Language desk
< December 20	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 22 >

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.

December 21

Spanish b’s and p’s

Yesterday, I was listening to SpanishDict’s saber’s present subjunctive tense, and I notice that the p’s in sepamos and sepáis actually sound like b’s, but everything else in that tense sounds like p’s. So, a Spanish p will be pronounced like a b when it’s placed as a conjugated form of nosotros and maybe vosotros? 140.254.70.224 (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just from listening. According to this,[1] some forms of the verb (such as present subjunctive) are actually spelled with a "p". And according to the Real Academia site, it's really the other way around: the "p" in the Latin sapĕre slid into a "b" in some but not all of its forms. Note the genus and species Homo sapiens, where the second part comes from sapere.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just listened to the recordings myself and they are unmistakably [p]. What you are hearing is not a /b/ but an unaspirated /p/. The "p" in English is aspirated (except in words like "spin") but in Spanish it is not aspirated which is why you may not hear it as a "p" at first. The difference between /p/ and /b/ is one of voicing while the difference between Spanish /p/ and English /p/ is one of aspiration. A Spanish "b" in that position would not sound like an English "b" but would be an approximate or fricative, [β]. What you hear in those recordings is the proper way to pronounce "p" (i.e. voiceless and unaspirated) in Spanish. See Spanish phonology#Consonants.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 07:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the [previously] unsigned comment above [by WT] is correct. Because the Spanish /p/ is unaspirated, it often sounds like a b to monolingual native English speakers. The waitresses at a restaurant I frequented often offered to buy the busboys "bipsa" (pizza) because they misunderstood the initial consonant as the Mexican kitchen staff pronounced it, while the Mexicans had a hard time with "ts", and substituted "ps". μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up grammar question

WP:COMPETENCE and with "this must be a terrible misunderstanding of yours!" WP:AGF has been beaten to death

