Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 July 6

= July 6 =

Meaning of "vail" given to a servant
From The Life of Samuel Johnson:
 * I boasted that we had the honour of being the first to abolish the unhospitable, troublesome, and ungracious custom of giving vails to servants.
 * Johnson. “Sir, you abolished vails, because you were too poor to be able to give them.”

Wiktionary offers "(obsolete) profit; return; proceeds" which suggests the possibility of it being synonymous with "bonus", but while that matches with Johnson's retort, I don't see how Boswell could describe the giving of bonuses as "unhospitable" or "ungracious". So what does "vail" mean in this context? -- ToE 02:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It means a tip, or in the words of the OED "a gratuity given to a servant or attendant; a tip; spec[ifically] one of those given by a visitor on his departure to the servants of the house in which he has been a guest". So the inhospitableness and ungraciousness weren't toward the servants but toward the guests who were expected to cough up the dough. Deor (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah ha. Also, I just found wikisource:Page:Footsteps_of_Dr._Johnson.djvu/78 which corroborates that usage and discusses their abolition. Thanks. -- ToE 03:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And Australia, IIRC, has abolished the equally inhospitable custom of giving vails to staff in restaurants, by arranging that said staff are paid properly. At least that was the case 25 years ago when I was there. --ColinFine (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to tipping, there's been no abolition. It's a bit of a shifting carpet, but there's always been much less cultural rigidity about tipping in Oz, compared to some other countries, particularly the US.   If you want to tip, nobody's going to stop you, least of all the waiter (except for the odd few places where the policy is that individual staff may not receive tips but patrons are free to put their tip into a communal container and it's shared among all the staff - or pocketed by the owner).  But if you don't tip, nobody will think any less of you (unless you're in a group booking, and the other 7 people want to leave a good tip but you don't; they certainly can't make you, but there may be social consequences, or maybe not).  That said, though, some restaurants pay their staff the absolute minimum allowed by law, or less if they think they can get away with it, and expect them to make up the difference with tips - and even sometimes sack them if they're not making enough tips, because that means the service they're providing is not good enough.  The law does provide a measure of protection by establishing base wages for hospitality staff, but as I said, some restaurant operators pay below the minimum because they're in high unemployment areas where any casual staff can be sacked with no notice or even a reason, and there are plenty of others to take their place, and the ex-staff have little legal comeback, and almost always don't pursue those avenues of redress, if only because, having been treated poorly, they wouldn't want to work in such a place any more in any event.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Create, sanctify, ordain and so on
I'm wondering about verbs that express the conferring of titles and ranks. Here are a few examples (which I may have wrong).

In England, the Monarch creates Earls, Dukes, and Barons. EG, "Edmund of Langley, 5th son of Edward III and great-grandfather of Edward IV, was created Earl of Cambridge in 1362 and Duke of York in 1385." Churches (at least some churches) ordain ministers and priests. People become knights when they are dubbed. Sanctify is the word for saints, beatify for the previous step in the process toward sainthood in the Roman Catholic Church.

