Language desk
< May 16	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 18 >

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 17

incredible

does this word ever mean "not credible"?68.151.25.115 (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's where it came from, as with "unbelievable" which is essentially the same word.[1] Nowadays they're both used very often as slang terms for "extraordinary". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I consider both of those to be "weasel words" and should be avoided in Wikipedia articles. I'm undecided on extraordinary. Context I guess.196.213.35.146 (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, while there are shades of difference between "incredible" and "unbelievable" they are basically synonyms, and have etymologies which indicate it as well, "cred-" being a root that roughly beans "belief", compare words like "credibility" and "credulity" and "credulous" etymonline has information on the origins of the word. --Jayron 32 12:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One time I can think of it being used correctly was Jack Buck in calling Kirk Gibson's home run in Game 1 of the 1988 World Series: He said "Unbelievable!" and then immediately followed up with "I don't believe what I just saw!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He is still using it to mean extraordinary. He doesn't literally believe that somehow a fictional event has been displayed in an attempt to trick him. Contrast with the statement that "Trumps claim that 5 million votes were cast illegally for Hillary is incredible/unbelievable". StuRat (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly he's still being metaphorical. But the context of this situation was very, very extraordinary: Gibson hobbling around the bases on two bad knees, after he had somehow muscled the ball into the seats, off the seemingly unbeatable Eckersly. Here are parts of three calls:[2] And because of the over-hype around those words, I wouldn't call Trump's claims "incredible" or "unbelievable" because those words aren't strong enough nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that last bit. I wish reporters would outright say that Trump lied, when it's absolutely clear that he did. Instead they feel the need to soften it by saying something like "Trump made an unsupported claim that there were 5 million fraudulent votes". StuRat (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Columnists might say that, but journalists are supposed to be more careful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lying implies intentional deceit; people who believe what they are saying themselves, or without regard for the truth one way or the other are not lying, since lying requires intent. If you actually believe it, or you don't care, you aren't lying, even if what you say is false. --Jayron 32 03:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, difficult to prove without direct evidence. It's true of many salesmen: They not only have to be willing to lie, they have to believe the lie - hence, in their own minds, they aren't actually lying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still, "unsupported claim" just isn't strong enough. The sun rose this morning in Detroit at 6:05 AM local time. I offer no evidence of this. I've just made an "unsupported claim". However, mine can be easily verified as true, while Trump's can be easily verified as false. So, Trump's claims should be called "false", at the very least. Then we should add something to indicate that anybody should know that it's false, so "absurd, false claim" might suffice. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the OED Online, "Not credible: that cannot be believed; beyond belief" is the first sense listed for "incredible"; since's it's a historical dictionary that means it's the oldest sense. The first example of use is from a book published between 1414 and 1420. And it was still a reasonably current sense when this part of the dictionary was written in 1900: they have an example from 1871, with Sir Leslie Stephen writing: "The small nucleus of fact round which so many incredible stories have gathered." Perhaps when this entry is updated for modern times they will add an annotation like "obsolete" or "now rare"; I can't say. (Of course they also list what they call the "weakened" sense that they define as: "Such as it is difficult to believe in the possibility of, or to realize; said esp. of a quantity, quality, number, etc., of a degree beyond what one would a priori have conceived as possible; inconceivable, exceedingly great." Their earliest example of this usage is from 1482 and in modern spelling it would read: "An inestimable and incredible sweetness of joyful comfort".) --76.71.6.254 (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I am an alt"

What does "alt" mean in the context of Curtis's comment? "I am an alt. These colors do not work for me. I backed the project without realizing that there would be no colors available for alts at this time. How long until black?" Urban Dictionary was no help. 173.18.56.232 (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Curtis? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person who made that comment, in the link I provided. I don't know anything more about Curtis than that. 173.18.56.232 (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather obviously a shortening of alternative. To judge by the stuff I'm finding online (such as this), the "alt" culture seems to be rather similar to the goth subculture, though I'm sure that there are fine distinctions to be made. Note that Curtis is disappointed that the garment isn't available in black. Deor (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Usually, in Internet jargon, "alt" means "alternate character" (or account). More commonly it's just short for alternative (like alternative lifestyle or culture). The former doesn't fit the context here, certainly. Since he apparently doesn't like the current pastel colors and wants black, maybe it does have to do with alt lifestyle/culture. But I can't find anything online to verify that. clpo13_(talk) 17:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subculture slang, especially youth subculture slang, like this is ephemeral and arcane, often intentionally so. People outside of the subculture are not supposed to understand the language, though context can sometimes give clues, in this case the use of "alt" probably means "alternative" in the sense of "not part of the mainstream"; what specifically it means is different is probably unknowable here beyond that, however. You can read more about this sort of language in articles at Wikipedia like Cant (language) and Argot. --Jayron 32 18:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that context? It seems clear: someone who likes to wear black. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Subaltern (postcolonialism), which may shed light on the meaning of alt. The article says, "...the term subaltern describes the lower classes and the social groups who are at the margins of a society...", and suggests that it may be an appropriate term "for somebody who's not getting a piece of the pie". Akld guy (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Spanish/Russian r and a French/German r, in the same language.

