Language desk
< September 24	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 26 >

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 25

Stress in Russian surnames

Is there a pronunciation dictionary of Russian proper names, or at least surnames?

Where is the stress in the Ukrainian surname Фещенко (as it would be pronounced in Russian)? 96.46.206.98 (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ljuboslov above will know, but I am pretty sure it would be on the e in -enko. μηδείς (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard this surname but here is in the first syllable, 3/4 I'd say this way. There exist dictionaries (for example) but without stress, though.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one book: Dictionary of Russian Personal Names - With a Revised Guide to Stress and Morphology (Morton Benson, Cambridge University Press, 2008, ISBN 9780521101615). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does "the Ukrainian surname as it would be pronounced in Russian" mean? Russian surnames ending in -енко have the stress on the antepenultimate syllable. Ukrainian surnames with that ending may (or will?) have it on the penultimate. --Theurgist (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so straightforward. Stress equally can be on the penult or antipenult in such surnames. Here is an explanation (in Ukrainian).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This only explains Ukrainian surnames. I said I wasn't sure if the stress (1) must be on the penult or (2) may or may not be on the penult in Ukrainian -енко surnames. But in Russian -енко surnames, it must be on the antepenult. --Theurgist (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why must they? I personally heard a lot of surnames with -éнко.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such as Yevgeny Yevtushenko. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a sideline, it's interesting that the Russian Wikipedia uses the format Surname, Forename(s) for the title and header of articles on people (and not just for Russians, whereas the Hungarian seems to vary). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I know there was a heat discussion a long time ago what style to follow. The "Surname, Forename" style is from old encylclopedias and from a common Russian practice, where sorting is by surnames.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unbegaun in his "Russian surnames" gives a lot of examples with the stress marked (in the Russian translation of the work, it's on p.205 and the following).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lyuboslov: Then, it's my bad. Though it's not entirely mine, because I read that somewhere and did not "discover" it myself.

@Andrew: The Hungarian Wikipedia does not "vary", it's just that Hungarian names follow the Eastern name order, and while the Hungarian Wikipedians preserve the original Eastern name order of names like Hu Csin-tao, Pan Gimun, Abe Sinzó, Ngô Đình Diệm, they do not apply it to Western names like Margaret Thatcher. --Theurgist (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curious that the anglo world reverses Hungarian names but not Chinese/Japanese/Vietnamese names. When was the last time you heard anyone refer to Egerszegi Krisztina or Zedong Mao? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does reverse Japanese names, though (Shinzō Abe). --Theurgist (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who have replied. Is it safe to assume that Russian-speakers would follow the Ukrainian stress on the first syllable in this name? 96.46.206.98 (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Global War On "Than"?

The English word "than" seems to be under a global-scale threat of extinction. Even discounting the inability of semi-literate "average Joes and Janes" to distinguish between "than" and "then" I am increasingly discovering otherwise apparently literate and erudite writers also using "then" where "than" should be written. Is this an extension of the Global War On "Their and They're" or is the Great Enemy of Proper English mounting an entirely new campaign aided by the fifth-columnists amongst us responsible for designing and creating spelling-checker software? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you insist on couching this in terms of war, I recommend The Fight for English:How Language Pundits Ate, Shot and Left by David Crystal --ColinFine (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this discussion from a couple of weeks ago. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second theme in this month on the subject. For me it's quite surprising, I always thought that "than-then merger" is a "disease" of the non-English speakers who cannot distinguish /e/ and /æ/.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native English speaker, and I do it sometimes, but only when I'm typing. Sometimes I catch it, sometimes I dont. When I write longhand I never write "then" for "than". Perhaps brain-to-hand coordination defaults to familiar patterns when I'm typing, I don't know. Perhaps other people do the same. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also sometimes type "that" for "than", probably for the same reason. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My personal impression is that people who learn English as a second language will learn it largely from written material and are not as likely to mistake the spelling of homophones, and that homophonic misspellings accompanied by otherwise correct English are 99% likely to have been perpetrated by a native speaker who doesn't read a whole lot. I actually improved my pronunciation of English quite a bit by observing common misspellings on Internet forums and deducing which syllables had a schwa sound from it. Effovex (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are pronounced identically in the US. You should just as much be asking under what reasoning do we continue to spell them differently, considering we can distinguish them perfectly in speech purely by context. This is a global war against a reasonable English orthography, I say! Lsfreak (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lsfreak's comment is more or less true, but not exactly. When Americans talk relatively slowly they pronounce "than" as it is spelled. When they talk fast they pronounce it with an indistinct schwa. At in-between speeds, it sounds like "then", and this is probably the most common version. Of course, all of this undoubtedly varies by US region and by individual. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are pronounced identically in the US. Really? I pronounce them differently. Maybe not when talking fast, like Lsfreak says. But when reading to myself in my head I sure think of them as sounding different. For me "then" is pronounced like "them", and "than" like "that". Pfly (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. This American doesn't pronounce them identically. RNealK (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nisi Dominus Frustra

