Language desk
< January 3	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	Current desk >

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 4

"Gonna"

I am going to go to the movies. Do you want to come? (way too formal and unnatural)
I am gonna go to the movies. Wanna come? (typical colloquial English)
We're gonna to __________ for a whole four weeks. (some kind of dialect, what dialect is this?)

SSS (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 would normally be "I am going to the movies. Do you want to come? Akld guy (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Gonna" only ever means the future tense marker, and never the geographic one. That is, you can say "I'm gonna drive to Boston tomorrow" But you would never say "When I get up I'm gonna Boston" in the second sense, it is always "going to". In colloquial English, "going to" meaning "will be" may be pronounced "gonna" but "going to" meaning "traveling to" is pronounced "go-un-ta". --Jayron 32 03:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or slurred even more than that, but still with at least the hint of a "t" sound. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the 'eng' that gets replaced by a an 'n': going - > goin'. Per Jayron's comment, I have never heard "gonna" in the "travel to" sense. Matt Deres (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some US southerners use "gwine", as in "Pay attention or amma gwine wap you up side of yo hed." see [1]. Note that this is often assumed to be used mostly by poor rural black southerners, but I heard it mostly from poor Appalachian white folk, and I've heard it for both "travelling to" and "will". -Arch dude (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace "gwine" with "gone" (as in "goin'") and you've got another variant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "the" before a race or nationality

I am interested in what the grammatical differences are when a race or nationality is prefixed with the word "the". It seems to me that in general or positive statements it has little effect "Pakistanis make very nice curries" vs "The Pakistanis make very nice curries" whereas in negative statements it has an emphasising effect "Pakistanis damaged neighbourhood cars" vs "The Pakistanis damaged neighbourhood cars". Am I right in feeling that the first has more of a meaning "the people who damages the local cars happened to be Pakistani" where as the second means "the cars were damaged by people because they were Pakistanis" and looks at them more as an "out group"? -- Q Chris (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To my ears, the extent of effect the "the" has, doesn't depend on whether the context is positive or negative, but rather on the tense: In the Present Simple Tense - the "the" has no (or little) effect, as opposed to the Past Tense. HOTmag (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the definite article in such a context may indicate a distinction between the ethnic group as a whole, and a particular group of people of that ethnicity. Thus the phrase "Pakistanis make very nice curries" makes a general statement about Pakistani culture (or at least about Pakistani cooking), while "The Pakistanis make very nice curries" suggests a particular group of Pakistanis is being mentioned, perhaps in comparison to other particular groups of Indians, Bangladeshis or Nepalis. The use of the definite article suggests a finite group of people who would be a sub-set of the larger ethnic group as a whole. Wymspen (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This ambiguity raises the question, "Do cannibals think Pakistanis make very nice curries?" Or, "Do the cannibals think Pakistanis make very nice curries?" μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jokes. Matt Deres (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I see you're a Hindu. What can a Hindu?

Everything a Mexican.

I really don't believe you.

Do you want Tibet on it?

No. Can you make a Venician blind?

I've made several.

How much were you paid?

The same as my Greek friend who makes China.

Well, how much does a Grecian earn?

About the same as a Uruguay would spend on wining and dining a Portugal.

Hmmm, I wonder whether they would do it the Norway.

They do if they have a Tas mania and are Hungary for Turkey.

What do you normally wear?

In the Maine, I wear a Thai, and if it's Chile, I wear a New Jersey. © Akld guy (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beware excessive punning, lest a knife-wielding south Asian give you a Pun-jab. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does that Finnish the pun-fest? —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:D1A1:6412:B071:BD34 (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we're all Sikh of it. Akld guy (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Q_Chris -- during the 19th century there were a whole series of of mock-grandiose (but actually condescending) euphemisms for various ethnic groups, usually preceded by "the": "Celestials" for Chinese, "Romans" for Italians, "Sons of Erin" for Irish, "Semites" for Jews etc. etc. Not sure whether there could be any connection between that and what you asked about... AnonMoos (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're on the right track, AnonMoos. I don't know if there's a historical link as you suggest, but the use of the definite article in both can be seen as a way of distancing "the other". Matt Deres (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "the" plus the singular (despite referring to the entire ethnic group) was another way of looking down the nose: "The American Indian is ...", "The Australian aborigine is ...", "The Chinaman is ...". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. 2A00:23C0:7C00:B401:6D6A:7B2D:525E:9079 (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any consistency in the implication of the use of "the" in this manner. I can think of examples that are perjorative or condescending, and examples that are not. I can think of examples that imply you are referring to the whole of the ethnicity, and some that are referring to specific individuals. Overall, I don't think you can conclude anything about using "the". A similar thing that I do think is more generally perjorative is when "the" is coupled with the singular form of the noun ("The Hun", etc), although when I asked about that before it wasn't considered to be an inevitable implication. Iapetus (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese questions

