Language desk
< July 5	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 7 >

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 6

What's the longest Russian word that's pronouncable if you pretend it's English letters?

What's the longest such word where such pronunciation wouldn't be wrong?

For the purpose of this, if there's adjacent letters that look like English consonants and that combination of English consonants doesn't occur in English then I would probably consider that unpronounceable. I would consider the letter that looks like backwards 3 to be pronounced E in English but the letter 3 to be unpronounceable. And backwards English letters that aren't still English letters to be unpronounceable. Maybe a word that still rolls well off the tongue despite too few vowels (like SQRL or VQL) could be honorable mention. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean regular case (eg., Саратов), all caps (САРАТОВ), or cursive (Саратов)? — Kpalion^(talk) 04:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, one record for whichever format makes the longest word, and one record for the longest which also appears to follow English capitalization rules? (no caps, initial caps, all caps, or non initial caps in some cases like McDuff). Did you mean italic or cursive? I've only seen handwriting made without lifting the pen called cursive. Also, I don't see how an italic of a Cyrillic that looks like an English letter would not look like the italic of the English letter, but I've never seen italic Cyrillic before. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

about the only Cyrillic letters that are pronounced the same in English are a,e,к,м and т. Doing a regexp search on aspell's dictionary yields, inter alia:
какао, тотем, токамак, токката, томат, тамтам, макака, кокетка, etc, etc, as well as some Russian words that don't mean anything in English (the longest is, at 8 letters, отметете "you will sweep aside") (however, the second to last е is really an ё and pronounced "yo") Asmrulz (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sagittarian is asking about Russian letters that look like English letters even if they are pronounced differently, like "товар" which looks like "tobap" (or "Саратов" as Kpalion has noted, which looks like "capatob"). The longest one I can think of is "ресторан", which is "restaurant" but looks like "pectopah", but I suppose there must be longer ones. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was also wondering what's the longest Russian word that requires no transliteration. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

then I'd say it's any of the 7-letter words that I mentioned (transliteration tries to preserve pronunciation.) If we admit all letters for which there exists a visually identical (in all caps) Latin letter with no regard to the phonetic value (i.e., а,в,е,к,м,н,о,р,с,т,х) as Adam suggests, then the longest word is, at 16 leters, несоответственен "incongrous" , and the longest noun (15 letters) is реставраторство ("restoration-ism", i.e. restoration of antiques as an occupation, or the advocacy towards restoring some past political conditions) Asmrulz (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here are the complete lists and the commands I used to generate them: [1] [2] Asmrulz (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But Sagittarian asked for words that are pronounceable in English, which I would take to mean that they obey English phonototactic rules. Neither HECOOTBETCTBEHEH nor PECTABPATOPCTBO fulfill this condition. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, hence my disclaimer "with no regard to the phonetic value" in my second reply. The words in my initial reply do fulfill the condition of being their own phonetic transliteration into English (more or less.) Asmrulz (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though not both. I meant words that not only look like English transliterations (with enough vowels) but sound like them, too. But it's nice to learn that HECOOTBETCTBEHEH is the longest Russian word that's its own transliteration (despite having some abrupt vowel-less consonant to consonant transitions not found in English). I never knew that C wasn't always pronounced S like in Soyuz or CCCP/Soyuz Sovietski Socialistica Republic or however you say it. Or if that's still S then it wouldn't count cause no English speaker would ever say C like S here. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are nice lists though. Thanks. I can see now that I shouldn't need any more help, But anyone's still welcome to add something that can't be deduced from those lists and Wikipedia/Wiktionary. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oh, it isn't. only the short 7-letter words in my initial reply are their own transliterations. the 2nd list is of words that can be written using the Latin alphabet alone, but they aren't phonetic transliterations. C is always S Asmrulz (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

also, regarding cursive, there are no non-trivial words (за "for", ее "her") that work in (handwritten) cursive. However, you can write two 16-letter words (перепроизводство, "overproduction", cursive "nepenpouzbogcmbo" and судопроизводство "court proceedings", cursive "cygonpouzbogcmbo") and a 17-letter word (первопроходчество "trailblazing, pioneering", cursive "nepbonpoxogrecmbo") using cursive and it'd still be legible in Russian (the "z" is an old-style "z" with a descender, that looks like a wasp) Asmrulz (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I thought PECTABPATOPCTBO was a transliteration but not pronouncable. My mistake. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on Asmrulz's list, these words are in the nominative case, and you can make them a bit longer by putting them in other cases. For example, токамаком tokamakom "with a tokamak" or токамакам tokamakam "unto the tokamaks", either one for nine letters. --Amble (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borscht terminology in Yiddish

