Language desk
< November 22	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	Current desk >

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.

November 23

Japanese transcription of German

Why are Möbius, Gödel, and Schrödinger transcribed as メビウス, ゲーデル, and シュレーディンガー rather than モビウス, ゴーデル, and シュローディンガー? --168.7.234.93 (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the [øː] sound of German sounds closer to [eː] than to [oː] to Japanese ears, and why not? Even many Germans replace [øː] with [eː] when speaking, and the two sounds are considered to rhyme in German poetry. (The same goes for all the other front rounded vowels and their unrounded equivalents.) The pronunciation [eː] (anglicized to [eɪ]) is usual in Texas German as well: Koenig Lane in Austin is pronounced "KAY-nig", and I knew someone with the last name Goehmann who pronounced it GAY-m'n (to rhyme with Cayman). And isn't there some American politician named Boener, pronounced Bayner? Angr (talk) 09:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, John Boehner. In English we sometimes do other weird things with that German vowel. People always seem to pronounce "Goebbels", especially, like "gerbils" (with a hard g). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that if John Boehner was British, we would pronounce it "burner", but this approximation doesn't work in rhotic accents. - filelake shoe  13:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my ear, it actually does come pretty close to rhotic "burner". Germans don't hear an r there, but I do. --Trovatore (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And föhn of course: /fɜːn/ FIRN, though /feɪn/ FAYN also exists. --Theurgist (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Groening: (/[invalid input: 'icon']ˈɡreɪnɪŋ/ GRAY-ning--Shirt58 (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is ü transcribed as u or yu rather than i? (e.g. ミュラー for Müller) --168.7.233.219 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I guess consistency is too much to expect. (Mueller Airport is pronounced Miller, though.) I assume Myobiusu, Gyōderu, and Shuryōdinga would be pronounceable in Japanese, right? One thing I like about Japanese transliteration of German is how Bach ends up as Bahha, even though Japanese itself doesn't have geminate [h]. Angr (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord. I've never noticed that. One-off, early attempts at rendering /x/? Aachen /ˈaːxən/ in Japanese is ja:アーヘン (āhen) /aːhɛn/. Jacques Offenbach is ja:ジャック・オッフェンバック (jakku offenbakku) /I have no idea how to represent gemination in IPA

/, but that's probably from French or English, not German.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did it right. Gemination is usually represented in IPA by writing the consonant twice, sometimes by using the length mark ː, same as for long vowels. Angr (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Meiji Restoration period possible Japanese phonological approximations of /x/, Batman. Offenbach am Main as rendered at ja:オッフェンバッハ article is nevertheless as per Hepburn. "Offen'bahha".

--Shirt58 (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciaton of Speaight

How do you pronounce Robert Speaight and George Speaight's surname? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The usual British pronunciation rhymes with "straight". Alansplodge (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk 19:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Arabic to learn?

