Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 March 9

= March 9 =

Accent and deafness
I am not a fully qualified accent trainer but I am responsible for teaching ESL to (a) deaf child(ren) and I'm looking for some background to remedy my relative ignorance on the subject. Forgive me if I am inadvertently non-PC, and please let me know so that I can correct myself.

I have a firm background in linguistics and I'm trying to understand the (possibly "percieved") notion of nasality in the speech of deaf speakers, not limited to English speech. My assumption has always been that an inability to "see" nasals, or rather the lack of them, causes (many?) oral deaf to sound nasals seemingly arbitrarily (as in other examples such as Japanese where lacking an exact equivalent [and in many an inability to hear the differences] of /r/ and /l/ students may resort to either due to misunderstanding/inability to produce each consistently). Either that or technical difficulty in producing or removing nasals due to lack of feedback giving the same result. Is either, or both of these true? I've begun to doubt myself because I can't see why a certain amount of specific accent training wouldn't help drastically, and to assume that would be to assume that there are many oral deaf receiving inadequate speech training, and that makes me uneasy.

Also, if anyone has any information regarding accent correction/training for oral deaf, I would be extremely grateful. Thanks! 219.102.220.90 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It does seem to be an area of significant research; a quick search of Google Scholar for +nasalization +deaf turns up a number of papers. Along the lines of your "'see' nasals" suggestion, one of the much-studied types of therapy seems to be exactly that, some method for displaying to the speaker a visual representation of their production. There's an old government report on the subject from 1974 here, and a more recent critical review of the use of electropalatography for the same purpose here. --Delirium (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow great thanks. I'm sure I'll be able to find some answers within those links. 219.102.220.90 (talk)

Sentence diagrams
Do most public schools (US preferred but other location input okay) still teach sentence diagraming? I learned it back in the early 80s but still don't see the point of it. And no, the article doesn't go into the "why" it just explains the "what". Dismas |(talk) 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Some reasons are listed here: . And, from a quick glance at appropriate websites, it seems that teaching this skill has gone the way of the dodo ... unfortunately.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC))


 * There are certainly some (few) teachers that still use it: Rmhermen (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * According to 6 above, the sentence In the town parade, Sam carried the scout troop flag has only three nouns. Maybe it's a good thing people who don't know what they're talking about have stopped trying to teach grammar. Strad (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strad ... what are you saying? That sentence does indeed have 3 nouns.  I don't follow your comment.  Do you disagree with the author of that web site page, that that sentence contains only three nouns?  I take your comment to mean that the author of that web page "doesn't know what he/she is talking about" ... but why do you say that?  In the "parade" sentence, there are 3 nouns: parade, Sam, flag.  Many students will mis-identify some other words (namely, town, scout, troop) as nouns ... when they actually serve as adjectives in this sentence. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Nouns and adjectives are lexical categories, not functions. A noun modifying another noun is still a noun, not an adjective. If it were an adjective, we'd expect to be able to modify it with adverbs. We can talk about a fairly large parade because large is an adjective, but not *a fairly town parade because town is a noun, even when it modifies parade. There are six nouns in the sentence (town, parade, Sam, scout, troop, flag) and three noun phrases (the town parade, Sam, the scout troop flag). Strad (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's fair. Perhaps implicit in his/her statement was that the sentence contains three nouns (that actually serve in the function of a noun ... as opposed to some other function).  I thought that was understood.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC))


 * As far as I am aware, sentence diagramming (as a specific method) is completely unknown in the UK. I first came across it, as an adult, when a correspondent was using an adaptation of it for Lojban, but I assumed it was an ad hoc idea he had dreamed up. I was astonished when I discovered that there was a specific set of rules taught in American schools. --ColinFine (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I, for one, am glad this teaching method is gone. I could think of no quicker way to make students hate English, and school in general, than by forcing them to diagram sentences.  Substituting something like creative writing, and correcting grammatical errors when found, is a far better way to teach the topic. StuRat (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but ... how would they even know the grammatical errors? That's like expecting students to do higher-level math ... but without first "forcing" them to learn their "times tables".  And "forcing" them to learn times tables is a quick and easy way to make students hate math and school in general.  Still, it has its place.  Same idea with sentence diagrams.  In my opinion, that is.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Grammar can be learned at a more intuitive level. Just as you don't have to understand projectile physics to catch a ball, neither do you need to know how to diagram a sentence to write a sentence correctly.  For example, I would be absolutely useless at diagramming sentences, yet I still manage to write grammatically correct sentences more often than not.  Simply being around people who speak properly, and reading grammatically correct sentences, will convey proper grammar rules to the student.  StuRat (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, agreed ... grammar can be learned at a more intuitive level ... as can mathematics ... or any of a number of other disciplines. Nonetheless, "forcing" students to learn the multiplication tables serves a valuable purpose.  As does sentence diagrams.  At least in my opinion.  I can "learn" to speak French by going to France, living among the people, and absorbing myself in life there.  That doesn't mean that I am learning to speak French correctly ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC))


 * ? Isn't that is the exact best way to learn a language, particularly to learn it as it is used (i.e., correctly in the descriptivist sense)? Certainly far better than making you learn French grammar and vocabulary at the expense of time spent being exposed to and using it. 79.66.56.21 (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, my point was ... I can "learn" it (i.e., practically) ... or I can learn it correctly. They are not necessarily always the same.  If some foreigner from, say, Germany came to the USA ... and he "learned" the English language from me ... but I was teaching him incorrectly ... then, yes, he "learned" English ... but not correct English.  If he lived his life among me and all of my groups of associates ... and we say things like: "Me and my moms we be going to the store" ... he is not learning correct English.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Well yes, if you want to learn standard English then you need to learn it from people who speak standard English, whether you're absorbing it or being taught the grammar specifically and trying to construct it from that. But in your proposed 'visiting German' example, the visitor would be learning 'correct' English; it just wouldn't be Standard English. And since you are capable of making a distinction between registers, presumably you make this distinction when you talk. The visitor could acquire this register switching as well, giving him a much better understanding of actual English. 79.66.56.21 (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with 79, that you will learn a language better by being around people who speak it properly than you will by studying grammar rules endlessly. If we go back to my ball-catching example, who would you consider to be the better catcher, a professional athlete who knows nothing about the math of projectile physics, or a scientist who knows all that but has never caught a ball in his life ? StuRat (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you make very convincing and valid points, no doubt. I still firmly believe that there is/can be value in rigid teaching methods such as sentence diagrams and memorizing times tables.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC))


