Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 February 21

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.

February 21

German. IPA for the name in the Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau article

Hey. Know anyone who could contribute IPA for the name in the Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau article? Tks! • Serviceable†Villain 04:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Presumably along the lines of [diːtrɪç fɪʃɐ diːskau] (may need to be modified slightly to accord with a German pronunciation transcription standard, if Wikipedia has one)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say [diːtʁɪç fɪʃɐ diːskaʊ̯]. A trilled R is only found in dialects and considered archaic in the standard language, people use it for broad transcription in English as well. As for diphthongs, it's conventional to indicate their weaker parts. A look on the German Wiktionary might help. --2.245.151.57 (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AnonMoos and IP (talk) • Serviceable†Villain 09:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Psychic

Does describing someone as a "psychic", without other comment or qualification, imply an acceptance that they have supernatural powers? Should a term such as "claimed psychic" or "supposed psychic" be used instead? 109.153.229.129 (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Everyone (mostly) knows that these so-called supernatural powers are a humbug, so "psychic" implies how they make a living, it doesn't necessarily imply they have actual powers. Certainly you could have a context where "claimed" or "supposed" might go along with it. But as there is no such thing as a "real" psychic, those adjectives could be considered redundant. In fact, their real "powers" are psychological - the ability to trick people. As a mild comparison we often call illusionists "magicians", even though we know there's no actual "magic" involved. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And people who used to believe in 'magic' but stopped, are called 'disillusionists'.... :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And the boy wins a cigar! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"Claimed psychic" and "supposed psychic" sounds like a double fraud: you're falsely claiming to be one of the people who falsely claims to have second sight. Not redundant in that usage (although bizarre; why would you claim that?), but I agree with Bugs that the suggested usage would be. Nyttend (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, if 'claiming' in your vocabulary automatically means 'falsely claiming', then 'falsely claiming' would mean 'falsely falsely claiming, ad infinitum. A person who has arrived at an airport, but has been taken away by immigration officials because he has trouble finding his travel documents, could claim to be French, for example. The officials would say 'He claims to be French'. This doesn't make it automatically false, it just means the person has not provided any viable proof yet. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 15:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant: by "falsely" I meant if the claim's wrong, but I guess I left out a link in my thought process. By saying "claimed psychic", we're saying that the person claims to be one of those people who claims to have psychic powers. Consider saying "Nyttend claims to be a plumber" — if I make that claim right now, I'm lying because I'm not a guy who's in business to fix pipes etc. If I open a plumbing business tomorrow, I'm a plumber, and there's no need to use "claimed" anymore to describe me, regardless of the fact that I am unable to fix pipes etc. In the same way, if we can verify that Joe Bloggs is in business to predict the future with supernatural powers, we need not use "claimed", regardless of the fact that he's unable to predict the future with supernatural powers. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that's overly convoluted. As far as I'm concerned, a psychic is someone who has psychic powers. Whether there actually are any such is completely irrelevant to the definition.

In a context-dependent way, "psychic" has a secondary meaning of "someone who makes a living selling claimed psychic prognostications", but that's just a sort of shorthand. The primary meaning is someone who has the powers. Again, for the purposes of understanding the concept, it matters not at all whether this class is inhabited. --Trovatore (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

When deciding how to use the word "psychic", we have to distinguish between the noun and the adjective. Saying "Joe is a psychic" means that he's one of these people who advertise that they have second sight, while saying "Joe is psychic" means that he indeed has second sight. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I totally disagree. Both mean that he has psychic powers. As I say, in context, you might use that "one of those people" meaning, but it's a secondary sense. On their face, both statements mean basically the same thing. --Trovatore (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

