Language desk
< March 17	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 19 >

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.

March 18

Do two wrongs sometimes make a right?

There was a recent question on RD/E, headed "Whom is David Steinberg married to?", and it caused me to enter a state of cogitation.

Someguy1221 used the accusative "whom" because it's governed by "married to". That's an admirable effort, but somehow it just doesn't sound right in this construction.

There used to be a rule that you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition, and if that had applied here, the header would have been "To whom is D S married?". We're much more relaxed about that issue these days, but it still seems to be the case that, if you ignore that rule, you may have to compensate in some other way as well. In this case, the compensation would be to use "who" rather than "whom", because "Who is D S married to?" sounds much more natural to my years than what Someguy wrote, even though a pedant at 50 paces would spot two errors in it.

Am I overthinking this, or do two wrongs sometimes make a right? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's dative, Jack, not accusative. 'To' + accusative is used for motion in a direction. :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

"Whom ... to" is technically correct, but obsolete. "Whom" is only used in a few set constructions such as "to whom", and then only in formal registers. That is, it isn't actually accusative case any more. It's more like a formal version of "Jim and me went", where the conjunction and triggers the "accusative". — kwami (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really accusative or dative (as KageTora said above), since modern English doesn't have those cases. It's the object case. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which redirects to ... accusative case. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could get away with calling it an oblique case, since it's used for constructions like "It's me" and not just for objects. — kwami (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! That's what I meant, the oblique case. Sorry. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that our English personal pronouns article speaks of "objective pronouns", and we have object pronoun, which says they're in the "objective case", but links to oblique case. The terminology is a bit murky. — kwami (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case in English only exists in pronouns, and there is no distinction between what in properly inflected languages would be accusative and dative - we effectively have one case covering direct and indirect objects. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, yes, two or any number of wrongs can make a right when the violated rule doesn't exist. - filelake shoe 10:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'll find any number of sources that say not to end a sentence with a preposition, so it was certainly regarded as a rule by millions of people. Unlike French, English makes up its own rules as it goes along, by common consent of the masses, and this was the consensus in formal registers for a long time. Just as splitting an infinitive was considered abhorrent by many; there may never have been a proper basis for such a rule, but so what, English does lots of things for which there's no proper basis.

What I want clear confirmation of is that, given a choice between "Who is he married to?" and "Whom is he married to?", it's preferable to write the former. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 17:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if by "preferable" you mean more natural, of course, and if you're looking to sound natural then prescriptive grammar rules made up by people who want English to work like Latin are counterproductive to that cause. If by "preferable" you meant less likely to set off a 1950s grammar school master's sensory issues, then both are wrong. - filelake shoe 12:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's good enough. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oujda

How is Oujda pronounced? The only indication on the page at present is in the infobox, transliterated (Wujda) beside another language [which?] whose character set my computer evidently lacks. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The language is probably some Berber/Tamazight one. 92.80.35.202 (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Oujda? There is some related material here. Bus stop (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the Arabic, I'd say "ooj-da".Eiad77 (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is pronounced "wodʒ-dæ" in Arabic like it has been transliterated. --Omidinist (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was pronounced "ooj-da" in Arabic. I said judging by the Arabic it's pronounced "ooj-da". If it were pronounced "wodʒ-dæ" in Englsh I'd imagine it would start with a W. Eiad77 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it does start with a W. 87.68.241.159 (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it seems to be a Berber word - rather than an Arabic word, so the "j" is pronounced like a French j (as it is always in Berber) - rather than like an English/Arabic j. Yes, this word is written in Arabic, whose "j" is pronounced like the English j, but note that the Berber language is usually written in Arabic scripts (unless it's written in Tifinagh scripts). Additionally, the speaker here pronounces it with a French j rather than with an English/Arabic j. Yes, the speaker is from France, but note that a big Berber minority lives in France. 87.68.241.159 (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oujda (وجدة) is a city in Morocco and has a page in Arabic Wikipedia: here. --Omidinist (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I may remind you the pronunciation of the word oui in French. --Omidinist (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out why you remind me of obvious facts. Yes, it's a Moroccan city, who said it wasn't? But notice that most (or almost all) of the Moroccan geographical names are from a Berber origin, and that's why I claimed that the name of that city seemed to be a Berber word - rather than an Arabic word.

