Language desk
< January 13	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 15 >

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 14

Anti-semitic

(somewhat light-hearted question) The word "anti-Semitic" is supposed to mean only anti-Jewish, even though Arabs are the largest Semitic group. If I hate all Jews, Arabs, Mandaeans, Mhallami, and other Semitic peoples, what word should I use to describe myself? --140.180.15.97 (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your "light-hearted question" is not totally dissimilar to formerly commonly-seen dishonest propaganda tactics, when some Arabs claimed that they couldn't possibly hate Jews because they were "Semites"[sic] themselves (even though in modern correct scholarly use, the word "Semite" has no real accepted meaning when used in relation to modern peoples, as opposed to ancient tribesmen of 1000 BC). In any case, "Semitic" was used by the non-Jewish inventor of the word anti-Semitism because it fit in with a whole series of 19th-century mock-grandiose euphemisms, such as "Celestials" for Chinese, "Sons of Erin" for Irish, "Romans" for Italians, etc. etc. Some of them sounded rather elevated, but when used by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants to refer to others, they were really rather condescending (not complimentary or respectful). Also, during the late 19th-century, the term "Jew-hating" could be considered a little too harsh to be used in mixed company when Podsnap's innocent Young Person was present, so that "anti-Semitism" was more acceptable as a genteel polite euphemism for drawing-room use. AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly unfortunate, but it doesn't imply that I identify with, agree with, or even know about, any of those Arab propaganda tactics. I'm also surprised that "Semite" has no real accepted meaning. We have a whole list of Semitic peoples, I've read in every single article that Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic are all Semitic languages, and Wikipedia's articles on Mandaeans, for example, calls them Semites. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any meaningful non-racist discussion of modern groups, "Semitic peoples" pretty much means exactly and only "Semitic-language-speaking peoples". The link Semitic peoples actually redirects to article Semitic, which predominantly discusses languages, ancient tribes, and modern racism. AnonMoos (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More important to the point, etymology does not exactly equal definition. Understanding where a word comes from does not actually correctly capture the meaning of the word in its actual usage. Knowing that the "Semitic" cultural groups includes more people than just Jewish people doesn't make the term "Anti-semitic" mean anything different. It means "biased against Jewish people" because that is what speakers and listeners of the word understand it to mean. The etymology of the term is a valid thing to know, but it doesn't change its meaning from actual usage. Confusing etymology with definition is a common mistake, and not just with this word, but in this case it can be particularly harmful in understanding the actual sense of the word as anyone realisticly uses it. --Jayron32 02:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confusing etymology with definition. I explicitly said that I know what "anti-Semitic" means, never said that I disagree with its definition, and was asking how I would describe someone who hates all Semites and not just Jews. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such term in any language of which I am aware, as there is no recorded incidence of such a peculiarly specific prejudice. Most folks who hate Semites in general do so because they are non-"white" people, and also hate Polynesians, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way to describe yourself in that hypothetical would be "bigot". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(after multiple edit conflicts): Other than merely "asshole"? That word captures such a person well... In all seriousness, the general term bigot seems to work fine. There isn't always a specific word for every type of bigotry, and when one has bigotry that extends to an entire list of groups, bigot works fine. I don't think there's enough people who are specifically and only bigoted against "Jews, Arabs, Mandaeans, Mhallami," et. al. specifically because of their supposed ethnic connection to each other (i.e. that someone hates them specifically because they are all historically ethnically connected) so no word has ever developed to describe such a hypothetical bigotry. But more to the point, the phrase "Anti-<blank> bigotry" works fine in all cases if you insert the proper ethnic term for "blank", so we don't need to create any new words for specific concepts, and for people who hate a broad swath of ethnic groups, generally "bigoted" works fine. --Jayron32 03:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The initial response by AnonMoos and some subsequent points such as Jayron's are reasons why writers and editors (such as myself) have adopted the closed (non-hyphenated) form, antisemitism, for this term widely understood as meaning "biased against the Jewish people." We feel this mitigates the ambiguity inherent in the hyphenated "-Semite" form. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A separate question would be what English-language term would denote a bias against Moslem Arab militants, e.g. of the 9/11 sort, so as not to include all Arabs (not all of whom are Moslems) or all Moslems (not all of whom are Arabs), etc. I would contend that such bias does extend to all who appear to be Moslems/Arabs (e.g. at checkpoints in the West Bank,Homeland Security profiling, etc.), making a scrupulously descriptive term (anti-Jihadist?) inadequate to describe the phenomenon. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I've never seen such a form of bias. This nearly always degenerates into general bigotry about "towel heads" , "rag heads", and so on, with most of those expressing such bigotry failing to be aware of the difference between Arabs, Persians, Afghans, Pakistanis and even Muslim Indians, much less of the differences within the Arab world. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There cannot possibly be "bias" against "Muslim Arab militants". Unless you come up with silly stuff like "they stink". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible? I fear you misunderestimate the capacity of the human psyche for irrational fear and hate. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Fearing and hating them is by definition not bias, and they need to be fought and eliminated. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:AGF, I assume you try to refute the claim by pretending to be an example? In this case, it's usually recommended to add a proper emoticon, since humor does not always travel well over the internet or between varying social and cultural groups. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you lost me on that one. What do you mean, humor? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you hate and fear someone, whether it's justified or not, then of course you're immediately biased against them. For example, if you have an irrational hatred of all Muslims/Jews/Catholics/Australians/Chinese/gays/Democrats/whatever, and your daughter says she wants to marry such a person, you're going to do all in your power to prevent her going ahead with it. Aren't you. That's bias. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about irrational fear. We're talking about rational, well-justified fear based on facts by definition; and that's not bias. Your examples are irrelevant: there cannot be any rational, well-justified fear of the groups you listed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say we were talking about "rational, well-justified" fear? How can fear of Semitic people, whether it be all Semites or just Jews, possibly be rational or well-grounded? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation has deviated from Semites a long time ago. Based on the indentation pattern, I assumed we were talking about bias against Muslim Arab militants, since that's what Deborahjay's question was about. I don't fear Muslim Arab militants because the probability of one attacking me is low, but it's certainly rational and well-justified for people more at risk to fear them. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If my daughter said she was going to marry a gay man, I'd try to prevent her going ahead with it, but not because of any hate/fear/bias against gays. Angr (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. But what if your son (assuming you have one) would have said the same thing? JIP | Talk 20:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more concerned if my son wanted to marry a straight man, to be honest. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are using "bias" in different ways. Is it called bias if I hate serial killers and think they should be eliminated? I suspect Choyool would say no whereas Jack would say yes, but whose opinion is superior is a semantic question that I consider pointless. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, isn't bias always some form of ignorance? (contrary to the hate of Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 towards violent Islamic fundamentalist). You can hate a group of people, say rapists/violent groups without overgeneralizing or being ignorant about them. 88.9.215.240 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question: since there doen't seem to exist an established term for this specific kind of hatred, you are free to invent your own. My suggestions: Semitophobe or Japhethohamist (suggesting you disapprove of the descendants of Sem, but not of those of Japheth and Ham). — Kpalion^(talk) 00:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My standard stock reply to those who try to resurrect the old tired chestnut that Arabs can't possibly hate Jews because Arabs themselves are supposedly "Semites"[sic] (has only happened once on Wikipedia, fortunately) is to point out that if you want to coin a distinctive word for hatred of Arabs, then by all means do so -- there are plenty of theoretically valid possibilities, such as "Arabophobia", "Misaraby", "anti-Arabism", etc. etc. But the problem of hatred of Jews is not the same as the problem of hatred of Arabs -- and for that reason and several others, it's quite pointless to attempt to redefine or quibble over the accepted and established term which has meant "hatred of Jews" in the English language for well over a hundred years. The abstruse and purely theoretical possibility raised by 140.180.15.97 is even less of a reason to redefine anything... AnonMoos (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't hate them because they're Semites, they hate them because they're Jews. Duh! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In which month was Giorgio Baldizzone born?

