Language desk
< April 9	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 11 >

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.

April 10[edit]

How many non-Muslims speak Arabic as native speakers?[edit]

How many non-Muslims speak Arabic as native speakers? (in percentage). Thank you149.78.253.71 (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a percentage of what? Of the number of Muslims who speak Arabic natively? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably as a percentage of the number of total native speakers of Arabic. There are plenty of Egyptian Copts, Arab Christians (various types), and even Arab Jews, and various other faiths. Maybe the IP would like to research that.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

11:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A very rough estimate can be found at Arabs#Religion. Roughly speaking, native Arabic speakers is synonymous with ethnic Arabs (insofar as there are likely some people for whom that isn't true, those people do not represent a significant number for our rough estimate here). Also roughly speaking, Arabs are either Muslim or Christian (as our article notes, there are Arabic Jews, but those are often considered Ethnic Jews living in Arabic countries, and they also do not make up enough of the total population to move the needle on our estimate here). Roughly 5.5% of Arabs are Christian, which would mean that I would feel confident to say that (as a VERY rough estimate) 5-6% of native Arabic speakers were non-Muslim (there's going to be some ethnic Arabs who speak other languages natively, and going to be some other religions and Agnostics & Athiests thrown in as well, but those would not represent enough to alter that 5-6% estimate). --Jayron 32 12:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

100% of all non-Muslim native speakers of Arabic speak Arabic. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better answer this question, better'nt you[edit]

I hear people saying things like: Well, I'd better do X, better'nt I, and I want to ~~smash their faces in~~ gently correct them. But what are they actually trying to say? I suppose the correct tag question would be "hadn't I". All tag questions I've ever heard of contain a verb and a pronoun, and optionally a "not" (usually abbreviated), and nothing else (would she, didn't they, isn't it, have we ...). But what sort of word is this strange creature "better'nt"? It's certainly not a verb or a pronoun. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an idiom. If it doesn't obey the rules of the language, and yet people who say it still undestand it, it is a idiom. Since idioms resist deep analysis or literal definitions, we can't say much more. At best, you can say it is a form of hypercorrection, since "You had better" is similar in meaning to "You should", and "shouldn't" is a cromulent word. --Jayron 32 12:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: It would be bettern't, as the apostrophe substitutes for the omitted o, as in didn't and hadn't. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be pleased to hear that Google couldn't find a single written example of "better'nt" (except for your question), so it seems to only exist in spoken colloquial Australian (probably a good thing). 13:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

People who use that expression (which I've fortunately never heard) are parsing better as an auxiliary verb. Marco polo (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss's version, "bettern't", does exist in wiktionary for example: bettern't (one in the Category:English words suffixed with -n't).

In Introducing English Grammar (Routledge, 2013, ISBN 9781134671519, p141), Kate Burridge mentions it in a chapter titled "Marginal modals": "I better pull over at Bourke Street rank, bettern't I" She writes that "better", as already used in the first clause of that example, without the tag question, has some characteristics of a modal verb. (See Marco's answer). And she adds "The Australian among us can even use it in a tag." ---Sluzzelin talk 16:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See, I wasn't imagining it. I crave the ref desk's indulgence for daring to misplace the apostrophe. My only explanation is that I was dealing with an expression which is not recognised anywhere in the civilised world and is known only among antipodean savages, and so I was forced to make it up as I went along. Please forgive me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a fun one. How is it pronounced? Roughly /'bed-ern-tie/? (sorry my IPA is too weak to work here). SemanticMantis (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To point out the obvious, the underlying form is You had better, hadn't you? with you had > you'd > you. The erosion of had from the phrase is similar to "I got three apples (in the fridge)" < "I have gotten". μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Jack's example sentence would be more consistent and in agreement with itself if it were Well, I better do X, better'nt I instead of Well, I'd better do X, better'nt I. Likewise the thread's title ("You better ..." instead of "You'd better ..."). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The people who commit this utterance are hardly paragons of self-agreement. Some do indeed say "I better ..." rather than "I had better ..." or "I'd better ...", but even the ones who include the "had" would lose no sleep if they were made aware that their pseudo tag contains no corresponding "had". Hence, analysis from correct principles would be wasted on them. That is the sole reason I don't ~~smash their faces in~~ gently correct them, I assure you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the RefDesk I now know that the "'d" thing is the contraction from "had" not "should" (as I always thought).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your conclusion, Ljuboslov, that the dee is from had, not should, is correct. Nevertheless you will indeed hear "I should better do it." Constructions like this are often both common dialectally, and as artifacts in spontaneous speech of two conflicting formations (I should & I had better > I should better) in the everyday speech of people who don't actually use the mixed term intentionally or on a regular basis. Such things are understood, and not normally corrected unless they come out with an unclear meaning. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I can has hamburger (/'hæːmbəgə/)" - why the fæck* do I lengthen /æ/ in some words but not others?[edit]

*(disclaimer: word is not pronounced like this, "æ" used for humorous purposes only) This question was raised by the creation of the Hamburger button article.
When I say cat, bat, flat and so on I pronounce the <a> as /æ/ but with can, ban, flag, I pronounce it as /æ:/.
I thought it might be the voiced consonants at the end or either side of the vowel, but I pronounce "had" as /hæd/ but "mad" as /mæ:d/.

Why do I do this? What's the name for it? Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does "can" rhyme with "can" for you? Consider "tin can" compared to "I can do it - they rhyme for me, but Vowel_length#Contrastive_vowel_length indicates some AU speakers make a distinction, using /æ:/ and /æ/ respectively. ("had" and "mad" also rhyme/have the same vowel in the USA varieties I am familiar with). Anyway, unless someone corrects me, I think "contrastive vowel length" is what it's called, and you do it because you speak Australian :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See bad-lad split. In my dialect, the first vowel is tense, while the second is lax. The same contrast with I can tomatoes and I can speak Spanish, and I halve the recipe versus I have the recipe These are not homophonic pairs, the are as distinct as sit and seat. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, why the f**k did you write "I can has ..."? :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Everyone knows it's "I can haz...". --Trovatore (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

In my world, "halve" and "have" are homophones except that the "a" in "halve" is drawn out a bit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my dialect there's no difference in length, but one of vowel quality, with the difference between halve and have exactly parallel to the difference between seat and sit or say and said:

seat
      sit
say   
      said
halve
      have

See also Phonological history of English short A. Unfortunately I can't find a video or audio file. But I did find another pair; bad as in "evil" is tense, bad as in "asked" ("He bad me enter.") is lax. μηδείς (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow. Bad-lad split. Thank you! This has answered every single bit of my question.

I like to think of myself as a somewhat atypical Australian. I think the beach is an OK place to read a book, but I'd much prefer to stay at home and read. I like The Yartz, admittedly in a somewhat larrikin way: see Theft of The Weeping Woman from the National Gallery of Victoria (Spoiler alert: they did it for great justice and epic lulz).

But yeah, I pronounce "can" meaning "able to" as /kæn/, and noun "can" meaning "container" as /kæːn/,

And now for some follow-up questions about ethics:

Is it wrong to ask person if they are rhotic or not?
If person is mercifully free of the pollution of the psyche that is, you know, "I can haz...", is it wrong to "enlighten" them?

Thanks again, --Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! In person, you shouldn't have to ask about rhoticism, you should hear it, no? Online, I don't think it's rude, and in fact often necessary when discussing pronunciations.

It's also good to remember that not everyone sees the same internet memes, but I don't think sharing information is ever perilous. @JackofOz: can choose to read I can has cheezburger or not of his own volition ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hate shit like that. What's that other one that ~~everyone~~ millions copied for about the mandatory 15 minutes? Oh, yeah: "He be like ...". Rubbish. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

apostacy[edit]

What's the difference between "apostacy" and "apostasy"? In spelling. Is "c" a good spelling (just not many people use it) or a mistake? 65.210.65.16 (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This google ngrams analysis suggests that the preferred spelling has switched with time, with the "c" spelling being now uncommon. Mikenorton (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OED agrees, giving "apostasy" as the main spelling with a variant apostacy that was common between 1500 and 1899. The s may have triumphed because it is etymologically correct (compare Latin apostasia, Greek ἀποστασία). But whatever the reason, apostacy would indeed be considered a mistake nowadays. Lesgles (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

aggiustatutto[edit]

what is the english for aggiustatutto (italian)?--151.76.241.71 (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that word specifically — is it a thing or a person? If it's a person, "Mr. Fixit" might be used, in a sufficiently informal context. --Trovatore (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second Mr. Fixit. The Mr. Fixit character in The Busy World of Richard Scarry is called "Giustino Aggiustatutto" in Italian. (And Bob the Builder is Bob Aggiustatutto, as became very clear in my first googling). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]