Language desk
< July 7	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 9 >

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.

July 8

Feminine form of "Archon"?

Hi. If Archon is "the masculine present participle of the verb stem ἀρχ-", then what would be the feminine present participle form? --Kreachure (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Your user page says that you are from Colombia, so you may be interested to know that the Spanish word femenino corresponds with the English word feminine.

Wavelength (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Whoopsie! Fixed, thank you! :) Kreachure (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ἄρχουσα (archousa) —Deor (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you just beat me to the punch! To the OP, bear in mind that the meaning of archon seems to be be a slightly idiomatic extraction from the root form, so don't necessarily expect that archousa would be taken to mean the "lady" in the same way archon roughly translates to "lord"; I'm guessing there is in fact an entirely separate word to denote a woman of equal standing in modern contexts, though this is just speculation on my part. Snow (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least in Byzantine Greek, the feminine form seems to have been "archontissa". Adam Bishop (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Greek dictionary gives αρχοντας and αρχοντισσα as words mainly meaning "nobleman" and "noblewoman". In ancient Greek, αρχουσα would have primarily referred to a female ruler; an all-purpose ancient Greek word for "lady" was ποτνια... AnonMoos (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AnonMoos. You answered all my follow-up questions about usage before I could ask! Thanks everyone. --Kreachure (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone summarize this page?

Here's the Japanese Wikipedia spoiler guideline, and it has changed quite a lot since I last saw it. Apparently, they haven't deleted the spoiler templates yet, although their use is now discouraged. Can someone summarize (in English) the exact contents of the page? Google Translate's translation is incomprehensible. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want a full translation of the "exact contents", or a summary of the contents (which would be somewhat less than the full text)? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of the contents. A full translation would probably be too overly detailed for me to comprehend. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to beat you to it Jack, but if you don't see this in time, I'll be interested to see just how well I managed with the translation. Snow (talk)

The field's all yours as far as I'm concerned, Snow. I know about 6 words of Japanese. I was just keen to establish exactly what the OP was after, because their question seemed to be asking for 2 contradictory things. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, don't swear by anything in this because my Japanese skills are limited, but this should be generally accurate. Basically it boils down to a description of the purpose of spoiler alerts and then goes on to say that they have been used in the past on the Japanese Wikipedia but that they are by no means required and that readers should always assume that articles on fiction will contain spoilers. It also note that the use of spoiler alerts is controversial and there is no firm consensus on whether they are appropriate or when they should be used. It also gives some technical details on how to use spoiler alert templates as well detailing templates which have been discontinued in use. Snow (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otaheitian

Hi!!

In a novel by Tasmaian author Richard Flanagan "Wanting" on page 83 at bottom of page this word comes up....'A savage, my dear Wilkie, be he Esquimau (archaic for Eskimo)or an Otaheitian, is someone who succumbs to his passions.Where does this word orginate from?41.12.183.251 (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just "Tahitian". If I remember correctly, "o" is a vocative particle in Polynesian languages. When Europeans first encountered them, they heard every proper noun with an o- in front of it. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, see for example 'ote'a, traditional Tahitian dance. It's almost certainly a dated transliteration for Tahitian. Snow (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact, the old spellings Otaheiti and Otaheite are redirects to Tahiti. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nice catch. Snow (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do some people add an "intrusive" /l/ (L) sound when...

..they pronounce the /ej/ or the /aj/ vowel cluster so that it becomes something like /eli/ or /ali/? Examples: [1] —the guy screams "Einstein" but he makes it sound something like "/ajnʃtalin/"— [2] —Nena says "dann singe ich ein Lied für dich" but sounds a bit like "dann singelich ein Lied für dich". --Immerhin (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could hear nothing even remotely resembling the faintest whiff of a shade of a hint of a trace of an "intrusive L" in either case, either at normal speed or slowed down. Sorry. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I stretch my ears wide open and listen extremely closey there might just possibly be "the faintest whiff of a shade of a hint of a trace of" a yod, but definitely not an /l/. Roger (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you two are in the tiny, marginal, insignificant minority, because most people in the Simpsons video claim they hear something like "quit stalling". --Immerhin (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have borrowed your "faintest whiff of a shade of a..." thing for my future user page. --Immerhin (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guy in the Simpsons video does say "quit stalling". I don't know where "Einstein" comes from. As for Nena...I don't hear any sort of L there. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that people would easily introduce an additional consonant into a diphthong. I.e. it seems rather unlikely that /ej/ or /aj/ would or could become /eli/ or /ali/. I listened the video from the Simpsons, so that my mind wouldn't be distracted by the subtitles. The first couple of times I hear 'quit stalling', then, as the video slows down, it becomes 'Einstein'. Could it be possible that whoever made that video edited the soundtrack?