What's the English translation for this. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 14:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A literal translation is "if not the master, in vain". It is a shorthand reference to the first verse of Psalm 127: "Unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labor in vain". And it is the motto on the coat of arms of the City of Edinburgh. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wao, it is also the motto on Mount Temple Comprehensive School. Thanks. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 14:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A more free and idiomatic translation might be "Without the Lord, there is only futility". Deor (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Without the Lord, everything is futile" seems even more idiomatic to this second-language speaker. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to add the translation to the Mount Temple article, which one should I use? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 18:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the school has an "official" translation, but I'm not seeing one on its Web site. One I've seen elsewhere on the Web is "Without the Lord, we labor in vain", which seems to be as good as any, particularly since it retains the "labor" from the Psalms verse. Deor (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give Gandalf's literal translation, then quote the bible verse. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Meet with an accident"?

This phrase is quite popular in India and is used in its mainstream media as well. As far as I know, it simply means "to have an accident". I was wondering if the folks here could throw some light on the origin of this phrase. Is it used outside the Indian subcontinent? -- Such a gentleman 17:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly used down here, but it seems to have a sinister/ironic/sardonic connotation, like weakening the brake lines on your worst enemy's car in an effort to increase the chance of an "accident" occurring to her. I hear it in that sort of context every day of the week. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same here in the US. A criminal might say that you could meet with an accident if you don't comply with his demands. Your leg might "accidentally" get broken, or as Jack says your brakes might "accidentally" fail. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. In India it's used even in non-sinister/ironic/sardonic sense. 183.83.47.226 (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See s:If— (If—), verse 2, line 3, written by Rudyard Kipling in 1895.

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

—Wavelength (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Kipling was born in Bombay, India — just saying! 183.83.47.226 (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See these Google Ngram Viewer results for "meet with" and "meets with" and "met with" and "met with an accident".

—Wavelength (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC) and 22:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And [1], "met with an accident" vs. "had an accident". Similar pattern in both British and American English. Pfly (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dickens wasn't born in India, but in Little Dorrit (1857) the hero Arthur Clennam says; "Yes. Through having met with an accident. He is only just now discharged." [2] Alansplodge (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is often, but not always, used with the sardonic/sinister implication in contemporary American discourse. When used without ironic intent, I think it comes across as a bit more euphemistic or would-be genteel than "had an accident" or "was in an accident", two other ways of saying the same thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a standard idiom in British English for decades to centuries; today it sounds a little pompous and/or old-fashioned (though not so much that people don't still write and say it) and "Have an accident" is more colloquial. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought of it as the personification of the accident, which makes the accident a bit creepy, like it was stalking you all along, waiting for it's chance to strike. StuRat (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like "an accident going somewhere to happen". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's "an accident waiting to happen", at least in US English. StuRat (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cure vs. treatment vs. fixing vs. making _____ better vs. healing

What is the difference among these sentences?