Btw, the word oui in French is pronounced like the English "We" (or very similar to it), but when not preceding a vowel, the French "ou" is pronounced like the English "ou" (in the English "route" and likewise). However, I didn't resolve whether or not the word "Oujda" begins with the consonant [w] or with the vowel [u]: The Arabic transliteration suggests the consonant [w], whereas the French transliteration suggests the vowel [u], as the speaker here - does.

87.68.241.159 (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2012

(OP): Two objectives here: (a) adding the IPA to the Oujda page, and (b) a Hebrew spelling, which by convention is based on the phonic values rather than an alphabetic transliteration. From the contributions above (thanks, all!), it seems that all the first syllable's phonemes may differ between the local Berber language and Arabic. What resolution do you suggest for present purposes? -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not easy to answer (a), because the Arabic transliteration وجدة - having the consonant [w] in the begining, gave us the consonants only - without vowels (although Arabic does have signs for vowels), and this transliteration contradicts the French transliteration Oujda - having the vowel [u] in the begining.

As for (b): if we trust the speaker here, then I (as a native Hebrew speaker), would write אוּזְ'דַא - which is probably the safest transliteration (or: אוּזְ'דַה, which is a more common way for transliterating such a word, yet it's less safe, because most of the Hebrew readers ignore the "Mapiq"s, whereas some of the ה 's that end words - are pronounced as the consonant [h], e.g. in להּ, which is properly pronounced: [lah] rather than [la], unless it's a the name of the tone la, in which case the word לה is pronounced [la]). 77.124.86.28 (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, I neglected to mention that our dedicated data base program disallows diacritics other than the apostrophe, hence we maintain our key word list with nearest approximations. I can, however, indicate the Arabic pronunciation [אוג'דה] as an alternative to the French [אוז'דה], and change the primary/secondary order if and when we discover that the Arabic is prevalent or closer to the Berber if that's dominant. Likewise the IPA for the Oujda page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To transcribe it "אוג'דה" (i.e. with a 'ג rather than with a 'ז) - on the ground of the Arabic transliteration, is like to transcribe the most common Arabic name - into Hebrew: מוהמד - on the ground that the English transliteration for that Arabic name is Muhammad. In other words, מוהמד is not the (direct) Hebrew transliteration for the original name, but rather is the (indirect) Hebrew transliteration for the English transliteration for the original name. Similarly, אוג'דה is not the (direct) Hebrew transliteration for the original (local) name of the city, but rather is the (indirect) Hebrew transliteration for the Arabic transliteration for the original (local) name of the city. Note that Berber does not have the English consonant j, whereas Arabic does not have the French consonant j (pronounced like the English s in "measure"), and that's why the Arabic transliteration uses a letter pronounced like the English j - instead of a letter pronounced like the French j, although the original local name - being a Berber word - must be pronounced with a French j - rather than with an English j. Notice that the speaker here pronounces it with a 'ז, doesn't she?77.124.86.28 (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Sigh!] I've been trying to avoid all matters of transliteration between the various alphabets, and rather focus on determining the proper/standard/received pronunciation of this city's name - for inclusion in IPA on the Oujda page here - and then I'll use the conventional Hebrew alphabetic representation to suit. If there's an alternate pronunciation [e.g. per FR, per AR], that too. What shall we do? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we have, so far, one testimony only. Do you trust it? 77.124.86.28 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And or but?

Which sentence sounds better?

French is his native language but he has a perfect command of the English language, which he has spoken since the age of 8 in order to communicate with the Canadian side of his family.

French is his native language and he has a perfect command of the English language, which he has spoken since the age of 8 in order to communicate with the Canadian side of his family.

Eiad77 (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They both sound fine, depending on what you are trying to emphasize. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The "but" version makes it sound as if it's surprising he is fluent in both, while the "and" version does not. StuRat (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with StuRat, the "but" indicates that the speaker thinks it is remarkable or unusual that he also speaks English. Roger (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "but" version would also be a better reply to a question along the lines of "Does he speak English?". Either one would work for "What languages does he speak?" depending, like StuRat and Roger say, on whether it's surprising that he speaks it. Smurrayinchester 14:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think "although" could also work, if you were looking for an alternative. That would be an even stronger contrast than simply "but" and would (at least in my mind) emphasize that a native French speaker is not expected to be fluent in English. Obviously, whether this is the intended implication depends on the context, but it's an alternative possibility. 155.138.250.7 (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact he speaks English perfectly might be surprising simply because it's unusual for people to have perfect command of a second language, other than in special circumstances. A person living in France, say, who speaks French as their first language would not usually speak English perfectly. 64.140.121.1 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]