Language desk
< October 29	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 31 >

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.

October 30

Another Chinese reading question

Wai-tung Gao (高伟同) is a character in The Wedding Banquet - Is the final character read as "tóng" or "tòng"?

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least two easy ways exist to find out the pinyin of a Chinese character.

Google Translate suggests "tóng", and so does wikt:同#Mandarin. It may need to be confirmed by a Chinese speaker. I can't do it, because I'm not one. --Theurgist (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have this movie, I just checked and it is indeed tóng. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys!

I use http://www.mdbg.net to get readings. But sometimes multiple readings are given, so I ask questions on here.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know it's only pronounced tòng in 胡同 (hutong), and in that case it seems the 同 might actually comes from a different character originally (in traditional characters this is 衕; I'm not sure if the 2nd-tone version also comes from that or not). (Even in that case I think it's marginal; it has that pronunciation in http://zhongwen.com/d/231/x193.htm, which is based on Taiwan Mandarin, but in http://www.nciku.com/search/zh/detail/胡同/1306178 which is mainland-based it has light tone, which is also how I learned it.)

Dictionaries are useful for getting the pronunciations, but sometimes for names (especially outside of the mainland) it can be necessary to listen, because in my experience some people may use slightly variant pronunciations. An example that comes to mind is Angela Chang (see Talk:Angela Chang#Pronunciation of 韶; a year or two ago on this RD there was also discussion of a TV personality whose name it turned out was being pronounced differently than what a dictionary would have you expect. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember the last case you refer to. Nevertheless, with relatively few exceptions one can predict the reading of a character with multiple readings in a personal name by looking at the different meanings associated with the different readings - in this case, "tóng" in the sense of "sameness; unity" is more likely to be intended than "tong" in the sense of "part of a word meanint 'alleyway'".

If we add to that rule the caveat that names that don't "sound" right when read according to the reading found by rule 1 above may take a different reading simply because of the pleasing sound.

It is also important to bear in mind regional differences - despite what officials in Beijing would have you think, Standard Mandarin pronunciation is not exclusively defined by the Beijing standard, and there are often a northern and a southern standard - it may be worthwhile in cases of doubt to check a dictionary published in Shanghai or Taiwan (for example) as well as one published in Beijing. A case in point is the long, long debate on the pronunciation of the first character in Bo Yang. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pursue of happiness

If happiness is not a moving object, how can it be pursued? 88.9.210.218 (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the rainbow, the closer you get, the further away it is. Textorus (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better then not to pursue it, even if you have a right to it? Since everything you ever wanted is in your backyard? " I won't look any further than my own backyard; because if it isn't there, I never really lost it to begin with." 88.9.210.218 (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have no right to happiness, Dorothy, only to the pursuit thereof. Textorus (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That and some really expensive footwear (which tends, for some reason, to make a lot of women happy). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

