Language desk
< September 3	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 5 >

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.

September 4

The <a person's name>s of the world

Translating Daniel H. Wilson's Amped, I've found the sentence as follows:

It's the Joseph Vaughns of the world who have given regular people license to act like this.

Joseph Vaughn is an agitator who incites people to the act in this novel. What does 'the <a person's name>s of the world' mean? --Analphil (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It means that person and other people like him. In this case, it means basically "It's the agitators of the world". Angr (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I presume this rhetorical device has a name. Which is it? No such user (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[In the present version, the heading of this section appears on my watchlist as The s of the world. I suggest replacing the less-than and greater-than signs with parentheses.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)][reply]

I changed to an "<", which should fix most of the problems... AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of a Danish name

How is the name Tycho Brahe usually pronounced in English? I'd also like to know the Danish pronunciation. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Cosmos I believe Carl Sagan said /'taɪkoʊ 'bra:heɪ/, which is how I say it. I am sure the long e sound at the end is wrong in Danish. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The german article offers an ogg file of the pronunciation (which I assume is meant to be the Danish one): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe It sounds like /'tyko bra:/ to me. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is clearly a Dane on that recording and not a German (even with a hint of a Copenhagen dialect). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tycho Brahe#cite note-0.—Emil J. 18:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That note seems definitive, and not inconsistent with the German ogg. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking Danish, I'd say it's along the lines of /ˈtyko bʁɑːɘ̆/. A precise Danish pronunciation is really a pain in the ass to transcribe, even for someone who's IPA-fluent. While I may be able to say "rødgrød med fløde", I sure as hell would rather not try writing it out in the strictest of transcriptions. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 20:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you listen to the pronunciation given at the German article I linked to? Does it sound Danish to you, or German, or mixed? μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the correct Danish to me. The E on the end is just barely audible, but it is there, which is how it should be. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 22:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I usually say "TIE-co BRA-hay", as an American English speaker. --Jayron32 22:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Medeis, for the ogg connection. On it I hear something like TEE-ko BRAH-ah. I don't speak German or any Scandinavian language so my ears are not attuned to to the sounds. I usually pronounce the name (on the, perhaps, two occasions in my life when I have needed to say the name aloud) approximately as Jayron has shown. Has anyone else heard it pronounced in English by an anglophone? Bielle (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The speaker of File:Da-Tycho Brage.ogg is Malene Thyssen. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I,e, she's Danish. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The ogg sounds like it has a front rounded vowel, namely /y/, which is the sound of the vowel in "feed" made with the lips rounded to pronounce "food", rather than just a plain "ee". (The front rounded vowel exists in French and German, but not in English.) I hear a long /a:/, but not two separate syllables. It is somewhat hard and artificial to judge from such a short sample, since speech is based upon oppositions in extended discourse. I pretty much agree with Jayron on the pronunciation of Americans, but would say "Tike-oh" rather than Tie-co" ("My co" and "Mike oh" have different "long i" vowels in my dialect) for which see Canadian raising. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, we have the /y/ vowel in Liverpool English, as in /my:n/ 'moon' and other similar words. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of that, noticed it in some Scottish speakers in various period pieces on PBS. I didn't want to cloud the issue because it is not phonemic in English so far as I am aware--but if Bielle is aware of the funny almost "eew"-ish sound they make in some northern British dialects mentioning it will help. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic to English translation of the word "Aghrāḍ"

Hello! How would you translate the word "aghrāḍ" (اغراض?), when talking about "traditional aghrāḍ in Arabic poetry"? Is it closer to "genres" or "themes"? or something else? Thank you for your help! Bryan P. C. C. (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic defines the singular as "target, aim, goal, objective, tendency" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Bryan P. C. C. (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How long would it take for someone to learn the french language with no high school degree?

