Language desk
< October 17	<< Sep \| Oct \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 18

asked ----> 'axed'

How does such a corruption occur? This isn't simply a difference in accent or relaxed pronunciation but a reordering of consonants. Ankh.Morpork 00:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's called metathesis, and in this word it's ancient. Even in Old English the word is attested as both ascianand acsian; the "ax" variant was accepted in literature through the 16th century. So when a modern-day person says "axed" for "asked", it isn't some newfangled "corruption", but a variant form that's over a thousand years old. Angr (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a re-invention maybe. It's only ever used in the UK by those wishing to imitate black Americans. See Aks; "Aks," a metathesis of "ask" in African American Vernacular English" Alansplodge (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is common in Caribbean Englishes, where it is not standard but not particularly looked down on, and has entered Multicultural London English from there. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't say that's not attested, but I have only ever heard it from working class white people in the NYC and Philly metropolitan areas, and Hispanics, never once in person from a Black. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hear it often from highly-educated U.S. blacks (especially slightly older ones), and occasionally from Southern whites like myself.--Orange Mike | Talk 02:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying that some folks use it all the time, others not at all; I seldom find a given individual drifting across the boundary, unless code switching is going on. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mention that some highly educated blacks, especially slightly older ones, use it. I've heard Jesse Jackson the elder saying it. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Mike was talking about highly educated people. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, I'm doing you the favor of straining to assume that you and I differ drastically in our definitions of "highly educated"; because the other interpretation of your remark is not even remotely acceptable. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jackson's article is clear enough about his educational history. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just figured out what you are implying I might be implying. No. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just ask Asterix what he thinks of asterisks. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might just be easier to say "ax" and "asterix". The former is strongly associated with blacks in America. The latter I've heard many times without regard to race, color or previous condition of servitude. Which reminds me, a black comic once referenced that well-known black usage with this joke: "When Lizzie Borden went to the maid and said, 'Can I borrow the carriage tonight?', the maid said, 'I don't know - you'll have to ax your parents.'" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 03:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tee hee.

People saying "aks" for "ask" is all too common in Australia. (And saying "asteriks" for "asterisk", too - but that's only in those cases where the speaker actually knows the name of that funny thing, which would not be universal, thanks to our brilliant education system; no offence, HiLo48). It has zero to do with anyone imitating African Americans or anyone else, in my experience. More to do with sloppy speech patterns picked up from their environment. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good one, Bugs. μηδείς (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purely anecdotal, but "aks" (as /aːks/, not /æks/) is common in Australian Aboriginal English. Looking for refs right now.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not disputing that, Shirt, but I think the bigger picture is it's something more likely to be found among people of socioeconomically disadvantaged background, not a race thing per se. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 17:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess I've never heard ax anywhere, in my 40-odd years in Australia. Maybe I should get out more often. I first came across it the other day in Chaucer, where I think "ask" does not exist at all. IBE (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno about that Australian Aboriginal English claim. In the movie Australian Rules, about a culture clash between Aboriginal and European Australians, it was one of the European characters who actually gained a nickname based on his pronunciation ofaksed. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty widespread. I knew an English chap from a Sikh background who always used these pronunciations. The TV show Futurama uses this early on - it's mentioned that the pronunciation has become standard by the show's 3000AD timeframe, and it's done fairly consistently for the rest of the show's run. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the article metathesis that Angr has already linked to, "wasp" is another word which has been unstable in exactly the same way over the centuries. --ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why we never hear about people who riksed their lives. Or maybe we do. I haven't. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the metathesis of "ax" and "wopse" is no longer productive, and possibly never was. Risk didn't enter the English language until the 1660s, by which point people were no longer switching their /k/'s and /p/'s with their /s/'s. And I don't know if they did so in any words other thanascian ~ acsian and wæsp ~ wæps even in Old English. Angr (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metathesis seems to occur rather often only in single instances rather than always regularly. Consider chthonic which comes from PIE*dhghom, cognate with OE guma and NE goon and (bride)groom. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, PIE *tk and *dhgh quite regularly became kt and khth in Greek, not just in that one word. In Irish, -ts-, -ps-, and-ks- all metathesized to -st-, -sp-, -sk- in pretty much all words where they occur (though not in all dialects), and in Hebrew, prefixing hit- to a verb beginning with s, š, or t͡s causes metathesis to hist-, hišt-, and hit͡st-. (I'm not sure what happens with verbs beginning with z; hizd- perhaps?) So sometimes metathesis is a regular sound change. But probably not in Old English.Angr (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our metathesis article says that t-z -> zd in Hebrew, and van de Merwe, Naudé and Kroeze's A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammarimplies it, though without giving an example. --ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To walk down Dizengoff Street is lehizdangef (though that's kind of a joke word)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fromkin and Rodman gives Hebrew reciprocal sibilant infinitives prefixed with lehit as regular targets for metathesis. There are indeed many mutated and metathesized Greek T/K roots. Ichthys compares quite nicely with PEA Tik-, see Tiktalik. μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My curiosity is aroused: What is this prefix hit of which you speak? —Tamfang (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mark of the Hebrew "hitpael" verb stem, often (but not always) with a reflexive or reciprocal meaning. Becomes mit- in the participle, and it-, yit-, tit-, nit- in various persons and numbers of the imperfect/future. What Wikipedia has from the modern Hebrew point of view is at Modern_Hebrew_verb_conjugation#The_binyanim... AnonMoos (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could risk your life in a rixe (French word), or on a Rixe. —Tamfang (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Languages in Singapore

