Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 May 11

= May 11 =

Español
Hello. In Spanish when enumerating a list of things with "ni... ni...", is it possible to place conjugated verbs after the "ni"'s ? For example, in standard Spanish could I say "Yo ni tomo cerveza ni fumo cigarros ni (etc.)" ? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. There seem to be two possibilities: no ni and ni ni From the RAE dictionary: "No como ni duermo"; "Ni lo sé ni quiero saberlo". Another site: "Ni fumo ni bebo / No fumo ni bebo." As far as I can tell, both constructions are standard. Lesgles (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the Scots Language Wikipedia tounge in cheek?
Is there really anyone who would read the Scots Language Wikipediarather than the English one for serious enquiry, or is it just a joke? -- Q Chris (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems like kind of a snarky question. Why wouldn't people use it seriously, same as any other small Wikipedia in a language whose speakers are virtually all bilingual in a larger language (Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Welsh, Breton, Upper/Lower Sorbian, Luxembourgish etc.)? —Angr (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because most Scots will learn standard (British) English spellings, and I assume that this will be easier for them to understand. I could write a Scouse or Yorkshire dialect wikipedia but most/all people from Liverpool or Yorkshire researching would find standard spellings easier to use than phonetic spellings of the region. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there wouldn't be a Wikimedia Foundation-sponsored encyclopedia in Scouse or Yorkshire dialect, because they don't have ISO 639 codes, but Scots does. (You could start a Scouse or Yorkshire wiki encyclopedia at Wikia, though.) Scots also has a literary tradition; I'm not sure if Scouse or Yorkshire do. —Angr (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Scouse does have an IANA registered language code en-scouse, and there are some wikipedias that use non ISO 693 IANA codes, like the Cantonese wiki. I am not seriously suggesting that we start one, what I really want to know is are there people who would find it easier to read the Scots language articles rather than standard British English spellings? -- Q Chris (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cantonese does have an ISO 639 code; Cantonese Wikipedia just isn't using it! Also, while there are some older Wikipedias that don't correspond to distinct ISO 639 languages (notably the existence of two Belorussian Wikipedias despite the existence of only one ISO 639 code for Belorussian), they were created before the new rules were implemented. No new Wikipedias will be created for languages without ISO 639 codes. To your main point, I bet there are people who find Scots easier to read than standard English, even if only slightly easier. There's probably no one who absolutely requires a Scots Wikipedia because they can't read the English one, but then the same is true for the other languages I mentioned above with respect to English, French, and German. If there's a community of people who want to write an encyclopedia in Scots, why not let them? It does no harm. And it doesn't mean their encyclopedia isn't serious. —Angr (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This question has been asked before, on more than one occaision. It even came up on the Admins' Boards at one point. It appears that none of the questioners have managed to find and read our article Scots language. DuncanHill (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't answer the question on whether there are people who would find it easier to read the Scotts wikipedia than teh English one. There are books with sections written in Yorkshire Dialect, but I find it slower and harder to read than standard British spelling, mainly because of the unfamiliar word shapes forcing me to read phonetically. I don't doubt that with practice I could get to read it as easily, but I doubt that it would ever be easier than standard British English. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dunno, but then the Scottish Parliament seems to think it's worthwhile having part of its website in Scots. DuncanHill (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a direct answer, but according to the documentary for The Story of English episode 4, The Guid Scots Tongue, people who speak Scots do find the Scots bible easier to read than the so-called Standard English bibles. --Kjoonlee 12:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's said that in the Scots bible, everybody speaks Scots, except for the Devil, who speaks Standard English. --Kjoonlee 12:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, I've re-checked, and the documentary doesn't say anything about it being easier. --Kjoonlee 15:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The same question could be even more plausibly asked about Wikipedias in dead or constructed languages. Why are people building encyclopedias in Latin, Old Church Slavonic, Old English (dead languages) or in Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, lojban (conlangs)? Because they want to (and because it's not forbidden). --Theurgist (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Latin's not totally dead...on the Latin version of the Ref Desk/Village Pump, it's used by people who otherwise have no common language. Obviously not everyone's Latin is perfect, and sometimes it is terrible (even in the articles), but it's interesting to read a conversation there. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of the languages Theurgist mentioned, only Esperanto would probably be allowed under the new rules, since it does have native speakers. —Angr (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the Scots Wikipedia but apart from ease of reading, there are other possible reasons to make it, such as language preservation and ability to choose different guidelines with a Scottish view on some things and lower notability requirements for Scotland-related topics. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the huge amount of griping there would be if Scottish Gaelic were allowed its own Wikipedia and Scots wasn't. —Angr (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As with every different language, both the readers and the editors will tend to focus on different aspects. For example, sco:Address to the Haggis has it's own article there, but not here, where articles simply link to the Wikisource page. There are also entries that Scots contributors' have created that don't have an English Wikipedia version, such as sco:After Eight (Restaurant), sco:Atavism and sco:Da Vinci Crater Maurs (which is interesting because here on the English Wikipedia, Da Vinci (crater) has a redlink to Da Vinci (Martian crater), whereas the same article has been on the Scots Wikipedia since 2005!) The English article Scots language covers things like the history of the language, whereas the Scots article (sco:Scots leid) covers the history a little bit before spending the rest of the article on the grammar. (I believe I've heard it said that the WWII article reads distinctly different on the English and German Wikipidias, as another example.) There are occasionally people who drop in and ask this question (or close to it) at sco:Talk:Main Page, so reading some of our responses there may be useful. Hope that helps to answer your question. Avic ennasis  @ 14:49, 11 Iyar 5771 / 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it is uncontroversial to say that from news in recent decades it sounds like the Scots have had some increased sentiments of regional pride and a desire to preserve their heritage, of which language forms a large part. There has been a tendency in English to judge language hierarchically according to the social status of each ethnic group, with African American Vernacular English at the bottom of "ignorance" and "bad English", with Scots, cockneys, Southern Americans and ultimately the Queen at higher and higher levels up.  It follows, therefore, that creating a Wikipedia in one's own dialect - to promote it as a serious language capable of serious usage - is a potentially liberating act.  This is not without historical precedent - centuries ago, each new translation and printing of the Bible represented some language's claim on its right to exist and be respected.  Consider Martin Luther's translation and its role in legitimizing the use of German, for example. Wnt (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

