Language desk
< August 16	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 18 >

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.

August 17

𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺

Looking at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist/Archive 2, I saw that someone wanted to create 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺 as a redirect to the name of a language, just like how 日本語 redirects to Japanese language. Some searching suggested that 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺 is the endonym for Gothic, so I've created it there. Is this correct? If so, please tell me; if not, please tag it for R3 speedy deletion or retarget it. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help you, since it comes out as all question marks in my browser.... AnonMoos (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct. --Theurgist (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My browser shows it just as boxes, since I've never gotten a Gothic font. Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a reasonable conjecture as far as that goes, apart from the fact that the word is apparently not actually attested in Gothic. As far as I can see, it's been essentially made up on Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: gutisk is not attested, though the ethnonym gutanī (gen. pl.) is - hinting that the language could just as well have been referred to as gutanisk. I seriously doubt that gutisk was the brainchild of a Wikipedian, though: the - admittedly reconstructed - word has long been considered formative in the etymology of Jordanes' Gothiskandza (*gutisk-andja). Not that this justifies replacing the image (which has now been removed). Apparently one man's routine calculation is another man's highly objectionable pseudo-scholarship. Cheers. 178.83.84.5 (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prepositions

Why does one "fall in love" when, in English, you normally fall into something? My language in its contemporary form expresses the senses of location and direction identically except for the verb itself, and we say "be in America", "work in America", but also "go in America", "move in America"; but that's not the case with English and with most other languages. Then, why "fall in love"? --Theurgist (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an idiom. More are listed at List of English language idioms.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Presumably because you are 'in love' and you 'fall', or 'swoon'? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can "gutting" or "gutted" refer to road construction?

I saw the term used (though I can't remember now which form of the verb) in a newspaper article referring to what would take place in a road construction project. I know that "curb and guttering" is done on some projects but I was wondering if this was a proper usage?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would interpret those terms to mean "torn apart", not "working on gutters", if I read "the street was gutted" or "we will be gutting the road". StuRat (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But with the way English is abused by journos these days, I'd never be surprised to read about some road that's been "curbed and gutted", when what they probably meant was "curbed and guttered". More likely to be a problem in the non-rhotic anglosphere. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this part of the non-rhotic anglosphere the correct word is kerb not curb. Sussexonian (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might be the same type of reporters who refer to a certain bird as a "morning dove". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Store "special", in Europe

In the US (at least Detroit), a store or restaurant "special" most often means a regular item is offered at a discount. However, at the German grocery chain Aldi, it seems to mean unusual items offered at a premium price. Is this peculiar to my Aldi, or does "special" have a different meaning in Europe ? (This is obviously an English word, but how about the German cognate ?) StuRat (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure your Detroit "special" is a pan-US (if not pan-Anglosphere) usage; it is the same here in California. The Wiktionary entry for "special" does not list any relevant meaning for the noun besides "A reduction in consumer cost (usually for a limited time) for items or services rendered", which is the familiar meaning. Where Aldi's usage comes from, I couldn't say. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 20:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In German, "Sparpreis" (savings price) is a common term for a special offer. Sometimes they just put "Angebot" which just means offer. I'm not familiar with "Spezial" being used in this context, though "Sonderangebot" is used sometimes. I can't think of what they might put for something that's more of a rarity. Maybe just "Neu"? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Aldi Switzerland uses "Spezialangebot" in the US sense. In German German I'd rather call it a "Sonderangebot". But indeed (at least in German German), "spezial" or "speziell" can also have the meaning of unusual/extraordinary, so in this context it could refer to items that are only temporarily sold at Aldi. At least to me, the word "spezial" itself does not carry any connotations regarding its price. bamse (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can mean both in German, but that Aldi usually uses it in that sense is a result of their particular business model. The central idea behind Aldi is that they try to maximize the number that they sell of each individual product. One aspect is an intentionally very narrow permanent range. Aldi might not sell more butter than other chains, but because everybody buys the same butter from Aldi they are nonetheless able to order impressive numbers from their suppliers. The other aspect are those weekly specials. Those are products that would not sell well enough over a longer time by Aldi's standards. So the general idea is: Never place small orders, always large ones. Everything that doesn't sell in large enough numbers continually is relegated to one-off specials. That allows them to drive a very hard bargain. Then they sell everything at relatively low margins which does not leave much rooms for reduced prices (except to dispose of leftovers from previous specials.) KarlLohmann (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do italian priests address all people as "tu", or is it just television?

