Language desk
< October 15	<< Sep \| Oct \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 16

British and southern US accents

I saw a program on TV that said that some accents in the southern US are very similar to British accents of the 18th century. How do they know what 18th-century accents were like? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Historical linguistics. I tried looking for a Wikipedia article on phonological reconstruction, but that redirected to "historical linguistics". User:Medeis may have some better clues for you, they seem to be very knowledgeable on linguistics.--Jayron32 02:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that what is thought of as a typical Southern accent is very 18th-century. One voluminous scholarly work with a lot of information is "English Pronunciation 1500-1700" (vols. 1 and 2) by Eric John Dobson (though it technically ends at the beginning of the 18th)...AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One obvious point - there is no such thing as a 'British accent', even now. There certainly wasn't one in the 18th century.AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across various not very scholarly references that have attributed characteristics of genteel Southern American English toCavalier English speech of aristocrats under the reign of Charles I of England and other landed aristocrats. (See Charleston, Virginia(where I was conceived--yes, I went there) and The Carolinas) They are supposedly the immigrants who could afford estates and slaves. One can draw obvious parallels between the non-rhotic speech of the South (and New England) and received pronunciation. But I have never come across anything I have found particularly convincing in respect to this and have no worthwhile references to offer. My suspicion is that the non-rhotic aspect of Southern speech is an issue of random fixation based on an original bias of Southern non-rhotic speakers than anything else. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is anecdotal evidence and original research, but I have a US Southern accent and several times people have thought that I was from the UK because of my accent. Just as there isn't one British accent, there isn't one Southern accent. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recent source of the accent comparison was David Stern of the University of Connecticut. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You think that's bad? I have a South Jersey accent and have been accused of being British. I think it's the enunciation.μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very typical Southern English accent, and when in the USA once I was mistaken for a Texan, which astonished me.86.146.105.202 (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a linguist, but I'm rather sceptical of the whole premise. How could an accent be transplanted to an alien setting and remain ossified for 200 years, while the same accent has changed (apparently) out of all recognition in its home environment? It makes no sense.Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's a rather common phenomenon, where there is a center in a language from which innovations spread, with peripheral areas retaining conservative and even archaic features. For example, consider the spread of the loss of final /r/ from the center to the periphery in BritainRhotic_and_non-rhotic_accents#Development_of_non-rhotic_accents and the retention of archaic features like pronunciation of "gh" and trilling of /r/ in some Scottish dialects. See wave model. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples include Quebec French which retains elements of 18th century French lost in modern French, and Icelandic which is much closer to ancient Norse than modern Norwegian, Swedish or Danish. Modern Icelanders take pride in their language and actually put extra effort into maintaining their language and eschewing loans from other languages. It seems counter-intuitive that languages in isolated areas would develop less than the language in its 'original habitat', but it seems to be the case. V85 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the opposite of what one would expect from biology, since species in fringe areas adapt to their new surroundings and change because of it. But there is no natural selection as such in linguistic change. A large amount of linguistic change is due to innovation in a prestigious center such as Paris in French or youth culture centered on NY and LA in the US. But the phenomenon even can be found in the innovative Satem dialects of Indo-European which were centered on the Pontic homeland with the Centum languages being found on the periphery. See centum-satem isogloss.μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But how do they know what the accents were like 250 years ago (the article oesn't say). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a specific answer (someone may) but it's usually done via two methods, either the comments of educated writers or writers from other areas who comment on the peculiarities of local speech (think Mark Twain portraying local dialect in his writings) or by misspellings of untutored local writers which reveal their actual pronunciations rather than accepted spellings; "wif dat" for "with that" in Britain, "nigga" in the US, and the like. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, correlating what people said at the time about pronunciations with later and more well-attested pronunciation developments is the most important method. In Dobson's book, there's a great deal about people such as John Hart and Alexander Gill and I imagine that there's comparable data from the 18th-century... AnonMoos (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic help

What is the Arabic on the billboard: File:Corruption-Nouakchott.jpg? How do you say "Billboard of a campaign to prevent corruption in Nouakchott" in Arabic? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"أبرهن على نزاهتي بالامتناع عن الرشوة". I don't know how to translate the description, though. Lesgles(talk) 04:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Also, what's the Arabic in http://web.archive.org/web/20100804212603im_/http://www.mf.gov.dz/images/bannnn.gif ? ThanksWhisperToMe (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first one, Lesgles is referring to, says: "I show my integrity by refusing to be corrupted". And the second one is الجمهوریة الجزائریة الدیمقراطیة الشعبیة (the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria), وزارة المالیة (Ministry of Finances). --Omidinist (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Omidinist! Now, what would the image description "Billboard of a campaign to prevent corruption in Nouakchott" be in Arabic? And forFile:Rue_Champollion_in_Alexandria.JPG what is the Arabic on the sign? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The street sign says "شارع شامپوليون", Champollion Street. Do note the letter پ (Pe_(Persian_letter)), usually not used in Arabic.--Soman (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image description would be "لوحة من حملة لمنع الرشوة في نواكشوط". --Omidinist (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Arabic name of Karim Djoudi, the Algerian minister of finance? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"كريم جودي"

[1] Lesgles (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch! WhisperToMe (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a noun, derived from "hear"?