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm sorry for referring to this matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&oldid=815079757#%22This_is_not_something_[what_/_which_/_that]_I_would_say_[about]_I_am_proud_of%22_(once_more...) Does anybody know how to link that properly? yet again, but I'd like to finally clarify whether the following wording would be grammatical: "This is not something about which I would say [that] I'm proud of it". Akld guy has previously pointed out that the use of "about" implies indirect speech here. Thus, "that" can left out here, right?--Herfrid (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to how to link that, because wikitext uses square brackets [ and ] to delimit links (either wikilinks or URLs), you need to escape those characters where they would appear in the links. To do this, you replace them with the hexadecimal escapes %5b and %5d respectively. If you want to give a direct URL to an old version of the page, you also need to replace " with %22, as you did above. So https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&oldid=815079757#%22This_is_not_something_%5bwhat_/_which_/_that%5d_I_would_say_%5babout%5d_I_am_proud_of%22_(once_more...) is the URL.
But usually, rather than linking to a URL for the old version, you would wikilink to the archived version for the specific date. In this case you can just write WP:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 December 9#"This is not something %5bwhat / which / that%5d I would say %5babout%5d I am proud of" (once more...) and that will work. (Just to confuse things, when the link using escapes is displayed it will actually show with the square brackets; I used to use a pipe symbol to get it to display with the escapes.) --69.159.60.147 (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about indirect speech, but there may well be an indirect speech problem here. As a native speaker of English, I pointed out that the sentence is not grammatical. There are really only two ways to write it: "This is not something about which I would say that I'm proud." The that can be, and usually is, left out in informal spoken English. In written English, and in Wikipedia articles it should be present. The other acceptable version is: "This is not something about which I would say, "I'm proud of it"." That version turns it into a quote. Akld guy (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This" and "it" are presumably the same thing. Therefore, "it" is not needed. The clunky nature of the sentence is the action verb "say". Replacing that with what would be said would make it better, such as replacing "say" with "claim". The use of "about" and "that" are both spurious. Neither are necessary. With those changes, the sentence becomes: This is not something which I would claim I'm proud of. You are ending with "of", which can drive some pedantic people crazy, but your sentence is correct for normal speech. To completely correct the sentence, you simply reverse the two parts of the sentence to: I would not claim I'm proud of this. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alkd guy's point is fully correct and definitive. It was I who said you were combining direct and indirect speech in one pleonastic sentence by repeating the object twice, "this" and "it", as Alkd points out. (You were also conflating "to say" and "to say about" by implication. This is getting to the point where repeating the same question is disruptive. If you still can't grok the underlying problem you should probably just accept it from us on authority at this point. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis: "It was I who..." – Wouldn't one have to say "it was me who..."? "It was I who said you were combining direct and indirect speech in one pleonastic sentence" – Well, when I write "... about which I would say that I'm proud of it", why should that be a combination then, as you are claiming? In my opinion this is a perfectly normal indirect speech phrase, simply transforming Akld guy's proposed direct speech sentence "This is not something about which I would say, ‘I'm proud of it’". So please tell me why you claim this not to be correct English.--Herfrid (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Moreover, what if we follow Akld guy's advice and replace "say about" with "claim"? In this case we would have to write: "This is not something [which] I would claim [that] I'm proud of"? And this in turn would lead me to the conclusion that we actually cannot leave out the "of" after "proud" when re-replacing "claim" with "say about", as the idiom goes "[to be] proud of sth" (and of course not "[to be] proud sth"). Wouldn't anything else be somewhat illogical?--Herfrid (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better English would be "This is not something I'd claim to be proud of", or if you reckon a preposition is not something to end a sentence with, then "This is not something of which I would claim to be proud."----Ehrenkater (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Ehrenkater! But would you say that the previous wording is [grammatically] wrong or just less idiomatic? If you opt for the former, please give a rationale. Best--Herfrid (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This is not something about which I would say [that] I'm proud of it". As far as I can see, that doesn't break any grammatical rules; it is just unacceptably unwieldy.----Ehrenkater (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"about which" already points to the object, something, so there is no need to further indicate what is being pointed to by appending "of it". I doubt that we can ever satisfy Herfrid with sources on this, so if he/she refuses to accept the advice already given, I must assume that he/she is an argumentative troller or someone determined to mock the English language. Akld guy (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Akld guy, referring to your aforesaid insinuation I have to expressly object: This is not about mocking English or anything of that sort, but rather about understanding its grammar! I am German, so not a native speaker, and thus I'm only trying to get to the bottom of how the grammar works in this sentence. I hope I have been able to hereby dispel suspicions about any supposedly destructive intent of mine.--Herfrid (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, to hark back to the question what happens if we replace "claim" with "say about" again, we cannot let the "about" refer to "proud", as the latter goes exclusively with the preposition "of", right? In this case, we have to write: "This is not something about which I'd say [that] I'm proud of it" – as the reported version of Tevildo's direct speech proposal here. But please tell me if I've still misunderstood something here.--Herfrid (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody archive this please. OP is continuing to argue with μηδείς and me, despite being told immediately above his/her post what the correct situation is and the reason for it. OP was also told the situation in a now-archived section, but reposted the original question here and began again. @Herfrid:, ping me again and I'll begin a complaint process at WP:ANI for harassment. Akld guy (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I'm not arguing with anyone here – this must be a terrible misunderstanding of yours! I'm just trying to figure out why – from a strictly grammatical point of view – it should be incorrect to construct the sentence stated above, and, if I don't overlook anything, that still has not been clarified so far, in fact. And as Tevildo proposed a wording I tried to transform into an indirect speech sentence, I simply wanted to know why this has not been accepted as valid before – for personal reasons I could not answer then, for which I want to sincerely apologize.--Herfrid (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons of clarity: This was Tevildo's wording: "This is not something about which I would say: I am proud of it." And that is what I have simply turned into reported speech above. So where the heck is the mistake?--Herfrid (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your question has been answered: "about which" already points to the object, something, so there is no need to further indicate what is being pointed to by appending "of it". Because "of it" is a repetition of the pointing, it should be left out.

