Language desk
< August 12	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 13[edit]

Japanese pronunciation[edit]

How do you pronounce these phrases:

次へ
前へ
もう1度

thanks F 05:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F, I'm assuming you speak Standard Midwestern.

次へ is roughly "tsoogie eh", where "eh" is the part of how you say "air" before you say the "r" part of it; ("つぎへ", "tsugi e", 'to the next (one)')
前へ is roughly "moh-eh eh", where the "oh" is the sound in "mom" or "hot", and "eh" is as above; ("まええ", "mae e", 'to the previous (one)'
nb: in 次へ and 前へ, the へ hiragana usually pronounced 'he' is pronounced 'e'
もう1度 is roughly "maw, itchy daw", where "aw" is the "o" vowel you say in "caught" or "fought". The "maw" is two syllable 'beats' long, but the "daw" is one syllable 'beat' long. A better rough approxiamtion might be: "maw-aw itchy daw."

That's my amateur opinion. Here's hoping an edit conlflict with someone who knows much better will stop this being the first reply to your question :)

--Shirt58 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's really detailed. F 11:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "mou-ichi-do" one has a short final 'o', not long as the above explanation. Thus, the hiragana would be 「もういちど」.--Manga 23:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsy, me wrong, you right. Thanks for the correction, Manga. I've taken the liberty to edit my edit to make corrections. Gomen ne(ko)! --Shirt58 11:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese translation[edit]

How do you say "串"(verb) as in "串人" or "佢串我" in English? thanks F 05:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? [1] I'm not sure whether you're looking for the pronunciation in some particular language, or an English translation. --Reuben 22:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the context, it can be mock/jibe/tease/taunt etc. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 01:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksF 11:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar vs Syntax[edit]

Hi all

I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding the difference between grammar and syntax. Can anyone clearly explain the difference? And also, how would one classify an error as either grammatical or syntactical? An example of a grammatical and syntactical error, so that I can differentiate the two, would be appreciated.

Many thanks

41.241.16.74 12:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax is a subfield of grammar, along with phonology and morphology. Therefore, a syntactical error is also a grammatical error. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 13:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term syntactical error or syntax error usually refers to an error in the input to a computer program that is required to be in some formal language. If someone forms the plural of leaf and produces leafs instead of the usual leaves (*The leafs are falling down!), you might say that that is an error against the grammar but not against the syntax of English. But others may classify this as a lexical error, not a grammatical error. --Lambiam 15:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that people sometimes use the word "grammar" to mean "syntax (with maybe a little bit of morphology)". --Kjoonlee 16:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably what confused the asker and made him/her ask. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 17:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can just say that grammar is all those rules concerning language, and syntax is some of those rules concerning how to make a sentence, and morphology some of those concerning how to make a word.--K.C. Tang 01:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not quite accurate. Most spelling rules are no grammar. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 09:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's accurate: spelling rules don't concern language. (Don't forget, written language is a contradiction in terms!) —Angr 15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; originally, it is a contradiction in terms. However, written "language" is an integral part of what people understand by language today. Most language text book will contain instructions on spelling, every longer Wikipedia article about a language deals with spelling, translators are often called "language professionals," etc. From this point of view, I didn't find the explanation accurate. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 15:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling query - inimitable[edit]

Hi, Just a quick question which has been bugging myself and my friends. I recently saw an ad in a magazine for mascara by Chanel. It had the word "inimitable" written on the ad and my friends and I had absolutely no idea what it meant, we didn't even think it was a real word. Anyway after looking it up on the internet we found it meant "unable to be imitated or copied", which is fine, but it still didn't make sense to us gramatically so I was wondering why:

"inimitable" is spelt that way and not "inimitatable" or "unimitatable" which seems to me to be more obvious when translate becomes translatable for example.

Anyway Hope you can help with this problem, its just bugging me. Thanks David 137.166.68.104 12:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imitable is a (rather rare) word meaning capable of being imitated (OED 2nd Ed). in- is of course a prefix of negation. DuncanHill 13:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The formation -ate → -able is quite common; for example, abdominate → abdominable, appreciate → appreciable, demonstrate → demonstrable, extricate → extricable, manipulate → manipulable, navigate → navigable, negotiate → negotiable, violate → violable. --Lambiam 16:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do abdominate/abdominable mean? --Sean 19:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:abominable wikt:abominate Skittle 01:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an X thing, you wouldn't understand[edit]

There are lots and lots of these kinds of phrases floating around, but where did they come from? What are they parodying/referencing? Recury 13:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the late 1980s (if memory serves), it was a fad for young (and typically relatively well educated) black people in the United States to wear t-shirts with the slogan "It's a black thing/You wouldn't understand". I should point out that I am white, and I didn't and still don't fully understand, but I think that the slogan was meant to proclaim a certain pride and hip exclusivity and at the same time to dismiss white liberals who claimed to understand various aspects of the black condition that they really did not. In the more recent (typically) marketing references, all that is left is the claim to hip exclusivity. Marco polo 15:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that the first words to be inserted between "a" and "thing" in this phrase would have been "girl" and "guy". I think it was originally a good-natured battle-of-the-sexes type of thing. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Marco Polo is right that the first thing you wouldn't understand was a black thing. The t-shirts are mentioned in this op/ed piece —Angr 15:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good example of an undocumented (until now) snowclone. :) --Kjoonlee 16:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've seen this mentioned previously as a snowclone. Sorry. =) Tesseran 19:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See List of snowclones#1970s, at the end (i.e. just before 1980s). --Lambiam 07:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this correct English?[edit]

Are these correct English sentences?

