Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of language.

Welcome to the language reference desk.
Shortcut:
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.


Ready? Ask a new question!
How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
 
Choose a topic:
Language desk
 
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual


January 24[edit]

"Wie geht dieses Spiel?" (II)[edit]

(restored from archive)

How would you say that in English, e. g. in the context of a child asking another one about how to play a certain game?--Hubon (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

"How do you play this game?" is how I would say it. †dismas†|(talk) 01:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, or "How is this game played?" although children are less likely to use a passive construction. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, and what about: "How does this game go/work?"--Hubon (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
They are both cromulent in your context, although "how does this work" is more often applied to toys/devices or even strategies and bets than rules themselves. I bought my mother a can opener with a gear system that allows her to get more torque, so opening cans is easier on her joints. But she complains she can't figure out how it works, not how it goes. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you travailing to embiggen your lexical éclat with cromulent? --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C03A:9D20:31EF:82F7 (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Cromulent is a perfectly cromulent word! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I prefer crapulent.
Some listeners may correctly assume it to be a metabolistic dysfunction but are briefly puzzled. Crapulent is a perfectly Krabappleate word. QED. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems you've really opened this discussion out, Medeis. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
You say evasion, I say avoision. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen – oyez, oyez, oyez – ye shall not get off the track, please! ;-) ;-) Joking aside, would then "how does this game go" be the more idiomatic solution? Or do ye know anything whatsoever else that yethink cromulent to embiggen my linguistic distinction...? ;-)--Hubon (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Without any further context, either phrase is on its own equally grammatical and possible as an ordinary sentence. The trick comes down to things like Three-card Monte, where "work" means you are asking how the trick is pulled off, or watching a movie with a card game, where an impatient person who hasn't seen the movie yet asks another person who has, "How does this game go?" In the second case he wants to know the outcome of the game, not the rules.
The mistake is thinking that there is a one-to-one correspondence or a dichotomy outside of a certain context. In some cases the words will be interchangeable, in others only one word could fit, and in yet others either word could be used, but with different implications. I'd keep in mind that go focuses on destination, while work focuses on overall structure. In most real and complete games the rules and the goal are only abstractly inseparable. Or consider the possible analogy cheat:work::win:go. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! So, to sum up, I'd like to ask once more: What would the most simple and natural equivalent to German Wie geht dieses Spiel? (referring to a request of being informed about the rules of a game) I'm asking because it still appears a bit unclear to me what would really be regarded as an idiomatic expression in this context... Best--Hubon (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Correct common translation was already given. "Wie geht das xy" is the typical german paraphrase used to ask for an introduction to the concept of "das/es" and the common, similar english paraphrase is "how does this/it work". --Kharon (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm very sorry for being late, but this issue is still giving me somewhat of trouble (interposed question: Can I say that?): To be concrete, in "Wie geht dieses Lied?" I'd say that only the use of "go" (but not of "work") would be suitable ("How does this song go?")! Or would somebody object? So one might also be on the safer side asking "How does this game go?", mightn't one? (I do apologize for my persistence, but I like to get to the bottom of questions like that) Best--Hubon (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like you're changing the question slightly. If I were to ask about a game, I'd say "How do you play this/that game?" but a song is not a game. So I might use "How does the song go?" or if I wanted to know specifically about lyrics, I would say "What are the words to this/that song?". Does that help? †dismas†|(talk) 20:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
(I was about to say exactly the same as Dismas above until I clicked edit and saw the it had already been said.) Is the question about what it is possible to say grammatically, or about what a real child is likely to say? Dbfirs 20:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Somewhat" is an adverb, it modifies adjectives. Proper English would be, "I am still having (some) trouble" with the some optional, as it is implied unless you say you are totally confused or you understand completely. μηδείς (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The OED does permit the "somewhat of" construction, including a John Dryden cite "somewhat of mournful ...", but it does say "now rare". Dbfirs 20:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
      • The meaning of the "somewhat of mournful" phrase is quite obscure, and given Dyrden died in 1700, I am not sure he's a good example for someone trying to learn modern idiomatic English. In any case, mournful is still and adjective, not a noun, as is trouble. A longer contextual quote from the OED would help, otherwise I stand by my proscription; somewhat does not modify nouns in the sense questioned above. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
        • I agree that the somewhat of construction is not to be recommended in modern English, but there are more than a hundred cites using it before a noun in the OED. Most of them have a definite or indefinite article before the noun, but here are a few without: "There is somewhat of Articulateness in every voice and sound" (F Bamfield, 1677); "your question hath in it somewhat of embarrassment" (Scott, 1820); "somewhat of meaning and force" (J L Wilson, 1884)
          The most recent (with indefinite article) is "Because it is cumbersome and somewhat of a misnomer" (K W Weiler, 1978). Dbfirs 13:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Thanks. The OED examples are especially helpful. It seems the meaning has narrowed, or shifted a bit. I would find "there is something of articulateness" acceptable, if not a bit forced; somewhat like the speech of George Clooney and John Goodman in O Brother, Where Art Thou? "Somewhat of a misnomer" is still natural, if formal. But neither without the article is something you'd hear outside of a literary or period piece at this point. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

January 25[edit]

Picture of the Day[edit]

Wednesday's feature was Bathsheba, one of the ancestors of Jesus Christ. One sentence, taken directly from the article, reads "As Bathsheba was already married to a soldier named Uriah, David attempted to recall Uriah so he would re-consummate his marriage." Is this a made - up word? So far as I am aware, a marriage can only be consummated once. 92.2.72.206 (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The term is in wide use. See here. Many users have access to the full Oxford English Dictionary (which requires membership). Hopefully one of them will be along soon to provide the OED entry on the word. --Jayron32 14:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, Jayron32, the online OED hasn't got an entry for "reconsummate". --ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks! --Jayron32 17:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
EO likewise doesn't have an entry for "reconsummate", but the meaning of "consummate" would seem to allow for the possibility of reconsummation.[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Just as an aside (actually, this aside may be more important than the points already raised), the concept being ignored here is the concept of Productivity. In linguistics, a morpheme is productive if it can be combined with other morphemes to make novel words which are understood without needing to be defined to native speakers. Specifically, the prefix "re-", meaning "to do again", is productive in English because it can be added to words and the word thus created doesn't require further definition. It's a valid word because the listener doesn't mark the word as particularly odd or uncomfortable. The existance or non-existence of the word in a dictionary is unimportant as to the validity of a word; merely that speakers and listeners are natural and comfortable in using it. "Re-" formed words are highly understandable, and in general, perfectly cromulent. Dictionary writers, as hard as they work, are still a limited resources, and while the good people at the OED are the best at what they do, they still don't always document every valid English word, simply because they haven't had enough time to do so. Usage at google ngrams shows that reconsummate began appearing in print prior to 1960, and has enough usage to be legit. --Jayron32 12:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Could this be linked to the recent change in stress from con'summate to 'consummate? 80.5.88.48 (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 April 1#Pronunciation of "consummate". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Wow. We gotta get out more. Ten years later, and it's still the same people... --Jayron32 13:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

past tense of 'to eat'[edit]

I have recently seen three sentences in novels where 'eat' was used as the past tense of 'to eat', instead of 'ate'. This wasn't in dialect speech, but in normal narration. The first time I thought it was a typing error, but I saw it again in the same novel and then again in another. And these novels were both by 19th Century British authors (Emily Bronte and Thomas Hardy). Was this the case, that back then the preterite was 'eat', and when did this change to the modern 'ate'? Thank you. ZygonLieutenant (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The OED, under "forms" says " pa. tenseOE–ME æt, (ME æat), ME et(t, ME–15 ete, ME at, (ME hete), ME eet(te, 15–16 eate, 16–18 eat, 15– ate". So it acknowledges past "eat" up to the 18th century, but not 19th. As it happens I am currently reading Wuthering Heights on an e-reader, so it was easy for me to search the text for "eat" and I found no instances of it used as a past tense. I wonder if your text might have a misprint? --ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was a misprint the first time, but am sure I saw it again later in the same novel (Wuthering Heights). Or perhaps I misread the sentences (although I did stop to go through again carefully). The other novel was Jude the Obscure - they are both Penguin Classics editions. --ZygonLieutenant (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

And since when was spit the preterite tense for spit? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • What chapter and page of Jude the Obscure? I'd like to take a look in my copy. Loraof (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Spit as the past tense of spit is the older form. I have not seen evidence of spat earlier than about 1800. —Stephen (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
One for your album then: "When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground..." (John 9:6 in the King James Bible). --Antiquary (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Earlier in various versions of the bible (John 9 v6) "he spat on the ground" in Tyndale, King James and Douay-Rheims. Spitted was also sometimes used in the past, and spit elsewhere in the bible. Dbfirs 13:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Eat is the regular way of spelling the past tense of eat, when it is pronounced ETT. We were cautioned at school in Australia in the 1950s against using the ETT pronunciation (which still obtained amongst older speakers, especially of British RP), and to always say ATE. Spit is regular US as past tense of spit. Djbcjk (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
[citation needed] on the above claim, Djbcjk. In my (Southeast England) English the past is invariably pronounced /ɛt/, which I always spell 'ate': I cannot recall ever having encountered it spelt 'eat'. --ColinFine (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah right, so not an ancient song then, just a US/UK difference. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
At first I thought there was an Australian/UK difference in the past tense of eat, but I assume that Djbcjk meant that the spelling eat as the past tense is less common in Australia. It is normally spelt ate pronounced /eɪt/ here in England, though there are dialectal variants. Dbfirs 13:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Project Gutenberg's version of Jude does not contain any past tense "eat"s that I can find; it does use "ate". HenryFlower 08:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
And even though it has "spittoons underfoot filled with sawdust" it has no spit or spat. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Joke told by my high-school Latin teacher. Brutus: How many eggs did you have this morning? Julius: Et two, Brute. It's possible that she was old enough to remember a time when the /ɛt/ pronunciation was common in the United States. --Trovatore (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
"et" is used as the past tense among southern Appalachians (i.e. hillbillies). -Arch dude (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, should have said, Eat could be the regular way of spelling the past tense of eat, when it is pronounced ETT. At least, you should consider that pronunciation when you see anomalously "eat" as the past tense or p.p. of eat in old publications. Djbcjk (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@ZygonLieutenant and ColinFine: Some 19th-century dictionaries noted this. See the British Chambers's Dictionary, its 1st edition, as well as its 2nd edition (25 years later), where the past participle eat = /et/ tagged as obsolete. Also the American Century Dictionary said the same. Note two of them did not give the /et/ pronunciation of ate, that is the change of writing /et/ from eat to ate may be seen as an innovation of the late 19th or the early 20th centuries.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The IPA /et/ is not really a possible English pronunciation at all. Presumably you mean /ɛt/? --Trovatore (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The /ɛ/ phoneme (aka the "dress" vowel) is transcribed as /e/ by numerous dictionaries, so yes, that's obviously what he meant, and there's nothing wrong about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
There's an expectation that what appears between slashes is IPA. There's nothing wrong with other systems per se, but they're not usually written between slashes. And if it's meant to be IPA, then it absolutely is wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Tell Daniel Jones that. Hint: many varieties of British English have "dress"-phonemes that are pretty much intermediate between (cardinal) [e] and [ɛ], so the choice of which symbol to use for them is pretty much arbitrary. Also, it is a wide-spread practice to use "e" and "o", as the more readily available symbols, as phonemic or wide phonetic transcriptiosn for pretty much anything in the mid range, as long as the language you're describing doesn't have an explicitly more close alternative with which the sound is in contrast. Just as you can use "a" for pretty much any open vowel, not just the open front one which IPA defines as the cardinal point for this symbol. And yes, all of this is perfectly valid use of IPA. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Before the revision by Gimson in the 1960s the IPA for English (designed by Jones) was rather simplistic, they even did not use /ɪ/ or /ʊ/, though they used /ɛə/. /e/ > /ɛ/ is Upton's revision. See here.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Trovatore: (1) I was rather lazy to enter /ɛ/. I thought such niceties were not important in the current context anyway. (2) In a standard transcription there is no actual difference between /e/ and /ɛ/ as long as we do not transcribe the diphthong /eɪ/ with /e/. Actually the realisation of the DRESS vowel may vary greatly across dialects, speakers and contexts, so both /ɛ/ and /e/ are correct. (3) To avoid any confusion and to indulge my laziness I've used respelling within quotation marks in my following comments.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, fair enough Lüboslóv and Fut.Perf., I suppose there's no minimal pair to distinguish them. I personally just think of /e/ as the sound in German gehen, which sounds more like /eɪ/ than it does like /ɛ/. --Trovatore (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Trovatore: You're right, at least in contemporary RP (other accents may differ) the DRESS vowel is opener than it was some 50 or 100 years ago. Exactly this was the reason for Clive Upton to change /e/ to /ɛ/. But many continue to use /e/ due to the tradition, in particular dictionaries by Cambridge (D. Jones & P. Roach) and Longman (J. C. Wells), while Oxford dictionaries usually follow Upton. See some details here.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
In Peter Ladefoged's book A Course in Phonetics, there's the following passage:
(quote)
The transcription used in the first part of this chapter is not, strictly speaking, a simple phonemic transcription. The symbols in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 distinguish all the oppositions that occur in actual pronunciations of English words. But these are not the underlying segments. There are several ways in which we could change our notational system into a more abstract one that uses a simpler set of symbols.
One way would be to not show the differences in length between pairs of vowels. Our present transcription indicates the differences in both quality and length in the vowels in a pair of words such as “bead, bid” [ biːd, bɪd ] or “fool, full” [ fuːl, fʊl ]. But the differences in length are entirely predictable from the differences in quality. The symbols [ i, u ] can be said to represent long vowels, and the symbols [ ɪ, ʊ ] short vowels (perhaps with an additional stipulation that we have been tacitly assuming: [ i ] in unstressed position as in “happy” is not long). In this way we would eliminate the length mark [ ː ].
Alternatively, instead of not showing the length difference, we could regard the quality as predictable from the length and not show the quality difference. In this case, the vowel [ i ] would have the value appropriate for the vowel in “bead” when it occurred before a length mark as in [ biːd ]. But it would have the value appropriate for the vowel in “bid” when it occurred without a length mark, which would then be transcribed as [ bid ]. Remember that there is nothing sacred about the phonetic value of a symbol. Some phoneticians transcribe “bead, bid” as [ biːd, bɪd ] as I have been doing in this book so far, while others transcribe these same words as [ biːd, bid ]. Using the same principle, they might transcribe “cooed, could” not as [ kuːd, kʊd ], as I have done, but as [ kuːd, kud ]. Finally, “laid, led” would not be [ leɪd, lɛd ], but [ leːd, led ]. In this style of transcription, the differences in quality are treated as if they depended on the differences in length. The symbols / i / and / u / would be said to represent higher vowels when long, and the symbol / e / would be said to represent a diphthong in these circumstances. This style of trasncription uses an additional symbol for length, but it more than compensates for that by eliminating the vowel symbols [ ɪ, ɛ, ʊ ].
(end of quote)
I also remember reading elsewhere in that book – or probably somewhere else because I wasn't able to find it skimming quickly through the book – that generally in broad transcriptions, when the particular language does not phonemically distinguish between two particular sounds, the symbol is favoured whose shape is most akin to a letter of the Latin alphabet (so given that there's no contrast between /e/ and /ɛ/ in Spanish, the sole Spanish "e"-like phoneme is represented as /e/, and the English "r" is usually represented as /r/ even though it's more of a [ɹ] phonetically). --Theurgist (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
We have an oxymoron here:[2]. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
... and the 1526 Tyndale translation of the bible has "Thou wentest in unto men uncircumcised and atest with them." (which would be went and ate in modern English), and the Coverdale bible of 1535 had "Ate vp soch thinges as were vpon ye altare". Dbfirs 12:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dbfirs: No doubts. Never claimed the opposite. My thought was that when some pronounced "ayt" they always spelled ate, and when others pronounced "et" they always spelled eat, but pronouncing "et" and spelling ate at the same time (that is the variant past tense written form eat was abandoned, but the pronunciation has survived) was an innovation somewhen around 1900.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I did wonder if that was what you were saying. The OED just gives three options for the pronunciation with no indication of preference by spelling: "pa. tense ate, eat /eɪt//ɛt//iːt/. pa. pple. eaten /ˈiːt(ə)n/" without a comma to indicate correspondence between spelling and pronunciation. Can anyone find any rhymes to check the correspondence through history? My local dialect retains /iːt/ sometimes, so that's how I would pronounce the past tense spelt "eat" as in "he eat it yesterday", but I would only expect to see that in text written in dialect, not in modern formal English. Dbfirs 16:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

January 26[edit]

Are there contemporary journals written in Latin?[edit]

or in any other extinct language?

HOTmag (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Our page on Contemporary Latin lists several Latin periodicals: Vox Latina in Germany, Melissa in Belgium, Hebdomada Aenigmatum and Ephemeris in Italy, and Vita Latina (apparently no longer entirely in Latin) in France. There are over 90 periodicals in Sanskrit including the daily newspaper Sudharma, but it's doubtful whether that's really a dead language. An Gannas, An Gowsva, An Garrick and other magazines are written in the once-extinct language Cornish. --Antiquary (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
And having belatedly read the Hebdomada Aenigmatum article through I find it has a sister publication in Ancient Greek called Onomata Kεχιασμένα. --Antiquary (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Onomata kechiasmena or Ὀνόματα Kεχιασμένα Wymspen (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
If you follow my link you'll see the magazine gives the title in mixed Latin and Greek on its front cover. --Antiquary (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's mixed Latin and Greek. It's just that in all caps, with no accents, those particular Greek letters are indistinguishable from Roman letters. Deor (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In addition, the official gazette of the Vatican City is Acta Apostolicae Sedis, which is probably the only Latin publication that isn't simply an enthusiast project - although that now includes an Italian supplement. Smurrayinchester 10:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and the Latin-language college Accademia Vivarium Novum has its own student newspaper, the Mercurius. Smurrayinchester 10:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Depending on what you call a journal, there is always the Latin Wikipedia.--Mrs Wibble-Wobble (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
At Special:SiteMatrix, the row "Latina (Latin)" has blue links for five Wikimedia projects.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

January 27[edit]

Usage of "gotten" in Australia[edit]

A few years ago I met a young (under 25) Australian woman who often used the word "gotten", which I had thought was confined to North America. She had never lived outside of Australia, but I got the impression that she watched a lot of American television. Do Australians commonly use "gotten" in their daily speech? Or was this simply an Americanism that she had picked up from foreign media? LANTZYTALK 01:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Gotten is listed as used in "now chiefly Canada, US, Ireland, Northern British". So, did her family immigrate from any of those regions ? That might be another source. StuRat (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
She has an Italian surname, so probably not. I was aware that some northern Englanders use "gotten", for instance I've heard the YouTuber Tom Scott (from Nottinghamshire) using it, and in his case I supposed it was a local thing, not an Americanism. LANTZYTALK 04:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Speaking as a casual observer of younger Australians speaking on Australian TV, one can say that the p.p. "gotten" is no longer confined to North America. I would say that many younger Australians commonly use "gotten" in their daily speech. Djbcjk (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I was curious if this was an imported thing with a generational character, and it sounds like that is indeed the case. LANTZYTALK 04:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
As you can see by the irate comment at the bottom of the Macquarie Dictionary website's blog, it annoys the hell out of some people. About 16 minutes into this podcast there's a more about the origin and its prevalence. (Don't listen to the rest, it's people who don't understand how language changes and communication works calling in with naive questions.) I use it, but I'm hardly a model of purism in these things: it's perfectly clear what "8 items or less" means, doesn't startle my jumbuck at all. Not wanting to pickle your wombats any further, take a galah's beak at Australian slang quiz: How ocker is your knowledge?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that Macquarie link. I'm not surprised that it's a bone of contention for some people. LANTZYTALK 04:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've heard it here too. Many novomundane variations have crept in via American television shows. The most recent I've noticed is the adjective "alternative" being replaced by "alternate", American pronunciation and all (ALL-tə-nət). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
That's the Boston pronunciation, maybe, or somewhere in the South? In General American, we pronounce the r. --Trovatore (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
We reject your rotten rhotics.  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't realize that "alternate = other" was an Americanism. To my ear it just sounds sort of corporate, or over-formal. LANTZYTALK 04:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
sort of corporate corporative - FTFY. No such user (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
If "gotten" irritates you, there's also "boughten". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I was amazed to discover that my Okie relatives actually use "boughten". They use it exclusively to mean "store-bought", as in a store-bought cake. I doubt if this one will make it to Australia. LANTZYTALK 04:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
... and "putten" is still occasionally heard in Yorkshire dialect along with "gotten". Dbfirs 08:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Wow, I never heard of that one. LANTZYTALK 04:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
"Putten on the Ritz". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
A side thought: Isn't American gotten sounded like garden for a Brit/Aussie (not exactly, but very close)?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Not really. "Gotten" has a more rounded vowel than "garden", and the middle consonant in "Gotten" is more t and in "garden" is more ɾ (alveolar flap). That even ignores the rhoticity issue. --Jayron32 15:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Nothing like. See Short O: Separated by an Uncommon Vowel. Alansplodge (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I mean American gotten /gɑːɾn̩/ and British garden /gɑːdn̩/. Sound too similar. If a non-American adopts Americanisms through listenning it must be amusing to listen to how Americans so often guard it and have garden.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
It would be quite tricky (I imagine) to acquire the American pronunciation of some vowels while retaining the native pronunciation of others. Possible perhaps, but I've never heard it. Alansplodge (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I've just tried to imagine how a mind of a speaker works, when that speaker of one accent hears something very different and somewhat alien from another accent, transposes the heard words into one's own accent and then adopts the foreign usage.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, when I'm not really listening and I hear an American voice on British radio, my brain sometimes makes a decoding error and interprets a word such as /ˈɡɑːɾn̩/ as a northern /ˈɡäːdn/ (d not really sounded as a proper plosive, is it ɖ or ɟ or dⁿ or d̚ in IPA?), and I have to re-listen in my short-term memory to recognise American vowels and to decode the correct word. This happens very quickly, and I don't remain puzzled for more than a fraction of a second. I tried this out on Wiktionary's sound file, but that doesn't work there because they say /ˈɡɑʔn̩/ with a glottal stop and a short /ɑ/ which might be mistaken for the surname Garton when the t is glottalised. Dbfirs 00:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
We had some Australian and NZ students on a voluntary work placement here in the UK last summer. One of the girls had a pretty standard Australian accent, but many of the phrases she used were puzzling until she played a DVD of High School Musical and all became apparent. Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you recall any specific examples? LANTZYTALK 04:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
"Oh my Gaaahd! How do you even do that?" springs to mind. Alansplodge (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"Plow" vs "plough" in historical British English[edit]

Some time ago, I wrote a brief article on the English folk song, "The Farmer's Boy". I quoted the full lyrics from a book published in London in 1857 called Ancient Poems, Ballads and Songs of the Peasantry of England, which includes the repeated line, "To plow and sow, and reap and mow, / And be a farmer's boy." Today, User:BobGun has come along and changed "plow" to "plough" which is the modern British spelling. I've changed them all back again, but I need to know when and why we Britons changed from one spelling to the other please, so that I can state my case on the article's talk page. American editors will kindly refrain from being too smug for retaining the more sensible spelling all along. Alansplodge (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The spelling in "-ough" is older, and was standard in British English from 1700. It represents how the word used to be pronounced. The OED says "As regards the developments shown by the forms of the word within English, the regular Old English inflection of plōh (also, with failure of devoicing of the final consonant, plōg ) would be dative plōge , genitive plōges , nominative plural plōgas , giving in early Middle English ploh , ploȝe , ploȝes , and in later Middle English singular plouh , plowh , or plowgh , plural plowes ; as these became homophonous in modern English there is levelling of the spellings to either plough , ploughs , or plow , plows ; the former has been the accepted spelling in England since approximately 1700, while the latter is usual in the U.S." DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. However we have "plow" in 1857; was that still an accepted variant then, or just being deliberately archaic? Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I would suspect, from the context, it was an archaism or an attempt to represent how a farmer's boy might spell. Mr Denham of Piersebridge might be able to tell you more. DuncanHill (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
EO says plough is an "alternative spelling" of plow.[3] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Shakespeare used both spellings, as did early bibles (the King James bible used "plough" only once, but the Douay-Rheims bible used "plough" throughout). Both spellings were in common use, with plow possibly more common until about 1760 when plough became the standard British spelling with plow rapidly falling out of use. In American English, plough was also the most common spelling until about 1905 when plow became the usual spelling. (Research from OED & Google + ngrams.) Dbfirs 18:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not clear exactly when the song was written (any time from 1700 onwards?), but in 1659, John Gauden wrote " If they may eate and drink, plow and sow, buy and sell ...", and in 1683 John Scott wrote " before he can plow and sow ...", but in 1699 Simon Patrick wrote "where they might plough, and sow, and reap ...". In the 1700s, "to plough and sow" seems to be at least twice as common as "to plow and sow" in Google Books. In the early 1800s, "to plow and sow" was used by James Marsh in 1830 and by Albert Barnes in 1841, but "to plough and sow" was used ten times as often in Google Books. This seems to indicate that if the song was written early then it might just use common spelling, but if written in the mid-1800s then it was probably deliberate dated spelling. Dbfirs 18:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all kindly. Alansplodge (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
It's fun to imagine all those British sharecroppers out pluffing for their lords. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
A rough-coated, dough-faced ploughman strode through the streets of Scarborough, coughing and hiccoughing thoughtfully. Dbfirs 22:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I found their Winter season a little disappointing too. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I was once in a training course where the Biblical quote "they shall beat their swords into plowshares" was used in a presentation, except the assistant had made a typo and it came out as "they shall beat their swords into flowshares". In that situation it actually worked quite well. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Completely separate from the spelling issue, you should explicitly attribute the lyrics you copied: they are a direct copy from your (public domain) source: see WP:Plagiarism. In this case I think you should place the entire section in a block quote. Since this is a direct quote, the other editor should not edit it to "correct" the spelling spelling. -Arch dude (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder User:Arch dude, but it's already in a blockquote (poem). Click "edit" and see for yourself Alansplodge (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and I used the term incorrectly. Furthermore, In my opinion our attribution rules are too stringent and your reference more than suffices. However, If you add inline attribution at the bottom of the poem (e.g., ":from Bell, Robert (1857). Ancient Poems, Ballads, and Songs of the Peasantry of England. London: John W Parker and Son. pp. 148–149. ) then it is obvious to the reader (not just the editor) that you are quoting, and this means the quoted spelling must not be changed.

January 29[edit]

whatever besets you/whatever you are beset by[edit]

Which is preferable? Or, does it make no difference?
"I wish you the best in whatever besets you and I look forward to hearing from you again."
"I wish you the best in whatever you are beset by and I look forward to hearing from you again."
Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the second, but the word beset has a strong negative connotation. Was that what you intended? Dbfirs 22:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, somebody wrote me and implied that they would be out of circulation for awhile but that they didn't want to disclose the reason why. I replied using the first version. But then after thinking about the wording I decided the second and lengthier version was preferable. But it is too late as the email has already been sent. Bus stop (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd have said "I wish you the best in whatever befalls you ..." but I'm sure the person would understand your meaning. Dbfirs 23:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Dbfirs, "beset" is similar to being set upon or placed under siege, and befall is the preferred term here. μηδείς (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, if you did want to say "beset", either of the two original versions is quite reasonable. It's just a stylistic choice to use the active or passive voice. Well, unless you're one of those people who think that preposition stranding is bad English, but if you were, you wouldn't've written it that way. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
If you do not know what the problem is, do not use the word "beset" - it implies that they are under threat from all sides, which may not be the case. Just say that you wish them well in whatever troubles them, or in whatever problem they have. That is much more normal English. Wymspen (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think I over-interpreted, and in a negative way, what they were saying. Oh well, over and done with. Bus stop (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I would just say "I wish you well" and leave the rest of it out. But given the negative connotations of "beset", the passive voice version might be better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

January 30[edit]

rerealione[edit]

I saw a pair of pictures of Sacco and Vanzetti with the caption Vittima della Rerealione Capitalistica; and can't find any word resembling rerealione in my dictionaries. Could it be dialect? Transcription error? —Tamfang (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I suspected a transcription error, but where from? First thought was "della reazione capitalistica", which could make sense, but della "rereazione"? "repressione" ... Do you have any further info? ---Sluzzelin talk 00:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
If this is the image you have found - http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/m_r/millay/sacco.htm - the inscription looks quite clear, and is indeed "rerealione" (even though that word does not seem to exist). This card - http://cartoliste.ficedl.info/article2221.html?lang=fr - includes "reazione" and "rinnovazione" and "realizazzioni" though only "reazione" seems to make sense. My suspicion is that the leaflet shown may have been printed by someone who did not speak Italian, and therefore mis-read the hand written text provided by whoever ordered the leaflet. You could contact their "fan club" - http://saccoandvanzetti.org Wymspen (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

January 31[edit]

sg in Italian[edit]

Italian has 3 spellings with 2 different pronunciations depending on what follows; c, g, and sc. Does sg occur sometimes in Italian?? If so, how is it pronounced?? If possible, please reveal both kinds of (theoretically valid) Italian sg words. Georgia guy (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sg is a possible initial consonant cluster in Italian. It is pronounced /zg/. English speakers stumble over that, but they really shouldn't — it's just the voiced version of /sk/.
The only word that immediately came to mind as an example is sgozzare, which means to kill someone by cutting out the throat. I'm sure there are less emotional words; that's just the one I thought of. Make what you like of it. --Trovatore (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
That's hard sg. Do you know of any Italian words with soft sg?? (This question is for anyone who sees the question.) Georgia guy (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
No, as far as I'm aware, there is no "soft sg". --Trovatore (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
There is sgelare for example (Treccani). In certain dialects there are words such as sgigottare or sginzala. The "sg" is prononunced [zdʒ] in these examples. Basically, where you'd use the prefix "dis-" in English, you just use "s-" in Italian, so other constructions are conceivable. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Nice example. --Trovatore (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll make one more point: The s- prefix is not always a negative. Occasionally it's an intensifier, as in svendita. A vendita is a sale, but a svendita is a super-sale, like a going-out-of-business sale for example, but not always. The idea is something like "we're going to sell out our entire stock". I think Italian s- can derive either from Latin dis- or Latin ex-, and svendita should be an example of the second.
Italian political vocabulary is a never-dry well of neologisms. One that came up in the 90s was svalutation, a weird Italian–English hybrid meaning "devaluation" (as in currency). --Trovatore (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

What is this letter?[edit]

Hi! What is the first letter (looks like a U with a tail on the left) in the word ending with "ltramar" in this image? Thanks! PuertoRicoPostalCard-1885.jpg —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 17:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&oldid=762961523"