OED disagrees with you. "Psychic" as an adjective in this sense (as opposed to older senses unrelated to this issue) is identical to "psychical" sense 3, which is Of, relating to, or designating faculties or phenomena, such as telepathy and clairvoyance, that are apparently inexplicable by natural laws and are attributed by some to spiritual or supernatural agency; involving paranormal phenomena of the mind, parapsychological. However, "Psychic" as a noun in this sense is A person who is regarded as particularly susceptible to supernatural or paranormal influence; a medium; a clairvoyant. Whether or not the regard is correct isn't relevant; either way, he's a psychic, medium, clairvoyant, etc. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on. OED cannot possibly have meant that being regarded as clairvoyant makes you a clairvoyant. That's just absurd on its face; you have to give them credit for not saying nonsense. They probably slipped the "regarded as" in there just to avoid the impression that they were actually asserting that such people existed. --Trovatore (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. Noun definition 2 for clairvoyant, One who possesses, or is alleged to possess, the faculty of clairvoyance. Definition 1 is unrelated. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's just wrong. If you don't have clairvoyance, you're not a clairvoyant. --Trovatore (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• How many psychics have closed their businesses down "due to unforeseen circumstances"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do psychics need me to call them, not not the other way around? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Leaving out "claimed" allows people who do believe or "aren't sure" to believe you are affirming that person has supernatural abilities, and does come across that way to some stronger skeptics. Adding "claimed" lets people who do believe see that as a standard disclaimer ("oh, we know, but until the rest of the world is enlightened..."), satisfies skeptics, and helps people who "aren't sure" know that supernatural powers are only claimed not proven.

I would argue that the "aren't sure" category is probably the largest part of the three groups, thanks to stuff like the Ten percent of brain myth, which is why stuff like EST, Miss Cleo, and other charlatans can make a(n in)decent living these days. If asked by a skeptic, they'll say they're just "not sure, don't know," and affirm that there are a lot of charlatans out there -- leading skeptics to see the "aren't sures" as knowing better when they really do not. Put them next to a believer, and they're open to the possibility.

It is for this middle group that adding "claimed" is of the utmost importance. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Want to make sure my nikkud and Arabic vowels are correct

So I've decided to vowel the Hebrew and Arabic names of a site. Do these vowels look accurate? Hebrew: תֵלְ כַבְרִי‎; Arabic: تَلْ ألْقَهوَة‎. And yes, I know that practically speaking, it doesn't matter which -a or -e sound nikkud you use so long as it's in the proper sound range, but I want to be accurate. Also, the Arabic should be in accordance with the Shaami dialect. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Adar 5775 16:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was able to guess that you mean Tel Kabri (a name previously unknown to me), so it can't be too wrong. Is the šǝwa on the final lamed necessary? —Tamfang (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Tel Kabri article is one I focus a lot of attention on in my editting and I didn't want to annoy people by linking it over and over and over and I didn't wikilink all the terminology as I figured anyone familiar enough with Shaami would know what all the various terms mean anyway. You mean at end of tel/tell? That's a schwa? (I admit not being as familiar with the schwa as I should be) I thought it was a sikkun and its Hebrew equivalent meaning no sound after. Can't I fully vocalise as if it were something in the Holy Qu'ran? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 3 Adar 5775 06:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Per Even-Shoshan's "New Dictionary" (1999) Tamfang is correct about the superfluous schwa under the final lamed and I've already removed it from the page. "Kabri" being a proper name, I have no vowelized reference text indicating the first-syllable vowel. If there's no definitive reply here soon, I can cross-post that part of the query to the Language refdesk on the Hebrew Wikipedia. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing, my Hebrew arguing skills are in need of some practice. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 3 Adar 5775 14:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Is that the name of Tel Kabri in Arabic? It looks like it says "Coffee Hill". The vowels are right though - but don't you need a sukun over the H? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It would literally be mound of the coffee. That specific translation is sourced to Khalidi 1992, click the ref link. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 3 Adar 5775 14:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

See the article Tell, which explains what תל is, and cites its vocalized form as תֵּל. It is also there in תֵּל־אָבִיב (Tel-Aviv).

Regarding כברי, there's the article Kabri, Israel, which gives the vocalized version as כַּבְּרִי.