I've decided to learn Arabic, and there are several options available: Levantine/Eastern Arabic, Egyptian Arabic, Modern Arabic, Classical Arabic. Where should I start, if it matters at all. Is that like the difference between British and American English, that actually doesn't matter which you learn, since at the end you just speak with the accent of your mother tongue?Linenld (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your intentions. Modern Standard Arabic has the widest application, especially for reading and business. Classical Arabic is good for scholarship. Egyptian Arabic is the largest dialect, but might not be the best if you only plan on visiting the Gulf Emirates. Without knowing anything of your goals, MSA is probably the safest choice, as it's the closest to a lingua franca. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any professional or travelwise interest. It's just for the educational value, for being able to understand a new culture. How far are these dialects from each other. Which real-life version is nearer MSA? Linenld (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give a subjective opinion, wait a while, plenty of speakers here, so they will give better advice within a day or two. In the meantime, you may enjoy listening to this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPGHpBOt5sE. μηδείς (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For educational purposes MSA is the best option. With it you can understand classical stuff, newspapers, news, and educated Arabs will understand you for sure, although you won't understand them in many cases. gyptian Arabic is well-understood by really many Arabs, since a lot of TV shows, songs, media, watched in the Arab world is from Egypt. I wouldn't recommend any regional dialect, unless you know for sure that you are going to visit the country. Take also into account that many Arabs speak French or English at an advanced level. Once you learned one version well, others won't be very difficult to understand. Mostly the roots are very similar, but the vowels are different across dialects. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above replies, Classical seems to be very similar to MSA, as far as I can gather. I've asked native speakers about the distinction, and seems roughly this: if you learn one, you are learning the other, but they are not the same, as there are poetic forms in the Koran (the most significant repository of the classical language) which are not natural in speech. One speaker gave the analogy that we have some trouble understanding Shakespeare, but it is still basically the same language. I personally think MSA is closer to the Koran than Shakespeare is to our English, but that is perhaps more of a suspicion. My own Arabic (elementary grammar) was from MSA and Koranic textbooks, and they are roughly identical to a beginner. If you go deeper, you will find whole word patterns (F'L patterns) that are found in the Koran and not MSA, but they are rare in the Koran. Native speakers have told me there is no point learning a dialect, because MSA is the prestige language, and the language of news services. One speaker was mystified at the number of language courses coming out on dialectal Arabic, because he just said it was useless. IBE (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're an engineer, and you're going to one specific Arab country where part of your job will be interacting with employees who are not highly educated, then MSA would be almost useless for that purpose. I don't think this situation is as common as it used to be, but it explains some of the appeal of books teaching Arabic dialects to English speakers published in past decades (I have a "Pocket Guide to Arabic" published by the Arabian American Oil Company in 1955). AnonMoos (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't intend to travel to Arabic-speaking countries in the immediate future, go for modern standard Arabic. Your main contact with the language is likely to be through printed materials or television broadcasts, which usually use MSA (at least for news, documentaries, talk shows, etc; drama is often in local dialects). It will not help you a whole lot in understanding Arab speakers you may encounter in the West, as speaking MSA will be quite unnatural for them; however, they will have no problem understanding you. From that basis, certain dialects, principally Levantine, are going to be very easy to learn, and others, like Moroccan Arabic are almost a different language altogether (but you would still be able to read road signs, newspapers, etc in any Arab country). The main difference with classical Arabic is that the classical version still applies a lot of grammar rules, such as case endings, which have fallen out out of use in MSA; MSA is thus considerably simpler. And obviously, classical Arabic lacks words for all sorts of modern things and concepts. --Xuxl (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Learn a language in x days

When a language course promises that you'll learn a language in 30 or even 10 days, is that a scam? Which language courses for autonomous learning are recommendable? Linenld (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's sheer nonsense, and such claims should prejudice you against the course. I have never been able to learn a new language after early childhood without personal instruction for at least a semester or two. A discussion partner is an absolute must for practice. (Once you've got down the grammar and pronunciation, vocabulary and idiomatic expressions can be studied on their own.) Assuming you don't already speak another Semitic language I would strongly recommend you try to find a course in Arabic with a teacher. Some college professors will even let you sit in on a class for free if you show interest, although this will be against school policy, so you have to be delicate in asking permission. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Learn a language in 10 days, how to earn a million with little investment and no work, find a Russian bride, get rid of your belly while you're asleep. The internet is full of chances waiting to be grabbed. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like everything else, it all depends on how much you are prepared to commit to learning the language in a given time. If you are prepared to totally immerse yourself in your study and only think and speak in the foreign language, you will learn quicker. For example, you can book a week in France and learn the language to a basic holiday type standard. Google "french language course in france" and you will find plenty of willing providers. As to what courses come recommended, I learnt Dutch/Flemish with Linguaphone about 15 years ago. Their cassette tape course took me about a month working for about 5 hours a day, and I was commended on the excellent way I spoke Flemish when I was on holiday in Ypres. Another thing which will affect the outcome is any natural ability on your part: if you pick up languages easily you will find it easier. I have a natural ability for languages so I'm told. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta Stone (software) is very highly regarded. --Viennese Waltz 18:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

