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC) The article should have said it was the modern English version of Norman French Reimund.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you spell "Manuchi"?

I've hear this word frequently spoken in the context of fine or minute detail, but I am unsure how to spell it, and I am clearly barking up the wrong tree in my attempts to spell it, as my google search results are very far off from what I am trying to find out. Help much appreciated! :) 85.210.80.88 (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you maybe thinking of "minutia"?[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most often seen in the plural, "minutiae", which is getting closer to your "manuchi". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A different language?

Some while ago, Cambridge University discovered that approximately fifty percent of the population could understand sentences that consisted of words where the letters could be put in any order, excepting for the first and last letter which must remain in position. An example would be: Smoe wihle ago, Cmarbigde Uivnrestiy dsiocvreed taht aproxpamilety ftify prcenet cuold unerdtsnad.....What would be the name given to this type of language?81.155.106.39 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Typoglycemia.—Wavelength (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A strong comfort level with written English is obviously a requirement for understanding it. Also, the comprehension of this "style" of writing has probably increased significantly, with the spread of the internet, texting, etc., in which tyops run rapmant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the article On Intelligence for a book which explains the reasons for this phenomenon in depth.μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any time you are told that "Cambridge University discovered" something, or any other university for that matter, regard whatever it was with great scepticism. At the very least it has been passed on by somebody with little interest in precision, and probably little interest in truth. --ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a natural part of the science news cycle! rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning "jumps"

I could swear I knew the name of the phenomenon but it seems to be stuck on the tip of my tongue. What is it called when, in language evolution, the meaning of a word "jumps" to a different word often associated with that word (usually to a word with little meaning of its own, such as a name), and the original word may or may not lose its meaning/become deprecated in favor of the new one. To illustrate what I am saying, take the Latin word vulpus (fox). In Middle French, the word for fox was goupil, evolved gradually from this Latin root; however, there was a very famous book called the Roman de Renart, in which the main character was named Renart le Goupil. Because of this association renart became a synonym of goupil and today has displaced it completely (the modern word is renard due to an unrelated spelling shift t>d). Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC) PS: I know that the reason for the jump in this particular case was a superstition that saying goupil was bad luck, but I am not interested in that, I am looking for the name for the jump in meaning in general.[reply]

"Euphemism" comes to mind, although I'm not certain that's the same as this phenomenon. An example that comes to mind is "Frankenstein" to mean the (unnamed) monster that Dr. Frankenstein created in his lab. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genericized trademarks are related to those changes.—Wavelength (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you're talking about would seem to be a form of metonymy. Deor (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other respondents may wish to see Reynard cycle and fr:Roman de Renart.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A similar process occurred in the substitution of bear and bruin for ursus. (See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=brown+bear.) This does not directly answer the question, but it provides additional search terms.

_Wavelength (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evolution of the term "ham", as in over-acting, appears a few sections up and seems to be a similar kind of thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength's example for bear is called taboo replacement in historical linguistics. μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taboo is one of 20 reasons for using a new word listed at Onomasiology#Explanations_of_lexical_change. "Lexical change" might be the answer to the question, but that's a broad term that includes the coining of completely new words, the use of loanwords, and the use of shortened forms of old words, and doesn't focus on jumps within a language where one existing word replaces another. Card Zero (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National demonyms and politeness

In my intuition, some demonyms seem ok to use as nouns (e.g., "Yesterday I had lunch with a German") and some don't ("Yesterday I had lunch with a Spanish"). To my ear, those ending in -an don't sound offensive ("a German", "a Canadian", "a Russian", "an American", "a Korean"), those ending in -ese sound a bit offensive but I still hear them used often enough that I'm getting used to it ("a Chinese", "a Japanese", "a Portuguese"), and others sound pretty offensive ("a Spanish", "a French").

Does anyone else share intuitions along these lines? Can anyone think of counterexamples? And, most importantly, is anyone aware of any discussion or publications about how/why these words have come to sound more or less offensive? rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Words like "German" can be adjectives or nouns, and when you say "I had lunch with a German", "German" is a noun. "Spanish" is an adjective. Very clumsy to use it as a noun. If you said "...had lunch with a Spanish person" it would be more grammatically correct, and probably sound better. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I had lunch with a Spaniard" would be better. DuncanHill (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a slightly prickly term in the States. I'm not exactly sure why. It used to be the case, not sure when, maybe around the early 20th century, that Spaniard would be used to describe Latinos in general; it could be a holdover from that. There doesn't seem to be a lot of rhyme or reason to these things. Why is Chinaman almost always considered offensive, whereas Frenchman is usually not, at least not to the same extent? I sort of wish everyone would just relax about such things, as it irritates me to be required to memorize what's allowed this week, but there seems to be no way around it if you want to avoid being unintentionally rude. (One definition of a gentleman is a man who is never unintentionally rude.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Chinaman" was used in a negative way. "Chinese" or "Chinese man" would be OK. "Chinaman" is not parallel to "Frenchman". It would be more like "Franceman", if there was such a word. "Frenchy" is the more likely nickname, maybe a bit condescending but nowhere near "Chinaman" for offensiveness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, China was used as an adjective, just as in china porcelain, and Chinaman is a perfect parallel with Frenchman. No offensiveness results from the form of the word, just its association with racist policies of Californians toward orientals. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to ceramics, china is a noun, a synonym for Chinese ceramics. "Chinaman" would be equivalent to "Franceman". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that; I'm wondering if there's a reason why some cannot be used as nouns--especially the -ese ones, which seem to be accepted by some people but not by me. I dunno, maybe it's just historical/linguistic accident... rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're discussing offence: To bring a person's nationality or ethnicity into the equation is always risky, unless there's good reason to do so. What, for example, would be the point of informing anyone that the person you had lunch with was a German, as opposed to a Cuban? There may well be a context in which this is perfectly appropriate, or maybe not. In a negative context, it's particularly problematical: That Indian taxi driver ripped me off - suggests his Indianness played some role in his alleged action, and that a non-Indian would not have done it. Now, such a claim is hardly sustainable, so the nationality of the driver ought not be mentioned at all, in that sentence. But it might be necessary to get into his nationality and appearance if describing him to the police, though. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Duncan notes, put "person" or "man" or "woman" after all those terms, and it works, especially if your own sense of propriety is ruffled by saying "a Spaniard" or "a Chinese" or "a Frenchman". Keep in mind this is English, which is a Mulligan Stew of a language. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I note that? DuncanHill (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it was HiLo that said that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The English adjective ending -ese comes through French -aise from the Latin adjectival suffix -ensis for place of origin.

The scientific name of the Canada goose is Branta canadensis

The ending -an comes from the Latin -anus (earlier -nus) and produces adjectives for nouns ending in -a like Roma and Italia. Cities and nations are usually feminine in Latin.

This is except for Germanic words (like Norman from "northman") in which they are compounds ending in the word man. Words like Englishman, Frenchman, Dutchman, Welshman, Irishman, Chinaman, and Norseman are in a long tradition going back to before English was a separate language from its Germanic cousins.

English doesn't normally use bare adjectives as nouns, and the words ending in -ese are inherently adjectival. In languages like German and Spanish you can say der Alte or el blanco, but you can't say 'the tall' in the singular in English. It has to be the tall one or the tall person. Hence the strangeness to most English speakers of "a Japanese" which sounds like you are talking about a dog breed, and the utter ridiculousness of referring to, say, "three Chineses".

μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]