It's a woman thing. Except for Liberace. Textorus (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hedonic treadmill says that it is a moving object. (Flow (psychology) is a related positive psychology concept: happiness isn't even an object, happiness is a process, the pursuit of something.) Card Zero (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the OP and jokes aside: I didn't choose the language RD by mistake. I still want to know if anything can be the object of the verb "to pursue". It's clear that you can "pursue a murderer", "pursue a degree", but can you say "I pursue running every morning to keep in shape"? I think not because it's an habit and not some target. 88.9.210.218 (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISTM that your difficulty is due to your misquoting the phrase, the proper quotation is "The pursuit of happiness". Roger (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The pursuit of happiness" implies that you can "pursue happiness" . 88.9.210.218 (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't bring down the unbounded fury of the grammar police, and people would understand what you meant, but since there are better ways of expressing the idea ("I try to run every morning ...), it just sounds a little odd. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original premise is flawed, and Card is right: Happiness is a moving target, therefore it can be pursued. It's like the pursuit of excellence, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A college degree can be pursued, yet it is not a moving target. One of the meanings of the word "pursue" is "to seek or strive to attain". That which can be striven to attain, can be pursued. --Itinerant1 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of wording was intentional. John Locke had said one has the right to life liberty and property. But the first two are negative, while the third might be interpreted wrongly to mean the state owes you something. The right to the pursuit of happiness means that you have the freedom to act, not the right to some state of affairs that others might have to bring about. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP: your reasoning, and therefore your question, is divided and unclear. Can anything be the (grammatical) object of the verb "to pursue"? Of course, and your second sentence answers your own question. Can a person say "I pursue running . . . ?" Well, you can say it, but it's a very awkward and atypical use of the word pursue in that context. It's also very wordy: "I run every morning to keep in shape" says the same thing much more directly. Pursue implies an ongoing search for something not attained all at once or every day: e.g., "In college, I pursued a course of linguistic studies." Or - "He pursued a law degree at Yale." It may be that the word you want is persevere: "I persevere with daily running in order to stay in shape." The concept of pursuit is out of place there. Textorus (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Textorus: your reasoning, and therefore your answer, is divided and unclear. Can anything be the object of the verb "to pursue"? First you say "of course" then you say: " Pursue implies an ongoing search for something not attained all at once or every day". So, the verb does NOT admit everything as an object. Many constructions with a random object would be more than awkward, like "I pursue the desk which is in front of me." 88.9.210.218 (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let us define our terms and see if we can't end the confusion here. If you are asking about the object of a verb, that's a grammatical question, as I indicated in my answer. If, on the other hand, you are asking about the meaning of a word that happens to be a verb, and the right context in which to use that word, that is a question of usage, and my answer covered both grammar and usage. Of course you cannot pair any old verb with any old noun at random and expect a meaningful combination, even though it may be a grammatically correct expression. "I pursue the desk" is correct English grammar - subject+predicate(verb+direct object) - but it is a meaningless phrase according to the ordinary usage of native English speakers. Unless, perhaps, you are going after some office furniture aboard an ocean liner in the midst of a rollicking storm at sea. :) Textorus (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Itinerant1 has it right: the dictionary tells you the meaning of pursuit in the phrase "pursuit of happiness". Merriam-Webster gives as meanings of "pursue" (paraphrasing slightly): 1 to follow in an attempt to capture or overtake; 2 to investigate or carry out measures towards a goal; 3 to proceed, as along a course; 4a to engage in; 4b to proceed with, as an argument; 5 to continue to afflict, as haunting memories; 6 to chase. [1] Hence "pursuing exercise" can mean: finding out about exercise; making preparations towards doing exercise; doing exercise; resuming exercise; continuing to do exercise; and more. You can pursue a table in the sense of chasing a literally moving table; or in Webster's definition to "find or employ measures to obtain" a table; or at a stretch to haunt, harry or harass a table (fruitless unless you're a woodworm), or doubtless in a poetic/figurative sense with other meaning. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Textorus + Colapeninsula have it right. The problem here is between grammar and semantics. One sentence can be grammatically correct (logical form) but semantically nonsensical. Also see Colorless green ideas sleep furiously for the same phenomenon. Quest09 (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you say or write that you're pursuing a desk, people will likely suspect that you're misusing (whether intentionally or unintentionally) the word "perusing". By the way, I've removed the image: nonfree images aren't allowed on the Reference Desk. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's possibly connected with the fact that people often misspell "pursue" as "persue". It's still just as hard to peruse a desk as to "persue" it, unless you're talking about this world-famous Reference Desk. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps tangential to the language aspect of the question, the "happiness" referred to by Jefferson (and Franklin, etc) in the phrase "pursuit of happiness" means something different than the common meaning of the word today. See, for example, the many pages addressing "happiness" here [2] and here [3]. Jefferson's "happiness" is, as I understand, not so much a temporary state of mind, but the result of self-development and the effort to become a virtuous, benevolent person. That kind of thing is certainly something that can be "pursued". The word "pursue" does not only mean "chase after", but also "strive for", "cultivate", "aspire", etc ([4]). Jefferson's statement is akin to saying "working to be the best person you can be". In short the "happiness" referred to by Jefferson (who got his ideas from or in collaboration with many other philosophers and thinkers of the day) is not simply the hedonistic seeking of pleasure. It is something more subtle and deep. It's worth learning a bit about, especially as it is one of Jefferson's most often misunderstood statements. Pfly (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for the closing of vowels in cont.-Westgermanic

Related to the articles Dutch phonology and Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch dialect.

In Mecklenburgic there is a phenomenon: Before the vowelised /r/ ([ɐ]) four vowels change: [øʏ] becomes /yː/, [ɛɪ] becomes /iː/, [ɔʊ] becomes /uː/ and /ɒ/ becomes /ɔː/.
At first I thought the dark vowel would simply emphasise the second part of the diphthong, making it seem as if it became the according vowel. But the Dutch article says: " When they precede /r/, these vowels (e, ö, o) are pronounced [ɪː], [ʏː], and [ɔː] respectively." Well, the Dutch /o/ should become an U by that rules and the Dutch don't vowelise their /r/. Yet...
Mecklenburg was settled by the Dutch, amongst Saxons. Can anyone provide information (reasons, preferably) for any of these phenomenons?Dakhart (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that there is a relation between Dutch and Mecklenburgish phonology? These territories are far apart. Where do you find that Mecklenburg was settled by Dutch, amongst Saxons? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going from memory here, not references, but I'm fairly certain that /yː iː uː/ were the original values. This means that from a historical perspective, the vowels diphthongized except before /r/, rather than the (not unreasonable) assumption that /r/ triggered the change. Lsfreak (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not sure, that's why I'm asking. That Meck. was settled by Dutch, well...Wikipedia and common knowledge. They came there in/after the Middle Ages, when they also moved to Prussia. As for the original values...I'd need to know, what language you talk about. While many Meckl. words with -ur- are actually from an old -ur- (p.e.: Low German "horn", meckl. "hurn", germ. "hurnan"), that cannot be said for stern/stirn/sternaz or wer/wir/os. "wari". On the contrary "wari" would command an A-Umlaut, the E.