Hi, I'm trying to expand our article about borscht and would like to confirm that I got the spelling and grammar of the following Yiddish terms right:

beet sour: ראָסל (rosl)
dairy borscht: מילכיקער באָרשט (milkhiker borsht)
meat borscht: פֿליישיקער באָרשט (fleyshiker borsht)

— Kpalion^(talk) 09:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno why, but I'd instinctively go with a chet, rather than a chaf in "milkhiker". Where did you find those spellings? Also, why use one vowel, rather than the more consistent options of none or all? Finally, what's that weird thing about the fey in fleyshiker (and, for that matter, why "flevshiker")? --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dweller. I've just copy-pasted the words from Wiktionary. Could you please type them they way you think is right here? — Kpalion^(talk) 15:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've pinged someone else who may be able to help more expertly. And thanks for that - we ought to fix Wiktionary when we're done here! --Dweller (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the relevant Wiktionary links: (wikt: באָרשט, wikt: מילכיק, wikt: פֿליישיק). — Kpalion^(talk) 15:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Milchik" is with a chaf, just like it was spelled here. What is that line above the "fe" from "fleishik"? Should be removed. Didn't know "rosl" for "sour soup" in yiddish, but it is much like the same word in Russian, so probably correct. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it should be פליישיקער באָרשט and the rest is correct? — Kpalion^(talk) 21:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The vowel under the aleph in borsht shouldn't be there, or else all the vowels need to be added. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rafe mark on the fe is ok. It's functionally the opposite of a dagesh, and is used in various settings for that in modern typography of Yiddish and Ladino, especially in initial position when in Hebrew you would generally have the letter hardened to pe. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sign under aleph is required for /o/ in Yiddish spelling. /f/ is also written as "pej" with a line above. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the signs required under all the other letters for their vowels? Why have just one? --Dweller (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because Yiddish uses the Hebrew alphabet but not the Hebrew orthographic conventions. There is no "vowel signs" (niqqud) in Yiddish, but full vowel letters with some diacritics, which may come from vowel signs. So aleph is simply /a/, aleph with a diacritic looking like "kamatz" (but in Yiddish there is no "kamatz") is /o/. Vov is /u/, but sometimes vov with a diacritic looking like "shuruk" is used to avoid ambiguity. Etc. Imagine the Latin alphabet lacking some letters: "a" is /a/, but you have no letter for /o/, so you put a diacritic: ą (â, å, anything). It would not mean that the diacritic is a vowel sign and you could omit it. By the way, most European languages use this technique: German use umlauts, Czech uses háčeks, etc. So as you cannot omit diacritics in these languages, so you cannot omit them in Yiddish either (in normal circumstances). Note also that ayin/ajen is a consonant in Hebrew but a vowel in Yiddish (looks like "w" in Welsh).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've learned something. --Dweller (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps I can modify that just slightly. It's probably right to think of the ones that are used as being a little closer to "diacritics" than true Hebrew nekudot, even if they were in fact adapted from the nekudot. But the common name for אָ in Yiddish is "kamatz alef" (or, really "kometz alef"), so it also wouldn't really be quite right to say "in Yiddish, there is no 'kamatz'". And you can't really omit them. In comparison, Hebrew is frequently written without its nedukot entirely. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the history of Yiddish right it was originally written like Hebrew (no vowel letters, occasional vowel signs), but at the end of the 19th century the modern Yiddish orthography was invented, where there are independent vowel letters, which, of course, go back to the consonant letters and consonant letters plus diacritics, which, of course, go back to the certain vowel signs. But in modern Yiddish there technically no vowel signs by function only some their remnants by appearance and by name. So paradoxically in Yiddish there is kamatz but as well as there is no kamatz.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your input. What still bothers me, though, is that I don't get any Google hits for מילכיקער באָרשט nor פֿליישיקער באָרשט. Borscht is certainly a popular dish in Jewish cuisine and it does have meat and dairy variants, so you would expect to have them mentioned somewhere in the Internet. Are there more idiomatic ways of referring to them? — Kpalion^(talk) 05:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do people put dairy or meat products in borsht? How interesting! --Dweller (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original Ukrainian borscht is based on meat stock and garnished with sour cream. In kosher cooking, you have to either replace the meat stock with vegetable broth or forget about the sour cream (see Milk and meat in Jewish law). My question is, what do Yiddish-speaking Jews call these two variants of borscht? My guess is the phrases at the top of this thread, but I may be wrong. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is other terminology out there also, but certainly if you keep kosher the terminology at the top is the critical thing to know if you want to decide to eat the borscht with the rest of your meal (or not). StevenJ81 (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that answers my question. A sheynem dank, Steven! — Kpalion^(talk) 21:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kpalion, I've looked through some dictionaries (Harkavy's:[3][4] and this), seems like "milkhiker" means rather "milkman, dairyman". So I advise not to use this text unless you ask the person, who added the text to the article, where s/he has got it from.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks it was you who got it from Gil Marks's Encyclopedia, but there weren't those exact Yiddish phrases. So rather they are non-existent and invented by you, I have to say. Not too encyclopedic. Better to find a fluent Yiddish speaker and ask to find a source with the real Yiddish names of the dish.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found "milkhikn borshtsh" (מילכיקן באָרשטש), probably it's an oblique case, in Aleichem's Tevye [5]. It least it really exists/-ed. Though it's the only citation I could find.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting laid vs. getting laid off

