Language desk
< September 21	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 23 >

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.

September 22

How distant do languages have to be to be considered bi, tri or multilingual?

Suppose a woman from, say, Jiangsu province in China. She marries a man from Wuhan and has a kid. She then invites her own widowed mother to take care of the child. As a result, the child speaks Jiangsu and standard Mandarin (parents use Mandarin as lingua franca). Then, the kid goes to school. At school, the kid probably learns standard Mandarin, but on the playground, the kid learns to speak Wuhan. Also in school, the kid may learn English as a foreign language. Would that be two, three, or four languages? Is the kid bilingual at birth (two varieties of Chinese) or bilingual in third grade (Chinese and English)? If a person speaks Latin American Spanish and Spain Spanish, is that bilingual, or is it only bilingual if that person learns a very different language, like English or German or French or Portuguese? What about Cockney speakers in England who can speak American English because of too much American TV? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These definitions are not infinitely precise in the way you want them to be. A language is not a countable object, like a ball. I can have two balls, because balls are discrete things. The things we call "languages" are not discrete things. They exist on a continuum, they evolve, they intermingle, etc. The language spoken today in one place is an artifact of that day and place. It will never exist again, not really, and it has never existed before, and its in finding this change that you can get lost in the study. Simply put, the edges between languages are far too fuzzy to answer your question in any meaningful way. A concept like "linguistic distance" is NOT quantifiable, and as such, it cannot be used to make comparisons with. At very broad strokes, we can make clear distinctions between languages that don't bump up against that fuzzy edge. Nahuatl, Mandarin Chinese and Icelandic are all sufficiently distant to be considered different languages, and a person speaking all three is clearly trilingual. But what of a person who speaks Received Pronunciation, Scots, and Patois? The question you ask attempts to erase these fuzzy edges, and replace them with bold, sharp lines. The real interesting stuff isn't there, however, if languages were balls, we could just point at them. "There, that's a ball". Nothing interesting. Where linguistics is interesting is in the fuzzy edges themselves, where definitions aren't easy, where things are messy, where we build our armies and navies. There's the intellectual wealth. So, no, your question cannot be meaningfully answered. But that's what makes linguistics a fascinating field. Were your question answerable, it would not be interesting. --Jayron 32 02:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In short, the inquiry is interesting, but unanswerable. I merely asked the question in relation to the perspective that bilingual people benefit from bilingualism. I wonder what is considered "bilingualism" then to obtain such a benefit. Is learning a new language required at all for monolingual native English speakers who really don't need to learn other people's languages because of English's status as the lingua franca. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an addendum on my diatribe there. If you really want to get as close to answering your question as you can (or at least get into where linguistics comes closest to the issues you're asking about) start at places like Abstand and ausbau languages. It's one model to attempt to answer the question. To (over)simplify it a bit, in the first example I gave, the Nahuatl, Chinese, and Icelandic one, those languages have an abstand relationship, they have bright lines that make them easy to distinguish from each other. The second set of 3 (Standard English, Scots, and Patois) have a more "ausbau" relationship, being evolutionarily related. Even then though, Kloss is using some rather broad, qualitative strokes to make comparisons here. He's not assigning numbers we can connect dots with and create bold lines. Just ways to understand what is going on inside the fuzzy edges, a language to speak about it with, rather than a mathematics to calculate with. Its a way to converse about linguistic distance, but it doesn't provide hard answers. --Jayron 32 03:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, each person decides for himself. If you can speak American English as well as Cockney, you can claim to be bilingual, if you choose. It is possible that a movie producer might be interested in an actor who is fluent in Texan and Cockney. At the same time, if a position in a company or school has a multiple-language requirement, it is up to the school or the employer to decide if your languages fulfill the requirement. Generally speaking, an American university almost certainly would not recognize your Texan and Cockney English as fulfilling a foreign-language requirement. —Stephen (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual intelligibility has some thoughts on the definition of what constitutes "a language". Spoken Chinese and written Chinese are "two different pairs of shoes", as we say over here. Do you understand what this expression means? I mean even if we use exactly the same language, there is no 100 percent match. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some companies claim that being bilingual is helpful. However, I think they are based on narrow studies on Spanish and English or more distant languages like English and Chinese. It would be interesting if the same thing applies on very similar languages. Then, that may serve as a hard indicator for distinguishing the "hardness" of a language and whether one truly has a bilingual brain. If there is a spectrum of benefits, then that may suggest one needs to set an arbitrary point, like in statistics, and make that the point at which one accepts a job candidate. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in our article on Linguistic distance and the references therein. See also [1] for a visualization of one of possible quantifications of linguistic distance, exactly the thing Jayron32 claimed to be impossible. --92.27.207.68 (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It's a good article; and a great alternate perspective. I will note that the earliest quantitative metric mentioned in that article is 2004; so certainly such notions are fairly recent innovations to linguistics. --Jayron 32 13:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what circumstances, does one use él, ella, or ello as it?

