Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 September 18

= September 18 =

Explaining when to use in, at, on and into to someone whose native language is Semitic
So my girlfriend's a fine yekke Israelit (don't worry about those terms if you don't know'em, they're not important). Her native language is of course Hebrew, and in Hebrew, you just say b[thing] in many cases where you have several words in various IE languages. So how do I explain to my little lady when to use the four prepositions above. She's quite confused as a result of the way you construct things in Semitic languages. What about to and for as well L[something]? I'm surprised she picked up most everything else given the complications. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 04:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the finer details of preposition usage can vary quite a bit even between fairly closely-related languages (e.g. English and German), so I'm not sure Semitic vs. Indo-European is too relevant. AnonMoos (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, English and German, that is exactly the case (and can be a pain in the ass at times). However, she has more troubles because there are so few prepositions in Hebrew (that I know of, I'm only in my third semester of it mind you). The question still stands; how does one teach the differences? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 14:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a few rules of thumb you can come up with, for example, that "into" always implies movement, from outside to inside, but "in" usually doesn't. But they are pretty weak (eg the movement is a bit abstract in "marks burnt into the surface"; and with certain verbs of motion "in" is often acceptable as an alternative to "into" - eg "put it in the fridge"). Given that the use of these prepositions varies even between dialects of English (UK "at school" vs US "in school", for example), there is no shortcut to learning them. --ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * She prefers UK English; she finds it sexy apparently. So she mostly has to learn them on a case by case basis then? :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 17:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Rules of thumb I use:


 * "In", "into" = "inside of", as "I put the weasel inside of/in/into the car".


 * "At" = "at the location of", as "I left the flaming car at the location of/at the accident".


 * "On" = "On top of", as in "The semi was on top of/on my car". StuRat (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So:
 * In 2011 (in two thousand eleven) = inside of 2011
 * At 20:11 (at eight eleven) = at the location of 20:11
 * On 20/11 (on 20 November) = on top of 20/11


