Language desk
< July 27	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 29 >

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.

July 28

Foster homes, orphanages, poorhouses, workhouses, and almshouses

From my understanding, an orphanage is an organization that provides a shelter for orphans. It's like a homeless shelter, but for orphans. Workhouse/poorhouse just adds a child labor component to the orphanage, along with the fact that it hosts other people of different ages. And foster homes are private houses used for sheltering orphans. Almshouses are essentially homeless shelters. So, that means homeless shelters and almshouses are really the same thing? And orphanages are a special kind of homeless shelter, because they target the children age group? And foster homes are a privatized approach to providing organizational care for orphans? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the developed world, large orphanages are increasingly rare. A few still do exist, but have been largely replaced by foster care and group homes which are like smaller scale orphanages. The term almshouse, in the US atleast, sounds archaic and outdated, I would never use the term except in an historical context. I'm not sure what the situation is in other anglophone countries. Orphanages (and group homes and foster care) differ from homeless shelter in that they often provide additional services, and incur additional responsibilities, over the children they care for; they operate in loco parentis, which means that the instutition's employees (or the foster parents) have the same expectation of parental authority as any parent does; they have the right to restrict movement of the resident children, set reasonable limits on their activities, children have diminished expectation of privacy, cannot come and go as they please, etc. In a homeless shelter, while there may be restrictions placed on the residents there while they are using the facility, they are free to come and go as they please, and choose to not stay there if they wish. The children in a group home, orphanage, or foster care do not have those freedoms. --Jayron 32 14:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent answer, Jayron32. I'd just add that a homeless shelter is somewhere you go when you have nowhere else, but an almshouse can be very desirable: the Chelsea Hospital, Queen Elizabeth's College, Greenwich and Queen Elizabeth's Almshouses, Richmond would be examples in London. You might choose to live there in preference to staying with relatives. Also, foster homes are much more than private houses giving shelter. They are, or should be, a family! The old saw is that there's a huge difference between a house and a home; that is, between a building and a family. Matt's talk 16:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will still find many almshouses in the UK - though probably not many new ones. They were founded centuries ago as acts of charity, with either a donor or an organisation building small homes which were then made available (either free, or for a small rent) to elderly people in need of accommodation. The earliest ones often required the residents to pray for the soul of the benefactor who founded the almshouses. Some came with a warden, who would have some responsibility for helping the residents if needed. The modern equivalent would be the developments of flats or houses specifically for older people (retirement communities, sheltered housing, etc) which also tend to have some system to keep an eye on and support residents when needed. A poorhouse or workhouse (the name seems to depend on the location) were built to provide for the unemployed poor people who were fit enough to work: they were usually run by the whatever form of local government was in place, they provided food and accommodation, but people were expected to work hard in exchange. They were made fairly tough, as the aim was that people would want to move out and back into employment. Orphans would not usually be in a workhouse (though children might be there with their parents) - an orphanage was specifically for children without parents, and would aim to care for them, educate them, and prepare them for work (which historically started a lot younger than it does today). In some cases elderly and infirm people would be in the workhouse, because there would be nowhere else for them to go. The difference between almshouses and workhouses was about duration and status - an almshouse was your home, until you died, and was a very well-respected place to be living if you were poor and old; but the workhouse carried a real social stigma, and cut people off from wider society. A homeless shelter is about short term provision for those with nowhere else to live - so fairly close to a workhouse, but without the requirement to actually work. It is nothing at all like an orhanage or an almshouse, both of which provided long term accommodation - until death, or adulthood. Wymspen (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judeo-Arabic payment orders

Can you help me read these payment orders, from the Cairo Geniza exhibition?

What I could read myself is as follows:

ידפע ﭏשיך אבו אלכיר כיאר	yidfaʿ aššeyẖ abū-l-ẖeyr ẖiyār	Let sheikh Abū-l-H̱eyr H̱iyār pay
[למודלהא דאר ריחאן?] תלאתה	??? talāta	??? three
דנאניר [אב אתנא?]	danānīr ???	dinars ???

