Language desk
< March 14	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 16 >

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.

March 15

A cuttle of days

What's it called when people say what sounds like "cuttle" when they're saying the word "couple" in conversation? Like I'll be there in a cuttle a' days.

Are there other cases like this? Does this always go in the same direction? I mean, I've never heard anyone talk about "couple fish" when they mean "cuttle fish". Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's it called? Defective hearing - either in the talker or the listener. 121.215.154.87 (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Aussie translation of "dreckley": File:Cornish time dreckly.jpg Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Straying into Emma Chizzit by Afferbeck Lauder. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...impressed! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In US English substituting T's for P'S would be a strange mistake to make, although T's and D's are sometimes interchangeable, as in "putting" and "pudding". StuRat (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. Jack, what dialect are you hearing this in? Matt Deres (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just Aussies, come to think of it. Very common here. It's not really a 't' sound after all, just a cu'l - see below. But I've never heard apple sound like a'l, or ripple sound like ri'l. I've searched my memory, but I can't think of any examples apart from couple/cu'l. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Cu'le", sounding like 'cuttle' with the 't' replaced by a glottal stop, is very common pronunciation in London for 'couple'. 'People' sometimes gets the same treatment. London English replaces lots of letters with glottal stops - even Cockney itself is often pronounced "Co'nee". Also, "Woss 'a'nin'?" = 'What seems to be the trouble, dear old chap?" (admittedly, lots of letters have been dropped here, and some added, but you get the drift). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was almost going to say I could almost accept the glottal stop explanation, but not quite. Then I thought longer (as Cocteau enjoins mirrors to do before reflecting) and now I think that's on the money, Kage Tora. The speakers are not actually saying the letter 't' (certainly not a well-formed one), it's just that the hearers think they are, because to make the sound they're making the tongue must be in virtually the same position as if it were sounding 't', due to the fast approaching 'l'. The editor below probably explains it beautifully and concisely, albeit in language that's a wee too technical for me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather tend to think the reason people may think it's a 't' is because in English, when a glottal stop is sounded, it is more often than not a substitute for a 't', and usually not for other letters. E.g. "Muvver-in-law wanʔed a birfday presenʔ, so I goʔ 'er a nice saʔin 'andkerchief". Here you would know I meant 'satin' and not sarin (no matter what I actually wanted to buy - they say it's the thought that counts....). When making a glottal stop, the tongue is nowhere near the position for making any type of 't', alveolar or dental. It uses the glottis, hence the name. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spontaneous sound changes like this do occur as one-offs in speech. This would likely be a case of spontaneous dissimilation, since coronal consonants (like s, t, r, n, l) do contrast with peripheral consonants (like p, k, qu, h, f). Hence a sequence of two peripheral consonant dissimilates to one peripheral and one coronal consonant. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different explanation from suggesting the speaker's glottal stop (which is peripheral, like p) is interpreted as a t, which is indeed possible. I am not familiar with any dialect that regularly substitutes the glottal stop for p (rather than t). I am trying to imagine Eliza Dootlitle saying it. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or Eliza McTavish? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it could be a regular substitution, I'd first guess it's part of grammaticalization-triggered alteration. Just like there's no regular substitution that would turn going to into gunna, but it happens anyways as it becomes grammaticalized as a future marker. Jack also said that for him, he's only heard it for that one word. Though that explanation doesn't work very well if it appears in phrases like "How many are there?" "-A couple" where couple is receiving full stress, rather than being reduced. Lsfreak (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it's extremely common, in English, for sounds to change in the case of proper names—particularly, pet names.

e.g.

