Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 July 30

= July 30 =

Mandarin and Japanese
I want to learn the Japanese language in my high school, but they don't have that kind of class here. but they do have a mandarin class. Is there any similarities between mandarin and Japanese? I hope there is so I can learn Japanese easier. --Randoman412 (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Linguistically, Japanese is an isolated language and almost as close to English as is to Chinese. Kanji, one of the Japanese character sets, is based off of Chinese, and has many loanwords. I would say that it wouldn't hurt learning Mandarin on your way to Japanese. Paragon12321 (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * About 50% of Japanese vocabulary is Sinitic (i.e. Chinese) in origin, and as mentioned Japanese partially adopted the system that Mandarin is written in. But structurally the languages are unrelated and quite dissimilar—studying Mandarin will not help you understand spoken Japanese at all, and you will probably be able to understand written Japanese about as much as an English speaker can understand written French. If you want an opinion I would say it is not worth learning Mandarin simply to then learn Japanese (both languages take considerable time and effort to grasp), but Mandarin is exotic and interesting to learn in its own right. Strad (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the Japanese pronounciation of Sino-Japanese words is based on an adaptation (often quite loose and approximate) of the sounds of medieval Chinese to the sounds of medieval Japanese. Due to the sound systems of medieval Chinese and Japanese being radically different, subsequent sound changes in Chinese, subsequent sound changes in Japanese, and the fact that the words were not necessarily borrowed from a medieval Chinese dialect which was the direct ancestor of modern standard Mandarin, therefore modern Japanese and modern Mandarin Chinese pronunciations of the same character can be unrecognizably different... AnonMoos (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally, I think learning any new language is going to make it a little easier to learn more languages, simply because it trains you to, uh, for the lack of a better term, "abandon" the structures and conventions of your own language and embrace new ones. That's a bit of a skill in itself. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And speaking pragmatically, if you're ever in Japan it would be nice to hop over to China, and vice-versa, so it's a better fit than learning Japanese and, say, Sindebele. --Sean 16:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Although Japanese is classified as an "isolate langauge", there is a large amount of vocabulary contained within it that came from Chinese (just in the same way that although English isn't a Romance language, it has lots of vocabulary from French, which is one). In this sense, learning Chinese will certainly help with Japanese. Not only this, but the Japanese Kanji symbols (which you will have to use when writing) come from the Chinese symbols. They are not entirely the same, but the difference between the two languages' equivalent symbols is usually insignificant. On top of this, Chinese and Japanese both require a "vaguer" thought than in English, and getting used to this in Chinese will certainly help with Japanese. Besides, learning Chinese will certainly be good for you anyway, since China is set to become the world superpower in about 20 years, and the Chinese language will open up a vast amount of job opportunities (just as English has for foreigners). Kyarichy (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The part of the vocabulary that comes from Chinese is basically all kanji, which usually also has a different pronounciation in Japanese (even when it's based on the Chinese pronounciation). And Chinese isn't as vague as Japanese at all. The only real benefit is to get you a head start on recognizing kanji, but that also depends on how much kanji your mandarin class has, but speaking Mandarin will only have a small benefit to learning Japanese, imo. If you're really serious about learning Japanese, you should just start learning Japanese and not bother with Mandarin unless you actually want to learn Mandarin too. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can't find a Chinese language class outside your school, perhaps you might find one on Chinese caligraphy. Learning the characters, without the spoken word, is less than ideal, but it would give you a strong boost for when you do get the chance to study Chinese. DOR (HK) (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Slovak translation request
My girlfriend has a mug she found in Czecho Slovakia featuring a middle-aged man in a hot tub with two somewhat baudy and haggard looking women. They're all holding beer glasses, and one of the women's breasts has drooped into her glass. The other woman is giving the man rabbit ears. The whole thing is quite incomprehensible. A caption below the picture reads:
 * Mládí už je v tahu impotence na dosah.