As seen in these spellings, dageshes (central dots) inside the letters כ and ב indicate that they are hard ("k" and "b"), as opposed to soft ("kh" and "v"). The same goes for ת, although the historical hardness-softness distinction with that letter is no longer there in Modern Israeli Hebrew.

The book Практическая грамматика языка иврит (Practical Hebrew Grammar) by Baruch Podolsky (1985), too, agrees that the schwa (shva) under the ל is superfluous. It says that a shva is not normally written under a final letter, except under a final ך (e.g. בַּעֲלֵךְ), or when two consecutive consonants occur world-finally (e.g. אָמַרְתְּ), or in the pronoun אַתְּ.

As far as the Arabic is concerned, the definite article al- has a hamzat waṣl, which may optionally be indicated with a ص over the alif (ٱ), but is never represented with a ء over the alif (أ).

There indeed should be a sukun over the ـهـ.

The ل in تل is geminated, so there should be a shadda indicating that. However, no sukun should be there in that word, because after the geminated ل there is a case-dependent vowel.

The fully diacriticized version of تل القهوة, for the nominative case, would be تَلُّ ٱلْقَهْوَةِ, pronounced tallu-l-qahwati (or, utterance-finally, tallu-l-qahwa) in the standard language.

Given that there are two historical /l/'s in the root of tel/tall, I'd think that the ל in תל must be geminated as well, like the ل in تل is (a gemination would likewise be indicated with a dagesh in Hebrew: לּ). However, the above articles and citations show no indication of that. I can't comment why this is so. --Theurgist (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Theurgist -- Already in the recitation pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew transcribed by the Masoretes, word-final geminates were simplified in pronounciation, so dagesh can generally occur only in the word-final consonants בגדכפת (where it does not indicate gemination), and in ה (where it's actually mapiq, not dagesh). AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. So we have עָזַז (two ז's), עַזִּים (with gemination), and עַז (no gemination). Makes sense. --Theurgist (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me just clarify that in Modern Hebrew, the gemination (consonant elongation) has generally disappeared, so a consonant marked with a gemination-indicating dagesh is generally pronounced as a regular consonant (see Dagesh#Dagesh hazak, Modern Hebrew#Dagesh). --Theurgist (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"So"

Why do Americans very often start a sentence - and completely new topic - with the word 'so', which in British English means 'the next sentence I am going to say is a consequence of the one previous, for which you will already have been informed of the context', whereas, typing something here, like 'So, I went to the store...' when starting a post, is really nonsensical. It means the same as 'Therefore, I went to the store'. 'Therefore'? 'WHEREFORE'? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 17:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You find the same thing in Italian. In my experience, it's not uncommon to begin a sentence with allora which is the same as so in that use (quindi is how you express the idea of one thing having relation to another—Piove, quindi porto il mio ombrello—it's raining, so I bring my umbrella). I don't know if it's the same in French, but a lot of expressions and idioms in American English are also found in Standard Italian and seem like they've been in Italian longer than our lexicon and so it might be the case that it started with first generation Italian-Americans and then became part of the normal way of speaking. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Adar 5775 17:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

But quindi isn't always about a causal relationship. Sometimes it just means that something came after something else.

Oh, I thought you were saying that people started a sentence with quindi without justification; you meant allora. OK, that's a different question. I usually interpret that allora to mean "yeah, so what I'm about to say is not directly related to what we've been talking about, which honestly I don't care about, and I'm going to say this instead". That seems different from the English "so" under discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

French speakers will also commonly start a conversation with "alors" the way english speakers do with "so" and italian speakers with "allora".--Cfmarenostrum (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I often hear the same thing in portuguese with "então". Is french contaminating my portuguese or do spanish speakers do the same with "entonces" ? Use it as an interjection? --Cfmarenostrum (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have never heard entonces "then, therefore" used to start a conversation out of the blue in Spanish. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Entonces, el gato pilota, el gato que pilotaba un coche.... --Trovatore (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Trovatore can you give the full context for this? I assume it has some pretext, and doeasn't just come out of the blue? μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