Bill from Will (from William)
Dick from Rick (from Richard)
Polly from Molly
Ned or Ted from Ed (from Edward)
Buck from Chuck (from Charles)
or Bob from Rob (from Robert)

Pine (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true, but in the case I'm describing, if you asked the speaker to write down the words he just uttered, he'd write "A couple of days" even though hearers think they're hearing "cuttle" because of the glottal stop factor discussed above. There is no overt intention to change the word in any way, as there is in the William > Bill etc cases. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese character recognition

Can anyone please identify the characters shown in the scan at http://i58.tinypic.com/hs8con.jpg, especially the third one? [last of a set] 121.215.154.87 (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

表面處理 => 表面処理 in post-war Japanese. It means 'surface treatment'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're a star, Kage. Thanks for your help. 121.215.154.87 (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, mate. My invoice is in the post. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 09:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"straight" or "straightly"?

Greetings!

I've been wondering, recently, whether straightly constitutes a proper, English word. Let me elaborate:

For years, several dictionaries and usage commentators taught me that most, English adverbs derived from either prepositions or adjectives utilize the -s or -ly suffixes.

e.g.
The rocket's skyward movement. (adj.)
The rocket moves skywards. (adv.)

He is a careful driver. (adj.)
He drives carefully. (adv.)

Certain other adverbs, however, remain homographs of the prepositions or adjectives whence they got derived.

e.g.
We stand astride history. (prep.)
We rode our horses astride. (adv.)

This is a fast computer. (adj.)
This computer runs fast. (adv.)

When it comes to "straight," Wilson Follett, Bryan Garner, Edward Good, and others have held that it, definitely, falls into the latter category. To wit, "straightly" constitutes an illiteracy. In the OED, however, "straight" has several adjectival and adverbial definitions, but "straightly" is also listed as derivative adverb!

Far be it from me to question Mr. Oxford; nevertheless, would any of you ever use "straightly" in highly formal writing, or in legal documents? And, if so, then why "straightly," but not "fastly" or "astrides"?
Pine (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Straightly" sounds perfectly fine to me, but I speak US English. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wull, yeah, in the way "fastly" sounds okay. I could only imagine it in odd contexts, like "The lawyer asked if he drove crookedly, or straightly" Or "Are you coming home the roundabout way? No, straightly." Even then it doesn't exactly sound normal. At for the OED, it's more like a comprehensive encyclopedia of English than a pocket guidebook. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"fastly" has a perfect substitute in "quickly", while the closest you can come to "straightly" is something like "linearly". StuRat (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"straightly" sounds pretty unnatural to me. The graph here indicates that the word is, and always has been, vanishingly uncommon compared to "straight". 86.160.82.217 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Straightly" would be okay in certain contexts, e.g. It's hard to draw straightly without a ruler, where using "straight" in formal writing would indicate a poor education.

The addition of an s on adverbs ending in -ward (skyward, forward, backward, toward) varies between UK (generally with the s) and US English (generally withoutly).--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I'd say skywards, but this American uses "backwards and forwards" and "to(wa)rds" at least as much as the essless forms. New Yorkers tend to say "foward" [sic]. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. I see nothing wrong with "It's hard to draw straight without a ruler". "It's hard to draw straightly" just sounds weird to me. 86.160.82.217 (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the case that it sounds strange to you, but it's correct nonetheless.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Correct" is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, "straight" is correct in this context, and it would seem Pine's style guides agree. If you said "straightly", I would chalk it up to either being a speech error or you not being a native speaker. — kwami (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using an adjective when an adverb should be used might be your preference, but it's only your opinion that it is correct. It doesn't really matter what you would chalk up as 'correct' when all major dictionaries indicate straightly as the valid adverb. Some of the confusion about this issue results from the fact that straight can also be used adverbially, but generally in figurative senses, where as straightly is not used figuratively. The 'Google test' results in skewed results because straight functions as an adjective, adverb and noun, so it is entirely unsurprising that it gets more hits than a word that only functions as an adverb.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using an adjective when an adverb should be used -- "straight" is an adverb.

straight functions as an adjective, adverb and noun -- that does not come close to explaining a 5000-to-1 bias in COCA results.

