Language desk
< October 31	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 2 >

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.

November 1

Usage of the word Amaranthine

Can you use the word 'Amaranthine' to describe a cycle or suffering? I know that amaranthine is an adjective to describe anything with the properties of the undying flower amaranth, so is 'amaranthine suffering' or 'amaranthine cycle' considered the right usage of the word amaranthine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HEROnymous (talk • contribs) 12:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OED gives, as one of its definitions of the word, "fadeless, immortal, undying", and one of its quotations talks about "amaranthine joys", so "amaranthine suffering" seems quite cromulent, always provided that you want to write in a very poetical, literary register. Perhaps "amaranthine cycle" as well, though it would be useful to have the context there so that we could know exactly what the writer wanted to convey. I'm assuming you've come across the phrase somewhere. --Antiquary (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've probably barely even encountered the word "amaranth" (much less "amaranthine") except in Jack Vance's To Live Forever (novel)...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a difference between linguistic immersion and living in another country for work?

When people say “linguistic immersion”, do they include people who don’t really intend to learn a language, but have to quickly to survive in that country and then use their own native tongues for communicating at home with relatives? Or is this term really referring to individuals who want to become “fluent but probably will never sound like a native” in another language? 140.254.222.45 (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See if Language immersion helps answer your questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think someone who moves to another country with a job, without knowing the language, and needing to learn it for their job, is more likely to learn through immersion. But bear in mind that moving to another country for work doesn't always necessitate learning the local language. Especially if your native language is, say, English.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fluent but will probably never sound like a native" – you can definitely reach near-native proficiency through immersion. People who move to another country while at school are quite likely to. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  20:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can become fluent in the language, but "sounding like a native" can be very challenging, unless you get voice training of some kind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio State, immersion has nothing to do with fluency or pronunciation, per se, but with the speed with which a learner will become conversant. It may have an effect on pronunciation and fluency. I lived with Mixtec language speaking Mestizos from Oaxaca state for six months in my early 20's. We conversed in Spanish (they used Mixtec as a secret code). I got to the point where I was dreaming in Spanish, and was even asked by a Mestizo I met who didn't know me personally where I was from in Oaxaca, so my accent was obviously quite passable. But my neighbor where I grew up emigrated from Germany to the US when she was 16, and she never lost her very heavy Tscherman accent.

So there is no clear-cut way to answer your question. You cannot say immersion will or will not produce fluency or perfect speech. BB is correct that voice training is often necessary, although it will depend on the learner's age and aptitude. I had already studied French and German and had been conversant in Spanish as a child (but had forgotten it consciously after the age of 4 when I was no longer exposed to it) and had taken linguistics, so I knew the relevant phonemic and allophonic parameters from reading a few references. For me immersion was excellent, but I was an unusual case. μηδείς (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is linguistic immersion schools in Europe, where you can converse for up 12 hours a day, in the language of your choice, with many different types of folk providing conversation in that language. Native speakers are employed to be available, used a round robin basis, to perfect conversation, fluency and pronunciation. You can become very fluent, very quickly. scope_creep (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very structured background, a school where trained interlocutors correct your pronunciation and grammar. That's quite different from simply being immersed by moving to a place where the target language is spoken (as Ohio State asked) and communicating with laymen not professionally employed to tutor you. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who's "Ohio State"? I thought the OP was an unregistered user. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address apparently belongs to Ohio State University. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This guy has been posting everything that occurs to him for many years, and I am not the first to notice his geolocation and modus operandi. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say it's the duty of a ref desk editor to identify the owner of an IP address, and address the poster as such? If someone wishes to post as an unregistered (= unidentified, anonymous) user, surely that is their right. "Modus operandi"? Are you accusing them of some improper behaviour? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being that your question was rhetorical, and I should not have answered it in good faith, Jack? Ohio State can speak for himself. You, Jack, have nothing to do with it, and I am not revealing anything unknown or not in the public record. Neither do I need you to prompt me to identify improper behavior--that's just projection on your part, at best. In the meantime, I have answered him accurately and in good faith. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not rhetorical. Wikipedia has no user named User:Ohio State, so to be referring to any user, whether registered or not, by such a name is inappropriate, and, I daresay, breaks WP:Civil. "You, Jack, have nothing to do with it" - that's rich coming from the self-appointed Policeperson of the Ref Desks, whose fingers are permanently sticky with multitudinous pie fillings, some sweet, some savoury, but almost all none of your actual business. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]