Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 November 8

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.

November 8

Mercury

Is the god named after the planet, or is the planet named after the god? The metal? -76.22.99.215 06:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

From Mercury (planet) - The Romans named the planet after the Roman god Mercurius.

From Mercury (element) - The element was named after the Roman god Mercury, known for speed and mobility. It is associated with the planet Mercury..

So, both the planet and the element were named after the god. -- JackofOz 06:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be slightly better to say that the metal was named after the planet, since Alchemy was closely linked to Astrology.--K.C. Tang 06:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be missing the point that men had gods before they had planets. That is, Mercury was visible in the sky as a god and later turned out to be a planet. On the naming of the metal, what's quoted above from Mercury (element) sounds right to me. Xn4 10:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vowel Shifts

I have been looking with interest at the Wikipedia article on Californian vowel shifts and the phenomenon of Iotacism in the Greek language, with more and more vowels becoming "i"'s or moving in that direction. I do not know whether my analysis is right, but this looks to me as basically the same thing: a change in phonetics in which the production of vowels is moving forward from the back of the throath in the direction of the lips. The phenomenon of Iotation in Slavic languages (although technically speaking not a vowel shift) does pretty much the same thing. And so do the vowel shifts in the Antiopodean dialects of English. Does this indicate some kind of trend? Is there maybe some kind of biological explanation which desribes these forward vowel shifts as a part of the ongoing evolution of mankind, human speech and maybe even the shape/functions of our sound production system? I find it especially interesting because I and many other people think of languages and dialects that produce sounds in the back of throat as more archaic than the ones that don't, which then appear to be more "modern". I even associate this forward shift with "lazyness". I am well aware that this is a completely subjective observation, but isn't "lazyness" an element in many other predicted evolotionary developments, simply speaking: our bodies responding to the easier life we have nowadays. In this case, we need to shout less in our modern society than when we were living in the jungle. Does someone have any ideas or knowledge in this area? Bokkeveltkamp 09:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't done much historical linguistics, but from what I know of phonology there may be some trend like frontalization going on in many languages. This is usually indicative of some type of dialect shift that produces an instability, for example in the Great Vowel Shift, which according to phonological theory occurred for precisely this reason. What seems to happen is that there is a period of rapid change in the dialect as multiple phonemes account for the instability, and at times it may seem like an entire language is being frontalized. However, this configuration is also unstable for several reasons, and so the end result will be a balance of tongue positions in the mouth as one sees in most languages. There is no such thing as a "primitive" language, as homo sapiens have all existed in societies for the same amount of time, and there is no link that we know of between biological and linguistic evolution, other than that of population dispersion. SamuelRiv 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly interesting that Modern Greek, too, seems to have undergone a tendency toward frontalization: many vowels have become /i:/.

I do not see that laziness has anything to do with this. Certain tendencies, admittedly, seem to make for greater ease on various levels: one thinks of front mutation, assimilation, and analogy. The quest for ease, regularity or, indeed, distinction and differentiation, however, should not be equated with laziness. A host of other explanations suggest themselves.

At the same time, there are countervailing tendencies. Language development may show dissimilation, as when Dutch rapport became Indonesian laporan. This is to be explained neither as laziness nor as industriousness. The reason may be paradigmatic, it may have to do with intelligibily and so on and so forth.

Again, Early Modern Dutch /i:/ in certain cases came to be diphthongized into Modern /ει/, and the Great Vowel Shift, too, entailed diphthongization (/i:/ > /aι/ , /æ/ > /eι/). Surely a glide takes more effort to pronounce than a "static" vowel?

Bessel Dekker 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually California English mentions that /ɪ/ is becoming more open (further away from /i/ except before /ŋ/. Greek is very interesting, but as mentioned above chain shifts will often move some vowels towards [i], but at the same time what was [i] moves elsewhere, either by becoming a diphthong or moving elsewhere like in New Zealand English. Jeffrey Heath has suggested that there is a tendency to front, and this is somehow more feminine in its sound symbolism, but that this tendency is by far from the only one operating in language change. There's lots more to say about this, but laziness doesn't quite work for this one. A related process of simplification does seem to apply in some types of language change (especially in the current globalising trend in language: Peter Trudgill has suggested isolated varieties have a tendency to become more complex). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmaik (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

French vs. English

Why is it that in French, it's more of a property you have than a state of being (or vice versa)? For example "I'm 10 years old" is "J'ai dix ans de l'âge" (I have 10 years of age), or "I'm hungry", which is "J'ai faim" (I have hunger). I don't know a lot of French to see if this holds true in other areas but if it does, is there any particular reason that it is so? --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In some other languages these two examples do not even follow the same "property/state of being setting". In Dutch "Ik heb honger" (I have hunger), but "Ik ben 10 jaar oud" (I am 10 years old) and exactly the opposite in Polish "Ja jestem głodny" (I am hungry) and "Ja mam dziesięć lat" (I have 10 years). So any way, it looks to me that there is no such thing as "property" languages vs. "state of being" languages. --Bokkeveltkamp 09:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A minor point, the standard French for "I'm ten years old" is simply "J'ai dix ans". Xn4 10:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Trying to give antilived's hypothesis some support: Apart from "avoir X ans" and "avoir faim", French also has "avoir peur" (to be afraid), "avoir honte" (to be ashamed), "avoir chaud" (to be hot), "avoir froid" (to be cold), "avoir soif" (to be thirsty), "avoir raison" (to be right), "avoir tort" (to be wrong), "avoir sommeil" (to be drowsy), "avoir de la chance" (to be lucky). And two examples where English uses neither "to be" nor "to have" are "avoir envie de faire qch" (to feel like doing something) and "avoir besoin" (to need). I'm sure there are more. Ignoring other languages for a moment, I couldn't come up with an example where English uses "have" and French doesn't. Unfortunately, this doesn't answer your question (why?) at all. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I only see reverse examples between French and English in the past tenses where the French use "être" and the English "have" ("je suis devenu" vs "I have become"), but this is something quite different. ..... In line with the clichés of the British obsession with property markets and the French with appearance, it would be neat if we could conclude that the French think more in terms of "what they are" and the British more in terms of "what they have", but unfortunately this linguistic phenomenon points in the opposite direction .... Bokkeveltkamp 11:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The "property" constructs work in Spanish, as well - tengo sed, I am hungry. tengo diez años - I am ten years old, tengo hambre - I am hungry, tengo miedo - I am afraid. Corvus cornix 18:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And some languages need neither "to be", nor "to have", nor any other verb whatsoever to express these things. Russian is a good example: Я голодный ("I hungry"), Мне десять лет ("To me ten years"). — Kpalion^(talk) 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's partly because the present tense of the verbs "to be" (быть) and "to have" (иметь) are rarely used at all in Russian. There are uses for them, but one can get away without them quite nicely, certainly for быть, which is never used in sentences such as "I am hungry". Indeed, most native speakers would not even know the present tense declension of быть because its forms appear only in very old texts. -- JackofOz 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In Italian, there are "ho fame"- I'm hungry, "ho pauro"- I'm scared, "ho sete"- I'm thirsty, "ho freddo"- I'm cold, "ho caldo"- I'm hot, all of which use the verb "avere"- to have. In German "mir ist kalt" - I'm cold and "mir ist heiss" - I'm hot use a dative construction which can imply posession in some languages, and "ich habe Hunger" - I'm hungry and "ich habe Durst" - I'm thirsty use the verb "haben"- to have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaundersW (talk • contribs) 20:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

On the face of it, this entire state vs property discussion seems based on linguistically unsound principles, I'm afraid. Certainly no conclusions about national characteristics may be drawn from it. A few considerations:

• It seems unwarranted to over-semanticize the distinction between content verbs (e.g. transitive avoir) and structure words (e.g. the copula to be).
• Avoir, rather than expressing possession, here seems to emphasize experience. One does not possess hunger, one undergoes it.
• Distinctions between languages may well be over-refined into dialect distinctions. For example, while standard Dutch would use the equivalent of "My shoelace is undone", certain Dutch dialects have "I have my shoelace undone". Does this point to regional character differences? Hardly. It points to variety in language habits, that's all.
• Conversely, in reporting an accident, could it not be said that "The man's leg was broken" or, equally correctly, that "The man had a broken leg"? One fails to see how this makes either the reporter or the victim more—or less—possession-oriented.
• Again, "The man had his leg broken" implies not possession (all right, all right, excepting in his) but experience.
• On a happier note, "A good time was had by all" seems perfectly adequate English, and once more, no possession is implied.

Not even in "She was the original good time who was had by all". :) -- JackofOz 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• As Kpalion points out, Russian may dispense with either have or be. Likewise, it is often difficult to discern whether Indonesian ada implies presence, being in store, or possession. Linguistic borrowing may play a role, as may other factors. It is dangerous to draw conclusions about real life from the sign system that language is.

Bessel Dekker 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The error Bessel highlights seems to be a form of etymological fallacy. jnestorius^(talk) 20:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Some idioms with "have" in English which might use "be" in other languages:

• "have a good memory" (there seems to be no common adjective: "retentive"? cf. Funes the Memorious)
• have fun / a good time / a nice day
• have a problem; and diseases: have toothache / a cold / the flu / a fever / mumps / cancer

Of course, in many cases, there are alternatives in English, and I assume in other languages: "have time to"/"be free to"; "have mercy"/"be merciful"; "have trouble"/"be in trouble"; "have an idea"/"conceive"; "be scared,sad,nervous,hung over" / "have the heebie-jeebies, the blues, butterflies,the horrors". jnestorius^(talk) 20:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting. I agree that there is a connection with the etymological fallacy (incidentally: this is a lemma which might benefit from more thorough treatment). While that fallacy confuses a word's true provenance with its true meaning, the present discussion seems to equate collocations and other idiomatic combinations with an ethnic group's characteristics. In both cases, various spheres of thought intermingle in a way which should make us wary.
• The thought presents itself that we might go one step further and postulate that speakers of VSO languages are more active than those that speak an SVO language. After all, the first group puts the verb first! One can only hope that nobody would agree with this. Language typology is not character typology.
• To add one French example to Jnestorius' English collection: in French one may avoir faim or être affamé. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BesselDekker (talk • contribs) 21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry for not signing this. Bessel Dekker 21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

See also Sapir–Whorf hypothesis jnestorius^(talk) 22:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

True, the relationship between world view and linguistic categories is still very much a moot point. But there are pitfalls. For one thing, one may be lured into jumping to conclusions. For another, stock examples tend to be repetitive (always those colours) or to hold good for widely divergent societies. Still, it's a fascinating subject. Bessel Dekker 00:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd leave this if it wasn't the language desk, and if I hadn't known the desks to raise completely different ways of looking at things, but do you actually mean that the relationship between world view and linguistic categories is a moot point? I thought people still spent quite a lot of exploring it. Skittle 05:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That post mystified me until I linked moot point and discovered that "In United States law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law. Thereby the matter has been deprived of practical significance or rendered purely academic. This is different from the ordinary British meaning of "moot," which means "to raise an issue." The shift in usage was first observed in the United States". So, it seems that the meaning of "moot point" might be a moot point in itself, depending on your understanding of ... well, moot point. Maybe one of you is assuming the British usage, the other the American usage. In my world, a moot point is something over which there is lack of agreement but it's not so important that either side wants to take it much further, if at all. It's shorthand for "let's agree to disagree and talk about more important matters". -- JackofOz 08:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'd see the meaning of moot as to raise an issue if moot was used as a verb, but in the phrase moot point I've only ever heard it mean along the lines of something that doesn't really matter, much like you are saying at the end there. I only raised it because I was intrigued as to whether it was being used with a different meaning or whether Sapir-Whorf is actually considered to not matter in some linguistic circles. Skittle 15:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

At least for I'm hungry the thematic relation is 'experiencer', and different languages will encode this role in different ways. If you look at another one I'm cold, you have a parallel structure in French j'ai froid (I have cold), while German uses mir ist kalt (to-me is cold, where the experiencer is not marked as a subject). Tunisian Arabic uses a past/perfective verb bridt (I have become cold). Lots of strategies for a thematic role that doesn't fit the frequent agent role that grammatical subjects often have. I wouldn't read too much into this and invoke Sapir-whorf without some concrete evidence. Drmaik 15:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that moot point. I used it in the sense of "a point about which there may be disagreement or uncertainty" (both BrE and AmE, according to ALD), not in the sense of "a point unlikely to come up". Bessel Dekker 17:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

students trap in a University

What can a sign in a University campus saying "Students Trap" mean? Can an enclosed area for students to hang about be called a "students trap"? Is there a place by that name in any reputable University in any part of the world? The homepage of a University displays such a sign. In the following page, the flash object at the heart of the page shows such a sign. http://www.universityofcalicut.info/ Is this usage whimsical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Student club (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is explained on the campus page, it's creation is explained here. In that article Vice-Chancellor of Calicut University, Syed Iqbal Hasnain explains that the naming was taken from 'tourist-trap' to mean an area where tourists like to go. 86.21.74.40 14:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. So, it is a neologism by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Can you please comment on its validity? It looks very clumsy with the genitive case, to me. The negative connotation inherent in the tourist trap also seems to have been overlooked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Student club (talk • contribs) 15:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is clumsy. It gives "trap" a life of its own that it is not entitled to. The formula is "(singular noun as adjective) trap". It should be "student trap". A rat trap and a bear trap are both traps, yes, but they are two different things, not the same thing used for two different purposes. Furthermore, "tourist trap", the model, is itself a play on words and cannot withstand variation in a joking reference such as "student trap"; the parallel is obscured. "Students' trap" reveals a certain lack of facility with standard English, not that that's a sin or anything. --Milkbreath 16:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

While agreeing, of course, with 99.9% of what Milkbreath says, the remaining .1% touches on your "[i]t gives 'trap' a life of its own that it is not entitled to". After all, if a sufficient number of people started using the structure [(±sing. attributive noun) + trap], it would become productive and henceforth be entitled to its own walk in linguistic life. But admittedly, as long as that is not the case, the use is catachrestic and probably based on a misunderstanding. Which is not to say that one cannot appreciate the humour of it. Bessel Dekker 20:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I've heard "snake trap", but that was an independent play on the regular traps off in a whole other direction. --Milkbreath 22:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And then, productivity could only be assumed if the attributive nouns were not animal names, couldn't it? Bessel Dekker 00:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we're talking about what has been called a snowclone. The new formulation has to be irrelevant to the original context. "To be or not to be" becomes "to eat or not to eat" at the fat farm. "My kingdom for a horse" becomes "my kingdom for a spare tire" in the middle of Arizona. "Tourist trap" becomes "kid trap" at Chuck E. Cheese, but the connection is weak. A snowclone doesn't stand up well unless the foundation is an ordinary, well-known phrase and not a play on words itself. "Trap" tends not to hark back to the secondary formulation, but the primary one seen in "bear trap".

While I'm at it, there was another question, that of the negative connotation. It's a joke, and what funniness it bears owes to that very negativity. No one would suppose that the university meant to overcharge the students who are drawn to the trap, it's more that they will go there because they like being there. The place is designed to cater to their tastes as students, perhaps more than is seemly, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. --Milkbreath 02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Milkbreath and thank you Bessel Dekker. I have a question more about Milbreath's point of grammar here. As he said, the norm is singular noun as adjective. However, we have a large number of plural nouns serving as adjectives like in common usage expressions like men's hostel, teachers' room, fliers' club etc. Is genitive as adjective differentiated in terms of singular and plural so as to have different semantic status?--Student club 04:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been stalling in the hope that BesselDecker would shoulder me aside and field this one. He(?) seems to be some kind of language scholar, whereas I'm not. But if you're content with helter-skelter unsupported amateur analysis.... Yes, sort of, but don't expect consistency. There can be a "children's hospital" right next door to the "senior center", also known as the "old folks' home". Down the street is a "dog park" across from the old "debtor's prison" which is now a "police station". A kid from the "Boys [sic] Club" can grow up to become a member of the "old boy network". There can be a "teachers' lounge" in the "student center". As a rule, the plural is used to mean something like "for the use of", and that is the source of our vice-chancellor's conflation. The singular can mean something more like "characteristic of", like "man's laughter" or "woman's intuition". --Milkbreath 20:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

An apology

Let me try to react to this as diffidently as is in keeping with my depraved character.

Far be it from me to wish to shoulder you aside, Milkbreath: and should I have made that impression, I most sincerely apologize. (I have an MA in English, but a non-native one, and certainly make no claim to being a scholar. I'll try to pipe down. I do make claim to being of the male persuasion, however...)

As for attributive nouns: I believe you are quite right, and that they can both be singular or plural. It seems to be a matter of usage. One may think of cases where number is dictated: It is the secretary's duty to keep a list of the members' addresses. Here, the member's would imply (1) a one-member association (2) whose member, adding insult to injury, would be wealthy enough to possess various addresses.

Mother's Day rubs shoulders with Mothers' Day and Mothers Day on the Internet. The first variant seems correct in its exclusiveness.

Our own article Debtor's prison, with its unlikely title (throwing away taxpayers' (!) money to imprison one debtor), in the text itself uses debtors' prison. The confusion arises, I assume, because both words are homophonous, and thus it does not strike many people as odd when that other homophone, debtors, is used. By contrast, in the case of Children's the 's would not be left out, although one might expect to stumble across an incorrect Childrens. See the sidebar in [1].

It is true that the apostrophe in the plural is often omitted (Boys Club, as cited by Milkbreath, Citizens Advice Bureau—that is a possessive, I take it?).

Bessel Dekker 17:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

An apology is totally unnecessary, and I surely must have expressed myself poorly to have given the impression that I had a problem. I am a dick by nature, but a sweetie-pie in motive.

Me, I have an honorary degree in BS that I awarded to myself. I always imagined that "debtor's prison" referred to "the debtor", sort of like "headsman's axe" or "housemaid's knee". --Milkbreath 23:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In keeping with the article you link to, your own reference to your dickness (or is it dickity?) may not have wide support. It has to get along without mine at any rate.

Sorry for mentioning my dishonorable degree earlier, which I did only to exhonerate myself and my pomposity. The effect may have been contrary to what I wanted it to be, as effects usually are. Shan't do it again!

So far, in the case of 's versus s' , I can only see a singular—plural opposition ("prisoner's dilemma" because only one prisoner is in a quandary; "hangman's noose" because just one hangman is quite enough, thank you very much).

Prepatellar bursitis (an expression which I first came across 5⅓ seconds ago, isn't the Internet a blessing?) on one medical page (here I unsuccessfully tried to add a hyperlink which Wiki rejected as spam-infested, proving that the issue is even thornier than had been previously surmised) is spelt both as "housemaid's knee" and as "housemaids knee". Why not "housemaids' knee" as well, one wonders? Cases become interesting as they become indeterminate: are we talking about one suffering housemaid, or about the collectivity of housemaids and their regrettable tendency to succumb to the complaint? And could we think of some sort of minimal pairs, where the ending in -s' has a meaning different from that in -'s? Does Parson's Pleasure mean the same as Parsons' Pleasure? Bessel Dekker 00:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

question about form of letter

Is just name all that placed below an official letter? Is it normal to place titles and positions of the undersigned, lie Dr. etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Student club (talk • contribs) 14:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Titles are sometimes added, but some writers regard this as ill-mannered. One solution is to downplay the title (whether it be an indication of degree or sex) and put it in brackets behind your name, thus giving it the character of an explanation:

• John Doe (Mr.)
• Wade. V. Roe (Dr.)

• The title may be quite functional, as when a professor of geology writes a letter to the editor elucidating a point on geology in an article that a journalist had written in the periodical. On the other hand, if he writes about psychology, his title may be out of place, as it suggests that he is an authority in that field while in fact he is a geologist. So context is important. Bessel Dekker 20:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The etiquette rule I heard is that your title shouldn't be part of your signature, but you can type it underneath. So Mr. Bessel Dekker should sign his name "Bessel Dekker" but can type "Mr. Bessel Dekker" underneath the signature. —Angr 21:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I quite agree that this is often done, and is considered correct. All I wanted to say that if you do not like this, you can always use the other method, which I myself prefer. But that is neither here nor there: it depends on the signatory which choice he makes. And you are quite right: surely a title should not be part of the signature itself. Bessel Dekker (Mr) 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Although a title can affect the name used in the signature. Mr Bessel Dekker would sign either "Bessel Dekker" or "B Dekker", or if he had the middle initial K it might be "B K Dekker", but if he were elevated to the British peerage as Viscount Dekker, the signature would simply be "Dekker". If he somehow acceded to the monarchy as King Bessel I, he would sign "Bessel". -- JackofOz 22:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

More likely "Bessel R" (for rex). Bazza 13:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The question also asked about "positions". I would say that it's quite standard for an official letter to state the person's position if it's relevant to the subject of the letter. This is often done below the signature:

Yours sincerely

(illegible scrawl here)

Bessel Dekker

Pope

Secretary-General

The letterhead would identify which organization he was the secretary-general of. If it was personalized official letterhead, it could also name his title, in which case he probably wouldn't repeat it in conjunction with the signature.

--Anonymous, 23:42 UTC, November 8, 2007.

Including a title can be important if you expect return correspondence. If you expect return correspondence to be addressed to Ms X Y or to Dr X Y, you must include some indication of your preferred title. It would be considered arrogant to sign a name with a title, but the written form should include a relevant title as a means of informing the recipient of the appropriate form of address in return correspondence. In the same way, you should use the same level of formality as you use in addressing the recipient at the start of the letter (with regards to use of titles, positions, etc.) Steewi 00:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• All this is very true, except, that is, for the conjecture about my middle name, which happens to be A.: hopefully colleagues will therefore understand why I do not make a habit of signing with my initials, thus ruining any remote hopes of an accession.
• Mentioning one's position might certainly be essential.
• "Levelling" as regards formality seems quite the right thing to do.
• As to the "return information": that was partly my point in suggesting the title in brackets. This is especially important for ladies, as an addition of (Mrs) prevents the undesirable reply salutation of "Dear Mr X". Of course, the alternative versions suggested are excellent. Bessel Dekker 00:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

the term "maDEEya" for grandmother

What is the etymology of the term "maDEEya" for grandmother? Jennifr 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• In what language? —Angr 18:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess that identifying the language is part of the questioner's problem. SaundersW 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure about that: the meaning of the word is supplied. If Jennifr could supply a context for the word, that would help. As it is, there is too much opportunity for speculation, especially with regard to ma- and -ya.

The word sounds like Sanskrit, where, however, madya means "world, middle", so that makes no sense.

Is it really the etymology Jennifr wants to know about, or is she interested in where it comes from (not the same things!)? Where has she heard/seen the word?

Bessel Dekker 20:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Could it possibly be an English regional pronunciation of 'my dear'? In which case it seems as likely that the grandma would be saying it as hearing it. Cyta 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite correct. Which makes it all the more necessary that we are given some information about the context. Bessel Dekker 00:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Have some Madeira M'dear ? Xn4 03:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Then there's the Madhyamaka (or Middle way), which in Tibet was sometimes called 'grandmother Madhyamika'. Xn4 03:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Could Spanish madre have a diminutive madilla, perhaps in dialect? —Tamfang 02:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It would have to be dialect, if your guess is correct: an uncomfortably bulky Spanish dictionary does not have it. The name is, of course, to be found on the Internet, as what isn't. Here are a few characteristically unhelpful Googles:

Madilla is an enclave of a beautiful beach area located on the southern most area of the Tangalle bay. But where is Tangalle Bay? You may be pleased to learn it is in Sri Lanka.

James married Madilla Harriet Goodale on 14 Aug 1888 in Hamilton West, Ontario, Canada. No help there, surely.

Finally, from some blog: madilla：2007/04/27 01:50: saya bingung liat blok ini. gmn cara muter nyanyiannya ya? which roughly translates as: [Madilla says] "I am confused to see this block. What way is there of playing this song?"

In short, so far I have come up with a bay and with a given name. That's all. Bessel Dekker 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation of the Irish Boy's Forename "Degan"

Hello!

Can you please tell me how to pronounce the Irish Boy's Forename "Degan".

We have been struggling with this, so if you can help - then that would be great!

Many thanks Silkfantastic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silkfantastic (talk • contribs) 21:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As a surname in Ireland, it's ˈdiːgən (DEE-gun); though lots of Irish names (well, Anglicizations of Irish names) are pronounced differently abroad. I've never heard of it as a forename, though North Americans (and Scots) often convert surnames into (generally male) forenames. There might be a name of e.g. Indian or Chinese origin with the same spelling, in which case the pronunciation may be different again. Or do you mean Declan? jnestorius^(talk) 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - No, I did mean Degan (not Declan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silkfantastic (talk • contribs) 07:27, 9 November 2007 UTC

How do you translate "mother bear" into Spanish?

I would apprecitate anyone who could give me an answer! Many thanks, April —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.215.84 (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, bear in Spanish is Uso, so mother bear would be Madre Usa (or perhaps more correctly Usa Madre). Hope this helps. Nigel Redford 21:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's oso, not uso. This translation of Goldilocks and the Three Bears calls her "Mamá Osa." -- Mwalcoff 23:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Mwalcoff is correct. Mamá Osa means something like 'Mummy Bear'. 'Madre Osa' means mother bear, but it sounds more formal (in the same way as a child calling their mother "Mother". Steewi 00:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be a bit more precise, Madre Osa, if used, carries an article. Two exceptions might be: a rethorical/poetical use or a vocative (e. g.: "Madre Osa, no me lastime").

Thus, "la madre osa" or "la osa madre" are common references to the subject, the last one to be expected more frequently in use. "Mamá Osa" could be employed instead in a piece of children literature (with or without the article). But for addresses (that is, the vocative case, with no article), any of the following are correct (in order of formality): Osa Madre, Madre Osa, Mamá Osa).

--Pallida Mors 76 07:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)