Language desk
< May 15	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 17 >

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.

May 16

Japanese emotional words missing

Thread retitled from "Can someone explain this to me".

On the website

http://biulimiafighting.info/dying-to-be-thin-anorexia-in-japan-tbij/

It says "‘In Japanese there are no words for “I’m suffering” or “I’m sad”. I can’t share my feelings with anyone. Needing help is seen as failure, something to be ashamed of.’"

But on Google Translate, I get

http://translate.google.com/#auto%7Cja%7CI%20am%20suffering.%20I%20am%20sad. 220.239.37.244 (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't comment on the social aspects of this, but the claim that the Japanese language itself has no way to express those concepts is surely total nonsense... 86.179.0.156 (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am revising the heading of this section from "Can someone explain this to me" to "Japanese emotional words missing", in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's nonsense. There's an awful lot of it out there. This is precisely why Wikipedia asks for references to reliable sources.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan used to claim that there was no word for "freedom" in the Russian language. There are some quasi-Whorfian differences between languages, but they're generally subtler than lacking any words for basic human concepts and experiences... AnonMoos (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly it's not true that George W Bush once said that the French have no word for entrepreneur. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it is true that there's no synonym for "synonym". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about "alias"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:synonym#Synonyms.—Wavelength (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled "In Japanese there are no words for “I’m suffering” or “I’m sad”" and this was the first hit. By the way, Google Translate does accurately translate your two sentences. -- BenRG (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese word for "crisis" V85 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's possible for a language to lack a single word for a basic concept. In English, for example, we lack a single word for "male cousin". StuRat (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Stu nailed it on the head here, just like in English we lack a single native word to express the meaning of "schadenfreude" that does not mean as Americans or British we never take pleasure in the suffering of another. The problem is that it makes a great sound byte and may technically be true. I think it's especially true in languages that get a lot of meanings or shades of meaning from combining other words. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat -- If you look at the variations in kinship terminologies among the six main types of systems known to anthropologists (without even bothering with minor variants and alternatives), it's actually hard to conclude that "male cousin" is a basic human concept, on a par with basic human emotional states, etc. That's the reason why the Swadesh lists used in Glottochronology fail to include "cousin"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most persitent myths/lies of this type is the myth about the large number of Eskimo words for snow. Roger (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "cousin" is kind of loosely defined.[1] It can be used to indicate almost any relative more distant than parental line, or aunts and uncles. It's from the French for male cousin, while cousine means female cousin. Oddly enough, in Spanish the term is primo / prima, which comes from the Latin for "prime", perhaps implying "first cousin"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is my point. While English uses the vague catch-all term "cousin", many other languages are far more specific. You can still be specific in English, it just takes more than a single word. StuRat (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some languages are far more specific (Arabic has separate terms for "father's brother's child", "father's sister's child", "mother's sister's child", and "mother's brother's child", with no very simple equivalent to the English word "cousin"), some languages are far more vague (all the Hawaiian language words for siblings also include cousins of one's own generation), and some languages conceptualize things completely differently: -- the "Iroquois" type of kinship terminology (which is very common from a comparative anthropological/historical perspective) groups brothers and sisters together with mother's sister's children and father's brother's children, while treating father's sister's children and mother's brother's children rather differently (often more as in-laws than as blood relatives...). So I really don't think that "male cousin" or "female cousin" are basic concepts... AnonMoos (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gender seems rather basic to me. When anybody says "I went to a movie with my cousin", I find it quite annoying that I then have to ask their gender. We might as well only have the words "parent", "child", and "sibling", if gender doesn't matter at all. Curiously, we seem to only have gender-specific words for aunts and uncles, in contrast to only gender-neutral terms for cousins. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And neices and nephews... --Jayron32 17:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that, when I say that gender is a rather basic concept, I refer to the gender of people, and perhaps animals and plants which engage in sexual reproduction. I'm not talking about the gender of inanimate objects, which, to me, is utter silliness. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you don't mean their gender. You mean their sex. Words have gender; people (and other animals) have sex. Now you kids get off my lawn. --Trovatore (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd sentence in our gender article seems to disagree with you. StuRat (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's PC bullshit. --Trovatore (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historically "gender" may not have referred to "sex", but this is a valid usage today. To argue that it's incorrect is like saying that "gay" doesn't mean "homosexual" today. StuRat (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in any case, the usage seems to have confused you personally, in that you find it "silly" to talk about "the gender of inanimate objects". But no one talks about the gender of inanimate objects, only the gender of the words describing them, because gender (in this sense, which of course is the more correct sense) is a term of grammar and has nothing specifically to do with sex. There are languages that have, if memory serves, as many as sixteen genders (or noun classes as some prefer to call them). --Trovatore (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I suppose words themselves are "inanimate objects", though not physical objects, and in that sense those particular inanimate objects can have genders. --Trovatore (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

