Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 August 25

= August 25 =

W
Why is the article for W sometimes (but not always) using guillemets around its example glyphs? Is this an affectation that linguists use, or is it more likely the work of an editor whose first language uses them as quote marks? Shall I change them to quotes? Seeing one unfamiliar symbol (the wynn rune) surrounded by other unfamiliar symbols (the guillemets) really didn't help my comprehension. 213.122.40.202 (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no guillemets in that article; guillemets look like «» . What is in the article are single angle brackets, like ›, which are used around glyphs (as opposed to, for example, quotation marks "" which are used around words, square brackets [] which are used around IPA phonetic transcriptions, and slanted brackets // which are used around phonemic transcriptions). r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Should I change the article the opposite way, then, correcting the various instances of glyphs surrounded by quote marks to use angle brackets? Also, I copied and pasted one from the article into the search box, which took me to the guillemets article, so that might be a mistake. 213.122.40.202 (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a mistake, rather the W article is using the wrong glyphs. ‹ and › are indeed single guillemets (U+2039 SINGLE LEFT-POINTING ANGLE QUOTATION MARK and U+203A SINGLE RIGHT-POINTING ANGLE QUOTATION MARK), whereas angle brackets are 〈 and 〉 (U+2329 LEFT-POINTING ANGLE BRACKET and U+232A RIGHT-POINTING ANGLE BRACKET).—Emil J. 11:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia, there seems to be an unwritten agreement to use the single guillemets in place of the angle brackets when discussing orthography. It's a compromise between using the true angle brackets, which are not available in many fonts, and using the less-than and greater-than signs, which are ugly and which can be confused with markup. For example, if you want to indicate the letter s inside angle brackets, 〈s〉 may show up as ?s? or the like for many users, while &lt;s&gt; will simply initiate strikethrough formatting if you type it directly (you have to type &amp;lt; and &amp;gt; instead). So ‹s› is used as a compromise. —Angr (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who says people (not on Wikipedia, but in general) are actually supposed to use 〈…〉 rather than ‹…› or <…> to present glyphs or orthography? 〈〉 are fullwidth, so I always assumed they are intended for use with CJK and nothing else.  I'd always use ‹…› because are bigger and look like they should only be between things, not around things.  For example, it's unnecessarily potentially confusing to use < both as a marker to show etymological development (e.g. Wikipedia < OE Ƿicipǣdia) and as an opening bracket for glyphs/orthography (e.g. <ß> [s]).  I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just surprised as it never occurred to me to use 〈…〉.  Thanks in advance! --84.46.38.144 (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're talking about U+3008/9 "left/right angle bracket" in the CJK Symbols and Punctuation block, but Angr is probably talking about U+2329/A "left/right-pointing angle bracket" in the Miscellaneous Technical block. The names seem suboptimal. There's a third set, U+27E8/9 "mathematical left/right angle bracket", in Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-A. -- BenRG (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Azalai
What is the etymology of Azalai? 149.169.164.52 (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about Tamasheq, but one book says it means "camel driver" (both singular and plural). (MIchael Benanav, Men of Salt: Crossing the Sahara on the Caravan of White Gold, p6). ---Sluzzelin talk  05:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This suggests it's vernacular, from circa 1942 Zoonoses (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Research on the language used on 3 stamps
Hello everybody, at the German "Reference desk"-equivalent Auskunft link to paragraph we're atm working on identifying 48 stamps. And there were great results till now. But there are 3 stamps none of us could even find out what language is written upon them.

See the external Links: Pic 1 (stamps 2+3) Pic 2 (stamp 42)

They seem to belong together. A higher resolution was uploaded on German Wikipedia Datei:48 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:48_Briefmarken.png (but without numeration).

I am grateful for every small hint to which part and language of the world they belong. PS: Number 6 is also lagging any information. Thanks --WissensDürster (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no idea for the three stamps. But as for the stamp 25, it says 大日本政府/Great Japanese Government, 訴訟用印紙/stamp for lawsuit or litigation, and 拾錢/10 Sen (Sen is an abolished unit. 1⁄100 Yen). the stamped black letters is 見本/sample. Oda Mari (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The postmark of # 5 7 is Shinbashi, Tokyo on Aug. 5, 23(probably Meiji). 47 is a stamp of 國民華中/Republic of China. Oda Mari (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the bottom line of all three of them says Muscat موصكت, but I may be wrong. It's Arabic, rather than one of the other languages written in Arabic, I think. Steewi (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cancel that, I can't spell Muscat - مصقط Steewi (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think they say Muscat...looks more like "muzou..." something, and the top looks like "al-barkiy..." something, but I can't make it out. (It doesn't look like Morocco either, despite MeltBanana's links below.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably "moussonats" the currency at the time.  meltBanana  21:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah, Moroccan rial says "mazuna", that seems to fit. I still don't know what the top says though. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2, 3 and 42 were issued in morocco in 1912 part of the Cherifien Post discussed here and here. Number 6 is some kind of syrian tax/fiscal/revenue stamp issued during the UAR 1958-61 shown here.  meltBanana  13:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the quick and broad information. You guys are great and my family will not forget it. --WissensDürster (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Beethoven's "ingharese"
Reading Rage Over a Lost Penny, I was intrigued by the indication "Rondo alla ingharese quasi un capriccio", and particularly by the word 'ingharese'.

This tells me that 'ingharese' combines 'ongarese' (Hungarian) and 'zingarese' (gypsy).

Googling it, I get 17,700 hits, all of which appear to relate to this piece by Beethoven (I didn't scroll through the entire 17,700). That suggests it's a word Beethoven invented (or coined, but not pennied), and it's had little or no exposure outside this use.

Can anyone confirm that 'ingharese' is not a standard Italian word, but that an Italian hearing it would understand it's a hybrid of 'ongarese' and 'zingarese'? Has it ever been used outside this specific context? Was Beethoven justified in spelling it with an 'h', given that both of its parent words do without one? --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   09:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds kind of like "inglese" to me... AnonMoos (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As a Japanese might pronounce it, perhaps ... :)  All the sources agree it was meant to evoke a Hungarian gypsy mood.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   22:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am Italian and ingharese is not a common Italian word. Also its spelling isn't correct, at least in modern Italian: the gha never appear. If you want to have the hard sound of a G before a A you just have to write GA. If you want a soft G sound you write GIA. The hard G before a E or I is, instead, GHE and GHI, while GE and GI have the same sound of English JEH and JEE. Also, in modern Italian, Ongarese and Zingarese sound a little antiquated, their modern forms being Ungherese and Zingaro.--151.51.145.104 (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, grazie. Beethoven was around between 1770 and 1826; would -gha- have been more prevalent then, or were he and his publishers just lousy spellers?  I would be aghast at such a thought. :) --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The other side of betrayal?
I am writing about a character who was betrayed, and I want to describe this character as the embodiment of the experience of being betrayed. I'd like to put it more succinctly, needless to say. "The embodiment of betrayal" would seem to imply the act of betraying, rather than of being betrayed. Is there a word that sums up the feeling or experience of betrayal as experienced by the one being betrayed? 71.104.106.143 (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * shafted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.253.222 (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are lots of adjectives meaning "betrayed", 84.153, what the OP is looking for is an abstract noun for their condition. I can't think if one myself. --ColinFine (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

et al. and etc.
Is et el. used only with reference to names of people? Can it also be used with nouns such as thunder, bucket, door etc.? Would it be correct if I say, 'I saw thunder, lightning et al. on my way today'? If yes, what is the difference between et al. and etc., because I can also use etc. after lightning. If not, why not because et al. basically means 'and others' from Latin and it makes no reference to the fact that 'others' has to refer to only animate beings? Thanks - DSachan (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever it means in Latin, in English it is used specifically as contrasted with "etc" (and the rest) to mean "And other people." I speak one other language, and in that language if you say "And others" it can only refer to people; Latin might be the same.  As for "I saw, a cat, a dog, and others" it is a funny sentence, because suddenly the cat and dog are referred to as people.  And you can't say "I saw thunder, lightning, and others".  So, I would say English "and others" also refers to people at least the majority of time time.  Bottom line: "etc" reads as if it means "...and so on", "e.g." reads as if it meant "for example", "ie" reads as if it meant "that is to say", "et al." reads as if it meant "among others." 84.153.253.222 (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The University of Minnesota Style Manual states:


 * "In strict usage, et cetera (and the rest) is neuter and so can refer only to things, and et alia (and others) can refer only to persons. Do not end a list of persons with etc.; instead, use and others. Using etc. at the end of a list introduced by for example, such as, or a similar expression is also incorrect. (Note: A comma is required after etc. unless it ends the sentence. Also note that et does not require a period but al. does; et is a word, al. is an abbreviation.)"


 * King County's Manual of Style says:


 * "etc. Abbreviation for et cetera, a Latin phrase meaning 'and others,' 'and so on,' 'and the rest.' It's usually used for things, not people; the Latin et al. is the correct abbreviation for referring to people. But avoid using the abbreviations; use the simpler English words instead."


 * -Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's strange. Do they interpret et al. as et alia? That would never involve persons in Latin. I think et alii is normally implied. Pallida  Mors  16:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * According to wikt:et al., the abbreviation stands for "et alii".—Wavelength (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In actual common modern English usage, "et. al." is rarely used except to abbreviate a reference to a work written by multiple authors, while "etc." has a broader / more general range of uses... AnonMoos (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The abbreviation "et al." is used in names of lawsuits. See List of class action lawsuits. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between "et al" and "inter alia". The first means "and others", the second means "among others". --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Besides "et al." only being used for people, there's a specific difference from "etc.": it's only used in connection with a known list of specific people. Co-authors of a book, article, etc.; parties to a lawsuit.  So "Alpher et al.", in the appropriate context, means specifically Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow.  "Etc.", on the other hand, may mean that you don't even know how many people or things are included.  (Of course, if you're quoting someone else's use of "Alpher et al.", you may not know either -- but you know where to look it up.)  --Anonymous, 21:50 UTC, August 25, 2010.

