Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 October 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Language desk
< October 6 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 8 >
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.


October 7[edit]

Why does Old English capitalize random words?[edit]

Example:

To ice CREAM. Take Tin Ice-Pots, fill them with any Sort of Cream you like, either plain or sweeten'd, or Fruit in it; shut your Pots very close; to six Pots you must allow eighteen or twenty Pound of Ice, breaking the Ice very small; there will be some great Pieces, which lay at the Bottom and Top: You must have a Pail, and lay some Straw at the Bottom; then lay in your Ice, and put in amongst it a Pound of Bay-Salt; set in your Pots of Cream, and lay Ice and Salt between every Pot, that they may not touch; but the Ice must lie round them on every Side; lay a good deal of Ice on the Top, cover the Pail with Straw, set it in a Cellar where no Sun or Light comes, it will be froze in four Hours, but it may stand longer; than take it out just as you use it; hold it in your Hand and it will slip out. When you wou'd freeze any Sort of Fruit, either Cherries, Rasberries, Currants, or Strawberries, fill your Tin-Pots with the Fruit, but as hollow as you can; put to them Lemmonade, made with Spring-Water and Lemmon-Juice sweeten'd; put enough in the Pots to make the Fruit hang together, and put them in Ice as you do Cream.

--70.245.189.11 (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. What you're asking about is not Old English, just old English. I'm guessing 17-19th century?
  2. German does this as well, it capitalizes all nouns.
  3. That being said, if you look carefully at actual materials from this time period (17th-19th century, I'm still assuming), you'll find that capitalization doesn't follow rules so clearly; some nouns don't get capitalized, and some non-nouns do. Keep in mind that this was before language standardization happened and people weren't necessarily taught how to write (if they were, they were not all taught from the same book), and therefore writing styles varied greatly from one person to another. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in LINGUIST List 6.389: History of Capitalisation in English.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese dialects[edit]

The different Chinese dialects are diverse and one dialect sounds foreign to the other. Can this diversity and variation between equate to the difference in the Romance Languages?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That in fact is the analogy that's usually made to describe the differences between the varieties of Chinese; people will often say "Cantonese and Mandarin are about as different as Spanish and French". You can find this same point being made in many scholarly references; here are two off the top of my head:
  • Mair, Victor (1991). "What Is a Chinese "Dialect/Topolect"? Reflections on Some Key Sino-English Linguistic Terms". Sino-Platonic Papers. 29.
  • Ramsey, Robert. The Languages of China.
rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice summary, Janag! From someone who knows these things. Steewi (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian accent[edit]

Could someone provide a link to a video of someone with a particularly 'strong' Canadian accent. I know there may be variations depending on the region. As with many people, I'm having a hard time differentiating Canadian with General American. -Riibowles (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a pretty wide range of accents in Canada; it's a big country. The stereotypical Canadian accent is sort of like what you find in the Canadian prairies and norther US states. You can find people doing that accent in Bob and Doug McKenzie skits, like here, or the movie Fargo, which actually takes place in North Dakota. You might also be interested in Newfoundlander accents, like this guy, which are quite different from the rest of the country. For the accent of people in big urban places like Toronto, there are certain vowel shifts that differentiate them from the border states, but you'd have to know what you're looking for to tell the difference. Some Americans think that Torontonians have the steriotypical trait of saying "aboot" rather than "about", but that's just because the sound that Torontonians say does not exist in some American dialects, so Americans hear the closest sound to it. Canadians don't sound like they are saying "aboot" to eachother. It's also noteworthy that in French, Quebec has a very different accent from France. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, despite the title, Fargo takes place in Minnesota. 216.93.213.191 (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not "aboot" but there is a difference... maybe more like "aboat". TresÁrboles (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"having a hard time differentiating Canadian [accent] with General American [accent]"? The Canadians are having a hard time differentiating "caught" with "cot" (they, like many Americans in the Midwest, pronounce both words as the Americans pronounce "cot") :) Eliko (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a Canadian, try as I might, I just can't think of two different ways to say "cot" and "caught." Also, the only Canadian accents I've ever been able to distinguish as being separate both from mine (Albertan) and general American (which to me sounds exactly the same as mine and most Canadians) is Newfoundland and even the occasional person in Nova Scotia (where I lived for two years). So it surprises me to hear that the prairies is considered the stereotypical Canadian accent. I've been to nine different states and the only people I found to have a noticeably different accent from Canadians were some (but not all) people in Texas, and people in Boston. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The key difference is the pronunciation of the diphthongs in words such as about and night. Of course, as others have indicated Canadian raising isn't defined by the border between the US and Canada. A mild form of Canadian raising happens in my part of New England (US), and Canadian raising is even more pronounced in parts of Minnesota and the Dakotas (both US). However, Canadian raising does distinguish this accent from General American. Marco polo (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Youtube and search for "hoser". Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or go to YouTube and search for Coach's Corner segments from Hockey Night in Canada, and listen to Ron McLean, who has a strong stereotypical Canadian prairies accent (he will be the normal-looking one on the left - the other guy, the rather flamboyant Don Cherry, also has an accent, but he's from Ontario and it's not as strong). Adam Bishop (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Forvo. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a British person, the accents in the first link above just sound like milder and more pleasant sounding American accents. 92.15.10.67 (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This video, repeats the same sentence, in 21 accents. Listen to the Canadian one, from 00:01:50 untill 00:01:55. The accent preceding it is American (Washington). Eliko (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most Canadians I've met in real life sound more or less like (General) Americans to me. For example, I've only ever encountered one that said "eh?" However... I'm not a hockey fan, but I did see the Chicago Blackhawks victory celebration, and I thought to myself "Whoa, those are some of the most Canadian-sounding people I have ever heard!" Maybe search out video of the speeches; I'm not sure but I think two that exemplified the accent were Jonathan Toews and Duncan Keith (who I see are both from Winnipeg; maybe it's a Winnipeg thing). TresÁrboles (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Turn of the last century"[edit]

