Language desk
< May 26	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 28 >

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.

May 27[edit]

Where to put "from"?[edit]

Hello there, since English is my second language, so I'm having trouble with asking question by using "from". Which is the correct:

From which universities you are calling?
Which universities you are calling from?

Any reply? Thank you--202.168.229.243 (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In theory (1) is correct English, but (2) is perfectly acceptable in conversation. By the way, are you sure it should be "universities", not "university"? I would have thought a caller would only be calling from one university. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In both examples, it should say "are you", not "you are". Clarityfiend (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the above examples, the correct word order would be "are you calling", rather than "you are calling". Gwinva (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I missed that. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry: two of us didn't! :) Gwinva (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what 202 is trying to say. How do you call from more than one university? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering that as well, see above. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) is not correct "in theory". It's just a shibboleth based on Latin grammar. (2) always has been normal English. kwami (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to Preposition stranding, "some grammarians frown upon" it, which indicates that there is at least some disagreement over it. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but in the interests of helping ESLers everywhere, let's step on "some grammarians" right here and now. Those grammarians are just plain wrong, and the entire rest of the English-speaking world is right. "From which universities are you calling?" in the ordinary sense is an abomination, a deformed structure, an especially egregious example of prescriptivism taken too far. It's like a wrong note on the piano and offends anyone with an ear for English. There just might be a place for that construction if a special meaning is meant, but I can't think of one. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The weasel words of the Preposition stranding article should not be taken seriously. It's a shibboleth, pure and simple: a pretentious attempt by upwardly-mobile people of the ?th century to display how educated they were, and by implication, how they were a better class of people than those who didn't know (or didn't care) to speak that way. It's never been taken seriously by anyone else. kwami (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use "what" – What university are you calling from? Julia Rossi (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification. I think I should have used "are you" instead of "you are". BTW, Julia, why did you say would use "what" instead of "which"? are they both right? if so then why?--202.168.229.243 (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would use "what" too, presuming the answer can include any number of universities. Fribbler (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nuance intended here is that "which university?" implies that the asker has a short list in mind ("Oxford or Cambridge?"), while "what university?" acknowledges the possibility that it may be one of which the asker is ignorant. And yet I think I'd say "which university?" (but "what company?"). —Tamfang (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the nuance of a list applies, then which, but "what" can be both and is more usual in normal questioning than "which" (which is more specifying, more about choice and can sound more "bookish" when used for "what", if I can put it that way). Otherwise mostly interchangeable. Hope this helps, and sorry to respond so late, best, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[the?] Westermarkt, Amsterdam[edit]

The sentence I'm editing describes the location of a certain statue of Anne Frank (by Mari Andriessen)as "Westermarkt." The Amsterdam page describes this as an "open-air market" but I don't know whether this is also the name of a street. Choices of preposition, with or without the definite article:

"...in [the] Westermarkt"
"...on [the] Westermarkt"

What would you advise? Do I need a better description of the statue's setting? '-- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"in the" if it's a market, "on" if it's a street. kwami (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nl:Westermarkt (Amsterdam) calls it a "plein" which translates to "square" as far as I know. According to the article no market is held there, but the "Westerstraat-markt" is held on "Westerstraat" nearby. On this map, Westermarkt is a short street-shaped thingy (lower right quadrant). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't our British cousins say in either way? —Tamfang (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further: Related pages indicate the statue's "in front of" the nearby Westerkerk, and checking further web citations via Google, got this description: "The statue is located at the Westermarkt in front of the Westerkerk..." [Emphases mine.] My source text doesn't mention the church. So, that reads well, if "Westermarkt" is a tourist site, and I'll have to trust "VirtualTourist" for knowing the facts in situ. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch article also says that the statue is located on the Prinsengracht side (west side of the square), and I saw several sites saying it stands "outside the Westerkerk in Amsterdam" which lies to the Westermarkt's south. So far it looks like the statue is somewhere in the southwest corner of Westermarkt. I'm sure the exact location can be found on a map, I just haven't found it yet. ---Sluzzelin

