Language desk
< December 14	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 16 >

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.

December 15

Iz-rye-ell

I just had the unfortunate experience of being bombarded with Christmas songs as I shopped. But one bit actually stood out. Someone was singing The First Noel. In the line "Born is the king of Israel", the final word was pronounced as if it was spelt "Iz-rye-ell", with a very obvious "rye", as if it rhymed with "die" or "sigh" or "pie". I am far more used to hearing "Is-ray-ell", with not much emphasis on the "e". (Excuse my absence of skill at proper phonetic representation. I've tried and failed in that area.) The singer was using an American accent of some sort (as is common with most Christmas muzak we suffer), but could have been from anywhere. Does any normal speaker really say "Iz-rye-ell", or is it just some kind of musical/poetical licence? HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The iz-rye-ell pronunciation is closer to the Latin than your "ray" pronunciation. Iz-rah-ell is how I would have my choir sing it. In other words, with the "a" the same as in "father". μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about in ancient Hebrew? HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israel (name) gives the Hebrew, Yisra'el, which separates the a and e by a glottal stop (like uh-oh) rather than the y glide you heard in the recording "Izra-yel". μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The folks who sing it "Iz-rye-ell" are probably the same ones who do the Star-Spangled banner and sing of the "per-ul-iss" fight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Iz-rye-ell is about as close you can come in native English phonemes to a good pronunciation of the Latin. You are not suggesting they sing Iz-ree-ull, are you? μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my day, in church and such, it was sung as "izz-rah-ell". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is what I myself would do ("izz-rah-ell") as well. But final syllables ending in ah or those preceding vowels without a transitional glide (a w or a y in between) are quite marked in English as foreign or expressive terms, like Panama or bah! or ah! and Ma and Pa. You don't find standard native English nouns or verbs that end in ah or have a sequence of sounds like ah-eh internally. But adding a y between the ah and the ell turns the foreign sounding iz-rah-ell into the very similar and native sounding iz-rye-ell. μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question that the English pronunciation of Israel has slid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And likewise in that league is the oldie "Sweet Adeline", which was originally sung properly, as "ad-eh-line" but after some decades somehow evolved into "ad-oh-line". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's reserved for song, basically. In speaking, it's IS-reel. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When who is speaking? RNealK (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the question to be about General American, some other dialects may say something like is-RAIL. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't someone mention the common US pronunciation "izz-ree-el"? To me this would have been the 18th century English pronunciation when The First Nowell was composed. It fits the tune so well I don't know why choirs (and in fact all singers) try to sing "izz-ray-ell". "Israel" was a three-syllable word in the 18th century, which US speakers still adhere to. (Note: So was "Canaan", which Handel sets in Israel in Egypt as three syllables. Choirs sing it "Kay-nay-an", but we'd be better of taking a leaf out the Americans' book and singing it "Kay-nee-en".) Djbcjk (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone doesn't mention it because it isn't the case. The common U.S. pronunciation is IS-reel, as Alanscottwalker states above. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The common US pronunciation has three definite syllables, with a final syllabic /l/ probably most usually transcribed with a schwa. Now, you can argue, if you like, that "reel" already has two syllables, which would make "IS-reel" correct, but it's confusing because it looks like two syllables, and there are three. --Trovatore (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To muddy the waters further, the common British pronunciation is "IS-rail" (except when singing HiLo's carol). Alansplodge (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why anybody is claiming that the common General American pronunciation is two syllables, nobody that I've ever heard has pronounced it with two syllables. It's IZ-ree-uhl. RNealK (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because, unless they are slow speakers they don't ususally say: IZ . . . ree . . .uhl. they say IZ-reel, and run it all together (even though technically it may involve a slight change from ee to el) As said above, "reel" or "real" 's technical syllabication is not the issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody pronounces it as two syllables. RNealK (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, it still sounds like reel. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"As said above" seems to mean me; I can't find any other reference to this point. But I agree very strongly with RNealK that "Israel" in GA speech has three very definite syllables. Transcribing it as IZ-reel makes sense only if you claim "reel" has two syllables, which is arguably true but not the way it's ordinarily thought of. --Trovatore (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Transcribing it as IZ-reel makes sense because that is how it sounds. The OP indicated that is what they were interested in. Thus, leading to the common misspelling Isreal. And similar to the British sound 'rail' mentioned above, except instead of rail, it is 'real', 'reel'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely has three syllables. --Trovatore (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that, as if it somehow it matters. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What matters, from the point of view I gather you are taking, is that "IZ-ree-uhl" is a more accurate respelling than "IZ-reel". --Trovatore (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with RNealK, you do not hear this pronounced as two syllables. Israel contrasts in speech in every case I have heard with is real, and I am a bitch as regards listening to people's speech and noting unusual pronunciations. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And real sounds like reel. But sure IZ-reel is going to contrast with is is real, which sounds like IZ REEL. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be allowing the similarity in spelling to confuse the issue. The simple matter is that Israel the country, and is real the predicate are a minimal pair, and distinct in every dialect known to the rest of the posters on this thread who've commented on the issue. At this point you need to find a reliable source (i.e., standard dictionary) that gives a two-syllable pronunciation matching "is real". μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I would probably pronounce "is real" as three syllables as well. The difference is that the stress would be on the "re". Even if for some reason I wanted to really stress the IS, the "re" would still have more stress than the "al". For "Israel", the secondary stress (if any) would have to be on the "əl". --Trovatore (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call the ~~2 vs 3-syllable~~ 1 vs 2-syllable pronunciation of real free variation. The diphthong in real followed by the sonorant can plausibly be pronounced /rɪ'əl/ with the apostrophe indicating seconday stress here because I can't find the inverted apostrophe. But I do not pronounce it that way, especially not in citation form, where real is the monosyllabic /rɪəl/. This contrasts with the citation form of Israel, where the final ell is a syllabic, following the diphthong: /'ɪz-rɪj-l̩/ . μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you somehow not understand that the OP was not conversant in such pronunciation symbols. And since you are now saying they are free variations, it seems like you are dancing angels on a pinhead. Your and others' point that there is an unstressed 'el', just does not sound that different from an 'l' at the end of 'ee', which was my only point and now you have said the same thing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your loyalty here to ignorance, falsehood and imprecision on behalf of the OP is noble. Nonetheless, you are wrong, and no one pronounces the word the same as "is real", and you have not provided one source to confirm your OR that it is. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I said they say it like they misspell it. And I specifically said that it did not sound the same as is real. Your demonstration of falsehood, imprecision, or ignorance is not noble. Moreover, you're the one who is making extraordinary and unsupported claims about "no one," a claim which you cannot possibly know, nor is it a claim, which answers my much more modest point, a point that is played at with the times 'Israel is real' is used in American.[1] [2] [3] Say that ten times fast in American. Alanscottwalker /(talk) 10:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You have not provided evidence anyone pronounces "is real" and Isreal" the same. Written word play on blogs is worth what you pay for it. Provide any dictionary citation you like. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've often seen Americans spell it "Isreal", to match their pronunciation. No surprise that that's a redirect to Israel. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The usual American pronunciation in normal speech is "iz-ree-uhl". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But why? Where else is -ae- pronounced as /ee-ə/? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me. Maybe it's just easier to say. Like maybe why people say "nucular" instead of "nuclear". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained. The word-internal sequence ah-ell is not found in Native English. But ee-ull is, as in realize, ideal, fealty, realty.... -- 04:04, 16 December 2013 User:Medeis

JackofOz -- it's not necessarily that mysterious. A long [ɑː] vowel becomes [eɪ] by GVS. If this vowel becomes unstressed in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, it would tend to become [ɪ]. An unstressed [ɪ] which is prevocalic or word-final becomes [i]/[iː] in most American English dialects. It's the same basic line of development which resulted in an [ɪ] vowel in the last syllable of "degenerate" (noun) [dɪdʒɛnərɪt], except that vowel is not prevocalic, and so does not take the last step of changing to [i]/[iː]... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In IPA terms, the most common English pronunciation is [ɪzrɪəl]/[ɪzriəl]. An authentic ancient/Biblical Hebrew pronunciation would be something like [yiɬraʔel] (ignoring vowel length). As for the pronunciation in the song, the Beach Boys once sang [kælɪfɔrnaɪeɪ], and there are lots of similar things in Gilbert and Sullivan... AnonMoos (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fidelity Bank Nigeria

Could someone translate what's in the Reference section (Arabic?) and see if it's of any use? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to what you are asking about? μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Fidelity Bank Nigeria#References, but given Clarityfiend's username, you would expect better. Rojomoke (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate gives

"I want to know the way that enables me to know how to get money from someone who wants to send to my balance and are found at the institution"

so I would say no. I've deleted it and left a message at the originator's talk page. Rojomoke (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Yongneup" of "The High Moor, Yongneup of Mt. Daeam"

Hi all,
Apparently there is a wetland high on Daeamsan that is of some significance. There appears to be no kr:용늪, not even a redirect. The article itself - "The High Moor, Yongneup..." and so on looks like a machine translation. Could someone possibly shed some light on this?
pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this comma belong here?

