Language desk
< July 12	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 14 >

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.

July 13

Predicting changes in English usage in the future

Is there any way or attempt to predict how English might change in the future? Looking back at how English has changed over the last few hundred years, can the reasons for these changes (e.g. influences from other languages) be delineated? Or has it all been without rhyme or reason? I'm more interested in spoken English than spellings. --78.148.105.159 (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you can't know which people or languages will affect the English language. You can already see how people from different regions talk differently. Maybe aliens will arrive and bring their language. You can't say for sure. --2.245.88.139 (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely true. Influence of French and German could have been predicted due to their prominence and proximity and in the future perhaps Spanish and Mandarin. --78.148.105.159 (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can predict that English will borrow more from other languages in the future, as there is more interaction between different language groups now than in the past. (Presumably those other languages will also borrow more from English.) Also, technology is always coming up with new terms, since they want to use something unique. An example is "wiki", which was borrowed from the Hawaiian language. Other words may be made from acronyms, like "scuba", or parts of longer terms, like "blog" from weblog. The shortening of longer words will likely continue. (When is the last time you heard anyone say "gymnasium" instead of "gym" ?) StuRat (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some things we know about general trends in language change, such as grammaticalization processes or general mechanisms of sound change, it may well be possible to extrapolate certain likely future developments from developments that have been ongoing. For example, in light of cross-linguistic data about the development of tense-aspect systems, it is highly likely that the English progressive aspect will progress further towards becoming a more generic imperfective aspect (i.e. being used even more often, and admitting usages such as "I am loving"/"I am knowing"). The system of verbal concord is already so radically reduced and almost completely dysfunctional that it is highly likely the language will finally do away with it completely (although prescriptivist formal usage is sure to put up a good fight about that). "don't" is likely to turn into a single invariant pre-verbal negation marker in all tenses and numbers. As for phonology, th fronting is likely to make further inroads, and might easily make ve th sounds a fing of ve past wivin ve next 100 years. With vowel sounds, the only certainty is that they will continue to change wildly and unpredictably (the vowel system having been pretty much in a state of chaos ever since the Great Vowel Shift, and inherently structurally instable to a high degree), but if you read William Labov you will understand why the precise kind of change that will happen at any one point in time is unpredictable. However, I would bet that the /u/ phoneme (as in goose) will progress further towards a front rounded /y/, as it has already been doing in many varieties and tends to do in many other languages. That sort of thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as an extrapolation of what I gather is happening to the language in southern England. Very little of it seems likely to happen in the main repository of the language, as measured by number of native speakers: The United States. --Trovatore (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, fairly soon, like in a few decades, the letter "t" at the end of words like "but", "out", "that" etc. will completely cease to be pronounced, having been universally replaced by a glottal stop. Even many educated and supposedly well-spoken people no longer bother to say these words properly. 86.129.16.120 (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, in Australia and some other places, final -ing in non-verb forms will become -ink ("What did the man say while he was attacking you?" - Nothink). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a corruption of the Cockney "nuffink". Alansplodge (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anythink you say, Alan. :) 'Everythink' and 'somethink' are also commonly heard. Surprisingly often, from the mouths of people who know better. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you get the reverse, with the nonsense phrase "you've got another thing coming". With the correct, original word "think" in place of "thing", it might not be, you know, quite grammatical, but at least it makes sense. --Trovatore (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Terminology for participles

I'm looking for a term to describe participles that have no adjective value. Participles are usually described as a verb form have an adjective or adjective-like function, and sometimes this is directly evident, for example in the English passive voice, the chicken was eaten. But in some languages, a participle might form compound tenses where it does not have any apparent adjective role, for example the English perfect past, the chicken has eaten. Is there a name for participle uses that do not have any adjectival quality? Peter Grey (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes simple (non-compound) participles can become effective finite verb forms, such as the past of Slavic languages, or the present tense of modern Hebrew (conjugated for gender and number, but not for person)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When dealing with languages such as English, where a single morphological class can have both adjectival and verbal uses, it is common to speak of "adjectival", "verbal" (or "non-adjectival", "non-verbal") use types. For languages that have verbal periphrastic categories such as perfects or passives that use a non-finite verb form, but that verb form has no alternative adjectival use types at all, the term "participle" would presumably be a misnomer, because the very term implies the form's "double" nature "partaking" of both verbal and adjectival properties. Modern Greek would be an example (the form used for the perfect construction is historically derived not from a participle but from an infinitive, is still called "infinitive" ("aparemphato") in traditional native grammatical terminology, but doesn't really display either infinitive- or participle-like functions at all.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And... does it have a name? Peter Grey (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval bridges

Some medieval bridges have triangular spaces above the piers, presumably as a refuge for pedestrians when a herd of animals or large waggons pass by. Example here. Is there a name for these spaces?-Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be referred to simply as "pedestrian refuges" e.g., typically above a cutwater. Mikenorton (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Pedestrian retreat" is another option e.g.. Mikenorton (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Micro-Altaic dead?

