Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 January 18

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.

January 18

Bitch

Is this a black insult? Kittybrewster ☎ 02:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What's a "black insult"? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "Bitch" a black insult? Kittybrewster ☎ 03:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's generally an insult regardless of race or creed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, depending on context. "You're a bitch" (i.e., directed directly at someone) is definitely an insult, but "I'm cruisin' with mah bitch" may not be. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It can be used affectionately, regardless of race. When directed at someone you don't know well or don't have that kind of relationship with, it's typically quite offensive... regardless of race. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have to ask whether it's an insult, yes, it's an insult. I can't imagine any situation where it wouldn't be an insult when used towards a person, although I suppose if you life your life in a microcosm based on The Wire, it might be affectionate in an ironic, "this is how we talk in the Hood" sort of way. Of course, when referring to female canines, the word is perfectly acceptable to use. Paul Davidson (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not in my vocabulary, but evidently some women find it affectionate or even erotic in the right circumstances. In that way it's like other words considered sexist, racist or obscene. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I know w gay male couple who use it to and about each other frequently

Do you mean "Is this an insult if directed at black people", or "is this an insult that is commonly used by black people", or "is this an insult used by black people more than anyone else", or do you mean something else entirely? Marnanel (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking if there's an ethnic/racial basis to this being an insult, the answer is blatantly "no". Black people in different continents are as likely or unlikely to share attitudes towards insults as white people. As this is such an obvious impossibility, I assume you're asking if it's a "black as in terrible" insult, in which case the answer is surely, "it depends on cultural sensitivities, context and the personality of the insulter and insulted". --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• In case anyone for forgot what a bitch is. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Motley

What is the etymology of motley?174.3.106.27 (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll find it here: [1]. --Omidinist (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Invitation card

In an invitation card for a dinner, what is to wriiten in the invitation card, "you are invited " " For Dinner" or " At Dinner". Which is the correct usage?Can you please clarify? sumal (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

British English speaker here: I'd say "to dinner". "For dinner" means you will be eaten by the guests, and "at dinner" means you will be the entertainment which takes place at the dinner. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In the USA also, the best way would be to say "to dinner". "For dinner" is often used colloquially, but there's no point in inviting jokes. "At dinner" would not be used in an invite. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

American here also, and "to dinner" is definitely the best. "At dinner" is confusing, and "for dinner" is potentially funny (think cannibalism), though interestingly enough it is used in spoken English. But stick with "to dinner" for a written invitation. Moncrief (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"At" typically only comes into it when describing where and when the event is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, "We're having dinner at the club at 8pm" is great. But the asker's question wondered about the construction "You are invited at dinner," which doesn't scan at all. Moncrief (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What about "... request your company at dinner" (which I admit doesn't use "you are invited", but might be causing some slight confusion.) 128.232.241.211 (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The "for" ambiguity is pretty common here; a common joke is something along the lines of "We're having the Joneses for dinner tomorrow night". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There's also Lecter's last line in The Silence of the Lambs: "I do wish we could chat longer, but... I'm having an old friend for dinner. " AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And then there are those who know how to serve man. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

[2] Kittybrewster ☎ 22:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And the joke that covers all the bases is one scene in Rocky Horror: "What's for dinner?" and the audience cries, "Meat Loaf!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For dinner is reasonably understandable, and most people will understand it to be the less cannibalistic of the two possible interpretations (people are generally intelligent, despite evidence to the contrary). However, to be unambiguous, to dinner is perfectly acceptable, and is probably best for a formal invitation. Steewi (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ways to refer to use of sign languages in English

Hi, I have a question regarding how sign languages are referred to in academic English. For example, if someone is a native speaker of BSL is it correct to say "they speak BSL"? Or is it more accurate to say "they sign BSL"? Or do we be as vague as possible and just say something like "they can communicate using BSL"? Is there a consensus on this in linguistics literature, or on the English Wikipedia itself regarding the correct terminology? --129.11.12.201 (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As you probably know, the article you link to uses the verb "to use" throughout, pretty consistently. The infobox uses the verb "to sign". So looks like "they sign bsl" or "they use bsl" is the consensus in this article, haven't looked at any others though. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

From memory, the BBC programme "See Hear"[3] often uses the verb "to sign" instead of "to speak". Alansplodge (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The OP asked about academic language, and there I agree that something like "sign" or "use" is probably best; but informally, I have no problem saying that someone speaks a sign language. And I certainly have no problem - even in academic writing - referring to someone as a native speaker of a sign language. I'd never say "native signer". +Angr 18:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Subordinate clause, or complete sentence

Resolved

Which means you no longer have to carry both a camera and a camcorder, if you're happy with average video quality.

