Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 December 7

= December 7 =

Japanese numerals
What's with the pronunciation changes in a lot of the Japanese numerals? Is there any pattern to when rendaku happens in them? What causes the doubled consonants in some of the words? --168.7.237.35 (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See Japanese numerals.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  06:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OP might possibly be referring to the changes with counters: 一本 • いっぽん • ippon • "one long cylindrical thing", 二本 • にほん • nihon • "two long cylindrical things",• 三本 • さんぼん • sambon • "three long cylindrical things", and so on. As for why this happens, I don't have a clue.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Those, however, are not native Japanese. They come from Chinese. I was thinking the OP was referring to 'hitotsu' changing to 'hitobito' to refer to one person multiple people, although the second 'hito' (person) becomes '-bito' here. The OP may like to see our article on Rendaku.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  12:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Hitotsu'/一つ does not change to 'hitobito'/人々/people, but 'hitori'/一人/one person. If that is what the OP wants to know about, Japanese counter word is helpful. Oda Mari (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I was half asleep when I wrote that. Thanks, Mari.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  17:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I meant like "sanbyaku", "roppyaku", etc. Is there any pattern to when those sound changes occur and when they don't? --168.7.238.247 (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's in the article.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  19:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What causes gemination in the cases it does occur? Does that sort of thing happen with anything other than numbers? --128.42.217.255 (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The last syllable ku's and tsu's tends to double the next p and t sounds and the next h changes to p or b (doubled)sound.--Jondel (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As an addition, the 'h' changes to a 'b' after 'n'. You'd be better off just learning the individual words.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  08:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What KageTora said. And in the article Rendaku, there is at least one purported "law". But compared to Grimm's law, that so-called law is no better than a fairy tale.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As an example, 散 'san' + 歩 'ho' becomes 'sanpo' and not *sanbo. As I say, just learn the individual words.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  14:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is well covered at underlying form. There was obviously a proto-form reconstructed phoneme /P/ which evolved into /F/ which evolved into [h] in most environments but [f] before /u/.  It shows up as voiced and unvoiced (and labial and guttural fricative) variants of /P/ in various sandhi locations. It is similar in kind to the Slavic development of PIE /w/ to [f], [v], [w], and rounded back vowels in various positions and dialects.  (Capital forms like /F/ are underdetermined--they simply indicate some phoneme close to but not necessarily equivalent to an unvoiced labial fricative.  Note also that sanpo and sanbo would be expected to assimilate to sampo and sambo.  Caveat I do not speak Japanese beyond a few dozen words.) μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As for 'sanpo', it is actually pronounced as 'sampo', but not written like that in Japanese, if written in katakana or hiragana, as the Japanese syllabries do not have a final 'm'. It stays written as an 'n'. Some people, when romanizing Japanese, do use an 'm', but many don't. I personally prefer not to. The word 'inpo' (meaning 'impotence') is written with an 'n', despite the fact that it comes from (an abbreviation of) the English equivalent, which has an 'm'. It's merely because Japanese does not have a character to indicate a syllabic-final 'm'.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  08:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Spanish -> English for hortelana, a herb
my dictionaries don't help2.138.153.140 (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hortelana. Seems to be a common name for four different plants.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  14:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Google translate indicates hortelana means a "gardener", although the normal word for that would be jardinero. Further digging indicates that the normal usage of hortelano/hortelana is either generally pertaining to, or specifically someone who works with, a huerta, i.e. an "orchard". However, the Latin root hortus means "garden". Hence the term "horticulture". There is also a commonly-seen bird in Spain which is referred to as an hortelano/hortelana. No mention of a specific herb, except the link to Spanish wikipedia as KageTora noted. Interestingly enough, Marrubium vulgare gives the English naming as "horehound". Given that, it's easy to see why they might stick with the Latin. Not surprisingly, "horehound" in Spanish is given as marrubio. However, the term "horehound", also spelled "hoarhound", came from Old English "horehune", which means "hoary plant", and "hoary" means "gray" or "gray haired". And Marrubium vulgare is an herbaceous plant having gray leaves. Voila!
 * Slightly off the subject: this usage of the word "herb" in English has a silent "h", like the Spanish "h" in general. Hence "an herb" and "una hierba". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In American English, Bugs, but certainly not in many British English accents and/or registers that don't drop most or all initial 'h's' routinely. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.19 (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, the OP geolocate to the Canaries, so it's hard to tell. But apparently "a Herb" could be correct if the OP is a Brit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Help finding Spelling & Meaning of a Word
The word is 'abtwackie'. I heard this ages ago I love this word because it sound weird but I don't know how to spell it or find its meanging through a 'net search. When I heard it, it was from someone who was talking to someone else & the 1st person was referring to the 2nd persons phone. I assumed they meant that the phone was old fashoned looking, but like I said I can't find the meaning for the word 'cause I don't know how to spell it. I don't even know if its slang or regional dialect thing. 80.254.146.140 (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This? Looks to me like a humorous alteration of antique (like the "bur-lee-cue" pronunciation of burlesque), influenced by the word wacky. Deor (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