Does it really matter to include or exclude the "off" at the end of "getting laid" to clarify one's true intentions? "Off" is an one-syllable word, which may be missed easily in speech; and judging by the context, the listener would not assume the wrong interpretation.

He got laid at work.
He got laid off at work.

vs.

He and his girlfriend got laid in the bedroom.
He and his girlfriend got laid off in the bedroom. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind that people won't be able to stand you if you leave out prepositions, feel free. Given you're posting from a library in Ohio, why don't you go check the librarian? μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"Get laid" and "laid off" are completely different. I would much rather get laid at work than laid off, and I would be extremely worried if I was somehow laid off in the bedroom. In "get laid," the focus is on "lay," as in "lay in bed (to have sex)" (although this has expanded to refer to sex outside of the bedroom as well). In "laid off," the focus is more on "off," and is more idiomatic. An older and more universal usage of "lay off" is telling someone to stop annoying someone ("Lay off the kid, he doesn't know better"). This probably came to be a euphemism for being fired since the employer is no longer bothering the employee with a job. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lay off the noun is defined by the OED as "A rest, respite, spell of relaxation; a period during which a workman is temporarily dismissed or allowed to leave his work; a part or season of the year during which activity in a particular business or game is partly or completely suspended." So, to be laid off must be to be temporarily dismissed.Myrvin (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lay/Laid, "To have sexual intercourse with ", seems to be US slang from 1934. Myrvin (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the questioner really suggesting that the phrases "He got laid at work" and "He got laid off at work" could both be written "He got laid at work", because the context would clarify the meaning? "The boss hated me, so I got laid"; "The boss fancied me, so I got laid off"? That small word makes a great deal of difference.Myrvin (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"My girlfriend needed a better job, so she got laid by her boss" vs "My girlfriend needed a better job, so she got laid off by her boss". Why would anyone suggest forgetting the 'off'? Myrvin (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that the US has plenty of ESL speakers, and their grammar and spelling can be wonderful despite not having yet learned about more idiomatic parts of the language. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Myrvin (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Susan, the company isn't running too well. I'll have to lay you or Jack off." "-In that case, could you just jack off, I have a headache"Asmrulz (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

"Lay lady, lay, lay off my big brass bed." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Wouldn't she fall on the floor? Myrvin (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I think I could 'say something' / If you know what I mean / But if I really say it / The radio won't play it / Unless I 'lay it' between the lines..." from I Dig Rock and Roll Music by Peter, Paul and Mary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're familiar with that song, and you can hum the tune, you will know it's actually

Lay lady lay, lay across my big brass bed.

87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just lay off, will you? (I thought Bob wouldn't mind.... The man in a trench coat. Badge out, laid off.") Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those silly little humorous "ain't English weird" tropes like "Why do you drive on a parkway and park in a driveway" or "Why isn't being pissed on the opposite of being pissed off" and the only good answer is understanding the idea of idiom in a linguistic context, and also understanding that the etymological fallacy is at play here: that the constituent parts of an idiom cannot be individually analyzed and re-combined to give the idiom its meaning. --Jayron 32 02:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]