I have watched a few episodes of Don Matteo, and noticed that the priest often uses the tu-form of address when he speaks to various people as a priest. The people respond to him using "Lei". On the other hand, when the priest in the series is talking to the carabienieri, he uses "Lei". Is this common in Italian that a catholic priest, in his official capacity, may and should address his parishioners as tu, regardless of who he is speaking to? Is it the same in French? (This question might have been more suitable on the italian Wikipedia, but I am neither capable of formulating the question correctly nor understanding the answer.) --Pxos (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot give a reference, but I would fully expect a priest, when he is standing in the role of 'Father' to a person, to address him in the familiar. See the article tutear which should help you with how to express the terms in Italian. μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They also address him as tu, in the stylized response that goes something like:

Priest: La pace del Nostro Signore Gesú Cristo sia con voi

People: E con il tuo spirito

Given that God Himself is addressed as tu it would seem weird to dare del lei to the priest. But in one-to-one social interactions, I guess it's different. --Trovatore (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that could just be liturgy. In German, when the priest says "Der Frieden des Herrn sei mit euch", the people respond "Und mit deinem Geiste", calling the priest du (and using the archaic dative case of the word Geist), but in ordinary conversation most people would call the priest Sie unless they were close friends of family members—and the priest would likewise call his parishioners Sie unless they were close friends or family members. Angr (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so pretty much identical, but the question is, why is the liturgy that way? I think it makes perfect sense; the priest is supposed to be a brother in Christ and social distinctions are not supposed to obtain in this context. But out in the larger world, they (unforunately?) do.

God is du in German as well, correct? --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The liturgy might originate from Latin, where tu was used all over the place and the remnants carry on to this day, but I fail to see the big (or small) picture. Is the tu-form in the series supposed to tell the (Italian) watchers that the priest is such a figurehead in his community that he can speak to anyone in his fatherly role, is there a subtle meaning to this that I cannot understand, or is it - after all - just television? --Pxos (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that lots of people seem to want to discount the familiarity inherent in the tu-form in these uses, but I am convinced that it is there on purpose. You dai del tu to God because you are supposed to have a personal relationship with God. And then it only makes sense that you would do the same to the priest, when he is engaged in his priestly function. --Trovatore (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The priest talks to others: Hath thou had breakfast yet? The respondent answers: Not yet, kind sir. Thou are not making any sense, Mr. Trovatore. The priest, while in his functions, is allowed to speak in familiar form toward those that he addresses. Not the other way around. --Pxos (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly FYI, that should be hast thou and thou art. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The form "I ain't" used to be correct until some linguists were certain that it wasn't. So the English speaking people are stuck with discussions like: "You are stupid". "Aren't I?". A happy thought. --Pxos (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not the same case. The forms you give are simply not attested, except maybe as late mistakes by people affecting the thou pronoun (like some Quakers, who mangle it). Thou hast and thou art are attested while hath is solely a third person and thou are is not attested except in mistaken affectations. Has nothing to do with the reason why the genuine ain't is criticized. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do the late people make mistakes or do we make mistakes too late? Or, do we all mistake? Or are we all mistaken after all? --Pxos (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should not have capitalized father in my first response. I didn't mean to imply that the priest was standing in for God the Father, just padre. I cannot for the life of me see a priest addressing a confessant as Ud. in Spanish, or a confessant addressing a priest as tú. I could easily see a priest addressing a wealthy donor as Ud. if he were asking for money. But I am only fluent, not native. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for personal address of the priest in Roman Catholic Mass might be found in the Doctrine of him standing In persona Christi. After all the Pater Noster addresses God in the familiar as well. Just some random thoughts from --Abracus (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case it isn't already clear, the liturgy refers to God (and the priest) in the familiar singular as a pointed statement. In fact, before the people say the "Our Father" in the Mass, the priest introduces it as "we dare to say...". This was why older English-language liturgies and Bibles used "thee"s and "thou"s as well as "you"s, to preserve this sense of daring familiarity and meaningful distinction (there are certain New Testament passages that mean something quite different when the singular and plural "you"s are marked). Unfortunately, as English stopped using the familiar second person singular anywhere except in liturgy, it became a weird fossilised person used only to speak to God, which was not only weird but the opposite of the original intention because people thought it was more respectful. If people are referring to the priest as "tu" in the liturgy, and "Lei" outside it, I wonder how much the language has become fossilised for the particular situation, rather than reflecting the intention that we use familiar and friendly terms to address God and the priest. 86.157.148.121 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find that term to be offensive

A lot of people say things like "I find that term to be offensive", and I always wonder just what they mean. They reserve it for negative commentary, because they say "This is a wonderful book", but rarely "I find this to be a wonderful book". Or they say "You're beautiful and I love you and want to marry you", but rarely "I find you to be attractive enough to marry".

