Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 May 5

= May 5 =

Insulation
Does this word;: Insulation derive from the word 'insula' meaning island? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.105.45 (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Xenon54 (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, insula > insulatus (Latin) > insolato (Italian) > isolé (French) > isolated (Eng.) > isolate, isolation, which has a related but not identical meaning to insulate, insulation. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hence the hit song "Pied de poule", part of the musical. The punning lyrics about the sad aftermath of botched home repairs are a real killer: "Il pensé pensait jamais que l'isolant l'isolerait autant", "sa femme puis ses deux bébés sont morts du cancer". ("He never thought insulation would isolate him so much; his wife and two kids died of cancer.") BrainyBabe (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The word pensé is a past participle; the word pensait means "was thinking" or "used to think"; the expression a pensé means "thought" or "has thought". -- Wavelength (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I knew that. I did. Corrected above. (Gratefully.) BrainyBabe (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Taliban and Taleban
I keep reading 'Taleban' in "The Times" but 'Taliban' in most places. Do newspapers have set codes on spelling? Also: With modern words, is it not possible for their spelling to be immediately standardized by English speakers as they enter the English language? Thanks for info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Taleban" is the usual British spelling, while "Taliban" is American. Since English has no definitive spelling reference like the Duden, newspapers can specify their own spelling rules - for example, The Times mandated "connexion" (cf "connection") until the 1980s. Xenon54 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Except The Guardian uses "Taliban". --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I like connexion: it makes etymological sense. —Tamfang (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, all major papers have style guides which govern such things. But each paper has its own style guide, so differences are to be expected. As to your second question: evidently, no. There's no one who has the authority or influence to do so. - Nunh-huh 01:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not discount government style guides. It is hard to imagine USA Today using connexion if the U.S. government was using connection. Now the Wall Street Journal might get away with it - but most papers wouldn't, I think, bother. Rmhermen (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be too sure, Rmherman. The Chicago Tribune's idiosyncratic spelling practices lasted from 1934 to 1975. It was still using spellings like altho and thru when I moved to the city in the latter year. I'm not sure why you think the U.S. government would have any influence in the matter. Deor (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When newspapers reprint government press releases and call it 'news', they're not likely to bother changing the spelling. —Tamfang (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling transliterated words and names is a particularly haphazard operation. For example, there's endless controversy about how to spell Murali's name, some 16 or so years after he became one of the best cricketers in the world. --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See Muammar al-Gaddafi for a more impressive example. --Anonymous, 15:28 UTC, May 5, 2009.
 * Murali's a much better bowler, but I grant you the Colonel is probably much better with the bat. --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Arabic is not easily transliterated. See also Qu'ran and Al-Qaeda and the first sentences of each. Livewireo (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Taliban is actually a Pashto word, not an Arabic word, but the point still holds. Wrad (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Most American newspapers use a variation of Associated Press style as contained in the AP Stylebook. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think any response has yet linked to transliteration -- often confused by non-linguists with spelling. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

German word order
Which of the following is correct?


 * 1) Ich bin englisch, aber ich in Wien wohne.
 * 2) Ich bin englisch, aber ich wohne in Wien.
 * 3) Ich bin englisch, aber in Wien wohne ich.

I think that the bit after the comma is an example of a Nebensatz or subordinate clause; is that right, and how does one recognise such a thing? As for the word order, I understand that in a Nebensatz, the verb comes at the end, which would make (1) correct, but (2) and (3) don't exactly sound wrong to me either.

As a sidenote, is englisch correct in this context, or should it be Engländer? --Richardrj talkemail 07:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The 2nd one would be (grammatically) correct, but in German you would say: "Ich bin Engländer, wohne aber in Wien". Also, what information would you like to impart: that you're english, but live in Vienna nonetheless (nationalities?), or just say that you're an Englishman living in Vienna? If my 2nd option is the meaning you want to have here, it would simply be "Ich bin Engländer und wohne in Wien. " Lectonar (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's more the first meaning that I'm looking for. Thanks. Your first translation has confused me, though – was I wrong in what I said about Nebensatz and word order? --Richardrj talkemail 07:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * edit conflict:I'm not a grammar freak, so really can't say if it is generally so that the verb is always put last in a Nebensatz (also, in this case, it is not really a Nebensatz, because the aber ich wohne in Wien part could stand alone and would still make sense). I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will come around to explain :). Anyway, if you really wanted to stress the point about nationalities, it could also be "Ich bin Engländer, und wohne trotzdem in Wien." Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a Nebensatz, rather a Hauptsatz. Both sentences can stand on their own without the help of the other. When two Hauptsätze are added, the verb remains in the second position without counting the conjunction. Grammatically third one also seems to be right along with the second one, except that you have to replace Englisch with Engländer. - DSachan (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah I see, thanks very much. --Richardrj talkemail 08:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aber is a coordinating conjunction, not a subordinating conjunction, so the clause it introduces is a Hauptsatz and has the verb in second position. Aber also doesn't "make position" when determining what counts as "second position" in a Hauptsatz, so wohne comes after ich, not before it. If you used a different conjunction, you'd get different results. For example, obwohl ("although") is a subordinating conjunction, so you say "Ich bin Engländer, obwohl ich in Wien wohne". And dennoch ("however") is a coordinating conjunction that does "make position", so you say "Ich bin Engländer, dennoch wohne ich in Wien". Is that confusing enough for you yet? —Angr 08:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC) --- technically dennoch is an adverbial conjunction not a coordinating conjunction. If it were coordinating it would read "Ich bin Englaender dennoch ich wohne in Wien" which is incorrect.  Sorry if this confuses it more - the sentence "Ich bin Englaender, dennoch wohne ich in Wien" is grammatically correct.


