Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 July 1

= July 1 =

Semantics
I guess that this is a question of semantics, so I will post it here. Assume that a woman and a man have sex (that is not in dispute) and the woman subsequently alleges a rape. The case goes to court. Either one of the following two things happens: (a) the man/defendant either pleads guilty to, or is convicted of, a lesser crime than rape (say, a "battery"); or (b) the man/defendant is fully acquitted. Under either scenario (a) or (b), in legal and technical terms, a "rape" never occurred. Under Scenario A, a "battery" occurred, and under Scenario B, no crime occurred at all. So, in essence, semantically, there was no rape. Therefore, we cannot properly call the man a "rapist." At this point, then, is it appropriate to refer to the woman as a rape victim? Or even as a victim at all, in Scenario B? Obviously, this is just an issue of semantics -- but I am curious about it.

On a related note: Let's assume that Andrea Yates is found not guilty by reason of insanity for the deaths of her children. Semantically, then, there was no "murder" -- and Andrea Yates cannot properly be called a "murderer." But, can we still properly call the children "murder victims" or even claim that they were "murdered"? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 00:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC))


 * A person can be found not guilty of a charge because of a technical legal reason, but that doesn't alter the fact that they did whatever they did. This exposes the difference between the legal meaning of a term and the common meaning.  O J Simpson is not, technically, a murderer because he was acquitted of that criminal charge.  But he was found responsible for his wife's death in a separate civil legal proceeding.  His wife, by any common understanding of the term, was murdered and is therefore a murder victim.  Even if O J had not been found civilly liable, someone murdered his wife.  --  JackofOz 01:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that you followed my point. The OJ example (your final sentence above) is not a good example, because it presumes that there is someone out there (as yet unidentified) who committed the murder and is therefore a murderer.  In other words, a murder was committed; it was committed by a murderer; and we simply do not (as of yet) know who that murderer was.  My two examples above (the known "man" in the rape case and Andrea Yates) are different -- because we know and have identified the individual responsible for the action.  But, we have not identified the crime as a murder (or a rape).  In other words, the law has stated that the man did not commit a rape.  The law has stated that Andrea Yates did not commit a murder.

So, the man cannot semantically be referred to as a rapist, and Yates cannot semantically be referred to as a murderer. Nonetheless, can the woman be referred to as a rape victim, when no rape occurred? And can Yates' children be referred to as murder victims when no murder occurred? Can we even say that the Yates children were "murdered" when we know unequivocally (legally / semantically) that there was no murder at all? (JosephASpadaro 05:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Andrea Yates's conviction was overturned on the basis that she was not guilty by reason of insanity. To quote from our article on this matter, "This defense is based on the principle that guilt is determined by examining if the defendant was capable of distinguishing right and wrong".  That is, nobody doubts that Yates killed her children unlawfully, but because she was considered not to be capable of distinguishing right from wrong, she could not be held legally culpable for her actions.  What happened to the children did not retrospectively change as a result of their mother's conviction being overturned.  They were murdered then and they remain murdered now.

IANAL, but I think the law is concerned about whether or not a defendant is guilty of the crime or not, not whether the crime took place. The very fact that a person was charged with the murder - whatever the outcome of that prosecution - is based on the fact that a murder occurred. Thus, her children could, imo, correctly be described as "murder victims" regardless of the fact that the perpetrator has been found not guilty of murder. -- JackofOz 05:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * JackofOz, your response is mixing and mingling, without discrimination, the legal word murder and the common non-legal word murder. Murder is not equal to "causing the death of another person."  In order for a crime to rise to the level of murder, the actor (let's say, Andrea Yates) (a) has to know right from wrong; (b) has to be sane (i.e., not insane); and (c) has to intentionally cause the death of another human being.  These three requirements were not met in the Yates case and, thus, no murder occurred.  If no murder occurred, there can be no victims of the murder that never occurred.  Perhaps the rape case is easier to think about.  After the man is acquitted (or found guilty of battery and not guilty of rape), would you claim that the woman should semantically be referred to as a rape victim?  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 06:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC))


 * The reason for mixing up legal and non-legal words is that legal realities have little bearing on how a a real person talks about something. If she's your friend and says she was raped, then you're not exactly going to tell her, "stop calling yourself a 'rape victim', the court found that no rape occurred."  How we talk about an event has more to do with how we perceive it than what has been proven in court.  In other words, there is no one answer to your question.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 21:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you say. However, my question is asking about what the correct answer would be semantically (i.e., strictly regarding proper word usage).  If your friend is the rape victim, that involves emotions - perhaps sympathy, heightened credibility of your friend's version of events, anger at the court and justice system for its "faulty" ruling, etc.  Your second example, how we perceive things, also involves aspects other than logic and semantics.  So, all that aside, I am only asking about the semantics and, strictly speaking, proper wording in such cases.  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 00:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC))


 * The "proper wording" will, in all cases, be dependent upon the context. That is what almost all of the respondents are saying. You apppear to be looking for a single answer that will fit all cases. For better or for worse, English seldom operates that way. "Murder" has more than one definition; "rape" has more than one definition. The only "correct answer . . . semantically" is the one that recognizes the context. What works in the courtroom may also work in the newspaper, but may fail utterly in the living room. Bielle 02:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The key point, I think, is that principles of law may call for something to be deemed true even if it is not in fact true. In particular, this is how the presumption of innocence works. I'll take Canada as an example since I have an online Criminal Code at hand.

Section 6 mandates the presumption of innocence: "Where an enactment creates an offence and authorizes a punishment to be imposed in respect of that offence... a person shall be deemed not to be guilty of the offence until he is convicted or discharged under section 730 of the offence..."

Section 449 is typical of many that declare something to be an offense: "Every one who makes or begins to make counterfeit money is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years."

So if you make counterfeit money, but you aren't convicted of the crime, then section 449 says in effect that you are a counterfeiter, but section 6 says that nevertheless you are deemed not to be one -- as far as the law is concerned.

Similarly with the original example. "Semantically, no rape has occurred" should read "Legally, no rape has occurred", or in other words, "It is deemed that no rape has occurred." If you know or believe that there was in fact a rape and you refer to the victim as a rape victim, you might be committing libel or slander, because legally there was no rape. But if it's clear that you're expressing your opinion that there was a rape, then "rape" is the word for it. In short, as is so often the case, what's "appropriate" depends on context.

--Anonymous, July 2, 2007, 06:16 (UTC).

Is that true, though? If a person is found not guilty of a crime, for whatever reason, that does not necessarily amount to the court deeming that no crime occurred. All the court is saying in the Andrea Yates case is that, because of her diminished mental condition, she cannot be held responsible for the act and therefore she will not be treated as a murderer but as a person needing medical/psychiatric treatment. But the act still occurred; she still did it; and the children were still murdered. -- JackofOz 07:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * JackofOz - If a person is found not guilty of a crime, that does not necessarily mean that no crime occurred. Correct. However, it could mean that.  It could also mean that a crime did occur, and that this particular person did not commit it.  Or, it could also mean: a crime occurred; this person did commit that crime; but the prosecution (State) was not able to offer sufficient proof that this person committed that crime.  In the Yates case, the verdict clearly stated that Yates did not commit a murder.  She committed a killing, she committed a homicide, but she did not commit a murder.  I guess that we can say, the children were victims of a killing, victims of a homicide -- but not victims of a murder (since there was no murder).  In any event, this is all semantic, of course, as the original post asserted.  Context, yes, is important.  When an alleged rapist is found "not guilty" and absolved of the rape crime ... I am sure that he would not call the victim a rape victim.  But, I am sure that the woman would call herself a rape victim, despite the court ruling.  And I guess what I am asking is -- emotions aside and semantically speaking -- can she really call herself a rape victim?  Can the Yates children be called murder victims?  Query - Can the Duke lacrosse victim call herself a rape victim, just because she sincerely believes that she was raped (when, in fact, she was not)?  But, I hear and I "get" what everyone is saying in this thread.  Ultimately, I think, people just believe (and defend) what they want to believe.  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 15:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I don't know whethere any specific rape occurred or not, unless I am a person involved, and perhaps not even then. I have to assume if you know "in fact, she was not" a rape victim, as you allege above, you may be someone involved and perhaps ought to step back on a WP:COI basis. If you are saying that you know the facts because of some legal verdict, then an NPOV might suggest your knowledge is that a specific legal finding exists. I assume that finding is verifiable and that the continuing claims of the involved parties, if any, are also verifiable. We don't seem to fuss much about what is true. I also think that the Ref Desk is not the proper venue for a content dispute, however artfully inserted into an question about semantics. Bielle 18:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your response above is unfair and does not assume good faith. I thought it was (very) common knowledge, per the media and official "proclamations" from the State of North Carolina, that no rape occurred.  This is indeed an appropriate forum for my original semantics question.  The Duke rape case was introduced, as an afterthought (way down the thread in line 735), to make / clarify a point.  Your comment that I have posted a content dispute artfully inserted into a question about semantics, as I said, is unfair and does not assume good faith.  I would love to know where that idea entered your brain?  I have conspired against all of Wikipedia and the entire world to debate the Duke lacrosse rape victim's claim by cleverly inserting it into a Language Help Desk appropriate question about semantics?  If that is what you think and how you think ... then clearly that is your issue, not mine.  As they say, "it takes a thief ..."  (JosephASpadaro 19:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC))


 * It is difficult to read the paragraph upon paragraph above and continue to "assume good faith" in the face of the OP's unwillingness to accept what four editors have said, all but one more than once, that the context is what determines the correct language. It would appear, then, that the OP will contine to rephrase the question until someone answers it "correctly" to meet the OP's needs or assumptions. To bring in more legal language, "asked and answered" many times, is the "correct" phrase for the process.
 * As for the "facts" of the case, until I ran a Wikipedia check before my previous comment, I had never heard of the case, and didn't even know that "Duke" was a university. (Not everyone on Wiki is an American, and this was not a case to interest the rest of the world.) As a number of others have pointed out in this thread, we can verify what the State of North Carolina and its judiciary has declared, but only the participants "know" what happened. My ignorance of local American criminal trials is not an excuse for my having failed to check for the OP in the history of the article and its debates. I apologize and declare that I found no evidence that JosephASpadaro has been involved in the article or on its talk page, and I was wrong to suggest that he was so involved. On everything else, my previous comments stand. Bielle 22:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, then, Queen Bielle. I was not aware that you ruled all of Wikipedia.  Clearly, you and I have different notions of how a conversation goes.  You think: ask a question, get a response, end of story.  Period.  That is most certainly not how I think.  My thinking is more along the lines of a Socratic method ... to keep probing and to "test" the responses to see if that is truly what the respondent intended to state.  Is that what he really means to say?  Sometimes, a statement (response) needs to be questioned and scrutinized, it needs to be tested and challenged.  Not all statements must be taken at face value, simply because the statement was merely made.  And, sometimes, this process involves making a point, offering a counterpoint, and going back and forth a bit, etc.  Certainly (at least in my opinion), that is a more appropriate process of asking questions, receiving answers, and -- ultimately -- becoming enlightened about the topic at hand.  I was not aware that your way was right and my way was wrong, according to Wikipedia rules.  You truly need to look up what "assume good faith" even means.  Your first sentence in your above post says that I am "unwilling to accept what four editors said."  Who said that I was unwilling to accept what they said?  You?  I accepted it, tested it, countered it, and -- actually -- in the end, agreed with it (i.e., was convinced of their position).  Why is my method wrong and yours right?  Do tell.  Just because your method of understanding / comprehending takes one step ... and mine takes perhaps 4 or 5 steps?  That makes your method right?  and mine wrong?  Look up "tolerance" for other views, by the way.  Also, why does my method require that you violate the assumption of good faith?  There are many ways to skin a cat, my freind.  If your method is to simply accept what anyone tells you, and not test it, and leave it at that -- you will not only be led down the wrong path (in the worst case) ... but you will also not come to embrace / understand / accept the opposing viewpoint presented (in the best case).  No, I don't just ask a question, blindly accept an answer, and trust that that answer is 100% correct -- just because some one says so.  In my opinion, your method (just accept whatever people say and shut up about it, don't question it) is hardly an enlightened approach to thinking / questioning / exploring unfamiliar territory.  And you were an educator for 35 years?!?!  Lord help us.  Please, Lord.  (JosephASpadaro 23:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Your prayers were heard, retroactively; I am long retired. Education is about process. I may have been working under an illusion, but I thought that the Ref Desk was about information, which is but a very small part of what constitutes education. (Wikiversity, I am told, is about education.) In other words, the Ref Desk can supply you with leads to, or information about, Socrates, but it is not set up to support the Socratic method, if for no other reason than the length of the answers and the length of the process. Your views about "my method", "enlightened" or otherwise, are attached to what I have to say about information and the Ref Desk, in which case you "have reason" as the French would say, to believe what you believe. However, to decide, without evidence, that I would apply the same criteria to education, is uncalled for and, in a word, uncivil.
 * It is also my view that none of this exchange belongs on the Ref Desk, and for that, I apologise to everyone. Bielle 23:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. So, this all goes back to my prior post.  You see the Reference Desk as Step 1 = ask a question; Step 2 = receive (and simply accept at face value) an answer; Step 3 = "OK, we're all done here, now please leave."  Life (and learning) is not so black and white.  I obviously see the process of asking for information and receiving/processing that information much differently than you do.  I guarantee you, you can look through many, many, many of these Help Desk entries.  Vary rarely will an entry be in the form of one question stated; one answer presented; end of entry.  Typically, one would expect a back and forth exchange.  And I am not sure why that offends you.  And why you do not see that as properly belonging in a Help Desk forum.  But, ultimately, that is your issue -- not mine.  Nonetheless, we can agree to disagree.  I will obtain my information (i.e., ask my questions) in the way that helps me to understand and process the answers.  And you can do so in your own way.  And, perhaps, never the twain shall meet.  And that's fine.  But, please assume good faith when other learners (asking questions) learn in a way that is different than what you perceive as the correct / appropriate / proper way to learn (or ask questions).  That is the height of intolerance.  And, also, please stop accusing me of asking improper questions on the Help Desk, because my dialogue does not conform to your requirements for the correct way to ask questions and process answers.  I learn in my own way -- not in your way.  As an educator, I would expect that you of all people would appreciate (and tolerate) this concept.  Thanks.  By the way, I have great respect for teachers and I am sure -- in your 35 years -- that you positively impacted scores of students.  And that is a good thing.  :)  Thank you.  (JosephASpadaro 04:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

English- Sentence Pattern
On his return, Ken found his suitcase untouched.

Could someone give me the exact sentence pattern (i.e., S+V+O and so on) for the above sentence ?

Thanks! -- 05:59, 1 July 2007 User:Meena 22


 * I believe the sentence would be analyzed as such: "On his return, Ken found [that] his suitcase [was] untouched."


 * Thus, Subject (Ken) + Verb (found) + Direct Object (that his suitcase was untouched)


 * "On his return" is a prepositional phrase, acting as an adverb, answering the question "when", to modify the verb "found"


 * The direct object (that his suitcase was untouched) is the direct object of the verb "found" (i.e., what did Ken find?)


 * The direct object is comprised of the clause "his suitcase was untouched" which is, respectively, adjective/noun/verb/adjective (Subject + Verb)


 * (JosephASpadaro 06:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

See also Small clause... AnonMoos 06:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Untouched is used as a predicate adjective.--El aprendelenguas 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

hang 10
this guy that i really like and might even love told me to do that and i have no idia what it means. somebody please help me


 * Well it could me "wait ten minutes" (as in hang around for 10 minutes). It could be some new version of 'slapping 5' like a different type of high 5. Otherwise not sure. ny156uk 09:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I understood it to mean having your ten toes hanging off the edge of a surfboard. On the other hand, the original meaning of a phrase is not what you want here, but what your beloved means by it. The only way to find that out may be to ask him.SaundersW 10:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's surfer slang. See hang ten.  Through extension, it may mean something along the lines of "have a blast!" (ie, have a great time), or something along those lines.  What was the context?  The Jade Knight 11:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, your gentleman friend has invited you to accompany him in some recreational surfboarding. Either that or his bed is a little too short to fully accommodate you.--Mrs Wibble-Wobble 11:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

German translation
Can I get a literal translation please. Der Geburtstag des Alpinismus Thank you. --Doug talk 12:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 'The birthday of alpinism' (the birth of alpinism would probably be better, but less literal), which, according to mountaineering, is sometimes used to refer to April 26, 1336. Algebraist 12:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps -- just by chance are you real familiar with this?--Doug talk 13:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't even speak German, but I can puzzle out a few words. Algebraist 14:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, also that wording looks correct to me (and I also do not know German). I believe "geburtstag" means birthday, which I have stumbled across in genealogy research. "Alpinismus" looks a lot like the English "alpinism". Thanks again.--Doug talk 16:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You believe correctly (I can remember a few things from GCSE). For more obscure words like alpinismus (ismus is the german form of ism, I believe) the German wikipedia can be useful, especially the interwiki links to english. Algebraist 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you or someone that knows German well can translate this, that is also related to the "birhtday of alpinism": Am 26. April 1336 erreichte Francesco Petrarca aus Neugier, freiwillig und "lediglich aus Verlangen" zusammen mit seinem Bruder und zwei weiteren Begleitern den Gipfel des Mont Ventoux, des "windigen Berges". Weil er in dieser Wanderung aber auch Naturerlebnis, Zufriedenheit und "Erregungen des Herzens" empfand, wird er als "Vater der Bergsteiger" bezeichnet und der 26. April 1336 als "Geburtsstunde des Alpinismus". Thanking you ahead of time for translating this above. Closest I can get is it says something about Petrarch being the "father of alpinism" in addition to something about the related "birthday of alpinism" being April 26, 1336; because of the ascent and climbing of Mont Ventoux. Then apparently it was considered tabu to climb any mountain (for religious reasons).--Doug talk 16:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On 26 April 1336, Francesco Petrarch reached the peak of Mont Ventoux, the "Windy Mountain", out of curiosity, voluntarily, and "just from desire", together with his brother and two other companions. But because he also experienced nature, contentment, and "emotional excitement" in this excursion, he is called the "father of mountain climbers", and 26 April 1336 is called the "moment mountaineering was born". —Angr 19:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's great - thanks much!!--Doug talk 20:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. If I had been translating this for an actual article, though, I probably would having written "because it was there" rather than "just from desire", to allude to George Mallory's explanation of why he wanted to climb Mount Everest. —Angr 20:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I recently did write such an article on "Birthday of alpinism" - which was ultimately deleted because apparently it is not a noteworthy enough event.--Doug talk 21:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strangely - the result of the deletion debate was "no consensus" so it should not have been deleted/redirected. DuncanHill 22:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See what I mean. Even though their own reference source (# 2 footnote) says "Birthday of alpinism" in German they will not allow that to be said in English so that those that read English know that it is really saying "birthday of alpinism." Anything with the wording "Birthday of Alpinism" or "birth of alpinism" being April 26, 1336, they will not allow - even though their very own reference sources say that. Also you can not say, "the moment mountaineering was born" or "represents a threshold between the Middle Ages and modern times" - even though the German article on the identical subject says this (and has said this for years). I know, because I tried to edit that into the History section of our English version on Mont Ventoux today (however it was deleted also). If you will notice at the bottom is the same reference they are using and in this mechanical "translation" it says The birthday of the alpine, which really means The birthday of alpinism. The wording of "Birthday of alpinism" or "birth of alpinism" or "the moment mountaineering was born" they will not allow in English, but their very references says this - just in German. You try putting in this wording and see what happens.--Doug talk 00:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't use the reference desk as a way to get people to participate in editing disputes. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Russian paragraph
Could someone please help me with the translation of this Russian paragraph? Самолёт должен был приземлиться. Но для этого нужно было, чтобы кончился бензин. Если останется бензин, может быть взрыв. Поэтому самолёт долго летал над Ленинградом. I've been trying to translate this for an hour now, but my translations aren't making much sense. Thank you. -- Hús  ö  nd  15:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check it with someone who speaks Russian better than I do, but here's my translation: The plane was supposed to land. But for this, it was necessary that it runs out of fuel. If there was fuel left, it could lead to an explosion. This is why the plane was flying over Leningrad for a long time. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 16:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, now I see what I was getting wrong. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  18:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a tiny nitpick: to be grammatical in English, the sentence should read "it was necessary that it run out of fuel". +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a tiny amendment to that nitpick: Usage varies across dialects of English. American English is more likely to use the subjunctive there, "It was necessary that it run out of fuel", while in British English the indicative is acceptable as well: "It was necessary that it runs out of fuel". The issue can be avoided by rewriting it as "It was necessary for it to run out of fuel". —Angr 20:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it by any chance from an article about an airplane landing on the Neva River? --Reuben 03:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Names of letters in other languages
Hi all. In English the Greek A is spelled "alpha" and the Spanish X is spelled "equis". Thanks, Saintrain 21:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Are letter "names" ever used in the native languages? (Only pipe fittings in English that I can think of (ELL, TEE) but Dos Equis for the cervesa (or is that just for nosotros gringos?).
 * 2) Are English (Latin) letters given names in other languages/countries (Russia/China/Japan)?
 * In Jèrriais, the word for alphabet is a b c, but the letters are not written out. In Romanian, letters are generally just pronounced as they are sounded (consonsants are given a schwa).  Generally, "names" for letters are simply traditional ways of remembering how to pronounce them.  In English, some of these have deviated from how these letters are pronounced.  They are not meant to be written out, generally—when learning a new alphabet, they will tell you how the letters are pronounced, but very rarely will they write out the letters' "names".  The Jade Knight 22:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In French, "y" is called "ygrec" ("Greek Y"). Adam Bishop 23:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In Portuguese, the letter W is called dáblio, which is a transliteration of the English name, double-u. Y is ípsolon. X is called xis, which sounds like cheese, so people often write x-burgers. A.Z. 00:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, that reference above says that the name of the letter sounds like sheesh, but this is just the accent from Rio de Janeiro. In São Paulo, it would sound more like cheese, but without the initial T sound. A.Z. 01:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, in Portugal "x" pronounces as sheesh, but "cheese" is pronounced as in English (thus, nobody writes "x-burger" in Portugal). Another interesting name of a letter in Portuguese is "h" (agá). Wonder where that came from.-- Hús  ö  nd  01:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like it's probably cognate with the Spanish and French names hache and ache, respectively. There is some information in our article about "H", cf. H. Mike Dillon 01:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do people from Rio de Janeiro pronounce it the same as the Portuguese because of the royal family exile in that city? A.Z. 02:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Slight correction—In French y is called "i grec": "Greek i" (seeing as the written form was borrowed from the Greek letter upsilon). The Jade Knight 03:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I belive that, in Spanish, I have seen "Y" as "i griega" (Greek i), "Ye" and "Upsilon". Am I misremembering things?  Corvus cornix 16:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can get a hold of it, an article called The Letter Names of the Latin Alphabet looks like it would be interesting. Mike Dillon 01:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * History of the Latin alphabet looks interesting too. Mike Dillon 02:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about colloquial or spoken Russian, but Russian-speaking mathematicians have to learn the names of the Latin letters (just as English-speakers have to learn to recognize and pronounce theta and pi). The equation "a + b = c" is read "a плюс b равно c", which sounds like "ah plyoos beh rahvno tseh".

There are also three letters in Russian whose names describe them: Й, Ь, and Ъ, whose names respectively are и краткое, ee kratkoyeh, "short I"; мягкий знак, myakhkiy znak, "soft sign"; and твёрдый знак, tvyordyy znak, "hard sign". (These are the capital forms, for readability.) The former is a modification of the letter И, and the latter two are signs that change the sound of the proceeding letter, making it "softer" or "harder". [P.S. These are not transliterations, but ad hoc transcriptions, before anybody jumps on me. =)] Tesseran 02:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The English version of Scrabble accepts as valid words all of the spelled-out names of the 26 letters of the English alphabet, with the possible exception of the spelling of W which may be a hyphenated word. I have no idea about other language versions of the game.  --  JackofOz 07:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are two sites with the Japanese pronunciation of the alphabet names: * http://www.kodomo-pc.com/manabuo/manabun03h0103.html * http://www.nec-eng.com/pro/document/word/about.html Of the two, first has the "American" names and in parentheses "English" names if different. The second one has both Latin and Greek letter names. As a note, just as one would say "the 'f' word" in English, the Japanese will call someone a "h", which stands for pervert (変態). CJLippert 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, in Rōmaji, they are: Ē (Ei), Bī, Shī (Sī), Dī, Ī, Efu, Jī, Etchi, Ai, Jē (Jei), Kē (Kei), Eru, Emu, Enu, Ō (Ou), Pī, Kyū, Āru, Esu, Tī, Yū, Bui (Vui, Vi), Daburyū, Ekkusu (Ekusu), Wai, Zetto (Zī) for the Latin letter names and for the Greek: Arufa, Bēta, Ganma, Deruta, Ipushiron, Jīta, Īta, Shīta, Iota, Kappa, Lamuda, Myū, Nyū, Kusai, Omikuron, Pai, Rō, Shiguma, Tau, Upushiron, Fai, Kai, Pusai, Omega. The Latin names are from the second page with the names in parentheses from the first page, and the Greek names are from the second page. CJLippert 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bold text