Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 October 5

= October 5 =

Sanskrit help
Can someone please make a sensible translation of the following text?"सर्वमङ्गलमाङ्गल्ये शिवे सर्वार्थसाधिके । शरण्ये त्र्यम्बके गौरि नारायणि नमोऽस्तु ते ॥ ॐ जयंती मंगल काली भद्रकाली कपालिनी । दुर्गा क्षमा शिवा धात्री स्वाहा स्वधा नमोऽस्तु‍ते ॥"It appears at Kali untranslated, although with the curious feature of a transliteration — which presumably isn't much use, as either you understand Sanskrit without the transliteration, or you don't understand Sanskrit and therefore find the transliteration useless. The source is given as http://shrisidhkirana.com/Mantra.aspx, but the domain has expired; Archive.org has a single capture of the page, which gives the original text but no transliteration. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You might find an editor in Category:User sa who can help.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The first two lines can be translated as:
 * while the next two lines can be translated as (not really an RS, but...; I have added some wikilinks, but haven't fixed the over-capitalization in my cut-n-paste):
 * Note that none of these translations are indisputable or absolutely literal. Among other issues, any translator of these verses needs to decide whether words such as Shiva, Durga etc are to be be treated as proper-nouns referring to deities, or as common nouns/adjectives to be translated literally (shiva = "auspicious; durga = invincible etc). For example, कपालिनी = Kapalini can be translated most literally as "skull bearing"; or, by implication, as "related to Shiva", or as "Durga"; or, further embellished into "Who Wear a Garland of Skulls"; or, even (less literally) as "he bearer of the Skulls of Impure thought"; or treated simply as a epithet in itself, and left untranslated! Depending on the exact choices made the final translation can appear quite different. So caveat lector. Abecedare (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't remember the standards for WPeditor-made translations: if someone familiar with Sanskrit comes along, would it be appropriate for that person to add a self-made translation? Meanwhile, you note that कपालिनी can be treated as an epithet in itself.  Does Sanskrit have a concept at all comparable to the kenning in older Germanic writings?  Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. On an industrial scale (for later literature, but it is already present, more moderately, in Vedic poetry). I forget the Sanskrit name of the concept. I was expecting to find it in the "See also" of articles such as Kenning or Homeric epithet. The articles on Sanskrit poetics and Sanskrit literary theory I browsed through here are fairly jejune. Anyway, if you're interested I could give you some examples on your talk page. Contact Basemetal   here  13:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't remember the standards for WPeditor-made translations: if someone familiar with Sanskrit comes along, would it be appropriate for that person to add a self-made translation? Meanwhile, you note that कपालिनी can be treated as an epithet in itself.  Does Sanskrit have a concept at all comparable to the kenning in older Germanic writings?  Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. On an industrial scale (for later literature, but it is already present, more moderately, in Vedic poetry). I forget the Sanskrit name of the concept. I was expecting to find it in the "See also" of articles such as Kenning or Homeric epithet. The articles on Sanskrit poetics and Sanskrit literary theory I browsed through here are fairly jejune. Anyway, if you're interested I could give you some examples on your talk page. Contact Basemetal   here  13:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