See Toonces. --Trovatore (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

In Spanish pues is used in this same way like "so" in English. Vrac (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not only Americans who have developed this intensely irritating habit of beginning sentences with inappropriate "so". I increasingly hear it in the UK too. 109.153.229.129 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome for that, McDonalds, Burger King, and Krispie Kreme as well. Oh, and Whole Foods. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Adar 5775 18:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously so has meanings other than the two you mentioned, as in phrases like "so be it", "so long as", "it's been so long since...", "so long" [goodbye], etc. What's one more? It annoys you not because of any intrinsic illogicality but simply because you hear it in adulthood and didn't hear it in childhood. Be careful lest you turn into that stereotypical old guy railing against today's youth (such people have existed in every generation, of course). Anyways, wikt:so's earliest (and only) citation for this usage is from 1913 (in a novel by Joseph C. Lincoln). -- BenRG (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's best to put such things in small text so they can't be interprated as incivility or attacking the OP. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Adar 5775 18:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I smallified one sentence that I didn't need to write. -- BenRG (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not completely clear from the entry, but it looks as though the "so" of "so be it" may be the earliest Old English meaning of the word. Since you speak Japanese you know that Japanese sō has a similar meaning, but it can't be used to mean "therefore"—that wouldn't make sense. It's not immediately clear how one gets from that sense of "so" to "therefore", but I'd guess (with no evidence) that it might have evolved from a phrase like "that being so". "That being so" could plausibly also be used to cancel the previous topic of conversation, which is one aspect of the sense of "so" that you asked about. The broader meaning "apropos of nothing" could derive from that. But I'm just guessing. -- BenRG (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mention Japanese. The sō of Japanese means 'in that way', and comes from さよう (as in 'sayounara' - used a farewell greeting, but literally meaning, 'if that is the way things are'). Sō desu ka? 'is that the way things are?'. 左様でございあますか？ is the elevated style of the previous example. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 20:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that the phenomenon is much older, it's just deprecated by grammarians as "colloquial" and unsuited for written English. As there is no such thing as punctuation in spoken language, sentence boundaries are often marked by some kind of clitic.

Lookee, searching for "So I went" brought up Jeremiah 13:5. (Is Template:Bibleverse broken?) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Seamus Heaney translated the introductory "Hwaet!" in Beowulf as "So." --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 December 31#So.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Wavelength. Discourse connective, unfortunately, has been turned into a redirect to Conjunction (grammar). Predictably, Language Log covers the topic as well. Whenever somebody complains about the way the young'uns talk, I immediately think "Recency Illusion"! Thanks, Language Log. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirected to discourse marker instead. — kwami (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, "so" as an introductory particle is well-attested historically, having been used by Shakespeare, Swift, Sheridan and Byron (cites available in the OED), but that dictionary suggests some modern usage derives from Yiddish. Dbfirs 19:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Interesting point about Yiddish; is so (zo?) also used this way there or does English so copy the behaviour of Yiddish nu?

There's also wikt:so#Interjection, by the way, and note wikt:Talk:so#"So" instead of "Well". Is there a difference between this drawn-out Sooo, ... and unstressed So I went ...? Or is that one stressed, too? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• In addition to the above link by Wavelength to the prior discussion, and Dbfirs' useful comment we have the rather poorly documented article discourse marker which largely addresses only English. Attributing this to Americans as if it were some sort of leprosy to which the British are just now being exposed is absurd. The use of discourse markers pre-dates Indo-European. According to Raimo Anttila's Historical and Comparative Linguistics, practically every sentence in Hittite begins with su "and", ta "then" or nu "and now". [Greek sentence particles (kai, gar, al, de...) are well known as are the sentence initial iam, nunc and postpositive particle tamen, autem, enim, quidem, ergo, vero, igitur, etc., of Latin. German has plenty of discourse particles, ja, aber, doch, etc.