How long would it take for someone to learn the french language with no high school degree? Neptunekh2 (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It completely depends! On the person's intelligence, especially verbal intelligence, memory function, motivation, hours prepared to study each day, if the person's native language is similar to french or very different, quality of education, and what level is aimed at. Having said that, I would say at least a month of intensive studying. But that's just a personal estimate. Lova Falk talk 19:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that anyone can learn French or any other language from scratch in anything remotely close to a month seems wildly optimistic to me for any reasonable definition of "learn". 86.179.6.238 (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite true—really, having a high school degree has little to nothing to do with learning languages. Many people learn languages on their own, for example, or outside of school (before completing it) and are quite successful. I began teaching myself Swedish when I was 15 or so and was reasonably fluent by 16, if memory serves. The time it takes to learn a language depends on a lot of things, of course, the difficulty of the language (specifically, how different it is from languages one already speaks) and natural aptitude for language. Thus, your mileage may vary, but it's far from impossible. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 19:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Such a coincidence. I bought books and tapes and also taught myself Swedish, when I was 27. It took me about half a year to be able to have conversations with people and read the newspapers, but it took me a lot of studying afterwards to improve. However, I never studied full-time. Lova Falk talk 20:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most one-year-olds in France don't have a high school degree, and yet they manage to learn French very well within a few years. Angr (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I taught French to a 16-year-old girl in Japan, who was studying for the national French language test in Japan. She was not learning French at school, and so came to my language school to learn. She had very basic knowledge of the language when we started, but after the three month course, she managed to pass the Level 3 exam (from 5 (basic) down to 1 (fluent), with 3 meaning 'intermediate'). She was motivated. She wanted to learn, and in her particular case, her success was not down to how similar or not her language was to French. It's up to you. If you want to learn, you can. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it that high schools award degrees? Around here, you get degrees from universities. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of refering the OP to some references, Second-language acquisition is the place to start researching what I assume is their question. The actual answer depends on a lot of factors, including the age and aptitude of the learner. --Jayron32 22:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French was the first foreign language I studied formally. In one year starting age 14 I mastered reading it. I mastered the full grammar save the passé simple by the end of the second year. I read a condensed version of Les Miserables, and a translated version of The Silmarilion in full by the end of my fourth year. I have found that motivation and regular practice with a speaker are all that is necessary. I have found it impossible to learn a language on my own other than to improve a language I already have a good grounding in. I.e., I find I cannot start learning one on my own, although I did teach myself the Greek alphabet and to read it before I ever took classes. μηδείς (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been living in Hungary for a few months, and I have not had the time to do any formal study (with a teacher), but have found that I am picking the language up passively pretty quickly. I can understand a lot of conversations (generally from context), and can understand most of what people say to me. Unfortunately, I can't reply much yet (I keep using the wrong endings, and my word order emphasises the wrong things). By June/July next year, I fully intend to be able to participate in conversations between the natives, and I am sure it is possible. I am sure the OP would be able to learn French in a similar way. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; if you live in the country where the language is spoken, and do get out and among people, you start to pick up the language pretty fast. I am staying in Bruges at the moment, and after 6 weeks am pickung up Flemish rather good (ok, it is near German and English, but anyway). I learned French in School, starting when I was about 10 years of age, and they offered about 24 hours a week pure French in the first year alone, so after 2 years I was pretty fluent, and managed to get my Baccalauréat after all, besides the German Abitur. Lectonar (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC) And the high school degree is not really of great importance, perhaps besides the fact that you probably have learnt how to acquire information. Lectonar (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not quite the same, since I studied French in Canada for almost my whole life. But I only studied it for reading knowledge and I could never have had a conversation for more than a few seconds. After living in France for a year and a half, I can certainly speak it now, but hardly at anywhere near a native level. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Word for a person who does not understand speech?

If a person does not understand written language, we say that they are illiterate.