One
We could go on forever about inexplicable pronunciations, but this one I think is odder than most. Here we have a word that looks like it should be pronounced "own", but it's pronounced "won" instead. Why, why, why??? Is there any other word like that in the English language, that spells beginning with O and speaks beginning with W? Note that those are both non-rhetorical questions, and I'm seeking answers to both. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is one of those QI moments, where somebody pulls out their 'Nobody Knows' card. It's just one of the ideosyncracies of English spelling. As a guess, 'e' at the end of a word usually signifies a lengthening or change in the vowel previous to it. Old English used 'an' (which had a long 'a'). The long 'a' became a long 'o' (as in other words, e.g. 'stan' > 'stone'). Somehow a 'w' appeared in 'one'.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  10:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The OED has this note: "The expected Middle English form in the south and midlands would have open ō (< Old English ā: see O n.1), a shortening of the reflex of which is reflected in the modern English regional pronunciation /wɒn/. The vowel in the usual modern pronunciation arises from shortening of /uː/, the reflex of Middle English close ō, in a variant showing the result of raising of the vowel from open ō to close ō. The usual modern pronunciation also reflects the development of a back glide before Middle English open ō and, more rarely, close ō, although this has been only rarely reflected in the spelling; compare oat n., oak n." So...kind of helpful, but more reading is required. I would safely say that the answer is actually pretty well known, considering how much work has been done on the evolution of English.Adam Bishop (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but most of that flew over my head at some height. I'm not an academic, and I wouldn't know a reflex and a back glide from a reflux and a back flip. But I don't see any indication of why the language evolution singled out that one word for that special treatment. As you quoted, "only rarely reflected", implying that there are more examples without naming them. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any other examples with similar spelling and pronunciation. The OED gives many spellings (and implied vaiations in pronunciation):
 * OE aan, OE æn (rare), OE ann, OE–eME (ME–15 north.) an, eME en, ME ane (north.), ME awen (north.), ME awne (north.); Eng. regional (chiefly north.) 16– yane, 17 yean, 17– an, 17– yan, 17– yen, 18 aan, 18– ane, 18– en, 18– 'en, 18– in, 18– yahn, 18– yan, 18– yin; U.S. regional 19– en; Sc. pre-17 aan, pre-17 aene, pre-17 ain, pre-17 an, pre-17 anne, pre-17 ayn, pre-17 ayne, pre-17 en, pre-17 ene, pre-17 ȝane, pre-17 yeane, pre-17 yene, pre-17 17– ane, pre-17 17– yin, pre-17 18 aen, pre-17 18– eane, 17–18 yen, 17– een (north. and north-east.), 18 yane, 18– ean, 19– ein (north. and north-east.), 19– yein; Irish English (north.) 18– yin, 19– ane, 19– een, 19– en, 19– yane, 19– yin; N.E.D. (1902) also records a form ME aun.
 * The pronunciation and spelling "yan" is retained in my own dialect, and in quite a few other regions.   D b f i r s   11:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, here in northern England, the pronunciation is usually /wɒn/, not /wʌn/, so the word rhymes with yon and tron, and is not a homophone of won.   D b f i r s   11:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's trivial, but 'once' is an additional example. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The short answer to the first question is that one has taken a variety of forms over the centuries, and the form that is preserved in the standard spelling today is different from the current standard pronunciation. The current version of the pronunciation reflected in the "one" spelling is "un," as in "a big un" or "young uns," both of which are still sometimes heard. John M Baker (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The OP may find the EO explanation more straightforward: And it's worth pointing out that "two" likewise has a peculiar spelling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That one's not bad. But, while it says when and where the change was perpetrated, it doesn't really address why, or why it happened to only one word (I'm not counting "once" since it derives directly from "one"). I guess these answers are unknown. An isolated, one-time aberration, cause unknown, and the first reply essentially nailed it.


 * ("Two" is a different animal, one which is far more common. It simply has a silent letter in the middle, which happens all the time in English. We don't often see a starting vowel pronounced as a consonant.) &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes we do. Why do you think not? <- 'Y' being used as both a consonant (twice) and as a vowel (once).  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  16:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Eh? I said starting vowel pronounced as a consonant. Your two Y's are starting consonants pronounced as consonants. You messin' wit me? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why, why, why, do you think that 'Y' is not a vowel?  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  22:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The way we used to learn the vowels was "a-e-i-o-u and sometimes y and w". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, with regard to starting vowels pronounced as consonants: "u" does sometimes. Consider the word "use".  -- Jayron  32  02:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As does "e": ewe, ewer, and many eu- words such as euphony. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I guess, points taken. But we still don't have a second example of O pronounced as W. I thought oenophile might do it, but then I looked it up. Not surprising, I guess, given that the Greek origin is completely different from "one". &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is ouija. It was made up in 1890 as a commercial name, cobbled together from the French and German words for "yes".  But as a single entity it must rate as a primarily English word, and it's usually encountered in lower case, so it seems to have been fully accepted into the language.  But it still probably has the feel of a special case, so use it or not as you please.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Under the circumstances, it'll have to do! &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's always the quibble that it isn't just the "o" in "ouija" that's pronounced like a w, it's the pair "ou". But then, one could quibble that the o in "one" is not pronounced w, but "wʌ".  (Nobody says "wn".)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

