Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 July 20

= July 20 =

Opposite of exaggerate
I've been wondering about this for a while... what us the opposite of exaggerate in a) English and b) Chinese?  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 07:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly 'understate' or 'minimize'. Sorry I don't speak 'Chinese' 86.4.183.90 (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Meiosis (figure of speech) might be a linguistic antonym of exaggeration. Also Litotes has a Chinese example, but these are not quite what you were asking.    D b f i r s   08:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

vitirinaire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margho (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Downplay". Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Minimisation. Gwinva (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dutch name: In' t <-- meaning?
A guy at my company is (first name) In' t (rest of family name) and I was wondering what that stands for/means? It's not an easy thing to google, what with the apostrophe and all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.189.63.171 (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 't is a contraction of het.—Emil J. 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a combination of two tussenvoegsel (in het, in 't = in the): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tussenvoegsel#Combinations Rimush (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In 't is short for In het, meaning In the. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Martin.
 * Dutch wikipedia suggests names with tussenvoegsels are often nobility, so you better curtsey your co-worker :-) . 195.35.160.133 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Martin.
 * The Dutch article doen't suggest that at all - and wouldn't as it isn't true. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Syntax: How can one use a possessive relative pronoun for combining a conditional clause with the main clause?
The following pair of sentences: can become one sentence, using the possessive relative pronoun "whose" - as following:
 * 1. "I met a person".
 * 2. "That person's nose is purple".
 * 3. "I met a person whose nose is purple".

How about combining both clauses, 1 and 2 (by a possessive relative pronoun as before), when the second clause (no. 2) is conditional, e.g.
 * 2. "If that person's nose were green, the world would look better''".

Note that the main clause (no. 1) is still as before, so the new sentence (that has to combine both clauses, 1 and 2) must begin with: "I met a person...". Additionally, note that the new sentence (that has to combine both clauses, 1 and 2) must preserve the original list of nouns ("person", "nose", "world") as well as the original list of adjectives ("green", "better") as well as the original list of verbs ("to meet", "to be", "to look"), so no addition of new nouns / adjectives / verbs (e.g. the verb "to have" and likewise) is permitted.

For more clarification, see 174.24.196.51's comment below, and Kpalion's comment below.

I ask all of that, because such a combination of two clauses (the second one of which is conditional) by a relative pronoun - is possible in other languages.

HOOTmag (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are asking whether it is correct to say "If I met a person whose nose was green, the world would look better", the answer is, yes, that is an acceptable sentence. However, it is not clear what you are asking.  Marco polo (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I was clear enough: please read again the first sentence in my last paragraph (beginning with the word: "Note"). HOOTmag (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) I think he's asking for the equivalent of "I met a person who, if their nose was green, would look better.", but with "[person being met] would look better" replaced by "the world would look better". (That is, the meeting of said person is a fact, with only the green nose being the hypothetical.) -- 174.24.196.51 (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you interpreted me correctly, and I'm still waiting for the correct way of combining both clauses by the (possessive) relative pronoun. HOOTmag (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would prefer "I met a person who, if his nose were green instead of purple, would make the world look better." However, we are guessing what HOOTmag means. His response to Marco polo's very polite request for greater clarity is not appropriate. Bielle  (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've stated above, one must preserve the original list of verbs ("to meet", "to be", "to look"), so no addition of new verbs (e.g. the verb "to make" etc.) is permitted. Additionally, you can't use the word "his" before knowing whether this person is a man or a woman. HOOTmag (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I met a person, if whose nose were green, the world would look better. Not sure, if this is grammatical in English. — Kpalion(talk) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you interpreted me correctly, and like you, I doubt if your sentence is grammatical in English. However, its structure is similar to the structure of the following grammatical sentence: "I met a person, at whose nose - I'm looking now". By the way, how would my original question be solved in Polish, if at all? HOOTmag (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you considered changing your user ID to the Polish words for "The Riddler"? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As before (at the mathematical Ref Desk), here too, it's not really a "riddle", but rather a question, whose answer I don't know yet (by the way: some hours ago, EmilJ gave me the full solution for my "riddle" at the mathematical Ref Desk, after I gave Tango - some hours earlier - my partial solution, ibid. You're welcome to enjoy EmilJ's instructive full solution, ibid.). Anyways, as far as the Polish words for "the riddler" are concerned, I'm beginning to like your sense of humor :) HOOTmag (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kpalion, HOOTmag, you are right that Kpalion's sentence is not grammatically correct. Actually, I think there is no English contruction that meets all the requirments in HOOTmag's original question (no new nouns/adjectives/verbs). (I am a native speaker of British English). --Stfg (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its ungrammaticality is not only in British English. Anyway, if you are right, and my question has no solution in English, then I think this is very interesting, mainly from a linguistic point of view, because my question does have solutions - in languages other than English... HOOTmag (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In English one would have to turn the sentence round I met a person, the greenness of whose nose would make the world look better but it is still clumsy. Languages that make a different implicit assumption about the subject of the last clause might allow your suggested word order.    D b f i r s   21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like you haven't read what I wrote above (when I presented my question), so let me quote (or almost quote) myself again:
 * "Note that the new sentence (that has to combine both clauses, 1 and 2) must preserve the original list of nouns ("person", "nose", "world") as well as the original list of adjectives ("green", "better") as well as the original list of verbs ("to meet", "to be", "to look"), so no addition of new nouns / adjectives / verbs (e.g. the noun "greenness" or the verb "to make" and likewise) is permitted".
 * HOOTmag (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@Hoot: "His" following "person" does not necessarily indicate gender; it was the standard singular for a person of unknown sex when I was growing up, back in the Jurassic era, when "person" followed by "they" would have cost you points on any paper. What happened to "purple"? Bielle (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "his/they", it's a well known controversy (see footnote no. 48). Anyway, my main point was not about the "his", but rather about your adding a new verb ("to make"), and...yes: also your adding the "purple" is prohibited. Again: you must preserve the three original lists of nouns / adjectives / verbs, as indicated above. Just think about the classical usage of "whose": it really preserves the original lists of nouns / adjectives / verbs - in the sentence: "I met a person whose nose is purple". HOOTmag (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As it is controversial in the sense that some experts say yes and others say no, it ill behooves you to write definitively: "Additionally, you can't use the word "his" before knowing whether this person is a man or a woman". I can, and shall, continue to do so. If others wish to play your "purple/green nose" game that is up to them. Bielle  (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's really a controversy, in which you took a side (when you wrote definitively: "I can, and shall, continue to do so"), just as I took a side when I wrote definitively: "Additionally, you can't use the word "his" before knowing whether this person is a man or a woman". But again, it's not my main point. My main point is another one, as I've already explained above, and...no: it's not a "game" at all: three Wikipedians (174.24.196.51, Kpalion, and Stfg) who followed the rules, didn't think this was a game, because they well understood the rationale behind these rules: the word "who" (as well as the word "whose") - is a syntactic word, hence its usage is not supposed to change the original lists of nouns / adjectives / verbs. Just think about any other axample in which this syntactic word combines two clauses into one sentence, and you'll realize that using this word doesn't have to change the original lists of nouns / adjectives / verbs. HOOTmag (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we've all done our best for HOOTmag who likes posing obscure and ill-defined riddles on various help desks. Perhaps he (or she) could explain what they are really wanting.  and yes, we have read what you wrote, and tried to make sense of it!    D b f i r s   07:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not all of you have done the best: you are six Wikipedians on this thread: Three of you have really done the best: 174.24.196.51, Kpalion, and Stfg, who really followed the rules, and didn't change the original lists of nouns / adjectives / verbs, becuase they well understood the rationale behind these rules: the word "whose" - is a syntactic word, hence its usage is not supposed to change the original lists of nouns / adjectives / verbs. Just think about any other axample in which this syntactic word combines two clauses into one sentence, and you'll realize that using this word doesn't have to change the original lists of nouns / adjectives / verbs. Regarding what you call "obscure and ill-defined riddles": Whoever understands the rationale behind all of my questions (like 174.24.196.51, Kpalion, and Stfg, on this thread) doesn't think my questions are obscure and ill-defined. Now it's up to you whether to try to understand this rationale and to follow the rules this rationale is behind. HOOTmag (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In Polish I could construct a sentence equivalent to the one I wrote above, but it would be similarly ungrammatical. I wonder in what languages this kind of structure would be allowed. Can you give any examples, Hootmag? Curiously, I can't think of any Polish word for a riddler. If I had to invent one, I'd use sfinks metaphorically. In Polish translations of Batman comics, "the Riddler" is rendered as Człowiek-zagadka, literally "Man-conundrum" – not exactly the same sense for me. — Kpalion(talk) 09:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that your construction was possible in any language (although it may be). I only said that my question was solvable in some languages, by using a relative pronoun, which can combine two clauses, the second one of which is conditional, without changing the original lists of nouns / adjectives / verbs. For example, let's take the Semitic languages: every word in those languages has a grammatical gender (which may be different from the natural gender). E.g. the English word "person" we're talking about, may be translated - in every Semitic language - into a few words, some of which have a masculine grammatical gender, the other ones having a feminine grammatical gender. For our instance, let's take (in any Semitic language) the (grammatically) masculine word for the English word "person", and let's denote it here (in this thread) by: person. So, the new (Semitic) sentence will look like: "I met a person, who if his nose were green, the world would look better". Note that this solution, that uses the relative pronoun who for combining to clauses (the second one of which is conditional), is always possible in Semitic languages, and is considered to be acceptable in a formal speech as well as in an informal speech. Furthermore, this syntactic construction in Semitic languages is not limited to cases having no other syntactic solution, but rather is universal and applicable wherever whose (or who) would be used in English: e.g. the English sentence: "I met a person whose nose is purple", is translated in Semitic languages into something like: "I met a person who his nose is purple". HOOTmag (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At my job, I have to try to help difficult people with nasty attitudes like HOOTmag's, but when volunteering on the Reference Desk, I am under no such obligation and will certainly avoid any questions by this person in the future. Marco polo (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you misinterpreted me, and I profoundly apologize if anything in my words insulted you, although I hope that nothing did. Anyways, I really can't understand what was nasty in my asking you to read again the first sentence in my last paragraph (beginning with the word: "Note")". Does this request insult? Again, if it does, then I fully apologize, and I'll be happy if you give me a second chance to explain myself: I thought that I was "clear enough" in the beginning of this paragraph which begins with the word "Note", where I wrote explicitly that the main clause (no. 1) is still as before, so the new sentence (that has to combine both clauses, 1 and 2) must begin with: "I met a person...". Your proposal does not meet this requirement, does it? Again, I hope you forgive me if I was not clear enough in my last response to you. Have a nice day, all the best, take care. HOOTmag (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * HOOTmag, if I may, you often pose questions which look highly specific, full of all sorts of restrictions regarding an acceptable answer, yet often unclear as to what you are actually asking. Then, when we ask for clarification, you order us to read again. When we attempt to interpret what you are asking and give our best response, you rigidly quote yourself and argue why that answer is incorrect. You also often take us far too literally (Your paragraph beginning with "Not all of you have done the best ..." comes across as extremely petty and would definitely not be an incentive for me to spend my brain cells and time on helping you). We're just a couple of volunteers at a reference desk, not MENSA test candidates, not classmates or professors on whom you can hone your logical and argumentative skills in debate. ---Sluzzelin talk  14:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Sluzzelin,
 * I find it easier if I quote from your important post:
 * "you often pose questions which look highly specific, full of all sorts of restrictions regarding an acceptable answer".
 * Yes, because I ask my questions from a linguistic point of view, not often from a practical point of view. Fortunately, this Ref Desk is full of people, some of whom understand my linguistic point of view, and give me answers I find satisfactory, as happened on this thread. Anyway, I really don't blame anybody, I just read all the answers and indicate whether they meet the requirements indicated in my question. If the answer has met these requirement, then that's wonderfull (as has already happened in this thread), and if it hasn't met the requirements, then I just explain why I don't find it satisfactory, but I don't think that anything bad happens if the answer doesn't meet the requirements. I appreciate every answer, even when it doesn't meet the requirements.
 * "unclear as to what you are actually asking".
 * Ok, some users may find my questions unclear, while others find it quite clear. Again, I appreciate everyone, including those who've found my question unclear. The diffrenece between the users who understood my question immediately and the other users who didn't, is probably rooted in the user's expectations. A user who expects practical questions, may have found my question unclear. It's Ok, and whenever any user notifies me, I try to answer them as best as I can, including by quotations from previous clarifications of mine the user may have skipped.
 * "when we ask for clarification, you order us to read again".
 * "Order"? I think the better word here should be: "ask", or "beg". Can't I ask you to read again some clarifications of mine you might have skipped? If you think the quotations didn't help you understand me better, you're always welcome to notify me, and I'll try to make myself clearer, as I'm trying to do that now.
 * "When we attempt to interpret what you are asking and give our best response, you rigidly quote yourself and argue why that answer is incorrect".
 * "Rigidly"? I think the better expression here should be: "in a precise manner". I'm trying to quote the exact words (the user may have skipped), just because I have no better words. However, whenever the user notifies that my quotation is not satisfactory, I try to explain more (as I'm doing now), although I think that what I had written in the quoted words is clearer than any more clarifications. Anyways, I don't accept your saying that the answer is incorrect: I just notify that the answer does not meet the original requirements (if it really doesn't), but I appreciate every answer, even when it doesn't meet the requirements.
 * "You also often take us far too literally".
 * I apologize if I ever did.
 * "Your paragraph beginning with "Not all of you have done the best ..." comes across as extremely petty)".
 * You may have taken me far too literally. by "to do the best" I mean "to give an answer that meets the requirements indicated in the question". However, I never meant that any user who gave me such an answer hasn't tried to do their best to help, and I appreciate every effort, even when it does not result in a satisfactory answer.
 * "We're just a couple of volunteers at a reference desk".
 * So am I, when I answer questions at the Ref Desk, so all of us are in a good group, thanks God... :)
 * "not MENSA test candidates, not classmates or professors on whom you can hone your logical and argumentative skills in debate".
 * I'm not looking for any of those guys you've mentioned, I'm seeking an answer for a question asked from a linguistic point of view, rather than from a practical point of view. Fortunately, some users here understood my point at once. Had I made it clear since the beginning, our misunderstanding would have disappeared since the beginning. Anyways, I appreciate every user here, including those users whose point of view is practical rather than linguistic.
 * Have a nice day, all the best.
 * HOOTmag (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ... so what exactly are you looking for? Impossible sentences?    D b f i r s   16:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm looking for possible ones. Stfg has expressed their opinion that there are no such possible sentences, and I highly recommend that you see my response to them, just below their post. HOOTmag (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I highly recommend that, if you want to know in future whether something is possible, you ask "is it possible?".  Our answers could then be clearer and more direct.    D b f i r s   18:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your recommendation, which I highly appreciate.
 * Anyways, the title of this thread is "how can one use...for combining...", by which I meant: "Is it possible to use...for combining...". Maybe the word "how" was redundant, but: by this "how" I meant: "how about combining...", and I really wrote that explicitly - when I presented my question, after few sentences below the title. Anyways, I'll try to be clearer in future. Thank you again, take care, all the best.
 * HOOTmag (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem will stay the same if we replaced "whose" with "who". So, within its clause "who" can be a subject ("I saw a man who was purple"), an object ("...whom they painted green"), or any other constituent ("...because of whom the world looked better"). Obviously, it has to be a constituent of its clause. Now, with "who" we can introduce a complex sentence in which "who" would appear in the main clause, but not in the subordinate (I saw a man. - He would look green if the world were better. -> "I saw a man who would look green if the world were better.", "...who looked green because/whenever/where the world was better", etc.). But in a sentence like "If he were green, the world would look better." "he", which is to be replaced with "who", appears in the subordinate clause, but not in the main one. So, what the riddle asks is to introduce with "who" a clause, in which it can't be a constituent. --Uanfala (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that - in some other (more "liberal") languages - one could say something like: "I met a person, who if were green - the world would look better". Why should English forbid to use such a syntactic construction? Doesn't one feel frustrated when one can't express a simple idea in one sentence, just because of thechnical syntactic restrictions only, which do not exist in other (more "liberal") languages? HOOTmag (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Bielle (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just asked two questions ("Why should...Doesn't one..."), the second one of which you answered, the first one still being unanswered. HOOTmag (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While I am getting more than a little bored with tone of reprimand built into your posts (we are not your students, and you are not Sophocles), HOOT, indeed I did only respond to the second question. So, for greater clarity:
 * Why should English forbid to use such a syntactic construction? Because, in English, such a construction makes no sense. If it did make sense, then English would be another language, or a differently developed language of (possibly) the same name. And now we are into speculation, where I am not qualified to go.
 * Doesn't one feel frustrated when one can't express a simple idea in one sentence, just because of thechnical syntactic restrictions only, which do not exist in other (more "liberal") languages? No.  (We can put it all into one sentence, just not under the same syntactical rules you are positing some other languages have, and not with a specific vocabulary and word order.) It's a different language; we do the similar things but in different ways.
 * Bielle (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry if you heard any tone of reprimand in my last response. I wonder how you could hear such a tone in my words. Anyways, I had no intention to sound this way. Let me clarify: Nobody here is my student, and we all have the same status of course.
 * I just indicated that you (in your previous response) had referred to my second question only (thank you for your recent response wherein you referred also to my first quesion), but I've never meant that you must answer all of my questions. Anyways, I thank you for your recent response wherein you did refer to all of my questions.
 * What you call: syntactical rules you are positing some other languages have - are not posited my me, nor are they rules of other languages only. The relative pronouns: which, who, whom, whose, are syntactic words, and as such they are designated - in English as well as in any other language - to combine clauses into one sentence freely, i.e. without having to change the original lists of nouns / adjectives / verbs. You may realize that, once you think about any example of combining two English clauses by relative pronouns. e.g. I met a person + this person's nose is purple = I met a person whose nose is purple. My question has been: why doesn't English let the speaker use the relative pronouns - freely (i.e. without having to change the original lists mentioned above) - everywhere, i.e. including cases of conditional clauses (e.g. if that person were green, the world have looked better). You answered that if the English language had done that, it wouldn't have been the English language. Unfortunately, I find this kind of answer - evasive a bit (I don't blame you: it's my problem rather than yours). Let me explain why: If you asked me: Why doesn't the British law permit the usage of medical cannabis (as it's permitted in other countries), I wouldn't answer you: "because if the British law had permitted the usage of medical cannabis - it wouldn't have been the British law". I assume there must be a reasoning behind the English prohibition of using relative pronouns - freely (i.e. without having to change the original lists mentioned above) - everywhere, because every language is naturally expected to let the speakers use their language as freely as possible, unless such a free usage may bring about some damage, e.g. ambiguity and the like.
