Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 May 13

= May 13 =

Kate Nash's accent
I just heard a rave review of Kate Nash's new album by Robert Christgau. He made the comment that British critics had said that her accent sounds like she's a posh girl trying to sound lower class. Can someone from the Right Side of the Pond comment? Corvus cornix talk  01:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems someone else heard the same review on NPR? Dismas |(talk) 02:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. :)   Corvus cornix  talk  04:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've heard that too (although not on NPR), as well as in reference to Lily Allen, and presumably others. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you listen to an interview with her, she speaks fairly mild Estuary English. Although her normal voice hardly sounds "posh", it's got a more middle-class vibe than her singing voice (for example on "Foundations"), which is more pronounced and has a twinge of Cockney. The main difference when singing is that she glottalizes her Ts (she pronounces "fight" as "figh'") and drops the "g" from "-ing" ("holdin'"), both of which deviate from the classic "upper class" Received Pronunciation, and I guess agree with the idea that she's trying to sound more working class. Laïka  10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Droppin' "g"s from -ing is actually a characteristic of highest upper-class RP. Lord Peter Wimsey, for example, did it constantly. —Angr 20:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In the 1920s and 1930s it may well have been. It is not so now. Valiantis (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't know. I've never spoken with a duke's younger brother. Still, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if William and Harry dropped their g's from time to time. —Angr 19:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But you presumably have heard the Queen speaking and I can't say I have ever noticed her using this very old-fashioned pronunciation. If the younger royals do "drop the g" (and I can't specifically recall hearing this) then it's more likely down to the ever increasing influence of the above-mentioned Estuary English . David Crystal comments in his Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (1987, p. 39) on "dropping the g" as an example of the arbitrariness of social class markers. He quotes from John Galsworthy writing as far back as 1931, one of whose characters drops her g's in a way that is clearly intended to be comically (and outmodedly) upper-class and comments "The [n] variant is typical of much working-class speech today, but a century ago this pronunciation was a desirable feature of speech in the upper middle class and above". He acknowledges it "may still occasionally be found today" but also identifies the change to [ŋ] being the prestige form and [n] the socially stigmatised form as beginning in the late 19th Century.


 * I'd suggest that the cultural memory of the upper-class usage might be used by a writer such as Sayers to distinguish on the page a true "nob" from a mere member of the haute bourgeoisie - the usage tends to be found in the phrase "huntin' shootin' fishin'" which emphasises the landed country-based nature of the British upper class as opposed to the mercantile or professional upper-middle class. I'm not sure you can take it as read that it actually was typical of the speech of most aristocrats even before WWII. If it remained typical of upper-class speech into the current period, one would expect to find it occurring in depictions of Sloane Rangers (upper-class Londoners) who have a distinct and readily parodied way of speaking. It does not. Valiantis (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've heard the Queen read from prepared statements and give speeches, a register in which even Lord Peter probably wouldn't have dropped his g's. I've never heard her chat with her friends. —Angr 05:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