English Grammer
Which is the correct word to be used in the following sentence?

You and ______(me or I) are invited??

How to frame a question to get the answer:  Barak Obama is the 45th president of USA -- 09:04, 11 May 2011 188.48.41.199


 * Roger (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not really homework, but an issue to be discussed -- "You and I" would be prescriptively correct, while "You and me" would be more common in casual spoken conversation in some dialects... AnonMoos (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To explain the reason behind that a bit further, imagine the following two sentences:
 * We invited you.
 * You invited us.
 * In English, the pronoun for the first person plural changes depending on whether it is the subject ("we") or the object ("us"). This is also the case for several other pronouns, such as "he"/"him", or "I"/"me". The pronoun for the second person ("you") is the same regardless of whether it's the subject or the object. If you combine pronouns for the first and second person, the combination will be different depending on whether they are the subject or the object. Thus, the following would be correct:
 * You and I invited him. ("you and I" is used instead of "we")
 * He invited you and me. ("you and me" is used instead of "us")
 * Or at least, that is what grammarians will tell you. Gabbe (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats a pretty good explanation, but the original question is in the passive voice which does need to be taken into account. I find an easier way to solve this particular question is to rephrase the statement to reduce the subject to only one person, and test the result. "You are invited." and "I am invited." are clearly both correct. Combining them is then easy; "You and I are invited." Roger (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet many would say "You and me are invited". Just as many say "Between you and I, ...", when it ought to be "Between you and me".  Whatever the rules say, people tend to do the opposite.  Damn rebels!  --    Jack of Oz   [your turn]  03:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given this is a thread about the English language, you mean "grammar" not "grammer", and "Barack" and not "Barak". I hope Dodger doesn't mind me saying that it ought to be "that's" and not "thats". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

——— I hope Dodger doesn't mind me saying that it ought to be "that's" and not "thats". ——— He wouldn't unless he has a personal animosity towards you. :)

(I hope Dodger doesn't mind my saying that it ought to be "that's" and not "thats.") Pine (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Morass rose as high as it die
Transliating Jefferey Deaver's Edge, I found the sentences as follow:

"I was pretty surprised the whole morass rose as high as it did." He caught that mixed metaphor, at least, and hesitated.

The speaker is known to use metaphor, and as he is an attorney, it seems he should not. But I can't see what 'that mixed metaphor' is, and why the writer inserts the phrase 'at least'. --Analphil (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Guessing: morass does not rise -- it is hell which rises. What morass idiomatically does, if anything, I'm not sure. No such user (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A morass is a low swampy area, in addition to figuratively being a situation difficult to function in. If a literal morass were elevated, as is implied in the phrase, "rose as high as it did", it may not continue to be a morass. Bus stop (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the "at least", it suggests that this character makes other mixed metaphors and usually doesn't catch them, but this particular mixed metaphor he did catch. What language are you translating into, BTW? —Angr (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. As to Angr's question, Korean.--Analphil (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

plait/plate?
Translating Jefferey Deaver's Edge, I found the sentence as follows:

"Dish... s'il vous plaît."