I presume this is not a proper sentence (such as in an article), even though people would use it when speaking, but I may be wrong. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a complete sentence but it's fine for informal writing. The kind of writing where you use the contraction "you're". Itsmejudith (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly does that mean? Certainly, you can send your friend an email containing this sentence...but to publish it in a monthly magazine? Are you equating informality with incorrect grammar at will? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It means what it looks like, it would just only be used in a certain context (specifically, after some other statement of fact). For example, this camera has the ability to record video bla bla bla bla bla..... Which means, in effect, you no longer have to carry both.... It's exactly the same as saying "This means..." or "...therefore", which likewise are not stand-alone sentences even though they are full sentences. (That is to say, they have subjects and predicates, but they wouldn't mean much if said in isolation.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This means we're done. :) Thanx so much for that! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

'Must not' in past tense?

This is something that's been bothering me for some time. Is it grammatical to use "must not" when referring to something that someone had to do in the past? For example, if I am telling a story about someone who crossed a wobbly bridge over a raging torrent, I might write "he must not fall". But "must" normally sounds to me like a present state and therefore incorrect in this case. Is there an alternative? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Must" is a defective verb. You had to say something like "you had to say something like this instead" instead. Marnanel (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But in my example, I need the negative element as well. What do you suggest? "He had not to fall"? That doesn't sound very good. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"He had to not fall" is what I would use. --129.11.12.201 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"He couldn't fall" (or "he absolutely couldn't fall") often works if the context is appropriate. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but that doesn't sound right since it literally means "he was not able to fall", i.e. that the bridge was sufficiently strong to prevent him from falling. Although, as you say, the context would probably make it clear. I'm looking for a lexically and grammatically correct way of saying this in the past tense; maybe there isn't one? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Using "must" as the past tense of itself used to be more common than it is now. I remember the first time I encountered it was in a Little Nemo cartoon from the early 20th century. It said something like "Nemo woke up in the middle of the night and was so thirsty that he must get up and get a drink of water." Nowadays we'd say "...that he had to get up...". For your example, I don't really like either "he had not to fall" or "he had to not fall" and would probably recast the sentence, perhaps as "he had to be careful not to fall" or "it was essential for him not to fall" or something like that. +Angr 16:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong though it may be, I'm sure I've seen it in fiction – more recent than Little Nemo! You get some latitude when you're expressing the character's thoughts, even in third person. —Tamfang (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But then in my head, it doesn't sound like past tense - the scene goes wavy and the reader is transported back to that time, and then in that dream world, the "must" is in present tense. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"He knew he must not fall." Past tense. It works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Depending on the context, it's usually put into past tense as "He could not..." if he was phyisically (or possibly ethically) restrained, or "He was not able to"", or "He was not allowed to" if he had not the permission to do so. Steewi (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

To avoid this, you could write something like "Failure was not an option". --TammyMoet (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"up to the age of", or "until"?

Some people write "up to the age of 6", other people write "until the age of 6". I'd like to know if there is any difference between the two possibilities.

• Is there a difference of meaning?
• Is there a difference in the use of these possibilities? E. g., does it make a difference whether the chief interest is in the time before something changed, or in the time when it did change?
• Is there a difference in style (standard English or colloquial English)?
• Or is there merely a difference in individual or regional preferences?

