Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 January 28

= January 28 =

Pronunciation of German name
Could someone provide me with the IPA pronunciation of the German surname "Lehenbauer"? (at least I assume it's a German name) Lexicografía (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is German. I think the standard IPA would be . Marco polo (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Marco polo. Lexicografía (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Another Japanese language question: 思考停止
In the Xam'd anime a character (Nakiami), looking at what has happened, utters "shikou teishi...". Literally I guess it is 思考停止 - "thought-stop" or "stopped thinking"; but it sounds like an idiom or a mild expletive. Is it indeed an idiom? What does it really mean? I really hope it's not a Babylon 5 reference ("there's a hole in your mind..."). And the second question: Xam'd is influenced quite heavily by Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga), Nakiami being essentially Nausicaä. Don't get me wrong, Xam'd is a really good show, derivative or not as it is. . Does this provide any clues as to what context "shikou teishi..." comes from? I only read Nausicaä in English... --08147A012702 (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Without context, it's pretty hard to guess. Do you have a YouTube link to that exact moment where this is uttered, so we can see what came before? As for your second question, I saw Kaze no Tani no Naushika in 2001/2002, but I can't remember much of it, so I can't really comment on this. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  01:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * According to List of Xam'd: Lost Memories episodes, the second episode is named 尖端島 思考停止, so this must be a major plot point. I don't think it's an idiom. It means whatever "cessation of thinking" would mean in the same context in English. I saw the Nausicaa movie in Japanese but never read the manga. I'm pretty sure she never said 思考停止 in the movie. -- BenRG (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's only a common compound (思考+停止) word/noun, not an idiom. See this ja-to-en dictionary page. The word sounds little harder, more modern and a little bit more science fictional than the yojijyukugo 茫然自失. See  and . I don't think it's related to Nausicaa. Oda Mari (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The genesis of language
if language is built by contributions of many researchers, how can it be holistically approached? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.71.137.153 (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by "holistically approached". But language is not "built" by researchers, it evolves naturally as people use it. See our article on the origin of language for more information. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The OP geolocates to Nigeria, so, despite the impeccable English, s/he may have used misleading terms. If the question is interpreted as: Language is built by the contributions of millions of speakers over thousands of years.  How has it developed a coherent semantic structure?  then an answer may be possible.  To the best of my knowledge - I am not a linguist - there is very little coherent structure when comparing widely differing language groups.  Experts may point to relevant articles on the various paradigma employed by, say, Indo-European, Altaic, Sino-Tibetan, Niger-Congo, etc languages.   --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Comprising
Is "comprising" O.K. here, or would another word be better: "over a billion people, comprising about 20% of the human race" TresÁrboles (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure 1 billion people would be considerably less than 20% of the human race. Linguisticly you are fine, but mathematically you may want to get a calculator.  -- Jayron  32  21:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did say over a billion people... TresÁrboles (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd use "constituting" instead. --173.49.11.167 (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, constituting rather than comprising. HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that does sound better. TresÁrboles (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Or for brevity, you could just use "or". --Anonymous, 23:55 UTC, January 28, 2011.

Follow-up question
I'm not a native English speaker. For me, comprise seems to be a perfect choice if we put the phrase the other way around: "20% of the human race, which comprises over a billion people". Anyone to confirm or deny this? (For the sake of simplicity, let's leave mathematics aside.) --Theurgist (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The use of comprises is OK there, but the statement is likely to be misread as saying that the whole human race (rather than 20% of it) consists of "over a billion people", since a relative clause normally refers to the nearest preceding noun. Deor (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)