YES, I think thats the one, thanks. 80.254.146.140 (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

anyone vs everyone
Comparing "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." and "the free encyclopedia that everyone can edit.", the latter, from MPOV, looks like giving more care. (I mean anyone has some components of recklessness while everyone appears to be a bit positive). I would like to know if the use of everyone is incorrect or not in this situation. ···V ani s che nu「m/Talk」 19:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's simply not true that everyone can edit it. Babies, for starters, can't edit it.
 * 'Anyone' is sometimes used in the "reckless" way you mention: A position or office that has specified qualifications can be occupied only by someone who meets those qualifications, and not just by anyone (as in, the first random person you meet in the street).  But in the Wikipedia case, it's an all-welcoming 'anyone'.  Everyone is invited to edit it, and anyone who is able is permitted to do so.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To my ear, both are equally valid but have subtly different perspectives. "...that anyone can edit" focuses on whichever individual you want to focus on: every individual member of the set of all people can edit it. "...that everyone can edit" focuses on people collectively: the entire set of all people can edit it. In practical terms they're identical. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To my ear, anyone does not automatically imply "reckless". It can have that implication, but the implication depends on the context.  Everyone implies "collectively", so it doesn't quite fit, to my mind.  Whereas anyone implies "individually", which is actually how it works.  So I think anyone is the best word here.  Marco polo (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But one of the main critics for this very wp is that it can be edited by anyone. This would have been limited (just reduced) if we had used the word everyone. Anyone instinctively has a negative meaning. Suppose that we used the term everyone, then it would have also implied collaboration and the presence of a living community. The word anyone does not have these qualities at all. ···V ani s che nu「m/Talk」 20:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As Anton Ego says in Ratatouille, "It is only now that I understand the true meaning of Gusteau's motto [viz., 'Anyone can cook']. Not everyone can cook, but a good cook can come from anywhere." Deor (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree that anyone has an inherently negative connotation. Frankly, everyone sounds subtly wrong, as if everyone were editing the same thing at once.  It actually sounds more chaotic to me than anyone, implying individual action by any number of people. Incidentally, I am a native speaker of American English.  I do not think that this works differently in British English (or any other national variety), though I am open to correction.  Marco polo (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that it's not inherently negative to my (US) ear, but I'd also agree that for negative contexts, "anyone" is used much more frequently than "everyone". I think it's the each-as-individuals versus all-as-a-group distinction. You might say something like "they'll let anyone come here" negatively, implying there's a specific implied someone who probably shouldn't be allowed. In contrast, it's difficult to formulate a context where "they let everyone come here" can be taken negatively, because if you negate "everyone", you would also implicitly include yourself. Or to put it another way, the opposite of "anyone" is specifically "an exclusive set of people", whereas the opposite of "everyone" can be "no one". To my ear, that's the reason for the "anyone" in the Wikipedia motto - it's specifically disclaiming the idea of an specialized group of editors, while simultaneously pointing out that you, as a specific individual, are included in the group of people who can edit. (That said, there's nothing wrong with the "everyone" version, either.) -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Look at the negations. "Not anyone can edit Wikipedia" is false.  There are no exclusions.  "Not everyone can edit Wikipedia" is true.  Some people simply can't manage it for this reason or the other.  μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Duo-cubed is onto it. "Anyone" addresses an individual. In fact, EO indicates that the word is actually a duplicative of "one". "Everyone" addresses an audience. "Anyone" is aimed at whatever individual is reading the slogan. Whether it was the right slogan for wikipedia or not, that's a matter of opinion. But I'm reminded of this bit from the radio days: The typical performer might address the audience by saying, "Hello, everyone!" or "Hello, everybody!" as if he/she were addressing a live audience. Mocking this approach and himself, Henry Morgan used to start his broadcasts, "Hello, anybody!" Quite a different connotation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

French negative imperative
Are both "Ne touchez pas" and "Ne pas toucher" correct? I think I've seen them both. Is the former most precisely translated as "Do not touch" and the latter as "Not to touch" = "Not to be touched"? Are there circumstances where one or the other is preferred or mandatory? Duoduoduo (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The first is a direct order to another person, while the second is a general prohibition (like "NE PAS FUMER" seen on signs).  Not sure that the second would actually be considered an imperative according to traditional grammar (though its meaning is similar). AnonMoos (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Spanish has a similar "NO FUMAR" type advisement. Yet although I have sought for an authoritative statement on it for years, the most I have been told is that the negative infinitive is used by country bumpkins who don't know how to conjugate, which is obviously false.  The obvious parallel with the English "NO SMOKING" is hard to avoid. I'd love a good statement on this. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect these wordings are intended to be "softened" directives. No fumar ("not to smoke") and "no smoking" are "indirect" imperatives. The direct imperative would be "Do Not Smoke", which many people would take to be a bit like their mother talking to them. Passive voice softens the directive. Like in a restaurant restroom, where it could say, "Employees: Wash your hands" but instead typically says "Employees must wash hands". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's indirect and hence softer, but still not passive voice. Passive voice would be "Hands must be washed", which strikes me as a little bit too indirect. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In "Ne touchez pas", the verb is at imperative mood. In "Ne pas toucher", the verb is in  infinitive form. In this latter case, the usage is "Infinitif injonctif sans sujet" (Infinitive without a subject used as an injonction). My French grammar,  Le Bon Usage, 12th ed. (1986), §871 d) states: Il s'agit ordinairement d'un ordre général et impersonnel, notamment dans les proverbes, les avis adressés au public, les recettes (Usually, it is about an impersonal  and general order, in particular in proverbs, notices to the public and recipes) — AldoSyrt (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Extending my question: In French, do instructions on a product ever use the second person imperative rather than the infinitive? That is, in practice does one ever see e.g. "Do not take [this medicine] with milk" as opposed to "Not to take with milk"? I mean not just that example, but instructions in general. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As said above, imperative is used to give instructions in a personnal manner, while infinitive is used for general intructions. Seen on my mouthwash: RemplissEZ le bouchon jusqu'à la ligne. RincEZ-vous la bouche 30 secondes, puis recrachEZ. -- Ne pas avalER. TenIR hors de portée des enfants.  — AldoSyrt (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)