Hey all. This says Baldizzone was born in Asti on the 27th of "V" 1946. Does the "V" mean May? --Shirt58 (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See Roman numerals#Modern non-English speaking usage. AJ Cham 13:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie mille. (Just thought I'd better check it with WP:RD/L.) --ShirtLVIII (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this joke

I have heard some English jokes that make fun of similar pronunciation of words with different meanings, but there is one I don't get. I've heard the following jokes of the same type:

I just played cards with an African tribe.
Really? Zulus?
No, in fact I won.

My wife went to the Caribbean for her holiday.
Really? Jamaica?
No, it was her own idea.

My wife went to Indonesia for her holiday.
Really? Jakarta?
No, she went by plane.

What does the last joke mean? JIP | Talk 19:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pun on "did you cart her?", like Jamaica is a pun on "did you make her?" The Jakarta joke, which usually starts "my wife's gone to the East Indies", is, I think, a play on the well-known Jamaica joke, which normally goes "my wife's gone to the West Indies". --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I had already figured out the Jamaica joke, so there was really no need to explain it to me, but it was good that you explained the Jakarta joke to me. I had always thought it had something to do with the word "car", but I couldn't figure out what "ja" and "ta" were supposed to mean. JIP | Talk 20:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if ~~Americans~~ all rhotic speakers can figure out these jokes.