1) "As the novel comes to a close, Meursault meets with a chaplain, and is enraged by the chaplain's insistence that he turn to God"

2) "an end-to-end approach to the WAN requires that data accuracy be checked by the end-systems"

They both display the use of a verb in the 3rd person singular of the present tense which is different from what is usually expected ("he turns" for (1) and "data accuracy is checked" for (2)). If this is correct English, what kind of verbal form do these 2 sentences use?

Looks like the subjunctive to me, which is correct but somewhat formal. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To many Americans, the indicative sounds very odd in sentences like these. I would only use the subjunctive in those sentences, even in colloquial speech. —Angr 15:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the subjunctive is still productive in the United States. Though I think that in casual speech, Americans tend to avoid constructions that would require the subjunctive. Or, they might insert "should" before the principal verb. Marco polo 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's correct English -- in fact this is the only way to say it! (You can't change "turn" to "turns" or "be" to "is", because it changes the meaning). For example if you said "I insist that he attend the sessions", this is correct English for what you mean, but if you say "I insist that he attends the sessions" then it's like you're fiercely asserting that he's not just a passive member, but in fact attends! No, he isn't just on the membership list -- I insist he actually attends the sessions. It's something that's happening, not something to happen.

Do you see how it's completely different to say "I insist that it be written by Shakespeare" and "I insist that it is written by Shakespeare"? Completely different -- you could only say the former while Shakespeare was alive and you had an opportunity to commission something from him, while the latter is how you show that you're SURE your friend is full of shit when he's convinced "A Midsummer Night's Dream" is written by Milton.

Hope this helps.

81.182.171.23 16:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Both sentences would sound like educated U.S. speech. The usage sounds to me like there is an unspoken "should" before the verb. Edison 04:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a small quibble with (1), which is that the comma after 'chaplain' would be better taken out. Meursault is the subject of the verbs on both sides of it. Xn4 21:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finland Speak English?[edit]

So basically I want to know if Finland speaks English since it is European. And basically I am thinking that everyone who lives in Europe knows English. Could someone clarify this for me. Bond Extreme 20:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about Finland, but what on earth gave you the impression that every European speaks English? That's simply wrong. A lot do. Generally speaking, Belgium and northwards will be better at English than the more southern countries, but that's a really rough generalisation. Another generelisation, is that mainland Europeans are a lot less afraid of making mistakes in foreign languages that native English speakers seem to be.

The article on Finland says that most people speak Finnish, followed by Swedish and that most (not all) learn enough English to get by.

I have lived and traveled in Germany and to a lesser extent the Netherlands and Belgium. People often say that "everyone knows English" in these countries, but I have found that it isn't true. Certainly everyone who deals mainly with tourists knows some English. Also, most educated professionals know some English. Beyond these two groups, though, most people over 35 will know a few English phrases but will not really be functional in English. Even among those under 35, maybe 60% can carry on a rudimentary conversation in English. Finland is likely to be similar, although English would be harder to learn for a Finnish speaker than for a speaker of German or Dutch, so Finland might have a lower level of English competence. Marco polo 14:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Finns usually have a very high English proficiency, as well as people from other Scandinavian countries. Might be due to the fact that English tv shows aren't dubbed there (unlike many European countries). In fact, I have met many people from Finland and Germany before, and the Finns always appeared to speak English much better than the Germans. Quite remarkable as German is far more related to English than Finnish, a Finno-Ugric language, is. --Hús ö nd 16:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the user who mentioned Belgium, keep in mind that Belgium consists of a Dutchspeaking part (Flanders) and a francophone part, with different educational systems, cultural perceptions,..Evilbu 21:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finland has long been a rather isolated country, but with that in mind I found that young Fins are usually rather good at English. I haven't spoken to many older people there, so I don't really know about them. A complicating factor is that Fins are somewhat shy towards strangers, which probably has to do with the isolation. So even if someone speaks English reasonably well, that might not become apparent. DirkvdM 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young people speak it, as almost everyone studies it in school. However, this was not the case in the early 20th century, so don't except people older than 50 to speak English. Also, pronouncing English is very different from Finnish, and some people haven't really bothered to exercise their pronouncing. Those people may not like to talk English, but the percentage of people who can speak it English is getting higher every year. The difficulty level of English as a subject is hardened every year in school exams. --a Finn, Pudeo ⺮ 17:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does climate affect language evolution[edit]

I was wondering this because I read somewhere that the way a language sounded roughly corresponded to where it originated. For example, languages in tropical climates are very fruity sounding, if you know what i mean, and languages from climates that are colder tend to sound rougher and harsher. I was wondering if this has any scientific basis, and it it´s true, why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.176.110.253 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not true, no. But it was a theory proposed by some people a few centuries ago. I can't remember who or when exactly people thought this, though. --Miskwito 00:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it reminds us of the Eskimo Snow Wonderland, and such clichés as "l'espagnol est la langue des amants, l'italien est celle des chanteurs, le français celle des diplomates, l'allemand celle des chevaux".--K.C. Tang 01:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told, similarly, that "Italian is sung, French is spoken, English is spit, and German is vomited." - Eron ^Talk 15:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the theory comes from a tropical climate, becomes it sounds very fruity. --Lambiam 07:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Borge said that Americans talk with their tongues sticking out of their mouths because it's warm, while Danes talk in the back of their throats to conserve heat. That was a joke, though. —Keenan Pepper 08:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember going to a talk about how our perceptions of speech are both auditory and visual and the fellow showing the power point presentation speculated that languages that evolved (i.e. came into their present condition) in climates where most speech is done indoors (i.e. in intimate settings ) could have been more likely to contrast articulatorily similar sounds. But that is very wild speculation, and there's really no evidence to show that climate has anything to do with the way a language sounds. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]