Additional information: The observation that it only appears, but always appears before a vowel-r but not before a rolled ('normal') R was made by Karl Nerger around 1830. It was this (when the [r] was weakened to /a/) time that writings as "nurd" (nord) and "hor" (har; hair) appeared in writing. Before the vowelisation of the R (in ~the 18th century) such writings cannot be found; at least not above the normal rate of interchangeability of O and U, and not as firmly attached to a position. Dakhart (talk) 07:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding statement in the Dutch article sounds much weaker: Verder komen er voor de /r/ tamelijk afwijkende varianten van de /e/, /o/ en /ø/ voor, waarbij de mond zoveel meer geopend is dat ze haast de articulatieplaats van resp. de /I/, /c/ en /ö/ bereiken, en vaak gerekt worden of overlopen in een sjwa (/@/). Voorbeelden hiervan zijn de klinkers in eer, oor en geur.

The Digital Wenker Atlas has maps on the relevant features: Koorn/Kuurn, höört/hüürt, lehrt/lihrt. It shows that the only dialects with this feature are the Mecklenburg dialect and the dialect of the Stade Geest (Northern Brandenburg dialect partially partakes in the shift). It's definitely a secondary shift and not retention of an original feature.

Mecklenburg was indeed settled by Saxons and Dutch/Flemish, but the Saxon element far outweighed the Frankish element. The only region where the Frankish element was strong enough to influence phonology was southern Brandenburg (e.g. in the Fläming region which was named after the Flemish who settled there). See the map Saxon Koken/Kauken vs. Frankish influenced Kuken.

I do not know which exact effect caused the sound shifts before 'r', but 'r' is also responsible for other vowel shifts in other Low Saxon dialects like the shift from 'ar' to 'or' in Low Saxon Boort, German Bart, Dutch baard, English beard.

I do not think, that the phenomenon is Frankish influence, although there was small-scale Dutch settlement in the Stade Geest region too, but if it were Frankish influence you'd expect it in southern Brandenburg too. --::Slomox:: >< 10:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fluency

What percentage of people on Earth are fluent at speaking 6 or more languages? Pass a Method talk 22:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any answers to this exact question, but it should be a substantial number. 11% of citizens of EU can take part in a conversation in at least 4 different languages. In Belgium, the share is over 50% (the languages presumably being Dutch, French, German, and English). How many of them learn two more, that's hard to say, but, once you know the four languages above, it should not be difficult to learn at least Spanish. --Itinerant1 (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source to these numbers? 88.9.210.218 (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are from this survey.--Itinerant1 (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related questions have been discussed at this desk within the past few months (I don't remember the links offhand) and the conclusion is always the same: the numbers will vary a lot depending on what criterion you use for "fluency" and where you get the statistics from.

Anyway, for what it's worth, this user's question seems to just be aimed at "calling out" some other user (see User talk:Debresser#Linguist). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may have a high standard for what should be considered "fluency", but to me it means the ability to understand, say, a radio news broadcast in a language, a written news article on any non-specialist subject, to write grammatically and in a way that native speakers can easily understand, and to speak easily enough and with a sufficient vocabulary to participate in a conversation with native speakers on any non-specialist topic. By that standard, surely only a tiny percentage of Earth's population is fluent in 6 languages. Very likely a majority of Earth's population can operate in a limited way (exchanging pleasantries, asking directions, conducting retail transactions) in two or three languages. Real fluency in two or three languages is less common, but might account for somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% of Earth's population. However, every language beyond the third is going to drastically cut the number of people who are really fluent in all of those languages. Marco polo (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some users add Babel tags to their userpages. Can somebody use this information and tell how many of these users speak 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... languages or dialects? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The definitions for polyglotism may vary, because the distinctions bewteen dialects and independent languages may vary. See especially Dialect#Political factors, and see this humorous video of maybe about 20 years ago, where they claim to have made the "epoch-making discovery" that there isn't just a single language inaccurately referred to as "Serbo-Croatian" (srpskohrvatski) or "Croato-Serbian" (hrvatskosrpski), but instead six different languages exist: Serbian (srpski), Croatian (hrvatski), Bosnian (bosanski), Herzegovinian (hercegovački), Negrian (crnski) and Montian (gorski). The academician demonstrates how diverse and unlike they are by reading out a sample sentence translated into all six languages, but actually reads out "Ja čitam" in all six occasions. Then two videos are played, where the characters speak the same language and use the same words, but still have a language barrier in-between and have to be aided by an interpreter with a multilingual dictionary in order to understand each other.

One might have to work pretty hard to master multiple varieties of a macrolanguage like Chinese, Arabic or Quechua, but that might not be seen as fluency at speaking multiple languages. On the other hand, one could more easily pick up several independently codified closely related languages, and claim to be a polyglot. --Theurgist (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cut out paper dolls = insane?

In The Man From Earth, the protagonist says deprecatingly at one point that he is "cutting out paper dinosaurs." UrbanDic says "cut out paper dolls" means insane, but doesn't explain further. Imagine Reason (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old cliche that people in mental asylums spend their time cutting out paper dolls. "It is rumored he spent his final days in a mental institution, cutting out paper dolls." "Inmates who weren't busy being Napoleon would likely as not be cutting out paper dolls." Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]