< September 16	Language desk archive	September 18 >

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< August	September	October >

September 17

Question about crossing phonology and grammar

Is there a largely monosyllabic language which inflects its nouns and conjugates its verbs through mutations such as vowel-rounding, lentition, tongue-raising, etc.? Somewhat of a cross between volapuk, turkish, and irish gaelic, and chinese, perhaps? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"[C]onjugates its verbs through mutations such as vowel-rounding": So changing speak to spoke.
But lentition is not an English word.--Patchouli 04:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ikiroid meant to type lenition.---Sluzzelin 05:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of one. You could start with Morphological typology. In Indoeuropean languages modification of this sort are always secondary, derived from earlier affixes. It is true that ablaut is ascribed to the earliest stratum of IE, but the oldest forms we can reconstruct make heavy use of affixes. Semitic languages famously make great use of vowel-alternation, but again with heavy use of both prefixes and suffixes. The only other example I can think of of inflexion by internal change is in West african languages such as Fulani, where the initial consonant of both nouns and verbs changes in their grammatical paradigms. But again this is combined with affixation. None of these examples is monosyllabic either. ColinFine 11:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links Colin, I'm looking into them. I'm aware of the Arabic/Hebrew verb consonant "templates" etc. I've also heard about the Bantu languages which aggulantate (I can never spell that damn word) i.e. Swahili "Kitabu" "Vitabu" (ironically borrowed from the arabic "k-t-b" verb template). I was thinking more along the lines of Chinese monosyllabic words, but with structured mutation in phonology. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that's my point. I know of no examples of languages which use internal change without affixation, (or at least affixation in an earlier stage). Swahili uses affixes just as much as Indo-european, but it uses prefixes for nouns, whereas IE makes very little use of prefix s for inflexion. ColinFine 18:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think no, because such a language would shortly run out of syllables. – b_jonas 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British humor

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language includes a page of Heineken advertisements based around the slogan "Heineken refreshes the parts other beers can't reach." (Subsequent ads had variations on the theme, such as one with Ronald Reagan that had the word "faux-pas" in place of "parts.")

Two questions: What is the slogan "Heineken refreshes the parts other beers can't reach" supposed to mean, and why would people think it, or variations of it, is funny? -- Mwalcoff 00:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess many of the ads' jokes were visually based, and hard to interpret from a slogan only... 惑乱分からん 01:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ads werent that funny and the lager was truly awful crap! (IMO)--Light current 02:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The slogan could refer to the fact that Heineken has aggressively expanded its production and sales into other 'parts' of the world, such as eastern markets. At the same time, it could also refer to other 'parts' (body parts, private parts etc.). See double entendre for why this could be considered funny to the anglophone world. A third possible meaning could be found in an incident reported in the Risks Digest (They might have been Heineken bottles). ---Sluzzelin 02:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double entendre definitely. At least it was to my teenage mind. It was a long time ago but IIRC the situations varied and it was ostensibly to do with Heineken cheering you up or helping you perform some task better (so Ronald Reagan wouldnt get nervous and get his words muddled if he'd had a swig of Heineken beforehand) but I always understood it as "really" meaning "private parts". Other lagers also help you perform better mentally or physically but only Heineken works for sex. Jameswilson 03:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Reagan ad showed him with a zipper for a mouth. It might have run after he joked on the radio about bombing Russia. But even if you understand the background, "Heineken refreshes the faux-pas other beers can't reach" still isn't funny. -- Mwalcoff 03:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a pun on the Coca-Cola slogan, "The Pause that Refreshes". --Charlene.fic 18:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Heineken Uncertainty Principle: It's impossible both to consume a large quantity of alcohol and to accurately report that quantity when later questioned by a policeman, while looking for your pants. :-) StuRat 07:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sho shure bout that coonstable! %-$--88.109.225.62 19:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it wasn't originally meant to be funny, but later the visual gags and variations on the slogan relied on people knowing the original. Skittle 17:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats right - the variations were just being clever, showing how many terrible puns on "parts" they could make situations out of. Jameswilson 00:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher was slightly more inventive. In this speech, she said in reference to Lord Carrington: When I think of our much-travelled Foreign Secretary I am reminded of the advert, you know the one I mean, about "The peer that reaches those foreign parts that other peers cannot reach." JackofOz 02:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what was the literal, non-ironic meaning of "Heineken refreshes the parts other beers can't reach" supposed to be? -- Mwalcoff 00:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your guess is as good as mine (or anyone elses). 8-)--Light current 02:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be suggesting that it refreshes the whole body? In a boring literal sense? In the days of 'Guinness is good for you', that sort of thing sold product. Skittle 12:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, talk about British humour. When I was in the UK in 1992-93, Skol had an ad campaign that they were running on billboards, with a bunch of has-been B-list TV stars and pithy slogans. The funniest one (which was only up for a few days) featured Scotty from Star Trek, with the slogan: 'Skol. Easier to swallow than the Captain's log.' Anchoress 00:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and judging by his girth I doubt if Scotty ever refused to swallow much of anything. :-) StuRat 04:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The slogan was not meant to be literal, and also not ironic. The humourous aspect (which may not be everyone's kind of humour) is that it sounds great when you hear it but doesn't really mean anything once you start thinking about it. It is deliberate nonsense. But it was definitely a memorable slogan. I agree that the titillating potential of a double entendre interpretation will have played a role. --Lambiam ^Talk 03:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic technique

Peace has broken out.
Leslie is terribly articulate.
Let us make this room severely organized.

Is there is name for this?--Patchouli 04:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perceived oxymoron?---Sluzzelin 05:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Patchouli 05:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that answer was a random act of kindness. StuRat 07:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with you and your casual abrubtness? freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 07:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all out answers (well most of em) random acts of kindness?--Light current 00:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I try to balance out the kindness with an appropriate level of abuse. :-) StuRat 04:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed!--Light current 02:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

narratology

Hi, I'm looking for a quote I found somewhere in the Narratology section which I found very exciting and inspiring, but I lost it. It is a short (two line?) quote concerning story as a physical expression of sub-concious puzzle solving. Any ideas where I may find it?

Are you referring to our narratology article? Stuff gets added and deleted from articles all the time. Do you remember when you saw it? Go to that article, click the history tab, then click on the date around when you saw it. I looked at a few versions going back to last year but couldn't find it myself.--Shantavira 11:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations and punctuation

I stumbled into a little problem while I was writting my paper for english and i'm a little stumped here. It came when i was quoting a question that was asked to me and the quotation is part of a sentence. How do I properly punctuate that?
blah blah "Quotation here?." << (Period there)
blah blah "Quotation here?" . << (Period outside) --Agester 16:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first is definitely incorrect - your choices are:

"Quotation?" Next sentence
"Quotation?". Next sentence

I'd use the second, but I'd say it's personal preference. Apparently the second is standard British, while the first is standard American - see American_and_British_English_differences#Punctuation. Λυδ α cιτγ 17:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use the first. My rule of thumb (which may be wrong) is to punctuate as if the speech marks were absent (I'm Brtish btw). Rentwa 17:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O'd use the second (period outside the quotation marks). My reasoning: the dot is not part of the quotation, so shouldn't be inside the marks. I'm Dutch. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following is from a British style manual but reflects both BrE and AmE usage on the subject.

Oxford Style Manual (2003), 5.13.2 Relative placing with other punctuation (under 5.13 Quotation marks): Usually, only one mark of terminal punctuation is needed. When the quoted matter is a complete sentence or question, its terminal punctuation falls within the closing quotation mark, and is not duplicated by another mark outside the quotation mark.

'What is the use of a book', thought Alice, 'without pictures or conversations?'

But boldly I cried out, 'woe unto this city!' —Wayward ^Talk 03:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the oxford part. I think I rather use the british style (although i live in the U.S.) just because it sounds more clear; I think it prevents confusion too, in certain ways. --Agester 02:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So in the question: You dared to ask "Why?" the style rules prescribe that the readers have to guess that the whole sentence is a question (about a question) and not a statement of fact? May I ask "Why?"? --Lambiam ^Talk 04:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can write ' May I ask "Why?" ' or ' May I ask "Why"? ' according to the Rentwa style manual. The capitals confuse matters further, though, and your version looks crowded to me :) . Rentwa 13:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trick q?

I heard someone say that there were three words in English that had 'shun' sound and were spelt like 'fashion', but I can only think of 'cushion'. Is there a third, or was it a trick? Rentwa 17:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tension, Pension, Lesion, Mission, Option, Question, Ration, Station, Vocation, for starters.--Light current 18:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light current, I suggest you read the question before answering it. Rentwa: Google is your friend. The first hit I get for 'shion' is http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/shion. ColinFine 18:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THey are spelt like fashion-- they have an ion on the end. 8-) You post was ambiguous, but I now see that you mean 'shion' on the end! 8-(--Light current 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the old "gry" trick question. Read the question carefully. Does it mention in one separate sentence: "There are three words in the English language"? Do the rest of the sentences seem like independent statements? If so, the answer is probably that the three words in "The English Language" are the following: 1)The, 2)English, and 3)Language. "The English Language". Get it? I know it's dumb and you probably got a badly worded version of it, but that seems like the most likely answer...except I've never heard of it using the "shun" term. Loomis 18:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys :) . Rentwa 18:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my word processor gives pincushion. The OED also gives disfashion, encushion, misfashion, prefashion, refashion, unfashion, and hushion (which is a stocking without a foot).--Shantavira 18:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And with recushion and seatcushion that makes more than three! — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gwabegar

Where does the name gwabegar come from? As in Gwabegar New South Wales. Regards, Monica

Given its location, it's probably from the Gamilaraay language. Don't know what it might mean though. --Ptcamn 04:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]