language
why do japanese people have so much trouble learning french? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.162.26.175 (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Do they? Contact Basemetal   here  13:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I give up, why? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt they do. I had a Japanese girlfriend who was studying French and she was good at it. I was also teaching French to a student in Japan, and within 3 months she managed to pass Level 2 of the proficiency test (the highest is Level 1). Why do you ask this question? Some people are proficient at languages, and others aren't. It's not limited to a specific nationality.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  15:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been somewhat notorious that many Japanese who have spent a fairly large number of hours studying English in classes during their primary and secondary education have an extremely limited ability to conduct any kind of meaningful conversation with native English speakers... I would think that someone who chose to learn French would be more highly motivated than many who are obligated to sit through required English classes.  French pronunciation also has some features that would come more naturally to a native Japanese speaker than English pronunciation, such as the lack of any strong distinction between stressed and unstressed syllables, the greater proportion of syllables that end in a vowel, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * All this puts into question the very premise of the query. Could the OP explain what gave him that idea in the first place? Contact Basemetal   here  21:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Is this anything to do with Paris syndrome?--Shantavira|feed me 12:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Scientific Name Origins
I have been attempting to find the origins of the stem leavi- in Latin names. Pasimachus sublaevis and Tetragonoderus laevigatus both have this word in their names, but I can't determine what these names actually mean. Does anyone know?70.171.16.168 (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's from the adjective laevis meaning lightweight or smooth. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you need a translation of the entire names (those are names for species of beetles) or only of "sublaevis" and "laevigatus"? Lat. laevis or levis does mean "light (not heavy)" (cf. levity, levitation, etc.). Laevigatus is the passive past participle of laevigare which means "to make (render) lighter", so "made lighter". I couldn't find sublaevis/sublevis in any dictionary. It is probably a modern Latin coinage (there is a bunch of species using this adjective) specific to scientific terminology and without equivalent in the classical language. I know "sub" as a preposition ("under(neath)") either with accusative or ablative according as there is movement or not) or as a preverb e.g. sufficere ("be sufficient") from sub + facere, or subire ("undergo") from sub + ire. It can also function as a prenominal or preadjectival to form derived nouns or adjectives and it then usually means things like "somewhat, slightly" or sometimes "to a lesser extent". So I'm guessing sublaevis could mean something like "somewhat light" or "light to a lesser extent" but I'm just speculating. Contact  Basemetal   here  18:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your last guess is almost certainly correct. Sub- is regularly used in species names to mean "somewhat" or "-ish", as in subalbidus, "somewhat whitish" (as opposed to obviously or definitely white). My go-to source for questions of Latin scientific nomenclature is Stearn's Botanical Latin. Deor (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

List By Phonemes (or amount of phonemes)
(Note:I'm not sure if this should go here or instead in one of the more technical areas of Wikipedia, but I'll put this here for safety purposes. If it's in the wrong place feel free to move it.)

Has anyone ever brought up the idea of having:

Category:Languages by phonemes

OR

Category:Languages by number of phonemes

as possible categories on the English Wikipedia?

