Language desk
< September 4	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	Current desk >

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.

September 5

How to pronounce Ico-D?

Hi. As an experimental question or a phonological one, how do you pronounce the first syllable of the title Ico-D? Could the pronunciation be /'aɪkoʊ/ (British En.: /'aɪkəʊ/) whether or /'iːkoʊ/, /'ɪkoʊ/ (Br.En.: /'iːkəʊ/, /'ɪkəʊ/)? Thank you in advance. — Hamid Hassani (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logic would suggest it should be eye-coe-dee. If they wanted it to be read as eye-cod, they likely wouldn't have hyphenated it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not responsive to the question....The OP could ask them by email, at info@ico-D.org. Loraof (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. If the OP gets an answer back, he could add that bit of info to the article. Although, truth to tell, he could just call them and see how they answer their phone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's wording suggests a survey of what pronunciation(s) we as readers infer from the spelling. So: I assume it's /'ajko:/. —Tamfang (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I read it, but the other user saw it as an opportunity to issue an attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the other user? (I don't see who else you might mean.) I did not issue an attack. I pointed out that your answer was non-responsive, and I assumed you would reread the question and see what I meant. Here's what I meant -- the OP asked about the pronunciation of the initial syllable, but your answer addressed whether the last D gets its own syllable, leaving the question still to be answered. Sorry I didn't spell it out for you, but it was not an attack.. Loraof (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

’smatter, Bugs, you gotta problem with IPA? —Tamfang (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IPA is useless, as most people don't 'speak' it. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it doesn't give all those delightful opportunities for comedy when speakers of different dialects don't know they disagree on what "rhymes with 'bath'" means. —Tamfang (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find Russian more useful than IPA. And I don't read or write Russian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be worth your while to learn a little IPA, Bugs. It has some big advantages over the "eye dialect" you usually use to express pronunciation.

Specifically, it's a lot less ambiguous (not perfectly unambiguous; there's no such thing in this context, but a lot less). And just as important, especially in a venue like this one where you have participants from all over, it's much more stable of interpretation across different English varieties (remember the confusion ~~Sade~~ caused her American fans by saying her name was pronounced shar-day). According to our article Sade (band), it may not have been Sade personally that made this misstep, but rather Epic Records, her label at the time. On the other hand, I don't have enough information to definitively pin the blame on them, either. In any case, someone made this mistake.

You don't have to learn it all at once; that would be daunting. Just look things up occasionally. You'll pick it up. --Trovatore (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the experimental aspect of the question: this BrE speaker had never encountered the name before, and initially read it as "Ice-Oh Dee".

Having now looked it up and discovered that the "–co–" part derives from "council", I would be inclined to pronounce it "Eye-Ko Dee". Hope this helps. (The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find that a bit surprising. You really were tempted to pronounce the <c> as /s/, even though it comes before an <o>? Off the top of my head I can't think of a single English word where "co" is pronounced /soʊ/. Generally the "soft" pronunciation of <c> is limited to when it's followed by <e> or <i> (and not even always then, e.g. "Celtic", which has the hard /k/ sound, unless you mean the basketball team). --Trovatore (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the "soft" pronunciation of <c> is limited to when it's followed by <e> or <i> -- and <y> --51.9.70.234 (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, true, my bad. --Trovatore (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising or not, it was the case. Possibly my subconscious felt that "Ico" most resembled "Ice": possibly also the overall form of "Ico-D" reminded me of "Ice-9". Of course the 'experiment' was somewhat artificial in that I was only reading the title and question. In the real world, textual context would probably have tipped me off to the hard c, as perhaps would prolonged thought, but I was explicitly giving my instantaneous impression. Also, I didn't assume the term was English, so perhaps downplayed unconscious English "rules" of which, as a native speaker, I am doubtless much less aware than ESL speakers who have been explicitly taught them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Hard and soft C and Hard and soft G. This rule calls for some irregularities in the spellings of derived words.

Normally, a final -e is lost when -able is added to the word (move → movable, debate → debatable), though alternative forms with the -e- do sometimes exist alongside the -e-less forms and, in cases such as sizeable, could be even more usual than them. But the -e- is always retained when it's necessary to indicate the softness of the C or G: notice → noticeable, change → changeable (not *noticable, *changable).

Also, panic produces panicked and panicking (not *paniced and *panicing), and provoke is not spelled *provoce despite the -c- in provocation, because the -k- or -ck- is necessary so as to indicate a hard sound before an E or an I. --Theurgist (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball is an American sport, is it not? Celtic United are one of the premier football (soccer) teams in Scotland. There was a question on this subject recently:

Hi. The right pronounciation can be heard in second 52 onwards in this video, which is Eye-Ko_Dee.Gharouni^Talk 12:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is phonetic spelling catching on?

The July edition of Here and Now, a publication of UKCG in Britain, includes the following sentence:

I was skeptical of what to say, but I wasn't the timid or afraid type, so I eventually wrote her a love letter telling how I felt.

How prevalent are the phonetic spellings (skeptic, skeptical, skepticism etc.) outside the United States? 80.44.167.110 (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.124.54 (talk) [reply]

The word "skeptic" comes from Greek skeptikos, by way of Latin scepticus — see etymonline. If you're implying that the spelling favored in the States is because it is more phonetic, I don't think that's true. It's because it's closer to the Greek. --Trovatore (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The British spelling "sceptic" looks peculiar. It should be a homophone of "septic". Compare with the pronunciation of "scepter", which is pronounced "septer", not "skepter". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How "scepter" might be pronounced is anyone's guess, but in any event none of the business of the British. They know a word spelled "sceptre", which may or may not be the same thing. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I know a word, or maybe it's an acronym, spelled SPECTRE, but I'm pretty sure that's a different thing. --Trovatore (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

"Spectre" is an English word. I don't know how Americans spell it. As for the acronym, see S.P.E.C.T.R.E. 86.168.124.54 (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these etymological spellings, like skeptic and more famously -ize, have been at some point part of British English; the latter is famously promoted by the Oxford Dictionaries, which mark skeptic as also archaic BrE. I would expect that some of their decline is due to people unaware of the etymology falsely believing them to be Americanisms – certainly I seemed to be getting more and more remarks IRL about my former use of -ize until I finally caved in last year. Note that this is anecdotal, so you might want to take it with a significant amount of healthy skepticism (ha!). Double sharp (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the OED cites are anything to judge by, then the most common spelling from 1582 to around 1700 was sceptick. The word came from French sceptique which in turn came from Latin scepticus. Samuel Johnson and John Donne seem to have preferred to go back to a Greek root with the sk spelling, but the OED comments that the sk spelling "did not become general in England". Dbfirs 08:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of this phrase

What does people mean when they say; Go break some eggs?

I know the meaning of break the ice. --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to derive from the old saying, "You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs." This implies that breaking some eggs is the starting point for achieving an omelette, so by analogy it means go and make a start on whatever you are intending to do. Wymspen (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which, more specifically (from UsingEnglish.com): This idiom means that in order to achieve something or make progress, there are often losers in the process.^[1] -- (In this case, the "losers" are the eggs) 107.15.152.93 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why the more successful in business you are the more enemies you acquire. 86.168.124.54 (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard this phrase, but as an American, I would guess that it means go out and do what's necessary to achieve your goal; "by what ever means necessary." To me, that's a bit over the top, but comprehensible. Is this not usually attributed to Lenin? μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common Name for USA, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand (angloshpere?)

Hey, I'm a non-native speaker and currently working on a scientific thesis which will contain several comparisons between continental Europe and the coutries mentioned above. The thing is...these contries obviosly have a lot in common, but I'm not sure how to call them. English-Speaking-coutries is surely wrong, and Anglo-Saxon somehow feels not right. I found the term Anglosphere but I have never that before, and it doesn't seem to be used that often (the article itself cites one book and some newpaper articles). I searched google, the ref-desk archives and found examples, but it's rare.