The purpose of such particles is to place information in attitudinal relation to prior statements, or, in the case of so, to introduce a new topic:

Hi, Honey, I'm Home (attention)

So, what should we do for dinner tonight? (new topic)

Well, I'm in the mood for steak. (response to same topic)

You know, we could go to that new place downtown. (reminding of known fact)

But they are very expensive. (objection to previous statement)

Or we could go to the hibachi grill you like. (introduce alternative)

Except we just ate there last week. (objection)

So, how about chicken? (attempt to introduce new topic)

No, I really want steak (rejection of new topic)

Then what about the hamburger joint instead? (recognize consequence of prior statement)

Now that's an idea. (emphasize response)

Okay, settled. (express final agreement).

Note that the American discourse particles could be omitted from the above, leaving the robotic RP version, with all the same factual information but all the emotion of a Vulcan marriage contract:

Honey, I'm Home.

What should we do for dinner tonight?

I'm in the mood for steak.

We could go to that new place downtown.

They are very expensive.

We could go to the hibachi grill you like.

We just ate there last week.

How about chicken?

I really want steak.

What about the hamburger joint instead?

That's an idea.

Settled.

μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hm? Hittite is Indo-European ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see how you could think I was implying that (it wasn't), but I was in a hurry to save what I had written before you responded in my mid argument since the current blizzard is wreaking havoc with my DSL. μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