(ec) Well, then, you have no respect for a whole lot of languages where grammatical gender is a fundamental part of the way they do things. You just can't arbitrarily anglo-pontificate that, because they don't fit into your limited world view, these rich cultural artifacts are "utterly silly". For example, in Russian, a table is masculine, a book is feminine, and a corner is neuter. This is no more "silly" than the crazy number of homophones and homonyms English has. Grammatical gender is not essentially about sexual distinctions (although it does usually apply in that context), which is the mistake people often make. This is why, when you're talking about whatever it is that tells you that total stranger is a male and that other total stranger is a female, you are not talking about their gender but their sex. "Sex" is a lovely word that has been hijacked by the media into only ever referring to sexual activity, and people have swallowed this crap, and now get terribly embarrassed about using it for what it was always supposed to be used for, and they substitute the supposedly politically correct word "gender" in places for which it was never designed. I think we should all be having lots more "sex". Thankfully, we still have chicken sexers, but can "chicken genderers" be far away? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no respect for the gender-silliness of those languages, no. English has many deficiencies, but at least this isn't one of them. StuRat (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see grammatical gender not as any sort of deficiency, but most definitely as a richness, a positive quality. We still have it in our third person singular pronouns, of course. Would you prefer we refer to all humans as "it"? Anyway, there's little point in discussing language matters on an international language reference desk with someone who does not respect important aspects of languages other than his own. Respect would be a given for anyone seriously interested in understanding how languages actually are, and why they're that way. Did you have some other agenda? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you wake up on the wrong side of bed? You're rather grumpy today. I already stated that I'm in favor of gender when it comes to people, other animals, and plants which actually have a sex (and the gender should be the actual sex of the individual, not "all cats are feminine" and "all dogs are masculine"). And my opinion that one aspect of certain languages is silly does not mean I disrespect the language as a whole. As I've said, there are many things about English I don't like either. As for a language being artistic, I'm fine with that, but it shouldn't be made less efficient in the process (and having to learn the gender of every inanimate object certainly is inefficient). Perhaps a functional language paired with an artistic one with all that added ~~silliness~~ richness would satisfy us both. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But note your own language: "I'm in favor of ...", and " ... it shouldn't be made less efficient in the process ...". Stu, this is not some process where we're collectively creating some super new language and making democratic decisions on the features it will have. It is about accepting languages that already exist and have evolved over many centuries or in some cases millennia. We have no choice but to accept them 100%, exactly as they are. We can note, analyse and discuss the similarities with our own language, and the differences between them. But deciding that any particular difference is good or bad or anything else is a really arrogant and disrespectful position to take. These differences just are. You have to go to where they are, not expect them to come to where you are. And just because I take issue with more than one of your utterances on the same day does not mean there's anything wrong with my psychological state. It could indicate there's something extremely weird going on with you, for example. So, please do not personalise these discussions. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. Language is dynamic, and constantly evolves based on the choices each of us make (which words we use, which words we don't, etc.). As such, the growth of language is one of the most democratic processes there is. (Even in French, where there is a central language authority, they would eventually have to accept new words, grammar, etc., once they became widespread.) It would be interesting to see you berate E. E. Cummings for his refusal to capitalize words, or Lewis Carroll for inventing nonsense words in Jabberwocky. StuRat (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat -- All languages can indicate gender distinctions in kinship terms by attaching suitable prefixes or suffixes or disambiguating words (as English can form phrases such as "female cousin" etc). However, the amount of obligatory gender distinctions, or gender distinctions in basic underived vocabulary, varies quite a bit between different languages. Many languages have their sibling terms divided up as "sibling of the same sex" vs. "sibling of the opposite sex", or as "elder sibling" vs. "younger sibling", and not as "brother" vs. "sister". A few languages have no obligatory sex distinctions except in the words for "father" and "mother". Hawaiian takes things to an extreme by having one basic word makua which means "relative of the first ascending generation" (covering mother, father, aunts, uncles, cousins of an older generation, etc.). I really don't know whether including gender distinctions in kinship terminologies can be considered truly basic to human languages, and the particular English concept of "cousin" is definitely very culturally relative... AnonMoos (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They must have some words beyond "makua", or you would get absurd sentences like "my makua and makua just picked up my makua to go over to my makua's home to discuss the situation concerning my makua". Reminds me of the South Park episode where the alien race had only one word for all nouns. StuRat (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They can add suffixes -- makua kāne="father, uncle, male cousin of parents' generation"; makuahine="mother, aunt, female cousin of parents' generation" -- just as English can differentiate "cousin" into "male cousin" and "female cousin". (Hawaiian definitions taken from The Pocket Hawaiian Dictionary with a Concise Hawaiian Grammar by Mary Kawena Pukui, Samuel H. Elbert, and Esther T. Mookini (1975) ISBN 0-8248-0307-8.) AnonMoos (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I imagine they can further limit that, say specifically to "mother". So, yes, another example of a language lacking a single word for a basic concept (or is somebody going to argue that "mother" isn't a basic concept ?). StuRat (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foxes

