Language desk
< April 5	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 6

Cases in Esperanto

Are there any natural languages with a case system resembling cases in Esperanto? Esperanto uses an unmarked case for 1) nominative, and 2) object of preposition, and a single marked case for 1) accusative, 2) direction of motion, and 3) representing a kind of indeterminate preposition or relationship. Peter Grey (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Category:Linguistic typology, I found "Nominative–absolutive language", which might help you to find an answer to your question, but I am not sure because I have not examined it thoroughly.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's an example of #3? —Tamfang (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/rules.html#je.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That says je can sometimes be substituted for –n, but it does not mention a role of –n not covered in #1 or #2. (Interesting to see that Don Harlow's website is still up!) —Tamfang (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Instead of je the accusative without a preposition may be used." It gives the following example:

Li vizitos nin je lundo

= He'll visit us on Monday.

Li lundon vizitos nin

= He'll visit us on Monday.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American English Language

When did American English differentiate itself from British English in distinctive pronunciation? The notable difference would seem to make the impressment of American seamen into the British Navy on the pretext that the Americans were actually British nationals a palpable fraud (up to and during the War of 1812).— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Larry Melvin (talk • contribs)

Pronunciation doesn't change overnight, but the War of 1812 (and the Revolution before that) would be good marking points for when each form of English radically diverged. Even before those wars, America had combined and continued to combine aspects of different Native, European, and African cultures together (instead of being just an offshoot of British cultures), in addition to preserving what used to be perfectly normal in Britain. So after 1812, if someone traveled between Britain and America, there was a sense that he didn't belong. As a result, there just wasn't enough exchange between the two to keep the two Englishes similar, and already a lot of outside influences on American English. There might as well have been a large wall (granted, with holes) in the Atlantic.

Australia, on the other hand, was colonized later and remained a colony on comparatively good terms. There was some native influence on vocabulary, but most of the "outside" influence was just different British subcultures getting blended together and preserved after British English continued to change. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as rhoticity is concerned, our article Rhoticity in English indicates: "By the 1790s, postvocalic /r/-less pronunciation was becoming common in London and was quickly increasing in use...Americans returning to England after the end of the American Revolutionary War in 1783 reported surprise at the significant changes in fashionable pronunciation. By the early 19th century, the southern British standard was fully transformed into a non-rhotic variety". HOTmag (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion from when you asked this question in January. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean name for Vietnam

Historically, the North Korean name for Vietnam has been 윁남 (wetnam), but it seems that news reports from North Korea in the past five years or so have used 웬남 (wennam) instead. Thus, is it really true that 웬남 has displaced 윁남 as the North Korean name for Vietnam? 96.246.144.195 (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may have something to do with assimilation in Korean. [1] Did you see it written such a way (that is <-nn->)?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search of results from the domain kcna.co.jp (the official North Korean news agency) suggests that 윁남 was used in articles written in 2011 or earlier, but articles written in 2012 or later use 웬남. 96.246.144.195 (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does Pachelbel have anything to do with Easter?

I'm talking about the actual name, not the musical composer with the name or the composition with the name. But the name itself as it once belonged to a guy with the family name. What kind of family name is it? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been already asked and answered in 2008. (Funny, it was quite exactly 8 years ago.)--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the word "niggard" have to die?

