Language desk
< January 12	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 14 >

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.

January 13

Intervocalic alveolar flapping in "Importance"

Do people in America pronounce the <t> in <importance> as an alveolar tap (as in "butter"), or a glottal stop (as in "button")? Or does it depend on the speaker? Thanks. --Kjoonlee 00:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

America is a big place with many dialects and accents, I suspect you would find both variations. I personally use the alveolar tap, but I don't know if that is universally American. I suspect you would find all sorts of variations. --Jayron32 01:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use the glottal stop in importance. Angr (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The glottal stop is certainly the usual pronunciation in my speech; you would only get the alveolar tap if you somewhat stressed the last syllable of the word, which doesn't sound very natural. AnonMoos (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, what dialect of English do you speak? I find it hard to believe that [ɾ] could occur for the <t> in 'importance' in any variety of English - the [ɹ] immediately preceding would make it difficult to tap without trilling (which no American would consider Standard English) Are you sure it is not [ʔ] as Angr said, or even [tʰ], as it is for me? [ɾ] in that position would seem to be a stereotypical Slavic accent. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I speak a fairly "neutral" variety of American English, with a bit of influence from my native New England accent which creaps in in a few places. I definately tap the roof of my mouth with my tounge at the "t" in importance; it isn't a glottal stop. The toungue stays in contact with the roof through the n, (I don't really pronounce the "a") and then slides forward and down slightly for the sibilant ce. The tap doesn't happen for the "r", it happens for the "t". The r is either an approximant r, either retroflex or alveolar, I can't really tell the distinction. But at no point is my glottis involved. --Jayron32 05:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I pronounce it similarly to Jayron which I would say is [ɪmpɔɹt̚n̩s] with an unreleased [t]. RamsesWPE (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24.92.85.35 --- There's a retroflex-tap sequence (or maybe a retroflex-flap sequence; I never did understand the distinction very well) in the ordinary pronunciation of words such as "shorter" and "border" in my idiolect... AnonMoos (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so americans don't just omit the “r” sound and say just “im-paw-tance”, even in words like this where it would be really convenient, lest they are thought British? – b_jonas 08:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are words where Americans drop the "r", but this isn't one of them. "Governor", usually pronounced /ˈɡʌvənɚ/, is one of them. Since we do pronounce the second "r" in that word, though, no one will suspect us of being non-rhotic. Angr (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they wouldn't. The "r" in "importance" is treated like "r" in any other word. It has nothing to do with being thought British. ~Besides, there are some American accents that are arhotic, like RP, in New England, New York and the South, just as there are some British accents that are rhotic, like American, in the West Country, for example. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping the "r" would make it sound similar to "impotence" which could be rather embarrassing.--Colapeninsula (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there anybody here who pronounces it: /impordns/ ? 77.127.119.214 (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[ɪmpɔrʔns], General American. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, would [ɪmpɔrdns] sound unnatural? 77.127.119.214 (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It would sound quite unnatural. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about " ~~butten~~ button"? must it be pronounced [bʌʔn], or may it also be pronounced [bʌɾn] or maybe even [bʌdn] (as far as American accents are concerned)? 77.127.119.214 (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "button"? That has to be [bʌʔn̩] or [bʌtn̩]. A [ɾ] or [d] sounds quite unnatural to me. Angr (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 77.127.45.32 (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

???I pronounce the t's the same in button and butter, and I also pronounce the t in importance. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you may not have a "General American" type of accent... AnonMoos (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, I do. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article T glottalization, in describing American English, states "The T in coda position is changed to something somewhat similar to the glottal, but the tip of the tongue hits the roof of the mouth, but doesn't flap (there is no designated IPA symbol for this). In words where the T is not the first sound in the word and is followed by a short vowel, it may instead become an alveolar tap R (for example, the intervocal T in butter or neater)." The article goes on to note that the T becomes fully glotallized when before a short vowel-n combination (as in importance), but it mustn't be universal, as I don't do this. I pronounce the "t" as described in the quote I provided. --Jayron32 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.

@The Mark of the Beast, you've written: "So far as I know, I do". Note that "So far as I know", instead of "As far as I know", is generally a Britishism. So, maybe your pronouncing the t in "importance" is a Britishism as well. Are your parents Americans? 84.229.64.109 (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark of the Beast, I can say very confidently that if you pronounce the ts the same in "button" and "butter" then you are not speaking a General American accent. Neither [bʌɾn̩] nor [bʌʔr] are American pronunciations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that no one has bothered to explain to Mark of the Beast, who is presumably a non-linguist, that in American English [t], [tʰ], and [ɾ] are all allophones of the same phoneme /t/, so while he might believe he is pronouncing them the same, he is actually pronouncing them differently without thinking about it.

