Language desk
< March 20	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 22 >

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.

March 21

Chinese to Sanskrit

A popular Chinese martial art legend says the Zen patriarch Bodhidharma wrote a treatise on Taoist-like breathing and stretching exercieses called the the Yijin Jing. This is commonly translated as the Muscle- or Tendon-Changing Classic (易筋经). Modern scholarship has shown this legend is spurious, and that the treatise was actually written by a Taoist during the 17th century. Despite this, I am interested to know how one would say Muscle-Changing / Tendon-Changing Classic in Sanskrit. I imagine Sutra would be used in place of Classic. This website lists several words for muscles, but I am unsure if they refer to a particular muscle. I am looking for an overall sense of the word. The same goes for tendon and change. Perhaps "metamorphosis" would be better? This is also used in English translations.

This is for a story I am working on. I do not intend to add the information to any article. Thank you in advance to all who reply. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Active user who knows Hawaiian language

Is there any active users who know the Hawaiian language out there?

Of the users listed in Category:User haw, none of the native or near-native speakers have edited in 2011. Of the intermediate level speakers, only User:Groink has been editing Wikipedia recently (three days ago). ---Sluzzelin talk 03:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See http://librarieshawaii.org/services/reference.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vowels in Arabic, English, and German

At talk:Jamahiriya, I found this:

Due to the nature of the grammar of the Arabic language, related words in Arabic will often have the same consonants, but with different vowels in different places. This is highly-systematic within the Semitic languages,

I've never studied Arabic, but I've had some exposure to Swahili, and in Swahili it seems every bit as easy to tell which words are derived from Arabic as it is to tell which words in English are derived from Greek. I seem to recall noticing this variation in vowels there too. E.g. the noun safari and the verb safiri.

Now as it happens, I recently read part of John McWhorter's book Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue, and he seems sympathetic to the view that proto-Germanic came about as a result of mixing of ancient languages of northern Europe with Phoenician, a Semitic language (in particular, he mentions that fully 30 percent of proto-Germanic verbs cannot be traced to Indo-European, and says nothing like that happens in other Indo-European language groups). So I'm wondering: could this explain the way vowels change with forms in English, and to a greater extent in German? E.g. with tenses of strong verbs: find, found; get, got, swim, swam, swum, keep, kept. Or in some irregular plurals: mouse, mice, foot, feet, goose, geese, etc. (In English there seems to be only one adjective where the vowel is different in the comparative form: old, elder—and that one's used only when talking about people, and not always then. In German there are zillions like that.) Michael Hardy (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just a Germanic thing, although it is typical of Germanic strong verbs. It is found throughout Indo-European languages. See Indo-European ablaut. So, Phoenician, which is unlikely to have influenced Germanic languages anyway, probably also would not have influenced an already-existing system of sound changes in Indo-European languages, especially not by means of the Semitic system of triconsonantal roots, which is actually quite unlike what happens in Indo-European. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and of course in German it's not just verbs; it's plurals of nouns and comparatives and superlatives of adjectives, and it's derivations of adjectives from nouns (and maybe other things too). Michael Hardy (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the vowel changes definitely have nothing to do with Phoenician influence. On the other hand, I'd agree that the results of IE ablaut are broadly similar to the systems found in Semitic. The original IE system is usually said to have been connected to stress, unlike the Semitic one; however, I see that the wiki article actually cites some people who have argued that IE ablaut originally worked like Semitic. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy -- You should have gone to article Semitic root (as I originally suggested in those remarks of mine which you cut-and-pasted). Semitic "root-and-pattern" morphology and Germanic strong verbs can both be considered examples of apophony in a general linguistic sense, but the Semitic languages carry it far beyond anything to be found in Indo-European languages. In any case, ca. 3,500 B.C. (which is about as far back as things can be historically reconstructed), the Semitic languages were probably still found more to the south of the fertile crescent than in the fertile crescent itself, while the Indo-European languages were probably spoken in an area of southern Russia and/or eastern Ukraine north of the Caucasus -- so the idea of direct mutual influence between the language groups at an early stage seems quite unlikely. This hasn't prevented people from positing a "Nostratic" group, but Nostratic isn't widely accepted by scholars. I really don't understand what the Phoenician-Germanic thing is supposed to mean -- these languages had quite minimal historical contact, and ablaut seems to have been well-established in early Indo-European... AnonMoos (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Vennemann has posited a number of Germanic borrowings from Semitic languages, most prominently the root of "earth". If you want, I could dig out a specific article of his (from Transactions of the Philological Society) which mentions several of his suggestions, with references. --ColinFine (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most prominent undisputed shared Semitic-IE vocabulary items which are not late loanwords (such as "bull" ταυρος / ثور and "wine" vinum / οινος / יין) seem to involve a second millennium B.C. Mediterranean cultural context, and in many or most cases may have been borrowed from third languages into both IE and Semitic (and these words do not appear to have been formed through apophony). AnonMoos (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of Anglo-Israelists in the 19th century who thought the Germanic peoples were one of the Lost Tribes. I remember they said "earth" was Semitic, and various other words, like the German "Pferd". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assyria and Germany in Anglo-Israelism.... AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The theory that McWhorter seemed sympathetic to said Phoenicians sailed to the coast of what is now Germany and Denmark. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that there's only quite indirect and circumstantial evidence at best for the view that the Phoenicians ever went directly to Cornwall to trade for tin (a cherished belief among many during the 19th century), the view that they ever went to the vicinity of Hamburg seems to be very strongly implausible, and an extremely poor choice of hypothesis on which to base any linguistic theories. Our Tin sources and trade in ancient times article says "It should be noted that the idea that the Phoenicians went to Cornwall for its tin and supplied it to the whole of the Mediterranean has no archaeological basis and is largely considered a myth." What could the Phoenicians even want from Germany in the first place -- except amber, which already reached the Mediterranean through long-established overland trade routes?? AnonMoos (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hoành tráng