After wearing this belt twice, <<that was the comma>> the rings that form the holes have started to detach from the white section of the belt in which they are inset.--78.148.110.243 (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That comma is perfectly OK, but you have a dangling participle ("wearing"). The simplest correction would be "After wearing this belt twice, I have noticed that the rings..." Tevildo (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is necessary to supply a pronominal clause. The context would make it clear who the sentence is talking about (or 'about whom the sentence is talking', if you want to be ultra-grammatical). The OP's example is fine for me. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the OP seems to be aiming at a fairly formal style ("in which they are inset" rather than "that they're set in"), and this is a very egregious dangling participle. How about "After being worn twice, this belt has failed. The rings..."?. Tevildo (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. In no universe was it the rings that wore the belt, but that's what we're being invited to believe. The subject of the first bit (before the comma) has to be identical to the subject of the second bit (to use special technical terminology). That's English For 7-Year-Olds 101. The fact that we understand what the writer is trying to say doesn't mitigate the egregiousness of what he said. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas English for anything-over-7-year-olds 101 says that grammar developed to work whether pedants were making pronouncements on it or not, and it includes rules of implicature which say that it is simply perverse to maintain that we're being invited to believe that the rings word the belt. --ColinFine (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proper past tense of wear is weared, not word. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But, if someone is asking advice on punctuation, is it not reasonable to provide them with advice on grammar as well? "BELT NO GOOD! WANT MONEY BACK!!" would adequately convey the OP's _message_, but I think we can assume that they want to convey it _properly_, which includes the avoidance of (arbitrary, I know, but still real) grammatical errors. Tevildo (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"After eating the cake, my wife, with a wry smile, told me she had spiked it with cyanide." <= What is the probability that she has eaten the cake herself? "After standing up, I told her about the anti-personnel mine I had placed in her chair." <= This is ambiguous. It's all about context. Grammar is not mathematics, nor does it have to be. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In isolation, very high, considering both the grammar and that the narrator is (apparently) still alive. The fact that this sentence (unlike the OP's) is not obviously wrong, but does not have an obvious meaning, shows us what can happen to the language if this sort of rule is disregarded. Tevildo (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and nobody in the world speaks random sentences in total isolation. When you speak to someone, you assume they know the context, and if they don't, you supply it. This is natural language. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, the comma is fine, and if you don't care that many educated people (other than linguists) will think that you are sloppy with language, your sentence is fine. If you do care, you will want to fix the sentence along the lines suggested above. Marco polo (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre/Term for constant surveillence in Big Brother, Truman Show, etc

What is the genre or proper term used to describe the constant surveillence in shows like The Joe Schmo Show, Big_Brother_(TV_series), The Truman Show?Fundon1 (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fly on the wall? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reality TV? --TammyMoet (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the one. Question: If everyone knows they're on camera, does it really qualify as "surveillance"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The UK has the most CCTV cameras in the world. Wherever you go, you are being watched. We all know that, but we still call it 'surveillance'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many CCTV videos are turned into TV shows? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too many. See Police Stop!#See also for what I'm sure is a very incomplete list. Tevildo (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Brooks invented the genre, see Real Life (film). μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An American Family came first. RNealK (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was a documentary, not entertainment. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, although the production was the same general idea. (Whether the modern reality shows are "entertaining" is a matter of opinion.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Docos and drama movies - and porn movies, come to that - are entertaining if done well. The industry tries to use "entertainment" as being confined to music, dance, comedy, talk shows, family shows, quiz shows etc, but that's a hijacking that I refuse to permit. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Porn movies are not 'reality', though, are they? If you did anything they do in those movies, more than likely you are acting out a porn movie, rather than doing anything natural. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno what porn movies you've been watching lately, but the ones I've seen generally involve doing ... what comes naturally. As for so-called 'reality TV', that expression has about as much truth value as the 'health foods' section in your local supermarket. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]