Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 March 6

= March 6 =

Say what?!?: use of multiple punctuation marks
Inspired by the question on most heavily punctuated sentences, is it grammatically acceptable to end a sentence with multiple punctuation marks???? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that you can place ! and ? limitlessly when they end quotations. See the first few comments of this question. H YENASTE 06:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That answers a different question. I'm not asking if you can have several ending punctuation marks in a single sentence that are separated, but whether you can smush them together, one immediately after the other, without living in fear of the grammar police. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on the context. Something like ??? would be fine in a personal email, but I wouldn't want to see it in a formal letter or article. --Richardrj talkemail 09:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Such multiples, "smushed" together, are frowned on in style guides and punctuation guides.
 * See Interrobang for an interesting coalescence, and Ellipsis for a use of three full stops effectively frozen into one character, sometimes realised as a single Unicode entity (…), quite rightly deprecated at WP:MOS. Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) and a few others talk about four-dot ellipses, too: but that's quite confused and confusing. At least one other guide takes a swipe at CMOS, and make a point of saying there is no such thing: a three-dot ellipsis is just sometimes preceded or followed by a full stop.
 * – ¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! ♬♩Talk 09:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the interrobang is so seldom used, does any MOS promote !? or ?! ? Then, which pair refers to which mood: a question asked with surprise, or an exclamation tinted with doubt? H YENASTE 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably-misplaced comments moved to Reference desk/Language. -Elmer Clark (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How are sound changes found?
I found myself reading the article on the Great Vowel Shift, and wondered how sound changes from this long ago are discovered/verified. Presumably, audio recordings from the 1500s are hard to get hold of, so how do they do it? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comparison with other languages, both those genetically related (like the other West Germanic languages) and those that provide loanwords (like French); and comparison with other dialects (like varieties of Scots in which the Great Vowel Shift behaved differently or didn't apply at all). Rhyming poetry often gives us a good idea about when sound changes happened and what they entailed (when lamb started rhyming with ham, you know that the b has been lost). And although languages that have been written down for a long time often have great divergence between their pronunciation and their spelling, languages with brand-new writing systems are usually spelled pretty much as they're pronounced. So although you don't want to trust Modern English spelling as a guide to pronunciation, you're much safer trusting Old English spelling as a guide to pronunciation. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 17:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to add to Angr's information, there are also some phonetic descriptions by comptemporary writers. Of course at this early period, phonetic theory and the understanding of the human vocal tract was less developed that it is now, making these descriptions difficult to interpret, e.g. calling a vowel "thin" or "clear" is hard to figure out (if at all). And some writers were better than others at describing the phonetics. An example: John Hart wrote an important work Orthographie in 1569. Here's something from his book referring to the pronunciation of the letters t and d:


 * "bei leing ov iur tung full in ðe palet ov iur mouθ, and tučing hardest of iur fortiθ"


 * That's in his own phonetic transcription system (adjusted somewhat). You can convert this into Modern English: "by laying of your tongue full in the palate of your mouth, and touching hardest of your fore-teeth". From this, we can gather that the sounds he describes are dental consonants. 100 years later we find a description characterizing the sounds as "end of the Tongue to the Goums" [gums], which suggests an alveolar consonant. So, we know that sometime between middle of 16th century and middle of 17th century there was a shift from dental to alveolar.


 * As for the vowels, it is harder to figure vowel phonetics because we dont get good descriptions until the 19th century. But, if an English writer compares an English vowel to a French vowel and we have a better description of that French vowel, then we can make some guesses about the pronunciation of the English vowel.