How about the Zulus joke? I don't think that "Zulus" sounds like "Did you lose", though. 87.68.214.227 (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its just the shortened form "you lose?". -- Q Chris (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the "Zu" in "Zulu" doesn't sound like "you", does it? 87.68.214.227 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're mondegreens, which do not have to be exact homophones to work well. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But "Jamaica" really sounds like "Did you make her", at least in a speedy (British/Aussie) speech, while Zulus doesn't sound like "Did you lose", even in a speedy speech, does it? 87.68.214.227 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It works in my Detroit accent, where "did you lose ?" becomes "didja lose ?" or even "ja lose ?" StuRat (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But "Zulus" doesn't sound like "ja lose". 87.68.214.227 (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does to me. StuRat (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does it? "did you lose" is pronounced like "ja-lose", the stress being on "lose", while "Zulus" is pronouced like "zoo-lose" - the stress being on "zoo"... 87.68.214.227 (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point protesting, Agent 87. To some people, they do sound sufficiently similar for the pun to work first time. They don't need to justify that to anyone. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course they don't have to justify what they hear and how they're kidding. However, my point is that there is a difference between "Jamaica", and "zulus", at least to my ears: "Jamaica" really sounds like "Did you make her" - at least in a speedy (British/Aussie) accent, while "Zulus" sounds (to my ears) like "zoo-lose", and I would never hear it like "ja-lose". If User:StuRat does hear it like "ja-lose", then I find that interesting, that's all. I mean, I find it interseting to know that the people of Detroit pronounce "Zulus" like "ja-lose" (the stress being on "lose") instead of "zoo-lose" (the stress being on "zoo"), which is how I have been taught to pronounce that word. 87.68.214.227 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell me what you make of this one: "I went to the Middle East to listen to my favourite band." "Kandahar?" "No, they played live." Totally off topic, but I'm thinking the OP has got his answer. IBE (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about playing along with the joke, 87. Nobody actually hears "Did you lose" when someone says "Zulus", but they immediately recognise when a joke is being made, and if they're in the right space, as most people are most of the time, they'll play along with it. That's all there is to it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Agent 87 has missed the joke... by that much.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.