Singaporean people speak English or Mandarin ? Fête (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See "Languages of Singapore". Both English and Mandarin are official languages of Singapore, and many people in Singapore speak either or both of the languages. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many ethnicities (and by implication spoken languages) in Singapore that they formed a thriving football league. My father has a 3rd Division Runners-up trophy from the early 1960s (he played for the Royal Army Pay Corps team). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}84.21.143.150 (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"minute" pronounced: / mɪnʌt /, rather than: / mɪnɪt /. Is there any English variety having this attribute?

HOOTmag (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to my copy of the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary there is no variety of English in which the word "minute" (in the sense "60 seconds") is pronounced [mɪnʌt]. It does list [mɪnət] used outside the US as a non-RP British variety.Gabbe (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the LPD only lists Southern British and General American pronunciations. There are lots of other English varieties not listed in LPD.Angr (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a variety of English in which I would expect that pronunciation. --ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the question here? All I see are a header and a signature. Who has asserted there is such a pronunciation of either form? Why not ask who pronounces the word /mi:nu:t/? Please give a reference to a published source. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On my browser, the header reads "minute" pronounced: / mɪnʌt /, rather than: / mɪnɪt /. Is there any English variety having this attribute?Gabbe (talk) 06:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I'm asking whether there are dialects that have an /ʌ/ for the "u". HOOTmag (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HOOTmag -- In the majority of English phonetic transcription conventions, the symbol [ʌ] refers to the vowel as in "duck" occurring in stressed syllables. If there's one thing which holds across almost all English dialects, it's presumably that the second syllable of "minute" (as a noun meaning 60 seconds) is unstressed... AnonMoos (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The vowel /ʌ/ may occur also in unstressed syllables, as in "unknown", "adult" (in British English when stressing "adult" on the first syllable, and also in US English - that may pronounce the second syllable of "adult" - with an /ə/ as well as with an /ʌ/ ). Further, the Scots don't have a schwa (e.g. they pronounce "sofa" with an /a/ at the end, and also pronounce "hurt" like /hʌrt/). Anyways, I still don't know whether or not there are dialects having an /ʌ/ for the "u" in "minute". HOOTmag (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown and adult are not examples of true unstressed syllables (comparable to the second syllable of "minute"). If no meaningful context is provided, your question is semi-pointless. See further below. AnonMoos (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, the main stress is not on the /ʌ/. See further below. HOOTmag (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is the OP is attempting to ask whether there are dialects that have a schwa in minute [mɪnət] as opposed to the schwi [mɪnɨt] which the OP is presumably more familiar with (as am I). Lsfreak (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm asking about an /ʌ/ rather than about an /ə/. HOOTmag (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In dialects which lengthen unstressed [ɪ] to [iː] before another vowel and at the ends of words, there's sometimes a tendency to neutralize remaining unlengthened [ɪ] to [ɨ], or even in some cases to [ə] -- since very few contrasts between different words would be lost by such a merger. However, in RP-type dialects, where there is no such unstressed [ɪ] to [iː] change, and all non-pre-vowel "r" has vanished, there's a tendency to strongly preserve the unstressed [ɪ] vs. [ə] distinction, presumably because if the distinction were to be merged, there would be no contrast in pronunciation between "cities" and "sitters" etc. etc. ([sɪtɪz] vs. [sɪtəz] in RP, [sɪtiːz] vs. [sɪtərz] in American).AnonMoos (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're referring to User:Lsfreak. If you're referring to me, then please notice that I've been asking about the /ʌ/ rather than about the /ɪ/ or the /ə/. HOOTmag (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was explaining that among quasi-standard-English dialects, it's only those varieties of speech that show what Wikipedia calls "happy-tensing" where unstressed [ɪ] commonly takes on a vowel quality similar to that of [ə] (or in some cases actually neutralizes with [ə]). To get to [ʌ] you would presumably have to go through [ə]. AnonMoos (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's still a "common" phenomenon only (as you've written), not a necessary one. Just as pronouncing "adult" with an /ə/ - is pretty common - in US English, yet not necessary, because US English speakers may pronounce it with an /ʌ/ - when still having the main stress on the first syllable. To put things clearer: I'm asking whether there are dialects in which "minute" has the same phonetic structure of "adult", i.e. whether (in those dialects) the main stress of "minute" (rather than the minor one) would be on the first syllable, whereas the vowel of the second syllable of "minute" would be identical to the vowel of the second syllable of "adult" (in British English when having the main stress on the first syllable, and also in US English - that may pronounce the second syllable of "adult" - with an /ə/ as well as with an /ʌ/ ). Additionally, I'd like to know whether the Scots (who don't have any schwa) pronounce: /mɪnɪt/ or /mɪnʌt/. HOOTmag (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know as I've never been to outside of the state of Rio de Janeiro or the city of São Paulo in my entire life and my exposure to British English is too low. But what I would like to say is that you are confusing phonemes (slashes) with allophones (brackets). For example, while AFAIK English has all the IPA vowel chart as allophone of one of its vowel phonemes (except rounded front/central a and schwa, and unrounded u), they count only between a half or one third of the number of allophones.

Another example would be my native language, Portuguese, that has nearly the entire official vowel IPA chart of vowel allophones except unrounded back vowels, rounded central vowels, close-mid/near-close/close unrounded central vowels and rounded open vowels (to the exception of [ʉ ~ y]), but its phoneme count can be reduced to an easy and boring /a, ɛ, ɔ, e, o, i, u/, if the nasal vowels are interpreted as oral vowels followed by an archiphoneme /N/, with very few minimal pairs between unstressed [ɛ] and unrounded [ʊ] in European Portuguese (the latter is a vowel that isn't even used outside Portugal).

