Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 July 24

= July 24 =

Speech communication speed of various languages
Are there any major differences in how fast information can be vocally communicated in one spoken language versus another? For example, one language may use speech that makes use of delayed sounds consisting of drawl, long words, or phrases while another may use much simpler vocal sounds to communicate the same information or idea. I know that this may depend a lot on the speaker, but on average it may seem that some languages are simply "faster" vocally than others in this way. So which well known language would be considered to have the highest vocal "throughput" and speed of conveying ideas and communicating? 24.193.28.27 (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to me it'd depend much more on what the speaker was trying to say, and on why he was trying to say it. I recall a tongue-in-cheek statement by a man to his significant other, paraphrased as "Nothing in the vast sweep of interpersonal carnal relationships could ever surpass the thorough going-over which I intend vis-a-vis your good self."  In other circumstances, that might be shortened to, "Ready?" You might try browsing the linguistic archives at Language Log blog, which can shake your preconceptions of things like "a word."  OtherDave (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I recall reading somewhere that on average, English requires fewer words to convey the same meaning than French (too many of those le, la, les, etc.). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think, generally, an Irishman speaking English will have a much higher throughput than a Texan speaking English. Between languages it's much more difficult to measure because, depending on the topic and the grammar of the language, one can take more words to convey the same idea (where one language has a specific word for that idea and the other has a 2 or 3 word phrase for the same idea), or more time to say one word in an agglutinative language but that word takes less time than the several (roughly equivalent) words in a non-agglutinative language. -LambaJan (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Italian "portafoglio"
In particular, do you pronounce the l? --212.120.246.239 (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can listen to it here. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The pronunciation of the gl involves a palatal lateral approximant. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

-que ending
1. How did it form in Latin? 2. What was its significative function? 3. Does it still have it in Latin-based languages? Tough questions, I know. Many thanks for any comment. --Omidinist (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about the Latin enclitic -que that means "and". It's inherited from Proto-Indo-European *kwe, which also followed the second word to be connected (i.e. "A and B" was "A B kwe"). It has parallels in Sanskrit ca and Ancient Greek te, which use the same syntax. If by "What was its significative function?" you mean "What did it mean?" the answer is "and". As far as I know it does not survive in any modern Romance language, at least not directly. In Latin, it became permanently attached to some words, and those words may survive in modern languages. For example, dumque became French donc. —Angr 16:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

All right. Thanks so far. But, how about words like burlesque? What is -que doing here? --Omidinist (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, the suffix isn't -que, it's -esque, which is a French suffix that was borrowed from Italian -esco (Bergamesco, Tedesco, etc.), which in turn was probably borrowed from Germanic and so is related to English -ish, German -isch, and Scandinavian -sk. It's just a generic suffix for turning a noun into an adjective. —Angr 19:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Such words are not unique. :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So, was there ever any distinction in meaning between "A et B" and "A Bque"? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There may have been at one time, but I remember being taught that, for example, Senatus Populusque Romanus is absolutely synonymous with Senatus et Populus Romanus. It's interesting, though, that the abbreviation of the 3-word former former expression was the 4-letter SPQR even though the PQ comes from the single word Populusque.   Whereas, the abbreviation of the 4-word latter expression would presumably have been the 3-letter SPR.  How curious.--  JackofOz (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to et and -que, Latin has another word for "and", atque (sometimes shortened to ac). The grammar books will tell you there's a difference in meaning between et and atque, but they're always very vague and self-contradictory (or mutually contradictory) about it. —Angr 13:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So, at the end, if there is no relation between the Latin enclitic -que and the -que ending in words like burlesque, why are they so similar in form? Is it a mere accident?! --Omidinist (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's just coincidence. But considering that in English and Latin, Q is always followed by U plus another vowel letter (and in French, if Q is followed by U, then the U is followed by another vowel letter), and considering that in all three languages, E is probably the most frequently occurring vowel letter, of all strings of three letters starting with Q, QUE is probably the commonest in all three languages. —Angr 14:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They aren't really similar in form, they share the three letters -que. In -esque, the heart of the suffix is -esk, not -kwe or -ke. The use of -que in both cases is hardly an accident: French uses 'qu' for our -k- sound, and at the end of a word the -k- sound is spelt -que. Xn4  ( talk ) 14:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Angr, it's not true about Q always being followed by U in English. There are many  English words containing Q not followed by U.  "But they’re loan words from other languages", I hear you protest.  "So are the millions of words we borrowed from Latin, Greek and French", I respond.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Only a singular inadvertence can account for my dear colleagues' failure to mention Greek καὶ, which is cognate with Latin -que and also means "and". It is not, however, enclitic.
 * – ⊥ ¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T– 12:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What language is this?
I found this written in a stone near my house in what appeared to be Hebrew and I transliterated it (using the Hebrew alphabet provided in a Webster's dictionary (so it may not be 100% accurate)). Although it was written in Hebrew, I don't think this is Hebrew at all (unless I transliterated incorrectly??). I also can't provide the original Hebrew text, because it's not an available script on my computer. I see some similarities--like 'Atonai and Adonai', and 'ory and ori' and 'irel and ira', also some semitic languages use "Al" like 'the', I believe??


