Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2018 February 24

= February 24 =

Does "iT'D Really" have anything to do with a trill consonant?
I have never been able to do a proper Spanish rr trill consonant. Recently I noticed that saying "It'd really" seemed like it had something of a similar effect though, with t followed immediately by d, then backed up by r. Trying to make the same sound in Spanish words seems ... intermittently better than other attempts I've made, I think. Is this anything related or just a delusion? Wnt (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A lightly trilled "r" is formed pretty close to the way the "d" sound is formed. This fact is sometimes satirized when someone will say that some trait peculiar to Brits is "veddy English". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, going from t to d makes it easier to trill the following r (for me at least).  Dbfirs  14:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No trace of a trilled "r" at all for this Cockney speaker though. Alansplodge (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. It's really more about the upper crust. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I don't normally trill the r either, but I can do, and might if I were speaking with great emphasis. Perhaps it's because I'm much nearer to the Scottish border. Shakespeare probably trilled his "r"s, but speakers of RP generally don't.  Db<i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  17:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In some Spanish textbooks for English speakers, the Scottish "r" is used as a model for the double-r (not the single-r) in Spanish. Also the "ch" of "loch" for the guttural "j" sound. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a little hint that works for me: If I forget how to do a trilled r, I start singing Santa Lucia.  Specifically venite all'agile/barchetta mia.  For some reason I can do it in barchetta.  That revives the muscle memory and then I can do it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Amoo
Whereabouts in Africa would the surname Amoo come from? Rojomoke (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 53,000 people named Amoo in Nigeria, 11,000 in Ghana. —Stephen (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * According to It's all in a name - Ghana: "The GA tribe, which originates from the Accra region, speaks a language also known as Ga. These people do not normally use the day-of-the-week naming system. Children generally take their father's surname: commonly Ankrah, Dodoo, Lampitey or Oti.  Males are often given the name Nii, while females are often given the name Naa.  A second name is sometimes added to show the child's seniority in the family: Nii Aryee (second-born son), Nii Amoo (third-born son)".
 * Not sure if this is pertinent to surnames though. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While some Africans have adopted the European concept of the family name, that is not traditional, It is not possible to assume that the second name of an African is a surname or family name in the sense that is used in Europe - not even if it happens to be the father's name as well. Wymspen (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Vae! Puto, deus fio
Suetonius, Vespasian 23. "Dear me, I think I'm becoming a god," as it's most commonly translated. Often called Vespasian's last words, and presented out of context as if to make light of emperors' vanity. But this passage is all about Vespasian's sense of humor, it's quoted right next to the Emperor's dick jokes and outwitting of money-grubbers. He was making fun of the portents of his coming death and of emperors' godly ambitions. And Suetonius doesn't present these as his last words. He doesn't mention his last words.

My translation of Suetonius' Caesars says 'When he first felt the onset of his illness he exclaimed "Alas! I think I'm becoming a god."' This only differs in the interjection and punctuation.

A Latin lesson book by my side quotes it as "Vae puto me deum fieri!" Was this from a different historian of antiquity? How many variations of this quote do we have, and how to they differ?

A response to a grammatical question on this topic on Reddit mentions a possibly-more-accurate quote: "There is no answer to this. Personally I think the text is corrupted, and if you look at an apparatus criticus you will see that the manuscripts have variations, some with ut (but no subjunctive). I think it might have originally read at, puto, inquit, deus fio. This "ab, puto/credo" combo is rare but shows up in Ovid in such a configuration, often with incredulity." I don't know if this commentor is a scholar.

-Is the most common translation the "best" one?

-Is "Vae puto deus fio" grammatical?