Please explain the origin of these 2 words. Thanhks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.34.142 (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is Vietnamese, and it seems to mean "on a large scale".[1] It is made up of the components hoành, meaning "wide", and tráng, meaning "large". "Ngắm cảnh non sông hoành tráng" means, I think, "to contemplate a mountain river scenery on a large scale".[2] Lesgles (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do news reports use present tense?

I've never really paid attention to grammar in news reports (though I keep spotting typos!), so when a WN editor undid a change I made to an article, I wasn't surprised. I'd changed nearly all the present tense verbs to past. In fact, I was thinking why WN could possibly violate some grammar rules that are supposed to be taught in secondary schools. How embarrassed I was to find out that this is the journalism norm! :)

Anyways, I searched the Net and found a blogpost, the author of which thought it strange the newspaper headlines use present tense. Why exactly do news reports use strange tenses? When and how did this start?

BTW: I'm just trying to satisfy my hunger for knowledge. :P Kayau Voting IS evil 14:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that news agencies can re-use such a report later without revising it (and spending more money). However, there might be a problem if an expected event does not happen. I am curious about news reports in languages (such as Hebrew) which have different aspects for completed and uncompleted actions. Incidentally, I prefer present participles for picture captions and for Wikipedia edit summaries in English, but infinitives for Wikipedia edit summaries in French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kayau -- It's newspaper "Headlinese" (which has very highly-specific conventions in English), not general news writing. It's not that the past tense is absolutely banned from headlines, but there are standard conventions which make it much more likely that "X KILLED" is about X being killed (not about X doing some killing), etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In English (and other Germanic languages) only the present tense and the past tense are simple tenses, in that they require only a single word. "I sing", "I sang", "I have sung", "I am singing", "I had sung", "I will sing", "I was singing", "I will be singing", "I will have sung", "I was going to sing", "I used to sing", "I will have been singing", etc., etc. Journalists writing headlines want to keep it short. And the simple past tense seems to presuppose that the reader knows what specific time is referred to. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above are good answers, historical present is normally what they're doing, and may be helpful. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that headlines want to keep it short (lazy papers :P). However, I've seen cases where the newspaper content itself uses the present tense instead of past; for example, 'state school classrooms displaying crucifixes do not violate the rights of non-Catholic pupils' would be wrong in daily life, as this is indirect/reported speech so did not should replace did not... Kayau Voting IS evil 11:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "did not" would be appropriate in that instance. It's not just about a past instance; it's about other cases that may arise. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a technical term for the printer's problem...

