Language desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

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.

March 24[edit]

De-facto Chinese "dialect" language subcodes[edit]

[This may be a better question form the Computing desk. If I don't get any good answers here, I'll try asking it there.]

In much multilingual computer software, including many web sites, languages are represented internally by their two-letter codes from ISO 639-1. This standard contains a single code, zh, for all of Chinese, because, as our article puts it, "owing to China's socio-political and cultural situation", it is customary to refer the the several "generally mutually unintelligible variants" of Chinese -- Mandarin, Cantonese, Min Nan, etc. -- as being part of a single "Chinese language".

But this causes a real problem if you want to tailor your software separately for Mandarin, Cantonese, Min Nan, etc., while using ISO 639-1 codes to differentiate.

I remember reading somewhere that one solution to this problem -- which seems to me to be a pretty decent compromise -- is to add a disambiguating suffix to the language code when necessary, e.g. zh_xx, zh_yy, zh_zz, etc. This is obviously totally analogous to the way suffixes are used to differentiate other dialects, e.g. en_UK and en_US for British vs. American English, de_DE and de_AU for German vs. Austrian German, etc. (And of course this mechanism is pretty standard, as it's the defined form for an IETF language tag.)

My questions, then, are

Does anyone know what I'm talking about and
Is there any de facto standard set of dialect-suffixed subcodes of zh for the various Chinese languages?

(But please, no flames here over whether "Chinese" is properly a "language" or a "macrolanguage" or a "language family", and whether things like Mandarin and Cantonese are properly "languages" or "dialects" or whatever. And, yes, I realize that if you really care about this sort of thing, you probably ought to be using ISO 639-2 codes, instead.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern written Chinese has two variants: complex (used in Hong Kong, Taiwan and many Overseas Chinese communities) and simplified (used in China and somewhat in Singapore). Aside from these two ways of writing the exact same characters, there should not be any reason why Mandarin (as used in, say, Taiwan) and Cantonese cannot share the same character code sets. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the software is using voice?

But yes. The various Chinese "dialects" are (sometimes) mutually unintelligible, but they are written (more or less) uniformly.

ISO 639-3 has codes for all the first-level and some second-level varieties of Chinese.

Another random thought: in terms of population, if you cover the three largest dialects (Mandarin, Wu, and Cantonese) you've already covered the vast majority of the Chinese population.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links which may be helpful.

Ethnologue report for Chinese
Chinese language (with infobox information under "Language codes")
Chinese Computing Information, which has a link to
- http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry (which is probably closest to what you want)

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for "language codes" at World Wide Web Consortium - Web Standards, and I found the following pages.

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the left-hand side of any page of English Wikipedia, you can select "Special pages" and go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SpecialPages. From the section "Wiki data and tools" on that page, you can select "Wikimedia wikis" and go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SiteMatrix.

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These links may be useful.

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all those references, good sir! —Steve Summit (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I will/shall drown, no one shall/will save me"[edit]

I've sometimes heard the (prescriptivist) distinction between "shall" and "will" expressed by the following example: "I will drown, no one shall save me" would be spoken by someone committing suicide and refusing to be saved, whereas "I shall drown, no one will save me" would be spoken by someone who would like to be saved but does not believe that will happen. Where did this come from, and what exactly is the distinction it's meant to demonstrate? (I got the impression that "will" implies desire and "shall" might imply more certainty.) 69.224.37.48 (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Shall and will. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In brief, you have the main point (and I'm always intrigued by the notion that there are native speakers who do not hear a distinction between these two sentences). There's a lot of other little subtleties and weirdnesses as well, but if the distinctions are not part of your personal dialect it is purely of theoretical interest. In my dialect, it is a descriptive distinction; in many, it is not.

So basically, in my dialect 'I will' is slightly more connected with the German 'Ich will' than in other dialects (I will it to be, I want, I wish), and 'I shall' is more 'what is going to happen'. Bearing this in mind, can you see why the two are used as they are here?

"Shall I open the window?"
"Will you open the window?"
"You shall go to the ball."
"I shall have to change my top."
"I will change my top (and you can't stop me)."
"She shall have music wherever she goes (it is going to happen)."
"She will have music wherever she goes (she requires it to happen)."
"Well, if you will insist on music, you shall have to put up with cold toes."
"Shan't. Won't."