 * "Al-Atonai eloe et-ory ydh et-iashai ; zadh l’irel el ilqu ?
 * Al-Atonai eloe al-azaiq aka et-ihlafai ; aka zadh l’irel’rra el ilqu ?


 * Zal al-ashtan’rra ailqu, ev et-shinaiqyn ydh et-shaqvaryn,
 * ventulum l’et kronch’l et-matar, ai-el um’as io kchsharlum ydh nafchshpirlum."

And another part was also written, but lacked vowels (except for the aleph)-- "shrcharhrt l yhaw shl gvyta slh"

Does anyone know what language this is in, and why Hebrew was used for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharshayarta-shah Amritatvi (talk • contribs) 19:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It does look temptingly like Hebrew, doesn't it? Could it be Aramaic? Can you take a photo of the stone and upload it? —Angr 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to upload it when I get access to a camera. I'm pretty far away from a place where I can get one, but I'll try. I also don't think it's Aramaic, because I'm pretty sure Aramaic and Hebrew are mutually intelligible to a certain extent, especially when Aramaic is written using Hebrew. And the plethora of 'l' seems to have a function, as it's in almost every other word, which doesn't look very semitic. By looking at it from a strictly semitic meaning, it roughly seems like it says "The-Lord [eloe] together-light [ydh] together-[ia]present; [zadh][l']fear[of God] [ilqu]?" I can't really make out the rest, but I think 'el' and 'lum' and' l' ' associate action, since eloe comes after the subject and before the objects (assuming the meaning and if the order is SVO) and 'ydh' seems to connect the two objects (including et-shinaiqyn et-shaqvaryn and kchsharlum nafchshpirlum), so it may function as 'and'. If it helps, I'm near Neve Ativ, Israel for vacation and 2 native Hebrew speakers said they have no idea what it says, except for what I attempted to translate. I'll search for a camera —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharshayarta-shah Amritatvi (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has an article about Neve Ativ. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It means "The-Lord is my-light and my-savior; at whom shall my fear be directed? The-Lord is the-strength of my-life; of whom shall afraidness be directed?  When the adverse direct, even my-enemies and my-foes[demons], come[they] to me to devour my-flesh, it-is they that stumble and fall."

I believe that this is an excerpt from the Bible: Psalm 27 it looks like. And the language is a sort of hodgepodge mutation of either an Indo-European (possibly Italic) language that had Hebrew/Aramaic loan words or a North/Western Semitic language that uses Indo-European loan words and form... and it looks like it uses liaison and elision (which is why I'm assuming it is Italic, esp. with the use of ventu[lum] for 'come' as in venare/venir and the different forms of 'l' indicate action, making 'lum' [indicating they] 'el'[indicating I am and to be] 'l [apostrophe]'[indicating to-] all forms of verbs. If you find any more of this language, please share.  It's really interesting and mysterious.  I was able to find out the meaning by your attempt at translating it and then went on my knowledge of other languages.  But then again, I may be wrong, but it all appears to coincide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.248.45 (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is really interesting! I agree with all the above sleuthing. I'm going to take a wild guess here; we've got some Italic loan-words, some Indo-European, some Semitic structure... Could it possibly be Maltese? I don't think Maltese was ever written in Hebrew letters... I'm really stumped for now - I'll do some research and see what I can find. Try and upload a picture, if you can! СПУТНИК CCC  P 21:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you do a Google search for "language guesser" or "language identifier", then you can choose from a number of programs to identify the language. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How old does that incription look? Could it be that you have discovered the first writing of a Latin-hebrew creole language from Roman times? Or an Italian-Arabic creole from the time of the crusades? Either of those would be really amazing! --Lgriot (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be amazing, but, as far as I am aware, totally unique - the crusaders and Muslims did not interact much, and rarely bothered to learn each other's languages (in fact I can't think of any Muslims at all who learned a western language). Latin was the "official" language and French, not Italian, was the everyday language. There were plenty of Italian merchants but they didn't really interact directly with the Muslims either, and at that point they still used Latin for official purposes. There are a few loan words from French and Latin in Arabic ("funduq" for example, from "fondacium"), and many Arabic loan words in European languages, but there was no creole in the crusader states. But if that thing really were a crusader creole, there are plenty of people who would want to know about it! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with User:98.224.248.45; here's Ps 27:1-2, looks like the right spot: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2627.htm. If it displays on your computer, how does that Hebrew text compare with what you saw, User:Kharshayarta-shah Amritatvi? We'd still love to see that photograph, of course. :-) -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 08:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The link with the hebrew translation next to the passages from Psalm 27 transliterates as "ledhâvidh Adonay 'oriy veyish`iy mimmiy 'iyrâ'Adonay mâ`oz-chayyay mimmiy 'ephchâdh biqrobh `âlay merê`iymle'ekhol 'eth-besâriy tsâray ve'oyebhay liy hêmmâh khâshelu venâphâlu" but the stone looks entirely different and reads left to right and not right to left like in normal Hebrew. The Latin translation of the verse is "David: Dominus lux mea et salutare meum quem timebo Dominus fortitudo vitae meae quem formidabo? cum adpropinquarent mihi maligni ut comederent carnem meam hostes mei et inimici mei ipsi inpigerunt et ceciderunt."

Italian- "Di Davide. di chi avrò paura? Il Signore è difesa della mia vita, di chi avrò timore? Quando mi assalgono i malvagi per straziarmi la carne, sono essi, avversari e nemici, a inciampare e cadere."

French- L'Eternel est ma lumière et mon salut: De qui aurais-je crainte? L'Eternel est le soutien de ma vie: De qui aurais-je peur? Quand des méchants s'avancent contre moi, Pour dévorer ma chair, Ce sont mes persécuteurs et mes ennemis Qui chancellent et tombent.

I don't know the Arabic transliteration to roman letters, but it'd help if this is indeed a creole language of any of these languages combined. Although, it seems closer to French than any of the latin/itialian, but then again none of them are exactly literal translations of one another..so I don't know...

I have a picture now, but how do I upload it?? I try hilighting the file name and attaching the picture mark-up, but it doesn't show up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharshayarta-shah Amritatvi (talk • contribs) 21:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Use Special:Upload or Commons:Special:Upload. - Jmabel | Talk 21:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So, dear Kharshayarta-shah Amritatvi, can you upload the photo? --Lgriot (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

'Billion' in UK and US
Considering 'One Billion' is 1,000,000,000,000 in the UK and merely 1,000,000,000 in the US, how does this affect monetary exchange? $1bn could either be £500mn or £500,000mn (approx., given the exchange rate of $2=£1) depending on the understanding of the user of the word. As a side note, it's really misleading to use the word 'billion' these days, as we have no idea of which number the user is talking about. Is the world's population 6,000,000,000,000+ or is it 6,000,000,000+?--ChokinBako (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As of the now, almost no-one in the UK uses 'billion' for a million million. The so-called short scale is now standard in the UK, and I believe in most of the English-speaking world. Algebraist 19:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly in the realm of finance, billion means the same thing on both sides of the Atlantic. Marco polo (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The UK definition is still being used though increasingly the US one is becoming standard. Oddly, it is the Uk definition that is the original one (grammer wise UK makes more sense because it is bi denoting million2),  Apparently the US adopted the French convention rather than the UK convention (oddly the French switch to the UK convention in the 1940s) Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know of no circumstances whatsoever where the long scale billion is still in use in Britain. The government decreed the short scale for all financial transactions in 1974. Jooler (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)