Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 December 2

= December 2 =

Doubling final consonant
Why isn't the final n doubled when adding -ing or -ed to the words "happen" and "listen" even though those words end with Consonant-Vowel-Consonant (CVC)? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The rule, is not what you think, but rather only refers to verbs ending with a stressed CVC (therefore: "merited" "murmured" - rather than "meritted" "murmurred", and likewise).
 * Please notice that, for the rule to be applicable, the last consonant should not be one of: j,q,w,x,y (therefore: "bowing" "fixing" "saying" - rather than "bowwing" "fixxing" "sayying", and likewise). HOOTmag (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What happens varies according to the English variant being used. Bazza (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you click through User:Bazza 7's link above, you'll see that American and British approaches differ most often where -l-/-ll- is the doubling in question, and that they do not always differ. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * To address HOOTmag above, /y/ and /w/ are really not acting as consonants in the context given, and /j/, /qu/, and /x/ represent /dʒ/, /kw/, and /ks/, hence they are already consonant pairs according to generative phonology. Furthermore, /qu-/ is not found in the syllable final position in English.  There are no verbs of the form CVqu in English, so no fear of the form CVququing.
 * As for /l/, in native verbs, it is spelt double when syllable final: call, pull, fall, tell. When it is found in borrowed words like travel, the same stress rule I mentioned above applies.  Travel retains the stress on the first syllable, so there is no fear of the form truh-VEEL-ing.  That being said, I prefer the British "travelling" for aesthetic reasons. μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You write: "To address HOOTmag above, /y/ and /w/ are really not acting as consonants in the context given, and /j/, /qu/, and /x/ represent /dʒ/, /kw/, and /ks/, hence they are already consonant pairs according to generative phonology. Furthermore, /qu-/ is not found in the syllable final position in English.  There are no verbs of the form CVqu in English, so no fear of the form CVququing".
 * The rule about CVC, does not refer to a sound of CVC - i.e. to the sound of words like "push" and likewise, but rather to letters of CVC - i.e. to the letters of words like "fix" and likewise, so I really don't understand how your point is intended to challenge my claim about the letters j,q,w,x,y being an exception to the rule. Anyways, according to how you interpret the rule about CVC - as referring to a sound of CVC, would you claim that - adding the "ing" to the verb "fish" (for example) - results in "fishshing"? HOOTmag (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The digraph sh in English comes from the /sk/ sequence in Old English (fish from fisc, e.g.), and for that reason is normally only proceeded by short vowels. Hence no need to double the digraph.  I have moved your comment out of the middle of mine, the indentation is sufficient to establish the sequence, and I prefer my comments not be split in half, even though you did nicely copy the signature. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you claim that the CVC rule depends on the etymological source of the verbs? So why is the "t" - of "put" whose sound is /pʊt/ (Old English: to put = "putian") - doubled in "putting", while the "k" - of "look" whose sound is /lʊk/ (Old English: to look = "locian") - isn't doubled in "looking"?
 * How about the verb "lash" (that imitates the sound of the whip and means: 'strike with a whip')? would you write "lashshing"?
 * Would you write "graphphing"?
 * The verb "bow" derives from Old English "bug" (to bow = "bugan"), so would you write "bowwing"?
 * In my view, that must be "lashing" and "graphing" - just because the CVC rule refers neither to Old English nor to a sound of CVC but rather to letters of CVC in Modern English - this explaining also the difference between "putting" and "looking" (despite the sound of CVC in both verbs), whereas the reason for "bowing" and "fixing" - is because the letters w,x (along with j,q,y) are exceptions to the rule.
 * HOOTmag (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

wie es eigentlich geworden ist
What does the phrase mean? It is some kind of a variation of "wie es eigentlich gewesen" by Leopold von Ranke". --Pxos (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As to the second question: probably yes. It means "how it has actually become" or "what actually became of it". - Lindert (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "wie es eigentlich geworden ist" means "what actually became of it". "wie es eigentlich gewesen (ist)" means "what was/what has actually happened" 165.120.163.167 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In the context of the historiographical discussions hinted at by the original poster, a more fitting translation would probably be: "wie es eigentlich gewesen ist" = "how it actually was / how things actually were"; versus "wie es eigentlich geworden ist" = "how it actually evolved / how things actually came about". Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * + 1 to Fut.Perf. "study how it evolved" was Karl Lamprecht's counterposition to Leopold von Ranke's position "study how it was". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)