Is there a particular term for verbs of this sort? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there's a specific term for verbs that bestow titles upon others, but some of these are examples of performative utterances. See also speech act. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These all look to me like variations on the spectrum between (depending on whether or not you believe in their social legitimacy) proclamations of some kind on the one end, or magic blessings on the other. All are examples of a God-sanctioned person saying, "This dude has/had special powers above and beyond those of ordinary men!" ...be they secular (titles of Nobility) or divine (ordination or canonization).  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  19:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sanctify is kind of the odd man out here &mdash; it actually means "make holy", which is not a conferral of a title or rank. It could mean "make into a saint", but only if you're using saint to mean "holy person in fact" rather than "person officially recognized as holy by the church authorities".  The word for the latter operation is canonize. --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just on the knight dubbing thing: The ritual tapping of the sword on the shoulders used to be the only way a man became a knight.  These days, the formal announcement (typically on Queen's Birthday, New Years Day, etc) is all it takes,  There are still investiture ceremonies, but not all knights are able to attend; some by tradition are never dubbed (Anglican clergy and maybe others); some die before they get a chance to attend; some even die before the formal announcement (Sir Henry Cotton (golfer) et al) - but they are in every sense a knight, and entitled to use "Sir" and whatever postnominal letters might be appropriate, from the day of the formal public announcement.  In this light, dubbing no more creates a knight than coronation creates a monarch.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the latter, I heard someone on TV pointing out that the recent June 2012 jubilee celebration was mistimed as E II R became queen in February 1952 and wasn't coronated until June 1953. Sussexonian (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice back-formation! I'm also reminded of the girl in the church children's choir who, upon seeing the line "Anoint them prophets!", raised her hand and said, "Shouldn't that be 'Anoint those prophets'?". Angr (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Postnominal posthumous letters. Great!
 * What is the verb for the action of changing a Roman Catholic Cardinal to a Pope or an Anglican Bishop to an Archbishop? Thanks.  Wanderer57 (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Popes are elected, but bishops (and popes too I suppose) are "elevated" to their post. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought bishops were consecrated. Maybe they're elevated when they're made archbishops. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  04:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Archbishop of Canterbury is "elected" to his post, but his ceremonial inauguration is an enthronement, because bishops and archbishops have a throne to sit on in their cathedral, a word which comes from the Greek kathedra (καθέδρα) meaning "seat". Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * From Pope Pius XII: Pope Benedict XV appointed Pacelli as nuncio to Bavaria on 23 April 1917, consecrating him as titular Bishop of Sardis and immediately elevating him to archbishop in the Sistine Chapel on 13 May 1917. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Modern Hebrew ה voiced or voiceless?
In Voiced glottal fricative we have the following example: מהר [maɦeʁ], so it is voiced.

But in Modern Hebrew phonology and elsewhere in English wikipedia it is treated as voiceless. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenikx (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There are many different pronunciations of Modern Hebrew depending on which part of the world from which the speaker originates. However, in all the dialects I am familiar with, there is no voiced glottal fricative at all. The "closest" Hebrew phoneme would be, the Voiced pharyngeal fricative for ע, but even that is a relatively uncommon pronunciation found mainly in Yemeni, Iraqi, some Sephardi (Mizrahi) dialects of Hebrew. As far as I know, ה is always voiceless .--William Thweatt TalkContribs 22:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Giving it some more thought and rereading the way the sound is described in the Voiced glottal fricative article, could conceivably be a descriptive allophone of  occurring in rapid speech between two voiced sounds as in the example given (מהר *[maɦeʁ]), but I don't hear it. Prescriptively, ה should always be  and the example at Voiced glottal fricative should probably be removed.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 22:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove it before we have some academic sources. The problem is I am a native Hebrew speaker born in Israel and when I pronounce ה at all (usually I just skip it) I do pronounce it as a voiced fricative. So I was surprised to read in wikipedia that it should be voiceless... Now I am trying to determine whether I am speaking my native language incorrectly or there's a mistake of some sort in wikipedia. I do not deny the possibility that there could be some sort of prescriptive norm I am unaware of (as some native speakers of English could be unaware of their problems with normative grammar). But I would like to see some academic sources before I believe it. Tenikx (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you pronounce it voiced at the beginnings of words? What about forms such as התהלך or התהפך ? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In everyday conversations etc I do not pronounce ה at all. But if I speak at some official event, reading a report to a large audience, then every ה is voiced. I did pronounce ה as a voiceless fricative sometimes, but it was on purpose mocking the American accent of my colleagues. Imagine my surprise reading in wikipedia that voiceless ה is supposedly the norm! Very, very strange... Tenikx (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

As you are a native speaker, I can not argue with your pronunciation, but I'm curious: Do you hear it as voiced in the speech of other native speakers? Just for another reference, the phonology page on the Hebrew WP הגיית העברית also says that ה is /h/ (voiceless) and describes it as עיצור סדקי, חוכך, אטום--William Thweatt TalkContribs 03:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that I am a native speaker does not make me an authority on linguistic problems. I have an open mind about this matter. Maybe my pronunciation is not as "educated" as I have thought... Though I do not remember my teachers at school or university ever correcting very distinct voiced ה that I use while speaking officially. And yes, I do hear it as voiced in the speech of other native speakers. By the way, curiously in Hebrew wikipedia article עיצורים חוככים they say that ה has two allophones - voiceless and voiced: "לפונמה ה"א שני אלופונים, קולי ואטום" Tenikx (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