The bits [למודלהא?] and [אב אתנא?] repeat unchanged in each of these payment orders, while the bit after [למודלהא?] (name of the payee?) changes along with the payment amount: three dinars to [דאר אבו אלמכארם?], 1¼ dinars to [ען מזטכו?], three dinars to [דאר ריחאן?], five dinars to [ען שמע?]. Can you help me fill in the missing pieces? --82.24.249.51 (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being told that I speak with a Canadian accent

When I was in San Francisco a few years ago, I was once told that I have a Canadian accent. How does it sound different from the standard American accent? They both sound the same to my ears.Uncle dan is home (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing you are from a border state ? Parts of the US, such as the upper Great Plains, have aspects of the Canadian accent (or more broadly "manner of speaking", as there are also differences like saying "zed" instead of "zee" for the last letter of the alphabet). One big diff is that "out", "about", etc., sound like "owt" when Americans say it and "oot" (to American ears) when Canadians say it. According to this answer, Washington state also has an accent similar to Canada: [1]. StuRat (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadians never say "oot" and "aboot", if anything they say /ʌʊ/ before voiceless stops; it is Americans who mishear them and continue to insist on this false claim. Of all the English accents only Scots say "oot" and "aboot".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stu added a parenthetical "(to American ears)" to the claim, but to my American ears it doesn't sound at all like "oot". It sounds different from American "out", and it's not completely beyond the reach of understanding that you could remember it as "oot" after very occasional exposure. But I'm a bit surprised that, living in Detroit, he doesn't get south of the border down into Windsor often enough to recognize that it sounds quite different from "oot". --Trovatore (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do listen to Canadian radio daily, and it does sound like that, to me. Perhaps I should say "to this Detroiter's ears". (BTW, congrats on knowing that Windsor, Ontario is south of Detroit, southeast really, as most Americans and Canadians don't know that.) StuRat (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Vancouver in Canada.Uncle dan is home (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Canadian Shift. Based on your location, your interaction with Americans is probably mainly with those from Washington state, who have a similar accent. This may be why you are unaware of the differences with much of the rest of the US. StuRat (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've never heard anyone in my entire life pronounce 'out' as 'oot' and 'about' as 'aboot'Uncle dan is home (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I bet it doesn't sound like "owt", though, when you say it. StuRat (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I pronounce it as "owt" and everyone around around me pronounces it as "owt". But it's exaggerated according to the article's. Uncle dan is home (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That's a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of Canadian raising. Our article suggests that "about" becomes [əˈbəʊt], as distinguished from American [əˈbɐʊt]. To my ear, the Canadian version might even be close to [əˈbɔʊt], but you're quite right, it's nothing at all like [əˈbu:t].

In any case I don't think Canadian raising happens much in Western Canada; I could be wrong about that. The Canadian-shift article is likely more relevant to you. --Trovatore (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it's not pronounced that way in Western Canada, the OP may very well say "owt", like most in the US. StuRat (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do Canadian raising when it comes to the long 'I' followed by a silent consonant. But I also raise the long 'I' in the words 'spiral' and 'fire'. I don't it with the word 'wire'. It's not mentioned about raising the long 'I' sound when followed by the letter 'r'.Uncle dan is home (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As well as your alleged Canadian accent, there's also your strange syntax: "I have speak with a Canadian accent". Was that just a typo, or is that how you normally use the language in whatever your idiolect is? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a typo. I'm editing on my cellphone.Uncle dan is home (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you aren't going to complain about "article's" ? What kind of apostrophe Nazi are you ? :-) StuRat (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I am happy to report that I am no kind of apostrophe Nazi. I just get uppity when I see editors who lecture others on their language choices persist in their own errors against all advice. What's good for the gander seems not nearly good enough for the goose. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Additional question: How would words like ice, price, and rice be pronounced in standard American English? I was trying pronounce them without raising the vowel, and I had a real hard time doing it and ended up feeling slightly nauseous.Uncle dan is home (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In General American, the vowel represented by "i" in each of those words is very similar to the Canadian version, see Canadian raising where it notes "Raising of just /aɪ/ is found throughout the United States, and so may be considered an increasingly common General American characteristic, with the only major exception in the U.S. being in the South." In many dialects of Southern American English, diphthongs such as /aɪ/ are often realized as monophthongs, (see Monophthongization), in this case as /äː/; so that "ice" sounds similar to "ahss". --Jayron 32 04:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]