If a recent article contained the phrase "at the turn of the last century", would this refer to the years near 1900 or 2000? And by recent, I mean an article written in 2010. thanks!!220.122.189.33 (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, it should mean around 2000, the end of the 20th century. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if many people still absent-mindedly use the phrase to refer to the end of the 19th. Rojomoke (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During the 20th century, "turn of the century" meant "around 1900". So, now that it is the 21st century, "turn of the last century" means "around 1900." Marco polo (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean the second "around 1900" to be "around 2000"? That's what I think it should say. Bielle (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take Marco to be distinguishing between "turn of the century" for 2000 and "turn of the last century" for 1900. --ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colin Fine accurately captures my intention and my understanding of how those terms are now used. Marco polo (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, and there's probably policy somewhere, articles should be written so as to be timeless, which is to say they should not employ phrases that are relative to the date of writing or the presumed date or reading. Thus if a recent article contained the phrase "at the turn of the last century", it would represent an epic fail. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ColinFine, and apologies to you, Marco polo. I both misunderstood and misread. Bielle (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

essay[edit]

i want an essay on oil and petrol conservation and its relavance in day to day life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alallajdszldhsa (talk • contribs) 11:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps you'd better stop playing with Wikipedia and get on and write it. We won't do your homework for you, but you might find some useful material at Oil, Petrol (which redirects to Gasoline) and Energy conservation. --ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese or Japanese translation please[edit]

Can anyone translate this inscription for me please? i think it might be a memorial or grave marker, but don't know.

Thankyou.Melcheeyore (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Chinese and it does appear to be a memorial of some kind, but I can only get the gist (I think it's Classical Chinese, or at least not everyday Chinese). Let's wait to see what the native speakers say ;) rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Begin with a transcription: 卓故領事還來公被害紀念碑. I can only read parts of it, but do not understand it as a whole. The first part looks like a funeral for an incident (perhaps revolving around an embassy?). The last half says something about being a commemorative plaque for damages. 124.214.131.55 (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some people at the Japanese/Chinese WP projects pages are looking as well.
  • 卓故领事还来公被害纪念碑 WP Japan talk page
  • 卓故領事還來公被害紀念碑 WP language desk
slightly different transcriptions. (3rd and 5th characters are different). User:SpuriousQ said:
This could be Chinese, actually. The characters almost match the string "卓故领事还来公被害纪念碑" which appears in this Chinese article http://www.chinaqw.com/node2/node2796/node2882/node2953/node3136/userobject6ai3903.html. I can't read Chinese but it seems to describe a monument in Malaysia for those who died in World War 2. The inscription itself looks to be the name of the monument, says something about "victim's memorial monument/tombstone"
Can anyone shed any further light? Are any names listed? or dates? or incidents? ThankyouMelcheeyore (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no names. Like SupriousQ says, it says something generic along the lines of "this stone is to remember victims" but I can't give an exact translation. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't say something generic, it specifically says "Victim's Memorial for former Consul Lord Zhuo Huanlai" If you've ever read any old Chinese tombstones or funerary inscriptions (墓誌銘）you'd recognize the syntax, it commonly goes "Surname + Former Title + Name + Honorific." 64.70.116.116 (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I misunderstood that part of the inscription; thanks for clearing it up! rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou 64.70.116.116 - it's great to have a full translation.Melcheeyore (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish translation: Artist's archived website contains address: his, or his reps?[edit]

