Language desk
< December 20	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 22 >

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 21

Can someone translate this please?

Can someone please translate what they are saying in this video I believe it is is Farsi (Iranian language) but it also might be in Arabic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5Xn7l32i1I&feature=youtu.be --Johnsmith777555 (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The clip is titled "Syria War - Heavy Firefight Iranian Paramilitary In Heavy Combat", the first few seconds you hear no words, just machine gun firing. Then I had read the title, realized what's going on, and closed the window. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added back Sluzzelin's comment. Please do not remove it [1] again. Warning people that a video clip may not be something they are comfortable watching or are able to watch in certain circumstances is a resonable reply and doesn't reflect negatively on the question (but removing such warnings does). Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Audio quality is not good. They are talking in Persian. I understand only these two sentences: "they're coming from the other side too;" and "aren't our pals shooting at them?" --Omidinist (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would especially like to know what they are saying at the end of the video--Johnsmith777555 (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't take pictures any more" is the last sentence I hear before the picture goes black. They can't resist and have to retreat. Omidinist (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me the last couple of sentences they say near the end?--Johnsmith777555 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify the exact moment. A few sentences around minute three are not comprehensible. Omidinist (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protoindoeuropean apostrophe

wikt:crock#Etymology_1

k(')rōug(')-, *k(')rōuk(')-

What does ' represent?174.3.125.23 (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glottalization. See glottal stop and, esp., glottalic theory. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why represent with an ~~aphostrphe~~apostrophe; Isn't there an IPA symbol for a glottal stop?174.3.125.23 (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was copy-pasted from Starostin's base which in turn copied Walde-Pokorny's dictionary. In IE-logy there is its own notation, not the IPA.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not glottalisation. (I don't know any version of that theory that has both /k'/ and /g'/). It represents the palatals (or palatalised velars): the ones that underwent /k'/ -> /s/ in Satem languages. See Proto-Indo-European phonology#The problem of three velar series. --ColinFine (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Colin is right. Although the symbol is used for both. However PIE /g/ is not found glottalized, only voiceless stops are. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Palatization~~Palatalization is represented by ^j? Why would/should the study of linguistics use 2 (or more) notation systems, in this case International Phonetic Alphabet and a adhoc Protoindoeuropean alphabet?174.3.125.23 (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several different levels at which that can be answered. One is that the phonology of PIE is entirely reconstructed, so the phonetic realisation is entirely conjectural. Another is to note that for many languages and groups of languages there are particular notations which are conventional in their study but not used in the same way outside. In this case, I believe that k and k' were simply used to denote the two putatively different phonemes in PIE which are historically distinguished by having the same reflex in some languages (the Centum languages) and systematically different reflexes in others (the Satem languages), with no suggestion of representing what the actual phonetic difference might have been. A parallel would be the use of 'o' and 'ö' (and similar pairs) in transcribing Old Japanese: from contemporary notation, there were two systematically distinct vowels that both surface as 'o' in Modern Japanese, but there is no generally accepted account of what the phonetic difference between these two was. --ColinFine (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colin's answer is correct. I jumped to the conclusion /k'/ must represent the traditional /g/ which some like Gamkrelidze reconstruct as a glottalized voiceless stop, rather than as a voiced stop. This Gamkrelidze would indeed signify as /k'/. But Starostin doesn't use that transcription, and the /g'/ makes it clear he's indicating the posited palatalized form, which other use a superscript j to indicate. (Nobody posits a glottalized /g'/ in PIE.) The reflex in German here is irregular, since k > h whould be normal, giving AS hroc > NE rock, not crock. There's either an irregular development, or, I suspect, a borrowing from Celtic. (But I am not any sort of authourity on Celtic.) μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PIE notation existed long before the spread of the IPA. So this is tradition. And in printed texts you are most likely to encounter ǵḱ or ĝk̂ .--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving query about possessive here from very much dead Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Grammar help page.

I have ended up in an edit war over the usage of the possessive on Christian Dior. The other user insists that their form of rewording it:

"However, the Paris socialite and Dior's acquaintance Alexis von Rosenberg, Baron de Rédé, stated"