First, 漢語 and 汉语 are the traditional and simplified characters for "Chinese language". I can see that 语 is a simpler version of 語, but are 汉 and 漢 really the same character? They have the same left-side element (is that a radical?) with three little lines and a vertical line, but the rest looks quite different; I wondered if one character were simply abolished and replaced with another.

Secondly, does the Chinese cultural zone (or any of its component language regions) have a tendency to indicate gender in names using phonetic elements, or is gender-based naming largely restricted to names' meanings and the doubled characters mentioned at Chinese given name? I may be using the wrong terms, so let me explain — many Spanish masculine names end with "o" and their feminine equivalents with "a" (one doesn't meet a woman named "Francisco", for example), so you can often identify a Spaniard's gender from his/her name even if you've never encountered that name before. Is the same true in some or all of the Chinese cultural-linguistic sphere? Nyttend backup (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend backup: This can get really complicated. Long story short, 汉 was introduced as the replacement of 漢 as part of the second group in Chinese Character Simplification Scheme. The official method of simplification is cited as "從俗，符號替代". The first part means to follow the popular characters (zh:俗字), and the second part refers to the replacement of the right side of the character with a symbol. This is one of the controversial methods in these simplification initiatives, as they are rather arbitrary, not based on cursive scripts like many other simplified characters. The answer to the second part of your question is, yes, gender-based naming is largely restricted to the names' meaning, as indicated in Chinese given name. Phonetic elements have little relevance here, since there's almost no way to find out the phonetics of a character based on the character alone (except on occasion, you may be able to guess by reading the radical). Alex Shih (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A similar question would be how would Korean parents assign a hanja name to the baby. IIRC, 李 is a Korean and Chinese family name. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@140.254.70.33: Korean hanja names are quite similar to their Japanese counterparts actually. In many cases, names are chosen first, and hanja/kanji names are assigned later, usually chosen from meaningful characters with the same/close phonetic sounds. Alex Shih (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, it’s a lot like an English-speaking parent who gives his daughter “Anne” and looks up the big book of Hanja/Kanji/Hanzi characters for meaning and similar sound. Then he chooses the 安 character. If the parent’s name is Da Vinci, he may assign a corresponding 达 character. So, the kid's name is 达•安. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. For instance, for foreigners active in Japan or Korea, they often choose their own names in Chinese characters (such as Debito Arudou). It's very similar. Alex Shih (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

German wagen in English

Hello, how would you say "Die sollen es nur wagen!" (meant as a threat uttered towards second parties but meant for third parties) in English?--Siebi (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Is "second parties" the right expression here?--Siebi (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean in English? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would mean something like "let them come if they dare"(plural) or "come if you dare"(singular). Like, as a taunt. "etwas zu wagen" translates to "to dare something" anyway 91.49.88.46 (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In what context? Warfare? Soccer matches? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a taunt. It can work with both warfare or football(sorry won't use the bad S-word) in context of an attack for example. You could probably also say "I dare them to... (do something)". Replace (do something) with whatever the topic is. Like if you play football and tell your friend about opponents "I dare them to attack" or whatever, "Die sollen es nur wagen anzugreifen" would be the closest translation of that probably. Both should work and be correct anyway. 91.49.88.46 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daring someone to launch a nuclear attack would fit, though it wouldn't be very smart. Your translation seems fitting in English. I'm wondering, though, in German, how you would say, "I dare them to attack my Volkswagen!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Die sollen es nur wagen meinen Volkswagen anzugreifen!" would be the answer to your question. Mind that the noun "der Wagen"(car or cart) has nothing to do with "das Wagnis"(risk) to which the "wagen" in the OPs question refers to. By the way you could also dare someone to do something defensive of course. For example "Die sollen es nur wagen in ihren Löchern zu sitzen", "i dare them to keep sitting in their holes". And probably some other things as well i can't think of right now. Overall the use of the english and german phrase is probably quite similar from what i can think of. The languages are not THAT different after all, but i am no linguist so feel free to laugh at me for the last statement if i deserve it, haha 91.49.88.46 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on the similarity between 'der Wagen - etwas zu wagen'. It is very easy to keep apart in german as one is a noun and hence always starts with a capital letter, like all nouns do in german. So it is very easy to see which one is meant totally regardless of the context. It is pronounced exactly the same as well if you care about that. "der Wagen"(car/cart) originates from "bewegen"(to move) as far as i could see after a quick search. The origin of "das Wagnis"(risk), of which "etwas zu wagen"(to risk/dare sth) originates, seems more complicated and loosely connected to "die Waage"(scale) by figurativly weighing an action with an uncertain result(something that may carry a risk). Probably way more than you asked for with the Volkswagen question but i was bored and looked it up for myself and thought i would share what i found, haha. Added some refs as well, although in german and from wikiprojects. So we will have to assume good faith with those i guess. 91.49.88.46 (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, 91.49.88.46, I was interested to see you begin a sentence above with "Mind that the noun . . . ."

In standard "English English" (which is of course a West Germanic language) one would most commonly phrase that as "Remember that the noun . . . ", but could alternatively say "Keep in mind that . . ." or "Bear in mind that . . . ." However, in Scots (a close sister language to English), "Mind that the noun . . ." is entirely regular, since "to mind" means "to remember" (while "to ken" means "to know": cf. german "kennen"). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.126.200 (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mind that this usage occurs not just in Scots, but also in Scottish English, and also in older forms of the English language in Northern England. Dbfirs 10:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have not actually thought about that, quite curious. Although i probably have just picked it up by being around some people from Scotland as well as some from northern England. I have a very odd mix of different varieties of english due to different circumstances, mix in german and it becomes a total mess, haha. Anyway, it is an interesting point i have not thought about at all, so cheers for that. 91.49.78.21 (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dbfirs is of course quite correct; I didn't initially want to plunge into the distinctions between Scots and Scots English, which are often spoken by the same persons depending on the register they want to employ, and between both of them and Northern England English, which form something of a Sprachraum: my Wearside grandparents occasionally used "mind" in this sense, and probably the same word was used in Yola (which did use "ken"). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.210.171 (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that you could freely translate this as "Well, then go ahead and wage it!" to an opposing army that is threatening war. Of course this would be a false friend, as wikt:wage (English verb) and wikt:wagen (German verb) are not cognates. μηδείς (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If the OP is looking for a less literal translation, a good one could be "Bring it on!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everybody for your comments so far! Or do I need to say "for their comments" here – due to the "everybody"?--Siebi (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's "your comments" no matter how many people comment... well as long as it is more than one comment(then it would be "your comment" of course). English is pretty easy with things like that compared to german. Less formal as well, no 'siezen' for example, haha. Just don't overthink things and watch TV series/movies with subtitles and the language will get a lot easier very fast ;) 91.49.78.21 (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the term "soccer" was coined by the British. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Soccer means Association football, in contradistinction to the other kind of football: rugger. --ColinFine (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stating the obvious there. The origin of that sort of slang was originaly the Rugby School, then was adopted by students of the Oxford University. The adding of -er after 'shortened' nouns was meant to be jocular. The rugger for rugby ColinFine mentioned is another example. Or brekker for breakfast, bonner for bonfire etc. I still find it horrible and rather not use a word some toffs thought sounded funny, haha. Where is the s-word used by the way? Australia, NZ as well as the US and i would assume Canada. Maybe a bit in Ireland... any other countries? 91.49.71.211 (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much found the answer in the football article. "...the word football is understood to refer to whichever form of football is the most popular in the regional context in which the word appears.". Which in turn means that countries with other codes being more popular than association football probably use the s-word. So South Africa and some pacific island nations as well i assume. Am i missing more? Or even, is there any non-anglophone country that uses that term? Not that i could think of any other code of football being more popular in the rest of the world. 91.49.71.211 (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]