Juries and coroners and commissioners of inquiry make findings, after a rational, logical, unemotional and impartial examination of all the evidence. But there's nothing rational or logical or unemotional about whether a word causes offence or not. It's based entirely on emotive factors. Take "negro", for example. Once upon a time, it was widely used and completely acceptable. It was generally used in a neutral and matter-of-fact way, without any racist overtones. Now, it's not. But the word hasn't changed. The spelling hasn't changed. The pronunciation hasn't changed. What's changed is the meaning our culture generally attributes to it. It isn't really true that the word itself has changed from neutral to offensive. I just used it above, and I'd be surprised if anyone was offended by that. It's how and in which contexts and to whom and with what purpose it is used that introduces offence. It could be accurate to say "That word was used in an offensive way", or even "You/he used that word to cause offence". But "I find that word to be offensive"? Nah, not really. So, why would people go into judge mode when talking about these sorts of negative words, rather than simply reporting their own experience, e.g. "I feel insulted/offended by that expression"?

Or maybe they're not personally insulted/offended, but feel some obligation to assume the offence presumably caused to others. And maybe they're culturally invited to adopt judge mode because we talk about "offensive words", as if these words had their own power which they themselves were wielding. But that's not actually the case.

So, is this simply a form of linguistic short-hand? That might explain some instances. It's hard/impossible to tell in written contexts like here, but when people have said "I find that term to be offensive" in my earshot out there in RL, they usually accompany it with complex non-verbals that suggest superiority, exactly as if they were an irascible judge sitting on high and handing down a judgement on a despicable evil-doer. That's the real meaning, it seems to me: a culturally acceptable opportunity to assume and display superiority.