dozens of etymologies for nu- from Japan to Finland, and Greenland west to England, in PIE, Uralic, Altaic, Eskimo and Nivkh
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
PIE Hittite: nu 'nun; und' (Friedrich 152) Tokharian: A nuṃ, nunak, B nano, nänok (PT *nuno, -kä) 'again, even' (Adams 330); A nu, B no (PT *nū) 'however, but' (Adams 347) Old Indian: nū, nu now';nū́ tana−new, recent', nūnám `now, at present' Avestan: nū 'nun'; nūrǝm, nūrąm 'jetzt, nun' Other Iranian: OPers nūra 'jetzt, nun' Old Greek: part. nü, nün encl., adv. νn',adv.nǖ̂ njetzt' Slavic: *nъ, *nū, *nɨ̄́nē Baltic: *nū, *nu Germanic: *nu, *nū; *nu-x Latin: nunc, novus Uralic Finnish: nyky- 'gegenwärtig', tätä nykyä 'gegenwärtig, vorläufig', dial. nyt, ny, nyy 'jetzt, nun' Estonian: nüüd, dial. nüü 'jetzt' Mordovian: ńej (E), ńi (M) 'jetzt, nun; schon' Udmurt (Votyak): ni (S J), ńi (G) 'schon; mehr, nunmehr, weiter' Komi (Zyrian): ńin, nin (S), ni̮n (Peč.), ńi (P) 'schon, bereits, (nicht) mehr' Turkic: *jub-ga Mongolian: *niɣu-n Tungus-Manchu: *nebi Korean: (younger relative) *nǝ̄- (Proto)-Japanese: *nípí- Eskimo Proto-Yupik: *nuta- Meaning: new 1, just now, right now 2 Sirenik: nutǝ́ʁǝcǝ́χ, nutaʁraχ [Vakh.] 1 Chaplino: nutáʁaq (t) 1, nutān 2 Naukan: nutáʁinʁaq 1, nután 2 Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik: nuta[ʁ]aq 1, nutān 2 Chugach (Birket-Smith): nutāq 1, nuttan 2 Central Alaskan Yupik: nutaʁaq 1, nutān 2 Nunivak (Peripheral): nutaʁaq* 1 Proto-Inupik: *nuta- Meaning: new 1, young person 2 Seward Peninsula Inupik: nutāq 1, nutaʁaq 2 SPI Dialects: Imaq nutáq* 1, W nutāq* (āk, āt) 1 North Alaskan Inupik: nutāq 1, nutaʁaq 2 NAI Dialects: B, Ingl nutāq* 1 Western Canadian Inupik: nutāq 1, nutaʁaq 'infant' WCI Dialects: Cor, M nutāq* 1 Eastern Canadian Inupik: nutāq 1 ECI Dialects: Lab nutagak* 'infant', NBI, SB, Iti nutaʁaq 'infant' Greenlandic Inupik: nutāq (nutâq*) 1, nutaʁaq 2 Nivkh Naf (Gruzdeva, 40) I remain thoroughly unimpressed. The Proto-Turkic "cognate" does not even contain a nasal. But we're veering off topic, very widely, so let's better finish here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Well, Proto-Turkic doesn't have a native /n/ phoneme, it has changed to a 'y' sound, here transcribed with a "j". You can hardly fault me for answering your question, but do feel free to ignore the answer. The website you link to is irrelevant, since this form is found in hundreds of dialects showing expected sound changes (like the Turkic one) not just two randomly sampled languages that show no other cognates. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC) The point is that the resemblance is statistically irrelevant, even if borrowing could be ruled out (which is impossible). A single initial phoneme does not suffice. Also, you have artificially inflated your list with the enumeration of equally irrelevant descendants when listing Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic, Proto-Turkic/Proto-Mongolic/Proto-Tungusic and Proto-Eskimo(–Aleut) as well as Proto-Nivkh (or some kind of reconstruction; preferrably not only modern Nivkh), and perhaps a few select descendants in brackets, would have sufficed. But again, this is completely off topic, so I'm hatting the whole part. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC) You've already shown your total ignorance in the matter with your rejection of the Turkic form because it lacks an /n/ when the entire proto-language lacks that phoneme. I have dozens of proto-language dictionaries for languages worldwide, especially Eurasia, and unless you are accusing people like Michael Fortescue and Edward Vajda of making up their research you have no claim. Where is your counter evidence? What is your alternative hypothesis? Hundreds of forms for scores of roots like water, name, dog, bear, fish, tile, hair/feather, go, etc., (which I can provide to anyone who emails me) exist within and only within the Eurasiatic macrofamily. You quote a study that says any two singular languages are likely to have a few similar roots. I agree with that, namely 'habere/have and dies/day in Latin and English which are known coincidences. But when you get hundreds of dialects showing scores of roots of roots with regular correspondences like the Turkic form here and deny them because the odd resemblances is possible you're providing a silly, pathetic, a priori reason to disbelieve anything that equally proves English mine and German mein are unrelated. After all, Finnish has minun and Turkic has benin/menin, so all these terms must be borrowings. You are not even interested in the evidence, so I am not interested in anything you have to say. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have too much of a problem with your example dialogue. What drives me nuts is this sort of thing: "What kind of music do you like?" / "So I like all kinds really ...". 109.157.12.51 (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't sound natural to me, I would expect "So, what kind of music...? Well, I like...." It may be a dialect question. Valley girl had some weirdities. In Philly a long time ago people used to say "How?" (as they do in some other European languages) instead of what when they didn't hear your last statement. So I won't say that sentence is not possible, but I can't say I've heard it. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You're very lucky. Perhaps this contagion hasn't yet spread to the area where you live. If it does, and once you start noticing it, I promise you it will drive you nuts too. 109.157.12.51 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A link to a video of someone actually speaking that way would be helpful. I have explained the phenomenon, shon it existed in Hittite, Greek, Latin, and German, and that such words exist in Lingustic families all across northern Eurasia. Some sort of source from anybody else here would be interesting. And it's not that I am lucky; I just don't know too many teenagers. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• To answer the original question: the word "So" in this context is called a Speech disfluency and serves the same purpose as "um..." or "like..." in some dialects. It is merely the speaker "filling" dead space in his speech while composing his thoughts. --Jayron32 22:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not correct, Jayron. The specific context was the beginning of a conversation: "So, I went to the store...' when starting a post" where it introduces a new topic. If someone were to start all their sentences with "so" it would be a disfluency, but that is not the case in the OP's first example. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it could be, like, worse, you know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