 * HOOTmag (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As a rule of thumb, a rule of thumb is only correct roughly 4 out of 5 times. Including this one, since it's also a rule of thumb.&lt;/tongue in cheek&gt; --Kjoonlee 04:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, they only works for physical objects. Another non-physical example is a web page.  You can post "at" a web page, leave a comment "in" it, or place a picture "on" it. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem with these conceptions. Don't we talk about time like we talk about space? You can approach a date, which is in a month, and the particular event is on that date. And then, when the event is over, you go passed that date and leave it in the past, behind you. Time is generally conceptualised like space, isn't it? It might not be natural English to say "inside of 2011", but then "inside of the fridge" isn't natural English in my dialect either. The concept remains the same, so I'd have thought it was still helpful. 86.164.76.231 (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Prepostions are a fantastically hard thing to learn in a new language; usage is so idiosyncratic that it is hard to come up with concise rules as to their use; oddly native speakers seem to master these rules in childhood, and seem to be able to keep track of the multitude of "rules" without ever conciously codifying them. Since the only other language I know any of besides English is French, one of the things you learn about French is the difficulty in translating prepositions between the languages; take the French preposition "à" for example.  It can be translated into English as "to" or "from" or "of" or "at" depending on the context.  You just kinda have to learn all of the little situations where a preposition is appropriate in a specific context; again with the caveat that different dialects even within English will use different prepositions in the same context.  -- Jayron  32  04:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Over the years, I have had several French colleagues who fairly consistently used "into" in cases where it was not appropriate (one instance I recall which actually did cause problems was a phrase "the characters are read into the buffer" - the intend meaning was "read from the buffer"). I assume, but have not verified, that these particular people had been taught a rule of thumb that one particular French preposition corresponded to "into". --ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * French doesn't have any short single-word expression which mainly translates English "into". One thing I've noticed about French is that in many contexts, French speakers seem to have little problem using "de"+noun several times close together in a sentence, something which would be stylistically awkward in English... AnonMoos (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You talk about what the oddly native speakers do, but what about the perfectly normally native speakers? :)
 * Just being serious for a micro-second, though, what do you find odd about the ability of people to absorb the byways and idiosyncracies of their own languages and use them in a completely natural and intuitive manner? Compared with any latter-day learners from other languages, surely it's the native speakers who have the colossal advantage here; they've lived their entire lives being totally immersed in their own language, and children copy every little nuance perfectly from their surrounding environment.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  10:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that native speakers are odd; its that the ease of their use of their native language does not jive with the ease of explaining what they do. As you say, it is very normal for native speakers to learn their language, that is obviously common, and in that sense is the most normal thing possible.  What makes it odd is the ability to follow a consistent system with ease which is so complex that it can't be explained easily.  To sum up: What you say is true, but it doesn't contradict anything that I said.  Or, at least, meant.  -- Jayron  32  16:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But then, children don't sit down and say "OK, we have to master our English prepositions. Let's have a look at all the rules, grammar, idioms and exceptions before we go out and play cowboys and Indians".  They don't perceive it as a system of rules - complex or otherwise - at all.  Only adults or at least adolescents do that, and you can't compare adult learning with childhood learning, because they're totally different.  A person who learns a new language as an adult, and learns the vocab and idioms so well that he can write like a native, will never be able to speak like a native.  He might get very close, but there will always be those little tell-tale things that reveal he's somehow "different" from the natives.  A young-enough child never has this burden.
 * So the question is not:
 * "Why do children find it so easy to do what is so hard to explain to adults?".
 * It's:
 * "Why do adults assume their way of learning a language is appropriate, given they struggle with rules they find so complex and replete with exceptions, and given that children just accept these things as normal and natural and learn them quickly and easily? Where are adults going so badly wrong in their whole approach".  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  20:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * JackofOz -- It's quite likely that children have special language-learning brain circuitry, which withers away after the "critical period", so adult language learning can't really be the same thing as child language-learning. AnonMoos (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Crossword puzzle help
I believe I have the answer to a clue from the surrounding answers but I still don't understand why the answer is what it is. Four letters. The clue is: protectors of tiny shirts. The only thing I could think of was possibly "moms" (or less likely but, "dads") as in they keep their children's baby cloths and would protect them from disposal—reaching I know. It turns out the answer is apparently "libs". Can someone clue me in why?--108.46.107.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Most likely it's supposed to be "bibs" Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Smacking forehead. Of course it's bibs. Thank you. This is one of the weird ones where the surrounding answers all looked correct. The "l" in lib came from luggage, when the answer was properly baggage, and you can see why that might have fit perfectly but still been wrong.--108.46.107.181 (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * haha. That is a toughie. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Whose English is most "authentic"?
If someone born in England in the 16th century would be warped to current times, would he be more at ease in London, Scotland, Texas, New York, Delhi, Canberra or anywhere else? Joepnl (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I was led to believe that the main accents we were stuck with in the US (other than Midwest, Texan, Southern and Bostonian) are closest to the accent in the GB at that time. English has evolved a lot since the time of Early Modern English. We could understand him, but he would not be able to understand a lot of our phrases I bet. Language aside though, I don't think he would feel very easy at all what with all the harnessing of the sun in glass tubes, people talking to themselves in black boxes, horseless carriages that sound unnatural and flying metal machines. I bet he would also accidentally get into a few fights with Irishmen, Blacks and maybe a Jew or two if he saw one and made an off-colour remark. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 18:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking the mountains of eastern Kentucky or western North Carolina. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's very common for Americans to make this claim; a big [citation needed] tag is required before we proceed. Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hell if I know or even remember where I read that. Must have been one of those silly stories on MSN Today. I'd personally prefer we spoke with the modern accent associated with England. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 22:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect it would depend where in England he was born. Someone from 16th century Norfolk would quite likely find the current Norfolk accent easier to understand than that of Huddersfield say - accents in remote rural areas have probably changed the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't the oppose it also be true? I mean think of a place like Chile, it's somewhat isolated and that just means the language evolves differently (Chilean Spanish is just strange to many Spaniards). Then again, in the case of Chile, it's a lot of Mapuche influence, so I could just be talking out my ass. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 23:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the point Andy was making (which I would have made if he hadn't, and I will now proceed to do in my own words) is that, even in this modern day of global connectivity, there's a huge variety of Englishes within England itself. Take yourself back to the 16th century, and there would have been even more variety.  So, it would very much depend on exactly where in England the person came from as to which English they are comparing to which current version.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]


 * As the person in question is coming in from the backend of the Great Vowel Shift (which was really still ongoing - see the chart in that link), I would hazard at somewhere like Newcastle upon Tyne or Scotland. -- KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Scotland? How do you figure that? Do you mean the fellows in Scotland who speak Scots or the Scots who speak English with what's regarded commonly as a Scottish accent? Also, what about the hazard of the many wild haggi? :p


