Language desk
< January 6	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 8 >

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.

January 7

Nambara, or Nanbara

I'm looking for a Japanese name. Is it spelled Nambara, or Nanbara? Benjamin (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese syllables can only end in a vowel, /N/ or, intervocalicly, with /Q/. The /N/ phoneme is normally "n", but may be spelt "m" when followed by a labial consonant. Hence the underlying na-n-ba-ra is pronuonced nambara and may be spelt that way, dependening on which system of Japanese transliteration is used. The /Q/ phoneme is not really relevant to the question, but it results in the doubling of a following consonant. It has no independent sound of its own. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, if two people have different spellings, they could still have the same name? Benjamin (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the name is spelt in the Roman alphabet, then there is no difference so far as the Japanese language is concerned, between the Roman transliterations nanbara and nambara. It's like the affectation "niggaz" for "niggers" in BAE. Even in standard English the final -s is pronounced as -z because it follows the voiced consonant r. So yes, two people named Nanbara and Nambara in two different documents could possibly be related. I do not speak Japanese myself, so someone may have more to add, but I am familiar with it enough to be confident in my remarks. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be reasonable to assume that the change happened upon coming to America, so if my great grandparents are Nanbara, then I might be related to someone named Nambara, but only distantly, ie, back in Japan? Benjamin (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's likely, yes: the legal spelling wouldn't have changed after naturalization. —Tamfang (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Kunrei-shiki transliteration of Japanese, which is pretty much an exact replacement of kana, and used to be officially promulgated by the government, the closing nasal is always written 'n', but may be realised as /n/, /m/ or /ŋ/ depending on the following sound. The Hepburn system, which has always been more common in everyday use, relaxes the correspondence with kana, and renders sounds more transparently to English readers, so the nasal appears as 'n' or 'm' depending on the following sound. So Hepburn 'Nambara' would be written 'Nanbara' in Kunrei-shiki. --ColinFine (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin, Nambara and Nanbara are exactly the same name. In Japanese, it is written 南原 in kanji, or なんばら in hiragana. The hiragana ん is an N, but it is pronounced more like an M when it comes before a labial consonant such as B. That is, it's easier to say NAMB than NANB, so some people like to write NAMBARA in English letters. But in Japanese, it is 南原 (or なんばら) —Stephen (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A barracks" (?)

"The film was shot in a single barracks of the US Marines." – Is it correct to use the indefinite singular article for the plural word "barracks" here?--Hubon (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Oxford Dictionary states, while it is a plural noun, it is often treated as singular. I believe that to most Americans "barrack" would sound odd. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend, thanks. Then, so far, the sentence would be correct?--Hubon (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptive grammarians would say "yes" (or maybe "yeah"). I'm not sure about the prescriptive bunch. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now, assuming the "prescriptive bunch" disagreed, what would then be the closest standard-language alternative to my sentence?--Hubon (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may mean that the film was shot in a barracks reserved for single men (or women), rather than a married or mixed barracks. The following construction would avoid that ambiguity: "The film was shot in a barracks of the US Marines reserved for single men." Akld guy (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main roads in Perth, Western Australia, is Barrack Street. I'm not aware of any complaints. 86.147.225.252 (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somebody will correct me if I'm talking bollocks, but that is perhaps an adjectival noun (?), so you can have a "barrack block", [1] a "barrack sergeant-major", [2] a "barrack-square", [3] a "barrack wall" [4] and a "barrack-room lawyer" [5], but the building itself is generally "a barracks". This forum thread has some discussion, Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EO says "barracks" is the "plural but usual" form, and can refer to a single building.[6][7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The soldiers left the barracks, went and played an innings of cricket, then relaxed in a nearby zoological gardens. All proper British English forms. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of you! So, to summarize, "a barracks" is perfectly fine, right?--Hubon (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]