Language desk
< May 1	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 3 >

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.

May 2

Kalervo Kalervopoika Kullervo Kullervoinen (Untamo/Untamoinen)

I am familiar with (have read the full work in English translation) the Kalevala. I recently borrowed The Story of Kullervo by Tolkien. I was surprised to see Kullervo and Kullervoinen treated as variants of one name. Is this typical Finnish or Finnic? There was also Kalervopoika, which I took to be a rather obvious "son of Kalervo". Am I off base with my readings? JIP? μηδείς (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker with no expertise on the language of Kalevala, I would understand Kullervoinen as a diminutive form of Kullervo. Productive use of such forms is rare in modern Finnish. As for Kalervopoika, your guess does make sense, but there is no explicit "of" marker there, and such a construction is not used in modern Finnish. 130.188.232.99 (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't read "Kalervon poika" (there is no genitive "n", as you mentioned), could Kalervopoika rather mean something like "little Kalervo", something like "Kalervo-boy", instead of "Kalervo's boy"? I read the Kalevala only in French, and I don't know The Story of Kullervo by Tolkien, but that's what I'd guess from the general "feeling" i kept from the strange language of Kalevala. Akseli9 (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Kalervopoika" means "Kalervo-boy", because there is no genitive "n". "Son of Kalervo" would be "Kalervonpoika". JIP | Talk 14:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tolkien('s editor) definitely uses Kalervopoika as a name (an epithet) for Kullervo, who is Kalervo's posthumous son. The text, written when Tolkien was about 21, was itself not editted or published during Tolkien's lifetime. It is of interest mainly because it shows Tolkien's fascination with the Kalevala, although it evolves from broken to pseudo-Finnish / pre-proto-Quenya as far as I can tell. I haven't yet read the editorial commentary on the text, since the book was only available for 7 days. We'll see if I can renew it.

One point I am still not clear on. is -oinen actually a diminutive suffix? I don't remember reading Vainamoinen as Vainamo in the Kalevala, although it's been over a decade since I read the text. μηδείς (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be seen as a form of diminutive suffix. The general form of the suffix is "-nen", which can be used for general nouns too: poika, tyttö (boy, girl) -> poikanen, tyttönen (little boy, little girl). "Poikanen" is also a biological term of an animal's young. JIP | Talk 16:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the above-mentioned names have -i- between the stem and the suffix?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a distinction between the -i- and lack of it. Just "-nen" is a common form, the added -i- adds a poetic touch. For example the words I cited above are used in everyday speech. There's also words like pallonen (little ball), lintunen (little bird) or kukkanen (little flower), but kukkaistyttö (note the -i-) means "flower girl", as in a wedding. Also Peukaloinen (from peukalo, thumb) is the Finnish name for Nils Holgersson. The -inen- form can also be used to form adjectives, meaning "with something", such as omenainen, sitruunainen (with apple, with lemon; apple-flavoured, lemon-flavoured). JIP | Talk 19:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speed (of) up to

Is there a difference between "speeds of up to X have been achieved" and "speeds up to X have been achieved"?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. But then I'm not a native English speaker, I have only studied the language for nine years and use it in everyday conversation. JIP | Talk 20:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, the "of" is unnecessary, and therefore incorrect. You should talk of a speed of 100 kph, or of speeds up to 100 kph. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know this will be considered probably only distantly related, could however someone of good will confirm whether there is a slight decceleration on the word "down" here, at approximately 1:01 ? --Askedonty (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I'm a native English speaker...there is absolutely no difference between the meaning of the two statements...both would be considered entirely proper..the 'of' might be unnecessary but I don't think that makes it incorrect even technically...just two ways of saying same thing..this is why I have no idea how people can learn to speak English...there are almost no rules that can be counted upon...68.48.241.158 (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on there. Let's make a distinction between informal speech and formal written English. In formal written English, the 'of' version is correct, since one would (or should) say "he attained a speed of X miles an hour". The 'of' must be inserted there. Note that 'speed' is a noun there. So when extending the sentence by specifying a speed range, the same rule should apply: "speeds of up to X have been achieved". On the contrary, when using 'speed' as a verb, the 'of' is omitted: "Now he accelerates coming out of the curve and speeds up to X miles an hour". The problem is that speakers of informal English tend to drop the 'of' in the case of the noun when the speed range is present. The meaning is absolutely clear and does not depend on the 'of' being present. So it's not a matter of English having no rule; as in so many cases, it's an example of fluent English speakers not observing the rule and still making themselves perfectly understood. Akld guy (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fair trading people are looking into advertisements offering broadband speeds of "up to ..." People have been complaining that their speeds are nowhere near the advertised figure. Apparently the claim is allowable if 10% of users receive the advertised speed - the authorities think the percentage should be higher. They're also looking into what they say will be the next pricing scandal - the practice of selling fruit loose by either weight or number, so that the buyer cannot compare value without scales. These used to be provided in supermarkets but they all seem to have disappeared. Market traders, you have been warned. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

measure NPs are complicated. Here is a sample grid, with my personal metric of grammaticality on a scale of 0 to 100:

men of up to 6 ft —90	men up to 6 ft tall —100	men up to 6 ft —40
speeds of up to 100 mph —100	speeds up to 100 mph fast —0	speeds up to 100 mph —70

jnestorius^(talk) 10:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

close, use

I can understand why there exist pairs like bath-bathe, breath-breathe, but how did such words as use, close, excuse, abuse, house, refuse with [s] / [z] happen? Are there other examples?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The s/z pronunciation distinctions in those words are fairly consistent; the "s" version is the noun version, while the "z" version is the verb version. As with bath/bathe, the distinction seems to be voicing the consonant and/or fronting the vowel. --Jayron 32 16:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except for refuse, where it is always (z) sound, and the noun and verb are distinguished by where the emphasis is placed (REFuse - noun, reFUSE - verb) 81.132.106.10 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the noun "refuse" has the "s" sound, consistent with the pattern of the others. Loraof (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed refuse meaning "trash" has the unvoiced "s". See here for the noun form. I will note that the voiced "z" version is listed as a secondary pronunciation, so some dialects that may be so. --Jayron 32 01:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the location of the stress is a common method of making the distinction - for example recoil (noun) and recoil (verb). 92.23.52.169 (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where I come from, it's pronounced like a "z" rather than a soft "s". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So in the sentence, "I refuse to take out the refuse." both instances of the word are pronounced the same and both use the "uze"? Matt Deres (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. In the first instance, it's almost universally the 'uze' sound. I doubt there would be many places on earth that would pronounce it otherwise. The second instance is almost always pronounced with the 'ref' stressed and the 's' sound. As Bugs pointed out, there are some regions where 'uze' might be common. Akld guy (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of how they're "normally" pronounced. I indented my reply to show that I was asking Bugs about his pronunciation specifically. I've never heard the -uze ending for the noun. Matt Deres (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French Translation Help?

Hi everyone,

If any French translator out there has some time on their hands, I really need some help: For this book - http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k56817078/f10.image - I would really appreciate an English translation of as many of the provisions of charters (any of them) as possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.174.169 (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB, the actual charter begins on page 129 and is in Latin on the left and Old French on the right. The discussion in modern French starts on page 17. 184.147.128.57 (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both ~~languages~~ Latin and Old French are beyond me, but here's a bit from Chapter II (the analysis):

(page 18) Administration - A provost settled at Lorris represented the king there. The position was mentioned for the first time, to the best of our knowledge, in an order (mandement) addressed to him and to the provost of Sully by king Louis VII, probably in 1147, before departing for the Holy Land, and definitely before 1162. The provost was named several times in the charter of 1155. The entire administration was in his hands: he levied the king's income and dispensed justice. There is no reason to believe that the inhabitants of Lorris had any part in the management of the affairs of their own parish in the 12th and 13th centuries.

(page 19) Entrusted with enforcing the royal rights, the provost would have had power over the liberty of the inhabitants: as well, his duties would have included administering oaths to maintain the privileges granted by the king.

The method by which this magistrate was chosen is not known. We will simply remark that in the accounts of 1202 the receipts for each provost added up to the same sum for each of the three terms of the year: at Lorris, 193 livres 6 sous and 8 deniers were paid in November, February and May. By this, Brussel concludes that in 1202, the provosts were under contract. A charter in which Philippe-Auguste leases the provostship of Claumont "sicut prepositus eam tenebat", confirms this opinion.

Is this kind of thing useful, or do you really want the actual charter in Latin/Old French from page 129? 184.147.128.57 (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is further to the conversation we were having on the Humanities desk...and the book in question is also on Google Books, which is significantly easier to use than Gallica. Anyway, I would love to help translate the customs of Lorris, but it might be awhile...if anyone has significantly more free time than I do, go right ahead... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Adam,

I didn't mean for you to do so much - but yes, it's super helpful. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.173.233 (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well actually the customs of Lorris are useful for me too (they even show up as far away as crusader Jerusalem!), so this is a good excuse to finally read and translate them. I'll try to post them here before the question is archived, but I'll stick them in the sandbox on my user page as well. (Or if you want to send me an e-mail through Wikipedia I can send them to you directly.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either way works for me. I'm glad this isn't a total waste of time for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.173.233 (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I'm a bit confused about though - doesn't the provost's right to levy taxes on behalf of the king contradict provision 9 of the charter saying "No one, neither we nor any other, shall exact from the burghers of Lorris any tallage, tax, or subsidy"? (from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39227/39227-h/39227-h.htm).

Maybe they were claiming that the provost doesn't have the right to collect taxes for the king - i.e. they were challenging the king's claim that he could levy taxes from them without their consent. It could mean that they will pay taxes, but not any taxes that they hadn't consented to beforehand. The king/provost can't just collect random taxes whenever they felt like it. I'm not sure though, since the customs are pretty devoid of context. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it they were not in position of openly challenging anything but they could be expressively disapprobative (Lorris seems to have been a forestry establishment linked to the royal recreational domain ). --Askedonty (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]