Language desk
< June 27	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 29 >

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.

June 28

Cyrillic help (Mongolian)

What is the cyrillic for the title of this image? File:Watercyclemongolianhigh.jpg - I want to add a description in Mongolian for this image

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be "Bajgalijn usny ergelt" in a rough transliteration, (Байгалийн усны эргэлт) where "j" stands for the y sound of English, and "y" is a vowel close to "i" in Jewish. (Looking at the article on the Mongolian language it seems unlikely the vowels written as и and ы have the same value as in Russian, but that's based on standard Russian. I don't know if Mongol has its own transliteration. See Mongolian Cyrillic alphabet. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ы is [ɨ] in Slavic and [ɯ] in Turkic and Mongolic languages, as the article says. There is a phonetic difference, but AFAIK there is no phonematic difference: a language usually possess only one close unrounded phoneme which is not front: either /ɨ/ (central) or /ɯ/ (back). All /ɯ/s from Turkic, Mongolic, and Korean languages (regardless of original writing system) are mapped to ы when transcribed to Russian. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you are correct ы should reflect a center or more back vowel. But Mongolian Cyrillic alphabet has it and и both with the IPA /i/ value. μηδείς (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian language #Phonology confirms that there are no non-front close unrounded vowels; then, I wonder why they included ⟨Ы⟩ to their alphabet at all. But I’d not trust the Mongolian Cyrillic alphabet article if only because it lists [i] for ⟨Й⟩ which is an obvious mistake. ⟨Й⟩ never means anything but /j/, and [j] exists in the language. Russian Wikipedia agrees that Mongolian ⟨Й⟩=/j/. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing what a book I have says (the language is not English, and the wordings are sometimes not very clear):

The letter ⟨й⟩ is only used as the second component of the spelling of the long vowel ий and of the diphthongs ай, ой, уй, үй, эй (and эй is actually a monophthong).
⟨ы⟩ is a hard long vowel, opposite to the soft long vowel ий. ы only occurs in genitive and accusative endings.
Apart from ы and ий, the other long vowels are spelt by means of doubling the letter: аа, оо, өө, уу, үү, ээ.
Iotated short vowels (combinations of /j/ + short vowel) are spelt like this: ⟨я⟩ (iotated а), ⟨ё⟩ (iotated о), ⟨е⟩ (iotated ө or э), ⟨ю⟩ (iotated у or ү).
Iotated long vowels are spelt like this: ⟨яа еө юу юү еэ⟩. It makes no mention of ⟨ёо⟩, but that might be just a random miss.
Some of the short vowels undergo reduction in certain environments.

--Theurgist (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly clear to me. It implies the phrase would be pronounced something like bye-goll-yeen oos-nee er-gelt. Of course that is OR and should definitely not be given to readers. μηδείς (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And let me say that, in Mongolian contexts, a "j" usually is a transliteration for ⟨ж⟩, whereas the ⟨й⟩ is usually represented with an "i": President Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj, Цахиагийн Элбэгдорж. Then, I recommend "Baigaliin usny ergelt". --Theurgist (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it mean that ⟨ий⟩ gives [iː] whereas in diphthongs it ⟨й⟩ is possibly [ɪ]? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't use the IPA; it just outlines the principles of Mongolian orthography. It actually is a chapter of a book about Bulgarian-language transcriptions of foreign-language names. --Theurgist (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as's

If someone duplicated the word "as", and I want to say "I think you have too many as's there", then how should the word "as's" be correctly written? (I am not asking for suggestions about how to reword the sentence to avoid the issue.) 86.146.105.187 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's article on Use–mention distinction has a little bit on such usages, but does not expressly deal with how to handle pluralizing the mention. It does, however, cite Strunk and White as discussing how to handle the use-mention distinction, so perhaps a style guide like that may have good guidance. --Jayron32 17:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(OR) Too many ases or too many "as"es will work. The hyphenated form without the e looks too much like a possessive. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant apostrophe, not hyphen?? 86.146.105.187 (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I might probably use "as"es, but your as's also looks ok to me. I don't have any usage guide to back me up, that's just my intuition. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant apostrophe, and I prefer "as"es as probably the least confusing option. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From English plurals#Plurals of letters and abbreviations:

The plural of individual letters is normally written with -'s: there are two h's in this sentence; mind your p's and q's; dot the i's and cross the t's.
Some people extend this use of the apostrophe to other cases, such as plurals of numbers written in figures (e.g. "1990's"), words used as terms (e.g. "his writing uses a lot of but's"). However others prefer to avoid this method (which can lead to confusion with the possessive -'s), and write 1990s, buts; this is the style recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style.