I'm not sure how many people would support this idea, but there is no harm suggesting it, is there? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I doubt there's any way to do this practically, given even English disagrees whether words like halve/have, cot/caught, tuck/took, whale/wail, spider/spied 'er, and sight/cite exhibit homophones or minimal pairs. That's not even taking into account languages like the Fulani language.  There're also questions like, are the various clicks of Xhosa consonant clusters or separate phonemes, or are the final consonants of butter, bottle, button, bottom syllabic consonant phonemes, or sequences with schwa. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (I'm going to transcribe as literally as I am able to at my current level of expertise in phonemic transcription here) Yeah, I can see what you're talking about. For me, have and halve are homophones except in careful speech. In careful speech, have is /hæv/ whilst halve is /hæːv/. Cot and caught are not homophonous for me. Cot is /kɐ̆ɒ̜t/~/kɐt/~/kɑ̈ət/~/kʰɑt/, whilst caught is /kɒːt/~/kɔ̆ət/~/kɔət/. Tuck and took are not homophonous for me. Tuck is /tʰɐk/ whilst "took" is /tɵk/. Whale and wail are not homophonous for me except in rapid speech. Whale is /ʍeɪl/ usually, and /hweɪl/~/(ʔ)weɪl/ in rapid speech, whilst wail is /weɪl/. Spider and spied her are never homophones in my speech, though when I speak rapidly they do come close. Spider is /spɐɪdə(ɹ)/, and spied her is from /spaɪd.hɜ(ɹ)/~/spaɪdˈhɜ(ɹ)/~/spaɪdˈɜ(ɹ)/~/spaɪdɜ(ɹ)/ depending on the swiftness of speech. Cite and sight are homophonous for me, as /sɐɪt/, because I don't pronounce "gh" as /x/ except in the word "ugh".
 * But I don't see what that has to do with listing languages in categories that are based on their total possible phonemes (within reason, of course). Plus, if someone wished to find, for instance, a list of languages that had several dental phonemes, what would the reason be to exclude a language solely because the phoneme in question only appeared dialectally? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Tharthan -- This would be more appropriate as a list article ("List of languages by number of phonemes" or "List of languages by size of phonological inventory" are two possible names) -- provided that the list could be properly sourced, of course... AnonMoos (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that that is perfect, AnonMoos. I dare say a proposal should be initiated! How that would be done, though, I'm not certain. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * My WWW search (not necessarily a Google search) for language with most least phonemes found some pages that can be used as sources for such an article.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's often been claimed that Rotokas has one of the smallest inventories of distinctive sounds. Languages with a very large number of distinctive sounds generally have many series of consonants with secondary articulations, and can be found among such groupings as the Khoisan languages of southern Africa, the non-Indo-European non-Turkic languages of the Caucasus mountains, the native languages of the Pacific northwest of the U.S. and Canada, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Unicode for Chinese
戴 is a common character with many strokes, but hasn't undergone official simplification. However, people often write 十 (upper part) plus 八 (lower part) to reduce the character to four strokes. Is there a Unicode for this? --2.245.115.115 (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't know. As a last resort, there are the so-called "Ideographic Description Characters"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I searched the official index with both ⼋ and ⼗ as the radical and didn't find it, so probably not. -- BenRG (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

St Someone vs St. Someone
In an en-gb context, when do we employ a full stop in "St(.)" for "Saint"? See my last couple of hundred edits for examples of each. I've been mass-adding a category to tons of English churches, and I was surprised to see a decent number of "St." articles, since I thought it was always "St" in en-gb. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a style issue. St is an abbreviation (for Saint, Street et probably al), and abbreviations are entitled to a full stop (period).  But there can be agreement that the full stops be dispensed with in particular contexts.  I'm sure you'll find plenty of churches signed as, e.g. "St Patrick's Church", and plenty as "St. Patrick's Church".  Similarly, is it "Mr Smith" or "Mr. Smith"?  It depends. What Wikipedia's style is on the matter, assuming there's a single WP style that applies to all churches in the world named after saints, is an interesting question.  Manual of Style says:
 * Periods (full stops) and spaces
 * The letters in an acronym are generally not separated by periods (full stops) or blank spaces (GNP, NORAD, OBE, GmbH). Periods and spaces that were traditionally required have now dropped out of usage (PhD is now preferred over Ph.D. and Ph. D.). Do not use periods in units of measurement; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. There are some traditional exceptions (i.e., e.g.; not ie, eg, i. e., e. g.); and see below for US and U.S.
 * Abbreviations formed by truncation (Hon. for Honorable), compression (cmte. for committee), or contraction (Dr. for Doctor) may or may not be closed with a period; a consistent style should be maintained within an article. A period is more usual in North American usage (Dr. Smith of 42 Drummond St.); no period is commonly preferred in British and other usage (Dr Smith of 42 Drummond St). Some British and other authorities prefer to drop the period from truncated and compressed abbreviations generally (XYZ Corp; ABC Ltd), a common practice in science writing. Regardless of punctuation, words that are abbreviated to more than one letter are spaced (op. cit. or op cit; not op.cit. or opcit). There are some exceptions: PhD (see above) for "Philosophiae Doctor"; BVetMed for "Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine".