Postscript: Tevildo's version turned the latter part of the sentence into a quote, which required a restatement of the object.Akld guy (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herfrid, please. Your question has been answered. It's only grammatical to use both prepositions if the sentence contains direct speech. See Pleonasm, which I'm sure has already been linked several times in this discussion. Tevildo (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no more assuming good faith with insults to Akld and challenging the grammaticality of "It is I who...". The question's been asked and answered half a dozen times. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allons, enfants de la Patrie

La Marseillaise translates "Patrie" as "fatherland". My questions:

Is that a good translation, either by modern standards or at the time the song was written?

If it's "fatherland" why does it take a feminine definite article?

Thanks.

173.228.123.121 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the Italian cognate patria (which is also feminine), I think it's a fine translation.

As to why it's feminine, I'm not sure, but why shouldn't it be? The fatherland is a land, not a father. There's no reason "land" shouldn't be feminine. (Terra is feminine in Italian, Land is masculine (I think) in German; there's no consistent assignment.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patria is also the equivalent word in Spanish. The -ia suffix seems to denote a country or "land". In Latin, France is Francia, Italy is Italia and so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small note, "Land is masculine (I think) in German" is not correct. It is a... neuter noun(would it be called that in english? Never thought about the name for it in english, haha) or "Neutrum" in german, so "das Land". Also is like that for "das Vaterland", the fatherland or "das Mutterland", the motherland. 91.49.95.245 (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. I wasn't sure on that. I knew the plural was Länder and I thought that was a pluralization paradigm used for masculine nouns.

Yes, the correct term in English is "neuter". --Trovatore (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English doesn't have gender the way many European languages do. Fatherland is just fatherland. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, i just thought it looked weird without the "the", haha. But yeah, i guess i could have skipped it. Just bothered me visualy and did not see the harm in including it for consistency. 91.49.95.245 (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've lost me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, we would term that "a neuter noun" in English. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC) (von Milwaukee, Deutsche-Athen)[reply]

The only non-neuter nouns I'm aware of in English are those which refer to people and specify their sex. Actor vs. actress, for example (traditionally). Objects don't have any formal neuter that I can think of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the "the" infront of "the fatherland", for example, to keep it consistent to the german "das Vaterland" because it looked more visually pleasing to me that way. Even if i could have just said "fatherland". But whatever, it really is not important and does not change anything relating to the original point of "Land" not being masculine but a neuter noun in german. Sorry if i was, or even still am, being unclear. It is a bit late, haha. 91.49.95.245 (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I almost did say, "The fatherland is just the fatherland" - but didn't. Sorry. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patria is feminine in Latin and la campagne is also feminine in French. The fact that father is naturally masculine has nothing to do with grammatical gender; and we are talking about the land of the father, where "the land" la terre is also feminine. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason that it shouldn't be translated as "motherland"? I would think that the dominant cultural perception of (in this case the French) people might be as important as the linguistic root of the word, and as far as I know (being a mere Englishman) France habitually personifies its national spirit as female. Compare Great Britain, which is most often personified as the female Britannia (see first photo)*, where "Motherland" is greatly preferred over "Fatherland", though this might be a reaction to the habitual German preference for "Fatherland".

(* The alternative personification Albion is portrayed as male, but is less commonly evoked.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.173 (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do Brits really say "motherland"? I had always associated that term with Russians. To me as an American, "fatherland" sounds more natural, even though Columbia is also female.

I think maybe "fatherland" is not so much "land that is a father" as "land of my fathers". We don't say "my mothers" so much, or at all, really, except as a riff on "my fathers". --Trovatore (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a specific term in French for motherland, which is "mère-patrie". Patrie comes from "pater" which means father in Latin. And as Medeis stated very well, one should not confuse grammatical gender and biological gender. --Xuxl (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, British people have been saying motherland since 1595, and Carlyle used it in 1828 to refer to Scotland. People in the former colonies used to refer to Britain as the motherland, but I think this usage probably died with the Empire. I would have been happy to translate la Patrie as the motherland, but accept that La Marseillaise would probably have used "la mère patrie" if they had intended a female interpretation. Our own national anthem uses native land in a similar context. Dbfirs 15:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a British Empire/Commonwealth context, I believe I've heard Britain called the "mother country" more often than the "motherland". Still feminine, though. On other other hand, "home country" is another such expression and that's not feminine in form. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]