For masculine nouns, one should use él. For feminine nouns, ella. For neuter nouns, according to SpanishDict, ello. I think this is neuter subject pronouns while lo is for neuter object pronouns? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there are no neuter nouns in Spanish. Abstract ideas are considered neuter. The pronoun lo is not the object form of ello... lo means you, him, it (masculine).

Most of the time, "it" (as a subject pronoun or object of a preposition) is not used in Spanish: hace frío (it is cold). ¿Sabe bien? (Does it taste good?) It is possible to say "it" as a subject pronoun or object of a preposition in Spanish, but it's rare: ¿Me apoyo en el bastón? No, no te apoyes en él. (Do I lean on the staff? No, do not lean on it.)

Most of the time, él refers to an animate being, such as a man, an animal, or a bug, and means he, his, or him (very rarely is it used as an inanimate thing).

Ello is almost always used in the plural, ellos (they, them, theirs, masculine gender). The singular ello, being neuter, refers to an abstract idea because, as I mentioned, there are no neuter nouns in Spanish: José trató de localizarlos en cuanto tuvo fuerzas para ello. (José tried to find them as soon as he had the strength for it, where "ello" refers to the abstract idea of trying to find.) —Stephen (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How would William the Conqueror have pronounced “William”?

How would William the Conqueror have pronounced “William”? Would appreciate a reference. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say, reconstructing the phonology of past language is fiendishly hard, we do know a lot about the Norman language of the 11th century he would have spoken; written Norman looks something like modern French (much moreso than, say, the language of England at the same time does to the language of England today, c.f. Anglo-Saxon language to English language.), and modern French native speakers could probably read it with only a little difficulty. However, reconstructing what Norman of the middle 1100s would have sounded like is hard. The Wikipedia article mentions nothing of the phonology. We can presume some level of closeness to French, given that they are both langues d'oil. Wikipedia's article Phonological history of French gives some clues, perhaps if you take the modern French name Guillaume (given name) and work through some of the phonological changes listed there, you'd get something close to what it may have sounded like in the 11th century. --Jayron 32 17:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology section of William (given name) is pertinent. The Old Norman form is given as Williame, and the pronunciation seems to have been fairly similar as in modern English. It doesn't say whether the final e was spoken or not. --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "reconstructing what Norman of the middle 1100s would have sounded like is hard", Jayron, don't you mean it's impossible to do so with any certainty? "Hard" suggests achievability despite the difficulties. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For any given definition of "hard". There are unrecorded versions of English where we have a fairly reliable consensus on how they were spoken, for example, if the Great Vowel Shift is to be believed to be a real thing, we would need to know what English sounded like before such a shift. Such linguistic reconstructions are undertaken in scholarship all the time. Of course, we can't know with certainty in the same way we can know with certainty any dialect which has a known audio recording to check against. So no, no one alive today has ever heard 11th century Norman French. Still, some reliable inferences can be made as to what it likely sounded like. Not everything needs to be directly observed to be trusted, else science would be a paltry study indeed. I could also give my standard "perfect certainty is impossible" and refer you to solipsism, but surely you've seen me do that enough... --Jayron 32 01:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bayeux Tapestry, whose text is in Latin, usually presents his name as "WILLELM" or "WILLEM" or "WILGELM" or variations thereof, which might or might not be a clue.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all the insights. The French ref desk also came up with a reference (in English): [3] which, based on the Bayeux spellings mentioned by Baseball, considers it to have been pronounced with a second L before the final M, like WILL-YELM. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "dotard" by Kim Jong-Un