I have no difficulty playing along with the joke, but I've suspected the Zulus joke has been invented by somebody who pronounces "Zulus?" excactly like "Did you lose", so I have (implicitly) wanted to know which variety of English accent - really enables such a definite identity between "Zulus?" and "Did you lose". Now, thanks to User:Bluap's response (just below my current response), which I find to be very informative, I think I can solve the riddle, as following: User:Bluap has explained that, in their southern English accent, "Zulus?" (with a question mark) is pronounced: "dzoo-lose" - the emphasis being on "lose". Wow! that's interesting! Because, as far as I know, some British accents pronounce "Did you lose" (in a speedy speech) as "Due lose" (which is impossible in the American accents, for example), and also pronounce "due" as "dz-you" (which is impossible in most of the English varieties, including the RP). To sum up, the fellow who's invented the Zulus joke, probably pronounces (in a speedy speech) - both "Zulus?" and "Did you lose" - as "Due lose", i.e. as "Dz-you lose" (the emphasis being on "lose"); So the inventor is probably British - from a very specific region in UK. Anyways, all of these jokes, including the Jakarta joke and the Jamaica joke, can't be figured out by ~~Americans~~ some rhotic speakers ~~for example...~~ 87.68.214.227 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're greatly underestimating people's ingenuity -- there are plenty of Americans who speak non-rhotic dialects, but even many of those who speak rhotic dialects wouldn't have too much difficulty in figuring out "Jamaica".. AnonMoos (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks. I struck out "Americans", and replaced it by "some rhotic speakers". 87.68.214.227 (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my (southern English) accent, "Zulus" is pronounced "dzoo-looz". Without a question mark, the emphasis is on the first syllable. However, with a question mark "Zulus?", the emphasis moves to the second syllable, which has a rising tone. This sounds very similar to "did you lose", which it is possible to pronounce as "dyoo looz". The only difference is the "dz" vs "dy", which is a short, unstressed consonant at very beginning of the phrase, and likely to be "chopped off" by the listener. Bluap (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's understood in my Nowerthen English accent an' all, Bluap. 'Appen yer'd 'av ter axerally 'ear it, then it'd be reet gradely. As fer IBE's "Kandahar" joke, sorry, I don't get that one. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Seems you need to understand "canned" as "recorded", then understand "ahar" as Pirate. Poor. Very poor. Tonywalton ^Talk 02:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you so much! No, seriously, thanks for the reply, since I was really just trying to change the topic, in case it turned unpleasant - it looked like the start of something negative, but all is well. A-ha is the band, fwiw, so there wasn't much pronunciation involved. I just wanted to change before it turned into the 87 show, but it seems everyone ignored me. Same as in real life. IBE (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Eveyone ignored you: Neither User:TonyWalton nor me did (or rather: here I'm doing that now). As far as the other users are concerned, I think they noticed your own declaration: "Totally off topic", and they felt it would be needless to refer to a totally-off-the-topic response. Anyways, I find your Kandaher example to be pretty nice; I loved it. BTW, like the other jokes here, also yours - can't be figured out by Rhotic speakers. 87.68.214.227 (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bluap, for your instructive response. Can you give here another example for moving the emphasis to the last syllable - because of the question mark? Anyways, I find your response to be very interesting, because, as far as I know, some British accents pronounce "Did you lose" (in a speedy speech) as "Due lose" (which is impossible in the American accents, for example), and also pronounce "due" as "dz-you" (which is impossible in most of the English varieties, including the RP); So the fellow who's invented the Zulus joke, probably pronounces (in a speedy speech) - both "Zulus?" and "Did you lose" - as "Due lose", i.e. as "Dz-you lose" (the emphasis being on "lose"), so the inventor is probably British - from a very specific region in UK. Anyways, all of these jokes, including the Jakarta joke and the Jamaica joke, can't be figured out by ~~Americans~~ some rhotic speakers ~~for example...~~ 87.68.214.227 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible that it originated from a lolcat.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognise either of the features that Bluap mentions (Londoner who has lived in Northern England for 20 years). In my experience "Zulus" is pronounced with /z/ not /dz/ and is stressed on the first syllable irrespective of intonation. To me the joke is a near-enough match, not a close one. --ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for User:Bluap to respond. I can't imagine that the person who's invented the joke could have invented it - if they had not pronounced "Zulus?" the same as "Did you lose". Anyways, I must admit I was quite amazed by Bluap's testimony, and their clarification might be helpful. 87.68.214.227 (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine is correct - I do pronounce "Zulus" with /z/ not /dz/. However, there is a definite change is emphasis. "Zulus" (no question) has a strong emphasis on the first syllable, with the second syllable weak. (The first syllable starts at a high pitch, loud volume, and ends at low pitch, medium volume; the second syllable starts at low pitch, medium volume and ends at low pitch medium/low volume.) "Zulus?" with a question mark is pronounced differently: with a medium/strong emphasis on the first syllable, and a rising tone on the second syllable. (The first syllable starts at medium-high pitch, medium-high volume, and ends at low pitch, medium volume; the second syllable starts at medium pitch, medium volume, and ends at high pitch, high volume.) This rising tone for a question, with the resulting slight weakening of a previously emphasised syllable is common (but unconscious) feature of spoke English - it is only after I started learning a tonal language that I was able to analyse what I was doing. Bluap (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, but now I can't understand the connection between the Z in "Zulus?" and the D in "Did you lose" (i.e Due lose). 87.68.214.227 (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you like these puns, look up the song "Delaware" somewhere like YouTube. It's a hoot. --Jayron32 20:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a child, I once learned similar puns and verses with just letters of the alphabet that sound like words, for example: "C-D-B? D-B S A B-Z B, S-N D?" — Michael J 05:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, there's "F-U-N-E-X? S-V-F-X" (a conversation in a grocery store for those who have no idea what's going on). Mikenorton (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That particular line was famously used (and possibly invented for) the "Swedish made simple" Two Ronnies sketch, which is set in a "Swedish" restaurant. It can be found on YouTube; an entire conversation is held in a similar vein. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, how could I forget (all too easily these days). Mikenorton (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't the Swedes say "yes"? If they can, then I think that "F-U-N-E-X? E-S, V-F-X" would be more precise, wouldn't it? 87.68.214.227 (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But then you're saying "ee ess", which is a poorer approximation for "Yes" than just "ess". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a speedy speech, "ee-ess" is almost identical (if not definitely identical ) to "yes", whereas - to my ears - "ess" alone can never be heard as "yes". That's why I'm asking whether the Swedes pronounce "Yes" as "ess". 87.68.214.227 (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I quite get these jokes. I think the first one is "See the bee? The bee is a busy bee, isn't it?" but I haven't a clue about the second one. Anyway, I think the Swedish pronounce "yes" as "yes", not as "ess". At least that's what Finns do, and Finns and Swedes should pronounce English nearly the same way. JIP | Talk 18:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Have you any eggs?" Yes, ve have eggs - spoken with a Swedish accent. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I guess Swedes have the same problem of distinguishing between the consonants "v" and "w" as Finns do, as the consonant "w" is not natively used in either language. JIP | Talk 19:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To echo my comment above, this is a near-enough match. Hardly anybody knows (or cares) whether a Swede might pronounce "yes" as "es" or not, or for that matter whether a Swede might pronounce "have" as "ef" or not: it is close enough for the joke to work and that is all that matters. --ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an Edwardian-era music-hall type joke which only works in non-rhotic dialects: "Why is a man who is afraid of getting seasick in the Bay of Biscay similar to a man whose mother-in-law is inexplicably accompanying him and his wife on their honeymoon voyage? Because he doesn't know Via Marseilles". I think I like grape jokes better (anybody remember the fad for those?)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is a joke I don't quite get. Does it have something to do with the pronunciation of "Via Marseilles" when "Via" is pronounced as if it were English and "Marseilles" is pronounced the French way sounding something like "why her ma says"? JIP | Talk 18:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't pronounce fully Edwardianly