 * You have to use 2. 2 and 3 are correct, but 3 completely unnatural, even with Engländer, but not wrong, not for purely grammatical reasons. 3 might have occured once in written, performed german. Sentence 1 not never nie allowed. The more important thing is: "Ich bin englisch" does not sound like a possible german sentence, at least not in commection with the second half of the sentence. Ich bin englisch, aber mag keinen lauwarmen Beuteltee. Possible, Ich türkisch, aber jetzt Berlin. (This might even pass). Ich bin deutsch, wohne jetzt aber in Erzurum. A Turk might just get away with it, still sounds slangy. You need to exchange the (adj) englisch with (a noun) Engländer: Ich bin Engländer, fühle mich aber in Deutschland wohl. Ich bin Deutscher, wohne aber wieder in Diyabakir. --Radh (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Song by Aerenda
Anyone know the lyrics of 'Transfiguration' by Aerenda? I think it's in Hindi.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoops! Looks like I stumped everyone on the planet. Not many answers here.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the answer to your actual question is yes, someone knows the lyrics to that song; at the very least, the person who wrote them knows them. But giving that answer violates the Gricean Maxim of Quantity since you didn't actually mean "Does anyone know the lyrics" but rather "Someone please provide me with the lyrics". ;-) +Angr 19:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a Dutch band nl:Aereda (no n)The subtitle is latin or pseudo-latin: Et In Arcadia Ego Iv As per this site the background story to their album "From a long forgotten future" is a myth about a 19th century French priest.  Couldn't find the lyrics online either. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See Et in Arcadia ego. --  JackofOz (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Animal sounds
In English, are animal sounds classified as a part of speech? If I make an "oink" sound, is that considered an interjection? (Onomatopoeia describes the sound, but I don't think onomatopoeia is a classification as a word type.) Tempshill (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends how you use them in a sentence. If you just say "Oink! Oink!" it's an interjection. If you say "The pigs were oinking merrily in the mud", it's a verb. If you say "I suddenly a heard a loud oink behind me", it's a noun. +Angr 14:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I understood "make an 'oink' sound" to mean a realistic imitation of a pig (the actual sound, something like an inhaled voiceless nasalized velar trill, for example), not the English word "oink" (, which wouldn't fool a pig when uttered in English). I guess it could be classified as an interjection in this case, but would that non-standardized sound even be considered a word? How would it be written, say in a transcript, to distinguish from the English word "oink"? Maybe this realistic snorting isn't done that often in conversations, but, to pick another farm animal, people do occasionally make their own (often annoying) sound of a chicken, instead of saying "cluck cluck", when unsubtly implying cowardice. ---Sluzzelin talk  10:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The clucking is a better example (better than the inhaled voiceless nasalized velar trill) of what I was trying to get to with my original question. In the sentence "That was /cluck/ a shame", does the cluck qualify as an interjection though it's a sound?  Tempshill (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say no. Clucks (unless you speak a language with clicks) are not speech sounds, and count as nonverbal communication. Interjections only affect oral speech, the opposite of NVC. 211.192.198.220 (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * An interjection may have to be a real word,n a language sense. But in a social/work situation, making imitation animal sounds would still be an interruption or disruption of another speaker, and therefore possibly punished under whatever "interjection" rule was in force.KoolerStill (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Language recognition by lip-reading
There is a computer with the ability to recognize languages by analyzing the movements of lips. How common is that ability among humans? -- Wavelength (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Lip reading, "people with normal vision, hearing and social skills unconsciously use information from the lips and face to aid aural comprehension in everyday conversation, and most fluent speakers of a language are able to speechread to some extent." I'm going to guess you are really referring to being able to "listen in" on conversations using lip reading in the absence of sound, which our article Lip reading doesn't provide any statistics about. Someone else will have to pitch in on that question. Sifaka   talk  20:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Go google at some science magazines. I remember reading of a study s.o. did with babies.  They seemed to be able to recognize when a person in a video spoke their native language even with the sound off.  (Sorry I have to be off, so I can't give you a site.) 71.236.24.129 (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Language acquisition by heart transplant
Doctor Paul Pearsall has researched the phenomenon of cellular memory, in which the recipient of a donated heart would receive also features of the donor's personality. In some cases, the heart recipient would acquire interests and abilities previously found in the heart donor. Has a heart recipient ever acquired knowledge of a language in this way, possibly by developing an acquired interest in studying the language? -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As the article points out, "no case where personality traits or memories have been passed from donor to recipient following an organ transplant has ever been recorded in a peer reviewed medical or scientific journal." So there are no credible cases of anything being passed from person to person in this manner, let alone knowledge of a language. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The magazine San Francisco Medicine is published by the San Francisco Medical Society, and appears to be a peer-reviewed magazine. This article from it indicates that the matter deserves further research.  PubMed has this information.  Also, this website is entirely about cellular memory. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why the SFMS published that article, but it wasn't peer reviewed. It has no methodology, no data analysis, no references, no abstract. Scientific papers don't look like that. The PubMed paper appears to be about the psychological effect of heart transplants on people who believe that personality is partly contained in the heart. They make no effort to eliminate the placebo effect, in fact the placebo effect is what they're studying. -- BenRG (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can stomach the unusually disgusting content of this article in the Guardian about the cannibal Armin Meiwes, you will read a tenuously related and equally remarkable claim. Speaking as somebody who knows a little bit about both linguistics and the scientific method, I'd call it complete bollocks; but anyway I offer it for whatever amusement value it may possess. -- Hoary (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Was it complete bollocks, or only a partial serving of Rocky Mountain oysters? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It makes sense to me: it's quite conceivable that one's temprament and other traits could be affected by, for example, one's blood pressure and other things to do with the heart and such organs. No literal "memory" required at all. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [The correct spelling is temperament. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)]

"For" or "to."
Which is correct: "a role model for young children" or "a role model to young children"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.103.225 (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "For". Compare this Google search with this one. "For" has about 3x the results and far more government and newspaper sources. Xenon54 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say both can work, depending on context. Let's say Disney executives sign up a singer/actor for their clean looks and stern stance on drugs or whatnot. In this case, I'd say the person was intended to be "a role model for children". On the other hand, let's say the kids don't like the Disney actor/singer, and instead look up to a different, less engineered star - in this case, we'd talk about "a role model to the children". The difference would be in volition - is the role model chosen by the children, or for the children?
 * Bear in mind I'm not a native speaker, only a learner with good language intuition (grammar never was my thing), and this is all gut feeling I'm talking here, so I might be completely wrong. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)