Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 May 21

Language desk
< May 20	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 22 >

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.

May 21

Learning to write properly: how long does it take?

Considering the case of all those people who don't differenciate between "its" and "it's" or write sentences like "UR l8 " instead of "you are late": how long would it take until they can write at least at an acceptable level? 217.168.1.150 (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It would depend very much on a person's aptitude and motivation. With writing assignments and an instructor or tutor who can correct them, I would think that a motivated person with reasonably strong language skills and rudimentary literacy could learn to write his or her native language more or less correctly in a semester (four to five months) or so. Marco polo (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that I have the necessary skill to comprehend the difference between "its" and "it's" and use abbreviations of the form "UR l8" (i.e. use of the latter doesn't preclude basic grammatical knowledge). Beside which, if the UK government wanted to teach students grammar, they'd have to sacrifice some of the time currently wasted spent studying poetry. ----Seans Potato Business 06:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

First, the amount of time would depend to some degree on the age of the person attempting to learn. Second, the two examples given do not necessarily mean that the person does not know how to write better. Thomprod (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Weird Spanish Grammar

why is it that in the spanish vocabular the letter "J" sounds like an "h" and the letter "ll" makes the "y" sound? and why is it that cato is cat in spanish(obvious) and dog isn't dogo its perro. i would have thought that meant a pear or something. why is spanish language so complicated?

Well, as far as sounds of letters go, that's just how the language evolved. There's not really a reason except that. Furthermore, cat is gato not "cato". For your last question, English is much more complicated than Spanish. Spanish is much more phonetically correct. It also follows the rules more of the time than English and has far fewer irregular verbs. Cheers, Zrs 12 (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

English and Spanish are two different languages with different histories. A Spanish-speaking person could just as well ask why in English "J" sounds like a "Ch" in Spanish and why "pear" in English doesn't mean dog. The answer is that each language developed on its own. Some words in Latin began with the letter j (or its predecessor i). This sound was pronounced like the English consonant y as in yellow. This sound came to be pronounced something like an English h in Spanish and like the j in just in English, even though it was still spelled with a j in both languages. Neither language is weird, they just developed differently. Oddly enough, no one knows the origins of the English word dog or the Spanish word perro. But it is not surprising that two different languages would develop unrelated words for the same thing. Even within English, the British use the word petrol for the substance known in American English as gasoline. Neither is wrong, neither is weird; they just developed differently. Spanish is no more or less complicated than English or any other language. It will seem harder than your native language because you did not learn it as a child. Marco polo (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Spanish is no less complicated than English? How now? Zrs 12 (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Lonnie Ritter" in Little Big League: "Kids today are amazing. I played winter ball down in Venezuela—they had kids half his age, every one of them speaking Spanish. That's a hard language." Deor (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, both dog and perro are "mystery words of unknown origin." No one knows how the two languages wound up with oddball words for the common animal. In contrast, both cat and gato come from the Ancient Latin word catta, which is of African or Asian origin. Similar words were adopted by many European languages. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In broader terms, let's look at the question as to why some Spanish words sound like English words and some don't. Think of languages as being on like a family tree. Both Spanish and English are part of the Indo-European family of languages, which all may have descended from a single language spoken in Eastern Europe thousands of years ago. By about 3,000 years ago, Indo-European had divided into several languages or types of languages, including Proto-Germanic and Italic. Latin developed from Italic. During the Roman Empire, Latin spread to the parts of Europe occupied by the Romans, including Spain. Latin developed into the several Romance languages, including Spanish, French, Italian and Portuguese, which is why those languages are so similar. But the Romans never occupied most of Germany, so the Germanic languages remained widely spoken. Starting in the 5th century, Germanic-speakers took over what's now England. Their languages became Old English. In 1066, the Normans, who spoke a form of French, invaded Britain and became the dominant class. Many words of Latin origin were added to the English vocabulary. Some Romance words, like market, replaced their Old English counterparts, which is why the English and Spanish terms are so similar. Other Old English words, like mus, stuck around, in this case becoming mouse. That's why the word is so different from the Spanish one (ratón). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Main reasons why Spanish is easy:

1. Only five vowel sounds are used, ever : a (as in cat) - e (as in bet) - i (as in hit) - o (as in hot) - and u (as in put). The way a word is written is exactly the way it's pronounced (99.9% of the time) thanks to this (so no variations as in pear and heard etc.)
2. All (present tense) verbs end in either ar er or ir so they're easy to identify and use
3. These are the rules I came up with in three minutes so I'm sure there are other rules that make it even easier. Kreachure (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would you think "dog" in Spanish would be "dogo"? Did you originally think Spanish is English with "-o" after every noun? Your original message makes it look like you think English is easy and Spanish is difficult just because you grew up with English and speak it natively, but you had to pick up Spanish at a later age with no previous experience. As said, a Spanish person would think just the same about English. JIP | Talk 15:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To address your question about the relative complexity of English and Spanish, Zrs, it is kind of a maxim among linguists that all languages are about equally complex, but in different ways. Granted, the non-phonetic spellings of English give the written language an added and unnecessary complexity, but the two spoken languages are really similar in complexity. Some ways in which Spanish is more complex than English are gender, verb conjugations, formal and informal address, two different forms of the verbs "to be" and "to have", and so on. Marco polo (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Zrs_12 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cato? Dogo? This reminds me of a sketch by the Comic Strip Presents team, where these guys from England are in a restaurant in Spain, and one of them is repeatedly asking the bartender, "Where's the bog?". The bartender can't understand so he resorts to 'el bogo'. Classic!ChokinBako (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Musical Instrument in Japanese

I and a Japanese friend of mine where talking about musical instruments today, and he said his 5 year old daughter has the instrument I am trying to ask about in this post. I know exactly what it is, because I worked in a kindergarten in Japan for two years and all kids have one each. Neither of us could remember what the thing is called. It's a wind instrument, but looks like a small piano. You blow into it and change the note by pressing the keys. I called it 'air piano' because I remember a Japanese guy I used to know who had had a stroke saying in his English that he was trying to build himself a 'left-handed air piano' and at the time I had no idea what he was talking about. I thought he meant an actual piano that you blow into to get it to work. But, when I was at the kindergarten some years later I found there was such an instrument and a specific word for it in Japanese. Does anyone know? Also, what is the English for this (if any - I've never seen them in the UK)? I find 'air piano' sounds too much like 'air guitar'.--ChokinBako (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Was it a melodica? Reminds me of the recorder, which was handed out to every elementary school kid where I grew up. — jwillbur 03:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

YES! That's the one! That's what it was in Japanese, too! I KNEW it sounded like the word 'harmonica'. Thanks! I'll email him tomorrow! We spent ages trying to remember that! --ChokinBako (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is known as "kenban harmonica" (lit. "keyboard harmonica") in Japan. It is also commonly known as Pianica, by Tokai and Yamaha's brand name. Melodica is not a common name in Japan. --Kusunose 08:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, the thing is called "mellodion" in South Korea. --Kjoonlee 17:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remember it being called 'pianika' by the teachers, but he didn't understand that, so I was looking for another word for it, not sure whether I had remembered 'pianika' correctly. Thanks all!--ChokinBako (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Jaber Elbaneh, the al-Qaeda operative ...

This is the beginning of a news item in washingtonpost.com email dispatch of May 18, 2008. I'm wondering why the same Arabic article appears differently in the two nouns, Elbaneh and al-Qaeda. Any rule in English for that? --Omidinist (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No rule, just usage. Someone, possibly Elbaneh himself, transliterated his name like that first, and everyone else accepted it as the standard way of transliterating it. "al-Qaeda" has the more "proper" transliteration "al-", combined with "qaeda" which could be transliterated a number of different ways. It's not the only English spelling I've seen, but whatever the spelling the usual pronunciation in English is totally wrong (it would be al-Qaa`idat if it were up to me!). With Arabic we should keep in mind Lawrence of Arabia's opinion: "There are some 'scientific systems' of transliteration, helpful to people who know enough Arabic not to need helping, but a wash-out for the world. I spell my names anyhow, to show what rot the systems are." Adam Bishop (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, would you mind giving us an IPA transcription of al-Qaeda (the standard Arabic pronunciation, if there is such a thing)? Algebraist 12:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess /ælˈqɑːʕɪdə/ or /ɛlˈqɑːʕɪdə/ (I'm not really sure how to transcribe an ayin plus a short vowel, since I have so much trouble pronouncing it properly to begin with). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Algebraist 13:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistakenly copied the K out of the al-Qaeda article, it should be a q, phonetically. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Inspired by this question I looked at how Al-Qaeda is spelled on Wikipedia. Currently, at the least, the following spellings are in use in articles:

Al-Qaeda, Al Qaida, Al Qaeda, Al Quaeda, Al-Quaida, Al-Queda, Al qaeda, Al Quida, Al Quida, Al-Quida, Al Quida, Al Quada, Al-Quada, Al-Qa'ida, Al Quaida, Al-Qa'eda, Al-Qaida, Al-Qaida, Al Queda, Al-Quaeda, Al-Quaeda, Al queda

Redirects also exists for the following spellings:

El Qaida, El-Qaida, El-Qaeda, El Qaeda, El Quiada, El-Quiada, El-Kaida, El Kaida, Al-Kaida, Al Kaida, Al Kaeda, Al-Kaeda, El-Kaeda, El Kaeda, El Queda, El-Queda, Al-Qaïda, Al Qaïda, Alqaeda, Al Qæda, Al Qæda, Al Qa’ida, Al-Qa'idah, Al-Qa’ida, Qaeda, Al Qa'idah, Al Qaidah, Al-Qaidah, Äl-Qaida, Äl Qaida, Al-Qa'eda, Al- Qaeda, Al-qaida, Al qida, Alqaida, Al-Qaid, Al-Qaid, Al queada, Al-Qa'edah, Al Qaeeda, Al qada, Al-qida, Al-Qa‘ida, Al quada, Al-Qida, Al Qida, Al-qā‘idah, Al-Qaida Al-Jihad, Qaida Al-Jihad, Qaida al-Jihad, Qaeda al-Jihad, Qaeda Al-Jihad, Qa'edat Al-Jihad

Adam's suggested spelling is not among them; in fact, only one spelling uses a final t. Rmhermen (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the -t is usually silent...I would spell it that way so I know it's a ta' marbuta rather than an A or an H or something, but I know it's not useful for a general transcription. (When it is the first word, like in Qa'edat Al-Jihad, it would be pronounced.) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's only my opinion, but while a transcription like Adam's — mirroring the orthographical structure of the word in its original script — could be useful for those who already know Arabic, the normal purpose of a transcription is simply to provide a phonetic "translation" that makes the word pronounceable in the target language. In other words, spell it in such a way that someone, unfamiliar with the term, will pronounce it in a way that is reasonably similar to the original, given the phonetic rules of transcription's target language (English or whatever). If there are many spellings that make sense, picking one and sticking to it is a good idea. There's not really any "wrong" way. Paul Davidson (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that divergent varieties of Arabic are spoken over a very wide area; to call it a single language may be about as legitimate as calling Cantonese a "dialect". Naturally there are differences in pronunciation, leading to differences in transliteration. —Tamfang (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I am a seventh - grade student. I have been learning French for the past year. Our French teacher changed three times. This is confusing as each pronounced certain words differently. How do I pronounce "Il est trés intelligent?" Any other standard rules for pronunciation? Cyberina 11 11:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

''''UPDATE': Forgot to mention this, but I already know that 'J' is pronounced like S/Z, H is generally silent and a vowel has a different inflection when is has an accent. All I really want to ask is, are there any other sutle laws governing this issue? Merci beaucoup pour votre aide. Cyberina 11 11:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you know IPA (or something similar)? If you do, a good dictionary should help you with pronunciations; Wiktionary, for example, has pronunciations for all the words in your example sentence. Otherwise it'll be hard for us to help you with only text to work with, but if you tell us what your own accent is, it might make it easier to provide illustrations. My own French is too rusty to give general pronunciation tips, but note that j is not exactly s/z: it usually represents /ʒ/, the sound represented by the s in 'treasure', 'vision' and 'asia'. In French g often represents this sound too. Algebraist 12:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the difficult things about French for an English speaker is that French uses a lot of sounds that don't occur in English or that aren't used very often, like the s in treasure. Really, the best way to learn those sounds is from a speaker who has mastered them (for example, a native speaker of French). It isn't encouraging that your different French teachers did not have the same pronunciation. This suggests that at least two of them did not know the correct pronunciation. Listening to recordings like the ones on Wiktionary can help. Another tricky thing about French is all of the silent letters, typically at the ends of words, and the rules for when and when not to pronounce letters at the ends of words. Sometimes, a consonant that is usually silent, like the s in très, is actually pronounced when the next word in a phrase begins with a vowel. For example, très is usually pronounced something like "treh" in English. (Actually, the vowel is not quite the same as any English vowel.) However, in the phrase très intelligent, the s is pronounced like an English z to sound something like "treh zaN tel ee zhawN" (with the capital Ns representing nasal sounds rather than an English n and the zh representing the sound of the s in treasure). This process, where a silent vowel is pronounced before a vowel at the beginning of the next word, is called liaison. You can learn more about it at this website, where you should also take a look at the links under the heading "Learn more..." Marco polo (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So your phrase is pronounced something like "eel ay treh zaN tel ee zhawN" or il e trɛ zɛ~ te li ʒɑ~ in basic IPA (the tildes should appear above the vowels instead of after them, but my browser won't display them that way). Marco polo (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to write this way, I suggest that you transcribe as "ee-lay treh zaN-teh-lee-zhawN" so that the English does not insert glottal stops and velarize the (seemingly) syllable-final "L". Another suggestion may be to transcribe (s) intelligent with a "D" like "zaN-deh-lee-zhawN" because if they stress the "teh" they may produce an unfrench aspirated "t". But, you would need to monitor the student's pronunciation for this. (Or, you could just leave this alone as aspiration is so automatic for english speakers. Depends on the student's motivation...) – ishwar  (speak) 23:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Another thing you might look into for pronunciation help are the several online Text-to-Speech demos available - many of them have French. The pronunciation is usually pretty good, and you don't even have to download any software. Indeterminate (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 06:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberina 11 (talk • contribs)

Ancient One-Liner

There's a joke format that goes, "_____ just called, they want their _____ back." Anybody know the history of this? Where it came from, when it showed up, etc? Black Carrot (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The "List of snowclones" page used to say that it was from a 1992 SNL episode. The skit is supposed to have been called "Sidewalk Insults".

"1985 called; they want their hair back." --Kjoonlee 16:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

But I have no idea whether that's true or not. --Kjoonlee 17:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

country/ ies of origin

When talking about a group of, say, refugees from various countries, is it better to say "They returned to their country of origin" or "...to their countries of origin"? The second seems technically correct, but sounds stilted, because it adds unnecessary detail. I would have thought the first a little better, because "country of origin" can simply be read as saying that each one has a single country of origin. Is this correct, or is the first a little sloppy? thanks in advance, 203.221.127.102 (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer the second option, but I can't point to a specific rule. Fribbler (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer "They returned to their respective countries of origin" to make it clearer that each has only one. —Angr 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That has a better flow, alright. Fribbler (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This desk sees every one of the lumps in this cream of wheat we call English. "They returned to their country of origin" is right. Yes, yes, there is more than one country, or there are more than one country. There are more countries than one. This isn't arithmetic, it's language, and it's absurd to say they returned to their countries of origin for the same reason it would be to say that they're pulling our legs. That said, whenever you sense something is wrong with a sentence, you are right, there is. But as bad as the frying pan may be, the fire is usually worse. We, with high hopes and the best of intentions, set about correcting it: "They each returned to *urk*...." Pesky sex thing. "His or her"? Well, what else is there, for Christ's sake? It would have to be a him or a her, so how can I not feel like an idiot writing that? I can't. Me, I don't like the whole feminist thing—they got all they're going to get out of me when my first love broke my heart, so it's "Each refugee returned to his country of origin." Copyeditor's note: Recast. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So use singular they. -- BenRG (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternately, if you're in the mood to needle a stuffy grammarian, you could use the Spivak pronouns. On topic, however, I think it's a matter of taste, like the serial comma. It depends on how particular (heh, a little grammatical joke) you are about the mutability of phrases or idioms such as "country of origin" or "pulling my leg". Personally, I prefer "country" for formal situations, and "countries" for casual ones. Indeterminate (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it just that you're considering "country/ies of origin" rather than "country"? In a slightly more complex set-up, it might resolve itself:

• "They came from many different countries, and they returned to their country of origin" - this sounds quite, quite wrong to me.
• "They came from many different countries, and they returned to their countries of origin" - that sounds about right. It's still not an ideal sentence. I'd more naturally write "They came from many different countries and they returned to those countries". But the point is that if you'd use the plural in this sentence, why would you use the singular in a different one, assuming we're still talking about people from different countries. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"They returned to their country of origin" sounds like a lot of people from one single country going back there, or one person of unknown gender returning to 'their' country. "Countries" is correct for me.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"They each returned to their own country of origin" is also a valid way to phrase it. Then again, "They came from many different countries, and they returned to their country of origin" doesn't sound too bad to me. I automatically understand that they return to different countries, because of the context, and "their own country" is implied. Steewi (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I think the OP was asking about technical correctness, not implication.--ChokinBako (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these answers. btw, I think implication is a part of correctness, as suggested by the question: if you say "country," that looks technically incorrect, but it may be rescued by the implication of the context. Perhaps the safest suggestion is to say "they each went back to their country of origin," in spite of the (apparent) problem with mismatching plurals (they) and singulars (each). Also, "They came from many different countries, and they returned to their country of origin" doesn't sound terminal to me, but I don't think it's the ultimate test case for correctness anyway. I would avoid such a sentence, but English is like that: there are so many ways to get a grammatical log-jam going, if you contrive a sentence badly enough. I wouldn't take them as safe reference points. 203.221.126.247 (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Apostrophes

When dealing with nouns that have integral apostrophes—"Macy's", for example—how does one indicate a possessive form? Jouster  (whisper) 20:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no one right answer to any such question when it comes to English. A good rule of thumb is to cause the least disruption to the flow of reading, and I'd say that in the case of "Macy's" it would be best to leave it unchanged in the possessive: "Macy's first sale took place on a Friday." (The issue does not seem to be addressed in the Chicago Manual of Style 15.)--Milkbreath (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Milkbreath, but if you feel awkward with this approach it's nearly always possible to turn the words around to avoid the risk that someone might try to say you've got it wrong. So "The coffee shop at Macy's..." instead of "Macy's coffee shop..." Xn4 21:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In very informal writing I'd boldly write "Macy's's", or perhaps Macy's's, but practically nobody does that. In any other situation I'd recast. ("The Macy's store's coffee shop" in another option for that.) Leaving it unchanged looks like an error to me. --Anonymous, 22:11 UTC, May 21, 2008.

It's something I can't say I've ever come across, so I'd paraphrase it, too, by using 'of', for example. "The reputation of Macy's", for example, would be better than "Macy's reputation'". Of course, this would depend on the phrase and the paraphrasing.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The text includes "... which carries Macy's famous shopping bag sign ..." and "The former South division was formed following Macy's acquisition of Bullock's ...". If it were Wal-Mart, it would be "Wal-Mart's famous shopping bag sign" and "Wal-Mart's acquisition". But double apostrophes are so unusual that they're contraindicated in the Macy's and similar cases. It looks like bad spelling, even if it could be argued as being technically correct. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the multiple apostrophes and S's that look odd. I wonder if Macy's' would be okay. And on the topic of multiple apostrophes, fo'c'sle has two of them, and making it possessive would add a third. "The fo'c'sle's surface was drenched in seawater." Paul Davidson (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Can't" is a contraction of "cannot", "shan't" of "shall not" and "won't" of "will not". Lewis Carroll, as a mathematician of logical mind, used "ca'n't", "sha'n't" and "wo'n't", but they did not catch on.

Macy's's website itself has a page "Macy's Milestones", which I can only interpret as "The Milestones of Macy's" (rather than "A Macy's Milestone and then Some More"). We find, likewise, "Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade", "Macy's Passport", "Macy's Puppet Theatre", "Macy's Creative Director", "Macy's gift to the city of San Francisco", "Macy's 4th of July Fireworks", and "Macy's Flower Show".[1]  --Lambiam 19:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)