Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 September 15

= September 15 =

a linguistic question
"Which pair contains the allomorphs of the plural morpheme in English?" when you answer this question, can you explain your answer with its reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erman83 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A) sheep- deer
 * B) crisis- analysis
 * C) curricula- data
 * D) judges- churches
 * E) dogs- cats


 * "Do your own homework". Hint: Look up "allomorphs" in an online dictionary. Unimaginative Username 00:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, online dictionaries give different incompatible definitions, like this one:
 * Linguistics. one of the alternate contextually determined phonological shapes of a morpheme, as en in oxen, which is an allomorph of the English plural morpheme.
 * This doesn't make much sense and won't help the questioner. A better suggestion is to study our articles Allomorph and English plural (as well as the textbook or course notes). The question is not phrased very well. It refers to the plural morpheme in English, while English has several. Apparently, specifically the plural morpheme -s is meant. And note that the problem can't be solved unless you know how to pronounce these words (which you can find, inasmuch as relevant, under English plural). Non-native speakers whose native languages has devoicing of final consonants may have a hard time solving this from the given material even if they understand the allomorph concept perfectly well. --Lambiam 01:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that pronunciation is required to answer the question; knowledge of spelling definitely is, though. - Eron Talk 01:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The in  and the  in  are allophones of the phoneme for forming the English regular past tense (as well as past participle). The way these words are spelled (fished, buzzed) does not reveal the allomorphy, but instead hides it under a blanket of uniformity. Likewise for regular plurals.  --Lambiam 02:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am misunderstanding the concept. (Entirely possible, I'm far from an expert in this.) I was considering the different ways the plural morpheme could be spelled, not pronounced, which seemed to lead me to an answer - though perhaps not the correct one. In fact, the Morpheme article seems to clearly indicate the right answer - and it wasn't the one that I had picked! All that to say... point well taken, sir. (Falling back on writing, something I have more expertise in, I'd note that the original question would be better and more clear if it read "which pair contains allomorphs" rather than "the allomorphs.") - Eron Talk 03:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I found this one useful: Dictionary.com American Heritage meaning #2, which practically answered the OP directly. It even uses the phrase,"the English plural morpheme", as in the original question. Unimaginative Username 03:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

i think i was misunderstood :(
as i said i think i was misunderstood.because the question i asked isn't a homework.it was a question asked in the exam of open education faculty eng.tech.depart. last weekend.and now we are discussing this question so i wanted you to help me about this question... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erman83 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

i need help!
there is a question asked in exam by open edcation faculty eng.tech.depart. last weekend.now we are discussing on this question and i want you to help me about the answer and its reason,please! "Which pair contains the allomorphs of the plural morpheme in English?" A) sheep- deer B) crisis- analysis C) curricula- data D) judges- churches E) dogs- cats —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erman83 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we saw the question already. One main section per question ought to be enough, so I took the liberty of turning your two sequels into subsections of the original. That said — Thanks for clarifying your motive; I'll assume you're telling the truth.  The original question is poorly stated but we can attack it by elimination.
 * sheep and deer both contain the zero morpheme, so there are no two allomorphs here.
 * crisis and analysis are both singular (Greek words with plural -es), so it's not this one.
 * curricula and data have the Latin neuter plural morpheme, not English, and in the same form therefore no plural allomorphs.
 * judges and churches have the same allomorph of the English regular plural morpheme, so it's not this one.
 * dogs and cats is the answer: both have a regular English plural morpheme, but because of the adjacent consonant one is voiced and one not.
 * Note that the morpheme has three allomorphs, illustrated in D and E. —Tamfang 00:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the plural morpheme have other allomorphs as well? I'm thinking oxen, curriculum, formulae, etc. Or are they counted differently as they are irregular? (This was my problem with the question stating that one pair contained "the allomorphs of the plural morpheme," as that suggests there are only two.) - Eron Talk 00:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's part of why I say the question is poorly stated; but I'd say all those others are not allomorphs but different morphemes that happen to be synonymous with the regular one, which is the only productive one (i.e. the only one that can be attached to new words, not counting extensions like chairmen, intentionally arbitrary jocular formations like VAXen, and foreign words like samurai) and therefore the only one that really has allomorphs (forms that vary predictably with the phonetic environment).  Clear? —Tamfang 03:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perfectly clear. I wasn't understanding that it is really a phonetic concept; I was too focused on the written aspect. I've got it now, thanks. - Eron Talk 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter
I am wondering about the cover of the Harry Potter series in Canada and Australia. Is it the Thomas Taylor (Britain) or the Mary Grandpre (U.S.) cover art? Is the first book called Philosoper's Stone or is it Sorcerer's Stone? --Nick4404 00:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Judging from the website of the Canadian publisher, the title is "HP & the Philosopher's Stone". Not sure about the cover art, it looks like it was revised in 2004, with newer versions having a red gem on the cover and older versions a train locomotive. --Mathew5000 01:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Harry Potter page (article) here says, "...the first novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States)..." If you'll accept anecdotal evidence, the explanation I recall from the time of publication was that the author initially had in mind the time-honored notion of the Philosopher's Stone. However, this was deemed too unfamiliar to the large U.S. reading public. The substitution of "sorcerer" was thought to be an improvement, having the cachet of magic rather than a fusty whiff of [horrors!] intellectual pursuits. -- Deborahjay 08:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the cover art here (Canada) is the same as in Britain. Here is a link to Raincoast Books, the Canadian publisher, complete with the cover art for all seven books. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 08:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Australian versions have the same cover art as the UK editions and the first book is the Philosopher's Stone. Steewi 02:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Content/Contented
Dictionary.com lists contented as a synonym for content. I'm not sure that I buy that they're one and the same, though. What do y'all think? Is there a subtle difference in meaning or connotation? — Brian ( talk ) 01:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well there are invariably subtle differences in connotation between all synonyms, but there are times when one serves better than another. "I am content" is pretty much the same as saying "I am contented", so they are synonyms there. But they are not interchangeable in "He is content to allow you to cook tonight" and "He contented himself with beans on toast".--Shantavira|feed me 07:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

RSVP as a verb
Is there a name for the concept/practice of turning a noun into a verb as in the case of RSVP? Yes, I know RSVP actually stands for something and isn't technically a noun (according to my dictionary) but it's the only example I can think of right now, so please don't pick nits. What I'm getting at is the practice of turning that noun into a verb as in "They never RSVP'd (sp?) and I don't know why." Is there a term for this? Dismas |(talk) 02:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Anthimeria? —Keenan Pepper 03:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Verbification. - Eron Talk 03:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Calvin: "I like to verb words." Hobbes: "What?" Calvin: "I take nouns and adjectives and use them as verbs. Remember when `access' was a thing? Now it's something you do . It got verbed." Calvin: "Verbing weirds language." Hobbes: "Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to  understanding." - Calvin & Hobbes, by Bill Watterson

SaundersW 09:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks!  Dismas |(talk) 13:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * RSVP is a verb. It means "please respond", so it's an imperative verb.  --Nricardo 20:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. A friend of mine in high school was having a party, and on the invitations he started to write "Please RSVP". Then he remembered that would be redundant because "SVP" already means "please". So he just put "Please R". —Angr 20:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * At least once, I've been asked (in the appropriate context), "Did you R?" —Tamfang 01:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If anything, RSVP has been nouned. "How many RSVPs have you gotten?"  "I need to send my RSVP." etc.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No bones
I'm reading a book called No Bones, and somewhere in this book, somebody says: "There's no bones about it." Can anybody tell me what this expression means? Thanks! Lova Falk 09:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To make no bones about something: To state a fact in a way that allows no doubt. To have no objection to. SaundersW 09:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I've never seen this Phrase Finder before. Just what I need. Thank you! Lova Falk 10:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Translation
Would someone mind translating "The Random Editor" into IPA. Thanks. -- Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 12:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Going by the IPA at Wiktionary, ði rændəm ɛdɪtə — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 13:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely The is unstressed, so /ðə/ rather than /ði:/ .DuncanHill 13:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I second DuncanHill, and would add that you'll want ɚ rather than ə as the last letter if you speak General American or another accent with R-colored vowels.--Estrellador* 14:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a little difficult to do this accurately unless we know which dialect of English (or which standard - i.e. English, American, Australian) you are using. The differences are generally small, but can be quite significant. If you want Australian, the last vowel in editor for me is actually [a], rather than [ə], the second vowel is [ə] and the /t/ phoneme in editor is lenited to [d] or a tap. On the other hand, it might be better to simply use a phonemic approach to remove most of the inter-dialect differences. If that's the case, use slashes and it's not as much of a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steewi (talk • contribs) 02:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Glottal stop
Something I should already know:

In the word react, is there a glottal stop between the two vowels, i.e. ? If so, is it necessary to include this glottal stop in a phonemic transcription? If it means anything, I'm talking about a General American pronunciation. Thanks!--El aprendelenguas 19:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there is not. A glottal stop exists in American English in few cases, such as "uh-oh". You can also often hear it in British English where there ought to be a t: "I am not going to the store". But in react, it is a smooth transition. The Evil Spartan 20:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So the correct transcription is ? The two vowels together is what made me unsure. I didn't want them to be mistaken for a diphthong. Is there some kind of IPA mark other than stress that would make it clear that the word is disyllabic?--El aprendelenguas 20:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can put a period to indicate the syllable boundary: . (The IPA symbol /c/ stands for a voiceless palatal stop, a sound which doesn't exist in English.) —Angr 20:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all your help, and for being so quick as well.--El aprendelenguas 20:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * react is sometimes pronounced, the off-glide of /i/ becoming a fleeting consonant. Could that be what's bothering you?  —Tamfang 00:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Evil Spartan, you say it's rare, but isn't it a glottal stop in words where a "t" sound is not pronounced, such as "kitten" and "button"? Separately, I note that many such words match the regular expression "tt.n$" for some reason.  --Sean 18:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it depends on accent. Received Pronunciation speakers pronounce the "t" in words such as "kitten" and "button"; Cockney and Estuary English generally replace it with a glottal stop. See T-glottalization. Gandalf61 10:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

definition and use of historical versus historic
What is correct: Historical home tour or historic home tour and how does one differ from the other. I am organizing a home tour and I have been referring to the houses as "historical homes" but have been told that the correct term is "historic homes". I don't know the difference. Please clarify. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.241.156 (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See this Usage Note. Briefly, "historic" means "of important historical significance", while "historical" just means "of or relating to history". —Angr 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The difference is in which word the adjective is modifying. Is it modifying "tour", or is it modifying "home"?  Was the tour itself famous, or was it just another boring tour _of_ something famous?  If it was just another boring tour, then it was historical; it was a tour of something historic.  But, if the tour was so horrible or memorable that the tour, itself, became widely known after the fact, then it was a historic tour.  -66.55.10.178 15:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you pronounce "zusammen" and "entgegen"?
Organic chemistry terms derived from German. Any help appreciated 128.163.224.222 21:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In IPA, and . I don't understand ad-hoc "pro-nun-see-AY-shun" guides, so if that's what you need, someone else will have to provide it for you. —Angr 21:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. On the "pro-nun-see-AY-shun" pattern, that's tsoo-ZAMM-un and ennt-GAY-gun, viz., the last vowel of each of those words is much the same as the last one in 'pronunciation'. Xn4 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, ZAHM, not ZAMM. Wareh 03:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose you mean the 'a' in tsoo-ZAHM-un should be pronounced as in EE (or the 'a' in 'palm' in both EE and AE), whereas the 'a' in ennt-GAY-gun should be pronounced as in 'bathe' (in either EE or AE). Well, actually, the 'ay' is rather wrong too, because there should be no 'y' sound. That is one of the biggest problems for English speakers when pronouncing other languages because there is no equivalent sound in the English language (afaik). When pronouncing the 'a' as in 'bathe', cut off the second half, where it changes into an 'ee' sound. DirkvdM 08:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why ad-hoc "pro-nun-see-AY-shun" guides are totally inadequate. —Angr 19:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, not totally. IPA is a whole lot better, but you can't expect everyone to learn it (or can you?). So for those who don't know it, an easy alternative is needed. DirkvdM 06:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering how much easier it is to learn than English orthography, why can't you expect everyone to learn it? Why isn't it taught in first grade? —Angr 15:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, I would fully support teaching kids this at school. But that is not done, so in the meantime we can't expect people to know IPA. It's good to wish and strive for stuff like that, but you also need to keep your feet on the ground. DirkvdM 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)