I know this is thorny territory, but my question is about scholarly views, not the validity of any particular hypothesis. I've seen claims from both the Moscow School and its detractors to the effect that "Micro-Altaic is dead; nowadays no one supports a genetic unity of Turkic-Mongolic-Tungusic without also including Korean and Japonic"; but then outside of the Altaic debate bubble, I see a lot of claims to the effect that "Turkic-Mongolic-Tungusic is generally accepted; the inclusion of Korean and Japonic is controversial". These can't both be true, so what's the deal? Has anybody published anything in recent years arguing in favor of T-M-T but against the inclusion of K-J? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How recent is "recent years"? For example, is

Anatole Lyovin (1 January 1997). An Introduction to the Languages of the World. Oxford University Press. p. 113. ISBN 978-0-19-508116-9.

recent enough? Gabbe (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of actual scholarly papers; that's a generalist text which basically just demonstrates the second of the two kinds of claims that I mentioned. What I mean is, are there any Altaic specialists today who are publishing work in support of Micro-Altaic but in opposition to Macro-Altaic? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the answer to your question is yes, anyone who supports Altaic at this point includes Korean and Japanese. But Starostin's An Etymological Dictionary of Altaic Languages has been poorly reviewed as sloppy and speculative, which may have hurt the hypothesis more in some people's eyes than helping it. In what's got to be his worst blunder, the late Joseph Greenberg separated Korean and Japanese from Altaic, and grouped them with Ainu (!), still keeping all six families in his overall Eurasiatic macrofamily. So in that sense, and if his protege Merritt Ruhlen still supports A-J-K as separate from micro-Altaic, it's not technically dead. But the likelihood of A-J-K is nil as is the evidence that Ainu is Eurasiatic. μηδείς (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "patriarch" used in this context?

Taken from the Wikipedia article, Duck Dynasty, "Phil is the family patriarch and creator of the Duck Commander duck call." I have never seen this series. Is he a "patriarch" of the family, or is that just his title for the series but his real relationship in the family is more or less egalitarian, or that title something that some editor on Wikipedia put there without citation? Similarly, on Wikipedia's other article Modern Family, it describes Jay as a "patriarch". Does this term mean in the traditional sense of the term, or is it just a fancy title for the narrator, who also happens to be the oldest male of the family tree? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of contexts like family law in ancient Rome, where patriarchy referred to definite and significant legal power over others, patriarch generally means a leadership role, formal or informal, real or perceived, in a family or family-like context. Peter Grey (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a patriarch is a male leader. A female leader is a matriarch. (Not sure about an intersexed leader, they would just have to choose one of the two terms, I suppose.) StuRat (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would the generic term be: parensiarch? (I'm not the only weirdo to come up with such a coinage.)-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A family leader is most likely to be either a patriarch or matriarch. Not likely to have been neutered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But a whole roomful of patriarchs and matriarchs is what I was thinking of. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarch is an ancient term, matriarch is a relatively recent derivation of patriarch.[1] It says that patria meant "family or clan", but implies male leadership. I don't think there's any such word, but "personarch" would work etymologically. A couple more that might work are you "parensiarch" or perhaps "elderarch". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The basic meaning of the word persona in classical Latin was a mask (literally something that you "sound through" - per-sona), and the most common extended meaning was a role in acting, so "personarch" really doesn't mean anything relevant etymologically. "Parensiarch" is a complete joke word (with an "s" that comes from nowhere in Latin). If you want a sound word that means "leader of a family", then familiarch would be OK among mixed Latin-Greek forms, while oikeiarch would be a Greek-only form... AnonMoos (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"... nowhere in Latin"? See Wiktionary:parens # Latin: Noun: parēns m, f (genitive parentis); third declension (irregular): 1. parent. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the -s is only the nominative ending, not part of the stem, and that ending would never become part of a properly formed compound, would it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you mean by "properly formed". And who decides these things? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple fact that the general practice in older Indo-European languages was to form compounds based on the stems (i.e. without case endings), not from the nominative singular form -- this was overwhelmingly the case in Greek and Latin. If you knew a classical language, you would know that the nominative singular is often rather different from all the other number and case forms (e.g. Latin homo vs. hominis, hominem, homine, homini, homines, hominum, hominibus etc). The ordinary Greco-Latin derived English compound would be "parentarch", not **"parensiarch"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, AnonMoos. (BTW, I did study Latin in school and Russian at university, and am aware that words in case-based languages assume different forms. But I've never studied linguistics per se, and was not fully aware of the convention to which you refer.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Word for semicircular stadium

