Language desk
< February 21	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 23 >

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.

February 22

Middle English

What are the various versions of spelling in Middle English of our word today of "fifth" (between "forth" and "sixth")?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here. (Note that trivial variations of the listed spellings can be seen in the illustrative quotations.) Deor (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OED has "Forms: OE fífta, (fem. & neut. fífte), ME–16 fift(e, (ME fiȝft, ME fyfft), ME south. vifte, ME–15 fyfte, fyfthe, (ME fivet, ME fyvet), ME fyve(þe, -th(e, (ME fifþe, -the), ME–16 fith(e, 15– fifth." [1] "ȝ" is Yogh; perhaps it may not display properly. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Buried in' or 'buried at' a cemetery?

Per this recent change on our Whitney Houston article [2], to my British-English eyes, 'buried in' a cemetery seems to read better than 'buried at' - but is this true in American English? Not an appropriate place for an edit war, but just out of intellectual curiosity, what is the convention? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both look right to me, but I personally prefer "buried in". I come from the US Southeast. Falconus^{p t c} 08:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would use 'buried in' to refer to a grave specifically, but (usually) 'buried at' when referring to the cemetary. I think the former could be used in either scenario though and doubt there would be a strict rule. AJ Cham 13:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either one works, but anecdotal evidence from various conversations with fellow genealogists indicates that buried "in" such-and-such cemetery is used more often than buried "at". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does one spell suffixed words derived from English verbs ending in "-fer" ?

Hello, again!

Some time ago, I noted that there are 6 common verbs in the English language that one stresses on the last syllable, but that do not inflect with a double-consonant. For instance, one would say "She kayaked down the river," and not "She kayakked down the river."

Methinks, however, that when it comes to verbs ending in -fer, the rules of stress do not apply; rather, it is a question of a suffix's etymology. Namely, if a suffix—beginning with a vowel sound—is of Anglo-Saxon or Norse origin, the verb double-inflects. But if said agglutination came to us as an Old French or Latin back-formation, the verb does not.

Viz.

to confer

Nordic suffixes	-s	-ed	-ing
	confers	conferred	conferring
Latinate suffixes	-ence	-ment	-able
	conference	conferment	conferable

to defer

Nordic suffixes	-s	-ed	-ing	-al
	defers	deferred	deferring	deferral
Latinate suffixes	-ment	-able
	deferment	deferable

to prefer

Nordic suffixes	-s	-ed	-ing
	prefers	preferred	preferring
Latinate suffixes	-ence	-able
	preference	preferable

to refer

Nordic suffixes	-s	-ed	-ing	-al	-er
	refers	referred	referring	referral	referrer
Latinate suffixes	-ence	-ment	-able	-ee
	reference	referment	referable	referee

to transfer

Nordic suffixes	-s	-ed	-ing	-al	-er
	transfers	transferred	transferring	transferral	transferrer
Latinate suffixes	-ence	-able	-or	-ee
	transference	transferable	transferor	transferee

Of all the possible explantions, this one seems to make the most sense to me. Am I right, or am I missing something here? Pine (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you, but I pronounce kayak with stress on the first syllable: [ˈkaɪ(j)æk]. And -al is a Latinate suffix, not a Germanic one. Merriam-Webster gives the spellings conferrable and deferrable, while both transferal and transferral are acceptable spellings (though transferal is more common). Referable and preferable are stressed on the first syllable. And I'm not sure the word referment even exists. Angr (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But preferment does. It's not mentioned. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, perhaps it is an issue of stress, after all. I'll double-check with Webster soon, and write down their spellings to see whether they properly align with the—somewhat more prescriptive—OED. At any rate, thank you very much for the answer, Angr, it definitely pointed me in the right direction. (For what it's worth, the very same Webster's dictionary pronounces the verb to kayak as \ˈkī-ˌak\ with a secondary stress on the last syllable; nevertheless, it inflects it as "kayak/kayaks/kayaked/kayaking.")

This is just my speculating, but something very similar may have led me astray; to wit, how one would agglutinate certain verbs ending in a /k/ sound, relative to the etymology of suffixes. Scilicet, how do verbs ending either in "-<vowel> and c", or in "-voke" inflect?

eg.

to traffic

Nordic suffixes	-s	-ed	-ing	-er
	traffics	trafficked	trafficking	trafficker
Latinate suffix	-able
	trafficable

to revoke

Nordic suffixes	-s	-ed	-ing	-er
	revokes	revoked	revoking	revoker
Latinate suffixes	-able	-tion	-ive
	revocable	revocation	revocative

Does suffix etymology play a role in any of this, or am I still in the dark here? Pine (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you spelling British or American? E.g. do you spell cancelled or canceled? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These differences are really due to the nature of c in English, which it inherited from the French: it is "soft" before e, i, and y, and "hard" before a, o, and u. If the suffix begins with e, i, or y, you need to change the c to a k or ck, depending on the length of the vowel. Revoke has a "long o", so it is spelled with a single consonant and e. But since revoce would be pronounced with an /s/, k was used instead. Traffic has a short i, so no e is needed and the c can be left as a c, except in the inflected forms, in which ck is used. Lesgles (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possessive of 'Mice'