@Mark of the Beast: Try saying these words (normally, do not try to emphasize the <t>) top, stop, butter, button. You should notice that the <t> in 'top' has a little puff of air that comes with it, whereas the <t> in 'stop' does not and almost sounds like you are saying 'sdop'. The ⟨tt⟩ in 'butter' might sound like a 'd' said quickly, almost like 'BUH-der'. The ⟨tt⟩ in button might sound like the t in top, or it might sound like 'BUH(t)-n', with a held t (i.e., your tongue does not leave your alveolar ridge to release any air). 24.92.85.35 (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My father grew up in Northern California, my mother in Oklahoma. They are American. :) I can say without hesitation that I do not use a glottal stop in those words. And I really can't read IPA. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you use a glottal stop in both of them. But if you 'pronounce' the <tt> in "butter" (rather than flapping it, like budder) then you are not speaking with a General American accent. Likewise, if you do flap it in "button" (i.e., like buddon) then you are not speaking with a General American accent. These words just don't have the same t in American English. See 24.92.85.35's message above for a more detailed explanation. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian

In Romanian, are the given name "Ion" and the word "ion" pronounced the same? "ion" is a word of two syllables: i-on, and not yon. What about "Ion"? --Theurgist (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Romanian phonology, it would be 'yon'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I've always thought it. But according to Romanian phonology, "ion" would also be yon. While there are good etymological reasons why it's not, I recently saw the name "Ion" transcribed as [iˈon] in the lead of a Wikipedia article, and hence the question. --Theurgist (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian native speaker here. This is a good question, and I'm ashamed to say that I'm not really sure about the whole thing... I've definitely heard the name Ion pronounced in two syllables, and I pronounce it like that on occasion as well. Sometimes it seems like the two-syllable version is used for emphasis: "A venit cu Ion". "Cu I-on?!" I have also pronounced the chemistry ion in one syllable, contrary to what the DEX says... Also, I don't know what you guys are referring to with yon - if it's pronounced in the General American way, such as in yonder, then it's definitely wrong 80.122.178.68 (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you pronounce Romanian ion in one syllable if not like the first syllable of yonder? Is it just the quality of the o-vowel that you're calling "definitely wrong"? Is it more like yawn or "yoan" (if that were a word)? Angr (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the o-vowel. It's more like "yoan", indeed, but shorter. 80.122.178.68 (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'yon' is a Romanian pronunciation respelling. How else could I have written it? 'ion' is ambiguous, and nothing else would do. Interesting. And what's with derivatives and diminutives like Ioan, Ioana, Ionuț, Ionel, Ionescu? --Theurgist (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of English when I saw yon because you almost never see y in Romanian. Our article mentions the word yacht, but AFAIK it's been spelled iaht for a long time. Ionuţ, Ionel, and Ionescu: Io-nuţ, Io-nel, Io-nes-cu(there are some people who say I-o-nel, but it sounds like something someone "from the country" would say - I've never heard the hiatus in the beginning for Ionuţ or Ionescu). Ioan and Ioana and pronounced differently, since the "oa" is a diphthong: Ioan is pronounced I-oan, while Ioana can also be pronounced with a tripthong at the beginning: Ioa-na (but it's mostly I-oa-na). 80.122.178.68 (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese

hi. I was idly ressearching Mao because Chinese history is an interest of mine and I came across a mention that he was a poet and his poems are still studied in Chinese schools. Was this because they were actually good, or just because he was the supreme leader and founder of the country, the personality cult that developed around him? Thanks. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of a Humanities Desk question... AnonMoos (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) It is because he was the founder of the country. There was no personality cult in China, like we see in North Korea. And subjectively speaking, his poems were not pretty good. Li Bai et al were far better. But that is just opinion. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with "There was no personality cult in China...". Mao's Little Red Book was a lot like Mein Kampf, practically mandatory reading for anyone who wanted to stay out of trouble. The large posters of Mao all over the place were another indication. StuRat (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, i had a copy of that when I was at school in China. There was no personality cult. Most young people of my age (at that time - 1993) hated him because of the Cultural Revolution which ended up destroying 5,000 years of culture. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KageTora -- The ordinary definition of "personality cult" is a relentless and pervasive government campaign of official glorification, regardless of whether everybody is persuaded by the campaign or not... AnonMoos (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Mao is no longer treated like a god doesn't mean that he wasn't once. The objects of personality cults often are discredited after death, as happened with Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand others disagree about the personality cult, such as this and this. Also things like Chairman Mao has given us a happy life give a very good impression of one. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think KageTora is speaking of post-1976 China, when the personality cult of Mao had been dismantled. Before 1976, there was definitely a personality cult.