is correct. I disagree - I reverted the original change as it was accompanied by a poorly spelled edit, and it looked like pretty lousy grammar besides. I don't believe there is need for the possessive in this particular sentence structure - ie, "The Paris socialite and Dior acquaintance". They hostilely reverted a reasonable change to "The Paris socialite and acquaintance of Dior," and rather than get involved in a prolonged edit war over something so piffling, and because Groupie hasn't yet responded to my attempt to open a discussion on their talk page, I am asking the grammar coves here what they think. I've suggested an alternative phrasing of "However, Dior's acquaintance, the Paris socialite..." but I think it will be hostilely received again. In addition, I've noticed an issue with the sentence that means that it should have a citation (if one can be found) added, but given the situation, I feel I can't really do anything until this tiny issue is sorted. Please can a third party opine? Mabalu (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "Dior acquaintance" is in a tone suitable for the gossip pages of a tabloid, and not for an encyclopaedia. But I think the coordinated phrase is very awkward, and prefer your version with the comma. --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, with or without the possessive, it could be construed as referring to two people (the socialite and the acquaintance). There's nothing wrong with your second version, IMO. Would "However, Alexis von Rosenberg, Paris socialite and acquaintance of Dior" be OK? In other words, what is it about your proposed change that your antagonist finds objectionable? Tevildo (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a bit of a problem with the two-person reading too. My solution would be "However, an acquaintance of Dior, Paris socialite Alexis von Rosenberg, stated...". This way the most crucial bit is foregrounded better (what qualifies this person to be a potentially competent witness for saying what he said is not that he was a Paris socialite but that he was an acquaintance, so that part should come first.) However, unlike in Mabalu's version above, I'd prefer to introduce the phras with an indefinite article, because we are introducing a new person into the narrative here and Dior would obviously have had more than one acquaintance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people would want "an acquaintance of Dior's" in your suggestion, Future Perfect. The possessive is usual in such constructions; for example, one says "He is an acquaintance of mine", not "He is an acquaintance of me". Deor (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Dior's acquaintance" is grammatical and preferable. "Dior-acquainteance would have to be hyphenated, and amounts to headlinese, which is deprecated in WP. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it read "However, Dior's acquaintance", yes, but "However, the Paris socialite and Dior's acquaintance" - I just feel it doesn't read properly. BUT "However, Dior's acquaintance, the Paris socialite...." works on a grammatical level (although it's stlll not quite right. I like what Fut.Perf. has suggested, solution wise. That just seems to read fluently and naturally to me. Perhaps "However, one of Dior's acquaintances, the Paris socialite..." might work even better all round? Mabalu (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In context, I think you could get away with "his": "However, one of his acquaintances, the Paris socialite...". This would also let us use "Dior" rather than "the fashion designer" later in the sentence. Tevildo (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by this discussion because, as Gertrude Stein once observed, there is no there there. True, there are often many ways of saying exactly the same thing. But what's the point? In reference to the Paris socialite Alexis von Rosenberg, you can call him "Dior's acquaintance" or you can call him "Acquaintance of Dior," and it would not make an iota of difference, as it means exactly the same thing. What you cannot do (if you want to use correct English grammar, naturally) is to call von Rosenberg "a Dior acquaintance," because it would be illiterate. Do you say, for example, "John friend" or "John's friend" when referring to a friend of John's? "Hey, meet Freddy, he is John friend. I like all of John friends." So what is this discussion about? I have corrected the sentence: "The Paris socialite and Dior acquaintance..." to "The Paris socialite and Dior's acquaintance..," and that edit of me (just kidding) of mine was incorrectly and unjustifiably undone by Mabalu on the grounds that it was "very poor grammar." Remarkably, Mabalu failed to recognize the correct use of the possessive case here and thought the apostrophe s in "Dior's" was an abbreviation of "Dior is." Once this nonsense was pointed out to him, Mabalu then insisted on coming up with an alternative language for no other reason but a purely gratuitous one. This is abuse of editor's privileges, and it has got to stop and must not be encouraged on this page.--Fashiongroupie (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite the case. You can say a Chanel dress and a Dior perfume. The usage is adjectival. It's also deprecated, and I wouldn't use it in a Wikipedia's article. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both Chanel dress and Dior perfume are okay grammatically because in these cases Chanel and Dior are inanimate nouns, while in the case of Dior's acquaintance, Dior is an animate noun, and different grammatical rules apply. Again, would you say: "Meet Paul, he is John acquaintance?" You can say, however: "Meet Paul, he is wearing a Dior jacket."--Fashiongroupie (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Dior's acquaintance" is preferable, as I said before. But the claim that "Dior acquaintance" is ungrammatical is wrong. What makes it journalistic in style is not the use of "Dior" as a modifier, but the absence of an article: "a Dior acquaintance" would be acceptable anywhere. --ColinFine (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to clarify, it is your opinion that the sentence "Meet Paul, he is John acquaintance" is grammatically correct, except that the absence of an article before "John" makes it journalistic in style, while the sentence: "Meet Paul, he is a John acquaintance" is not ungrammatical whatsoever and would be acceptable anywhere. Did I get it right?--Fashiongroupie (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make sense, no. If you are introducing Paul to someone, and giving the context that he is an acquaintance of John, the correct sentence is "Meet Paul, he is John's acquaintance" or "Meet Paul, he is an acquaintance of John's". The difference is, as you say, John is a person. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the construction can work with a surname. "A key Obama aide" is journalistic but well-formed, akin to "in the Clinton White House", "During the Kennedy administration". Itsmejudith (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it can. It works in these very limited, president-specific examples of journalese. Such usage of common names as adjectives represents an exception to the rules of proper English grammar.--Fashiongroupie (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]