Is this really an established term for these 6 countries? Or are there others, more commonly used?

ps: I'm posting the same question in reference desk/Humanities. Hope it's ok.

--134.61.96.240 (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a BrE speaker (and former professional book editor) I'm used to seeing "Anglosphere" employed, and can't readily think of a one-word substitute. I'm sure most if not all readers of a thesis written in English would also know it: its relative rarity may only be because the concept is not a matter of everyday conversation, and the article has only the number of citations it needs (hopefully) and that the editors of it have bothered to give – there could be many more that might have been added. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I live in England, I am a graduate, I have been involved in politics, and I read widely. Until I saw this question I had never encountered the word Anglosphere before.It certainly isn't in common use in this country. It seems to be a neologism used to enforce a particular political viewpoint. Wymspen (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I first came across the term "Anglosphere" here on Wikipedia. For a related concept, see Braj Kachru's "inner circle". Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a BrE speaker too, and I've seen the term in use. Perhaps the majority of uses are by those on the political right who want to suggest some sort of broader commonality between those countries, but it is also used as a neutral term. The exact definition varies a bit, it would definitely include those six countries, but is sometimes stretched to include others listed in the English-speaking world article. Warofdreams talk 21:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may depend to some extent on the "scientific" aspects the OP wants to concentrate on yes, sorry, I have some resistance to talking about the "social sciences" as "scientific". For example, the listed countries also make up a large part of the countries whose legal systems follow the common law tradition. That's not an accident, exactly, as it stems from the common heritage from England, but it may not exactly follow the linguistic lines. --Trovatore (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore, as a social scientist I surely won't be able to break your resistance right away. your answer is in part, what I meant; see below. thanks for you input an keep beeing open minded ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.61.96.240 (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. "Anglosphere" is the term required here. It's not widely used, because the concept is not especially widely used. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fist: Thank you guys a lot for your prompt answers, insights and hints, that this could also be a political term!

Second: Maybe I need to get a more specific: The thesis will be in German and I stumbled across something that these countries really have in common and that differs widely in the way other western- and english-speaking-coutries handle it. So if I want to adress these differences, I need to make sure that a German knows excatly what I am talking about. Do you know an alternative term for those countries, or maybe how I could reference the 'anglosphere' in a neutral way? --134.61.96.240 (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.61.96.240 (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it really depends on what you mean, I think. You didn't want to use "English-speaking countries", and I'm not sure why you didn't (except maybe because countries don't actually speak? but it's such a common expression that it's hard to imagine getting too hung up on that).

So what defining characteristic do you have in mind? I notice that you left out South Africa. --Trovatore (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I picked those countries, because they are major participants in the UN refugee resettlement program. And as I read further into that, these countries seem (for an outsider) to have:

- similar political systems

- similar ideas on social policies

- similar understandings of law

which differs both from continental Europe and 'English-speaking-countries' like India, Nigeria, or South Africa might be perceived as. And that's why I was wondering, if there is a common name for them. --134.61.96.240 (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wouldn't have put South Africa in the same category as India, regarding English. Granted that English is very important in India; especially in the upper classes, it's very common to use it daily. But as a second language. There's not much native-speaker presence in India. In South Africa, there is a high proportion of native speakers (though apparently it ranks only fourth, lower than I would have thought). --Trovatore (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding any synonyms in the usual places. Anglosphere appears to be a proper word in several dictionaries, but not very common (Popularity: Bottom 10% of words). 107.15.152.93 (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re the issue of how common the term is, per the google books ngram viewer [2] "Anglosphere" is a very recent term but is not used significantly less than "English-speaking countries". (Note the ngram viewer doesn't tell you the meaning of the word, just how often it is used.) 184.147.125.97 (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using the term for about 10 years, ever since I encountered it on Wikipedia. To me, it means any place where you would have a reasonable expectation of finding English speakers in businesses, airlines, shops, government offices etc, whether it's their first language or not. Places where there's English-language signage. It certainly includes the OP's suite of countries but also extends to Singapore, parts of India, parts of Sri Lanka, South Africa, and certain other African countries, and that's not an exhaustive list. Given the global spread of English, I suggest it's becoming increasingly hard to find a place where English is not understood at all and you absolutely require another language. So, the anglosphere includes the totality of the usual suspect countries and it also interpenetrates most if not all others to greater or lesser degree. That's my take on it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me "Anglosphere" would at least also include South Africa and Singapore, and probably a number of other countries too. If OP used "Anglosphere" to mean the six countries listed specifically, that would need to be explained. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Five Eyes is context-specific jargon, but is sometimes used outside the original context as well to refer to the five major Anglophone countries you list, excluding Ireland. --09:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The word "Anglophone" has some purchase at Wikipedia: [3] and outside Wikipedia: [4]. Google Ngrams: [5] has Anglophone as being a more recent term than merely "English speaking", but as of the late 1990s, the terms are almost equivalent in terms of usage. --Jayron 32 14:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise, I find that the word anglosphere does not yet have an entry in the big Oxford English Dictionary, though I'm sure they have it in their database for the next revision. Oxford Online does define the word, as does Collins Online. Merriam-Webster doesn't have it either. According to Wiktionary, the word was coined by science fiction writer Neal Stephenson in his book The Diamond Age, published in 1995. Anglophone has been used to describe people since 1900, and to describe places since 1965 (in Punch). Dbfirs 23:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I remember Nixon's resignation and the last moon-shot, and I cannot remember when I did not remember "Anglosphere" to mean anything but USA, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand--and maybe India, Hong Kong, Singapore and other former British colonies dominated by British culture at the highest levels. But this notion that we can DEFINE things, when concepts are merely mental tools, defined within a certain context, bewitches, bewilders, and bebothers me. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for help, effort and input! I think I will go with the term for now and try to get a good reference for what I'm trying to say with it.

Thanks --134.61.101.41 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: If anyone is interested: I found a German word, that is more frequently used here to describe these countries (minus Ireland). It's (literal) translation would be something like "anglo-saxon-coutries" or closer "anglo-saxon cultural sphere" --134.61.101.41 (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No wonner you mean to keep the word secret. I Heer nussink, I zee nussink, I know nussink! μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The French use "Les Anglo-Saxons" for English speaking countries, this article from Le Figaro is uses the term as an umbrella for "Journaux britanniques, américains et même australiens" ("British, American and also Australian newspapers"). In the UK however, aside from meaning the English people that were here before the Norman Conquest, it is sometimes used to distinguish that section of the British population which is not part of the "Celtic fringe". Alansplodge (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same is in Russian. There are a noun and an adjective for Anglo-Saxons and several set combinations such as the "Anglo-Saxon countries" (what the OP means, Ireland may be included, but the former British colonies in Africa, Asia and the West Indies are not), the "Anglo-Saxon law (system)" (that is Common Law), the "Anglo-Saxon culture", the "Anglo-Saxon mentality" and so on. However, the noun for Anglo-Saxons (anglo-saksy, pl.) when applied to the contemporary people may have some deprecative political connotations. But in Russian you usually do not call a contemporary person from those countries in the singular form (anglo-saks). But in most instances the Russian words for "Anglo-Saxons" are applied to the ancient people. That is this ambiguous usage is very similar to the English, where Anglo-Saxons are the ancient people in the first place, but sometimes it may mean something or someone that descends from England or Britain, especially in set phrases such as "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Chinese the identical term "Anglo-Saxon cultural sphere" is used pretty much to mean what in English might be called the "Anglosphere". Whether it is a translation from the German, I don't know. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]