French number names
What caused the irregularities in the French system so that, despite the rest of the system being decimal, 70-99 are vigesimal? Do any other languages have anything similar? --146.7.96.200 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For your second question, see "Vigesimal".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * From which language (if only one) the French carried over their vigesimal touch doesn't seem to be unequivocally clear according to "Système vigésimal pour les petits nombres" at French Wikipedia. The Gaulish language is mentioned as the most commonly given language of origin, but the article also lists possible Nordic influences, and points out that it is used in Breton too. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the French vigesimal system is attributed to the Celtic substrate, for which see also the sheep counting system yan tan tethera. There are various 4 and 20 based Old European counting systems, but I haven't been able to find much here at Wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that even English does some odd things with 11-19, which, if they followed the general rules, would be "tenty-one" through "tenty-nine". StuRat (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you were trying to construct a completely regular system of English number words, then "tenty" would mean 100. Some scholars of Indo-European suspect that the word kmtom "hundred" was earlier something like dekmtom (i.e. the word for "ten" plus a suffix)... [Note: All diacritics omitted.] AnonMoos (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, then, "onety-one" through "onety-nine". StuRat (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But that would make ten itself into onety, then. How about tenny-one thru tenny-nine for 11-19? There is also eleventy-one, of course. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ten should also be "onety", for consistency with 60,70,80,90. We would also have to change 20,30,40,50 to "twoty", threety", "fourty (spelling change only), and "fivety".  I'd also change "seven" to "sev" (and "seventy" to "sevty"), so it's one syllable like the rest of 1-9, and we could also abbreviate "hundred", "thousand", "million", "billion", and "trillion" to the first syllable of each.  Maybe we can make all these changes in 5 years, or by "two thou, onety sev". :-) StuRat (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Onety doesn't work very well. Note that you say ten should be onety to be consistent with 60,70,80,90, but you leave off 100 which would then be onetyty, with 1,000 being onetytyty, and so on.  A base ten system makes more sense than a base onety system. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No it wouldn't, that's a straw man argument. 100 would be "one hun" and 1000 would be "one thou".  I never proposed repeating the "-ty" suffix to mean any more than "times ten", as that would cause confusion and make the names too long.  StuRat (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not consistent. Why would hundred and thousand retain their first syllables, but not ten?  If it's one hune, two hun, it should be (one) ten, two-ten for 10 and 20, etc.,. μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's the "ten" which is inconsistent, in that, unlike "hundred", which is used in saying every number from "one hundred" to "nine hundred" (and even "eleven hundred", etc., but never "ten hundred"), we don't say "one ten" to "nine ten". The word "ten" is the anachronism. StuRat (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean here by anachronism, but the words one, ten, and hundred (as well as two through nine) are all equally old reflexes from PIE, spoken circa 4,000 BC. I assume you know that -ty is simply a weakened form of -ten.  There is simply no getting away from it.  If you simply want to make up your own new system you are entitled to it, but I prefer the authenticity achieved by authors like Tolkien who have a little bit of real-world linguistic knowledge behind their efforts.


 * Is there a natural language where the word for "ten" is a derivation form the word for "one"? --Theurgist (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I doubt it. The notion of writing '10' and the knowledge of base ten is very recent.  The number usually derives from a phrase meaning two hands or five and five.  It is a very plausible speculation that our word ten, from the Proto-Indo-European language form *dekmt, derives from *d(w)e- *kemt-, literally "two hand(s)". Interesting article at UTex Ling. Res. Center See also, Proto-Indo-European numerals. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The names of small numbers are likely to be unique, while, at some point, the problem of remembering a unique name for every number that can possibly exist makes languages develop a system for naming large numbers more or less consistently. In English, we seem to have gone to "twelve" before any attempt was made to apply a pattern.  I wonder how high this number is in other languages. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * They only get to 10 in Russian. Eleven is sort of like "one and ten", and so on.  The numbers for the multiples of 10 (up to 80) are, with 2 exceptions, all related to the words for the corresponding single digits; they're like "three-tens", "five-tens" etc.  The two exceptions are 40 (sorok), which has no relationship to the word for 4 (chetyre); and 90 is like "nine at hundred", not "nine-tens".  (Sorry, my set up is wonky and I don't have quick access to Cyrillic.) --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of the above comments would be much better informed if it were kept in mind that the English counting system derives from that of the Proto-Indo-European numerals and did not arise from scratch. Eleven, twelve, (i.e., "one-left", "two-left") and thousand all date to the Proto-Germanic language, and the teens and decades have been reformed by Comparative_method when they do not descend directly from the PIE forms. I suggest the UTex article again I just cited. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)