Of course, these are slightly artificial as both verbs are often abbreviated to "'ll". And many (most?) dialects make little to no distinction, so it is only of interest to those who are interested :) 79.66.127.79 (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wolves, dogs and foxes[edit]

I originally posted this in the science section and it was suggested that I try here. So, here goes:

Wolves, dogs and foxes are all of the same family (canine) and give birth to cubs, pups and kits (respectively). Lions and bears also have cubs (but are not of the same family as the aforementioned canines nor of each other - not to mention that the latter adults are boars and sows but not related to pigs). Seals have pups (but are not related to canines). Where is the logic in how offspring are named? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.220.141 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think expecting to find logic here is asking too much of the way language develops. —An gr 06:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baby seals kind of look like puppies. --Sean 11:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For cub, The Free Dictionary has "The young of certain carnivorous animals, such as the bear, wolf, or lion" For pup, it has "a. A young dog; a puppy. b. The young of various other canine animals, such as the wolf or fox. c. The young of certain other animals, such as the seal." For kit it has "1. A kitten. 2. A young, often undersized fur-bearing animal." For the origin of words you will need to find an Etymological Dictionary, which I'm sure exists online but I've been unable to find. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is, indeed, this one. Pallida Mors 14:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallida Mors (talk • contribs) [reply]

Language evolution is not logical. Although some semantic changes are occasioned by changes in society or in the way we perceive the world, most seem to be random. 201.82.164.83 (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these good Chinese names for me?[edit]

Are "Zhao Chengyong" or "Zhao Chengli" good Chinese names for me? I want a Chinese name that is strength and success. "Zhao Chengli" means success and strength and "Zhao Chenyong" means success and brave. I don't care about the Chinese surname. I just care about the Chinese given name right now. Which Chinese names are the best for me? I prefer "Zhao Chengli" because it means success and strength. Jet123 (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those names are good Chinese names. I'm assuming that the characters you're talking about are 成力 and 成勇 (although the first character could be a few other things. They're not imaginative names, which gives them an air of authenticity. Steewi (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another grammar question[edit]

I have written "Robots endowed with a personality and genuine feelings also bide a science fiction so far, and probably always will". I don't like the word "bide" here, but can't find a more suitable word. I try to say "Robots endowed with....genuine feelings also have so far been found solely in the world of science fiction, and ...always will", but I would like a high-class word instead of "bide" that means "be found solely in". Any suggestions? --Voletyvole (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really mean "bide a science fiction" at all, or is that just a typo for "bide in science fiction"? Either way, I don't think bide means "be found solely in". —An gr 11:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this "bide" is completely erroneous actually. Maybe "robots endowed with feeling are confined to the world of science fiction"? Does that sound good?--Voletyvole (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try "are limited to" and "are exclusive to". The end of the sentence also needs "be" added, to my ear.

"Robots endowed with a personality and genuine feelings are limited to science fiction so far, and probably always will be".

"Robots endowed with a personality and genuine feelings are exclusive to science fiction so far, and probably always will be".

StuRat (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of names in Norse mythology in Icelandic, Norwegian, and Swedish[edit]

I am compiling the names of some major gods and goddesses of Norse mythology in Old Norse, Icelandic, Norwegian (both Bokmål and Nynorsk), Danish, and Swedish. This is to help decide what names to use for them in Korean; the situation in Korean Wikipedia is a mess at the moment. Now, I take the position that Korean names for figures in Norse mythology should follow the Old Norse forms, but for reasons of completeness, I also want to transcribe the Icelandic, Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish names into hangul. Most of these names I have no problems with, but I want to check the pronunciations of a number of them.

In Icelandic, is Frigg pronounced with a [ɣ] or [k] at the end? In other words, is the g pronounced as a fricative as it usually is at the end of a word, or is it different since it's a double g?

In Norwegian, what are the vowel lengths for Njord (Njörðr) and Skade (Skaði)? There are rules for transcribing Norwegian into hangul, and in each case the d gets transcribed only if the preceding vowel is short. Right now I have Njord as having a long o and Skade as having a short a based on the Old Norse form, but that's just a guess. (At least I was able to confirm that Gerd (Gerðr) has a short e in a Norwegian dictionary.)

Is the g in Sigyn pronounced [g] or [j] in Norwegian and Swedish?