Hello all Finnish speakers, I'm asking a question on behalf of the Art Gallery of Peel. We're trying to find contact information for each of the artists in the collection, and through the Finnish Wikipedia bio of Arnas Hutri, I found an archived version of his defunct website for 2004. Granted, all the info is 2002 or before, but whatever. It contains a page with his email, but I want to know if the address listed is also his. There are Finnish phone listings, but I'm not sure if either are him. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(As far as I can tell) it's an advert for party services at the Artist House, and exhibition space. Assuming Hutri is still involved there, that would be a reasonable place to start if you need to send smail mail. Have you tried sending Email? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As to your question, no, not yet. I don't have any reason to believe he speaks English, so I'm debating which next step to take. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is Finland one of those countries that everyone knows English? -- Zanimum (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, but not quite. With the exception of the elderly and people from sparsely populated rural areas, practically everyone has at least a passable knowledge in English, and most people know the language well enough to correspond with English speakers. The Finnish knowledge of English is not perfect by a long shot - the fact that Finnish is so unlike English causes trivial, but frequent grammar mistakes, but these don't prevent conversation or correspondence. JIP | Talk 19:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Assumed the role of"[edit]

What extra meaning are writers who use this phrase instead of "became" trying to convey? Thanks 92.28.245.77 (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a nuance of impermanence, of gaining a status that may only be a small part of what one is. In everyday speech we might say "Pete, how do you feel about taking on the role of chairperson?" And Pete might ask "How many hours a month would it involve?" You could take on the role of bus driver for an afternoon, but if you entered it as your occupation you would become a bus driver. "Assume the role" adds nothing to "take on the role" but belongs to the formal register - or, if you like, it's pretentious. It might be used by a writer who feels that they have to write "properly", i.e. formally. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.onelook.com/?w=assume&ls=a.—Wavelength (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not about the difference between "assumed the role of" and "taken on the role of". The question is about "assumed the role of" versus "became". Here there is an important a difference in meaning or nuance. Saying "became" means suggests that a person really changed his or status to the new status indicated. Saying "assumed the role of" (or "took on the role of") means suggests that the person did not change his or her status in a substantial way but merely played a new "role" like an actor in a play. This suggests that the "role" is either a part-time activity that does not change the person's basic status. Marco polo (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did see a Wikipedia article where I would have simply used the phrase "got a job as a" rather than the above phrase; but I cannot find it again. 92.15.10.67 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reconsidered my earlier comments and decided that I overstated things. In practice, it would equally be possible to say "In January 2009, Obama became president" or "In January 2009, Obama assumed the role of president". The latter form is what I would call a flowery (overly wordy) way of conveying the same meaning as the former, so the "assumed the role of" does not necessarily convey a different meaning than "became", though it may. For example, it would be possible to say that "When the students broke into small groups, Isaac assumed the role of leader of his group". Whereas you might not be able to say "When the students broke into small groups, Isaac became leader of his group" unless the group voted him in as leader or his status as leader was otherwise openly recognized. Marco polo (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't my response clear? There's a permanency nuance (taking on role vs becoming) and a difference of register (because "assume" is formal). Itsmejudith (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectives from names[edit]