Can anyone shed some light? Thanks. --Sean 14:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Using this machine translation engine, and translating as if it were Czech (which is close, and Slovak isn't available), you get: "Youth already them within tahu impotence within reach". Which is probably of no use at all. --217.171.129.72 (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, I'd tried that with similar results. I think it would have shocked persons living 100 years ago to think that we'd put a man on the moon long before we built a translation machine (sigh). --Sean 16:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I kind of expected that sentence to continue "shocked to think that we'd put a man on the moon long before we got rid of these ghastly tourist kitsch thingies" -- Ferkelparade &pi; 20:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As a professional human translator, I'm not surprised at all. Translation requires the kind of abstract, context-dependent thinking that computers really suck at. Anyway, Google Translate gives "Youth is already in tension impotence within reach", but I strongly suspect there's some sort of risqué pun involved that no machine translator can convey. —Angr 18:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What does it mean, "to give someone rabbit ears"? I have never heard this phrase, and the link provided does not help. --Lgriot (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To put two fingers (in the V/peace sign) behind someone's head, poking up from behind their head. I have no idea what it means, though. Avnas Ishtaroth drop me a line  01:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It tends to make the person look silly and the one doing it has the advantage. For the pun, does it imply something like "not as young as you feel" or along the lines of the flesh is willing but the man is passed it? Something like not being able to take advantage of the situation like saying "In your dreams". That droopy tit puzzles me -- sounds like they're all on a par. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's discussion of rabbit ears, or bunny ears, is at V sign (including a photograph of George H. W. Bush giving Barbara Bush the bunny ears). —Angr 05:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now why does this pic reverse my theory? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the "rabbit ears" sign is meant to say the man is a cuckold.
 * Is a photo of this mug available anywhere to view? It might help in deciphering the meaning. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Possessive with two owners?
Suppose something, say, an encyclopedia, is dually owned by two or more subjects. Which is the preferable form, "Bob's and Jane's encyclopedia" or "Bob and Jane's encyclopedia"? Do you put an apostrophe-s on both owners or only the latter? What do style guides and guides to usage like Chicago, Fowler's, and MLA have to say about this? —Lowellian (reply) 20:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's jointly owned by both of them, I'd say "Bob and Jane's encyclopedia". If they each have their own, I'd say "Bob's and Jane's encyclopedias". —Angr 20:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a pet peeve floating around that says you must must must add an 's to both "Bob" and "Jane", but since the 's ending is no longer a case ending but an enclitic preposition, all the arguments against "Bob and Jane's" are the usual BS. (That's not to say that there aren't good reasons for choosing one over the other in different contexts.) Strad (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm asking, does anyone know what style guides and guides to usage have to say about this? —Lowellian (reply) 06:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It says one 's unless its plural. The englih genitive marker is an enclitic and is put at the end of the entire noun phrase. Hence it is also correct to say "the president of India's wife" not "the president's of India's wife". ·Maunus· ƛ · 16:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "It says", you say. But what is "it"? Which specific style guide or guide to usage are you talking about? Different style guides and guides to usage often recommend doing different things. —Lowellian (reply) 16:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These isn't about style its about english grammar.·Maunus· ƛ · 05:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Red lorry, yellow lorry -- plurals are easier?
Why is it easier to say 'Red lorries, yellow lorries' repeatedly fast, than 'Red lorry, yellow lorry' repeated at the same speed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.157.54 (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The difficulty in pronouncing the singular form seems to be that "lorry" and "yellow" contain many of the same sounds, so the "lorry yellow lorry" sequence of words is tricky and tends to merge together, tripping the speaker up. The plural form adds an "s" sound in there which helps to break up the words.  I find that "Yellow lorry, red lorry" is easier to say as well, since the word "red" now breaks up the sequence too.
 * Also, the people who sit near me in work probably think I'm insane now. -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 06:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Mm, to me, when I try to say it, the hard part comes from the lorry to red transistion, where both have similar R sounds so you have to pause enough to not combine it into "lor-red" or "lori-ed" or something of the sort. Basically, the latter is more like a tongue-twister through the use of more similar sounds closer together, more or less like what Grey Knight said. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps my accent is saving me from that part. :-)  The sounds of L and R are both similar, I forgot to mention, which probably doesn't help!  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 14:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two reasons why tongue twisters are difficult: either the sounds are too similar, or the sounds are too different. All the consonants in your example have roughly the same place of articulation, but you've got approximants, obstruents, glides, which are all different sorts of consonants. --Kjoonlee 16:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No... that can't be 100% right. Some combinations of sounds are difficult, though. --Kjoonlee 16:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)