I'd like to read more about this, because I'm fascinated in the precise formulations of words and expression that people tend to come out with, which very often do not mean what they think they mean. And I'm fascinated in the process whereby we take that raw material from their lips or pens, and convert it into something of meaning in our brains. But I want links for laypersons, not ones full of ~~linguistic mumbo-jumbo~~ sesquipedelian technical expressions. Thanks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find this Q to be in need of condensing. StuRat (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Jack, as regards negro, you didn't use it; you mentioned it. Someone might indeed have been offended if you had actually used it, though the rational basis for this offense eludes me as well. --Trovatore (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Are you asking why people are offended by certain words, or are you asking about the "to be" part? Seems like you're asking about both at once. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Bielle's answer below, Nyttend. She understood exactly what I'm on about. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments. It's epistemic sophistication that makes many people say they find a term offensive. They realize that a word's being offensive is not an inherent matter. You can say, "Most people find the term queer offensive, but I don't." That is a little better thought out than saying "People think 'queer' is offensive, but it isn't." As for negro, the word is disconcerting because it has dropped out of regular usage, so when it is used, it brings attention to the word itself, rather than simply being used for transparent communication. One would hardly go around saying, "I hate you, you gosh darn negro." It sounds silly; there are harsher words. But a 40 year old mother of a Jewish woman who said her "daughter broke up with Jacob, and now she's dating a black guy" would be interpreted quite differently if she said, "and now she's dating a negro." The word is not so much offensive as it is marked. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I find that . . ." is distancing -further away from the speaker than "I think that" and "I believe that. . ." and much further away than "That is . . .". It allows the speaker to suggest an intellectual rather than a gut reaction, and thus a reaction that should receive a more considered acceptance. It is patronizing for that reason and intellectually dishonest. (And, yes, I do use it myself.) YMMV Bielle (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, distancing. Unwillingness to report one's own experience, which is an emotional matter, choosing rather to describe it in generalised intellectual terms. It's even further than that, in fact. That approach would be covered fully by "That is an offensive expression". But when they turn it into "I find that expression to be offensive", that's the whole other ball game I'm talking about. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And patronising, yes, there's an element of that there. "I find ..." is a cousin of "I fail to see ...". Nobody ever says "I succeed in seeing your point". But when they want to be patronising, then it's "I fail to see your point", rather than just "I don't understand your point". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It might possibly be argued that in some contexts people with similar viewpoints to mine may find that expression to be offensive."--Shirt58 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't more strongly disagree. Were I to say, "Some people are offended by the word queer but I don't find it offensive," there would be nothing patronizing about it. Of course there are a lot of patronizing people who will say things like "I find that offensive" in a patronizing manner. That doesn't mean the statement in its literal sense is patronizing. μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very little in its literal sense is patronizing. The word pertains to attitude rather than to exact words. Were I to hear you say, for example,"Some people are offended by the word queer but I don't find it offensive," without having heard any more of the context, my whole perception of what you meant would depend upon the tone in which you said it and the body language you were displaying while you said it. Generally, that kind of statement is in response to someone who has taken some offense, in which case, it is probably patronizing. However, in a purely intellectual discussion of things which do and don't give offense, it may be heard much more neutrally. Bielle (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that entirely. I meant my example in a neutral tone. I could easily, having worked at Christopher Street magazine (where the term was excoriated) imagine saying it cattily or otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you started out with "Some people are offended by the word queer ...", why wouldn't you finish with a parallel construction, like "... but I am not offended by it"? Why bring "I find" into it at all? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because find implies I have a considered opinion on the issue, whereas if I say I am simply not offended it could be because 'I hate faggots' and not because I have come to an intellectual position. μηδείς (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I have heard the phrase used in the "damning with faint praise" sense, which is a type of positive. An example might be: "I found the book told a good story, but its language use was pedestrian." I might also say to someone I thought had unjustifiably panned a book I liked: "I found it to be quite well written." In the latter case, the point might be patronizing (with an emphasis on the "I") but it might also indicate a hesitancy to make a public commitment (there's that distancing factor again) for fear of a strong, negative reaction in another party to the conversation. Bielle (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the negative sense you perceive is an accident of the survival of an older usage in a particular phrase. E.g., it was once common to say things like, "The play received perfectly awful reviews, but I found it delightful," or "I found him in very good health." Where once we used to "find" things, now they just "are", for the most part. -- Elphion (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really "damning with faint praise". 86.181.203.46 (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rather suspect that it's a polite alternative to something like, "How dare you talk that way to my face?" That is, they're trying to keep the discussion civil. Kind of like if someone says, "I disagree", as opposed to, "You're an idiot." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misaimed description

There is a figure of speech used for humor where we have two things, begin to describe one of them, and then "and the other is..." and we mention the thing we were supposed to be describing. Which implies that the description was about the other thing, not the most evident one. For example, there is a mafia boss with a visible dangerous dog, and we describe the pair as "Look! There is an animal with sharp teeth, fine instincts and no mercy; and his pet" (I'm making the example on the fly, but surely you get the idea). Which is the name for this? Cambalachero (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but another example was on Keeping Up Appearances, where the dog barked at Hyacinth, causing her to scream. Onslow then yelled out the window "Shut up, ya daft bitch ! ...And you, too, dog." StuRat (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or "I'm just going outside to have a couple of fags. And after that, I'll probably have a cigarette or two." :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHaHaHahahaha! μηδείς (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between Michael Jackson and a plastic bag?

One is white, plastic and dangerous to young children, the other is for carrying your groceries.

(Worked better when he was alive.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Doonesbury a few years ago: What's the difference between the Hindenburg and Rush Limbaugh? One is a flaming Nazi gasbag, the other is a dirigible. [insert rimshot here] Or this oldie: A fat guy walks into a bar with a duck perched on his shoulder. The bartender says, "What are doing here with that pig?" The guy says, "This happens to be a duck!" The bartender says, "I was talking to the duck!" [insert another rim shot here] And perhaps a cousin of that kind of joke: Columbus is approaching a West Indian island, and the locals are shooting arrows and throwing spears. A crew member says, "Chris, those natives are hostile!" Columbus says, "Yeh, and they're mad too!" [insert... well, you know] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." [1]

I don't get the Columbus joke.... PS not sure if this one's PC (I think it is where I come from though I haven't been there for a while) but anyway: A guy at a psychiatrist's: Doctor, I have the same nightmarish dream every night: my mother-in-law walking her pet crocodile. Just imagine, these bared teeth, that squinted look, those eyes burning with hatred, that cold, knobby skin! -Terrifying, indeed. -Wait, I haven't told you about the crocodile yet! :)Уга-уга12 (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good name for it might be "comic misdirection", though that's not necessarily the accepted term (it gets some Google hits, but not too many). AnonMoos (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tv tropes calls it a Bait-and-switch Comparison http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BaitAndSwitchComparison 68.160.52.191 (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Substratum in Swedish?

