Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 October 21

= October 21 =

Definitions of rheme and rhematic
Could someone knowledgeable about linguistics please review the Wiktionary definitions of rheme and rhematic? In particular, the definition of rhematic as a noun ("The doctrine of propositions or sentences") is rather unclear. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The OED has "Coleridge's notional term for: the study or application of clarity and perspicuity of expression in sentences. Obs. rare." for the noun. Is the word ever used outside the study of Coleridge?   D b f i r s   19:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've revised the noun definition of rhematic. The word has other more modern senses – see the quotations. Unfortunately they are all very technical, hence the request for help. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There are no other citations for rhematic as a noun, and the OED still considers it obsolete in their Third Edition as of 2010. I'm not a linguist, so I suppose it's possible that linguists have started using the word in the last five years with a different meaning?  I assume that you are asking about the word used as an adjective: the OED defines the linguistic sense as "Of a part of a sentence: that provides new information about the theme or topic of an utterance or discourse, carrying the most pragmatically significant semantic content; that constitutes a rheme (rheme n. 2). Freq. opposed to thematic."  There is also a sense for the adjective used in logic: "In the work of American philosopher C. S. Peirce (1839-1914): having the nature of a rheme; expressing a particular concept or idea.", and another obsolete and rare sense "derived from a verb".  I don't know whether this helps.  I'm certainly confused by all the different senses.  It sounds like a Humpty Dumpty word to me.    D b f i r s   20:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks, this is helpful as it confirms that the Wiktionary definitions are more or less correct. Anyway, if someone who knows linguistics could also have a look and tweak the definitions if necessary, that would be much appreciated. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Arabic translation
Posted here for 184.147.131.85, as this page is currently protected. ---Sluzzelin talk  19:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

(a) What is the difference, in Wikipedia markup, between lang=aeb and lang=ar?

(b) What is the difference between these two strings of Arabic? What does each one say? الرباعي الراعي للحوار الوطني and الرباعي التونسي للحوار الوطني

(c) The first one had a romanization: er-rubāɛi er-raɛi lil-ḥiwār el-waṭanī. If the second one is more accurate, what would be its romanization? Many thanks, 184.147.131.85 (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

1) This code means "Tunisian Arabic".

2) Let's parse it word by word:


 * the first word is الرباعي, al-rubāʿī "something foursome" (compare ruba'i)
 * the third is للحوار, li-l-ḥiwār "for the debate, dialogue"
 * the fourth is الوطني, al-waṭanī "of the country, nation"
 * the second words are different: in the first phrase it is الراعي, ar-rāʿī "herder, shepherd", in the second - التونسي, at-tūnisī "of Tunisia, Tunisian".

Generally it means what it's supposed to mean - "Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet". But the first phrase may be interpreted as "the quartet of the heads, chiefs, rulers".

3) The scientific transcription for Standard Arabic is al-rubāʿī ar-rāʿī/at-tūnisī li-l-ḥiwār al-waṭanī. I have little idea how Tunisians would prounounced it. Probably the article al- indeed is el-. The symbol ɛ for ayin is utterly wrong because it is used for a vowel.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not: / al-rubāʿī /, but rather: / ar-rubāʿī /.
 * The Tunisians pronounce it: / ərr'bɑʕɪ ər'rɑʕɪ (ət'tunsɪ) ləlħ'wɑr əl'wəṭnɪ /. HOOTmag (talk) 10:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I knew about the sun letter but forgot.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)