Language desk
< March 29	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 31 >

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 30

Brushed black tails

Translating Lindsay Faye's Gods of Gotham, I found the expression as follows:

When my brother laughs, he flinches, as if he shouldn't be laughing. And he shouldn't. A darker-minded gentleman never stalked the festering city streets in brushed black tails.

The brother is pictured as a 'dead rabbit' some sort of macho. I don't understand the last sentence above. Please help.--Analphil (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tails" is slang for a tuxedo, so I imagine they are referring to brushed, black, tux. StuRat (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a tuxedo was a tailcoat without the tails. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):I think the reference might be to the tails of a formal tailcoat (as in evening dress, but not on a tuxedo). Cf. Irving Berlin's classic Top Hat, White Tie and Tails:

I'm puttin' on my top hat
Tyin' up my white tie
Brushin' off my tails

This is going to be a hard piece to translate without understanding the author's apparently-frequent puns, semi-puns and allusions from the everyday life, habits, artifacts, colloquialisms and slang of early to mid-20th century America. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)\[reply]

(edit conflict)x3 Actually, StuRat is making a common mistake. "Tails" is short for a Tailcoat, while a tuxedo always stops at the waist, and never has tails. They are both "formal" wear, and many modern people confuse them, but they are distinct coats. The tuxedo is more "modern" than the tailcoat, and was what all the young punks were wearing in the late 19th century to piss off their elders. --Jayron32 03:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that this novel is a recent one, but set in 1845, which is I think long before such barbarities as the tuxedo had even been thought of, let alone worn, while tailcoats were quite common, even de rigueur, among the higher classes. I wonder when "high" became a term used to describe an opium fiend's state of mind and consciousness. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the Dead Rabbits were a prominent NYC gang of the time. Without more context, I'm not sure how this is related to the use in the novel. Deor (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sub-Suharan African accent" in English in the United States

There seems to be something in the English-speaking world (at least in the United States) known as an "African" accent. Most, if not all, will know what I'm referring to, but, if not, please view this video on YouTube, from the movie Soul Plane, "soul plane funny moments (it's the best way I could think of getting my point accross; WARNING: This video containtains profanity, such as the "f" word and the "n" word; it's the URL; listen to 2:02-2:30):" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im7lFm0pY4E&feature=player_detailpage

I am talking about the character "Leslie Gayman (I am not sure on the spelling)." In the United States, at least, it seems as if basically anyone who was a native speaker of a Sub-Saharan African {the part of Africa generally populated by black people [i.e., excluding the part of Africa generally populated by 'Middle-Eastern' people (I hope this doesn't offend anyone; I don't know how else to express it)]} language, they have an accent like that character, "Leslie Gayman."

What I find troubling about this is, I know there would have to be more than one language spoken in Sub-Saharan Africa, and, not only that, but, according to the Wikipedia page "Languages of Africa," there are several language families (in the field of linguistics, the study of languages, the vast consesus is that languages within language families are not related at all to languages within other language families) in Sub-Saharan Africa, such as the Niger-Congo languages and the Khoisan languages.

Based on the fact that an accent in English (let alone any language) will turn out different based on the speaker's native language, why is it that it seems as if everyone who is a native speaker of native langugage found in Sub-Saharan Africa [I mean native language of Sub-Saharan Africa to exclude languages such as Afrikaans, which is Dutch-originated (Dutch is within the Indo-European language family, which includes the English language)] has accent identical to the character in the video? Can it be figured out what the native language of a person with an accent that character's is? My trouble with this is that I would think that the English accents in the United States of people whose native languages are native of Sub-Saharan Africa would differ, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Why is this (that is my overall question)? Is it becuase most foreign-born people who's native language is a native language of Sub-Saharan Africa, for the most part, come from a certain part of Africa, speaking one language? Or something else? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.192.78.117 (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to exist common features of a so-called "African accent". Of course there are variations, and a Nigerian and Ugandan won't sound exactly the same, but you can definitely hear some common features. I guess it has to do with the sound system of the Niger-Congo languages (the vast majority of Sub-Saharan Africans speak Niger-Congo languages, and I don't think there are that many Khoisan immigrants to the US - Khoisan isn't a family anyway, they are just click languages which don't belong to Niger-Congo). 92.80.58.90 (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be more to do with who has taught them the English language? Teachers - in Africa - would have learned from other teachers, who learned from other teachers, etc., and over the years a more or less common style or accent is likely to have developed between the community of teachers - as well as a sharing of style through radio broadcasts and so forth. Incidentally, there is also an "Indian accent", despite the number of languages spoken there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is a single sub-Saharan accent. I think that there are several. I perceive three main families of accents. There is a West African family of accents, with Anglophone and Francophone variants (the latter conditioned by the fact that people speaking that variant were first exposed to European languages through French, so that French pronunciations color their English); an East African family of accents; and a Southern African family of accents. Because we are not used to hearing these accents, when we see a black person speaking with one of these accents, we may label it as an African accent, since we don't know the differences among them. This is similar to an American who has trouble distinguishing the many accents of England. These regional families of accents, I think, are tied to very loose Sprachbunds that have resulted in similar phonological inventories over large areas of Africa. And of course, Ghmyrtle is right that a lot has to do with who introduced people in a given region to English. As in South Asia, I think it was often Scottish and northern English missionaries, but the large difference between the underlying phonologies in each region of Africa and those in South Asia resulted in a very different set of accents in Africa. Marco polo (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of phonetically-unsophisticated American listener who does not haunt this discussion board often tends to conflate all Sub-Saharan ("African") accents, and often confuses them all with Afro-Caribbean accents as well; just as many Yanks will refer generically to a "British" accent, making no distinction between Scouse, Cockney, Geordie and Received Pronunciation (to say nothing of Braid Scots and Anglo-Manx). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the premise of the question; in my part of London, there are many immigrants from Commonwealth countries in Africa, and they all have (to my ear) a strikingly similar accent, with the exception of Somalians. A caveat is that I have to listen carefully to distinguish between Australians and New Zealanders, when they swear blind that they sound quite different. Alansplodge (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since many regional British accents are at least as different from RP as RP is from any variety of AmE, I am surprised how Americans not already familiar with a particular regional British accent, but only familiar with some approximation of RP, can even tell it's British. Or maybe they can't? 86.171.174.159 (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not be too hard on the Yanks. There are a good number of Britons who would be able to identify a North American accent but not be able to pin it to a region. Alansplodge (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't in any way intending to be critical of Americans, and I'm sorry if it appeared that way. My question was purely factual. How do Americans tell that a British regional accent is British if they are not familiar with it, when, as it seems to me, British accents vary amongst themselves a great deal, and a great deal more than the BrE/AmE divide as is usually perceived? Is there some common denominator among British accents as (so it seems to me) there is among American accents? 86.179.3.13 (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greek word interpretation

I am seeking the English meaning of the Greek word ἔχη. This word has been interpreted as should, shall, or may by various versions of the Bible. The particular verse usage I am interested in is John 6:40 Greek New Testament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.192.183 (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's ἔχῃ (with an iota subscript), and it's the 3rd-person singular subjunctive form of the verb ἔχω, "I have". I'd say that either "that everyone . . . should have everlasting life" or "that everyone . . . may have everlasting life" are reasonable translations of the passage in question—I don't really see much distinction between them. Deor (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see a fairly clear distinction between "may have" and "should have". "May" indicates permission (you are allowed to have - the choice is yours) whereas "should" is imperative (you will have - you don't have a choice). Roger (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]