Mao's poetry is still praised as being very good in official literary criticism, with such opinions usually emphasising the epic and heroic tones of the poems. On the other hand, more recent and possibly more objective scholarship tends to say that Mao's literary achievements were exaggerated by sycophantic reviewers.

Associated with the view that Mao wrote good poetry is the view that Mao's calligraphy was brilliant, a view which remains quite widely held today. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction: the poster actually says "the happy life that Chairman Mao has given us", not "Chairman Mao has given us a happy life".

I'm probably a generation younger than KageTora, and 2 generations younger than people living during the Cultural Revolution. From the few years I went to school in China, I only remember 1 poem from Mao in my textbooks. Many of the articles we learned in class were propaganda pieces glorifying the accomplishments of the People's Liberation's Army, but aside from that 1 poem, I don't remember reading an actual work of Mao, and I've never seen Mao's Handbook. Interestingly, my 6th grade teacher discussed Mao's poetry, but had a low opinion of it. In denouncing the Cultural Revolution, she said that Mao became too arrogant and thought his poetry was superior to that of everyone else. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Between 1976 and the late 1980s there was a concerted effort on the part of the Chinese government and the communist part to purge Mao from text books. 140, I am probably closer to KageTora's age and thus a little older than you, and in my day there were no propaganda pieces about Mao in the school textbooks at all. Greater emphasis was placed on the legacy of Zhou Enlai and Zhu De, who were presented as the "nice guys" among that first generation of communist leaders.

It was only in the late 1990s and thereafter that there has been an unfortunate resurgence in the glorification of Mao, glossing over the horrors of his reign. This was when banknotes were gradually replaced with portraits of Mao, and Mao began also to creep back into school textbooks. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I didn't know about this re-glorification process until now. I went to school in China from the mid to late 2000's, and I'm too young to remember anything from the 1990's, so my memories fit pretty well with the historical circumstances. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rainforest layers in Chinese

I need to know the scientific terms for the rainforest layers (emergent layer, canopy, understory, and forest floor) in Chinese. From canopy (biology)'s interwiki link, I surmise canopy is 林冠; can someone help me with the other three layers? I'm looking for the actual scientific terms that would be used in, for instance, a Chinese-language ecology paper. I can do "literal" word-by-word translations myself--for example, doing that, I can translate "forest floor" as 林地--but my literal word-by-word translations may not actually be the scientific terms, and I am looking for the scientific terms. Thanks in advance. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 07:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some searching and haven't yet found the exact list of layers that you want, but I've found several other versions.

This (English version here) gives

树冠层 (overstory)
冠层 (canopy)
林下叶层 (understory)
矮树层 (shrub layer)
地面表层 (ground level)

This gives

乔木层 (arboreal layer)
灌木层 (shrub layer)
草本及地被层 (herbaceous layer and ground layer)

although it also mentions that these layers can be divided into more sublayers. It seems that the level of granularity in describing these layers is different in our Wikipedia article than in what I've found on Chinese sites so far. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I looked more closely, it sounds like the "emergent layer" is the same thing as the "overstory", and the forest floor probably comprises both the shrub layer and the ground layer(s). So I would probably translate your four layers as: 森林树冠层、林冠层、林下叶层、and 地被层 (the last is literally just "ground layer" though). rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To OP: it is generall not valid to translate word-to-character - 林地 means "woodland", not "forest floor" - but it can be helpful to look up the whole term in a dictionary. For example, from a quick online search "forest floor" apparently translates as "森林地被物" or "森林地面".