But the issue is, so, it couldn't be, so, worse, you know? μηδείς (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Do people not say "um" or "like" or "uh" at the beginning of a sentence? --Jayron32 01:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course they do, but not normally when starting a conversation without a prior context. I am talking at the dicourse level, not at the level so independent sentences with no context. Nor do they usually use so repeatedly and in the middle of sentences the way they use "um" when they are just pausing because they can't think on their toes. You are quite aware, Jayron, that the dialog I provided is a normally structured one for modern general english. I'd be quite interested in seeing a video where someone says so repeatedly, when well, or, especially, um would be expected. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Or "well", which serves the same purpose, but those are all usually in response to a question. I gather that the OP is griping about someone starting the conversation with "So..." Can't say I've heard it that much; but either way it's hard telling why the OP finds it so irritating, given there are much more annoying things in language usage. But to each their own. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think there is almost nothing more annoying. Possibly ending each sentence as if it is a question is about as annoying. Oh, that and saying "The thing is, is that ...". 109.157.12.51 (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

More annoying than "like" every two or three words? More annoying than "uh... you know..." which athletes in particular seem afflicted with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the OP thinks this is a particularly American thing. I've heard so used in this way (that is, as a speech disfluency) on both sides of the pond. In general, I have noticed that speech disfluencies can be used as ways of acquiring or maintaining the floor in a conversation, which may be the rationale for starting a sentence (or even a conversation) with so. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 03:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The annoying habit of ending a sentence in a way that sounds like a question (it's called "High rising terminal" - a trait of "Valspeak") seems to be likewise a way of communicating, "I'm done with the sentence but there's another one coming." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

As an extreme and satirical similarity, Professor Irwin Corey (who is now going on 101 years old) would sometimes start a lecture with, "However..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Chris Puplick is an Australian former politician, who was appointed to the Senate, then defeated in his bid for a full term, then later re-elected. For his maiden speech the second time round, he started off with "As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted ...". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sentence shortening help or correction

Hello,

I need to write the following in the shortest manner possible as all sound a bit too much for me.

"Everyone will be justified on Judgement Day, whoever done things knowingly, unknowingly, intentionally, unintentionally, overtly, covertly, purposely, consciously, subconsciously, in an unconscious mind."

If the sentence cannot be shortened and if it is okay then please let me know if I there is anything else I can add using 'commas'.

Regards.

(Angelos|Angelus (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC))

"Everyone will be judged on Judgement Day for their unconscious as well as their conscious actions." is a shortened form that seems to get your meaning across. (I'm not quite sure what you meant by "justified".)Itsmejudith (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess I meant 'judged'... Thank you. -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

Maybe Justification (theology)? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll read through it... -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

"Judgement Day applies to all our actions, conscious or not." StuRat (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

True! -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

"Judgement Day shall account for all acts - witting or unwitting." Trying to be King Jamesish. Collect (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll use these two words; sounds good... -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

Yeah, "all" covers those things nicely, if you're not trying for parallelism. If you are, it might be best to split the two with "or" or "and", between commas. Knowingly and unknowingly, intentionally and unintentionally, etc. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to use both; and or. -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

Thanks peeps. I'm gonna use the original sentence. What Judith mentioned, I recalled Bugsy mentioning something similar to another sentence I posted some time ago, which was similar to the original sentence I posted here seeking help for, and he mentioned to use the word 'intention'. After reading Judith's post, and Hulky's posts, I realised that I'll put my original sentence at the beginning, and statements such as Judith's and Bugsy's, I will insert it as I go along with the matching fields...

Kind regards!

(Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

Resolved

"Hulky", eh? I guess it doesn't sound totally weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

in short bro, if you mind I won't write it anymore... P.S - Don't worry, I'm not gay! -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC))

"Everyone will be judged, for everything." Iapetus (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds very basic... -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC))