Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 February 29

= February 29 =

T-V distinction in Hebrew
T-V distinction notes the language's normal lack of use of a T-V distinction, typically employing circumlocution to express the V side of things instead of separate terminology. I've noticed something of this in translations of the Bible, e.g. Genesis 41 where Joseph says "God will give Pharaoh the answer he desires" instead of "God will give you the answer you desire". However, I've also noticed what seems to be a T usage in the same setting, with the usages appearing together, e.g. 2 Samuel 11 in the King James, where Uriah the Hittite says:"And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing."Note that Uriah says both "thou" and "the servants of my lord"; I'm guessing this to be a reference to David's men, not Joab's men (it would be odd to say the latter in front of Joab's master, and also the NIV says "my commander Joab and my lord's men"). First off, not being familiar with the text that's here being translated, I wonder: do the English renditions of these texts reflect a use of T in the original, rather than V? And is today's Hebrew's use of circumlocutions derived (whether intentionally or not) from the same phenomenon in the biblical language? Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You can see the interlinear text for yourself:  Yes, the second case does indeed use T-suffixes (חייך, נפשך) --My another account (talk) 08:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Uriah is addressing David here, not Joab, and not the servants. So he uses the singular "thou", referring only to David and not to anyone else.  I don't see anything odd here.  Where is the side-by-side "V usage" you're comparing it with? --Trovatore (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Technical issue; Hebrew speaker needed
Not a WP:RD question, but if you can help answer my T-V question, you're probably familiar with text alignment problems. The passage in question at T-V distinction contains text that's seemingly suffering from L-R display issues and a line break. The wikitext for this section reads ?כבוד הרב ירצה לאכול (and the transliteration uses the same word order), but on my screen, it displays as ?לאכול כבוד הרב ירצה, with a line break (appearing because the text reaches all the way across my screen) after three words, and לאכול appears at the left end of the next line. I'm guessing that this is merely the result of mixing L-R and R-L text in a single paragraph. Is there any good way to fix this? I've used in writing this question; would it work to force this text to appear properly? Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess this is what you mean? This is pretty normal (as in, SNAFU) for a rendering of mixed LTR+RTL text; if you copy the text into a word processor of your choice, it would display the same way, more or less. The only sure way to make the text display properly is to split LTR and RTL text into separate lines. --My another account (talk) 08:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Misread Latin word
There was a famous example of a word that originated from a misreading of Latin (or perhaps Ancient Greek?). Since the language was written in scriptio continua it was possible to interpret a sentence as being divided into words in more than one way. A misreading of some phrase (could it have been "a great many things"?) due to this parsed it as being about some legendary animal instead.

Wikipedia used to have an article about this misread word, but I can't seem to locate it right now. Anyone now what word I'm thinking about? Gabbe (talk) 05:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a mondegreen? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess you don't mean mumpsimus. —Tamfang (talk) 08:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * While "mondegreen" and "mumpsimus" are both highly interesting articles, neither seem to contain the word I'm looking for... Gabbe (talk) 12:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To further clarify, it was a misinterpretation that came from taking a text written without spaces, and assigning spaces in the wrong places. If I remember correctly the original said something like "in the land of [...], there were a great many things" which became misinterpreted as "in the land of [...], there were giant [X]". Gabbe (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Gabbe, you must be thinking of "busillis", the last entry here: List of Latin phrases (B). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's it! Incidentally, I was thinking of saying that I thought the word sounded a bit like "basilisk", but I thought I was misremembering. Thank you. Gabbe (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

From that page: busillis: Pseudo-Latin meaning "baffling puzzle" or "difficult point". John of Cornwall (ca. 1170) was once asked by a scribe what the word meant. It turns out that the original text said in diebus illis magnis plenae (in those days there were plenty of great things), which the scribe misread as indie busillis magnis plenae (in India there were plenty of large busillis). Can someone help me parse either phrase? Neither has a nominative noun (unless busillis is third declension nominative singular), and plenae doesn't agree with either diebus or magnis. (And magnis agrees with diebus!) So I infer that "there were ..." is a loose translation. —Tamfang (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Colon or semi-colon?
Which punctuation is correct/preferred to separate a "list" within a sentence from the preceding "introduction" of the list? "The totals of the three legally defined categories were: or ; 3,170,000 physically disabled, 413,000 intellectually disabled and 4,170,000 with psychiatric disabilities." Please excuse the scare quotes I'm not familiar with the correct terminology. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Definitely a colon. See Colon (punctuation).  In fact, it's the very first usage listed in that article for a colon.  I have never seen a semi-colon used in that manner.  Ever.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * However, in your example, you would still use semi-colons -- not commas -- to separate the various items (because the separate items themselves contain commas). So, your example would read as follows.  The totals of the three legally defined categories were: 3,170,000 physically disabled; 413,000 intellectually disabled; and 4,170,000 with psychiatric disabilities.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You're welcome.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A contrary opinion: The style guides with which I'm familiar prescribe a colon after the "introduction" only if it is itself a complete sentence (as in "She took the following supplies with her: a bedroll, a map, enough food for three days, ..."). If the introduction is an incomplete sentence requiring the list for completion, as in Dodger67's original post, no punctuation is used between the introduction and the list. This style seems to be reflected in the third paragraph of MOS:COLON as well. Deor (talk) 11:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, but is that an "MOS" (Manual of Style) for Wikipedia articles? Or for "out there" in "real life"?  Those are two different things.  And I had assumed that Roger (Dodger67) was asking about this punctuation for his own personal writing, not for the writing of a Wikipedia article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I see no reason why there should necessarily be a dichotomy between writing for en.WP and "real life" writing - good grammar and punctuation applies to all writing. My question actually relates to Draft:Disability in Japan. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A Manual of Style is not about good grammar and punctuation; it's about style. So, in other words, some writing that contains good grammar and punctuation can also be subjected to various (different) styles.  Wikipedia "style" is only one.  Just like there are many ways to cite sources (APA style, MLS style, etc.).  It's not that one is right (and focuses on good grammar and punctuation), while the other is wrong (and focuses on bad grammar and punctuation).  They are different ways of accomplishing the same thing (in that case, to cite sources).   So, if I were writing a Ph.D. dissertation, I would not necessarily use "Wikipedia style".   In other words, all styles will likely embrace good grammar and punctuation (obviously).  It's the style itself that differs.  And Wikipedia "style" is not a generic style that is necessarily appropriate for all other "real life" writing. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Since you are referring to a Wikipedia article (Draft:Disability in Japan), this is what I would add. Using a colon or using no colon would both be correct; using a semi-colon is definitely incorrect.  I would use the colon if I want the three items to appear as a "list of three things".  I would use no colon if I simply wanted the sentence to "highlight" that it has three subjects (appositives) for the verb "were" (which is the verb "to be").   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh dear! Whatever happened to the "befehl ist befehl" authority of grammar textbooks and the infallibility of school teachers? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Colon, and with no space to the left of it, only after. That space (before a colon or a semicolon) hasn't been standard since something like the 1920s.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am confused. Where are you seeing a space to the left of the colon, in the above examples?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Second sentence of the original post in this section.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just don't see it. Immediately after the word "were", there is a colon.  I don't see a blank space between the word "were" and the colon.  You see one there? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There's some  thing in there. That kind of spaced semicolon is a century-obsolete usage.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC).


 * OK, but I think you are misreading this. Yes, there is a blank space to the left of (in front of) the semicolon.  But that is simply to separate it from the word "or" immediately in front of the semicolon.  Otherwise, it would read as follows: or; (which makes no sense).   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A semicolon doesn't belong there; spacing it weird doesn't work around that, just makes it worse.


 * Of course, a semicolon does not belong there. That was precisely the OP's question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The OP typed "The totals of the three legally defined categories were: or ; 3,170,000 physically disabled, 413,000 intellectually disabled and 4,170,000 with psychiatric disabilities." (I added the bold.)  He was asking, in essence, the following question:  After the word "were", is it a colon or a semicolon that should follow?  However, he did not use the phrase "a colon or a semicolon"; rather, he used the actual punctuation marks.  So, in essence, he was asking this question (using punctuation marks instead of the actual names of the punctuation marks):  After the word "were", is it ": or ;" that should follow?   He simply shortened that question by typing ": or ;" in the middle of the sentence after the word "were".   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this a recent language change?
I have always pronounced attribute as a noun with the stress on the first syllable "ATTribute" and as a verb with the stress on the second sylable, with the first "a" becoming a shwa "uTRIBute". I have noticed a number of younger people pronouncing the noun as "uTRIBute". The context in every case is in computing (discussing attributes of programming objects). Is this a language change or just a few people getting it wrong? -- Q Chris (talk) 10:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In my experience, language change almost always proceeds from error and continues in ignorance, until such time as it achieves unimpeachable lexicographical authority. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The noun still has the stress on the first syllable in standard English (per OED) with the verb having the stress moved to the second syllable. Perhaps the mispronunciations are by those who are confused about the difference?    D b f i r s   13:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's still the uncontested "correct" way for formal registers and anything academic. Coders have been known to pronounce words a little differently than the rest of the world, and young coders are not usually known for their impeccable natural language skills... OP should try to prompt them to say "attributional model", the results might be be illuminating. That being said, there's no way a bunch of strangers on the internet can rule out a small-scale language change in acceptable pronunciation amongst programmers that talk to OP :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a coder, have lived on both US coasts and in the middle, as well as in Canada and (before coding days) in the UK, and it's pretty consistent in my hearing range that the noun is AT-ruh-byute, while the verb is uh-TRIB-yute. If you said "I AT-ruh-byute that to foul play", people would look at you funny, like you said you were going to go watch DeadPOOL at the moo-VEE thee-AT-ur.  Derived forms vary, but the most common as far as I can determine are uh-TRIB-yu-ted, at-ruh-BYU-shun, and at-ruh-BYU-shun-ul; I could maybe see some younger coders saying AT-ruh-byu-shun, but I don't recall hearing it, and I live in the San Francisco Bay Area surrounded by nerds. Then again, the difference is slight, just a reversal of primary and secondary stress between the byu and at syllables.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

A Germanic gender
"Kongedømme" is neuter in Danish but I belive that the ending is the same as "doom" which was originally masculine in the Germanic languages. Is that correct? If so, how and why did the change occur? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * kongedømme isn't a compound noun: -dømme is a suffix. --My another account (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but doesn't the suffix carry the gender? Can I rephrase it: how does a neuter suffix come from a masculine lexeme? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think the suffix necessarily carries the gender. Kaisertum and sterrendom are neuter, but Reichtum and ouderdom are masculine, and eigendom can be either, depending on meaning. --My another account (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, then I need to find out more. For example, -ung is a reliable indicator of feminine gender in German, as is -dad in Spanish. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If you need the German equivalent it can be: "das Königtum" (n), "das Königreich" (n) or "die Monarchie" (f).  The last term, of course, is identical to monarchy.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * PS:  I can´t think of a cognate to the word doom in current German.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The cognate is -tum, although whether that is productive as a suffix or a modern-day stand-alone noun "Tum" I do not know; my German is limited to 8 semesters of study, and that was 28 years ago. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I am still puzzled. Suffixes in European languages seem to carry gender more often than not. -lein makes a feminine Frau into a neuter Fräulein, who is also a neuter Mädchen. But I see a parallel in that -heit is labelled in Wiktionary as a feminine suffix. I don't know if English words in -hood in were originally feminine; those Danish words in -hed that I see in the Wiktionary list are all common gender. We are told that it comes from Proto-Germanic *haiduz, a masculine noun. What I was wondering is how the morpheme changes gender when it comes from a full word into a suffix. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know if English words in -hood in were originally feminine -- the only such word in Wiktionary, mægþhad, is masculine, while its German counterpart, Magdheit (getting only a handful google hits, most of them in 17th to 19th century books), is feminine. --My another account (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In fact, this seems to be exactly the reference you're looking for: --My another account (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)