Alternatively, I have found a couple of sources which use a similar scheme to the ones you prefer:

http://blog.onlycollege.com.cn/29833/viewspace-18757 (an education-related blog):

* emergent layer: 露生层

* canopy: 树冠层

* understory 灌木层

* forest floor 地面层

http://aer2.sbc.edu.hk/~twf/AL%20Geo/vegetation04.ppt (from a school in Hong Kong) has:

* emergent layer: 露生層

* canopy: 樹冠層

* young tree layer: 矮樹層／中間層

* shrub tree layer: 灌木層

* undergrowth layer: 低生植物層

Hope that helps. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct english form?

wider than higher or wider than high? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.8.51 (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

most people would say "wider than it is high" or, some completely different variation like width greater than height etc. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"wider than high" is definitely more common and probably more correct, though Google suggests "wider than higher" is at least a fairly common mistake. Compare "smaller than small", "more stupid than evil", etc, which use the comparative first and plain adjective second. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antonym for "Envy"

In Norwegian, the word for Envy has a corresponding antonym ("Unne" vs "Misunne"). The word is used to describe when you are happy for someone elses desirable qualities, achievements or possessions. When a good friend gets something you think (s)he deserves, your feelings on that would be the opposite of envy. It strikes me that this word does not exist in English, and you would need a phrase ("I'm glad to hear that"/"I'm happy for your [insert benefit here]") to express the same exact meaning. Is that correct, or have I missed something? DI (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that a different opposite is possible. If envy is wishing you were in someone else's circumstances, the opposite could be when you are glad you are not. The old expression "There for but the grace of God go I" and the new expression "It sucks to be you" seem to cover this. Or, we could get yet another antonym if we interpret the opposite of "being unhappy with somebody's good fortune" as "being happy with somebody's misfortune". German has a good word for this: schadenfreude. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English does not have a direct antonym of "envy". Thesaurus.com has a few words listed: see http://thesaurus.com/browse/envy , but I wouldn't describe any of them as good direct antonyms of envy; that is a word that means the true opposite of envy. In English, if we wanted to convey that one felt the opposite of envious for a person, you might say something like "I feel very happy for them," which idiomatically means roughly that you are the opposite of envious; but there is no single word which directly and succinctly captures the concept you are looking for. --Jayron32 14:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about pride? Can you be proud of someone else (instead of for your own achievements? – b_jonas 16:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making one deadly sin the antonym of another? But no, being proud of someone isn't the same thing as being happy for them. Angr (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The antonym ought to be disenvy or disenvious, but neither are in common usage (or apparently in any dictionaries). Perhaps it's a little similar to disgruntled where we're left with the antonym of a word that's fallen into disuse? Blakk and ekka 16:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about antonyms to 'envy' in other languages than English? --95.34.141.48 (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Esperanto you just reverse the word by appending "mal" to the front of the word. Don't know enough about other languages to say; but you might check Norwegian-Whatever dictionaries. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German has Gönnen/Missgönnen, which I assume are cognate with the Norwegian terms. Angr (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closest to a real antonym in terms of current usage I can think of is "disdain." Collect (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that doesn't capture the sense the OP is looking for. Disdain is "actively disliking what other's have", whereas the OP is looking for the sense of "happy for someone else for what they have". English has the word "content", meaning "happy in what you yourself has", which is kinda-sorta another antonym of envious, but still doesn't capture the sense that the OP is looking for. English simply doesn't have an equivalent word meaning something like "vicarious contentment" or "being happy that someone else has good stuff". It just doesn't exist in English. --Jayron32 19:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going back to Shakespeare on this one <g>. "Disdain" means you do not want something the other person has, while "envy" means that you do want it. Collect (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disdain means that what the other has is not worthy of you wanting it. The OP is asking for the sense that the thing that the other has is worthy of wanting and that you want it for them rather than yourself. That isn't what disdain means. The OP specifically states they want a word that means, in their own words, "you are happy for someone elses desirable qualities, achievements or possessions" Disdain and happiness are not compatible concepts, and as such, that word doesn't work. --Jayron32 20:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comity is close. Also, just saying that you are "not envious" conveys that you are happy for something someone else has, received, or achieved. Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't convey that sense to me. "Not envious" says you are really glad it's not you, for whatever reason. You wouldn't envy someone who literally has the Midas touch, for example. I would not envy someone who wins $50 million in a lottery, who's never had more than $1,000 in the bank. "I don't dislike him" conveys something rather different from "I like him". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as Jack says, when I say "I'm not envious of him" that is almost always used as a litotes. In English "I am not envious of him" almost always means the same as "Wow, sucks to be him!" In other words, it is an expression of disdain rather than compassion or comity, as the OP seems to be looking for. --Jayron32 20:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But "sucks to be him" is more an expression of sympathy than disdain. And I'd say "I don't envy him" is more likely to have that meaning than "I am not envious of him". I would be most likely to interpret "I am not envious of him" as meaning literally exactly what it says, no more, no less. Angr (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Jack. The Norwegian word "Unne" has a very precise and unambigous meaning. It means that you are genuinely happy for the other person's fortune and that you acknowledge that it is well deserved. Stating that you are not envious, could very well mean that you do not recognize the value of whatever benefit the other person has received or even that you are glad not to be in his shoes.DI (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angr, I can't imagine how you'd even get to be talking about envy or lack thereof in the first place, unless envy was already a subject under discussion. If someone said "I wish I had Bill Gates's millions" (not to deprive him of his own property, but to have as much themselves), that's an expression of envy. To that, you might say "I'm not envious of him", meaning that you have no such feelings. That statement would be made specifically to counter the previous statement. But if there was no such previous statement, and there had been no mention of envy from anyone, and you came out with "I'm not envious of him", people would be right to question you about that, because there's virtually no difference between the meaning of that form of words and that of "I don't envy him" in that context. It's as pointed a statement as saying, without any prior discussion of murder, "I've never had the desire to kill anyone". While agreeing with the sentiment, any person in their right mind would immediately wonder why you made that statement. They'd look at you almost as strangely as if you'd said you were thinking of killing someone. This is what suggestion is all about. Just saying a word, even if only to deny it, brings whatever it connotes into the consciouness of the listener. So, if you said, out of the blue, "I'm not envious of him", you're now talking about envy when up till then nobody was talking or even thinking of envy, but now they are thinking of it. See the power words can have. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the input so far. It seems that a word truly is non-existing. StuRat's reference to Schadenfreude above inspired me to list all four possible combinations of feelings of happiness or unhappiness towards someone's fortune or misfortune:

1) Happiness for someone's fortune - No English word (Gönnen in German, as suggested by Angr)

2) Happiness for someone's misfortune - No English word (Schadenfreude, as suggested by StuRat)

3) Unhappiness for someone's fortune - Envy

4) Unhappiness for someone's misfortune - Sympathy

Would that in a way sum things up?DI (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if envy is simply unhappiness for someone's fortune. To me it implies wanting that fortune for yourself. Informally at least, envy often implies only wanting someone else's fortune for yourself without necessarily wanting them not to have it. For example, a friend of mine once told me she envied me my religious faith. She didn't mean she didn't want me to have religious faith, she only meant she wished she had it too. I don't know whether German Missgönnen carries the exact same connotations as Norwegian misunne, but in German Missgönnen really means wishing the other person didn't have something, without necessarily wishing you did have it. Envy--wishing you had something someone else does--is expressed by a different word, Neid. Angr (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the US we used to have a word for this, but congress outlawed it in the 1980's because it was deemed 'bad for business'. --Ludwigs2 23:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that "unhappiness for someone's fortune" is more accurately described as jealousy, not envy. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quran translation in some Europe language

Which language says Pervodom? I found this Quran book with Arabic text and Pervodom translation. On the Arabic side on the book cover, it said "Ma'aniya". What does "Ma'aniya" mean? Sorry for not clearing it up. I am curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.102 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prevodom (not pervodom) apparently means "translation" in some Slavic language(s). 80.122.178.68 (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"ma'aniya" probably means "meaning" in Arabic.--99.179.20.157 (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"p(e)revod" means "translation" in various Slavic languages. Then "p(e)revodom" should be the instrumental case form for that word, and by itself it could mean: "with (the) translation; by (the) translation; by means of (the) translation", but it could also perform some other functions depending on the context. I think it'd be great if we could know some more details. Isn't this word within a sentence or a text? Is it written with Latin or with Cyrillic letters? Are there any other words nearby that appear to be in the same language? --Theurgist (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's Latin, as the OP would probably stress otherwise. I will guess that the language is Bosnian (same as Serbo-Croatian), as 1) Bosniaks are most numerous Slavic Muslims 2) they use Latin alphabet and 3) "s prevodom" means "with translation" (which is stressed because the only true Quran is in Arabic). Here's one Bosnian edition of Quran, with inscription Kur'an s prevodom on the cover. No such user (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian is not quite the same as Serbo-Croatian, Nsu. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying Australian English is not quite the same as English. Serbo-Croatian is a cover term for Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and "Montenegrin", which everyone whose brain isn't clouded by chauvinistic nationalism knows are just slightly different varieties of the same language. Pais (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you No such user. That was the one I saw in the mosque. So, it is Bosnian then. Huh.