The word fox seems to have a myriad different forms in the various Indoeuropean languages.

Vulpes in Latin, volpe in Italian
Fox in English, vos in Dutch, Fuchs in German
Zorro in Spanish
Guineu in Catalan
Raev in Danish, räv in Swedish
Llwynog in Welsh
Alepou in Greek
Louarn in Breton, lowarn in Cornish
Renard in French
Sionnach in Gaelic
Lisica in Croatian, lis in Polish, lisicha in Russian
Àrnar in Picard
Raposa in Portuguese, rabosa in Aragonese

My question is: why are there so many different etymological roots for an animal which was common in Europe and in the proposed Indoeuropean urheimat? Is there a particular reason why the Indoeuropean root for "fox" was not preserved in a majority of European IE languages? Leptictidium (mt) 08:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the Indoeuropean root is "ulp", which can also mean "wolf", maybe that's why there is a tendency to seek terms that mean "fox" more specifically. Of your list above, the Latin and Greek both seem to be from "ulp". The Welsh is surely the same etymon as the Cornish and Breton. "Renard" in French is a nickname, found in English as Reynard, from the Roman de Renart. The Picard is probably a reflex of that. Here we find a suggestion that the Occitan guèine, and thus the Catalan, are from a Germanic personal name. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that unusual - the English "horse", Latin "caballus" and German "Pferd" seem unrelated. Similarly, the English "dog", Latin "canis", and Russian "sobáka" all refer to the same animal. The Indo-Europeans had taboos about speaking the names of some animals such as wolves and bears[2][3], though this doesn't seem to have applied to foxes (or indeed horses and dogs). My guess would be a combination of borrowing from non Indo-European languages (as with the Spanish[4]), the use of multiple names for different sexes/ages/breeds/related species with different ones becoming generalised (e.g. the Russian word for dog is related to the ancient Greek for puppy), and a tendency to give nicknames to common animals (as with Renard). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that the ancient French name for a fox was a "goupil", which is derived straight from the Latin. --Xuxl (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to learn that "Pferd," the German word for horse, derives from the Late Latin "paraveredus," meaning courier horse.^[1] Why German used that particular horse word is a mystery to me though.76.26.141.174 (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction: the Russian for fox without regard to gender is the male version, lisá (which happens to be grammatically feminine). The word for a vixen is lisitsa (also feminine). There is no lisicha. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there is lisichka :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 16, 2012; 18:48 (UTC)

Pravilno. Foxes eat hedgehogs, so watch out. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The Online Etymological Dictionary has some interesting information about the etymology of "fox" and some of its equivalents in other languages. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 June 16#Meaning "jumps".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renard in french was the name of the anthromorphic fox hero of "Le roman de Renart" which became so famous in France that the old name "goupil" (from latin vulpes) was gradually replaced by renard.Dhatier (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may be interested in EO's discussion:[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Pferd

Citation style at UK universities

I notice in the library webpages of some UK universities, including Cambridge, that some American style guides such as The Chicago Manual of Style are recommended for citations. But these style guides contain comprehensive style advice for entire research papers, not just the citations. And some of the advice, such as date formats ("16 May 2012" vs. "May 16, 2012") is at odds with UK usage. So how is this resolved? Is UK usage followed in the body of the paper and the American style guide used for the citations? Or are the rules in the American style guide modified to agree with the usage in the body of the paper? Jc3s5h (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I was at university, it seemed like there was no system at all. So long as a single system was used coherently throughout the essay, it didn't matter (much) exactly what style was used. Style sheets only applied to the bibliography and citations of essays, other things, such as margins, front page, running heads, and the alike were completely ignored. (We just used the defaults in the word processor, rather than fidling around with it to match the style sheet.) The thing that was most strict was the information that we were to provide on the cover page of the essay. While the specifics such as font, font size and spacing were not relevant, there were requirements, such as student ID number, which none of the style sheets I came across, included.