Avoiding that method leads to asking what would be the standard plural of as, if it were a noun denoting an object, say. And that’s a problem because, as far as I’m aware, there are no singular nouns ending in a single –s, except words of Greek origin such as kudos, ethos, chaos, etc, or Latin such as abacus, modus, etc, which are either not pluralised or take a foreign plural (ethos -> ethe or ethea; although Wiktionary allows chaoses). So we have no model, and thus any proposed solution is bound to offend some readers. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'gas' comes to mind, plural 'gases' (or 'gasses'). - Lindert (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also bus, where buses versus busses seems to be a pondial difference (the latter plural can also mean "kisses"). --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trust you two to shoot me down in flames so rapidly. :) But still, I think "ases" poses a problem. Even within a context it looks weird. And that, I'm sure, is why some folk prefer "gasses" and "busses" to gases and buses (me, I reserve "gasses" for the present tense 3rd person singular of the verb "to gas"; the plural of the noun "gas" is simply "gases"). Also, "as" is unique in that it ends in a -z sound, so any plural should sound like /azzez/, and you just don't get that from "ases". It's a shocking conundrum. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As (almost) always, there's a previous thread on the topic—one which you yourself initiated, Jack: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 April 7#Plural of the noun "gas". —Deor (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there it is: Roman coins to the rescue. I hang my head in shame, and go off to learn my irregular Basque verbs. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while complex, Basque verbs are pretty regular, like English with just a few basic irregular helpers and then compounds that form very regularly, like English "am speaking", "is speaking", "are speaking", etc. It's the Georgian language which is the killer. Swear Satan speaks fluent Georgian. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a look at Georgian verb paradigm. Eeurrgh. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the topic, the French seem to have solved the pluralisation of "as" admirably, in a way that would appeal to minimalists. They even made a movie about it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The supposition above that gas/gasses is an analogy for "as"/"as"es does not work at all for my dialect. The word as is always lax, singluar or plural, in my dialect. But I say gas with a tense vowel, and gasses with a lax vowel. See æ tensing. There is also the point that the first ess or esses in gas/gasses is/are never voiced--but the voicing is not at all as relevant as the tensing. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English Grammar. Two hyphenated words in one sentence.

Is there another way to write the sentence, "Race-based and gender-based affirmative action has been a hotly debated topic for years."? Is it acceptable to write, "Race- and gender-based affirmative action..."?

66.56.248.132 (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is acceptable. See Hyphen#Suspended hyphens (version of 15:12, 18 June 2013) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens (version of 14:32, 27 June 2013), sub-section 3, point 7.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) :I don't see a problem with the original, but if you want to lower your word count, you could use "Race/gender-based" or "Race and gender based". I would not choose your alternative, as a word with a hyphen after it just looks odd. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:/.—Wavelength (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd-looking or not, "race- and gender-based" is correct. 86.146.105.187 (talk)

Yes, IP 86 has it right, the two terms are parallel, the first bare-assed hyphen implies the understood term. Ellipsis may be relevant. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bare hyphen is even more common in German, with their compound nouns, but I agree that it works in English too. If someone wants to avoid it, he or she could write "affirmative action based on race and gender" or "...on the basis of race or gender". Lesgles (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, nouns have gender — people have sex. Without the first hyphen, you have no way of showing in print that this is a zeugma. In speech you certainly say "race and sex based affirmative action". But in writing, you need to clarify — is it affirmative action based on the combination of race and sex? Is it race, as a standalone word, and then sex-based affirmative action? Or is it the zeugma: Race-based affirmative action and sex-based affirmative action considered together? For the last possibility, to avoid repetition, the "bare hyphen" after "race" is mandatory. --Trovatore (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gender identity would certainly argue otherwise - people may have a gender that differ from their sex, and people do get discriminated against especially when their gender differs from their sex. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are going off-topic, but I think a lot of people prefer 'gender' to 'sex'. "I had an argument with the wife last night, so I decided it would be good to sort it out with sex-based affirmative action. When we woke up next morning, everything was fine between us." <- 'Sex' is OK in certain contexts (Tony Blair's dossier on WMD in Iraq was not 'gendered-up', for example), but in most contexts 'gender' is more appropriate than 'sex'. 'Sex' has the obvious connotations, and people prefer to avoid using the word, at least in my circles. I suppose many people think the opposite, but this is my view, at least. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever seen an application form or other administrative pro-forma where a person's name, address, contact details, DOB etc etc etc are recorded, where there's an M/F tick box marked "Gender". It's always been "Sex" in my experience. Unless my memory is faulty. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say everyone, Jack. I just said 'a lot of people'. I think I hear and see the word 'trans-gender' more often than 'transsexual', for example. Certainly on forms, 'sex' is the norm, and I would use that myself if writing a form, simply because it's the norm, and to save space. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have always preferred sex to gender, KageTora, and believe that true of most of my acquaintances. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be because I have lived abroad for most of my adult life, and saying the word 'sex' to foreigners generally implies only one thing to them - the loanword from English, or the word they hear on Hollywood, or see on the internet (at least in Asia). Whereas, with the word 'gender', if not understood, it can be explained. There is no ambiguity and no sniggers from the back of the classroom (and in Japan, this does not just happen with teenagers. It happens with 'grown-up' adult businessmen, too). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "sex" is preferred in most scientific contexts (at least in North American English). It can be very confusing when people use "gender" as a synonym/euphemism for biological sex. Additional confusion arises if the concept of sex and gender are both being discussed! So, if I hear my students use "gender" as a euphemism for "sex" in a scientific discussion, I instruct them to say "sex" when they mean sex! SemanticMantis (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Sex Please, We're British. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]