all major dictionaries indicate straightly as the valid adverb -- this is simply untrue. All dictionaries correctly explain that "straight" is an adverb as well as an adjective. Most dictionaries that list "straightly" include it as a subsidiary minor word, and some pretty comprehensive dictionaries do not list straightly at all. 86.169.36.54 (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot recall seeing "straightly" used. Not in speech, not in quoted speech, and not in written works. But while I don't have the OED at hand, but I do have the Chambers Dictionary - an equivalent comprehensive work. It lists "straightly" as a valid word, an adverb meaning in a straight line or manner. Jeffro77's example is therefore perfectly valid, but it does sound odd. 121.215.154.87 (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find thousands of words in any decent dictionary that you've never heard or seen used before. That's almost the point, really. A dictionary containing only the core vocabulary that most people know, would sit on the shelves and gather dust. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Everyone has a limitted working vocabulary. Straightly is a valid word in the English language, but is only rarely used. More to the point as far as the OP is concerned: If used in a modern textbook, magazine, web article, or translation, would average folk accept it as valid? In many cases, probably not. When writing, it is important to spell correctly, use correct grammar, and use valid words. But the most important rule of all is write for your reader. Unnecesary unusual words are a distraction. 121.215.154.87 (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found 2.6 million Ghits for "straightly" vs. 249 million for "straight". Sure, that's a lot less, but it's not exactly a rarely used word. One example: "A drunk driving test involves asking the subject to walk a line straightly". StuRat (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really dumb way of expressing it, though (for the author of that example's benefit). An unspecified line can be circular, zig-zag, whatever. The point of the test is to require the person to walk a straight line without diverging from it. Inherent in that is the need to be able to walk straight, and there's no need to get into weird phraseology like "straightly". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The traffic cop would use a line on the road for the test, and if those zig-zag I'd say the person who drew the line has a drinking problem. :-)

Also, on a road which lacks lines, the cop might just ask the person to walk straightly, some distance, without any guidance. StuRat (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a cop pulled me over and asked me to walk "straightly", I'd wonder whether he was the one who'd been drinking, or whether he was a non-native speaker of the English language. "Crookéd" is an adjective only, the adverb being "crookédly"; but "straight" can be either. It's perfectly acceptable grammatically to walk straight (adv.) along a straight (adj.) road. Turning it into "straightly" is basically hypercorrection in this day and age, pace the historical precedents for that word. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the 2.6 million to 249 million ratio is definitely unrepresentative of Google's indexed content, but these Google hit counts are known to be wildly unreliable, so I am always nervous when they are quoted in support of an argument. Another statistic: COCA database (http://corpus.byu.edu/coca) reports 8 instances of "straightly" versus 41173 of "straight". 86.160.82.217 (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I speak GA, like StuRat, but "straightly" sounds horrible to me, as bad as "fastly". It's simply not in my vocabulary, and I don't know that I've ever even heard it. I would say "in a straight line" instead. Functionally, prep phrases and adverbs are largely equivalent.

Historically, the reason you can't use -ly with "astride" is that it's a lexicalized prep phrase, lit. "on-stride". — kwami (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From a British point of view, I agree fully with the majority dislike of "straightly", but it has been used occasionally in English since 1395 (according to the OED who do not mark it as obsolete, though they haven't updated that entry since 1917). Collins Millennium Dictionary also gives the briefest mention to the adverb "straightly", but the use of "straight" as an adverb is much, much more common, and I'd certainly recommend it for normal prose. Shakespeare used "fastly" in one of his sonnets, but the OED claims that this usage is "now rare", and the use of "fastly" meaning "steadfastly" is "obsolete". Dbfirs 10:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, the story with adverbs, so far, is as follows:

Since one must, sometimes, journey slowly, it would benefit him to travel light. Yet, he may still only move straight, regardless of how lightly he does so. But, if he slathers his mousse thick on his closely cut hair, then he will have to wipe it fast, in order to avoid cutting his departure close. Otherwise, his train will have clean missed him due to how cleanly he grooms himself.

Perhaps, one day, we English-speakers will join the rest of the world in having a language that actually follows logic. In the meantime, though, I'd like to thank all of you for your prompt responses, as well as for your trying hard, instead of hardly trying.
Pine (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved