Language desk
< January 5	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 6

Ohium

Do speakers of contemporary Latin pronounce Ohium as 'Okium' similar to the way 'mihi' is pronounced 'miki' ? Thanks Duomillia (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciation [miki] is presumably over-compensation on the part of native speakers of languages which lack an [h] sound (including the majority of the Romance languages); I'm not sure I'd call it a "contemporary Latin" norm.

The name of the letter "h" was changed from [he] in Classical Latin to [aka] in late Vulgar Latin by a similar process of trying to pronounce the [h] sound as emphatically as possible as it was disappearing from the language... (The modern English letter name "aitch" or [eɪtʃ] derives from [aka] through French by fairly regular sound changes, since [k] before original [a] often became [tʃ] in medieval French, [ʃ] in modern French.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This assumes that there is a single way of pronouncing contemporary Latin. I recall my former Latin teacher telling us about attending a European conference about teaching Latin. Everyone there spoke in Latin: he couldn't understand half of them because their pronunciation was so influenced by the own native languages. Latin spoken by an English speaker may be very different to that spoken by an Italian or a German. Wymspen (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wymspen -- there have been several reforms of Latin pronunciation. There was the Carolingian "Alcuin" reform around 800 A.D., the Erasmian reform around 1500 A.D. (though Erasmus was actually more concerned with Greek pronunciation than Latin), and a late 19th century British reform to cancel out the effects of the English Great Vowel Shift since 1500. Today the main multinational traditions are Roman Catholic ecclesiastical pronunciation (used at the Vatican and in forms of traditional Catholic worship) and scholarly pronunciations which attempt to broadly use the basics of ancient Classical Latin pronunciation (but without attempting to closely imitate all the complexities and contextual variants found in "Vox Latina" etc). However, there are still national variants. If ecclesiastical pronunciation is based very closely on Italian (which sometimes happens, but probably shouldn't be considered the best form of ecclesiastical pronunciation), then [h] would be absent. I once talked with someone who studied Latin in France, and she said that her teachers included very little or nothing in their pronunciation of Latin which wasn't also present in the phonology of the French language (so words were always pronounced stressed on their last syllable, in conformity with French habits of slightly stressing the syllable which contains the last non-schwa vowel in a word or phrase, etc.) AnonMoos (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese and McMuffin Christ! If it's good enough for Russian Limbaugh, it's good enough for me. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never ever heard the /miki/ pronunciation. But if some people use it, I would expect them to use the same consonant in Ohium. Why on earth did whoever latinised it make it second declension? I would automatically assume Ohio, Ohionis, 3rd declension. --ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that part of the purpose of the [miki] pronunciation is to distinguish "mihi" from "mi". There would be no similar "functional" pressure for Ohium. If you look at la:Formula:Civitates Civitatum Foederatarum, you'll see that several state names where there's no reason to tack on an "-a" ending are given an "-um" ending. The weirdest Latin state name is "Cenomannica"...

AnonMoos (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

/miki/ (or /mixi/) was common in medieval Latin, and was reflected in the common medieval spelling of the word, "michi". Adam Bishop (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East Asian names

I understand that in their homelands East Asian names are usually in the order "family name" then "give name." But if they have lived in the US for some time they may place the family name last. If a Chinese person has an American name first and an Asian name in last place, like "Bob Lee" I would address him as "Mr. Lee" But if both names are specifically Chinese or Japanese, are there any clues as to what are typical given names versus typical family name? Length, number of syllables, ending with a particular vowel or consonant? Is it rude to ask "Are you Mr "first name" or Mr "last name?" or to just go ahead and call them "Mr firstname" if they are East Asian? Edison (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally only, Chinese names often seem to have single-syllable family names and two-syllable (or more) given names. That doesn't work in Japan, where both can be multi-syllable. But if you're in America, they are likely to follow American naming conventions, publicly at least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may find answers in Chinese name, Japanese name and/or Korean name.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 07:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles do contain the answer. Basically, in Western printed materials, Westerners will usually write the name in the original form - family name first, given/personal name last. In writing a list of names, Westerners would write the family name first (regardless of ethnicity) and given/personal name last, separated by a comma. In speech, the given/personal name becomes the first name, and the family name becomes the last name. SSS (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese surnames are not usually used as given names since many have been historically used although common surnames like Husng would be found in given names. For the Chinese and to some extent Korean and Vietnamese, there are only a few hundred (sometime less) surnames. Also Chinese surnames can be multi-syllable (ex. Gongsun) and given name can be single syllable. Usually Chinese names are given surname first, so that is the best clue.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Edison: I think your question is more about general practice/etiquette when encountering a "East Asian" (not a good term/approach) in English-speaking countries. Everything will be highly dependent on their English ability. From personal experience, Chinese and Koreans in English-speaking countries with lower English skills may introduce themselves with their full names in the order of family name-given name. On these occasions, don't do any guess work, but just ask "how may I call you?" like you would with any other Americans. For Japanese people in English-speaking countries, regardless of English level, you can always expect them to introduce their full names in the English order (given name-family name) because it is one of the few things 6 years of required English classes in junior high/senior high have accomplished. Although it's uncommon for native Japanese speakers in America to take English names, you can almost always expect a Japanese person to ask you to call them by their given name in a English setting, so it's pretty straight forward. Alex Shih (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih -- the term "East Asian" is fine in the context of the East Asian cultural sphere. There's not much else that one could call it, except maybe the "zone of adoption and former adoption of Chinese characters"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex. When I did my research before asking this question, on another forum someone got all huffy when the questioner referred to "Asian" people using the family name first and the huffyperson named several "Asian" countries to the west of China where the European name order was used, and scolded the questioner for not saying "East Asian" to refer to China, Japan and several neighboring countries. Sometimes it is simply not possible to be politically correct enough to avoid the "not a good term" huffystorm. I just want to know if there are reliable sources as to how Chinese and Japanese (and nearby countries which use "Family name" "Given name") people would prefer Americans to address them when we are presented the name "Yu Wu" or some such on a document. A:" Thank you Mr Yu," B: 'Should I call you Mr. Yu or Mr Wu?" C: "Thank you Mr. Wu," D:Never use either name unless invited to, for fear of offending them. Edison (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edison -- Lin Yutang found it strange when people in the United States in the 1930s came up to him and addressed him as "Mr. Yutang", but I seem to remember that he was more amused than offended. A European convention is to capitalize the letters of the surname, which avoids confusion with Hungarian names, maternal surnames in Spanish and Portuguese, and so on (and also works with East Asian names), but this would not be understood in the United States... AnonMoos (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edison -- Sometimes, Westerners will address each other as "Mr. Robert E. Lee" or "Mr. Lee". In elementary school, unmarried female teachers may be addressed by "Miss", followed by her personal name. SSS (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When in Rome. μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Tangential comment] A common habit in Britain (not sure about the US) at which I get alternately irritated and amused is to maintain the Chinese order for names, but stress them as though they were in the Western order. So you hear "Eyeway WAY" for Ai Weiwei and "Sheejin PING" for Xi Jinping. I try to remember to stress them as "Ai WEIwei" and "Shi JINping". --ColinFine (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has more to do with the way we tend to intuitively (mis)pronounce East Asian words with the accent on latter syllables, e.g. I would pronounce it WeiWEI and JinPING when standalone as well. Compare Japanese waTAshi, TaNAka, SoiCHIro.

Also, since all three syllables are accented in both names you mention, stressing the middle one will probably be farther off from the original pronunciation than stressing the first or the last. 93.136.29.199 (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone with a Chinese name living in a Western country, I'd prefer to use "family name" "given name" order but in most contexts trying to do so is just too difficult. Since my name uses the typical Malaysian system and so my given name is written as two words with space and no hypen, it's already a lot of effort trying to convince people not to call me by my generation name only, so even with that I've sometimes taken to spelling it as one word. I wouldn't say it's offensive but it does get boring. But definitely in most contexts someone who actually asks is likely to be less annoying than someone who assumes. As mentioned by others, with many Chinese names with experience you can probably tell by the name which is the surname, even if they only have a single syllable given name. BTW you shouldn't assume someone always wants to be called Mr "Family Name". Malay names for example are highly influence by Arabic custom and so the closests thing to a family name is the patronym and is what would normally be written under the family name field of any form. But even some of those who've lived in the West for a while would still prefer not to be called Mr "Patronym". Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Predicative adjective?

Hello again! In a recent edit summary of mine, I wrote "removed unnecessary illustration (also to be considered as a means against a glorification inappropriate here)". Question: Is this postpositive use of "inappropriate" correct (due to the "here", as I guess it would be wrong to write "a here inappropriate glorification"), and can it be called a predicative? (In the linked article, I didn't find any corresponding example, though I am quite sure about that in my sentence, "inappropriate" is not an attributive adjective, as they always go before the antecedent, don't they?)--Siebi (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion itself was inappropriate. It's something you should discuss on the template talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically you are correct, but I think Bugs is right; there's no glorification going on. The illustration is fine. Matt Deres (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for your opinions. (

Note: In case you're still interested, I've started a new thread on the talk page.) Now, as for the linguistic part, is "inappropriate" a predicative here, in fact?--Siebi (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Probably more or less the same question: Is it "a maybe interesting aspect" or "an aspect maybe interesting"? I'm actually confused right now…!--Siebi (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context is required to make this construction work. "An aspect maybe interesting" without context sounds like "An aspect may be interesting", which is a different concept and now involves a verb. Normally it would be "A maybe interesting aspect", but if there were a qualifying text, such as "for this event", then you can say "An aspect maybe interesting for this event" (which is understood as "An aspect that is maybe interesting for this event"), but you can also get away with "A maybe interesting aspect for this event". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: Thanks a lot!--Siebi (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]