 * As you go further back in history, the phonetic theory is worse as are the descriptions, which are fewer. So you have to rely on orthography, comparison (see comparative method), and poetry. Interpretations of early pronunciations are often built upon multi-layered and interconnected arguments based on evidence of several types from several different sources. – ishwar  (speak)  17:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is fascinating. For a second, I thought fortiθ stood for fortis, as in fortis and lenis. Just curious, why did he transcribe  twice with a [v] and once like we normally spell it? (We don't seem to have an article on John Hart, BTW). — Zerida  ☥   18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not entirely clear. According to Roger Lass, Hart transcribes the final consonant in of with v approximately 400 times and with f 41 times and that most of instances of f can be attributed to the influence of a voiceless consonant in the following word (although he doesnt say how many are accounted for by this conditioning environment). Obviously, this wont account that f above. Generally, Hart is careful about the voicing contrast and explicitly says that he is marking the contrast unlike the spelling. If we also see what Lass says about the voicing in the regular plural suffix and the voicing in sets like wolf - wolf's - wolves - wolves’, the f in of above could be (1) a printer's error, (2) a perceptual error by Hart, (3) variation in the voicing of weak syllables, or (4) a phonetic realization of voiced obstruents in word-final position similar to Modern English where by they become partially or mostly devoiced (and Hart only had a simple dual voiced/voiceless distinction). There is variation in Shakespeare and others in the f~v voicing before the genitive ’s, and Chaucer & Caxton regularly have voiced v before the genitive. Lass seems to favor a variation explanation. See his "Phonology and morphology" chapter in The Cambridge history of the English language Vol. 3. – ishwar  (speak)  20:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that is interesting since in a situation like this one would expect to see it voiced before a following sonorant. Another aspect that intrigues me about his transcription system is that he seems to be treating the palatal glide the same as the high front vowel rather than as a consonant. If we go by the orthography alone (I know this is not terribly reliable), it would suggest to me that the final sound in of was voiceless at some point and later became voiced, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Thanks for the reference. — Zerida  ☥   23:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Brief translation of Japanese, please.
From the Japanese version of WP:IAR:

Google's translation is quite hilarious:

&#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (That's my own quick translation.) Paul Davidson (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (That's my own quick translation.) Paul Davidson (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds like something that might be used in a write-up on Wikilawyering. Your translation somehow loses some of the literary quality and tension, though, of Google's narrative rendering ("the dog often has been in trouble Hoon said"; "I wish the dog's urine?"). --Lambiam 16:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll admit, it's hard to find the right register when translating "fun" (dog poop, rendered as the fictitious Mr. Hoon by Google), but you can never produce a perfect translation of Japanese anyway. Paul Davidson (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The most interesting part is that it's sometimes spelled "Hoon" and other times "Hun". So it's not just a broken dictionary entry: Google's in-house translation software has a whole list of words to choose from, yet somehow considers these rare proper names more plausible in every context than the rather common word for animal droppings. I'm fascinated by the lengths that automatic translation software will sometimes go to find a wrong translation. Years ago I briefly used one which rendered いらっしゃいませ as "it comes and is precocious", which I remember thinking was surprisingly clever for such a foolish error. For kicks I just tried いらっしゃいませ in Babelfish and it returned "Be and others the っ plain gauze be". I swear I'm not making this up. Google gets it right, though ("welcome"). -- BenRG (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, Google Translate and Babelfish use unrelated translation software, so one might succeed where the other fails. Babelfish does a slightly better job on this particular passage, but it's still essentially unintelligible. -- BenRG (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't trust machine translation though, the original Japanese is grammartically wrong in this part. '...たびたび犬のフンがされて...'. This should be 'たびたび犬にフンをされて' or 'たびたび犬のフンを放置されて'. Oda Mari (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Authors "writing as"
Joseph A Spadaro's question above about the Coen brothers' use of an alternative name which most everyone knows is really them, reminds me of an occasional practice where an author not only uses a pseudonym, but identifies themself as the real author. I'm hard pressed to remember or find an actual example I could show you, but I've seen book covers that show the title and then, where the author's name goes, there's something like "Mary Smith, writing as JANE BROWN". Technically, the author would be listed as Jane Brown, but there's no possible doubt that the real author is Mary Smith. I wonder whether this doesn't utterly defeat whatever the purpose of creating the Jane Brown pseudonym was. Is there more information about this odd practice? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * DBC Pierre's an example of one who was open about his writing name from the beginning. He even has a double identity, preferring to be a Mexican. "Stage name" from theatre, seems to sit comfortably with holding a double identity without hiding behind one and denying the other, or rushing off to the deed poll office. Oh and the double naming on the cover works both ways, sometimes it's been added in later editions to reveal it's cachet – was Graham Greene one of those? Julia Rossi (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Some authors create a second name for writing in a different genre. Readers have been known to get nasty when they are fooled into thinking they have another cosy read, and instead find themselves in a new world that requires thinking. I certainly have been disappointed with P.D. James, for example, when she left Adam Dalgliesh and Cordelia Gray briefly and produced the quasi-sci-fi The Children of Men without warning me, although I might well have really liked the book if I had been expecting the change. Eleanor Marie Robertson as Nora Roberts writes romances and then, under the name J.D. Robb, writes sci-fi "police procedurals". Confuse the two at your peril, especially if the flight is long, and you have already seen the movie! ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, Bielle, I understand why they choose a different name, or a suite of names, to compartmentalise their writing. But do the examples you provide show both their real name and their current pseudonym on the dust jacket?  I'm talking about where they do precisely that.  Re stage names, Julia, many people who use stage names are quite open about their real identities.  But at the same time, they're never billed as, e.g. "Starring Judy Garland (who in real life is Frances Gumm)".  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since it became common knowledge that Richard Bachman = Stephen King, most of the republications of the Bachman books have had "Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman" on the covers, as here. Our article Richard Bachman explains why King used the pseudonym early in his career (basically, so that he could get twice as many books published, thus making more money). Deor (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I often wonder whether it isn't usually a case of "Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman", i.e. the author originally wrote under the pseudonym without the intention of revealing themselves, but once their identity was known, the book publishers decided it would sell more if they put the famous name on top. After Bachman's identity became public, that still didn't mean every potential reader automatically knew who Richard Bachman was, so the publisher slaps the name "Stephen King" on top of the Bachman books, hoping this will encourage King fans to buy the Bachman books. It worked on me, and I wondered how anyone could fail to tag Bachman as King. Scary stories, set in Maine, featuring predominantly young male characters who swear like sailors... who else could it be? But back to Jack's question, I think it's the publisher's decision to write "Mary Smith, writing as JANE BROWN" on the book cover, not Mary Smith's decision. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 23:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ruth Rendell and Barbara Vine for another example: The cover of No Night Is too Long has "Ruth Rendell writing as Barbara Vine". ---Sluzzelin talk  23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ian Rankin and "Jack Harvey" is another example. On Rankin's site, he explains the reason for the pseudonym: The Rebus books were still at this time relatively short and uncomplicated affairs, and took about three months to write. Meantime I was filing away lots of ideas for non-Rebus projects. My agent came up with a plan: a pseudonymous series of mainstream thrillers. Publishers, I was told, don't like to put out more than one book a year by one particular author.  Speculation from here on: I guess once the Rankin name became a big seller, they were re-issued under the "Ian Rankin writing as Jack Harvey" banner to bring in more sales.  As "Jack Harvey" they probably wouldn't have been republished: Rankin himself admits they were not a big success firts time round. Gwinva (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I get it now. Thanks for those examples, dear friends.  I was under the impression that it happens on first publication, but it seems to be confined to re-publications.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So does that mean we won't be seeing "The Sisters Mary by JackofOz writing as Various Vegetables" on first publication? What a shame...it has a certain cachet... -Gwinva (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha. Funniest thing I've read in the past fortnight.  Maybe I'll attribute it to Simeon Gravely; that name has a suitably reverent tone (or is that lugubrious?).  On re-publication I might then reveal the true author, Simeon's 83-year-old dominatrix Minnie Ganderplast, and wait for the sparks to fly.  Oh, and the title won't be "The Sisters Mary".  What it will be ... well, you'll just have to wait and see.  :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As a side noe - J D Robb and Nora Roberts have co-authored a book. The author(s) justify this by saying that there are elements of both Robb's and Roberts' writing, style and content in the book, so both authors are given. Steewi (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I was hoping that one would die without further notice, Steewi. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Some grammar: singular or plural in continuing a sentence?
Should the word "use" have an "-s" in the following sentence?

Through the analysis of the various letters written, their use as a method of characterization will be compared in the two novels.