 * There may be a more targetted consensus for churches. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's kind of the evolution of punctuation. As I recall, the abbreviation for "Saint" was "S" followed by an underlined small "t", as was typical for abbrevations. As time went by, it seems the Americans converted the underline into a period, while the British simply dropped it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No, they didn't. The underline/superscript thing mostly turned into a period in British usage too, and until about the 1960s or 1970s, British English commonly used "St." just as American English still usually does, and was if anything more likely to write abbreviations with periods or other punctuation.  (Sorry, I don't have a reference to cite; this is just my observation from having read a fair amount of writing from different 20th century periods).  --174.88.135.222 (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * One convention I've heard is that you don't append a dot if the abbrev includes the last letter of the original word. This is incidentally a way to distinguish Saint from Street, if we suppose that St. for Street is the first two letters rather than the first and last. —Tamfang (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Saint-Firmin Monestime (from the land of American and British English) wasn't a saint like Fermin, that was just his name. But he was a doctor, so he often had the "Dr." before his name, often "Dr. S.F.", unlike his more famous classmate, better known as "Papa Doc". His tombstone calls him "Dr. St. Firmin". This is in the cemetery beside the Ste. Anne Cemetery. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You asked for a British context, so you might like to look at the Anglican Church website: where the stop is sometimes omitted and sometimes included. British usage has changed in the past fifty years, and it is now usual to omit the stop in most contexts, including newspapers, though it is still seen sometimes.  D b f i r s   06:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Slight tangent. I work for a UK housing authority, and our databases are linked to the government Land Registry address database, so whenever we register an address we have to use their spelling or it won't pull in useful details like what council ward it falls in. For street names involving saints, it always includes the full stop, and always omits the apostrophe, for example "St. Patricks Avenue". My tendency is the exact opposite, but my general impression is that the trend is to omit both. A lot of the errors that later have to be corrected involve an omitted full stop, but very few an included apostrophe. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, there was a big change in the 1970s in the accepted style for letters here in the UK. Out went indented paragraphs and various other changes including abandoning full stops for abbreviations in addresses. I think it was driven by Pitmans, the Pitman shorthand people, who produced text books used to train typists. However, I damned if I can find anything about it on Google. Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I remember that drive towards "open punctuation", and the reactions of some traditionalists. We ought to have an article.    D b f i r s   17:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I trained as a secretary in 1983 and we had to learn both styles. I was told that it was because of modernisation, electronic typewriters and word processors - some of which couldn't recognise either the space character or the tab character at the beginning of a line. Of course, 30 years later I have no way of backing this up. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't remember any equipment that lacked leading spaces and tabs, but there might have been some early defects in design. I was told it was just the new efficient layout, saving time for typists.    D b f i r s   19:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It was part of the "blocked style", no indenting of paragraphs, addresses, or the complimentary close. No comma at the end of each line of the address. A great step forward. I have my old typing manual somewhere but hope I don't have to look it out. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Our article Business letter sets out the variations in block styles, but not the history.   D b f i r s   13:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ashansu Translation
What is the origin and English translation of the song Ashansu, song by Carlinhos Brown of Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.71.133 (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A web search using some combination of the terms "Ashansu", letra ("lyrics" in Portuguese) and tradução ("translation") may help you find what you are looking for.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)