Are there [Indo-]European languages, [spoken in Europe, and] having both a Spanish/Russian r (whether [r] or [ɾ] ), and a French/German r (whether [ʁ] or [ɣ] ), as two distinct phonemes (disregarding: loanwords, and allophones of [x] or of [g] )? HOTmag (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kabardian_language#Consonants is the first place I looked; it has r and ʁ. You can include various other Caucasian languages and Maltese if you accept a voiceless fricative for the ʁ. Spanish has the flap, the trill, and the ɣ. It all depends on how strictly you want to define the Parisian arr. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not clarifying my question enough. I meant Indo-European languages, spoken in Europe. As for Spanish, I don't think it has [ɣ], as a phoneme. HOTmag (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See lago for [ɣ] in Spanish.--Wikimedes (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it an allophone of [g] ? (Thanks to your comment, I've just excluded also allophones of [g] ). HOTmag (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. It's a [ɡ] after a pause or a nasal and a [ɣ] elsewhere. European Portuguese, too, exhibits something similar. --Theurgist (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greek has /r/ and /ɣ/ as distinct phonemes. Oh, and Irish too, I almost forgot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Irish. As for Greek, isn't its [ɣ] an allophone of [g] ? (Thanks to your comment, I've just excluded also allophones of [g] ). HOTmag (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it isn't. --Theurgist (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HotMAG -- I don't think that a simple velar [ɣ] would satisfy the definition of a standard French "r"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't say what you think I said. I said: "French/German r (whether [ʁ] or [ɣ] )". HOTmag (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian has /ɣ ~ ʁ/ (Armenian script: ղ), /r/ (ռ) and /ɾ/ (ր) as distinct phonemes and is an official minority language of many European countries.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 09:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it's official in Armenia itself. Often in various terms, such as geopolitics, culture, history, sports and Eurovision, Armenia is counted as a European nation, even though it's in Asia according to the most common purely geographical definition for the boundary between Europe and Asia. --Theurgist (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. HOTmag (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch, Luxembourgish, Icelandic. --Theurgist (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Dutch and Luxembourgish. As for Icelandic, isn't its [ɣ] an allophone of [x] ? HOTmag (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several dialects of Hebrew (Iraqi, Yemenite), reflecting different phonemes in Tiberian Hebrew. (Though [ɣ] is theoretically an allophone of [g] in Hebrew.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice that I asked about Indo-European languages, rather than about Semitic languages (for which Arabic is a better example than Hebrew, because Arabic has an [ɣ] as a distinct phoneme, besides [r] ). HOTmag (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is futile since you are not asking about actual sound appearances, which others have already provided, but about phonemes. Phonemicization is an abstraction. Different authors have different interpretations, the choice of a symbol is merely a tool for their works. You could also say that Spanish, Russian, French and German all have /r/ just like English writers use /r/ for the English R, which is definitely not a trill in most varieties. The Greek example illustrates the problem well. Of course, modern Greek's [ɣ] developed from ancient Greek /g/. So do we use still use the phonemic symbol /g/ because it's historical? Or has sound change altered the phonological system? The problem is that the sound [g] still exists in modern Greek, but you spell it γκ. So the most accepted interpretation today is to keep [ɣ] and [g] separate. In another case, a Spanish phonemicist had to justify the use of the phonemic symbol /ɡ/ because [ɣ] is way more common in connected speech. --88.67.125.45 (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Phonemicization is an abstraction " as you claim. On the contrary, I think phonemicization is a very practical matter. For example, [t] and [s] are distinct phonemes in English, because /ti:/ doesn't mean what /si:/ means. However, [t] and [ʔ] are not distinct phonemes in English, because /bʌtn/ means exactly what /bʌʔn/ means. HOTmag (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uses of the terms "Middle" and "Old English"

When was the linguistic distinction first recognized between Old and Middle English, and between Middle English and what we call modern English? When were the terms first used? 70.190.164.57 (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great English Vowel Shift. μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old English has been known about since the Cotton library was assembled. The "Reliques of Ancient English Poetry" apparently contain some Middle English. AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article titled History of English discusses the events and changes that shaped the three languages. --Jayron 32 02:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] But the question isn't asking about the history of English: it's asking about the historiography of English. When did people first conceive of dividing the history of the language into Old, Middle, and Modern English periods? I don't know the answer myself. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam_Webster has "Old English" first used in 1869 but "Middle English" from 1830.[3] Rmhermen (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which begs the question: what was Middle English considered to be "between" from 1830 - 1869? --Jayron 32 02:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly between "Anglo-Saxon" and "Modern English". The OED may have some earlier usage examples for "Old English". Rmhermen (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for historiography of English, then this book seems to be related. --Jayron 32 02:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not helpful to the IP; it's in Arizona, and all WorldCat records for all editions of it are in the UK or the European continent. If it were only across the US, I could recommend interlibrary loan, but I understand from my colleagues in the ILL department that due to factors such as shipping difficulties and lesser openness toward ILL on the part of European libraries, they don't even bother requesting ILL from non-American institutions. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting book that deals with at least part of the topic: The Making of Middle English, 1765–1910. The section "The Sense of a Middle" in the Introduction is particularly relevant. One sentence reads "In 1874, Henry Sweet cleared away all these fine distinctions ['Semi-Saxon' and the like] and asserted a simple model of Old, Middle, and Modern English", so that's one important benchmark. Deor (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Ngram for Middle English. See the Neogrammarians who split languages into pre- proto- old- middle- and modern- periods as part of historical linguistics. μηδείς (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]