The doctor cured Eliza with medicine.
The doctor treated Eliza with medicine.
The doctor fixed Eliza with medicine.
The doctor made Eliza better with medicine.
The doctor healed Eliza with medicine.
The doctor revived Eliza with medicine.
The doctor recovered Eliza with medicine. 164.107.214.74 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The doctor cured Eliza with medicine. She no longer has a medical problem.
The doctor treated Eliza with medicine. The doctor helped her and may or may not have cured her.
The doctor fixed Eliza with medicine. Incorrect usage. You fix a car but not a person. But sometimes people say "He fixed what ailed her."
The doctor made Eliza better with medicine. Unusual, but means he cured her.
The doctor healed Eliza with medicine. He cured her.
The doctor revived Eliza with medicine. She was unconscious, and he made her come back to consciousness.
The doctor recovered Eliza with medicine. Incorrect. You could say Eliza recovered with the help of the doctor's medicine. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The doctor fixed Eliza with medicine" would be a colloquial way of saying "The doctor gave some medicine to Eliza", implying that Eliza isn't ill, and intends to sell the medicine or use it for recreation. "The doctor recovered Eliza with medicine" would be fine in UK English, implying that Eliza was very close to death when she was treated. Tevildo (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "The doctor recovered Eliza" doesn't sound right at all to me. Also "fixed" in UK English can have a slightly sinister overtone, as it can also mean "sabotaged". I wouldn't want anybody to "fix" my lunch for instance. Alansplodge (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, recovered isn't used in that way in UK English. You can say "Eliza recovered (from an illness)" but not "the doctor recovered Eliza (from an illness)". "Recover" can be used transitively, but not in that sense. Here's the Oxford dictionary entry, which distinguishes between transitive and intransitive uses. "Fixed" might be used, but only very colloquially - you wouldn't use it in formal writing. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Eliza was in VF, but she was recovered with lidocaine" sounds like a perfectly reasonable sentence to me. However, I'm not an authority. Tevildo (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not really convinced. It isn't something that I would say - maybe "she recovered after having lidocaine". Alansplodge (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. The only time "was recovered" is used in relation to animates is when they're no longer animate and we're talking about recovering their body from a lake or a well or a mineshaft or a massacre. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, because in America parents fix their children's lunches for school. Duoduoduo (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the mid-19th century, some Britons complained that in America "to fix" was the universal verb, used by Americans with great frequency in multiple meanings... AnonMoos (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this regard, Americans (and others??) say that someone "fixed" a sporting event, meaning they rigged it (secretly predetermined the outcome). Also, in some American dialects (for example, in some places in the South) they say "I'm fixin' to do that" meaning "I'm getting ready to do that right now." Duoduoduo (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could recover this ELIZA if your hardware crashed. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's special about "predecease" in the grand scheme of things?

If Person A died before Person B, we say that A "predeceased" B.

Would we ever say that B "postdeceased" A?

Are there single words that mean A was born before or after B? ("Precede" can mean born before, but only if the context is known; "predecease" requires no context.)

If, as I suspect, the answers are all No, what's special about "predecease"? Why was there a need for this word but not any of the other 3? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess one reason may be that we already have "outlived" or "survived" for "postdeceased". I realize it's not a complete synonym as the subject who outlived or survived X could be alive or dead, while "postdeceased" would always mean dead. Still, I couldn't think of an analogous word for "predeceased", and context would often make the ambiguity clear: In 19th century Barsetshire, most wives outlived their husbands. (For your second question: "older than" or "younger than"? :)---Sluzzelin talk 21:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so far. I'm after single words (I've now clarified the question), so "older than" won't do. Also, Gerald Ford was older than Teddy Roosevelt, but he wasn't born before him, so it's ambiguous. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did add a smiley (though I left out the nose) Can you really say "Gerald Ford was older than Teddy Roosevelt" just like that, without adding "when he became president" or "before he died" etc.? I mean he wasn't older than Teddy Roosevelt when World War I broke out, for example. Then again, he was Leslie Lynch King back then, so maybe you're right ;) ---Sluzzelin talk 22:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Predecease" is mostly a legal term, mainly in one particular context: wills. If you leave a legacy to somebody, but you want it to go only to that person specifically, not to their heirs, then you will put a clause in the will concerning the case where that person predeceases you. --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually got quite hooked into this question, although my level of success may be questionable. I've had to play it a little fast and loose with the established lexicon and the rules of grammar, which is why I've hyphenated some of them because they either have a specific different meaning unhyphenated or I've essentially made them up and they don't quite fit right but I figured I'd share them anyway and you can be the judge.

Pre-conception
Pre-natality
Pre-nativity
Pre-existence
Pre-parturition
Pre-nascence
Subsequence (one for the other side of the coin)
Anterior and Posterior
Precedence and Antecedence (Predecessor and Antecessor)
Prevenience

My brain is kind of fried at this point so I hope these were at least somewhat useful. If someone wants me to put them into sentences I will I just don't have the inclination right now. Biggs Pliff (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be comparable with "predeceased" they would have to be verbs. We have preconceived notions but not postconceived notions. We have pre-existing conditions but not post-existing conditions. Duoduoduo (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all contributions, friends. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]