 * OK, fair enough, but I won't personally contribute to the fund to provide angry nuns with rulers. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Being able to dissect a sentence into its constituent parts is important if you're ever going to study comparative linguistics, and it also helps in learning foreign languages, so it's not a useless task. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Amen, Mwalcoff!  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Pah! Me in school no grammar learnt. And me are fine. Fribbler (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Grammar is learnt, intuitively and naturally, by every human who has ever lived (barring a very small proportion with various handicaps). Both Fribbler and, I venture, every native speaker of English who reads this will know that what Fribbler wrote is ungrammatical (and most will guess that this was deliberate). Many may not be able to explain why it is ungrammatical (though nearly all could provide a version that was grammatical). You don't need to be taught grammar to produce and recognise grammatical utterances. --ColinFine (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see what you're getting at, Colin, but if a native speaker has absorbed enough grammar intuitively to know what Fribbler wrote is wrong, then they know a considerable amount of .. what can I call it .. "native grammar". If they've learned it, then it was taught to them.  Maybe not by a teacher, and maybe not even directly by anyone at all past their years of infancy, but in those early years, they were being given informal "lessons" all the time, 50 times a day, by their mother, siblings etc.  They must have been taught it - in this sense - if they ever learned it - in this sense.  A non-native speaker could have learned everything they know about English from a book, but that's never the case with native speakers.  They always have someone on hand to correct them as they learn by trial and error. --  JackofOz (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily think someone needs to correct them. They will eventually notice if everyone else says something a different way than they do.  StuRat (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, they will eventually get to that stage. But think about what happens before then.  Babies are dependent on other human beings.  Those other human beings teach them to talk.  When they first start to talk, there's a steep learning curve, and learning comes from making mistakes.  They're not sophisticated enough at that age to notice their own mistakes, and their parents etc point them out.  This period is when a vast amount of teaching/learning happens.  It's only when they get a bit older that they can start to notice that the way they talk may be, in some respects, different from others and they can then correct their own mistakes.   But before they get to this point, they have already been taught "grammar".  --  JackofOz (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Jack, language acquisition studies have shown that explicit correction of children's mistakes ("I brang you some flowers" - "No, dear, you brought me some flowers") has virtually no effect on the children's learning the language. Corrections like that go in one ear and out the other. Children learn the "correct" grammar of the language of their environment simply by being exposed to it, not because anyone's teaching it to them. —Angr 07:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As the parent of a 3 year old boy, I can vouch for this point! Teaching does little, modeling and playing with words has more potential, but no guarantees. Just a datapoint. Pfly (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. Even if you never correct another mistake he makes, he will still (if he's developmentally normal) have correctly acquired the dialect of his peers (which may or may not be the prescriptive standard!) by the time he's 8 or so. —Angr 07:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Waqf registry
If the page on Waqf answers this, I've missed it: what's a (or the) suitable romanized transliteration for English-language readers of the word waqfiyyah, which I understand (?) to be the documentation or registration of a property for a waqf. -- Deborahjay (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If by "suitable" you mean "pronouncable" for an English speaker who has no Arabic, then wahk-FEE-yah وقفية would be good enough, Qof ق being a guttural k that doesn't exist in English.--K.C. Tang (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; however, I meant quite literally a romanized transliteration rather than transcription. (Pronunciation isn't an issue here.) By suitable I meant closest to what's practiced in Arabic-to-English nonacademic (i.e. mainstream reader) texts, representing each of the letters. For example, I'd favor retaining the q from waqf. I only know how contentious this can be in Hebrew.-- Deborahjay (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, what's wrong with what you used: waqfiyyah? —Angr 14:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, nothing wrong? It was simply my best guess based on a seat-of-pants Hebrew-English transcription (e.g. employing the q as noted above, doubling the y, and supposing a final h). As I'm far from mastering the Arabic alphabet, what I'm seeking is corroboration or correction. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, "q" is a standard transliteration for ق just as it is for ק, and "h" is a standard transliteration for ة. I don't know about the doubled "y"; it depends on whether the pointed Arabic text includes the little ω-looking symbol that indicates gemination. —Angr 14:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a feminine nisba or "gentilic" ending, and the y letter always takes a doubling-mark (shadda) in that situation (though whether there's an actual geminated semivowel sound in the word depends on your phonological analysis). AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Deborahjay -- there's absolutely nothing "wrong" with waqfiyyah (which would be perfectly acceptable as a transcription in many contexts), but which transliteration is absolutely the best for Wikipedia purposes depends on Wikipedia policies towards Arabic transliteration. There's a page somewhere on this site devoted to Arabic transcription practices, and discussions of the same, but I don't know its exact location offhand.  Meanwhile, Ibn Taymiyyah has about ten different transcriptions into English, and his Wikipedia article has been renamed several times... AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Perhaps the page on Romanization of Arabic, though it requires knowledge of the Arabic alphabet.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there actually is a Wikipedia page dedicated to how Arabic words are to be transliterated here. All I found is Help:Arabic, which is about the rendering of the Arabic alphabet, not about transliterating it into Latin. Anyway, if I know Deborah, she doesn't want to transliterate this word at Wikipedia anyway, but for some project for the Ghetto Fighters' House. ;-) —Angr 14:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also Manual of Style (Arabic), if that helps. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To demystify for my perceptive and knowledgeable helpers: the source text is a Hebrew transliteration of this Arabic word, and to my chagrin I'm (still) quite ignorant of the Arabic alphabet. I did check WP as a first recourse, by looking at the Waqf page upon which I (surprisingly?) failed to find this word. And Angr is close to the mark, but this case I'm moonlighting for one of our local cultural enterprises (i.e. quite literally "homework" though not in the sense of a school assignment :-) Lastly, as I always want to be adding my findings to Wikipedia, I shall be more diligent in posting the germ of these threads to the appropriate page or Talk page for the benefit of future readers and editors. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In academic journals, waqfiyya is the most common by a 4:1 margin, but waqfiya, waqfiyah and waqfiyyah also appear. McKay (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Untangle a sentence from Kipling?
This is from the preface of my edition of The Jungle Book: 'The demands made by a work of this nature upon the generosity of specialists are very numerous, and the Editor would be wanting in all title to the generous treatment he has received were he not willing to make the fullest possible acknowledgement of his indebtedness.' Magnificent sentence; but what does 'wanting in all title' mean? - can someone untangle that bit for me?

Thanks, Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is 'title' meaning 6 at the OED: 'That which justifies or substantiates a claim; a ground of right; hence, an alleged or recognized right. Const. with inf., or to, in, of the thing claimed.' He means that if he failed to acknowledge those who have helped him, we would have no right to such generosity. Algebraist 12:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Somebody messed up! There appears to be an incursion of text into the first sentence cited. The phrase "wanting in all title" means "lacking all justification".  A secondary but still-used meaning of "want" is as a verb/noun of absence: "For want of a nail the shoe was lost...for want of a horse the battle was lost."  BrainyBabe (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That was me screwing up. Fixed now. Algebraist 14:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That sense of "title" is still seen in entitle. Gwinva (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A full but loose translation: "Writing a book like this is really tough. The editor had a lot of help from many people. He would be a despicable human being if he did not recognise the generous assistance of these others. But, despite metaphorically talking of indebtedness, he is not actually going to share the royalties." BrainyBabe (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "This book has had much generous help from specialists. The editor (author?) would not deserve this generosity if he were not extremely grateful."  Richard New Forest (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "The editor is very grateful for the generous help he has received from many specialists". -- JackofOz (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor would like to gratefully acknowledge the generous assistance of specialists. (Apparently the specialists didn't include a good writer.) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the definition of "good writing" has changed somewhat since Kipling's day. Such convoluted prose, involving (as in this case) the introduction of unnecessary concepts followed by their immediate denial, thus making their very mention superfluous, seems to have been the order of the day for a certain class of person.  You'll find similar examples in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which was used to start off many Wikipedia articles because it was out of copyright.  In many cases, those articles should be blown up and started again from scratch, using language that is actually comprehensible by modern humans.  And, I have to say that my regard for Fowler, for all the good things he has to say, recedes weekly, because of this very issue.  Sometimes he takes 50 words to say "The cat sat on the mat".  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "It would not be inaccurate to assert that our feline friend, far from being, as our wilder poets image, a creature of the open spaces that longs to escape beyond the rooftops of the present-day metropolis to yowl at the silver orb that bedecks the night sky, is in fact quite content to avail herself of our cosy hearths, and to give us her companionship, warm of fur and warm of purr, as we sit together before the glowing logs, entranced by the flames that, were it not for the protection of the firescreen, might spit and burn the very hearthrug we both so peacefully occupy in cross-species harmony." (I make that 110.) BrainyBabe (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw, you guys are just WP:RECENTISM fans. Personally, I'm with Kipling (and, yes, I've kippled a number of times in my otherwise uneventful life). Deor (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you you do it alone, or with a "friend", Deor? :) --  JackofOz (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Both. :-) Deor (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)(UTC)
 * I'm with Kipling and Deor - I love that kind of construction, but only in moderation. Wonder if anyone's done a thesis linking the decline of sentence-length with the influx of TV and other media. The OP would be wanting in all title to the generosity of the respondents, whose magnanimity of the heart is as warm as the magma that gushes from the heart of that orb on which we wile our brief allotted hours composing strained similes and ramshackle sentences that would fall apart under their own weight were it not for the strength of the commas that hold them together, like the bent nails they somewhat resemble, were he not willing to make the fullest possible acknowledgement of his indebtedness. Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I too, while but a humble bystander who has little to offer, feel moved to express my deepest delight and sheer joy at the words of wisdom and encouragement offered by our friends Kipling, BrainyBabe, AdamBrowne, and esteemed others of that ilk, which has brought a gentle curve to my lips and a warming to my heart that shall be carried with me for the remaining hours of my day, enthusing and amusing me anew each time they are recalled to my otherwise distracted senses. Gwinva (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The only three ghits to "wanting in all title" are to this Jungle Book preface. (Why does Kipling call himself the editor, I wonder?) So we can claim the phrase as our own. BrainyBabe (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ghit. I've learned a new word, thanks, Brainybabe. Will have to look up the pronunciation. I thought maybe Kipling refers to himself as Editor to suggest the stories were written by the animals themselves, or at least told by them and transcribed.Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it's pronounced (JEE-hit). —Angr 07:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ta, Angr Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I use the hard g, myself, as in "git", a derisive term for a bothersome person. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If I were to use the hard g, I'd feel obliged to pronounce it with breathy voice, . —Angr 17:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comma usage
Better: "A couple of hours ago I was informed..."? Or worse: "A couple of hours ago, I was informed..."? Better: "A couple of hours ago I was informed..."? Or worse: "A couple of hours ago, I was informed..."? Seans Potato Business 17:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I figure it's better with the comma. What about this one: "If you want to talk about it then I'm happy to listen but if you don't then that's fine too." - are commas necessary here? I used to put them in but I had an English lecturer who said something about inappropriate comma usage and now I wonder if I'm too sparing. Seans Potato Business 18:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It really depends who your English lecturer is (because everyone seems to have their own style book about commas), which is one of the silly things about English. Most stylists (!) would require at the very least one or two commas in the last sentence (after "listen", and before "too" is a common rule, too) but the more commas you use the more your sentence starts to look like it was written in 1850, and the more obscure rules you need to fabricate to justify each use. In the first sentence, I doubt most grammarians could think of a reason to justify inserting or removing the comma, so you're probably safe either way. 219.102.220.90 (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the foregoing, for whatever it's worth (folks do sometimes say I write well). You could also put a semicolon after listen and comma before each then. —Tamfang (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of "say"
I've come across a cartoon in which a man (very drunk) says to an ugly "woman": 'Say... You're lookin' better all the time...'. My question is: how could you paraphrase "say" here? Am I right that it does not mean "I want you to say x" in this context but rather something like "wow"? (I'm not a native speaker.) -- 93.132.191.39 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're correct; "say" is used as an interjection in this example. "Wow" could work, or maybe something like "Hey".   Dgcopter (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- 93.132.191.39 (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The overall contextual meaning is often "Here's an observation I just happened to think of, which may not have any relationship to the preceding conversation". AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's definitely a "listen to me now as I speak an observation of mild importance" sort of interjection. 219.102.220.90 (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that "Say, ..." in this context means "I say, ...", "I declare, ...", "I do declare, ...", in the same way that "Pray, ..." in some contexts (and to other humans) means "I pray, ...", "I beg of you, ...", "Prithee, ...".
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, "by the way" may also work. StuRat (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also a bit colloquial, but the first equivalent phrase that came to my mind was "you know what? ..." -Andrew c [talk] 04:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Say is sometimes used instead of "for example." Slightly more off-topic, Winston Churchill didn't use an interjection when he agreed with a plain woman that he was drunk, saying "But in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly." Was that because he didn't change the subject?  Julia Rossi (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)