A term to call a child of a person who later enters into a new marriage with another
When a person has already a child, and he or she later enters into a new marriage with another person, the said child is called what? Is there a specific term to call such child? Thank you.

203.131.212.36 (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

step-son or step-daughter would be the closest. (because it means you're somebody's stepchild now.) 84.153.253.222 (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Frank is married to Gertrude, and they have a son named Ernest. Frank and Gertrude divorce.  Ernest will always remain their son.  Frank remarries, to Sybil.  Ernest is still Frank's son, but Sybil's step-son.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Technically, that is correct, but I feel that stepchild carries the faint implication that one of the child's parents is no longer present. That is, there is a suggestion that the stepparent has taken the place of one of the birth parents.  My parents divorced shortly after I reached majority and moved out of their house, and it always seemed absurd to me to refer to my father's second wife—who was only a couple of years older than me—as my "stepmother".  I always referred to her as "my father's wife" in the third person and by her given name when addressing her.  Marco polo (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are all sorts of "unofficial" titles given to family members, to cover a wide variety of circumstances. I have 2 sons; I was not the biological father of the elder, but I did legally adopt him.  And when the adoption came through, he was issued with a new birth certificate showing me as the birth father (even though I'd never even heard of him till he was 3 years old), and all mention of his true birth father was expunged.  Thus, legally I am his (unqualified) father; we still can't be unaware that biologically he and my other son are half-brothers, but we never call them that.  --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Barbecue" in Hawaiian?
I'm trying to find the word for barbecue in Hawaiian and remember some word similar to le nai or lanai or something, but I'm not having much luck searching for it. Anyone have any idea? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My Pocket Hawaiian Dictionary says Kō`ala (apparently derived from a verb meaning "to broil"), but you may have in mind luau... AnonMoos (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, AnonMoos. Ericoides (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have this image of barbecued koala. Mmm, yum.  :)  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

programming code
hw to run applet program write a java program for image editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumansantosh753 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the language reference desk. You are probably looking for the computing reference desk.—Emil J. 14:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

i can't place a word, please inform me what it is
okay i know that isn't a great title. the word i am looking for is the name for the phenomenon where you are exposed once to a somewhat infrequently discussed thing (say a chuck berry song you'd never heard), and throughout a period of time (say, a week), it 'pops up' with a relatively high frequency. does anyone know the name for this? 68.150.211.200 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Serendipity? schyler (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You might also be interested in an earlier question on "Velpeau's Law". ---Sluzzelin talk  20:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or possibly confirmation bias - it could be that people discuss Chuck Berry all the time, but you only notice it because of your recent discussion. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is sometimes referred to as the Baader Meinhof Phenomenon.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Synchronicity" is probably the word you're looking for. Paul Davidson (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be very low-grade synchronicity if it fits that description at all. This isn't about things suddenly happening in new and unexpected ways; it's about someone suddenly noticing things that were always there, because they've become attuned to them.  Like, I know zilch about cars, but I buy a Lexus one day, and then, magically, I start seeing all these Lexuses all over the place that I'd never noticed before. There's no synchronistic effect there, just new awareness of what was always there to begin with.   --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

flap
hey again, sorry for somany question but I'm curious ;) In Spanish, when do you use the flap for "r" and when do you use the other realizations (and for that matter, what are those realizations?) Also how do you know when to pronounce the "g" as an "h" and when you pronounce it as a g? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.249.1.8 (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Our Spanish phonology explains the r situation well: the trill [r] is found after /l/, /n/, and /s/, before consonants, and utterance finally; the tap [ɾ] is found elsewhere. The trill is also found written as word-initial r and in the combination rr.  As for g, it is usually  or, etc. when written ge or gi, and  (EDIT: but [ɣ] non-initially) elsewhere.  --  the Great   Gavini  06:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought &lt;g> is [ɣ] . (Caveat: I know essentially no Spanish.) Is that plain wrong, or is it dialectal and/or position-dependent?&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 15:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're right actually - it's [ɣ] in non-initial position and  otherwise, unless the following letter is e or i.  I've edited my previous comment accordingly.  --  the Great   Gavini  17:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * is everywhere except "after a pause [or] after a nasal consonant" (according to our article) in which case it's realized as . So, for example, in normal flowing speech, la garganta is pronounced, even though  is word-initial. Note also that  in Spanish is pronounced as an approximant, not a fricative. The fricative symbol is used because linguists are too lazy to find the undertack. :) --el Aprel (facta-facienda) 04:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * But IPA does have a symbol for the velar approximant: <ɰ> . There is no need for an undertack, IMHO (though that would correct as well, if not straightforward).  JaneStillman (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * But is specified as [–round], whereas  is unspecified for rounding, which makes it a good candidate for transcribing Spanish. Spanish /g/ takes on the rounding of its environment. Martínez-Celdrán touches on this in his article "Problems in the classification of approximants" published in the Journal of the International Phonetic Association in 2004.--el Aprel (facta-facienda) 22:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously, is unrounded since it is the approximant counterpart of, so I guess you must be right.  So, <ɣ˕> is a shorthand for both  and , depending on the environment.  Anyway, thanks for correcting me. JaneStillman (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)