Thank you in advance. -- Irene1949 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the meaning is identical, with "until the age of 6" a smoother and more readable construction (to me at least). As an American, I wonder if British contributors would say the same thing. "up to the age of 6" strikes me as slightly more British English. But, yes, "He was a happy child up to the age of 6" and "He was a happy child until the age of 6" have the same meaning. An even more concise way to say it would be "He was a happy child until he turned 6" (or, "until his sixth birthday," if you wanted to be that precise). Moncrief (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

BrEng: No preference. I think I'm more likely to say "until", no real difference (more likely to be followed by "but now" or similar). Both could mean the start or end of such a year. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. -- Irene1949 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Finnish: Original Book Titles

Sometimes the translation of a book is published with a title which is not the translation of the original title. Evidently the title of the German translation of Leena Lehtolainen's book "Tappava Säde" is not the translation of the original title (as Säde is the name of the first-person narrator of the book, and it is not in the German title). Can you tell me what "Tappava Säde" means?

And can you tell me what "Luonas en ollutkaan" means? (It is the title of Leena Lehtolainen's most recent book, as far as I see.)

Thank you in advance. -- Irene1949 (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Killer Ray" and "I wasn't with you after all" should give you the basic meaning. The word säde means ray, as in a ray of light. Thus the first title tells you directly that the book is about Säde who kills, while evoking the idea of a "lethal ray" (as in a sci-fi ray gun) to anyone who doesn't know the name of the narrator. The second title is a complete sentence in familiar, informal words, but the grammatical form is very poetic. All in all, translating the titles directly appears to be difficult, so it's no wonder the translator went with something else. 85.156.181.43 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's interesting. So the meaning of "Luonas en ollutkaan" is quite similar to the meaning of the German title, "Ich war nie bei dir", meaning "I never was with you".

Your information about "Tappava Säde" is even more interesting. So this title is ambiguous: "Säde" can mean a ray as well as it can mean a person. Of course it would have been difficult to translate such an ambiguity into German. By the way, the German title is a bit ambiguous too: It's "Zeit zu sterben", in English "Time to die". It is ambiguous as it might be the question: "Whose time to die?" And it is ambiguous as it is not clear if it just means: "The time has come that somebody will die", or if it means "The time has come that somebody should die (and somebody (else) will do something to make it happen)". At least in German, that's a bit ambiguous. -- Irene1949 (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Texting

What is the past tense of texting?

He texted me. (an hour ago). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.242.71 (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

wikt:text#Verb says "texted". I have heard "text" used as the past participle, but it is less common. --Tango (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also heard "text" used in the past tense. My theory is that people do this because it sounds like a verb in the past tense: "texed", so to speak. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 19:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In the Raleigh area of North Carolina, I have never heard anything but "texted" for the past tense. Falconus^{p t c} 12:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I say "texted" (I'm not from round here), but where I live in north-east England I hear "text" more often than not. I have actually seen a schoolchild's work in which "texed" was used in just this way, so Richard's probably spot on. Karenjc 14:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh. Where I live, we don't use "text" as a verb. We say "send an SMS" instead. +Angr 14:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Weird! You also don't use "skippen" as the past participle of "to skype"?·Maunus·ƛ· 14:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Skype - skope - skippen? (Or skypen - skipp - geskippen?) Cute, but no. +Angr 15:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Where I live, people even use "essemmessle" as the (diminutive) infintive form and "gessemmessled" for the participle. See this article by Franz Hohler which also mentions the diminutive verb "simsle" ---Sluzzelin talk 15:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah "SMS" as a verb is ubiquitous here in Austria, but that doesn't stop me from using "text" instead :) --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Most people say "texted" without thinking; some say "text" and dislike "texted". Comments from linguists on this: Arnold Zwicky here and Ben Zimmer here. jnestorius^(talk) 22:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility of North American dialects of French

If I put together four adults — one from Paris, one from Port-au-Prince, one from Cajun-speaking areas of southern Louisiana, and one from Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon — who knew no language except the version of French that they had learned as children, would everyone be able to understand each other? I expect that the Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon native could converse with the Parisian without difficulty, but (1) am I correct with that, and (2) what about the others? Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