There's Orwellian, darwinian, Spanish has quitesco. Any others, English or foreign? Grsz11 15:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Grsz meant qijotesco. Pallida  Mors 17:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I was trying to look back through the novel I saw it in and couldn't find it. Grsz11 17:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In English it's quixotic. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]
We have a list of eponymous adjectives in English. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I like beethovenian (pronounced bay-toh-VEE-nian). No Wikipedia page, but a Google search shows it is common. Pfly (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought it was pronounced more like "bay-toh-venn-ian" since the man's name was "bay-toh-venn". 92.15.10.67 (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the -venian is pronounced to rhyme with Fenian. Your premise is false: it's not "bay-toh-venn", but "bait-HO-vən". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What, no "Beethovenian"? I'll soon fix that. There are over 7,000 ghits for "Whitlamesque", which we also fail to mention. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is common in French too ("Gaulliste", "Napoléonique", etc). Latin also did it, maybe even more often than English or French; for example, if you look at List of Roman laws, lots of them just take the name of whoever proposed them, and treat it as a feminine adjective along with "lex", like "Lex Julia", from the name Julius. Another example is the Roman name of the Colosseum, Amphitheatrum Flavium, using the name Flavius as an adjective. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: it's napoléonien(s), napoléonienne(s), not napoléonique and French adjectives are not capitalized. — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shakespearean Googlemeister (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We also have this in Romanian. Ceauşist, for example. Rimush (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dickensian. Like "Shakespearean", one of the few times a writer's name is given to an entire section of time and area. "Dickensian" can mean "In the manner of Charles Dickens", but is usually used as a byword to the worst excesses of the Industrial Revolution on the working poor. Matt Deres (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is completely true to say that Dickensian relates to a period of time, but more to the particuular environment and culture depicted in his books. You could have a "Dickensian slum" somewhere in the 21st. century. 92.15.10.67 (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Victorian, Edwardian, Elizabethan... 92.15.10.67 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why people are coming up with names that are on the full list that Sluzzelin provided above. We need only mention names that are not already on the list. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We call that a jackofozian post. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thank you for that singular honour, Tag (and I mean singular: it has exactly 0 ghits). Is that what's called a Tagishsimonian eponymisation? If not, it should be.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Churchillian HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was very proud to have "Wittgensteinian" in a published manuscript. Steewi (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've once used the near-unreadable Atiyahian. Spanish often uses wagneriano as a textbook example of a word with w in that language. -- the Great Gavini 04:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bradmanesque. (For those unfamiliar with the term, it's from the name of the greatest batsman to ever play cricket, Don Bradman, and naturally used to describe another very good player or batting performance.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a side topic, we had a short but interesting discussion a few months ago here on why some eponymous adjectives end with -ian and others with -esque. --Viennese Waltz 07:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milliganesque. From Spike Milligan. 1300 hits on Google. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The -iyan or -ian ending is very common in Armenian names. It's more or less equivalent to the Serbian -ovic or the Russian -ovsky/evsky. It's not adjectival in the same sense that Chekhovian means 'pertaining to Anton Chekhov'. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ellingtonian is often used in jazz literature, even in some WP articles (e.g. Mama Too Tight and The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady). I think eponymous adjectives have been created spontaneously in books and journalism for just about every famous person, but when do which of these adjectives enter a dictionary? Wiktionary even has an entry for Bushian. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionaries probably accept a word as valid when a wide variety of places have used it, rather than just one or a few isolated places. But these days, being in a dictionary or not is not a test that most people would apply to whether or not a word is valid. The burgeoning of online sites that discuss and analyse word usage, and in some cases encourage neologisms, means that if it's out there, it's fair game. And people are very inventive, bless them. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We used to have Rhodesian, but now that the country has turned into Zimbabwe, I'm not sure if it's ever used these days. I guess it would still be used historically. Are we allowed to claim the two step process of Name -> Country -> adjective? HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The /ro-dee-zhun/ pron would continue to refer to the country under its former name. But it might be possible to call something /roads-ian/ in direct reference to Cecil Rhodes. Such as the wonderful (but possibly apocryphal) statement that's been attributed to him: "You, sir, are an Englishman, and have therefore won first prize in the lottery of life". I'm not sure how you would make readers understand that "Rhodesian" in such a context is to be pronounced not like the way it's usually pronounced, but the possibility remains. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DECtalk voice of Stephen Hawking[edit]

What regional American accent does it have?

I recall another earlier speech synthesiser. I wonder if what became thought of as a robotic voice to British ears was simply due to the phonemes being recorded by someone with a very heavy regional American accent. 92.15.10.67 (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but he should update it. There are much better voice generation systems now, and his is like 1980s quality. Hard to understand at times. --Lgriot (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He actually did just that in 2009, according to our article. He is using a state-of-the-art synthesizer from NeoSpeech. decltype (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read that he has made a conscious decision not to update his voice, because he is now recognised worldwide for the voice which he has used for years. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have the technical reference manual for DECtalk 4.3, IIRC released in 1996. I can't find it online at the moment, but in chapter five, which is about phonemes, it says: "Dectalk attempts to mimic a Midwestern (Northern Milwaukee) dialect". DECtalk versions above 4.4 sound very strange and nothing like Stephen Hawking's DECtalk voice. Graham87 03:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the DECtalk synthesiser doesn't use recordings of people's voices; it uses formant synthesis, which is based on a model of the human vocal tract. Graham87 03:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2010_October_7&oldid=1136079518"