Should we avoid using the word "niggard" in all contexts? (Not just avoid it when referring to stingy black people). --Scicurious (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It means "stingy", but it has nothing to do with black people.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to avoid using it at all. DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you know that something may offend, even if the offense is caused by a misunderstanding of the true origin of the word, it is just common politeness to avoid using it in situations where that muisunderstanding, and offense, is a possibility. It is not as if there were no suitable alternatives. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't people more likely to be offended by the assumption that they will not only not know the word, but will also be too lazy or stupid to ask what it means or look it up in a dictionary?DuncanHill (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, since, if you used a word like "stingy", they would never know what you're first choice was, so could not be offended. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it's ok to patronize people if you think you can get away with it? DuncanHill (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's only patronizing if you actually say something patronizing, just like it's only an insult of you actually say something insulting. Merely thinking something patronizing or insulting is NOT patronizing or an insult. StuRat (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Hill's peculiar scenario, a guy would be addressing an audience and use the word "stingy", and someone would stand up and say, "Hey! You were really thinking 'niggardly', weren't you!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source, Christopher Hitchens decided it was time to retire that word from his vocabulary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it's early origin, Baseball Bugs source does say it has to do with black people for perhaps several centuries now in AmEng- so probably as with practically all words, it depends on when and where they are used. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you confusing it with the "nig", which is at the bottom of BB's source as meaning both "niggardly person" (c. 1300) and an abbreviation for nigger (c. 1832)? -- ToE 16:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. He needs to re-read that section. And, No, "niggardly" never meant a black person. But it sounds like it does, which is why speakers who care about their audience will avoid it. "Stingy" or "miserly" works better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no move to change the word "country" to something else. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Should we avoid" may be interpreted as a question of morality, which the RefDesk is ill-equipped to decide, or of etiquette. A useful reference point is our article Controversies about the word "niggardly". Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best advice is, "Know your audience." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temperatures get higher or lower, not warmer or cooler

There are many words that people talk about as errors in English. Here is one I would like to know if there are any opinions on; feel free to include references to appropriate Wikipedia articles if possible.

Temperatures get higher or lower, not warmer or cooler.

Why is this statement so popular with usage guides?? Does Wikipedia have any information related to this statement?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that it's the object that gets warmer or cooler. Temperature is a quantity (that is, a number plus a unit). Numbers can't really be warm or cool, at least in any way I know about.

Still, it is a very pedantic point even by my standards. I have no problem speaking of a warm or cool temperature. --Trovatore (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that warm and cool are subjective, and not susceptible to scientific definition. If the temperature has gone down from 1000 degrees by a couple of degrees it seems a bit odd to say that it has got cooler - because it is certainly not cool by any human understanding of the word. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore 100% right...it's technically a language error but its use is so common that the fact it's technically a mistake is so irrelevant it's hardly a mistake..but warmth/coolness is a kind of feeling and "Temperature" isn't itself capable, of course, of experiencing such....68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such errors come at a very cheap price. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the average weathercaster talking about a "higher temperature front" rather than a "warm front". NOT! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? I don't follow you. No one has challenged describing a weather front as "warm". The weather front is a physical object; it can be warm. The question is whether a temperature, which is an abstract object rather than a physical one, should be described as warm. --Trovatore (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature may not be able to be warm, but it can be warmer. Saying "the temperature is warm" is ambiguous only because there is no agreed upon standard for what value or range of values we assign to "warm". My oven has a "warm" setting, which is far higher in temperature than any ever felt outdoors on Earth. However, "warmer" is precise and unambiguous, as it describes a clear direction the temperature is moving or lies relative to another temperature. If I say "the temperature is warmer than yesterday", there is no confusion or ambiguity about the directing the temperature moved relative to yesterday's temperature, whatever it was. --Jayron 32 02:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it hadn't been for this question, it would not have occurred to me to flag this usage as incorrect. However, strictly speaking, today's temperature and yesterday's temperature are both abstract objects, and I do not know what it means for one abstract object to be warmer than another one.

But as I say, making that point in real life, as opposed to in response to a refdesk question, would exceed even my rather expansive bounds of pedantry. --Trovatore (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

technically, you don't say "temp is warmer than yesterday" you say, "temp is higher than yesterday."...but you can technically say "today is warmer than yesterday" etc... "warmth" is a feeling...Temperature itself can't have feelings, just like it can't be happier or sadder than the previous day....(I might be nuts here but I think this is right)...68.48.241.158 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I don't think that's the important point. Warmth could be a perception, but it could also just be the state of having a relatively high temperature. The point is that physical objects can be warm or cool (whether or not anyone so perceives them), but it's not clear what it means for a quantity to be warm or cool. --Trovatore (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