The noun derived from "see" is "sight". Is there an analogous noun derived from "hear"? "I heard her voice, and it was love at first ...?"--KnightMove (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing is the word, I believe. The 5 traditional senses are sight, touch, smell, taste and hearing. These words can all be used as verbs as well. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the man behind the curtain. He's offering you a red hearing. Clarityfiend(talk) 07:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well, "Hearing" is not a noun in the strictest sense, but it's good to know that there is no other.

Clarityfiend: In case you deem me to be a troll... I don't know why, but I'm simply not. --KnightMove (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean that it's "not a noun in the strict sense". Are you claiming that gerunds are not quite nouns? You can claim that if you want, though I'm not sure the position really makes sense, but in this case it doesn't matter, because hearing as a sense is a different thing from hearing as an instance of what happens when you hear something. And hearing as a sense is quite clearly a noun, in the strictest possible sense, and is equally clearly derived from the verb hear. --Trovatore (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I had accepted that hearing is the only English term, there is no vital necessity to continue this discussion, but for clarification an answer and out of curiosity one more question:

I think that in poetic/literary contexts there is indeed a difference between gerunds and what I call nouns in the strictest sense, because gerunds as a rather trivial derivation of verbs often leave a weaker impression. I deem the sentence "I demand your obedience!" to have much more impact than "I demand your obeying!", even though there is no actual difference in meaning. I feel the need to contrast love at first hearingto love at first sight, which sounds somewhat strange, quirky, and weak, IMHO. Thus I was looking for a better word. Ok, there is none!
"...hearing as a sense is a different thing from hearing as an instance of what happens when you hear something. And hearing as a sense is quite clearly a noun, in the strictest possible sense, and is equally clearly derived from the verb hear." Actually, I do not understand the difference. Both are gerunds, aren't they?

--KnightMove (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, actually, I think you have still a third meaning in mind. Sight in "love at first sight" is, I think, neither the sense of sight nor an instance of seeing, but rather a thing (phenomenon rather than noumenon) that is seen, a visual image. The corresponding word for "auditory phenomenon" is probably sound. But "love at first sound", unfortunately, sounds like a joke. --Trovatore (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colin accurately explains my point, below. --Trovatore (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) You may wish to consider the poem/prayer "God be in my Head", in which each line ends in a gerund:

God be in my head, and in my understanding;

God be in mine eyes, and in my looking;

God be in my mouth, and in my speaking;

God be in my heart, and in my thinking;

God be at mine end, and at my departing.

2) While it's obviously the same formation, and no verb forms the two parts differently, there is an obvious difference of quality, meaning and usage between 'hearing' in "I was hearing of new disasters every day" and in "My hearing has started to go; please speak up". I am insufficiently a linguistic pedant to know whether the terms 'present participle' and 'gerund' overlap in meaning. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex: no, the present participle is not at issue here. The point Trovatore is making, and KnightMove questioning, is that "hearing" as a noun is different from "hearing" as a gerund. No doubt they started as the same word, but the noun "hearing" has shifted its meaning to encompass exactly the same range of meanings, mutatis mutandis as "sight". I guess you could regard this as a broadening of the meaning of one word, but I find it more natural to regard it as now two separate words. When it means "act of hearing" (eg I wasn't happy about hearing that), or "acts of hearing in general" (eg Hearing about acts of generosity always makes me happy), it is clearly a gerund, exactly parallel to "seeing"; but when it means "auditory faculty", the suggestion is that it is not a gerund, as my hearing is good, parallel to my sight is good, does not refer to any acts of hearing, but to the faculty itself. --ColinFine (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. I'm just having my little jest. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EO unequivically declares "hearing" to be a noun form.[2] It's worth pointing out that "sight" as a sort-of noun form of "see" is a later development. It originally meant "something seen".[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tenable, meaning?

