Language desk
< July 18	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 20 >

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.

July 19

I've heard loads of Brits pronounce "Kentucky" with "took" rather than with "tuck".

I wonder, if that way of pronouncing the American state's name, is just a typical British mistake, or a British tradition of pronouncing "Kentucky". Umzu (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouncing a short "u" like the "oo" of "look" or "book" is not so unusual. "In Penny Lane, the barber shaves another coostomer…" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally associated with Northern English, so yes Lancashire, Yorkshire, Derbyshire, County Durham, etc. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain I heard Phil Liggett say a short-u word that way recently, and he seems to be from that same general area. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I wouldn't trust Phil, if I were you, since although he's from Bebington, he may have been contaminated with corks round his hat by now. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Umzu: See foot-strut split, which Northern English accents lack. It's worth noting that this pronunciation is considered to be strongly regional and non-standard, like the cockney pronunciation of face as fice [faɪs]. The standard British pronunciation of the stressed vowel in Kentucky is /ʌ/ (phonetically [ɐ] or [ʌ]), as elsewhere in the English-speaking world. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I speak both Northern English and something approaching RP, so I would say /kɛnˈtʌki/ to southerners, but maybe /kɛnˈtʊki/ to locals. The local pronunciation of book and look is, however, the much longer /uː/, though this pronunciation is dying out. I would never say /kɛnˈtuːki/ to anyone. Dbfirs 19:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbfirs: It's actually interesting that you won't find pretty much anyone (maybe apart from a tiny minority of speakers) from Scotland that would say /kɛnˈtʊki/ (or /kɛnˈtuki/, as they don't differentiate between /ʊ/ and /u/). There's actually a rather big gap on the map between Scotland and Welsh/Southern English dialects that do differentiate between /ʊ/ (or, in Scotland, /u/) and /ʌ/, with the Northern English dialects being that very gap. The lack of the trap-bath split is, as of 2019, probably universally accepted in the UK as being standard (with pronunciations like /bɑːθ/ being increasingly seen as southern regionalisms), but the lack of the foot-strut split is not. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the trap-bath split is the simplest way to identify a southerner here in the north of England. We use /ʊ/ rather than /u/, though they are very similar, but /uː/ is quite different and often pronounced something like [əuː]. Dbfirs 22:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, the split bath trap is the simplest way to identify a southerner here in the north of England." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Incredible! Don't Northern English speakers make a phonemic (hence phonetic) distinction, between (the vowels of) "took" and "tuck"? Umzu (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well "took" can be /tuːk/, but this distinction is dying out, so many northerners pronounce both as /tʊk/. I would make a distinction if I were speaking to a southerner with my attempt at RP. We do make distinctions between the vowels of words such as "law" and "lore" that southerners do not make. Dbfirs 22:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that "lore" ends with a rhotic r, or with a schwa after the /o:/ ? Umzu (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean the vowel itself. Lore is [lɔː] as in RP (or perhaps a fraction more open) but law is [lo̞ː]. I do sometimes colour the ɔː of lore, or even pronounce the r for emphasis, as in Scottish, but this is not what I meant. The same applies to similar words such as awe and ore. The local dialect version of "oh" also uses [o̞ː], but this is seldom heard these days. The vowels are still shifting here. Dbfirs 11:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I've never been aware of this Northern British back vowel - as an additional phoneme! In my American accent, the only difference between lore and law is reflected by whether the identical vowel is coloured by a rhotic r. Additionally, I do have five different phonemes of back vowels: cooed, could, cawed, cod, cud (not to mention phonemes of front vowels). Do Northern British English speakers make a distinction between all those five words? Umzu (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Umzu: Speakers of Northern England English differentiate between cooed, could, cawed and cod, with cud being the same as could. Speakers of Scottish English distinguish cooed, cawed and cud, with could being the same as cooed (still different from cud) and cod being the same as cawed. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, Northern England English speakers pronounce "a good luck " like "a good look "? I must admit that's quite interesting... How don't they get confused? Umzu (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Umzu: Either that or they pronounce "luck" as your "look" and "look" as your "Luke". AFAIK English /ʊ/ and /ʌ/ are largely in complementary distribution as they come from the same Middle English phoneme /u/. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since they distinguish "could" and "cooed" (per your testimony), so they probably (I guess) distinguish "look" and "Luke", don't they? Umzu (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the dialect. In Lancashire, traditionally, "look" and "Luke" are the same, pronounced with an /u:/, as in the standard pronunciation of "Luke"; but in Yorkshire "look" and "luck" are pronounced with the same vowel (the short, back vowel in "look" in Southern accents) and "Luke" is different with the long /u:/. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up: Northern England English speakers (like RP speakers and General American speakers) have five back vowels as phonemes: 1. "cooed", 2. "cawed", 3. "cod ", and 4. "cud " - pronounced /kʊd/ by Northern England English speakers (rather than /kʌd/ as pronounced by RP speakers and General American speakers), with "could " - being the same as "cooed " in Lancashire - and being the same as "cud " in Yorkshire. Additionally, they have a 5-th back vowel as a phoneme, reflected by the distinction between "law " and "lore ". However, This fifth phoneme is not recognized in RP, nor in General American, which have the back vowel of "could " as a 5-th phoneme. I think that's a good summary of the whole issue about "a fifth back vowel as a phoneme"... Umzu (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Umzu: That's mostly correct, except for the fact that I think that most (or at least many) words with RP/GA ~~/ʌ/~~ /ʊ/ take /ʊ/ in all Northern English accents, regardless of region ("could" /kʊd/ is probably one of them). The pronunciation of look etc. with /uː/ is regionally variable, confined to a limited set of words and may be recessive (so that speakers increasingly say /lʊk/). I don't know where you can find a list of words that can take /uː/ in (some) Northern English that have /ʊ/ in RP and GA, but you can compare the corresponding close back vowel in German. For instance, book (/bʊk/ in RP and GA, /buːk/ in some Northern English) is translated as Buch in German and has a long vowel: /buːx/, as does Swedish bok /buːk/. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you had wanted to write "except for the fact that I think that most (or at least many) words with RP/GA ~~/ʌ/~~ [/ʊ/] take /ʊ/ [also] in all Northern English accents, regardless of region (could /kʊd/ is probably one of them) ".

Otherwise, I can't understand your reservations about what I've written. You write: "except for the fact that I think that most (or at least many) words with RP/GA /ʌ/ take /ʊ/ in all Northern English accents, regardless of region (could /kʊd/ is probably one of them) ". Please notice that I have nowhere written that words with RP/GA /ʌ/ does not take /ʊ/ in some northern regions. Further, your example of "could" cannot be an example of a word with RP/GA /ʌ/. I have only written that "could " is pronounced the same as "cooed " in Lancashire - and the same as "cud " (i.e. /kʊd/) in Yorkshire. Umzu (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Umzu: Fixed, I did mean /ʊ/. Thanks. I still don't think "could" has a long vowel in any type of Northern English though. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My question: isn't it basically the case that words that have /ʊ/ in RP/GA which take /uː/ in some Nothern English are those spelled with "oo"? Wells seems to term this later shortening (from /uː/ to /ʊ/), as opposed to early shortening of /uː/ to /u/ (apparently in Middle English, judging by transcription), which has ultimately resulted in /ʌ/ in RP and GA. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to User:filelakeshoe's comment, "could " has /ʊ/ in RP/GA, and takes /uː/ in some Nothern English accent (e.g. in ~~Yorkshire~~ Lancashire), but still is not spelled with "oo". Umzu (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah thats not what I meant. I am pretty sure "could" has /ʊ/ everywhere, as Mr K says, but in Lancashire (not Yorkshire) some other words have /u:/ where other accents have /ʊ/, e.g. took, book, cook, look. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It's my mistake. I thought that "could" (pronounced /kʊd/ in RP and GA) is treated as "look" (pronounced /lʊk/ in RP and GA). Umzu (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the feverish Shrowsbury/Shroosbury debate largely ignored in our article on Shrewsbury, but nicely written up here --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with IPA and nobody's used the helpful device which explains the pronunciation when you mouseover, but a lot depends on whether or not "law" or "lore" is followed by a word beginning with a vowel. It's not clear to me whether that also affects the pronunciation of the vowel Dbfirs is discussing. 2A02:C7F:A05:DC00:90EB:8D18:146:2B9C (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, a following consonant or vowel does not affect the pronunciation. Awe has the vowel of thought ~~(/θɒt/)~~ whereas lore has the vowel of core. Dbfirs 13:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbfirs: What? Are you claiming that thought has the vowel of cot? Rather than the vowel of cought? Unless the variety of English you're talking about has the cought-cot merger, which I believe is not the case... Umzu (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Umzu: I don't think so. The two can contrast entirely by length in Northern England English and Welsh English: /kɒt/ vs. /kɒːt/ (much like modern RP "shed" /ʃɛd/ vs. "shared" /ʃɛːd/), but I don't think anyone merges them (further north, in Scotland, they usually do). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no merger. That's What I said I thought. But I'm still asking, whether User:Dbfirs actually claims, that thought has the vowel of cot (rather than the vowel of caught), in the variety of English they're talking about. Umzu (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was my mistake based on a misunderstanding of Wiktionary. I meant the Mid back rounded vowel however we represent that. Dbfirs 06:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbfirs: So what vowel sound would you use in "core"? The same as in "go"? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Open-mid back rounded vowel for core. The vowel in "go" is /oʊ/ if I'm speaking "properly", or the Mid back rounded vowel in the local accent (or pronounced "gan" in the local dialect). Dbfirs 18:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, it seems that your variety of English has only four back vowels as phonemes: 1. cooed, 2. cawed (having the same vowel as that of your law), 3. cod (having the same vowel as that of your lore), and 4. cud. It seems that no fifth back vowel exists in your variety as a phoneme. Am I right? If I am, then how about your lord? Is its vowel like that of your cawed and your law, or like that of your cod and your lore? Umzu (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been to Shropshire and I have never heard the name of its county town pronounced as anything other than "Shrowsbury". Until today, I was unaware that there was any other pronunciation. 2A02:C7F:A05:DC00:90EB:8D18:146:2B9C (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the beauty of the Ref Desks! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I used to work with a Shrewsbrarian (or maybe Shrewsburyite?) who said "Shroosbury" and claimed that only posh people in the town used "Shrowsbury"; but I'm sticking with the latter which I learned at school. Worth a visit by the way, everything is half-timbered, even the buses. Alansplodge (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, I think the demonym might be Salopian, at least if you went to Shrewsbury School (now that is posh). Alansplodge (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

/lu:k/ and /bu:k/ are not "Northern", they are North-Western! (Traditionally, Lancashire, but I'm not sure which of the traditional or current neighbouring counties they spread into). In Yorkshire, "book" and "buck" are both /bʊk/. --ColinFine (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sixty years ago, /lu:k/, /bu:k/, /hu:k/, cru:k/ and /nu:k/ would have been the usual pronunciation in this corner of what was then Yorkshire (but is now Cumbria). I think the RP pronunciation is taking over in all of the North West. One seldom hears the old vowel in these words used by younger people, but it is, of course, retained in words such as spook. Dbfirs 13:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irregular death in Serbo-Croat

Brian Aldiss, in his Bury My Heart at W. H. Smith's, writes that "Serbo-Croat has two words for dying, one referring to human death, one to animal death, although two animals are the exception to the rule. Bees and dolphins are irregular, and take the human form of the verb."

Aldiss did know a bit of Serbo-Croat, but this still seems too good to be true. Is it? Henry ^Flower 08:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the idea that umreti and its cognates in other Slavic languages should only be used to talk about humans, this may be a prescriptive rule but the actual usage tends to be a little shakier. The same rule exists in Czech (with the verb umřít) but people do quite commonly use that to talk about animals, especially their pets. Conversely, using any "animal death" word (e.g. chcípnout) to talk about humans is horribly insulting and offensive. So some distinction exists but it's not as clear cut as language purists make out. I suppose the same is the case in BCS, as I found plenty of usage of pas umro (= the dog died, using the "human death" verb) on a google search.

I asked a Serbian friend about dolphins and bees, and she told me she would use uginuti (that's the "animal death" verb) to talk about bees, but for dolphins either uginuti or umreti is possible. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Henry Flower and Filelakeshoe: Re cz:chcípnout see wikt:chcípnout.
Similar ru:wikt:подыхать, wikt:подохнуть, pl:wikt:zdychać, wikt:zdechnąć (etym. 'loose ones breath') neutral for most animals except (in pl) bees and pets, vulgar and offensive for people vs. neutral ru:wikt:умирать, wikt:умереть, pl:wikt:umierać, wikt:umrzeć. --CiaPan (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both -- for now I suppose I can classify it as half-true; I'm especially intrigued that bees may indeed have special status. Henry ^Flower 13:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Henry Flower: Here is a quote from a Hyde Park Corner at the readers' forum of a Hunting Daily:

Gdy zginie ostatnia pszczoła na kuli ziemskiej ludzkości zostanie tylko cztery lata życia. To powiedział Einstein. Pszczoła jest odpowiedzialna za zapylanie ogromnej ilości roślin na ziemi. Ok. 84 procent. Więc jeśli zabraknie pszczół to zabraknie jedzenia. Pszczoła zawsze była otaczana wielkim szacunkiem. Pszczelarz z szacunku do dziś nie mówią że pszczoła zdechła tylko umarła.
— http://dziennik.lowiecki.pl/forum.php?f=11&t=391203&numer=2404

My rough translation, with some help from Google Translate:

When the last bee dies, mankind dies in four years. So Einstein said. A bee is responsible for pollination of huge amount of plants – about 84 percent. So when there is no bees, there will be no food, either. A bee was always deeply respected, beekeepers never say a bee zdechła, only umarła.

Minor note: in Polish the noun 'pszczoła', a bee, is of feminine gender, so the two untranslated verbs are sing. fem. past.

This of course is not a scientific, lingustic source – but the same I've seen in many places, both in the Web recently and in books in older times, so that's how people commonly understand the difference bees make, and a reason why we use a 'human' verb for them. --CiaPan (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, an image has been recurring in social media in the recent couple of years that discusses the terms for dying in the Albanian language. See e.g. here. The text is:

[English] Die means to die. It also is the singular of dice.

[Albanian] "Vdes" means die, but is only used for humans, "ngordh" means to die and is used for animals, but it can also mean starve when used for humans, but you cannot use "ngordh" for bees or battle horses since they are respected animals, so you have to use "vdes" for those, but "vdes" in dialectal tosk also means to exhaust someone to death. There is also dialectal gheg "cof" which means die, but is only used for animals (bees not included again), but used to be for plants, but now "vyshkem" is for plants, that's why whe [text intentionally cut off in source]

--Theurgist (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English is not quite that simple, see Tap and die and Die (manufacturing). Alansplodge (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Croatian you have umrijeti for people and uginuti for animals. You might use umrijeti for some really dignified animal, like when some people talk about their pets, but that's informal and the more callous of us might roll our eyes later on. The hits you're getting for "pas umro" (dog died) are from social media and tabloids. It's also sometimes used for animals thought to be very intelligent like elephants, horses or dolphins, and I guess beekeepers say that for bees but that's all also somewhat informal. On the other side uginuti is just never used for people, it's not even an insult, just something no native speaker would say. There's also crknuti which used to be the normal verb for animal death but became derogatory, and you can use this for a human you despise. Specialized verbs like "drown" apply to all beings equally. Plants usually get these, you can say uginuti for a plant but it sounds kinda awkward.

It's a little like essen/fressen in German or food/feed in English. 93.136.57.171 (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Polish, as noted above, there's umrzeć (neutral for humans, dignified for animals) and zdechnąć (neutral for animals, offensive for humans), but there is also paść. Its literal meaning is "to fall", but it can be also used as a neutral verb for animal death (perhaps somewhat milder than zdechnąć, even though it's the etymon for padlina, "carrion") and (along with polec) for violent human death, especially in battle. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddling while Rome burned

According to tradition, Nero "fiddled while Rome burned". The main article says nothing about this, but in Talk:Great_Fire_of_Rome it is claimed that Similarly, most of our generation associate the Great Fire with the image of Nero merrily playing his fiddle as Rome burns, obviously inspired out of the ancient anecdote that Nero 'fiddled while rome burned'. In truth, this is an idiom. The musical instrument was invented many centuries later; to fiddle at that time merely meant to squander needlessly away the time in vain, as is still a popular use of the word today.. However, this itself is an anachronism - "fiddle" is an English word, not Latin, and the sense "to squander needlessly away the time in vain" comes from the instrument, not the other way around. So can anyone say where the myth of Nero playing the fiddle came from? Did ancient sources say he was playing some sort of instrument, which later tradition represented as a fiddle? Did ancient sources say he was wasting time, which later English writers rendered as "fiddling", resulting in confusion? Something else? Iapetus (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are close to the truth, although it may just be that he was perceived as wasting time rather than fighting the fire. Of course, with the fire fighting technology of the time (bucket brigades), there's not much they could do to stop a widespread fire. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the fire quotes Tacitus and Suetonius both saying that he was "singing and playing the lyre". That old talkpage draft about the idiomatic use of "fiddling" is nonsense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at translations of Tacitus and Suetonius, and Suetonius says that Nero started the fire by means of gangs of thugs armed with torches, and then put on his "tragedian's costume" and sang about the fall of Troy, while Tacitus says that some of those things were unverified rumors. Nero sometimes tried to play the lyre, but neither Tacitus and Suetonius mentions a lyre in the context of the fire, as far as I can see (just singing)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for this correction. Never trust a Wikipedia article. Who put those distorted summaries there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, fixit!

—2606:A000:1126:28D:90E5:ABEC:4279:A682 (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latin monumental inscription

Andrew Rutherfurd, Lord Rutherfurd and his wife Sophia had an unusual monument, designed by William Henry Playfair at Dean Cemetery in western Edinburgh. The inscription is this: Uxori desideratissimae contra votum superestes moerens posuit Andreas Rutherfurd, et sibi, MDCCCLII. Any Latin scholars care to enlighten us? (I managed the 1852 at the end.) Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article it means "Andrew Rutherfurd, surviving against his will, placed this tomb in mourning to his most beloved wife, and to himself, 1852". DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(pedantry alert) The inscription actually has "(...) superstes mœrens (...)". ---Sluzzelin talk 22:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(OCD alert) Who has the time to bother finding out how to type "œ" ? 2606:A000:1126:28D:90E5:ABEC:4279:A682 (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(point taken) My main reason to nitpick was "superestes" (not a Latin word) instead of "superstes", but I see that the typo is in the source Monuments and Monumental Inscriptions in Scotland. For comparison, here's a photo of the inscription. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]