In addition, would I be right in guessing that the g in Gefjon (Gefjun) is [j] in Swedish, the g in Gerd [g] is in Norwegian and [j] in Swedish, and the g in Brage (Bragi) is [g] in both Norwegian and Swedish? And that the k in Loke (Loki) is [k] in Norwegian and Swedish? Any help will be greatly appreciated. --Iceager (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are only guesses, that in Swedish, the three g's would be [g], though I'm not sure about Gefjon, Barge I take from the pronunciation of IK Brage which is g, on the Swedish wikipedia it says "Sigyn or Sigryn..." and it wouldn't work with "Si[j]ryn" if they're pronounced the same, and in Loke the ke is like "ca" in the English "Care". chan dler · 11:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Njord and Skade are pronounced with long vowels in the first syllables. In standard Swedish, Sigyn and Brage are pronounced with [g], while Gerd is pronounced with a [j] ~~as in Norwegian~~, but with a long [æ:]. Loke is indeed pronounced with a [k].--Berig (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chandler and Berig! So is Gerd pronounced with a [j] in Norwegian as well? And Berig, do you mean the vowels are long for Njord and Skade in Norwegian or Swedish? --Iceager (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I strike Norwegian, as I'm not sure about it. I'll give you the Swedish pronuncation in IPA, in a moment.--Berig (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian is indeed inconsistent here ([g] in 'Geir' but [j] in 'Geilo'), but 'Gerd' is [j] since 'Gjerd' is an alternate spelling. --Pykk (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware that Icelandic is spelled very similarly to Old Norse, but the modern Icelandic pronunciation is quite different in a number of ways from the ancient Old Norse... AnonMoos (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Icelandic appears to have changed its pronunciation even more than the continental Scandinavian languages.--Berig (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm taking that into consideration. Thanks for pointing that out. In fact, I'm providing the hangul transcriptions based on the modern Icelandic pronunciations (e.g. Braiyi for Bragi, Hainir for Hœnir, very roughly) just to prove the point that it makes more sense to base transcription on the reconstructed Old Norse pronunciations. --Iceager (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified Swedish pronunciation without considering the assimilation of [r] with following consonants: Gefjun [je:fjʉ:n], Njord [njo:rd], Gerd [jæ:rd], Brage [brɑ:gɛ], Loke [lu:kɛ]. However, the irony is that some of these names are 17th century borrowings from Icelandic, where language evolution was not taken into account, because many names had been forgotten and were rediscovered from Icelandic sources. Sometimes, Swedish has double names, one native and one from Icelandic, e.g. Frö/Frej and Frö(j)a/Freja.--Berig (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frigg - the doubling doesn't change the pronunciation of the consonant, it merely indicates the length of the preceding vowel. (double vowel - short sound like in German, not long as in English). Njord and Skade - long vowels in both, in both languages. 'Gerd' is as Berig says, but it kind of varies. It's certainly a short vowel in the variant 'Gert'. 'Gefjon' is tricky since 'g' pronunciation isn't entirely consistent for names in Norwegian or Swedish, and I've never heard the name spoken. Probably [j] though. Brage is certainly [g] and Loke [k]. The 'g' in Sigyn is [g]. It wouldn't be 'pronounceable' unless another vowel came after 'gy'. --Pykk (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your help! I think I got everything now. --Iceager (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just noticed that in the Wiktionary entry for bygg, the Icelandic pronunciation is given as [pɪkː], suggesting that the spelling gg does correspond to a stop, not a fricative. Wouldn't this be the case for Frigg as well? --Iceager (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Norwegian, the g in Frigg is g the same as the g in "dig". Also, Gerd is pronounced with g as in "girl", at least in the standard eastern dialects. As for Gefjon, I've never heard it pronounced, but I'd expect that too to be as in "girl". I glanced through a dictionary to see if I could come across any words beginning with "ge" (excluding "gei*") that were not pronounced that way, and the only exceptions were some loanwords like "generell" that are pronounced with a [ʃ]. For words beginning with "gei" or "gi", I can see no obvious rule to decide whether it's [g] or [j]. --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help identifying a French exclamation/interjection[edit]

Ok, so there's this PS2 game called Hot Shots Tennis and there's this French (pretty sure) woman on there named Lola. She has this little thing she says sometimes when she hits the ball, that sounds like "My lay!". I know some Spanish and would write it as "Mailé!" or "Mai le!" in that language but do not know how to write phonetically in French. I've looked online for lists of French interjections but found none that would fit. Does anyone who knows some French know what she might be saying?

Thanks much for your assistance. 68.62.204.235 (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps mais oui? It means "of course!". Wiktionary has a useful category of French interjections if you have another question like this. Xenon54 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the interjection is after she missed a shot, my money would be on the less acceptable "merde". 76.97.245.5 (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but you can also try [1]. Indeterminate (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Xenon54, it may be something more like: "mais ouais", "ouais" being the slang for "oui" like you have "yeah" in english ...

reason ("God")[edit]

why is menttioning 'God' profane? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.45.180 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe it to be profane? The word is in the Bible. You can search for it at http://bibletab.com/.

