Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 September 17

= September 17 =

Which is correct (plural/singular).
I heard someone on the radio say "there weren't as many tourists this year as there was last year". Should it be "there weren't as many tourists this year as there were last year"? -- Q Chris (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. You can't use "were" in the first half and then switch to "was" in the second.  Rojomoke (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * However, you could have used "was" in the second half, had the "there" been deleted from the second half. Eliko (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? there weren't as many tourists this year as was last year? What sort of English is that?  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   11:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not English at all unless you say "as was the case last year", but then you introduce a possible ambiguity. Use the plural for both.  "Someone on the radio" is not a good role model for correct English.  Even BBC announcers and presenters occasionally make mistakes.    D b f i r s   11:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody is totally error-free, Dbfirs. Why, even I occasionally make mistakes. :)  I'm interested, who would you nominate as a better role model than a BBC announcer?  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   11:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree - I find myself making mistakes with worryingly increasing regularity! The point I intended to make (but didn't make clearly) is that "someone on the radio" could be just anyone, with any or little knowledge of correct English. Also, spoken English, even from educated people such as radio presenters, often contains errors that would probably not be reproduced in written form.  BBC announcers usually read from a script, so they should be the "best" model of spoken English, and usually they are, but occasional mistakes creep in, even there.      D b f i r s   09:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * " [T] here weren't as many tourists" is about a plural thing, the number of tourists; "as there was last year" is about a single thing, last year. In the end it doesn't matter - both sentences are obviously understandable.  Prescriptive grammar might favour "there weren't as many tourists this year as there were last year". Descriptive grammar would say that both are examples of grammatically OK colloquial English.  If I were to comment on which sentence sounds better to my ear, I would argue that "there weren't as many tourists this year as there were last year", sounds just a weeny bit stilted, and somewhat redolent of that quaint thing, the subjunctive in English.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "is about a plural thing, the number of tourists" I haven't read this discussion thoroughly, but the way you worded that sounds like a contradiction to me.. Lexicografía (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How is the "was" referring to "last year"? "there weren't as many tourists this year as there was [tourists] last year" - wrong. Rimush (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The "weren't" and the "were" each attest to the presence or otherwise of tourists. Why would you wish to make one plural and the other singular in the same sentence?  Either it's: "There weren't as many tourists this year as there were last year" (standard) or "There wasn't as many tourists this year as there was last year" (colloquial; standard usage for some speakers.)  Mixing the two breaks the rules of both.   Ka renjc 15:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argument is a red herring, Shirt. You may as well totally eliminate the word 'were' from your vocabulary if it reminds you of the antiquated subjunctive even in places where the subjunctive is not anywhere to be seen.  But it's given me an idea: next time I buy a goldfish, I'm going to call it Subjunctive Irrelevant Redolence.  Cute. :) --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Treatment of initial r/n in North Korea
According to this encyclopedia, for Sino-Korean words, South Koreans will replace /r/ with /n/ in the initial position, while both /r/ and /n/ are lost completely in the initial position if followed by /i/ or /y/. North Koreans ostensibly do not follow this rule, and as far as I can tell, this holds true orthographically. However, when I listen to North Korean news broadcasts on KCTV and/or North Korean song recordings, it seems that North Koreans also change /r/ to /n/ word-initially and lose both /r/ and /n/ word-initially if they are followed by /i/ or /y/. Is it just me, or does it seem that /r/ and /n/ are indeed difficult to pronounce word-initially in the aforementioned situations? 98.116.90.160 (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You probabaly mean to ask whether the North Koreans find it "difficult to pronounce word-initially in the aforementioned situations", don't you? Eliko (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Korean had an archaic phonological process called the Head Consonant Rule, which changed /r/ to [n] word-initially and /r,n/ to ∅ word initially before /i/ or /j/ (like you described) in words borrowed into the language during the period that that process was active (probably a few centuries ago, but it's difficult to estimate), which means a lot of Chinese (i.e. Sino-Korean) words went through this, for example, Hanja 女性 (womenkind) written and pronounced as 여성 in Hangeul, but when 女 is not word-initial, as in 男女 (men and women) pronounced, the [n] is preserved. The Head Consonant Rule is inactive in Korean now, however, which is why the later borrowed word radio is pronounced  and not *. Could it be possible that the combination of HCR-affected words and later borrowed unaffected words is giving you the perception that things are different in North Korea? As far as I know, HCR had the same effect on the North-Korean dialect as the South-Korean one, but I'm no expert. Here's a link that mentions a bit about the HCR to prove I'm not just making it up; go to page 3 "Word-initial l avoidance." As for /r/ and /n/ being difficult to pronounce in this environment, we have no problem say words like repeat in English, but at least in the past, Koreans perceived a markedness of these sounds in this environment which brought about HCR. Hope some of this helps.--el Aprel (facta-facienda) 00:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't know anything about the linguistics involved, but there seemed to be a certain amount of confusion in the U.S. about how the names of Roh Tae-woo and Roh Moo-hyun were to be spelled and pronounced, and also the Rodong missiles... AnonMoos (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've noticed the same mismatch as OP between what people write about North Korean pronunciation and my own perception of pronunciation in North Korean news and songs. I wouldn't attribute this to a species-wide pronunciation difficulty, much less to a misperception on our part.  I'm afraid prescribing new pronunciations rarely results in their widespread adoption, that's all.  Add to that foreigners focusing too much on yesteryear's prescribed standards rather than actual use.  There are distinctly Northern pronunciations, but pronouncing initial r- or ny- does not seem to have caught on, seeing how not even news presenters use it. 82.83.97.205 (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk like a pirate day
I believe International talk like a pirate day is this weekend, and is fairly amusing and has a modestly large following. Are there other days where people do similar things with different groups, like a talk like a cowboy day or anything? Googlemeister (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Unofficial observances might have something. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any others that dealt with talking differently, but you could walk around barefoot on Hobbit Day, which has either just passed or just coming up depending on how you wish to observe it. Global Orgasm Day was only scheduled once, in 2006, but celebrating the anniversary of that august event every December 22 is surely in order. Matt Deres (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now there's a holiday I can get behind! r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (Suppressing inappropriate joke) Me too. As long as I don't have to dress up.  Textorus (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some Facebook group be tryins' to start up an "International Talk Like a Distinguished Chap Day", accordings to International Talk Like a Pirate Day, blast them scurvy knaves! Clarityfiend (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nepali text
Hi! I see Nepali text at http://www.caanepal.org.np/beta/templates/siteground-j15-86/images/headerimg.jpg