 * Some years ago when I was researching the role of John Proctor in The Crucible, I learned that the dialect of the pilgrims (which would have been similar to one spoken in England at the time) would most closely match a modern "Northumbrian dialect, spoken through clenched teeth". I've no idea how accurate that info was, nor can I remember the source.  Also, the play is set in the late 17th century, so may not be applicable to the OP.  However, this plus KageTora's observations about the GVS suggest that North-East England may be a good bet.
 * On the other hand, I've heard it said a few times that the accent of Massachussets, particularly Martha's Vineyard, is the least changed in the past centuries. I don't know if give that much credence though - in my experience it is not uncommon for the upper-class, old-money types to insist that their version of the English Language is the 'correct' one and that everyone is speaking a corrupted variant.
 * All that said, I'm ignoring Andy's very good point - that presumably there would have been significant variation in dialects back then too, so yes, the location of our time-traveller's upbringing would also be relevant. AJ  Cham  00:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The "Appalachian preservation of Elizabethan English" thing is pretty much a pure myth (language change doesn't work that way). During much of the 16th century, many of the vowels must have been very different from those of almost any modern dialect. Even if any one modern dialect were any "closer" (however that would be defined) to 16th-century English than other dialects, that wouldn't make it more "authentic" in any valid linguistic sense... AnonMoos (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think we all went with the second part of the question, about where our visitor would feel most comfortable, because we all know that calling any regional dialect more 'authentic' than any other is just nonsense. Even our visitor's English would be no more 'authentic' than any of ours, because English didn't magically appear in the 16th Century and had been around (and called English) for at least a thousand years before that. Our time traveller would have a hard time talking to a saxon warrior straight off one of Hengest and Horsa's boats. -- KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a partial answer to the question. In the United States, the most conservative accent is found in northern Iowa. What this means is that, among Americans, their vowels are the closest to what are hypothesized to have been those of the English settlers in 15th- and 16th-century America. (There isn't a lot of variation in consonants throughout the English-speaking world, so only vowels really matter.)

This doesn't fully answer the question, obviously, because it says nothing about dialects outside the U.S., and also likely because the dialects of those settlers were not representative of England as a whole at that time, which had many different dialects.