As for Nena, I can conceive of one way in which /e.i/ becomes /eli/: /e/ and /i/ are both frontal vowels and /l/ is a frontal consonant, so I suspect that in certain contexts (depending on speaker's langugage/accent and the listener's language/accent) and the movements of the tongue in the mouth, it might seem like there is an /l/ between the two vowels that isn't meant to be there. V85 (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I hear "quit stalling" (even when the sub-title clearly says "Einstein") at normal speed, and "Einstein only at the slowest speeds. I am surprised because sub-titles are normally so powerful for me that they can convince me I speak fluently any of the Romance languages. I am also surprised because, in my local pronunciation of these words in English, the two syllable in "Einstein" are an exact rhyme with nothing in common with any sound in "quit stalling". Curious. Bielle (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As V85 said, the video has probably been edited. It doesn't even make sense to say "Einstein" there. The guy interrupts Prof. Frink to tell him to hurry up, before Frink has even said anything. That's the joke. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It makes a sort of sense to call any scientist in a white lab coat "Einstein". Maybe it's an American thing, but he seems to be stressing the second syllable of Einstein. I've never heard anyone do that, ever. That more than anything tells me it's been edited. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this as "quit stalling." A rather typical joke for the Simpsons. The way he yells Einstalling in the replay in the clip is not said naturally as if he were addressing Frink. One would have said, "What's the plan, Einstein" not "Einstein! What's the plan?" μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the episode? —Tamfang (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bart's Comet μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's been edited (slowed down and then upped in freq to get it back to normal speech), but I don't think it's been faked.

Since I was primed to hear "Einstein", I initially heard "Einstein" in all versions, even the first one. Once I figured it was probably "quit stalling", I heard that in all versions, even the slow ones. I suspect the problem is that [l] is effectively a vocoid, and isn't very salient when heard at low speeds. It's still there, just too drawn out to be what we normally rec. as an [l]. So I suspect that the subtitles are in error. Maybe the subtitlers weren't sure what was said (I think I remember not being able to catch this myself, when I saw it on the air), so they slowed it down, and at slow speeds the [l] is hardly noticeable as a consonant? I wonder if at low speeds, other approximants like [j, w, ɹ] also sound like vowels.

Dark [l] has two components, and alveolar one (similar to the vowel of -ing), and a velar one (similar to the vowel of stall). So it's easy to hear it as just the transition of the vowels, which gets you the diphthong in stein. Maybe.

My sister used to say "I Saul it" for "I saw it". And of course in Braz. Port., sol is [sou]. There can be some odd interferences between [l] and back vowels. — kwami (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that the intonation is definitive in favor of "quit stalling". If he were uttering a vocative at the beginning of a question it would have a rising intonation. It most definitely does not. The utterance has a definite intonation of command, not of address. μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought vocatives were commands. At least I treat them that way: if I say your name, I expect you to look at me – it's no different than hey! or listen! I think the intonation would work for either, which may be why it's so difficult to tell them apart. — kwami (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A command contains a verb. Listen! is a command. Shut up! and Love me forever! (not necessarily in that order) are also commands. Hey! or Egbert! or You over there! are just ways of getting someone's attention. Once you've got their attention, you can issue any commands you like. If you're lucky, they'll limit their response to Fuck off!. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the formal definition. I just doubt that there's much functional difference. The purpose and intonation are the same for me. "Look!" or "Listen!" are often used for no more than getting people's attention too. The imperative is a verb form that expresses a command. But interjections may express commands too, and it seems to me so do vocatives. At least in the sense of commanding attention. I wonder if there's a term that covers all of them? — kwami (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could analyse it as follows: In a restaurant you call "Waiter!" to get the waiter's attention (I make him male in this example). The general expectation is that he does not just turn to look at you. Rather, he comes over to you, or if he's busy right now, he signals that he's heard you and will be over very shortly. Effectively, you've called out "Waiter! Please come here!", but the agreed shorthand "Waiter!" is used. The long version consisted of an exclamation and a command; the short version drops the command element, but the exclamation remains. It doesn't mean that the exclamation has become a command; it means that a combined exclamation-command is being represented by an exclamation alone. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can ignore the semantics of what to call it when you use someone's name or title, again, what is relevant here is that when you call "waiter" you use a rising intonation, whereas if you were to pretend "waiter" were a verb and were to issue the command to someone to waiter: "Waiter!" it would have a flat or slightly falling intonation. You can hear the difference if you call Bob's name to get his attention, or issue the command "bob!" to initiate a bobbing-for-apples contest. Try saying the word the two ways out loud. What is relevant in the Simposns clip is that there is no rising intonation as if he were saying Einstein's name to get his attention. It is clearly uttered with the intonation of a command, and one cannot command someone to Einstein. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have listened to this several times, and I cannot hear anything remotely resembling "quit stalling" (BrE speaker). 86.179.7.34 (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. The opening syllable starts with a vowel, not a consonant. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would really be interesting would be to know whether you (pl) understand the point about intonation, and if you do, whether you think it sounds like he is saying Einstein to get Frink's attention, or if it sounds like he's telling him to Einstein. (To me its ounds like "Quit Stalling!", then Einstalling! in the replay, the "Einstein!" when it is slowed down. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my earlier post about stressing the second syllable of Einstein (ine-STINE)? Although that's unique in my experience, I still don't hear anything remotely like "quit stalling". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't take that as answering my question directly, which was about intonation, which is technically different from stress, but it does imply we have similar interpretations. μηδείς (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did not say I thought he was saying "Einstein". I agree that the intonation and word order are unusual if he is using "Einstein" as a generic (or sarcastic) name for a clever person. To me, the intonation and word order seem more suited to hailing someone who really is named "Einstein". On the other hand, I can't think of any other word(s) it could be. 86.179.7.34 (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Bob!" (vocative) and "bob!" (for apples) can have the same intonation. There are many vocative intonations, depending on what you're conveying, and one of them is the same as a verbal imperative. — kwami (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but what verbal imperative do you have in mind? (Or, if you are in the "quit stalling" camp, then I agree that the intonation may fit, but I have the small problem of not actually being able to hear the right sounds to form those words, notably starting with the first "k" sound.) 86.179.7.34 (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine

What is the deal with pronouncing this name, in all its various contexts? I had a professor who pronounced it /ɒˈɡʌstɨn/, which I thought was very bizarre, because I had always assumed the saint's name was pronounced like the city, /'ɔːɡəstin/. The cites on the Augustine of Hippo page and this archive entry suggest that the former pronunciation is the more-common one among educated speakers, while using the pronunciation of the city for the saint is erroneous. Is this a fair assessment of the situation? If so, why are the pronunciations of the saint and city divergent, and what about people who aren't Augustine of Hippo? How are their names pronounced? If I named my child Augustine, how would modern speakers expect to pronounce it, knowing he is neither a city nor yet a saint? Thanks! 67.164.156.42 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the aid of the Help:IPA for English page, I think that here in England we'd be closer to your second, although with a "u" sound in the second syllable. Exactly like the month of August with "in" tacked on the end. Augustine of Canterbury is held in rather higher regard here, as it was he who converted the heathen Saxons and founded the Church of England in AD 597. Alansplodge (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would say that in England the standard pronunciation is like the professor's, saint aw-GUSS-tin. Sussexonian (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever actually heard anyone use that pron. in the US. MW gives Áugustine first, and Augústine second. For both Hippo & Canterbury. — kwami (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the same for me - Americans and Canadians stress the first syllable, and British people the second syllable. But for Augustine of Hippo and Augustine of Canterbury, I have the feeling that the British way is more correct, and I would correct myself if I said it the "wrong" way. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a short survey here in Winnipeg (basically, the people sitting in this coffee shop), in Canada it's pronounced August-TEEN, with the stress on the last syllable. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more French to me; could it be a slight bit of Quebecois influence that's become standard in Canadian English? Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds strange...I'm sure they are stressing the first syllable too, but also pronouncing the -EEN ending, which is one of the pronunciations above. (At least, that's how every other Canadian I know would say it.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first two syllables are given about the same weight. Aw-gus-TEEN. Could be a Western thing. --NellieBly (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the more common British pronunciation is due to the adjective august, which is pronounced with the stress on the second syllable. Does the name Augustine mean "awe-inspiring" or "venerable", or simply "like or pertaining to St. Augustine"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Latin name Augustinus was derived from the adjective augustus. Augustine is the English version of Augustinus,

That reminds me that I've never been sure whether the August in The Teahouse of the August Moon (film) is pronounced like the month or the venerable adjective. It could reasonably be either. The article sheds no (moon)light on it. Maybe if I wait till next month ... -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, it's the month (although the "venerable" word is often pronounced in the same way by U.S. speakers). Deor (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The month, because the Teahouse is named for the August Moon festival. But in the spoof The Teahouse of the August Goon it should be pronounced as "venerable ". Itsmejudith (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, according to our article "Mid-Autumn Festival" to which "August Moon" redirects, "[t]he festival is held on the 15th day of the eighth month in the Chinese calendar, which is in September or early October in the Gregorian calendar, close to the autumnal equinox" (emphasis added). It seems that at some stage someone simply assumed that the eighth month of the Chinese calendar equated to August. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From such cultural ignorance comes enlightenment. I can now say the name of that movie with confidence, for which I thank you all. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]