What is the word for a person who does not understand spoken language? I don't mean "deaf" or "hearing impaired"; the person can hear the words just fine, but does not comprehend the meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.239.254 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a form of aphasia. There's probably a name for the specific type with the symptoms you describe, but I don't know what it is. Unless of course the person simply doesn't know the language being spoken. (I can hear Turkish words just fine but I don't comprehend their meaning; yet I'm not aphasic!) Angr (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one kind: "People with receptive aphasia can speak with normal grammar, syntax, rate, intonation, and stress, but they are unable to understand language in its written or spoken form." Angr (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a table in the main aphasia article: in addition to receptive aphasia mentioned above, transcortical sensory aphasia, global aphasia, and mixed transcortical aphasia all present with poor auditory comprehension. People with auditory verbal agnosia can't understand spoken language, but they can still understand written language. Angr (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not caused by a head injury or a stroke, it could be Specific language impairment. And Feral children are also unable to understand speech. Lesgles (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But with feral children, it's just a case of not knowing the language. Angr (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Being raised completely without language may cause structural changes in the brain which makes language aquisition much more difficult (probably not impossible), so it isn't just a case of needing to learn a language. The brains of children change physically as a result of exposure to stimuli, or lack thereof, and as such, it isn't as simple as just teaching them later. Neurodevelopmental_disorder#Deprivation has an overview, and you can follow links from there to more details. --Jayron32 22:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There are records of feral children stretching back a few centuries, and many of those taken into care did not learn to speak beyond a few simple words or sentences. This may be interesting to you. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because they were past their critical period. If they had been exposed to language early enough, they would have learned it, and then (unless they had one of the above-mentioned aphasias on top of being feral) they would have understood the language spoken to them. Angr (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the OP, see Broca's area for some interesting information on some types of physical damage that can affect speach production. --Jayron32 22:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The OP asked about speech comprehension, not speech production. Comprehension is in the jurisdiction of Wernicke's area. Angr (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Angr already mentioned (but to emphasize the point), auditory verbal agnosia is pretty much exactly the thing the OP described. Looie496 (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://thesaurus.com/browse/aphonic Aphonic: voiceless, dumb, inarticulate, mute, silent, speechless, unarticulate. Note these relate to the symptom, not the cause. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those mean they can't speak. That's not what was asked. The OP asked about people who can't understand speech. StuRat (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's what I must have meant when I said those terms describe the symptom, not the cause. I am glad you emphasized it, in case I was not clear. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the OP, and I don't mean unable to understand speech due to brain damage, any more than an illiterate person's illiteracy is due to brain damage. I mean that the person never learned to parse speech, just as an illiterate (presumably) never learned to parse written language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.70.55 (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether aphasia is always due to brain damage, but since written language has to be learned, while spoken language comes naturally and automatically to all developmentally normal humans who are exposed to it, you can't really compare the two. Saying "what's the term for a person who's never learned to understand spoken language" and then ruling out the ones with neurological damage is a bit like saying "what's the term for a person who's never learned to walk" and then ruling out the ones with physical defects. Angr (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"but since written language has to be learned, while spoken language comes naturally and automatically to all developmentally normal humans who are exposed to it": are you sure this isn't a "no true Scotsman"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.68.187 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. Angr (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are the rare cases of people who've never been exposed to human speech, but this subsequently seems to cause a type of developmental problem which could be called brain damage. StuRat (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did explicitly say "who are exposed to it" in my statement above. Angr (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Angr says, the evidence is pretty solid that we humans are very much hardwired for language acquisition and use, and anybody who lacks these either was never exposed to speech during the critical years, or has some sort of deficiency in brain function (organic or traumatic in origin). There is no verbal equivalent of the healthy illiterate. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat -- children people never exposed to language who are then exposed to it during the critical period often make up the deficit fairly quickly. Those whose first significant exposure to language falls outside the critical period can sometimes learn to functionally communicate, but their language will never sound normal... AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Children people" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I decided to change "people" to "children" to make it clearer, then overlooked removing "people"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the surname Namath, Nimitz, Nemec, немец, etc., which is the typical Slavic word for German, literally means, "(he) does not speak (Slavic)". μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]