Is there any kind of Uralic or Lapp (Saami) substratum in Swedish? Are there many substrate words derived from Saami or other Uralic languages? Thanks.Van Gulik (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Respondents may find the article "Stratum (linguistics)" to be helpful.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Some historical linguists think that the large number of Germanic words which are not found in any other branches of the Indo-European language family reflects substratrum influences operating at a time when the early Germanic languages were mainly confined to Scandinavia. The time when Swedish had emerged as a separate language may be too late for substratum influences of that type (though obviously foreign borrowing might occur at any time)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fully versed in Swedish or any Uralic languages, but I have studied the linguistic history of the area and am familiar with the characteristics of the Germanic, the Saami languages, and the Fennic languages. I highly doubt any direct strong direct influence on Swedish. Its development seems to follow naturally from internal developments within the North Germanic languages. There is the borrowing pojke "boy" from Finnish poika which is a native term going back to the Proto-Uralic language. (The English word is probably a borrowing too.)

There is the Germanic substrate hypothesis which posits a substrate as an explanation for the origin of the Proto-Germanic language. That seems much more likely, and it has a specifically Uralic version. See The Uralic and Finno-Ugric Phonetic Substratum in Proto-Germanic. But again, the vocabulary is mostly lacking, and to me an Old-European Bell-Beaker culture-related substrate (Think Picts, Basques, and maybe Rhaeto-Etruscan) seems more likely, given that they were seafaring, and none of the seafaring vocabulary of Germanic can be related to Uralic. Proto-Germanic is most closely related to Proto-Balto-Slavic language. My gut feeling is that pre-Balto-Slavic may have had a Fenno-Ugric substrate, and that, before it was Satemized, a westernmost pre-Balto-Slavic corded ware culture group from the east Kurganized an Old-European megalithic culture from the west, resulting in the Proto-Germanic peoples of the Danish peninsula. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers, and for the great link, μηδείς. Substratum is such a fascinating subject; it's always interesting to speculate regarding substratum in Ancient Greek, for example.Van Gulik (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that Wiik's hypothesis, while interesting reading, is highly controversial and virtually no linguist takes it seriously. --William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 02:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Germanic substrate hypothesis is not dismissed out of hand, although there are those who argue against it. The glottalic hypothesis would argue that Germanic consonantism is primitive, not derived. I brought up Wiik because Van Gulik asked about Uralic, not because I credit Wiik's specific hypothesis. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree that the Germanic substrate hypothesis is valid. I should have made it more clear that I was referring specifically to Wiik's claims that the substrate in question was Finnic (/Uralic).--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 02:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume, Van Gulik, you have read about the various susbtratum theories (Austronesian and Ainu) in relation to Japanese (and Austronesian for Korean)? I can mention others. μηδείς (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read about the substratum theories about Austronesian and Japanese, but not about Austronesian and Korean. I personally find the Japanese-Austronesian substratum hypothesis more believable than the Japanese/Altaic hypothesis. Can you tell me a bit about the Austronesian/Korean substratum theory? I'm very curious.Van Gulik (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find anything easily at google scholar, but the chapter on Korean by Nam-Kil Kim in Comrie's The World's Major Languages mentions (without any specificity) similarities between Austronesian and Korean in the honorific system, numerals, body part names and similarities in rice cultivation, tattooing, matrilineality, and a myth of an egg as the birthplace of royalty. He says linguists are not sympathetic, and gives much more shrift to the Altaic hypothesis. μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. How well accepted is the Altaic theory among mainstream academics? It certainly has some strong support, but so does Greenberg's Nostratic, for that matter.Van Gulik (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Altaic is quite well supported by the evidence, Nicholas Poppe demonstrated its validity in his Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen (Comparative grammar of the Altaic languages. Part I: Comparative phonology), see his Introduction to Altaic Linguistics for a more approachable English work. The bi/min 1st person nom/gen correspondence alone virtually proves it. Poppe meticulously reconstructs the proto-phonology and gives regular sound correspondences.

