Language desk
< December 8	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 10 >

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 9

Sandhi error in Sanskrit userbox?

The userbox that lets you tell the world how much Sanskrit you know: एषः उपयोजकः सरलेन संस्कृतेन लेखितुं शक्नोति (this is for level 1, i.e. "simple (saralaH) Sanskrit") contains, as far as I am concerned, a sandhi error. It ought to be: एष उपयोजकः सरलेन संस्कृतेन लेखितुं शक्नोति (i.e. eeSa not eeSaH). Do you agree?

~~The userbox says: "This user is able to write [with] simple Sanskrit". Other language userboxes generally speak of "being able to contribute with".~~

~~Contact Basemetal here 00:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Just seen all six Sanskrit userboxes. All have sandhi errors (different ones, e.g. the sandhi of eeSaH is correct at level 0, 2, 3 and 5) except the one for the user who doesn't understand any Sanskrit (level 0). As to the userbox for the "native speaker of Sanskrit" it is in English. Funny. Wikicomedy. But maybe this is not the place to ask about userboxes, so struck thru the whole section. Thanks, and apologies to anyone who intended to help but didn't get a chance. Contact Basemetal here 17:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conditions Latin

If I have two sentence in coni. it describes something that didn't happen? but if it would happen - so it be happen like the sentence, right? what happen when some one use in negative in such sentence? the first part did happen right? like in : "nec numquam videar satur futurus,

non si densior aridis aristis

sit nostrae seges osculationis."

so he say simply: if we could not (non si) kiss so much (=so we do kiss), I would never think our kiss to be enough? right?I got confused again.--192.114.91.244 (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand what you're asking, you're looking for factual and contrary-to-fact conditional clauses. If so, try this page, which explains the various possibilities. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Oven" in Norwegian language

From it's use in the series Lilyhammer, I get the impression it has a broader meaning in Norway, since it seems to include a fireplace and a heating unit for a sauna. What is the precise meaning of "oven" in Norway ? (For comparison, in my part of the USA at least, it pretty much just means a hot box for cooking food.) StuRat (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian speaker here. The Norwegian spelling is ovn (Wiktionary link). Wiktionary translates as "oven" and "stove"; to me, all pictures on these Wikipedia pages could be described as an "ovn". In the fireplace, article, however, only the "gas-powered" unit pictured could, with some doubt, be described as an oven (by me). Jørgen (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Norwegians use the word ovn for both kitchen stoves and various kind of heaters.

A kitchen stove is formally called komfyr; but in daily speech komfyr and ovn is used interchangely.

As for fireplaces, Norwegians distinguish between peis which is the traditionally bricklayed open fireplace and the wood-burning stove which became common in the 19th century and is more effective for heating. Only the last one is referred to as ovn (or more precisely vedovn, «wood-oven»); previously often called jernovn (iron ovens). Wood-burning stoves are very common in Norwegian homes and today they may often resemble the open fireplaces as in modern designs they have a large «window» where you can see the woodfire. The line between peis and wood-burning stoves is blurred and some units are called peisovn .

The most common heating in Norway is electricity and those heaters are also referred to as ovn; there are various types: varmeovn, stråleovn, panelovn. Also other kind of heater are commonly referred to as ovn (like oil/gas heaters). Iselilja (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. It does indeed seem to have broader meaning there. I wouldn't even call a stove (electric or gas burners not enclosed in a box) an "oven". About the only other thing called that here is a microwave oven, and that's still an enclosed box used for cooking, although there the enclosure is more about keeping microwaves in than heat. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting German to English translation

Hi. Can anyone who speaks German translate the following to English please? I'm using it for an article on the German zoologist Ludwig Heinrich Philipp Döderlein. It's from a letter sent during the post-WW1 German economic depression. While I can understand the general gist, machine translation results are too ambiguous for me to trust.

"Auch zur Fortsetzung meiner wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten komme ich kaum, obwohl ich fast täglich mich im Museum beschäftige. Es ist das Unglück unseres armen Vaterlandes, das alle Gedanken in Anspruch nimmt, und dessen Folgen sich in immer fürchterlicher Weise auch bei mir geltend machen."

Thank you in advance.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I am also finding hardly any time to continue with my scientific work, even though I work at the museum almost every day. The misery of our poor nation occupies all thoughts, and its effects are making themselves felt in ever more frightening ways in my life too". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danke schön! :) -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are the dialects in Britain mutually intelligible?