This map might give you an idea of church, square, and grachten. (but the statue's location isn't given). I just noticed that Westermarkt goes both to the north and to the south of the Westerkerk. Is Westermarkt the entire block? I also noticed there was a pale grey horizontal way parallel to and between the two Westermarkt ways. I guess someone familiar with the location should step in now. I visited the Anne Frank House in 1987. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On this photograph you can see that the statue is right in front of the church tower (known as Westertoren), which is at the Prinsengracht side of the church. You can easily spot the tower on this Google map image. --Lambiam 16:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Sluzzelin says, the Westermarkt is a square ("plein"), but it is kind of U-shaped, with the Westerkerk in the middle. On this map, the statue would be near the "W" of the blue text "Westermarkt". I (imagine I) can see it in the shadows of the trees here. I wouldn't say that the statue is in front of the church, because I'm not completely sure what to call the front, I think the church entrance is on the side of the Keizersgracht; instead I would simply write "it is located on the Westermarkt", it's not a very large square. DAVID ŠENEK 16:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That fits with what you see on this photograph. The corner of the building you see can only be the southwest corner of the church, and the statue is then just south of the church. --Lambiam 16:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comanche[edit]

Anyone know of a good place, book, etc. to learn the Comanche language? I would prefer a free website, but any source will work. Thanks, Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] would probably be a good place to start. "Numinu" or "Numunu" are English transliteration used. Be aware that there is some criticism going around saying that the language is taught in a "bastardized" form, following English more closely to make translating easier. Male/female language division, grammar and concept basis are not preserved. (For an idea how the latter is meant, get an artist, a chemist and a physicist together and have them describe a red dot to you, or imagine discussing colors with a blind person.) Some preservation is much better than losing everything, though. There's no one identifying as Comanche at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America from what I could see, but if it were me I'd try posting there and see if someone is there or can get you a reference to someone who might be willing to voice-mail or something. Good luck with your studies. Lisa4edit (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From SSILA website: linguistlist.org/ssila/Learning/comanche.cfm (has grammar & dictionary reference). – ishwar (speak) 12:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other things from Marianne Mithun's book:

857-word vocabulary collected in 1860s by a Spanish-speaking Mexican with commentary by the editor:

Gelo, Daniel J. (Ed.). (1995). Comanche vocabulary (Trilingual ed.). Texas archaeology and ethnohistory series. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Discussion of how to form words:

Osborn, Henry; & Smalley, William. (1949). Formulae for Comanche stem and word formation. International Journal of American Linguistics, 15, 93-99.

Text collections:

Canonge, Elliott D. (1958). Comanche texts. Summer Institute of Linguistics publications in linguistics and related fields (No. 1). Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma.

Another text is in:

Anderton, Alice. (1997). Kaawosa plays a trick on a soldier: A Comanche coyote story. In Jane Hill, P.J. Mistry, & Lyle Campbell (Eds.), The life of language: Papers in linguistics in honor of William Bright (pp. 243-255). Trends in linguistics: Studies and monographs (No. 108). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Discussion of Comanche discourse (i.e. how the language works in large chunks of speech):

Armagost, James. (1982). Comanche deictic roots in narrative texts. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 5-14. (Online: kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/handle/1808/3611
Armagost, James. (1982). The temporal relationship between telling and happening in Comanche narrative. Anthropological Linguistics, 24, 193-200.
Armagost, James. (1983). Comanche narrative: Some general remarks and a selected text. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 8 (2), 1-30. (Online: kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/handle/1808/477
Armagost, James. (1985). Comanche ma-: Undistinguished deictic, narrative obviative. International Journal of American Linguistics, 51, 302-310. (Available from JSTOR: www.jstor.org/pss/1265433).
Armagost, James. (1990). Interpreting St. Clair's Comanche texts: Objective case marking and the 'same subject' dependent clauses. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 15 (2), 1-17. (Online: kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/handle/1808/435

Discussion of vowel pronunciation:

Canonge, Elliott D. (1957). Voiceless vowels in Comanche. International Journal of American Linguistics, 23, 63-67. (Available from JSTOR: www.jstor.org/pss/1264055).
Hamp, Eric. (1958). Prosodic notes: On Comanche voiceless vowels. International Journal of American Linguistics, 24, 321. (Available from JSTOR: www.jstor.org/pss/1263980).
Armagost, James. (1985). On predicting voiceless vowels in Comanche. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 10 (2), 1-15. (Online: kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/handle/1808/499
Armagost, James. (1986). Three exceptions to vowel devoicing in Comanche. Anthropological Linguistics, 28, 3.