College summer courses (some offer them over winter break) are also an excellent option, because they cram a semester into a few weeks, and the intensity keeps the learning fresh and urgent. μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I learned Spanish from a booklet "Spanish in 30 days" and speak and read it, whereas my Russian course of one year with a college teacher did not achieve this. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You probably started to learn it with this 30 days course, and then you got considerable interaction, until you learned it (or not). OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it also depends on how easy it is for an English-speaker to learn the language. I read somewhere that because of similarity of vocabulary, virtually the same writing system, orthography = pronunciation, and so on that Spanish was the easiest language for an English speaker to learn, despite Spanish being a Romance language and English being Germanic. (I mean of the languages commonly offered for study: it would be easier to learn West Frisian). Read a map, ask directions and order food in Spanish in 30 days? Sure. Read a map, ask directions and order food in Russian in 30 days? Erm. Well, first there is learning Cyrillic. Read a map, ask directions and order food in Japanese? I studied it for three freakin' years then arrived in Tokyo to discover that I couldn't read a map, ask directions and order food.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the usual assumption, learning the Cyrillic alphabet is usually achieved quickly. It's the other stuff that screws with your mind: like the insane complexities of verbs of motion, and unpredictable stress changes, and their mania for indirect subject-less expressions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I studied Great Russian at university we were expected to have mastered printed and cursive Cyrillic by the time of meeting for the second class. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a malchik or dvotchka who can govoreet Nadsat real horrorshow has a malenky head start to pony Russian...

「御返却日はいつに為さいますか？」(Go-henkyakubi wa itsu ni nasaimasuka) is a sentence I will remember for the rest of life. Despite being able to read novels with a dictionary, I had absolutely no clue how to hire a video in Japanese. The clerk in the store and I almost died of mutual embarrassment while I asked him to write it down, then left the store empty handed. Half an hour later I was back, and when asked "Go-henkyakubi wa itsu ni nasaimasuka" ("when do you want to return it?", very politely phrased) triumphantly replied 「明明後日, お願いします!」("Shiasatte o-negaishimasu" - "Three days from now, please!" Yattā!--Shirt58 (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I first arrived in Japan in 1997, after a few months I was transferred to a different office, and I had some baggage I needed to send. I had been told by my boss that I needed to use the Black Cat service to send my bag, and I could set that up at a convenience store. Of course, now I know the company is called ヤマト宅急便 but I went into the shop telling the lady I needed to send a bag to Nagoya, and needed the black cat. She was completely confused, but in the end, after me saying 黒猫 multiple times, her eyes lit up, and she led me away..... to the cat food section. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the whole claim hinges on just exactly what they mean by "learn a language":

Know enough of it to get by more-or-less adequately on a short tourist trip? Probably, but with frequent recourse to a dictionary.
Be able to conduct a simple conversation with a native? Probably, but significantly slower than normal speed.
Be able to correspond by letter or email with a native? Probably.
Be able to read a newspaper or a novel in that language? Up to a point, but you'd need your dictionary and you'd need to allow extra time. And there'd still be expressions you would not understand and would need to ask for outside help about.
Be able to watch TV or a movie or attend a lecture or a speech or a sermon or a play in that language with no subtitles to assist you? No. You might catch a few words here and there but you'd miss the overall sense.
Speak it like a native, with an instantly recallable vocabulary matching that of a native? Hardly. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, for ordering a meal in French, like in Hollywood films, to impress a girl your French in 30 days will work OK. But if you want to attend college in France, that's not enough. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can learn a lot just working from a book with tapes. Obviously, these claims of learning a language in a given number of days are nonsense. But in many cases this doesn't mean the book isn't any good. The author may produce an excellent book, but it's the publisher that will be in charge of the marketing aspect. I started learning Russian from a book called "Le russe en 90 leçons et 90 jours." It was a reasonably good introduction. 96.46.195.234 (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing just on the "which course", my own limited experience suggests that the Pimsleur course may be the best. I haven't tried the Arabic, only the Persian course, and I have hardly got past cd 1 for lack of time. It was by far the most engaging course of any I had tried, and focused heavily on repetition at spaced intervals (others just give you content, Pimsleur is designed to teach). The spaced repetition is in fact the basis of the Pimsleur system. I was a little skeptical, but I found myself actually repeating what the speaker was saying, and I have never done that before with CD language courses. I almost sound like a salesman, but heck, I just told you I've only used cd 1 for the moment. At any rate, if you are more concerned about time rather than money, invest quickly in a range of options and resources, and pick the one that engages your brain. IBE (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I speak English. I learn it from a book. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember when I was a high school kid, I found a book in the library called "Speak Japanese Today", and true to its title, I did indeed speak Japanese that day, albeit a couple of phrases and a useless knowledge of the etymology of a dozen or so kanji. But, the title was correct, and I would not have been able to take them to court for the Trade Descriptions Act, because I did indeed speak Japanese, that day. There are language books saying '[insert language here] in Three Months' which teach very little. Also, the supposed three month period required to finish the book actually depends on the reader. I have completed a couple of them in just over a week, and some people may take more than three months, depending on their learning style and time available for study. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure Scottish dialect in Brave (2012)