I was reading Animals in Translation by somebody by the quaint American name Temple Grandin, and one sentence struck me as odd. The author was talking about "mice's perception". Would this be correct? Technically, the spelling of 'mice' does not end in '-s', so it would probably work along the lines of a similar phrase such as 'children's perception' (both 'mice' and 'children' being plural), but the /s/ at the end of /mais/ threw me and made it sound odd. Is it correct? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mice's is correct. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and why is the plural of (computer) mouse not computer mice?--Radh (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it isn't? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Microsoft style guide for technical writers does; it says to avoid both "mice" and "mouses" and just call them "mouse pointing devices". The rest of us who aren't technical writers for Microsoft can use either "mice" or "mouses" as we please. Angr (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or "meeces". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. Meeces is the plural of moose. You know, as in "I made three chocolate meeces yesterday." Angr (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the plural of BlackBerry should be BlackBerries, but RIM doesn't agree. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Collective noun#Terms of venery (words for groups of animals). (I wonder where I came across the term venery and how did I know it applied here?) ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, how is that link relevant? Angr (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you feel that you have pronounced something wrong (but haven't)

After sharing some pistachios I commented to a friend that whenever I say the word "pistachio" it feels like I've mispronounced it, but I think about it and realise that I was right. My friend said that strangely enough he had the same feeling. I have three questions. Firstly is there something about the letter groups in this word that makes it feel wrong, or is it just coincidence that we both had the same feeling? Secondly, is there a name for this phenomenon of feeling that you have mispronounced something? Thirdly does anyone else have particular words that make them think they have said it wrong? -- Q Chris (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"chio" is a reasonably common sequence in Italian words, where it is pronounced with a /k/: that may be part of why you feel uncomfortable. (Spellings with and without 'h' occurred for "pistachio" in English, French and even in Italian, according to the OED). I have observed that people differ over the consonant they use in "mocha" and "macho": historically, "mocha" is from a place-name in the Middle-East, so it was originally /x/ (like "loch"), but today usually /tʃ/ (like "chocolate"); whereas "macho" is from Spanish, where the consonant is pronounced /tʃ/. My theory is that people are aware that the words are "foreign", but may not be aware of their specific origin, or of the spelling rules appropriate to that origin.

I don'[t know about a name for the phenomenon. I don't have this, but there are words which I always think I've mis-spelt. --ColinFine (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard mocha pronounced with anything but /k/ for the ch. Angr (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same. Have only ever heard it as "mokka". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, with the first syllable like "mock"? I only know it with the first syllable rhyming with "poke". Angr (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like "mock". checking "Mocha" just now, it suggests that I am used to the British pronunciation whereas you are hearing the American pronunciation. But I have always heard it as "mock-a" in Australia as well. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's startling, because I've never heard mocha pronounced in the States other than with a long O, to rhyme with carioca or the first element of Coca-Cola! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's because "pist" sounds like "pissed" ? I have a similar problem with Uranus, which either sounds like "urine us" or "your anus", neither of which seems socially acceptable. StuRat (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As in "philanthropist", for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would once have been like "OO-ran-us". The "yew" is an anglicisation. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, although one could also say "you-RAIN-us" and maybe pre-empt that antique joke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zulu translation

I want to say 'people are people through people' in Zulu. I think it is either 'umuntu umuntu ngabantu', or 'umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu'. My internet searching so far offers both versions. Can anyone give me a clear answer as to which is more correct, and also it would be helpful to know how each of those two phrases translates exactly back to english if you start with the Zulu. Thanks if you can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.219.135 (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Talk:Ubuntu (philosophy)#umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu. Roger (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the Zulu - what does it mean in English? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The English speaking equivalent phrase seems to be no man is an island - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret it as "One only remains fully human through continued interactions with other humans", but I may be reading into it a notion with which I'm already preoccupied. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.23.195} 90.197.66.245 (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember, User:Medeis knows a lot about Zulu. However, he's not been very active on Wikipedia lately. --Theurgist (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks people for the input. My checking in South Africa suggested that umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu is singular, meaning a person is a person through (other) persons'. That umuntu umuntu ngabantu is plural, or closer to people are people through people, and that this is the more common way to express 'ubuntu' in South Africa. For Bugs, of course there is a wiki article on ubuntu the philosophy, but indeed as the poster formerly known as a number understands it, people are people through people suggests that the quality of our humanity is defined by or depends on our appreciation and quality relationships with other people, and the depth of our connections within a community. One can lose his/her ubuntu, through dehumanising violence or trauma, and can get it back, through reconciliation or restored relationships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.219.135 (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is just as untrue that "people are people through people" as it is untrue that "no man is an island." These are just expressions that have their equally valid counterbalancing expressions. I read here that "paddle your own canoe" means to "act independently and decide your own fate." Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least one man that's definitely an island. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of contradictory "truisms". Coming to mind immediately are "He who hesitates is lost" vs. "Look before you leap". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Out of sight, out of mind" vs. "Absence makes the heart grow fonder". Or "'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all" vs. "Owner of a Lonely Heart, much better than the owner of a broken heart". (Okay, maybe 1980s pop lyrics don't exactly count as a "truism".) Angr (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an artist, Jenny Holzer, who does stuff she calls "Truisms". I like her work. Here are some images. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]