As well, when writing an academic paper should "19th Century" be written out: "Nineteenth Century"?

Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Use" is right. If they had more than one use here, we could talk. Make it "nineteenth century", spelled out and lowercase. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

things that are impossible to talk about?
Can someone give me an example of something that is impossible to refer to? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.23.26 (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I can give an example, but you may want to read about the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. Bovlb (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a wonderful example. Unfortunately, this marginal universe is too small to contain a description of it. --Lambiam 23:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (after e.c., heh heh Pierre de Lambiam) 79.122: The set of things "impossible to refer to" is a member of the set of things to which it is possible to refer. What you are asking for reminds me of Russell's paradox. ---Sluzzelin talk  23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * --Milkbreath (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ineffability... AnonMoos (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In my extensive filing system I have a long list of things like this. Unfortunately, I can't refer to any of them, for the obvious reason, so they must remain a secret known only to me.  :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao." Pfly (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fight Club? --Onorem♠Dil 03:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Chess Club? x42bn6 Talk Mess  03:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure:.
 * – ⊥ ¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T– 05:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If I told you, you'd lose The Game. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 06:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Damn it, Angr! I just lost last week! Can't I spend at least a month without losing? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But seriously, questioner, why do you think we can do the impossible? We're good, but not that good. Think about it; if you can conceive of some concept, then no matter how abstract or unreal it might be, you must be able to say something about it or about your response to it, thus "referring to it". The only things that are impossible to refer to are those that have never even been dreamt of in the mind of any sentient being whose existence is generally accepted. That's not necessarily to say that such things themselves have never existed or don't currently exist, just that there are, or may be, some things that are unimagineable to us mere humans. If we've never imagined such a thing as X, how can we possibly refer to X? (Maybe this is what Hamlet was on about.)  --  JackofOz (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Whereof we cannot speak, thereon we must remain silent". (Apologies to Jung.) SaundersW (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which would of course be Ludwig Wittgenstein, not Jung :P --Ferkelparade &pi; 09:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and of course thereof. (And one cannot speak, etc.)
 * – ⊥ ¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T– 09:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * M. A. Numminen's interpretation of that quote remains distinctive and without equal. ---Sluzzelin talk  11:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * retires crushed, repenting off-the-cuff comments made before the fourth cup of tea of the day* SaundersW (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are only countably many utterances in any language, so (if you believe in uncountable sets) most mathematical objects can't be mentioned. For example, almost every real number can't be described in any human language, even given an unlimited amount of time to make the attempt. -- BenRG (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fascinating Aida's song Taboo explores this question. One of the suggested answers is smegma. Xn4  21:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the -. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 17:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The meaning of life, maybe? Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 17:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Taste and smell - we cannot describe them exactly, but can only say they are like the taste or smell of other things. Things that are impossible to observe, such as the architecture of the nearest planet with an intelligent society apart from our own, or the exact behaviour of a particular atom at the centre of the sun. [Special:Contributions/80.0.107.218|80.0.107.218]] (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * State secrets, obviously, cannot be referred to, but I didn't tell you that! Quick, burn this paper!BrainyBabe (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But you just did refer to these things, 80.0.107.218 and BrainyBabe. Referring to something and describing it in intimate detail are very different things.  As I said above, if you conceive of something in your brain, whether it objectively exists in reality or not, whether it can ever be identified and isolated or not, no matter how unreal or abstract it may be, you can refer to it - by making a statement that is "about" it, as you just did.  By mentioning the non-existent 9-headed rock-eating squirrel-god of the planet Sxzqjkrbwd, I've just referred to it.  I could compose a list of billions of things that don't exist, but I can still refer to them.  But you cannot refer to things you've never conceived of.  And things that are beyond the capacity of any human to conceive of (I can't give you an example because ... well, you work it out) are the only things that some human, somewhere, can't refer to.  I can't prove that there are any things that some human, somewhere, can't conceive of, but I'd rather keep an open mind about it.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to describe colours without referring to either things that are that colour, scientific description such as wavelengths etc or metaphor, none of which can be the whole picture. FreeMorpheme (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See also Elephant test. 80.2.193.158 (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)