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying something like "oh my god" or simply using it as an interjection is considered swearing by many people, if that's what you mean. It's considered taking God's name in vain (in other words, using it inappropriately), and many Christians avoid saying such exclamations. However, I don't think it's commonly considered profane, exactly. Perhaps used in a profane manner, but not profane in and of itself. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 22:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, in many religions "God" is simply a title, and the god also has a personal name, which is not to be spoken, as a sign of respect, much as one wouldn't have gone up to Queen Victoria, slapped her on the back, and said "How they hangin', Vicky ?". StuRat (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed information about the personal name of God is available at The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[The website http://www.watchtower.org/ is obsolete, but Wayback Machine has archives of The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever indexed at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.watchtower.org/e/na/index.htm. Today the official website is http://www.jw.org, but that publication is not there at this time.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Unfortunately, the form "Jehovah" never existed in Hebrew, and was created by Christian Hebraists by mistake. AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Ten commandments, "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God". --NorwegianBlue^talk 14:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that can be naturally read as referring specifically to the name of God, which no-one's quite sure how to pronounce anyway. Algebraist 14:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as mentioned it goes back to the Jewish taboo of mentioning God's name in any context. A more odd thing I thought of the other day, is considering 'hell' a curse, considering that it has Germanic origins with no negative connotations. Indeed, in the Nordic languages, "helvede/helvete" ("Hell", as in the place) is a mild curse, whereas "slå ihjel/ihjäl" (to kill; lit:"strike to Hel") serves as a milder euphemism for 'dræbe' or 'döda' (to kill). --Pykk (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the word hell in various English translations of the Bible at http://bibletab.com/search--hell.

You can see it compared with other languages at the following pages.

http://multilingualbible.com/psalms/16-10.htm http://multilingualbible.com/acts/2-27.htm http://multilingualbible.com/job/14-13.htm http://multilingualbible.com/jonah/2-2.htm

Those pages do not include the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, so here are links for comparison.

(English), (German), (Portuguese), (Spanish), (French), (Italian), (Swedish), (Polish), (Russian), (Korean), (Japanese)

More information is at What Has Happened to Hellfire? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site.

-- Wavelength (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point with this link spam? Hell is still a Germanic word. It's not a Hebrew one. And it's not consistently used in English translations either. And most of the translations of the word translated to 'hell' are not curses in their respective languages. --Pykk (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My latest message contains 18 links. I included the first one to show that the word is found in some English translations of the Bible. Because of different ideas about what the word really means in the Bible, I selected four passages and included links to multilingual renderings of those passages. Because not all Bible translations are represented there, I also provided links to index pages of some other translations. Because the first link is to a page which includes some translations which use the expression hell fire, I decided that it deserved some explanation, and therefore I included the last link.

As it often happens on this page, answering the original question and even subsequent comments involved mentioning additional points for clarification. Other editors might wish to add other links pertaining to translation and/or explanation of the relevant words. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you extremely prominently linked the "New World Translation", it's only fair to mention that the degree of Greek and Hebrew knowledge of the translators of that version has been frequently questioned. AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because, when used in a nonreligious context, it is profane in the literal sense of a use that is secular, unsanctified, or irreverent. John M Baker (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis, exclamation points, etc.[edit]

Hello. It seems that it's a widely accepted rule to never use multiple contiguous exclamation marks in professional writing, and even to minimize the use of the single exclamation mark as much as possible. But let's say I had to transcribe a very passionate speech where the speaker shouted all the time, and increased his or her volume of voice once in a while. How would I convey the message without using multiple exclamation marks, and without interrupting the discourse? Are italics adequate? What about boldface, is it considered too disruptive in a text, or just right for emphasizing volume of voice? Finally, is using all-capital words and sentences well regarded in professional English writing for this, or not? Thanks in advance, Kreachure (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some expressions for interjections you might be referring to:

- Hey!-exclamation points usually express happy or excited shouts. Used for interjections
- Why?!?!?-Series of exclamation points with question marks expresses a puzzling question.
- why is SHE...- capitalization is common for strong accents. Bolded words are also used.
- no. She did...- The writer tries to make it clear to a particular part (in this case it is "she") with italics.

These aren't used for professional writing in encyclopedias, but useful in vivid writing. Zoo Fari 02:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also say that you have a lot more leeway in transcribing speech than in writing other sorts of documents. If you want to show increasing volume and passion in the speaker's voice, adding multiple exclamation marks and capitalizing may be the only way to effectively convey it.

"Yes, we can."

"Yes, we can!"

"Yes, we can!!"

"YES, WE CAN!!!"

- Eron^Talk 02:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italicisation is common in formal English for emphasis, although normally for single words and parts of sentences. All capitals or small capitals are sometimes used, based on my reading experience, but might be considered slightly non-standard (you could go e.g. normal -> italics -> small caps -> full size caps). Boldface is rarely used in printed English texts (although it seems more common in technical documentation where different typefaces can have different meanings). If the whole speech is passionate, you shouldn't use an exclamation point for every sentence; that would appear odd - you might note that the speech is passionate, and then restrict exclamation points and italicisation to the crucial points. I would add that it's possible to occasionally break normal punctuation rules in literary texts where a special effect is required - you don't say whether this is a factual transcription or a fictional tale involving a speech; you would have much more leeway in the latter. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]