My source is here: 96.46.200.119 (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any English-speaking settlers arriving in the 15th Century. Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement, wasn't set up until the beginninng of the 17th Century (1607). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As Shakespeare was born in Stratford-on-Avon, England in the 16th century, it would be reasonable to assume that the modern West Midlands accent would be close to what he spoke. At least that's what I was told when I grew up in the Black Country and studied Shakespeare. Certainly some of the words used (especially by the minor characters such as Bardolph or Falstaff) were familiar to me as a native Black Country dialect speaker. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that there's more regional pride than linguistic evidence behind these claims. Certainly when Charles Dickens tries to phonetically reproduce 19th century working class accents, it doesn't sound like anything recognisable today. Alansplodge (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That may be, but most linguists agree that Northern English has always been the most conservative of all the dialects, as it preserves the vowel sounds to a greater degree, and still uses thou/thee/thy, along with numerous other features. A lot of dialect words from Yorkshire can be traced back to Old English (i.e. these words disappeared from other dialects (and hence what became standard English) in the Old English period). -- KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's Stratford-upon-Avon, Tammy. --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  19:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the claims on here need tagging with Citation needed. This would be deleted on sight if it were an article. - X201 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In the book The Sounds of Language: An Introduction to Phonetics by Henry Rogers, there's a short transcription of a few lines from the play Julius Caesar, transcribed as Shakespeare himself would probably have pronounced it (pp. 106): --Terfili (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like that would be easier to say after a few pints of cider :-) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, or if you talk like a pirate, shiver me timbers! AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Scholars like Ben Crystal, David Crystal, and Paul Meier have already worked out the probable pronunciation of English in Shakespeare's time, base on rhymes, mispellings and historical relics in modern dialects. How close it is is anyone's guess, but it's highly likely that it's closer to the original than any modern acccent. There have even been stagings of Shakespeare plays with this "original pronunciation". Just type in >shakespeare original pronunciation< into YouTube to hear the results. There are also recreations of what Chaucer's Middle English and Beowulf's Old English sounded like, too. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whenever I hear the reconstructed London pronunciation from that era, I am reminded of certain accents today in rural Ireland (central Ireland, certainly not the North). This isn't so surprising, considering that English came to that part of Ireland for the first time in the Elizabethan era.   Marco polo (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... English arrived Kenya in the 19th century; it doesn't mean that Kenyans speak like 19th century Englishmen does it? Alansplodge (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Australians speak somewhat like 19th-century lower-class Englishmen (to a certain degree)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't been to Kenya, but I have been to Tanzania, and they do use some very oddly 19th century expressions. For example, an observation will often be introduced, "I say, ....", for example, "I say, that's a fine-looking chicken, isn't it?"  The accent there is heavily conditioned by Swahili and other indigenous languages, so I don't think it sounds much like 19th-century speech in England.  Likewise, the Irish accent is no doubt colored by the Irish language.  Still, it reminds me of reconstructed Elizabethan.  Marco polo (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have just listened to "KU Theatre - Students perform Shakespeare in original and the pronunciation sounds somewhere between a Northumbrian and a Yorkshire accent. I have heard "Yorkshire Dialect" versions of Shakespeare from the Northern Broadsides and its amazing how the language suddenly sounds natural; thee, thy, and nowt (nought) are still in current usage in Yorkshire. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * English accents aren't my strong point, but I didn't think that Yorkshire or Northumberland had rhotic accents these days. Of course, Elizabethan English was rhotic, like Irish and American.  Marco polo (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some rhotic accents in Northumbria, the maps in the Rhotic and non-rhotic accents article indicates that its gone but I have heard it recently in farmers I have met while walking in the Cheviots. I expect that it has gone from the larger towns and cities though. A lot of web sources say that there are rhotic accents in parts of yorkshire, but I have only heard this from members of the Asian community and I don't think that is what the websites are talking about! -- Q Chris (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's actually what the article on pronunciation of Yorkshire dialect says - apparently it's more common on the border with Lancashire. I find that odd, because Lancashire dialects are generally non-rhotic. They must be just isolated cases. -- KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

English names for forms of baby motion
My niece recently learned to move on her own. She lies on her stomach and pulls herself along with her arms. Because I am interested in seeing how she develops, I want to know the specific English names for the ways babies move. Finnish has fi:ryömiminen for a form of motion where one lies fully flat on the stomach and uses the whole of the arms and legs to move, and fi:konttaaminen for a form of motion where one rests oneself on the hands and knees, with the upper part of the legs off the floor. I don't know what they are called in English, or even if English makes a distinction between the two. What are they called in English? <font color="#CC0000">J <font color="#00CC00">I <font color="#0000CC">P &#124; Talk 19:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Planking? ;)  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * English uses 'crawl' for both. If you want to make a distinction, the first would be 'crawl on one's stomach' (or replace 'stomach' with 'tummy', as it's a baby - 'tummy crawl') and the other 'crawl on all fours' (or 'crawl on hands and knees'). -- <font face="Freestyle Script" color="blue">KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The first can be known as prone crawling or belly-crawling. Personally I only previously knew of the term "prone crawl" in a military context (okay, virtual-military context - video games, paintball etc.) . However, it seems the phrase does also apply to babies, as demonstrated here. This paediatric paper uses the terms "belly-crawling", and refers to the second form as "hands-and-knees crawling".  AJ  Cham  00:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Army crawl, perhaps, for the first, although you're really not flat on your stomach. Lexicografía (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A term used by cavers for wriggling forward on your belly when there isn't room to use your arms and legs effectively is "thrutch". A quick Google shows that it's also a term used by climbers with a rather similar meaning; Wiktionary says: "(caving, climbing (sport)) To push, press, or squeeze into a place; move sideways or vertically in an upright position by wriggling the body against opposing rock surfaces." Apparently from the Old English þryccan "to press". Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Thrutch" is "to squeeze", as into a tight spot. So I don't think it would work for a belly-crawl. Actually, I'm not sure "crawl" works for a belly-crawl: you'd need to spell it out. English doesn't seem to have a word for this. But I think I'd just say "pulls herself along with her arms". — kwami (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kwami, that is what 'crawl' means - to pull oneself along with the arms. <font face="Freestyle Script" color="blue">KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)