Unfortunately, it became fashionable in the 60's to deconstruct comparative work. Doerfer and Clauson suggested on the basis of negative evidence and ad hoc supposition that Altaic was invalid and correspondences in Mongolian and Tungusic were based on borrowing. Once the supposition of borrowing was made, without any actual evidence of it, they held the burden of proof to be on the one supporting genetic relatedness. It would be like saying German and English are clearly unrelated because Kopf and "head" are not cognates, and unless you can prove otherwise, correspondences like Hand and "hand" are more economically explained by borrowing.

Poppe reconstructed *padak for PA "foot" from Turkish ayak, Mongolian *hadag Tungusic *pagdi and Korean patak ("foundation"). Note that there is no way to borrow the eastern forms from the Turkish with its zero initial. (Poppe shows plenty of examples of Altaic *p- to 0- in Turkish.) Clauson called reconstructing a p>h>0 evolution "using wildcards" and said that one could "prove anything" with starred proto-consonants.

Unfortunately, recent work has not been helpful. Sergei Starostin's huge Etymological dictionary of the Altaic languages is chock full of vague random resemblances and ad hoc pleading for etymologies that are not really there. He basically loads a bunch of phonological and lexical nonsense on top of Poppe's valid work, obscuring the issue and severely harming the case. In the meantime, when they do face the evidence, Clauson's followers have come to the point of re-reconstructing what is actually proto-Altaic under the name of Proto-Turkic, (actually pre-Prot-Turkic, since they use what they presume are "borrowings" in the other Altaic languages from this "proto-Turkic, 'even when those forms are not found in any Turkic language) and then 'explaining' eastern correspondences as being derived from this pre-Turkic. Greenberg's short article Does Altaic Exist? addresses this all rather well, and you should read it now. (Although, beware, Greenberg's position that Japanese and Korean group with Ainu (!) rather than Macro-Altaic is as silly as saying French and Spanish are related to Basque, not to English or Russian.) See also, Japanese and Other Altaic Languages (History and structure of languages) by Roy Andrew Miller (well worth the dollar at amazon) which shows regular sound correspondences between Japanese and Turkic that can only be explained by common descent, not borrowing. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the Japanese-Korean-Ainu bit, I think that was Greenberg at his best. There's certainly a strong pro-Altaic case; I've been trying to find a strong anti-Altaic argument, but most of the ones I've found have been of shoddy scholarship, many with a Japanese nationalist slant. Do some linguists take the differences between the Japanese dialects of the south (not including the Ryukyuan languages) and those of the north to be a difference in substratum; i.e., a Malayo-Polynesian or other Austronesian substratum in the south and an Ainu or Gorguryeo substratum in the north?Van Gulik (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My interest in Japanese, except for its relation with Altaic, is only general, I do not speak or read it. My very limited contact with Ryukyuan, which is, as far as I can tell, basically just the southern extension of the Japanese dialect chain, has been in a comparative context, and I have never come across any serious mention of a substrate influence on it. (My impression is that its character is due to internal developments, isolation and drift.) I suspect that a rather big deal would be made of it if there were any plausible evidence. A quick search of google scholar for "ryukyuan language austronesian substrate" doesn't return anything of obvious value. More of interest to me are such things as the word ishikoro, "pebble", which breaks into two roots each having cognates in Old Turkish, tash and görö, both meaning stone. The intervening dialects (Chuvash, Mongol, etc.,) have words for stone of the form TVl- such as Chuvash чул http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Swadesh_lists_for_Turkic_languages and Mongol чулуу. This correspondence of sh in the Shaz Turkish dialects to l in the Chuvash language, Mongol and Tungus has been the basis for reconstructing a second l₂ phoneme. The presence of it in Japanese is confirmatory, and indicates that the word must go back to Altaic rather than being a borrowing from a neighboring dialect that collapsed the difference between the l₁ and l₂ phonemes. For more, read Japanese and Other Altaic Languages (History and structure of languages) by Roy Andrew Miller. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ishikoro breaks into two, ishi and koro. ishi means stone, but koro doesn't. According to Daijisen [2], koro, as a component of compound, denotes something small or round. Examples given are ishikoro (small stone or pebble) and inukoro (small dog). Given the Chinese character wikt:転 in the heading, and related word korokoro[3], it does not seems koro itself is related to stone. --Kusunose 06:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to see if I can find Miller in storage and get back to you, since I am going on what I remember of his authority. μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the Miller reference and continued the discussion as a new thread, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Is_Japanese_an_Altaic_Language μηδείς (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]