Can an Englishman (speaking English English) understand a Scotsman (speaking Scottish English)? Can they understand cockney? 140.254.245.209 (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with exposure (after having heard it for some period) and mutual effort, and assuming that one party is not trying to overhear another party who's deliberately disguising their speech in jargon, slang, or Cant (language). See for example, rhyming slang. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there must be plenty of examples like this American one where the speaker of one dialect understands the "standard" dialect, but without experience and mutual cooperation the reverse is not true. We also have mutual intelligibility. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Mostly. I, who has lived in the south for much of my life, have had conversations with Geordies and Glaswegian Scots, and it's been a struggle sometimes, especially when they use words unique to their dialects, but most of the meaning comes across. There was a BBC sitcom called Rab C. Nesbitt, where most of the characters spoke broad Glaswegian. Although there's nothing in our article, there's a comment on the talk page about how many English viewers found it difficult to understand. Unsurprisingly, I don't think it's ever been shown in the US. Rojomoke (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means the south of England. Contact Basemetal here 18:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC recently added subtitles to an interview with a Northern Irish blacksmith, broadcast across the UK - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-30097259 - which some regarded as an insult. (Incidentally, I know Ireland is not part of Great Britain, but I read "Britain" in the question as referring to the whole UK.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ECs) [English son-of-a-Londoner with several years Scottish residence responding] A "scottishly naïve" Englishman might have some trouble with a broad and/or "uneducated" Scottish accent, and more trouble depending on the amount of Scots-derived vocabulary and local idioms used in the Scots-English, which most Scottish English speakers consciously or unconsciously vary over a spectrum depending on who they're talking to.

Neither are likely to have much extra trouble with a Cockney accent, but would have difficulties if the Cockney were to deliberately employ higher than usual proportions of London idioms and Rhyming slang (which true practitioners may improvise as they go).

Be aware that "English English" itself encompasses a variety of quite broad local accents and dialects which can lead to mutual difficulties. For example, recent news reports have mentioned special classes being given in Newcastle to help non-native English speakers understand Geordie.

Modern broadcast media has greatly lessened the barriers to comprehension all these varieties once posed, since most UK inhabitants will have been exposed to most of them to some degree. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the BBC clip of the Irishman at youtube if you search for "subtitle barney devlin". I understood everything he said except "refers" since it sounded to me like rih-fairs and in my American dialect we say that word as ree-furs. The father of a friend of mine had a very thick Glaswegian accent that it took me about a year's weekends to crack, even minimally. Same with a lot of the intentionally thick dialect speech on Monty Python. My own speech is close enough to a rhotic version of RP (think Lady Crawley on Downton Abbey) that I feel safe generalising. I have heard about Geordie, but not enjoyed its mysteries personally. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Ah-ha! Anything to rid us of the image of a rhotic Lady Crawley Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC) [1]) [reply]