where the cutting machine to produce books fails somewhat and instead of fully cropping a page or two, folds the bottom right corner up into the main body of the volume? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theediscerning (talk • contribs) 15:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly, this fault arises not in the cutting stage (Book trimming), nor in the preceding signature-binding stage, but in the folding stage before that, when a corner of the imposed printed sheet becomes folded back on itself. I don't recall encountering a specific term for it while working in bookselling and pre-production book editing - it's possible that there is no industry-standard term for what is a rare and relatively trivial fault - but perhaps someone with more direct experience of print production will know of one. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around, but I found nothing more specific than "misbound" which, according to several book binding and book collecting glossaries, can refer to one incorrectly folded leaf too (along with incorrectly bound, upside down, etc.). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both. I asked because I was hoping to sell a book with the front cover thus affected; misbound as a selling term seems the best approach to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theediscerning (talk • contribs) 15:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between le pavot and le coquelicot

What's the difference between le pavot and le coquelicot? My dictionary says that they both mean poppy. --70.244.234.128 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Un coquelicot (Papaver rhoeas) is a kind of pavot (Papaveraceae). Another ~~poppy~~ flower is called coquelicot bleu de l'Himalaya — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the French article, le coquelicot tranlates into English as "Field Poppy". Alansplodge (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tornados or Tornadoes?

The dear old BBC surprised me by making the plural of the Panavia Tornado jet aircraft "Tornados" on several occasions. I would have thought it was "Tornadoes" like "potatoes" and "tomatoes". I was therefore even more surprised to find that when it comes to Tornado (the weather phenomenon), they spell it the other way. Any idea why anybody? Alansplodge (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "o" to "oes" rather than "os" is actually the exception rather than the rule. Since the name of the airplane is a proper noun, it is governed by the general rule. By the way, most news organizations have style guides dealing with how to handle issues of grammar and spelling. You can find a copy of the BBC style guide here, but it does not deal with this particular question as far as I can see. Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised that Wikipedia follows the same bizarre rule (see articles linked above). "Torpedoes", "cargoes", "buboes", "embargoes", "dadoes", "dominoes", "dingoes" and "Fingoes" all seem happy with an "e". There may be more. Alansplodge (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to English plural#Regular plurals, -oes is in fact the default (by implication for 'native English' words) when the word ends in consonant+o, but most foreign (especially Italian) loanwords as described under English plural#Almost-regular plurals take -os. There would be a tendency for a native English speaker to read an unfamiliar word ending in -os as rhyming (roughly) with "toss" rather than "toes", but as always, such "rules" emerge out of analysing unregulated usage, rather than being stipulated by some (nonexistant) authoritative power. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that several British newspapers form the jet plural without the "e". There seems to be an informal rule that proper nouns can form the plural with just an "s", even when the common noun needs "es". Dbfirs 08:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering why we say they are proper nouns. Just because a category thing has a name assigned to it by a groups of humans doesn't mean it is a proper noun. For example if I create a new type of rotors, and I name them rotators, is it a proper noun? For me proper nouns should be assigned to people, places, and unique things like Tower Bridge, The Moon, the UNO, etc. In English the days of the week are proper nouns which is weird for me, because there are many mondays, I don't see the point of making a proper noun, it is just "a noun" for something happening regularly, like pay day... So what in English defines what is a proper noun and not a common noun? --Lgriot (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article that should address your concern. Conventionally, the names of makes and models as opposed to types of vehicle (or any other artefact), such as Tornado vs jet fighter, fall into the category of proper nouns. In English the use of a capital initial letter is usually indicative, though this does not apply in some other languages such as German, which bestows capitals more generously. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't address the question, it does not mention makes or models. I guess in English people saw model names as an extension of the company name (company names are of course real proper nouns, since they are unique). Because many companies included their company name in the model (like Ford T), even when the company name was not included, the English speaking population decided that models names should be proper nouns all the time, rather than half the time.--Lgriot (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]