In that 2012 Disney animated film set in ancient Scotland, the characters speak with Scottish accents, but one young man speaks in words unintelligible to a US audience . But additionally, the other characters look at each other after he speaks, and shrug as if they also haven't a clue. Is the character actually saying anything in some Scot dialect? Edison (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know which character or have a clip of this part of the film? - filelake shoe  19:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Kevin McKidd who speaks "Young MacGuffin"s voice, it's Doric, the way his grandfather spoke. See this clip from The View, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's at about 4:14 in that clip if anybody is interested. Falconus^{p t c} 00:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first part in that clip is 'Aye aye, fit like, nae bad, yersel'--standard Aberdonian dialect for 'Yes yes, how are you, not bad, yourself?' The hilarity of the audience then drowns out the next bit, but he ends with 'It's a braw moonlit nicht the nicht' (It's a lovely moonlit night tonight), which is stereotypical cod-Scots. Henry ^Flower 06:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. I couldn't tell if he was speaking the dialect of some region of Scotland or just "imitation Scots," like some comedians have done bits of imitation German, French, Chinese, or whatever. Edison (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On/at website

Which is correct? What if "website" is replaced with a specific name (e.g. facebook)? bamse (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "on a website" and "on Facebook". For me, "at Facebook" would mean at the company, i.e. "my cousin lives in Menlo Park and works at Facebook". Lesgles (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lesgles' answer is the only correct one: I've never heard "at Facebook" for the website. The idiom is always "I put the pictures of our new baby up on Facebook" etc etc. Same with any website: "People have the quirkiest discussions on Wikipedia/ on that website etc.". IBE (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although there's nothing wrong with using "at" metaphorically (considering a webpage as a place) as I just did on the miscellaneous desk here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably depends on whether one uses the full URL or just the generalized name. E.g., "My search on Google led to me finding my friends on Facebook" or "My search started at www.google.com which led to finding a friend at www.facebook.com." There really must be some sort of linguistic reason for this. 97.93.199.163 (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either one could be correct depending on the rest of the sentence. You could say "My boss caught me looking at Facebook." or "My boss caught me looking at a website about Paris." In either of those sentences using "on" wouldn't really work. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's confused because the verb itself is "look at". But you would be looking at something on farcebook. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the replies. So it is "on" for facebook/website and "at" for facebook.com ? bamse (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'd go with, on a website and at a web address. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind the answer could involve some variation for different dialects of English (Comparison of American and British English#Prepositions and adverbs). For example, British English users apparently ring someone "on (telephone number)" whereas American English users call someone "at (telephone number)". A similar difference could possibly be seen with web addresses. For me (Midwestern US), I would also use "on" when referring to the website as an actual place or location, and "at" when referring to the address to access it by. e.g I would read a friend's post on Facebook at facebook.com. -- 71.35.111.52 (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis. Can you just clarify something in your last comment? Are you saying that you would say "My boss caught me looking on Facebook." or "My boss caught me looking on a website about Paris."? It seems a bit odd but it may be as 71.35.111.52 points out. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No: bamse and Medeis' question and answer were in relation to all the previous answers, not specifically to Medeis' previous answer. 'Look at' is a phrasal verb, where the particle ('at') belongs to the verb, and does not depend on the following noun. Henry ^Flower 00:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry deleted his comment when he saw my response below but I have restored it as relevant and containing a helpful link to phrasal verb. μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither, since the verb is "to look at" with the at as part of the verb--"to look" and "to look at" have different meanings. So it would either be caught me... (...looking at facebook), or (...on facebook) or (...looking at something on facebook) or (...looking at a website about Paris) and so on. One could look at an image on a website or look at an image on Facebook or look at an image at a web address. μηδείς (talk) 7:48 pm, Today (UTC−5)