 * HOOTmag (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

French language
Hello everybody! A while ago I read about a Francophone area where the k sounds turned into x, so the paradigm sacrebleu changed from sɑkʁəblø to sɑxʁəblø. What area is this? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.147.33 (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Swedish place names containing “fick”
Are the any Swedish place names containing “fick”? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the closest you will find are places ending in "vik", such as Västervik, Valdemarsvik, or Örnsköldsvik. ---Sluzzelin  talk  22:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe there is a place containing the wonderful word "fika". ---Sluzzelin talk  00:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are many. Fickasjön (lit. "pocket lake") in Örby, Fickeln in Nora, and Fickfjärden in Nordmaling to name a few.  (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, let me know if the word HOROLOGY exist?
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.193.79 (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes: horology. Xenon54 (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We do have dictionaries for that sort of thing. Falconus p t   c 20:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See horology and http://www.onelook.com/?w=horology&ls=a. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Some Hinglish please
Hi - any Hinglish speakers out there? - can you give me the current slang term for 'penis', please. Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * lola? --Soman (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer - though I can't find the word on the internet except as a name - I see the distaff equivalent all over the place, but hinglish for the male organ isn't so easy to find.... Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The word, is to my knowledge, a Hindi slang word (out of many for the same thing, as always...). I don't know if there is any specifically Hinglish term, but on the other hand in Hinglish both Hindi and English words are used interchangibly. --Soman (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can one learn a language by listening to the radio?
Is it possible to learn a foreign language solely by listening to the radio? Non-interactive, one-way communication with no indications of meaning outside the stream of audio? I've skimmed the Language acquisition article, but it seems to be no help, as it seems to assume an ordinary environment in which one is in the actual presence of other humans. If it's considered possible, is there any thought as to how much of the language must be understood to serve as a foothold? I imagine that if I knew, say, 50% of the everyday vocabulary of a particular language and had figured out some large amount of its grammar, then I would be able to acquire the other 50% with time and attention. My assumption has been that if I had understood only 2 words of the foreign language going into this, then there would be no hope. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you could pick it up if you knew nothing of the language. There's no context, no visual cues. Like if you knew "da" and "nyet" meant "yes" and "no" in Russian, and were listening to a Russian station, you might be able to pick those words up. Consider how they translated the Rosetta stone. They had no hope of translating hieroglyphics until they found that stone and starting matching words up. That kind of thing is what you would be faced with trying to learn a language from the radio. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As a simple example, decades before more sophisticated tools like the Rosetta Stone series of language instruction, there was a series of books such as Spanish Through Pictures. The first four pictures were stick figures of an adult male, adult female, young male and young female. In turn, each one had its right hand over/pointing to its chest/heart and saying, Yo soy un hombre, Yo soy una mujer, Yo soy un muchacho and Yo soy una muchacha. That approach might be a little clumsy until you figure out their "system". But if you heard those words on the radio, how would you learn the language? Well, in that simple case, you might pick up the fact that a man, woman, boy and girl are speaking. But you're still missing the visual cue of them pointing to themselves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And just think how could you understand adjectives, especially colours, without an intermediary interpretation? I'd say it was virtually impossible for the average person. 86.4.183.90 (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is probably not possible, for the reasons explained above, to acquire a language solely through an audio stream without any visual or textual clues. However, googling "taught himself English by listening" + radio gives 360 hits (and 75 for "herself", and 3 for "themselves"). Radio or music can be an important addition to other sources of information. For example, many of the millions of people currently studying English have instructors who lack spoken proficiency or whose syllabus restricts them to a focus on the written word; an audio stream can transform this dry book learning into a living project. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * About a day after asking my original question, I realized my scenario has a lot in common with the Navajo code talkers, and the Empire of Japan never succeeded there (though the article is not clear about how much brute force labor Japan applied to the problem). I ended up with the depressing image of a guy locked in a room for a decade with, say, 100 pages of a radio transcript, doing frequency analysis and trying to substitute hundreds of nouns and verbs into a stream of text that has unknown grammar features.  I pity this poor guy, a cousin to the dude inside the Chinese room, most unlikely to ever succeed in learning Standard Mandarin over the radio.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's how they got their kamakaze volunteers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)