As for dates, those style sheets which I came across, despite being American, all seemed to favour the UK way of writing dates (DD-MM-YY) rather than the American (MM-DD-YY). As in your example, as long as the months are written out (or in abbreviated form in letters) it doesn't really matter much whether you're using American or UK style, since the specific date will be clear; it's only once you start writing both days and months using only numbers that there can be some ambiguity. V85 (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current CMOS doesn't seem to require either system: "In the month-day-year style of dates, commas must be used to set off the year. In the day-month-year system—useful in material that requires many full dates (and standard in British English)—no commas are needed" (6.45). Lesgles (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've taught at two universities and the guidance at each was exactly the same: follow the guidance given by the Study Skills tutor. Every university has its own style guide which you are required to follow. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, even though universities may recommend a style guide, in practice they will have their own rules that may go against it. (Also, just because you're told to use a style guide for referencing doesn't mean you necessarily are expected to use every other recommendation in every other chapter.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's what I said in essence: "every university has its own style guide", not "every university will recommend you consult a style guide". This guide covers everything. I've never come across a UK university that recommends you consult an American book for guidance in formatting, although given the OP I'm prepared to accept that one does exist. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the style depends on the field? For example, in some subjects, citations usually quote the full title of articles, while in others, this is unheard of. In my course, I don't think there was really a clear specification, just some advice to make sure the references are consistent and contain enough information for someone else to easily find the source. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at Cambridge myself, and all the style guides I've seen state that any of the mainstream citation styles can be followed as long as you're consistent. I personally prefer parenthetical referencing along the lines of (Smith 2000: 25) (which tends to be referred to here as the "social science style"). --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for grammatical help

I am working on an article and want to know which wording is correct. Should it be:

"The diagnosis of many conditions often also requires a skin biopsy."

OR

"The diagnosis of a many conditions often also requires a skin biopsy."

Thanks in advance for your help! ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely the first, and you might be able to drop "The" from the start of the sentence, although more context would be necessary. --LarryMac | Talk 14:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that only the first option is possible. The second might come from confusion with "The diagnosis of many a condition...", which is grammatically OK but sounds slightly archaic. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LarryMac and AndrewWTaylor, and suggest the sentence might be shortened if context allows:

"~~The d~~Diagnosis of many conditions often ~~also~~ requires a skin biopsy."

Jc3s5h (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the best way to phrase a sentence depends on context, but the grammar aspect in this sentence is very clear: The a in the second sentence is grammatically incorrect. The a is the indefinite singular article, whereas the word conditions is plural. Either write a condition or many conditions. V85 (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is the following.

The diagnoses of many conditions often also require skin biopsies.

However, I prefer the following option because it is less ambiguous about the number of biopsies required for each diagnosis.

It often happens that the diagnosis of a condition requires a skin biopsy.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two slightly different meanings. Wavelength's last option is just a general statement with no subtle implications. My version could be read to imply that many conditions sometimes require a biopsy to form a diagnosis, but some other conditions can be diagnosed without a biopsy. So the version chosen should reflect the actual state of affairs. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a little trouble with often in these sentences. Wouldn't "Many skin conditions require a biopsy for diagnosis/to be diagnosed" be more clear? By adding often it seems to me to imply that many conditions require a biopsy a lot of the time, but not all the time. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some jerk on the Internet wrote "by adding often it seems to me to imply that many conditions require a biopsy a lot of the time, but not all the time." I'm no expert on conditions, but I would expect this to be true. Doesn't it seem likely that early on a condition could easily be confused with other conditions, but when it reaches an advanced stage it's obvious to a skin doctor what the condition is? Jc3s5h (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those parts of English that we use specifically to confuse non-native speakers. You can have 'a few apples' and 'a lot of apples', but not 'a many apples'. As far as I know, there is no real reason for this - it's just one of those things you will need to learn. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you can also have 'few apples', which is not at all the same as 'a few apples'. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a huge difference between "some apples", "any apples", and just "apples": Moore, are there apples in that basket? "Yes", he replied, and smiled seraphically, as was his wont. From that day, we have been the very closest of friends. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

[1] ttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Pferd

[1]