... It's "Why her ma sails". Not really a very good joke, but authentically early 20th-century according to Robert Graves (though I've paraphrased the set-up from memory). AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That pronunciation makes sense for the second part of the question. I don't get what it has to do with the first part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Via Marseilles would have been pronounced [vaɪəmɑːseɪlz] among those who first told the joke. AnonMoos (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would be an approximate English equivalent for that? There seems to be a gap in my vocabulary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're going from the UK to some Mediterranean destination, so travelling overland north-to-south through France and taking ship at Marseilles is an alternative to sailing around through Gibraltar, in order to limit the exposure to possibly choppy northern waters to a short Channel crossing. I kind of like the joke because it's so unabashedly Edwardian-Britain-centric, but I didn't think it would require quite so much explanation... AnonMoos (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. Yes, it's a bit labored as jokes go. Them nutty Edwardians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "V" in "via" was pronounced as "W" in Latin. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but irrelevant. AnonMoos (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, isn't that how they get "why her" out of it? Adam Bishop (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On yet another thread, I just remembered the Cockney alphabet, and to save any trouble, all of them are fully explained. IBE (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Korean help

Hi!

What is the Korean romanization (both Revised Romanization and McCune-Reischauer) for "삼국지: 용의 부활" (Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon)?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate can do Korean romanization (I think Revised but I'm not sure). Unlike Chinese romanizations, I'm pretty sure Hangul to romanization is pretty much one-to-one, so it should be pretty reliable. I tried this one here and, based on my limited knowledge of Korean, it looks correct to me. From there, getting the other romanizations should be doable from the charts listed in the articles linked from Korean romanization. (I don't know if there's a page anywhere with a table comparing all the romanizations and Hangul, a la Uyghur alphabets#Present situation...if there's not, there ought to be!) rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I romanize the Korean on Google Translate rather than have it translated? The link shows it being translated. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Press the A-umlaut in the text box, and the romanization appears below the text box, on the left. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I did not know that. That's pretty cool! Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google won't give you a very good romanization, though it's nice that they can do hanja too. It's all one-to-one, which (except in academic texts) is not how Revised works. For example, g at the end of a word is transcribed "k", and before an m it's "ng", but Google transcribes it "g" everywhere. So it enables you to identify the hangul letters, but does not tell you how to romanize them. (However, anyone who knows how to read Korean will be able to read it without any problem, and it's actually far more accurate than Revised would be.) — kwami (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have no idea how it interacts with Google, but among linguists, the Korean hangul orthography is famous for being fairly highly morphophonemic (rather than straightforwardly phonemic or phonetic). AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wish the general Korean public were aware of this. Reading the ko-wiki page for "Hangul supremacy" feels like propaganda about how it's the best phonetic alphabet for all languages. The page has gone downhill IMHO. --Kjoonlee 09:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kjoonlee -- Hangul is both featural (i.e. sub-phonemic) and morphophonemic (i.e. supra-phonemic). Some linguists have greatly admired it (e.g. Geoffrey Sampson), but in its current form it's closely calibrated to the particular characteristics of the Korean language, and would need to be restructured somewhat to be a good fit for writing any other language... AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, there are letters which change pronunciation depending on what other letters are next to them (a fact that even crosses word boundaries), letters which are not pronounced, whole clusters of letters not pronounced. It's almost like Tibetan :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the descriptions I've seen, the complications are generally based on alternations (allomorphy) observable in the current-day Korean language, and there's not the heavy accumulation of purely historical details that you see in Tibetan or Irish Gaelic writing (to a lesser degree also in English). AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]