But how is it typed in? I want to add the text to the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal article. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You need a tool that allows you to type in Unicode Nepali. People will need the right font in order to be able to see it properly, but most people have a good Unicode font nowadays.  There are some tools on the web that allow you  to type Nepali using a western keyboard, for example UnicodeNepali.com; or Google Transliterate might work for you. Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, so where can I find an alphabet of the script so I know what to type in? that way I can look at the Nepali name in the image and type in the romanization into Google transliterate. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really know. My understanding is that the Nepali characters come from Devanagiri.  You can find lists of characters that can be copy-pasted at articles like Devanagari transliteration, but I'm really operating way beyond my level of competence here. Looie496 (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's just Devanagari script. It's pretty much the same language as Hindi. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The words are नेपाल नागरिक उड्डयन प्राधिकरण - Thank you for your help! WhisperToMe (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Usage of "intuitive"
From Kerberos_(protocol): "the following is an intuitive description."

I understand this to mean that the description will appeal to the reader's intuition and may take some liberties for the sake of conveying the main idea. I am familiar with this sense in math circles. But in general usage, would this more likely be taken to mean that the writer is not entirely sure of the details and is basing the description on his own intuition? 198.161.238.19 (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope not, since I use the word that way frequently, but honestly who knows? Looie496 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if intuitive has a specific meaning in programming; my take is the writer means either lingual as opposed to mathematical [description]  or easy to understand [as opposed to counterintuitive] . But it could just as easily be a useless filler word, unconsciously put in for the sake of sounding erudite/intelligent in an encyclopedia article. Hard to tell without understanding very much about computer science. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  18:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To me an intuitive description is one that tries to create a picture in the reader's mind, as opposed to one that gives a formal definition. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think what this means (in this context) is that the writer does know the material well, but is trying to avoid using technical jargon and excessive detail, so that less knowledgable readers will be able to follow it. it's the same sense as when you say that a Graphical User Interface is more intuitive than command line instructions.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure of what the writer means. What I'm asking is whether it's jargon to say an "intuitive description" means "intended to be intuitive for the reader", vs. "based on the writer's intuition". 198.161.238.19 (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Origin and meaning of "deep sneakers"
I've tried several different searches but can't find a definition and origin for the phrase "deep sneakers". The closest I was able to come was a quote "in deep sneakers (aka up a crick!)". Nhopenwheeler (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Appears to be school slang that originated in the mid-1980s. This etymology page quotes a Newsweek Periscope piece from 1991 that defines it thusly: Deep sneakers: In big trouble. Usage: "Kevin's in deep sneakers for skipping phys ed.". Looie496 (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)