So in the case you are pointing out, this lower vowel is actually just a phoneme of /ə/, that isn't necessarily mid. Lguipontes (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction between people's and peoples'

I'm second guessing and confusing myself about the correct form of the word as part of a formal title, People's/Peoples' Liberation Army, and in a generic description: "the army is a people's/peoples' militia with only a small professional leadership corps". Is there in fact a difference when it's used in a title versus as an ordinary adjective? My instinctive feel for my own language has let me down, help! Roger (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have People's Liberation Army, which is the army of a single people. Were it to have been the army of several peoples, then it would be the Peoples' Liberation Army. Does that help? The distinction is between (a) people and many peoples (or a race/ethic group, and several races/ethnic groups, to get away from the use of the word people). Does that help? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of putting is that the word "people" can be both singular and plural. Singular, meaning a race or nation, as in "The Mexican people is one with a proud history". And plural, meaning more than one person, as in "I saw three people walking past". In the first sense, there are many peoples (including the Mexican people, the Romanian people, the French people and hundreds of others). See Churchill's A History of the English-Speaking Peoples. He knew a thing or two about the language. But an army belongs to only one people. The possessive of people is people's. If there were an army that somehow managed to belong to more than one people, then it would have to be Peoples'. But that's unheard of, in my experience. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk]21:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most countries are populated by multiple peoples and there are many examples of a single people being divided amongst multiple countries. In my experience armies belong to countries and a one-to-one correlation between peoples and countries are quite rare (off the top of my head, except for tiny island countries, they exist only in Europe). Thus it is perfecly possible for Peoples' Armies to exist. Roger (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think both Tagishsimon and JackofOz are confusing two things. It is true that when people is used as a countable noun meaning 'tribe' or 'nation', it follows the normal rules and people's and peoples' would indicate singular and plural possessives. But when people is a plural (the far more common case) it follows the rule of other suppletive plurals such as men and women, and forms its possessive as people's. I suggest that a people's republic and a people's army are always of the people = masses not of the people =tribe. --ColinFine (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ColinFine. See my post above. In fact mono-tribal countries are the exception rather than the rule so a national army of a sovereign country would be "of the masses" rather than "of the tribe", the latter are more often labelled "rebels"/"freedom fighters"/"terrorists". Roger (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Peoples' film credits or Peoples' return policy or indigenous peoples' plight may all properly utilize the second choice, but in most other cases, the first is correct. Something like "freedom-loving people's' manifesto" can go either way.Clarityfiend (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked my native Mandarin speaking wife about what the Mandarin name actually means -- The Liberation Army of the Persons (people = persons) or The Liberation Army of the Nation (people = nation). She says it's literally the former, although with a tinge of the latter meaning as well. Duoduoduo (talk)

You should note that the full name of the military force in Chinese is literally the "Chinese People's Liberation Army" (and not, for example, the "PLA of the PRC"). So although the "People's Liberation Army" and "People's Republic of China" both use the Chinese word for "People", they are used in slightly different senses. For the army, it can be read as "the army for the liberation of the Chinese people", while the state is more likely to be read as "the republic that belongs to the people, and is ethnically Chinese". --PalaceGuard008(Talk) 15:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language of Haiti

Generally, Haitian people speak Haitian Creole or French ? Fête (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Haiti#Languages, French "is spoken by all educated Haitians, is spoken in schools, and is used in the business sector. It is also used in ceremonial events such as weddings, graduations and church masses", while Haitian Creole "is spoken by virtually the entire population of Haiti." So generally, Haitian people speak Haitian Creole, and a lot of them speak French as well. Our article doesn't mention this, but I suspect there may also be something of a post-creole continuum among many Haitians, where they can slide between pure Creole and more or less standard French without there necessarily being a sharp boundary between the two. Angr (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It probably breaks down along class lines. People from working classes probably speak more Haitian Creole, and people in upper classes speak more French, although there is likely a LOT of code switching going on in Haiti, where the same person in different social situations speak different languages. Also, many creoles are in a Dialect continuum with the "official language", so that you aren't going to find sharp dividing lines between the two languages in Haiti. That is, you'll find people speaking everything from Metropolitan French to French with a little creole thrown in, to a mix between the two, to mostly Creole to all Creole. This is called a Post-creole continuum, and the article specifically cites such a continuum existing between Haitian Creole and French in Haiti. --Jayron32 21:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also see diglossia. --ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]