Discussion of baby talk (caretaker speech):

Casagrande, Joseph. (1948). Comanche baby language. International Journal of American Linguistics, 14, 11-14. (Available from JSTOR: www.jstor.org/pss/1263088).

Discussion of rhythm (stress, intonation, vowel length, etc.):

Smalley, William. (1953). Phonemic rhythm in Comanche. International Journal of American Linguistics, 19, 297-301. (Available from JSTOR: www.jstor.org/pss/1263132).

Discussion of loanwords:

Casagrande, Joseph B. (1954). Comanche linguistic acculturation: I. International Journal of American Linguistics, 20 (2), 140-151. (Available from JSTOR: www.jstor.org/pss/1263388).
Casagrande, Joseph B. (1954). Comanche linguistic acculturation: II. International Journal of American Linguistics, 20 (3), 217-237. (Available from JSTOR: www.jstor.org/pss/1263347).
Casagrande, Joseph B. (1955). Comanche linguistic acculturation: III. International Journal of American Linguistics, 21 (1), 8-25. (Available from JSTOR: www.jstor.org/pss/1263210).
Troike, Rudolph C. (1956). Comanche linguistic acculturation: A critique. International Journal of American Linguistics, 22 (3), 213-215. (Available from JSTOR: www.jstor.org/pss/1264018).

Some of the above may be difficult to understand as they are written for a linguist audience. There doesnt seem to be much pedagogical material unfortunately. It may be best to contact the tribe for pedagogical material. – ishwar (speak) 13:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a specific term[edit]

I frequently have this problem: I'll be having an argument and come up with a really bad comeback. Of course, it's not until later that I think of something really cutting to say. I know there's a term for this and that it's French. I would appreciate it if someone would provide me with the Wikipedia article for this. THANK YOU for your time! Nolarboot (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L'esprit de l'escalier. Deor (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. You've assisted me with at least two things now. ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolarboot (talk • contribs) 14:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, although the article won't say so until a few minutes from now when I change it, a rarely-used English translation exists: "staircase wit". (If more of us use it, it won't be so rare, by the way.) --Milkbreath (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask, why add this to the article when it says the literal translation is "stairway wit"? Sandman30s (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response; I just now saw this. "Stairway wit" is indeed one possible "literal" translation, but the phrase "staircase wit" is in actual use in the English language (it being rather more idomatic-sounding than "stairway wit"). --Milkbreath (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the notion is (rightly) discounted in our article, I still can't help thinking of the esprit de l'escalier as a veritable spirit, who hangs out on staircases and takes delight in whispering to people the devastating ripostes that they were unable to come up with on the spur of the moment. Deor (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Greek gods/goddesses[edit]

My friend and I are having a squabble over how one pronounces the names of various gods and goddesses of Greek mythology such as Aphrodite, Dionysus, and -oh my- Hephaestus. If someone could please give a small list of names and idiots' pronunciations, I'd be truly grateful. Nolarboot (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From our articles, Aphrodite is pronounced /afɾoˈðiti/ and Hephaestus is /hɪˈfεstəs/. Thomprod (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, pronounced /hɪˈfiːstəs/ or /hɪˈfεstəs/. --Lambiam 17:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Aphrodite may be pronounced /afɾoˈðiti/ in Modern Greek, but in English she's pronounced /ˈæfɾəˌdaɪti/. —An gr 17:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angr is correct. I copied the wrong pronounciation from our article. Thomprod (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Dionysus is /ˌdaɪəˈnaɪsəs/. —An gr 17:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Idiots' pronunciations": AF-ruh-DY-tee, DY-uh-NY-suhs, hih-FEE-stuhs (or hih-FEHS-tuhs). Deor (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd pronounce "Hephaestus" in your "idiots'" pronounciation heh-FY-stuhs, but agree with the rest. D aniel (‽) 18:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely transposing the pronunciations given by Lambiam above (and in the WP article) to the system used in The World Book Encyclopedia. If you think those pronunciations are incorrect, and you can source yours, perhaps you should make a change in the article. Deor (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]