Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 September 30

= September 30 =

Grammar Help
When adding the word "a" in front of the word "utopia:", should it be "a utopia" or "an utopia"?

Also, "When the clap of hands can summon a car..." is that sentence correct? Should "clap" be plural or "hands" be singular or something? 128.84.73.54 (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
 * It should be "a", because 'utopia' is actually pronounce with a consonant at the beginning (it's "yutopia"). Just like you would say "a use of this program...." rather than "an use...".
 * The second sentence is absolutely fine. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding Utopia: As Rjanag indicated, it depends on the way you pronounce the word. For example, most of the speakers say "horse" as it's written, i.e. they pronounce the "h", so they say "a horse", but some speakers, mainly British and Australians (at least some of them), don't pronounce the "h", so they say "an horse" (i.e.: /an ors/), and there's even an Australian Indie pop band - named An Horse.


 * Regarding clap of hands: you've asked whether "clap" should be plural or "hands" be singular. I really don't know why you ask about that. Is it really a grammatical question (as you've put it)? Can there ever be, physically, a clap of one hand? I know of a very famous Kōan asking about the sound made by a clap of one hand... However, maybe you've asked about the plural/singular, because you remember the song The Hand Clap, in which "hand" must be singular, but note that when the word "clap" comes first (with "of") - then "hands" must be plural, just because of the physical nature, rather than of grammar rules!


 * HOOTmag (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * /an ors/ sounds very English and very un-Australian to me. We might sometimes say, e.g. "three orses", but never, in my experience, "an ors", always "a horse".  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you ever heard of the Australian Indie pop band: An Horse? HOOTmag (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why, yes. I read about it not 10 minutes ago, on this very page.  In this very thread, to be exact.  Just up above.  But it's not meant to represent a pair of words that anyone actually uses in normal parlance.  It's either "a horse" or /an ors/.  Bands can make up any names they like; they don't have to represent reality.--  JackofOz (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * May the singers be of British ancestry? Maybe... HOOTmag (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably. Their surnames are Cooper and Cox.  But maybe you're looking too hard for a logical explanation of the band's name.  Where's the logic behind "Frenzal Rhomb", for example?  Or thousands of other band names that were completely made up from bits and pieces of scrap language.  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with you that proper names are not committed to any rules. However, this does not mean that there is no explanation behind the name (including your name and my name). Anyways, I haven't been looking for any logical explanation, but rather for a sociological (or rather: socio-ethnic) explanation. If their surnames are Cooper and Cox then that may explain better why they call themselves "an horse". HOOTmag (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Autopia: where the souls of good cars go when they are scrapped. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the questions is as trivial as might appear to some (but not to those who are answering it here).

A clap of hands should take a singular verb, just like "a clap of thunder". The reason that it's not so obvious is that in phrases such as "a majority of voters", sometimes one would use the singular and sometimes the plural form of a verb. I should probably write, "a majority of voters believes" but often write "a majority of voters believe".

And historically, as has been pointed out above, "an", "mine" and "thine" were often used not only before incontrovertible vowels, but also before occasional or semi-consonants like "h", "u" and "y", as in "an heraldic achievement" or "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord". —— Shakescene (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "an" before a word beginning with a "u" - is trivial, e.g. "an umbrella". If you mean "an" (or "mine") before a word which begins with a "u" pronounced like "you", then I'll appreciate any example for this. Similary, I'll be glad if you give any example for "an" (or "mine") before a word which begins with a "y", or with any semi-vowel pronounced like /y/. Good luck. HOOTmag (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Spelling is irrelevant, what matters in pronunciation. In English spelling, the letter "u" can be /ʌ/ ("an ugly face"), /ju/ ("a user"), or /u/ ("an über party"). What determines the a/an alternation is not the spelling, it's the presence or absence of a consonant in the pronunciation. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And about the "semi-consonants".... "eyes" does not begin with any of the sounds you specified, it begins with a fine vowel. And /h/ is not a semi-consonant; it's a regular consonant that happens to be unpronounced in some words in some dialects of English. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I hadn't previously encountered the "h" of English orthography referred to as a "semi-consonant". Rather, at the start of a word either stands for a consonant (as in the standard pronunciation of "heresy") or it's nothing (as in the standard pronunciation of "honor"). (For simplicity's sake, let's avoid mention of glottal stops.) A heresy, an honor. If you don't pronounce "h" at the front of "history", then "an history" is fine; if you do pronounce it but nevertheless precede it with "an", you surprise me, but I hesitate to say that you're wrong. Incidentally, if we're using IPA here, then mention of /y/ comes as a surprise; surely /j/ was intended. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they meant /j/. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm certainly no scholar and I didn't mean to use "semi-consonant" (which I know has another meaning) in a misleading way. It's just that simple inspection won't tell one if the pronunciation of "herb" or "union" or "YPSL" starts an "h" or "y" sound. Union does, and (for the uninitiated) "YPSL" (contrary to intuition) is pronounced and sometimes spelt "Yipsel", while Britons generally pronounce the "h" in "herb" and Americans don't. There are several words which are now pronounced with a leading "h" like "heraldic", which I think once were not, so one does see "an herald" and "an heraldic achievement". But I'm uncertain whether this is an accurate explanation, or whether something else is at play. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. other commonly-encountered examples are "an heroic achievement" and "an historic event". —— Shakescene (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to have something to do with where the principal stress falls. "A history" vs. "an historic event".  "A hero" vs. "an heroic achievement".  The fact that the h is sounded in all these words doesn't seem to come into it.  --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'h' isn't pronounced in all of these words, for many speakers. For speakers who pronounce the h, it's often "a historic", "a heroic"&mdash;again, what determines a/an is whether 'h' is pronounced (I don't know of anyone who would say "an Historic" with a pronounced 'h'...it would always be "an istoric"). Principal stress can influence whether it's pronounced (i.e., speakers may be more likely to drop 'h' in unstressed syllables), but it doesn't directly determine the a/an alternation. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Like the previous poster-but-one, I've heard an aspirated (pronounced) "h" in "an historic event", and almost never "an istoric event". The logical is that "an utopian society" is conceivable, and it got one vote out of ten when this question was asked at Yahoo! Answers earlier this year. I'm trying to remember my classical Latin pronunciation of "u": would the ancient Romans have pronounced "Cuba" as we do ["Kyooba"], or as the Cubans do ["Koooba"]? (Although the idea of Utopia, meaning "nowhere", comes not, of course, from Rome but from Sir Thomas More's 16th-century book.) Searching for "an utopia" on Google yields tens of thousands of positive results, including "an utopia", "an utopian society", "an utopian dream", "an Utopian fantasy", "an Utopian subject" and "an utopian village".  In 1821, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a personal letter, "Mine, may after all be an Utopian dream, but being innocent, I have thought I might indulge in it until I go to the land of dreams, and sleep there with the dreamers of all past and future times." (Jefferson's secrets:death and desire at Monticello, by Andrew Burstein, page 81.) In 1811, James Henry Lawrence wrote The Empire of the Nairs, or The Rights of Women, an Utopian Romance, in twelve books (Sorry if these Google book links don't work for others; it's hard to distinguish what parts of those URL's are specific to me or my search.) The best answer for today is probably still "a Utopia" and "a Utopian", which is what I'd write myself, but the alternative is far from unknown or absurd. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The letter "u" is pronounced in Latin (and in most of european languages) like "oo", and when Thomas Jefferson wrote (almost two centuries ago): "an utopian dream" he must have said "utopian" in its latinized pronunciation, i.e. like: ootopian. Regarding the minority of people who write on the internet "an utopia": we must, first of all, inquire whether they're native English speakers, and whether they pronounce "utopia" like: you-topia, rather than how it's pronounced in most of european languages, i.e. ootopia. Google doesn't tell us how the pronounce what they write...
 * The minority of people who pronounce /an historic/ are probably influenced - sub-conciously - by the two legitimate ways of pronouncing the word "historic": they've heard both /a historic/ and /an istoric/, so they - sub-conciously - mix both ways and say: /an historic/. Anyways, I'm sure that every educated person says either /a historic/ or /an istoric/, but never: /an historic/.
 * HOOTmag (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to upset your apple cart, but I'm very well educated and I always say "an historic", always sounding the h. --   JackofOz (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're an extraordinary educated person... :)
 * Anyways, I'm sure that when you say /an historic/ you're influenced by the more common ways of pronunciation you generally hear: /an istoric/ and /a historic/.
 * HOOTmag (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I have to disagree. I don't know where your "sure"ness comes from, but it doesn't take into account me and my people.  It may not be so true of the younger generation (many of whom seem to think "a apple a day ..." sounds euphonious), but Australians of my generation have always said "an historic event", "an heroic achievement", "an hypnotic suggestion", "an heptagonal object", "an heraldic device", "an hospitable household", "an hereditary condition", "an historian", "an holistic approach", and so on for h-words that have their stress on the 2nd syllable and sound the 'h'.  As soon as the stress moves to the 3rd syllable, the article becomes "a": "a horizontal alignment", "a hierarchical structure", etc.   Which is why I, when I was masquerading as 202.142.129.66 (above), said it's a stress-related phenomenon.  Certainly in my neck of the woods anyway. --  JackofOz (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A friend of mine, who is Australian, would say: "please white for me" (or rather, this is what my non-australian ears hear), but I've never heard him say /an historic/ etc. However, one single friend can't base a testimony, while what you always hear from (all of?) the Australians of your generation - is definitely a clear proof. Anyways, this property of the australian accent, of which I haven't been aware, is quite interesting. HOOTmag (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind the likeliness of divergences between Australian basilect(s) and acrolect(s). -- Hoary (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you like to add more details about how all of that relates to the /an historic/ issue? HOOTmag (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I merely point out that /wait/ vs /weit/ (both in extremely loose quasi IPA) and "an" vs "a" historic may be matters of sociolect within Australia. -- Hoary (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, JackofOz has already pointed out that there's a difference between the youth and the adults, however I want him to tell us whether this phenonemon is really general - among the adults (of his age) - in Australia. HOOTmag (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't claim that all Aussies of my generation speak this way, but it's certainly the norm in my sociolect. As for the Lect twins, Basil and Acro, they visit each other so often and have adopted so many of each other's mannerisms that it's become really hard to tell who comes from where.  You're just as likely to find a city-dweller speaking in what once might have been called a "coarse country manner", as you are to find a farmer who has two degrees, regularly goes to the big smoke to attend the opera and ballet, and speaks in a "refined" way. /weit/ (wite) for /wait/ has become common across all sociolects, but again, it tends to occur in younger people.   --  JackofOz (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As for /an historic/ etc., your testimony is very important.
 * As for "wait" pronounced like "white", some weeks ago I heard the Prime Minister of New Zealand (whose people's accent is clearly influenced by the Australian accent) say on TV: "expla-nigh-tion", although he isn't young, but - as you've said - the phenonemon has probably become common across all sociolects (although it's more common among the youth, and I mention again that he's just a New-Zealander, not an Australian, and there may be a difference between the two peoples, of course).
 * HOOTmag (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The NZ accent "is clearly influenced by the Australian accent"??? Once again, you seem to be forming opinions (nothing wrong with that) and assuming they represent the truth (a very risky business).  It's almost a matter of honour among Australians to regard the typical NZ accent as extremely weird .  And probably vice-versa, but I'll let them speak for themselves.  I'm serious - some New Zealanders are virtually incomprehensible to Australians (and probably vice-versa again).  There may be some aspects of it that sound like the Australian accent, but that's because they share some of the same basic origins, not because we influenced each other to any significant degree.  NZ and OZ have developed quite independently, in historical and cultural terms.  They had the option of joining the federation back prior to 1901, but opted out.  And that's the closest we've ever come to any sort of unity.  Our very different accents reflect that.  But people from the US often think that the Australian accent sounds like Cockney (which we think is completely risible), so I guess it's not surprising they can see Australian-NZ connections that, to us, are non-existent.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that a New Zealander will thank you for mistaking him or her for an Australian about as much as a Canadian appreciates being taken for an American (U.S.), an Irishman appreciates being considered English, an Austrian or Swiss likes being taken for a German, or a Belgian likes being thought of as French (or Dutch). But did Australians and New Zealanders serve together in the ANZACs (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) or only in strictly-separated units? The British and American armies during World War I and World War II served to acquaint many soldiers with vastly-different accents that at first they were incapable of understanding (Appalachian & Brooklynese, or Cockney, Scouse and Glaswegian). —— Shakescene (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have to check, not being a military historian's bootlace, but I've never heard of Australians and New Zealanders serving together in the same units. We had our commanders, they had theirs, and we were jointly answerable to the British.