For Port-au-Prince, are you thinking of a speaker of French, or a speaker of Haitian Creole (which is based on French)? Haitian Creole would not be intelligible to French speakers. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that a Parisian could communicate easily with a resident of Saint Pierre et Miquelon. "The local accent and many of the words used are similar to the Norman language," in the words of the Saint Pierre et Miquelon Wikipedia article, but children learn standard French there in school, and in any case, even if they never attended school (which they all do), with their access to French-language mass media and since their language is basically standard French with some Norman-derived words thrown in, intelligibility with Parisians would not be an issue. As stated above, Haitian Creole would be unintelligible to a Parisian (it's an entirely different language, after all), although upper-class Haitians (admittedly a tiny minority of the population) also generally know standard French. Louisiana Cajun I don't know enough about. (Edited to add: St. Pierre et Miquelon is the only of those three places that is actually part of France (true story). So the school curriculum is the same as in mainland France, and so on. Moncrief (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm pretty sure Parisian French, Canadian French, and Cajun French are mutually intelligible. I as a non-native speaker at least have no difficulty understanding the lyrics of Cajun French songs based on my knowledge of European French. (But be aware that in addition to Cajun French, there is also Louisiana Creole French, which is not a dialect of French but rather a French-lexified Creole, which probably isn't intelligible to Parisian French speakers, though it may be intelligible to Haitian Creole speakers.) +Angr 21:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so I forgot to look at the article on Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon; sorry. I know that Montréal and Paris can converse easily, but I wasn't entirely sure that this similarity continued to the small islands. As far as Haïti, I meant an average person, not someone from the educated élite; I went to college with a native of Port-au-Prince, but I never thought to ask her about this. And finally, I meant to say Cajun, not Louisiana Creole, as I'd looked at the latter article and observed that they were quite different. Nyttend (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

On the news coverage from Haiti, I've been able to make some sense of what was being said by the locals with my schoolboy French. Perhaps the newscrews only spoke to those who could speak "standard" French, or perhaps it is more widely spoken than Moncreif suggests. I do after all, sometimes struggle with the stronger Carribbean-English dialects you hear in London. I've heard it said that Parisians sometimes pretend that they don't understand French Canadians, just to assert their supposed superiority. Whether this is true or a foul slur on Parisians I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The numbers in Haitian Creole sound exactly like those in French, but are spelt differently. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(to Alansplodge) It is rumoured that Parisians pretend not to understand speakers of many varieties of French, not only Canadian French. However, it is true (according to the Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia) that TV programmes and films produced in joual, the basilect of Quebec French, are subtitled for the French audience. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

В in Russian

When I see written Russian, I'll often see the word "В", which I guess to be a preposition — e.g. the main page of ru:wp says "Добро пожаловать в Википедию" and "Сейчас в Википедии 483 362 статьи на русском языке". Is this pronounced like I'd pronounce the sound of the letter "V" (a voiced labiodental fricative), without a vowel? Or is there a vowel included in the pronunciation but not in the spelling? I don't see the answer at Ve (Cyrillic). Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's just /v/ without any vowel. But that's not too bad because as a preposition it's always followed by another word, so it just attaches to the beginning of that word, creating a consonant cluster. Before a voiceless consonant, it becomes devoiced to /f/. However, before certain consonant clusters, it becomes во, which does have a vowel (in both spelling and pronunciation). +Angr 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

'к' (/k/) and 'с' (/s/) are also prepositions in Russian. Like 'в' they take forms with a vowel ('ко' and 'со') in certain contexts, but are normally simply cliticised onto the following noun without an intervening vowel. 'С' can be hard to hear before a word beginning with 'с'. --ColinFine (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Particularly words that already start with a double c, like cсылки. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that, other than н, none of the double consonants in Russian actually indicate a longer pronunciation unless it's across a word boundary. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You can see information for Bulgarian, Macedonian, Russian, and Serbian at wikt:в. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried Wiktionary, but didn't find it; perhaps I searched for B, the Latin letter, instead of В, the Cyrillic letter? Thanks for the pointers! Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You may have also searched for capital В instead of lowercase в. Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary is case-sensitive even for the first letter of an entry. +Angr 09:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Lurch in Brazil

In Lurch (The Addams Family) this has bugged me for a long time:

In Brazil, he is known as Tropeço ("to stumble, trip over").

I know enough to say with confidence that tropeço is not an infinitive, but is it a first person verb? a noun? something else? —Tamfang (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a first-person verb ("I stumble"), per http://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/trope%C3%A7ar (expand the "Conjugação" section there). Moncrief (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It can also be a noun. "um tropeço" can also mean "a stumbling block", for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Belated thanks. —Tamfang (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)