-Is it a slightly deeper kind of joke, with "Vae puto deus" as the setup, and "fio" as the punchline? My Latin dictionary secondarily defines "puto" as to 'recognize (gods)' so would "vae puto deus" be a pious-sounding 'Oh my, I see the gods' then you throw in "fio" and it's an impious joke? 2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about the text, but "Vae puto me deum fieri" displays accusative and infinitive syntax, while "Vae puto deus fio" doesn't make too much sense as a single sentence (as far as I can see) without some conjunction inserted between the second and third words. AnonMoos (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "Vae puto me deum fieri!" is "proper" Latin, like saying "I think that I am becoming a god" in English, but surely some modern scholar was horrified at the apparently poor grammar and corrected it. Proper grammar for written texts and the way people actually speak are quite different, in English and in Latin. He's just saying two things, "deus fio, puto", "I'm becoming a god, I think", not speaking with absolutely impeccable grammar. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * With two finite verbs without any subordinating conjunction in Latin, you're thinking and you're becoming a god, but you're not thinking that you're becoming a god, according to ordinary rules of grammar interpretation. It's a case of asyndeton, but an ugly ungrammatical kind, not the elegant literary kind covered in our asyndeton article.  The simple way to semi-save it is add ut: "Puto ut deus fio" isn't good Latin, but at least it's clear what you're trying to say... AnonMoos (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Nothing with punctuation is "proper" first century Latin. You have to make a guess at the emphasis. Wymspen (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, when I said "my translation of The Caesars" I didn't mean that I had translated it, which I couldn't, I meant 'my copy of the English version.' 2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * So is puto reflexive, then? (By the way, y'all explanation of the accusative and infinitive leads me to a parallel with "I am become death, etc." Is that the same kind of thing?) 2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Latin doesn't have "reflexive" verbs as such. Some of the deponent verbs are "subject-affected passives" which are remnants of the early Indo-European middle voice, and would be translated by reflexive verbs in other languages, but this is expressed by endings, not by accompanying pronouns.  The me in "Puto me deum fieri" is present because it means "I think that I am becoming a god".  If it was "I think that you are becoming a god", it would be "Puto te deum fieri".  And the am in "I am become death" is just the boring old use of "to be" as perfect auxiliary with intransitive verbs in older English ("Christ is risen" etc.), and has nothing to do with infinitives or accusatives. AnonMoos (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Tangent alert: Why is  so much more archaic-sounding than ?  They seem to be entirely parallel.  Of course gone can be viewed as an adjective rather than a participle, but a participle is just an adjective that you make from a verb, so I don't know why you can't do the same thing with come. --Trovatore (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Because gone is an adjective but come doesn't happen to be. cf Gone Girl. --ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not all that convinced. Gone can be used colloquially as a pre-nominal adjective, but it's not exactly natural-sounding in most contexts. --Trovatore (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Word for not lesbian, or not gay man
Does English have a word for all who are not lesbian women? Or, for all who are not gay men? --Hofhof (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For the first, perhaps, nonlesbian or non-lesbian. Can't think of one for the second. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC) (e/c) non-gay is a word, apparently  but "gay" is sometimes used for men and women. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) The question implies that there is one single definition for lesbian, and one single one for gay, against which the other state of being can be opposed. In fact, those articles show that the terms are contested and contingent. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The word you're looking for is "straight". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Only if he or she specifically wants only heterosexuals, but the question for whatever reason stressed "all" others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Then it's "straight or bi". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is not an answer, since the OP wanted a single word not a phrase. --Viennese Waltz 08:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's see you do better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Androphile and gynophile seem somewhat useful here, though not for both sexes at once. Also reading  I get the feeling that they are now being used for "gay" rather than "gay or bi" or "straight or bi" per sex but I don't know.  The language in this area seems harsh on word logic, I mean, properly speaking I'd think you should be able to say a Boy Scout troop is "homosexual" because its members are all the same sex, but that doesn't seem on the table.  I was also thinking heterophile, which comes up but not aside homophile, instead isophile, in this source  "The defined effects and outcomes of first sexual experiences (whether autophilic, isophilic, or heterophilic) will shape individuals' conceptions of themselves as sexual beings. Autophilic, or masturbation, experiences may become the dominant focus of the individual's sexual behavior. Isophilic, or homosexual, experiences may predominate, and in this case the individual does not transfer his or her sexual appetite and self-conceptions to behaviors that will lead to intercourse with members of the opposite sex, as is the case for heterophilic actors..."  [this quote is complete balderdash by the way; from childhood I remember it's all pheromone-driven long before any behavior is relevant] Wnt (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * For the first question, do you mean all people of all genders and all orientations who do not identify as lesbian? Like, a binary assignment where one side has lesbian women and the other side has gay males, bisexual females, FTM transgenders, and all the other teeming multitudes of human sexual variety? Other than "non-lesbian", no, English doesn't have a single word like that and I doubt any other language does either. Matt Deres (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The word is "people". You can't define "everyone" except "group A" without saying "people not in group A" or something similar. Legacypac (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Really, per Trovatore, that's not so nice, and it's illogical. This is the language desk and natural languages have many words with overlapping denotations.  E.g. Wnt's suggestion of androphile could mean everyone except for straight males and lesbians.  So plenty of such words exist and it's perfectly reasonable to ask if there's one for some specific combination.  It's just that the number of terms it would take to cover every possibility gets impractical, so there will necessarily be some cases for which there is not an existing word. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think people are working way too hard on this one. It's a perfectly valid question, and the answer, as Matt Deres says, is "no". Of course it's hard to give an actual reference, because we're unlikely to find any reliable source that has considered the exact question and given the answer "no". --Trovatore (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Heterosexual woman/heterosexual man would seem to work but seems a little stilted to me. RJFJR (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed an "archive" tag here because we don't box up questions for being answered and this would be a bad time to start. Wnt (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC) ''[Text of former tag:  question either answered or it's a poorly worded question. Legacypac (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)]''

Responding to 173.228.123.121's now-deleted post, when the law was being updated in the mid-nineteenth century it was intended that lesbianism would be outlawed in the new Offences Against the Person Act. It never was, because Queen Victoria refused to believe that such a thing was possible.