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Aussies and the Kiwis are different peoples, each of which has a different characteristic (including a different accent/speech, of course), as I've aleady pointed out at the end of my previous response; Everybody is supposed to know that, and you don't have to declare "I'm serious" when you tell us that: "some New Zealanders are virtually incomprehensible to Australians (and probably vice-versa again)". Of course, just as some Canadians are incomprehensible to Americans, and some Irish or Scots are incomprehensible to British in the south, etc. No surprise. However, Australians and New-Zealanders share some common typical properties of speech, unknown outside the Australian continent, e.g. saying "expla-nigh-tion" etc. Since this phenonemon (of saying "expla-nigh-tion" etc.) is more common among the youth (according to your testimony), then it's clearly caused by an influence (the Kiwis being probably influenced by the Aussies), rather than by the common origin of both peoples. HOOTmag (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I accept most of that. The "nigh" for "nay" sound was considered a hallmark of the typical (to outsiders) Australian for a certain period, and Australian actors in films of the 1940s-1960s would regularly use it; possibly because the film-makers instructed them to sound echt-Australian for the benefit of US/UK ears.  It was always more typical of country Australians than city Australians.  City Australians have always represented a far higher proportion of the population than their country cousins, as we're one of the most highly urbanised nations on the planet.  But despite that, a mythology developed that the only "true Australians" were the country folk, the city people being relatively limp-wristed lily-livered namby-pambies (and some of them are, but not typically).  Hence, the "real" Australian accent was the way the country people spoke, and anyone who wasn't interested in farming, mechanical things, animals etc had little to contribute.  This cultural mythology became so widespread that many Australians came to believe it themselves.  It was certainly the image we often put out to the rest of the world, and to a degree, still do.  Hence the frequent questions from foreigners about whether cars on busy metropolitan freeways have to take their chances with kangaroos, and how come nobody's wearing hats with corks hanging from them (I have never in my life seen one of them except in cartoons etc).  The Sydney 2000 Olympics opened up a lot of eyes to what this country and its people are actually like.  This city/country divide was expressed beautifully in Banjo Paterson's Clancy of the Overflow - see particularly verses 5-7.  Off set, actors usually spoke quite differently, except perhaps for people like Chips Rafferty.  Then we decided to stop thinking that anything slightly more educated than 2nd grade language was a sign of obvious homosexuality (but many Aussies still stumble over unfamiliar words of more than 2 syllables, and take a certain pride in doing so, because it's still dangerous in some quarters to be seen to be too articulate).  The mingling of city and country accents has gone on at a furious pace, and younger people, who are always more open to language change than older people, have tended to take on the formerly banished "nigh" for "nay".  But the influence you speak of is one that the Australian and New Zealand accents acquired or developed jointly, not because one necessarily influenced the other.  At least, I've never heard of any evidence that that's the case. --  JackofOz (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand very well your argument, taking us back to the 40s-60s (is there any earlier evidence for saying "nigh" for "nay" among Aussies?), and it sounds to me quite consistent. However, I'm still looking for any evidence (rather than a consistent argument) which may support your claim that saying "nigh" for "nay" is a trait which: "the Australian and New Zealand accents acquired or developed jointly". HOOTmag (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The BBC tend to prefer "an historic". News presenters who most certainly pronounce their "h"s often use this formulation, which has always grated on me.  Of course, it could be that their autocues are written by people who don't pronounce the "h" in "historic".  A quick Google of the BBC website shows slightly more uses of "an historic" than "a historic" (6,610 vs. 5,410, although some of each are quotes). Warofdreams talk 12:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am English/British, mid-30s, well-educated (grammar school, university etc.). I have quizzed two others, both of same age and educational background (though one was brought up in Scotland).  It turns out that all three of us say "an historic event" but "a history".  Two of us say "a heroic act" and "a hero" while one says "an heroic act" and "a hero".62.25.109.195 (talk)

Latin phrase: "He loves the wine and the dog"
As per the title, I recall hearing (or reading) this Latin phrase that translates to "[He] loves the wine and the dog". However, google comes up with nothing. Can anyone help? Thanks, decltype (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a phrase from the first chapter of a textbook, to help you learn the accusative. How about "vinum et canem amat" or "Vinum canemque amat". Adam Bishop (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Latin textbook, eh? I have never owned one of those. decltype (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)