this is disparagingly called a "mockney" accent i.e. mock+cockney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.119.82 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Women in some ways have innately better
speech abilities, I've heard. Could this lend probability to the thesis that speech originated among women in prehistoric times?Rich (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've heard different explanations for why it's possible that women could have started language (though none of them have been all that convincing IMHO), but I've never heard that it's because of their innate superiority with language. I question that assumption.  What's the evidence that women have innately better speech abilities?  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have said "verbal abilities" not "speech abilities," but I'm still working on my answer to your question. Where and what have you heard about women starting language?--I thought it was MY idea!):~)Rich (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, the idea was that prehistoric men would go off and hunt (an activity that doesn't require language) while women would either a) sit around and gossip or b) form social connections with each other for social cohesiveness.
 * It's the innate part that I have a problem with. While there's evidence that women tend to have a greater command (or larger vocabulary) than men, it's very likely that this is because women are often socially disadvantaged so that language becomes a means to gaining status rather than some innate physical property universal or even typical to women.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  10:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the reason why standing at the Post Office behind ten men takes less time than standing at the Post Office between ten women. Men don't stand there talking about irrelevant bollocks with total disregard for the surrounding population. --ChokinBako (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there any relevant bollocks? --  JackofOz (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's funny, I actually spent several hours at a post office recently and I didn't notice any disparities between the sexes. Both seemed equally willing to chat it up.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  03:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of those ideas of what "prehistoric people used to do" are highly bogus. For starters, it wasn't just the men that went off hunting.  Some scientist seriously suggested that the fact that only hunters were depicted in cave paintings meant that the stick figures depicted were male and that female occupations like gathering vegetables weren't valued as much.  IMHO there's a perfectly logical explanation why you wouldn't wait till the actual situation arose to tell a hunter how to stick a spear into a charging deer.  And why you'd have a lot of incentive to devise a way to do that beforehand. On the other hand I've rarely been attacked by an onion (I'll exclude garlic, though).  I'd say that hunters would also have very good reason to yell "bear" or "duck".  Unfortunately they have not left us any verifiable sources. Lisa4edit (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that, for example, lions and wolves do a pretty good job of hunting without language, I'd say that hunting didn't instigate the need for language. In addition, animals do a pretty good job without language in warning others around them about danger.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  18:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's one thing I picked up from this thread - it is that post office delays are the same everywhere in the world! Sandman30s (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have surmised recently that there are two uses of language (there are certainly more, but for the sake of my argument will stick with these two for now) - the imparting of information, and "social grooming" (while chimps cement their relationships and their place in the pecking order by picking fleas off each other, we do small talk). Generally, men seem more comfortable with the former, women with the latter. However there are times when men need to small talk among each other, which is why professional sports exist - something which can be treated as a set of facts and figures that are important to understand and get right, but which is fundamentally unimportant. I developed this theory when trying to train a female co-worker who took every instruction I gave her as a springboard for a conversation about her family, her holiday in Spain, the weather, or whatever, and immediately forgot what she'd been instructed to do, and comparing her with a male co-worker who is incapable of talking about anything but Manchester United. They're both extremes, but most of the people I know follow less extreme versions of the same pattern. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Funny, I always found men better to work with, as they just get on with the job, while women chat for hours about stuff unrelated to anything. Also, living in my brother's house (with six kids - all girls) was hell the moment the alarm went. Permanent noise right up to midnight. Absolute nightmare.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hear ya, brother. I work in an office in a large room with 11 people: 10 women and me. And when they start talking about what happened the previous night on Germany's Next Top Model or Desperate Housewives, it gets rather difficult for me to remain civil. And then they wonder why I don't come along when they all go out to dinner or to the pub together after work. —Angr 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hunting tends to be a solitary activity, and even when it isn't, talking isn't a very good idea. Gathering tends to be done in small groups, often with children. Both are strongly connected to gender. People also cement social bonds by picking lice off each other, though we talk while we do it. But for men and women talking about different things, that may have more to do with how they relate than language per se. Men tend to talk about mechanical information that involves a lot of one-upmanship, whereas women tend to talk about social information ("gossip") that involves navigating relationships. I don't know about women being better at language than men. It was thought for a while that men were better at math and women at language, but at least for math, that now seems to be a difference in cognitive maturation rates (so girls tend to get left behind in school) than innate ability as adults. kwami (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dajare in the comic strip
Answered above! 万歳! 万歳! 万歳! -- Toytoy (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

All right...I'm fed up.
This perverse textbook is at it again. Tell me if I'm wrong with this analogy.

atmosphere : stratosphere :: biosphere : _______

a. recycling  b. hydrosphere   c. energy   d. earth

I think the answer is B, because the stratosphere is considered a part of the atmosphere, just as the hydrosphere is considered part of the biosphere (I think). A and C are complete non sequitur, but my textbook says that D is the answer. Am I right or wrong? -- La Pianista!  20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This might be a science question, but I'd say B is not correct because the hydrosphere is not part of the biosphere. What helps me with these analogies is making a sentence "the stratosphere is a component of the atmosphere : the earth is a component of the biosphere (although this might be backwards, it's the best fit).  Our article on hydrosphere even says that it is "dependant on the biosphere (plants)."  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say all of the available options are wrong. Have you looked into getting a better textbook? Algebraist 21:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's obviously hydrosphere, since they're looking for the second word to have two more letters than the first word. Or not, but that ambiguity is what I always hated about these kinds of questions.  --Sean 13:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Toto on both points. Not only does the letter count give it away, all words are compounds of -sphere. Those things are always easy if you know the right answer.  I once tried 32 entirely correct and suitable words to fit in an online Cambridge exam gap phrase test. None of them met what they were looking for. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

word information
would you please send me your answer about common wordsand similarities between antique persian and franceand also about the history of entering french words in persian. i will be patient for your answers. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.219.20.233 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You will have to be very patient, 217, because you are unlikely to get any useful answers to such a vague question. You need to ask something more specific if you want answers. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)