I thought I had the correct term for this on the tip of my tongue but it escaped me somehow. As I understand it: A stadium usually has seats all around in a circle or oval. An arena is the same only indoors or at least covered. A theater has seats on one side and a stage is implied. Plus a theater may have seats arranged in strait rows rather than semicircles and it may be indoors. An amphitheater has seats going all around like a stadium but has a stage in the middle. So is there a word that for something with seats arranged in a semicircle like a Greek theater but with no stage like a stadium?--RDBury (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odeon (building) has a semicircular seating arrangement, I believe. --Jayron32 19:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's probably not what I was thinking of but it looks like it's on the right track.--RDBury (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amphitheatre has multiple meanings, including a Greek version [2] which seems to fit your description. El duderino ^(abides) 08:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be an official term, but in the U.S. these are often referred to as horseshoe stadiums, especially when referring to college venues. The Wikipedia articles on Ohio Stadium, TCF Bank Stadium, and Palmer Stadium use this terminology. However, the similarly-shaped Harvard Stadium and Husky Stadium are described as U-shaped. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 09:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except these are different than the semi-circular design the OP seems to be referring to. If you cut off the sideline stands, and left just the curved end-zone seating, you'd have a semi-circular arrangement, like the Odeon had. See, for example, Odeon of Herodes Atticus. --Jayron32 15:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For amphitheater I was going by amphi= both sides + theater, but it looks like has a number of modern meanings that are very different. My dictionary has a picture of Théâtre antique d'Orange to illustrate it's definition. Perhaps I was being too restrictive on the meaning of stadium as well. What I'm actually trying to convey is the overall shape. So I want to say "look for a stadium/amphitheater/arena-like area on the hill" and a reasonably literate person will look for something like File:Parco_delle_cascine,_anfiteatro.JPG and not something like File:Arles-arenes.jpg. Maybe it's just too much to ask of the language and a more elaborate description is needed.--RDBury (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greek theatres seem to have been universally semicircular - our article doesn't offer any specific word to describe this arrangement. Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which Wikipedia article(s) is(are) available in the most languages/orthographies?

Which Wikipedia article (if any) is available in the Wikipedia universe in the largest amount of languages (or orthographies)? In other words, which article (if any) exists in the largest number of different Wikipedias (including closed Wikipedias)? For example, the article "United States" is present in 259 different active Wikipedias (in other words, it exists in 259 different languages from Acèh (Achinese) to 中文 (Chinese), including English itself), but there are 285 different Wikipedias (although Wikimedia reports 287, although this amount may include closed or inactive Wikipedias). Perhaps is there some article with more translations than "United States"? 72.50.81.55 (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MostInterwikis, "Russia" has 270 interwikis, so it is in 271 language versions of Wikipedia.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC) and 21:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be because there are more Wiki languages native to the Russian Federation than to the USA? I think there are about 24 languages among those in the List of Wikipedias which are native to (or actively spoken) in Russia and have Wikipedia projects; USA can only claim about at least five native-language Wiki projects (Cherokee, Cheyenne, Cree, Hawaiian, and Navajo), plus the English and Simple English projects. 72.50.81.55 (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it noteworthy that the leading articles are predominantly about nations, instead of more important things (such as "air", "food", "water", "tree", "garden", "weather", "plant", and "animal").

—Wavelength (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thank you for that list, Wavelength, it does have some other surprises. True, looking at the top 40 or so, the vast majority are geographical articles, though English language is number 10. Most geographical articles are continents or large nations, but there are also Curitiba with 239 (16th) and Kurów‏‎ with 228 interwikis (34th). Number three on that list of most interwikis is True Jesus Church (257 interwikis !) ---Sluzzelin talk 22:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early on, there seemed to be an attempt to add articles on India to various language Wikipedias, now outpaced by True Jesus Church, I guess. For the situation in December 2007, see here... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it true that interwiki links are supplied manually—someone has to find the correct name of the corresponding article in the other language—and so the count of links doesn't necessarily reflect how many Wikipedias actually have an article on the subject? --50.100.189.160 (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until a few years ago, there were relentless bots which enforced interwiki consistency across Wikipedias; now it's all managed centrally in Wikidata... AnonMoos (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central or not, someone still has to tell it manually that Verenigde Staten or Амєрїканьскꙑ Ѥдьнѥнꙑ Дрьжавꙑ or ამერიკაშ აკოართაფილი შტატეფი is the equivalent of United States, don't they? --50.100.189.160 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but authors of articles on Wikipedias for less-spoken languages often add in interwikis because it's kind of "free advertising"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always used to do my own interwikis when I started articles, but then I got the message that I didn't need to anymore as it was now all being taken care of centrally. I never stopped to wonder how that was actually achieved. Given the USA example above, was I a naive fool? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, please see "Wikidata".

—Wavelength (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See meta:List of articles every Wikipedia should have and Wikipedia:Vital articles.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]