Nothing's going to rid us of the image of a rhotic Lady Crawley until the current Lord Crawley dies. If those sketch artists are accurate, no American would have any issue with Geordie minus aberrant local vocabulary. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, as a Londoner, I'd say that previous answers have it about right. Most British English accents are intelligible to me, though Geordie and Glaswegian can be difficult. Often the key to understanding is first recognising the accent - I can remember briefly being stumped by someone's accent, struggling to make sense of it, thinking (judging by appearance, which is never wise) that it might be Jamaican Patois (which isn't a British English dialect of course) and then realising that it was Geordie - at which point it all made sense. Regarding 'Scottish English' it's worth bearing in mind that there is a minority opinion that broad Scots is a distinct language, rather than a dialect - see Scots language (and for those interested, the Scots-Language Wikipedia [2]). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a very relevant point, User:AndyTheGrump. I have heard people speak Spanish with an Italian accent, or speak South Slavic and thought it was Italian, to be stumped for a minute, then having finally gotten it. This happens when I watch Almodovar and his actors speak Italian or French and I understand what they are saying but am at the same time hugely confused. I would strongly recommend Um Filme Falado for any multilinguals. Starring among others, Malkovitch and Deneuve, it's a great story with great plot, and a very interesting premise. Like Ljuboslov below I have also not always recognized right away that someone is actually speaking English. To answer the OP's question in another way, the answer is, "No, immediate comprehension is never guaranteed." μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the problem with Scottish accent is not the vocabulary (with a definite degree of it Scottish English may be indeed called rather anglicised Scots, but in general Scotsmen use standard English words) but the pronunciation. I quite well understand people with an obvious but "refined" and articulated Scottish accent like of Ewan McGregor, John Hannah, David Tennant, Neil Oliver (the accent of the latter is my favourite), and I even prefer their accent to any other English accents (including RP), but a great deal of Scottish people pronounce their English very carelessly and inarticulately that it becomes really hardly understandable even without dialectisms. Many times I've got an impression they were speaking some Scandinavian language and not English at all and thought "why on the earth they cannot pronounce every word clearly and have to distort entire sentences into two-syllable mumbles!". Ironically enough, but if you read older descriptions from the 19th - the beginning of the 20th centuries Scottish speech then was defined as slow and very articulate like Scots wanted to pronounce every letter. Now Scots say "everything" like [ɛ̃ːʔ].--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One should be careful in using normative statements (like "careless and inarticulate") when describing the dialects of people. That one is different from the marked speech of the upper classes in a society doesn't make them careless or lazy or anything else. Different is not worse. --Jayron32 13:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without being judgemental, in my experience there are languages and within languages dialects associated with more or less distinct speech patterns, just as there are such individual speakers. It's just a fact. Maybe you'd prefer to talk of "articulatory posture" or use some other such term instead of descriptive apparently judgemental un-PC terms such as "lazy" or "careless" but that doesn't change the basic fact that such speech patterns are harder to understand. Contact Basemetal here 13:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All languages are hard to understand for those people that do not speak them. People conversing to each other in these languages don't have any trouble understanding each other, even if those of us that speak different dialects do. --Jayron32 16:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's as if I said there are people (even among those who speak your own dialect) who are more difficult to understand than others and you answered "Can't be. No one has trouble understanding themselves." If a speaker of language A says that they have more trouble understanding speakers of language (or dialect) B than speakers of language (or dialect) C there must be a reason (especially if that observation is made consistently by speakers of several languages A0, A1, ..., An). But according to you that can't have anything to do with the speech patterns of the speakers of B and C. It's gotta be A's fault. Btw, it's not true that all languages are equally hard to understand for those who do not speak them. There are languages where, though I don't speak them, I would be able to take down what's being said in IPA (if my IPA was better that is) without actually understanding a single word, and others where I couldn't. Contact Basemetal here 17:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I perfectly understand "articulate Scottish English" (ASE) like of Neil Oliver even much better than RP like of David Attenborough (supposed to be ideal for either English and non-English speakers) and I would like if the Anglosphere world speaks like such Scotsmen. So it is not that I'm unfamiliar with Scottish or biassed, but that probably just a half of the Scots speaks "Oliverian" ASE, the other half speaks a sort of reduced in every way Chinese-Swedish English, which has most probably been developed in the course of the 20th century. As Basemetal said (and I agree), "careless and inarticulate" has not to be defined as a personal subjective impression but may be rather objective. Languages, dialects and idiolects indeed may be described as articulate and inarticulate. I can "reproduce" (write down) words of Greek or Italian speech more or less, even though I know only the very basic of the languages, but I still cannot understand some varieties of ScE, which I have been exposed quite enough to. I sincerely do not understand why they could not say "normal traditional" ScE [ˈɛvɾəθəŋ ən ˈɛvɾəwən] but something like [ɛ̃ːʔ ə̃ ɛ̃ːʔ] (I may hyperbolise but not much). No wonder that most people cannot understand Glaswegians.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to know several Somerset farmers over the past five years. Most of the time I can understand them well enough even when they throw in Somerset dialect; but if they want to, they are perfectly capable of nattering away in what seems a foreign language. GoldenRing (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dialects are stronger or weaker depending on the person, and also on the person that person is speaking to. I am a native of Liverpool, but most of the time I speak a kind of RP, having worked with foreigners most of my adult life. When I speak to my family, I use my native accent. However, my native accent is not as strong as some people's here. There are times when even I can't understand what people are saying, even though they are speaking in my native dialect (I was even attacked in a pub by an 'incoherent' guy who thought I was Polish, for some bizarre reason - I basically just couldn't understand what he was saying). It could be said that dialects even have dialects within them. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When my family moved to Somerset when I was 11, after only living in Yorkshire and the suburbs of Newcastle before, we sometimes had significant difficulty understanding the local builder we hired - partly dialect but also party accent - at times we had to use diagrams to fully communicate. This was extreme though - in the rest of the ~20 years I lived there I may have met only 1 or 2 people with a thicker accent than him. After only a little more than a month it was only the occasional dialect word that caused difficulty. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some more anecdotal evidence: during WWII, my father (from London but born in Cornwall) was transferred to a new unit with a Geordie sergeant. When he confessed that he couldn't understand a word that the Sergeant was saying, another soldier told him not to worry, because nobody else could. Moving forwards to the 1990s, the TV programme Rab C Nesbitt set in Govan, a deprived district of Glasgow, was unintelligible to many of my Cockney friends; I was ablr to translate because of my Glaswegian grandmother. In my view, this is becoming less of a problem because a) there is much more exposure to regional dialects through TV and radio, whereas a few decades ago, everybody on air spoke with a "BBC accent" and b) this exposure has caused a moderation of regional accents and in some cases their total disappearance. Diver Tom Daley comes from a working class Plymouth family, but hasn't a trace of a Plymothian accent. Alansplodge (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to add the expected quip about Daley really knowing how to roll his r's if he wants to. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

We're all pleased that you did refuse. Alansplodge (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]