I guess the speaker is confused between plaît and plate, and instead saying 'dish'. Does it seems to make sense to you? --Analphil (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Tough to answer without any context. The speaker could simply be saying their own idiomatic rendition of "Spit out your info/gossip!... pretty please." Dish meaning to gossip and s'il vous plaît being the French for (literally) if you please or (practically) please.  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  15:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or the speaker could simply be asking someone to hand him a dish, and then saying "please" in French for whatever reason. At any rate, there doesn't seem to be any wordplay between plate and plaît going on here, though more context is needed to be sure. —Angr (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, all this assumes that "plate" and "plaît" are pronounced the same way. But surely this is not true at all, seeing as "plate" has an "ay" sound and a pronounced "t", while "plaît" has a long "e" sound (which I understand is entirely nonexistent in the English language but present in many other languages) and a silent "t". J I P  &#124; Talk 17:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * True, although when English speakers say s'il vous plaît they generally pronounce the last word exactly like the English word play, unless their French is very good. —Angr (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I was kind of meaning when I said "...is entirely nonexistent in English". I have no experience of being a native English speaker, but I have noticed that they are generally unable to pronounce a long "e" sound without turning it to "ay". As a native Finnish speaker, I have no problems with it whatsoever. On the other hand, some sounds, like the Estonian "õ" and the Swedish " u " (halfway between "u" and "ü", only pronounced, not transcribed into writing) completely elude me, and I don't understand accents beyond "this syllable is stressed" and "this syllable is not stressed" - the difference between the "accent grave" and the "accent aigu" is a complete mystery to me, not to mention the several hundred different accents in the Chinese or Vietnamese languages. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Aigu is more or less a long e (being not a native speaker of French, I don't yet have it perfected), and when I pronounce an 'é', I pronounce it the same way I would pronounce the vowel sound in "plaît". The grave is explained to us as being more similar to the English sound in "jet" or "pet" or "let", though it is not exactly the same.  The IPA for 'é' is 'e' and the IPA for 'è' is 'ɛ'.  You can find more info here.  Take all this with the caveat that I am not a native French speaker, and I do not pretend to be fluent (though I have had a phonetics course). Falconus p  t   c 16:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that dish means 'to gosssip' so I thought 'dish' was so out of context. Knowing 'dish' has such a meaning, it adds up. Thanks. --Analphil (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Help trying to find Korean version of accident report
Hi! I found http://www.icao.int/FSIX/sr/reports/02000710_final_report.pdf This is the English version, but I need the Korean version of the Air China Flight 129 accident report Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Slavic words consisting only of consonants
Some Slavic languages have words that consist only of consonants, like "w" or "z". How are these supposed to be pronounced? It's entirely possible to pronounce a word using only consonants, but it's a bit difficult, and probably hard to understand. Are they really pronounced with consonants only? J I P &#124; Talk 17:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The more usual cases of Slavic "vowelless words" are those with "r" or "l" serving the function of a vowel. Those you mentioned are prepositions etc. which are clitics, and so pronounced together with the following word as one single phonological unit (often with assimilation in voicing etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I was about to say the same thing, but AnonMoos beat me. Here are some examples with the equivalent prepositions in Russian: В Москве (in Moscow) = vmoskve [vmɐskvʲɛ]; с другом (with a friend) = zdrugom [zdrugəm] (see assimilation). When they do need to be pronounced alone (in reading a dictionary definition or some such context), something like a schwa is usually added: [və] (in Russian at least). For the first kind of "vowelless word", the usual example is Serbo-Croatian, which has a syllabic /r/ sound: крв/krv (blood). This is difficult for many English speakers, but it is the same kind of sound as the syllabic /l/ that most English dialects have in words like bottle. Lesgles (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speakers of certain rhotic accents of English, such as General American, use syllabic /r/ all the time; e.g. in curve, which could be transcribed . —Angr (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes there are language rules that modify those one-consonant Slavic prepositions, for phonoaesthetical reasons.

Russian has three such words: в (v), с (s), к (k). But they are spelt and read as во, со, ко when the succeding word begins with a cluster of two or more consonants, thus preventing the occurrence of a word-initial consonant cluster of three or more segments: во дворе (in the yard) = vodvore [vɐdvɐrʲe], со мной (with me) = somnoj [sɐmnoj], ко мне (to/towards me) = komne [kɐmnʲe].
 * The rule is actually a bit more complicated than 'two or more consonants'. Oftentimes you'll have no vowel with a word beginning with two or three consonants. In truth I have no idea what all of the rules are; some are historical, some are phonetic, some I think may just be lexical. 128.135.222.164 (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarian, on the other hand, only has two: в (v), с (s). The former is written and pronounced във before /v/ or /f/, and the latter is written and pronounced със before /s/ or /z/: във влака (in the train) = vǎv vlaka [vɤv vlakɐ], във филма (in the film) = vǎv filma [vɤf fiɫmɐ], със звяра (with the beast) = sǎs zvjara [sɤz zvʲarɐ], със сестрата (with the sister) = sǎs sestrata [sɤs sɛstratɐ]. However, nothing is done to ease the pronunciation before multiple consonants: в ствола (in the stem) = fstvola [fstvɔɫɐ].