"Commonwealth Academic Fellowship tenable in UK". What does the word "tenable" inthis document mean? --202.88.252.2(talk) 07:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tenable: "capable of being occupied, possessed, held, or enjoyed, as under certain conditions: a research grant tenable for two years

In this case, "The Fellowships are for a specific programme of academic collaboration ...." and candidates should "be available to commence their Fellowship in the United Kingdom on 1 September, 2013". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tenable" is one of a family of words derived from the Latin tenere, which means "to hold" or "to keep"; hence it also means "to have" in the sense of "to possess".[4] Words such as "tenant", "tenet" and "tenor" are also from this root, and words such as "tendril" and "tentacle" are cousins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We’re done for

Meaning we're doomed.

I'm curious as to how this expression arose. This says it dates from 1803, but doesn't tell me who first said and why and in what context. Or, most importantly, how they expected anyone else to understand what they meant. Because there was no existing corresponding active expression that might have given the game away. All there is is this passive expression "<someone's> done for". Or am I wrong in making that assumption? Maybe there was an idiom "To do somebody for", that's fallen into disuse.

Another thing. It seems to exist only in the present. Never "He was done for" or "We will be done for". I can say that the world will end on 21 December, but I can't say we will be done for on 21 December. Can I? We're done for right now, because our fates are already set in stone, even if our actual grisly and agonising deaths will not occur for two more months.

Can anyone shed some light on this, please. Preferably before December. Just in case. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly understand "We will be done for"; I may even have used that form myself. And the phrasal-verb form is "to do for somebody", not *"to do somebody for" - again, this is something which I've heard and used. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"To do for somebody" - doesn't that mean to look after somebody, tend to their needs, etc; rather than be the agent of their doom? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried Sassoon thinks not: http://poetry.poetryx.com/poems/7220/ AlexTiefling (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is one meaning, but apparently there is another meaning of 'do for': To ruin, damage, or injure fatally, destroy, wear out entirely.(first known from 1740 in "D–mn you, I'll do for you") - Lindert (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

e/c We'll be done for, could also be used in conditional sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is first found (according to the OED) in a letter (dated 1803) by Lord Nelson, quoted in The dispatches and letters of Vice Admiral Lord Viscount Nelson. You can find it online[5]. - Lindert (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We have had a dreadful winter. The Kent is almost done for, and she is going to Malta merely for a passage in the summer. Stately is obliged to have her lower-deck guns taken out, she is so very weak."

Excellent, thank you. But I still want to know how Nelson could have had any confidence his reader would have understood what he meant. Context helps greatly, but if the actual sequence of words he chose was completely unknown, then they'd still be scratching their heads. I suppose it could be a relative of "to be done in". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem far from "done with," either. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most linguists will tell you that the earliest known written reference to a word or expression often substantially postdates the first oral use. These things come into being in the vernacular, eventually become accepted as standard, and only then used in writing. Additionally, we only get to see a fraction of the stuff that was actually written in any period, so other earlier uses may be lost. Rojomoke (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, Rojomoke. See my response to Norwegian Blue below. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the "sleepy suburb" thread some days ago, I learned about the google ngram viewer feature, which works nicely here too, and fits well with a date around 1800: We are done for.--NorwegianBlue^talk 20:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely, thanks. I fiddled around with a few variations on the phrase, and found this result for "I am done for", which shows some results from around 1780. All the others (You are, he is, she is, we are ...) start around 1800 and have a pronounced spike around 1900. Maybe that was turn-of-the-century angst at work. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk]22:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you click through from the ngram to the Google Books search you'll see that the 1780ish results are all false positives from Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet: "Nay, if our wits run the wild-goose chase, I am done; for thou hast more of the wild goose in one of thy wits than, I am sure, I have in my whole five." --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check. Seems my analytical powers are done for. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

volume

Can you turn up the volume of the file File:FRQC-tête.ogg please ? Fête (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just turn up the sound on your computer? --Viennese Waltz 22:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you turn up the volume of the file File:Fr-Normandie-ça va.ogg please ? Because it's not loud. Fête (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See VW's response, above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 22:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I often run into the same problem, and wish the source file were louder. μηδείς (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a practical way to fix it here? Or would it have to be downloaded, tinkered with, and re-uploaded? Would the folks at the "village pump" know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might get an answer on computing. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is that the file is recorded at a low volume, this is can be adjusted ("normalized") in a sound editing program. The workflow is download, adjust, upload new version. Audacity would be fine. This of course amplifies noise as well. I'm on a work PC now, which doesn't even have sound, much less Audacity, but I can take a look and see if it is easily adjusted or not later tonight.--NorwegianBlue^talk 14:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Both files were recorded at a very low volume.--NorwegianBlue^talk 17:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]