Was this a translation? What was the original Korean word he used if so? DTLHS (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen or heard the original, but the word Kim Jong-un used was probably 늙다리 (neukdari, dotard), possibly in the phrase 늙다리미치광이 (neukdarimichigwangi, loony old dotard). —Stephen (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this New York Times article, the word was indeed neukdari. Deor (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this topic is the subject of the currently most recent (2:16pm today 22 Sept) post 'Dotard' (by sinologist Victor Mair) on the linguistics blog Language Log. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.115.180 (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel cheated. Not just a lunatic, but an old lunatic. The BBC has glibly told all of us in UK he was just mentally deranged. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's worse - an old lunatic, or a young lunatic? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's having one of each that may be the problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think it's fair to call Trump old and mentally deranged. At 71, he's not particularly old, as far as world leaders and US President go. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so. I love a good game of Risk, don't you? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, but sometimes "the only winning move is not to play". StuRat (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The English word "dotard" is a synonym for "imbecile".[4] Hence the related word "dotage", which indicates senility and once meant any kind of mental illness.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. I feel much easier with imbecile, which can be just "moderate to severe intellectual disability, as well as a type of criminal." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC) p.s. has the Donald ever taken the test?[reply]

IQ tests are for losers! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily for dem dare redneck Southern folk, it seems Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: No, "dotard" is not a synonym for "imbecile". Etymonline gives the etymology (in this case the 14th-century meaning) which is not necessarily the current meaning. And dotage predates dotard, so there is no "hence"; both derive from dote, whose own meaning has since diverged from that of its children. jnestorius^(talk) 19:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed before that Korean translations often produce odd, outdated English words, like "hooliganism" (maybe still common in British English, but sounds quite odd in US English). I'm guessing that they are using old translation books. The North Koreans apparently had a similar problem translating between Korean and Japanese, so naturally kidnapped a dozen or so Japanese citizens to do the translation for them, or be killed. StuRat (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Communist regimes which have their own highly distinctive world views will also communicate in a highly idiosyncratic style of written English. The North Koreans can write strangely but so did the Soviets, the Cubans and the Maoist Chinese. I own a 40 year old Chinese written book in English about Mount Everest (Chomolungma) that is crammed full of propaganda speak. A Soviet book in my collection called "Whence the Threat to Peace?" is another example. The Cubans used to render "Nixon" with a swastika in place of the "x". The word "dotard" may not be common but it is perfectly legitimate and has been used by mainsteam English language sources from Shakespeare to the New York Times. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Cullen, I see that you are right about Nixon. And the Black Panthers used AmeriKKKa, it seems . Martinevans123 (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm not quarreling with the claim that dotard is a perfectly fine English word, but I think you can't deny that it's a little recherché. Was there really no blander word that would have translated the Korean just as well? I admit I've struggled to think of a synonym, and haven't really succeeded. But this particular choice makes Kim sound like a language scholar, which I doubt is the case. --Trovatore (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We still do have a bit of hooliganism here in the UK, but it's usually associated only with soccer fans. It's been largely replaced by the rather bland sounding anti-social behaviour. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the charge of "hooliganism" is sometimes a code for homosexual activities, which are widely illegal in Communist regimes, and being also usually private are difficult to disprove, and therefore a handy excuse for arresting dissidents. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.115.180 (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that arr and ell are in free variation (do not contrast) in Korean, I am not so sure that the thought process, humourous or subconscious, wasn't Donald > Donard > dotard. (The flap /ɾ/--that is, the "t" in American "dotard"--is also in free variation with /n/.)

The Atlantic regarding a threatened H-Bomb test quotes: Kim Jong Un [said] North Korea "will consider with seriousness exercising of a corresponding, highest level of hard-line countermeasure in history." He does not seem well-served by his interlocutors.

μηδείς (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more common way to get his meaning across would be to refer to Trump as senile. StuRat (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To show just how bad NK translations are, they once had a web site that referred to their own nation as "North Koran". I assume that total isolation has this result, as they don't get a chance to study other languages abroad, and instead resort to hand-copied translations from books, although the crazy liar with the bizarre haircut studied abroad himself (and this time, I don't mean Trump). StuRat (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you've got a medical source, there's no evidence Trump is senile or psychotic. The best you'll get from political commentators is a "loose cannon", Stu, and you really should not be accusing a WP:BLP of things that are defamation per se. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said I DON'T mean Trump, didn't I ? And I certainly wouldn't accuse Trump of being senile, as that would imply that he used to be more intelligent than he is now. I merely attempted to translate "dotard" into more modern, standard US English. Were I to list my own adjectives to describe The Donald, I should require a thesaurus and several hours.StuRat (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

It's not senility, for sure - he's been like this ever since he became a public figure, decades ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Kim Jong-Un called Trump a retard, and some western translator toned it down by using the obscure "dotard". Akld guy (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that even Kim Jong-Un would be so cruel to the mentally handicapped as to include Trump in their ranks. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]