Note that Bulgarian в is pronounced /v/ only before voiced obstruents; it is devoiced to /f/, like in Russian, before vioceless consonants, and unlike in Russian, before sonorants and vowels. Compare Russian в Москве = vmoskve [vmɐskvʲɛ] as opposed to Bulgarian в Москва = fmoskva [fmoskva] (in Moscow), or Russian в Англии = vanglii [vaŋɡlʲii] as opposed to Bulgarian в Англия = fanglija [faŋɡlijɐ] (in England). --Theurgist (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See also wikt:з.—Wavelength (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Some slavic tongue-twisters don't have vowels. for example: Strč prst skrz krk?  Astronaut (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As has already been stated, in Russian at least all vowelless words are clitics. Some, like в (v) 'in, into', с (s) 'with, from', and к (k) 'towards' are pronounced as part of the following word. Others, such as ж (ž) 'emphatic particle', б (b) 'subjunctive particle', and ль (l') 'or; interrogative particle' are pronounced as part of the preceding word. 128.135.222.164 (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone addressed the JIP's question, as stated, so I'll try. As Lesgles said, apart from vowelless clitics, in Slavic languages (not all, Russian has full vowels around them for euphony) the syllable carriers may be liquids /r/, /l/ or /n/. They are pronounced (or can be phonologically analysed so) with a short schwa before or after. It is not phonemic, and it is barely heard. In Serbo-Croatian phonology, the schwa usually (but not mandatory, not being phonemic) precedes the syllabic /r/; there, it can be even long, as in grmlje (bushes). It is more commonly realised as [gəːrmʎɛ] than as [gə̆rːmʎɛ] (i.e. with extrrrrrremely rolled r). No such user (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And in standard Slovene, an  with no vowel letters next to it is pronounced as a sequence of a schwa and a trilled "r": /ər/, for example Rdeči trg /ərdɛtʃi tərk/. So there is a vowel, which is only pronounced, but not written. --Theurgist (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Can phobia mean hatred?
Just wondering, phobia come from Phobos, the Greek god of fear. Why would a word like autophobia, which means self-hatred, have phobia in it? Can phobia also mean hatred? Wouldn't this literally translated mean "fear of self"? --  T H F S W  (T · C · E) 18:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The original ancient Greek words don't really mean "hatred", but many English "X-phobia" compounds do often take on a meaning of "Hatred of X" (Islamophobia etc.). The word "Misogyny" does incorporate an ancient Greek root specifically meaning "hate"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Homophobia" is another one like that. It does seem to be a misuse.  I believe the logic is that people will hate what they fear.  But, of course, you can also hate things you don't fear, like certain foods.  StuRat (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure, I am terrified of spinach. --  T H F S W  (T · C · E) 18:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Logic is something I rarely expect to see in the English language. There's no doubt that homophobia is as much about hating homosexuals as fearing them. You only have to look at the Talk page for that article to see that the issue has bothered some of our editors from time to time. HiLo48 (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Also as well as hating things you don't fear you can love things that you fear. I often have a knots in my stomach as the roller-coaster car goes up the ramp but the thrill makes me go back again and again! -- Q Chris (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So then literally, "homophobia" actually means "same fear". Strange. So then when would be the Latin prefix for hatred? "Misos", as in misanthropy or misovistapy? --  T H F S W  (T · C · E) 18:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And yes, the "homo" part of "homophobia" is also problematic. It's more often used to mean "homo sapiens" than "homosexual", as when it's used in the term "homicide". StuRat (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * StuRat -- homo- in homophobia comes from a Greek root meaning "same" (from an ablauted form of an Indo-European stem something like *sem-) while homo in homo sapiens comes from a Latin word (inflected stem homin-) which means "man, human being" (ultimately from an Indo-European stem something like *dʰgʰem-/*gʰdʰem-). There's no etymological connection at all between the two forms -- the first is cognate with English "same", while the second is cognate with English "groom" in "bridegroom"...
 * The High Fin Sperm Whale -- Interpreted according to the usual rules of ancient Greek compounding, homophobia would mean "fear of those who are the same as you are"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So, a homosexual who's afraid of other homosexuals (a bit of a contradiction in terms, but never mind that) is experiencing homophobia, and a straight person who's afraid of other straight people is also experiencing homophobia. But a straight person who's afraid of homosexuals (and vice-versa) has heterophobia.  How interesting.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's greek, originally, as mentioned above, but yes: see miso-. For Latin, check out this page. Indeterminate (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)