have to admit I'm getting knotted up here...this suddenly seems more difficult than I first thought...is it that "warmth" can be a synonym for temperature but also mean a subjective feeling?? and this double meaning is causing a problem??68.48.241.158 (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, temperature is a measure of how hot/cold something is. An inch is a measure of distance, but is an inch small or large? It's neither. It's small compared to a mile, but huge compared to the width of an atom. An inch is an absolute figure. 67 degrees Fahrenheit is an absolute measure, a point on a scale of possible temperatures. It is neither hot nor cold. It can increase or decrease, that's all. Only a physical object (and that includes air and "the climate") can have attributes such as hot or cold or warm or cool. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is any of this relevant? You can say that one is warmer than another, and can you can say that one is larger than another, without asserting that anything is warm by itself or large by itself. --51.9.190.246 (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's something very convincing and authoritative about what Jack writes above...but something seems off about it...I think now that perhaps temperature can actually be validly said to get warmer and cooler, as this simply means higher or lower relative to some previous temperature...?????68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying "the speed of the car is getting faster" as it accelerates. No, the car itself is getting faster, but the speed is simply increasing. Speed is a measure of how fast something is going. Likewise, temperature is measure of how hot something is. As the thing itself gets warmer, its temperature rises or increases. It isn't the temperature that gets hotter, because temperature doesn't have .. er, a temperature. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Edmund Fitzgerald was carrying a weight of iron ore equal to her weight plus 26,000 tons, and the chimes rang 841 times. --Trovatore (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I see the distinction you're making and I originally was thinking along those lines too...but started to think it's an overly technical distinction that is superfluous...and that if someone said "the temperature is getting warmer" there's no essential technical error...as "warmer" means the exact same thing as "increasing" or "rising"....and that it's just overcomplicataion to analyze this differently...but I see the distinction that one might argue: when the temperature increases then i get warmer...and demand upon this distinction...but idk???????68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, "such errors come at a very cheap price [sic]". You can speak inaccurately if you choose, and chances are, most people would understand you. Is that approach to communication good enough? "You might very well believe that, Mattie. I couldn't possibly comment". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To demand that you cannot have a warm or a cold temperature is akin to demanding that you cannot have a long or a short distance. Silliness. --Jayron 32 02:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That analogy doesn't hold water, Jayron. Unless you're prepared to extend it to a tall height, a wide width, a broad breadth, etc. Adjectives of measure are governed by (a) general grammatical rules and (b) idiom. Idiom permits certain things (but not all things, see below*) that would otherwise be considered solecisms . Under (a), distances can be great or small, but under (b) they can also be long or short. But how can a temperature be hot, cold or anything else? The weather is hot, the climate is hot, "it" is hot, and we can confirm this by reference to a thermometer which shows how high or low the temperature is.

Then there are personal perceptions of heat and cold, which can really muddle the picture. We've all been in situations where everyone in a room is comfortable, but one person thinks it's too hot (or too cold) and wants something done about it. Was the temperature hot? No, the temperature was whatever it was, for everyone. It may indeed have been on the high side, if it was necessary to make the room warm in order to counteract the prevailing wintry cold outside. But if some adjustment is required, does one "heat the temperature" or "cool the temperature"? Certainly not. One heats or cools the room, by raising or lowering the temperature.

*The idiomatic protocol has its limits. I keep mentioning cheap prices. Shops everywhere advertise, and customers talk about, "cheap prices", but there is no acceptance anywhere that this is correct. Goods are cheap or expensive, which we can tell by reference to their prices, which are low or high. And as for "the most amount of ..." - ugh! -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, "liking X more than Y" and "finding X to be better than Y" are preferable to "liking X better than Y", and "mentioning names" and "naming people [or other entities]" are preferable to "naming names". (There is also the French expression "ça coûte trop cher", but I have not found a suitable link.)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC) and 02:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there's not much via google about this (as far as I can tell)....found this though: http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2010/06/is-the-temp-hot-or-high.html 68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]