This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Medeis (talk | contribs) at 20:49, 19 May 2017 (→'not' favourable: re-open clarified question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/L

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 12

"Are you embarrassed of me ?"

This phrase is used in a TV ad running in the US now (the father, wearing a dog suit, is instructed by his daughter to let her off a block from the school, but it turns out it's the ugly car that embarrasses her). However, this phrasing just seems wrong. I would change it as follows:

"Are you embarrassed of me ?" -> "Do I embarrass you ?"

But, oddly, I would do the reverse with the word "shame":

"Do I shame you ?" -> "Are you ashamed of me ?"

Does everyone agree with my preferred usages ? If so, is there some reason these phrases are treated differently, or is it just an oddity of how they have been used in the past ? StuRat (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

ngrams analysis shows that "embarrassed of" is almost entirely unknown, especially in comparison to the more common "embarrassed by". --Jayron32 16:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• To my (American) ear, "are embarrassed of" sounds totally normal, as does "are embarrassed by". The former puts more emphasis on the person who is embarrassed, with "embarrassed" being an adjective derived from a verb, while the latter is a passive verb construction putting a bit more emphasis on the person (or car) that is doing the embarrassing thing. Maybe this is a regionalism? Loraof (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. To my American ear "are embarrassed of" sounds completely wrong. Changing to the noun form, "you have an embarrassment of a car" sounds proper, though overly dramatic. (Of course, Jayron32's ngram analysis is more informative than my personal opinion.)--Wikimedes (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It sounds completely wrong in British English too. Is it some regional American usage that has been picked up by the advertisers? Dbfirs 19:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Must be. It certainly sounds wrong here in Detroit. Loraof, where are you from ? StuRat (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't pin it down to the region where I got it, because I've lived in 10 different states and one territory. I grew up in Buffalo and upstate South Carolina. Loraof (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"...are embarrassed of..." sounds fine to my southern Ontario ears (as does the "by" version), though now that I think about it, "by" makes more logical sense. Matt Deres (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I became aware of these weird (to me) changes in the English language around the year 2000. The first one I heard was "be bored of me" (instead of "bored with me"). That almost drove me to drink. Then "embarrassed of me" (instead of "embarrassed by me"). About the same time, I began to hear "if you would have come" (instead of "if you had come"). And 17 years later, these barbarisms still make my eyes water. And there are others. Suddenly, people are prefixing every story/explanation with "so": Judge: How did the accident occur? Plaintiff: So I was driving south on Main. —Stephen (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Two lines I can't make out in a song in a Norwegian dialect

It's this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZO3MmYaQng

I would be grateful if a native speaker can take a listen to a couple of seconds of it. I don't think I'll need a translation of the lines, just seeing them in written form would be enough. The lines I can't make out are the following (I include the preceding and following sentences):

0:33-0:38: (og ringte for å sjekke) ............... (det vakke så lett å skjønne hva a sa.)

01:04-1:06: (den fyste kvelden gikk jeg for meg sjøl;) .............. (- hadde lyst på litt øl.) Thanks,

--84.238.136.52 (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinging User:NorwegianBlue (who may not be following this page as he hasn't posted here in a while). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

0:33-0:38: (og ringte for å sjekke) å det kosta dette huset (det vakke så lett å skjønne hva a sa.)

"å det kosta" = "hva det kostet".

(den fyste kvelden gikk jeg for meg sjøl;) på den lokale kroa (- hadde lyst på litt øl.)

--NorwegianBlue 21:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I would have never been able to make sense of these lines! I actually could hear 'kroa', but I couldn't recognise 'LOkale', probably because of the dialectal/folksy initial stress. And I frankly still can't quite wrap my mind around his pronunciation of 'dette huset', but it certainly makes sense in context! Cheers,--84.238.136.52 (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You're very wellcome. It's my pleasure to assist! I'm puzzled that you find the pronunciation of "dette huset" difficult. He's saying "detta huset, which is very common in South-eastern Norway, at least in informal speech. The same speakers who pronounce "dette" as "detta" will tend to put the stress on the first syllable in words like lokale(t), garasje, banan, telefon etc. etc. The most exotic dialectal variations in the soundclip to my ear was "å det kosta", which was really pronounced "å det koste". Both "å" instead of "hva" and "koste" instead of "kosta" are regional variations. I cannot pinpoint them on a map, but my guess would be than they originated in one side of Mjøsa or the other. I'm no expert in Norwegian dialects, and will gratefully be corrected should an expert come along. --NorwegianBlue 22:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

May 13

Conocer with or without the a?

I was recently at a store that had a sign that said this in bold letters: "Conozca nuestro Gerente y comparta su experiencia de __________." Having learned Spanish as a foreign language in secondary school, I think the conocer should be complemented with a personal a. Saber means knowledge of facts, while conocer means knowledge of people. Then, I did a quick search and found some examples that suggested it might be acceptable to not have the personal a. Still not sure if they are correct, though. What is the rule for using the personal a? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You definitely would not leave out personal a in ¿Conoces tú al profesor?. Here it doesn't sound too grating, but that may because in speech the -a ending of the verb would tend to be combined with the preposition. My feeling is that it is substandard. You wouldn't leave it out in "Primero, maten a todos los abogados…" μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• My informant has confirmed that Conozca nuestro Gerente y comparta su experiencia... is uneducated, and typical of second generation immigrants to America. The personal a is mandatory here in standard Spanish. "Gerente" should not be capitalized either, it's another Anglicism. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It's common for second generation immigrants to write conozca nuestro gerente because "conozca" and "conozca a" are pronounced exactly the same. If a different form of conocer had been used, such as conoces, the personal a would have a distinct sound and would probably have been written. —Stephen (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Stephen, I said exactly that in the first answer on this thread. But thanks for the support. Gracias por apollarme. μηδείς (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the nitpicking, μηδείς, but it should be "apoyarme" (with a Y rather than LL). The pronunciation would still be the same, though! :) –FlyingAce 03:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It was an intentional, inside joke, "to stick me with a chicken". But I am glad someone is paying attention. :)

μηδείς (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Diacritical mark on the e in wretched and winged

I don't get why wretched and winged both have two syllables instead of one. Sometimes when written, there is a diacritical mark above the last e. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "wretched" has 2 syllables but "winged" seems like 1 to me. "Saying "wretched" as one syllable would sound like "retched", meaning "vomited". StuRat (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• There are two meanings for "winged". The past tense of "to wing" (to shoot at a bird but only hit the wing) has one syllable. The adjective that means something has wings (the mythical winged lion) has two syllables. -Arch dude (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, dictionaries agree that "winged" as an adjective can be pronounced with one syllable. See in: Collins, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Oxford, and MacMillan. However, the first three of those say that the two-syllable pronunciation also exists. Collins specifically associates the two-syllable version with US and poetic usage. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

See also Grave_accent#English.--Shantavira| 06:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

When such words were used in poetry or in songs, there was a custom of adding the accent to the final "e" to indicate that it should be emphasised (to fit the required metric pattern). It was particularly common on the word "blessed" when used in hymns. Wymspen (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the 2-syllable version is still more prevalent, and not just in hymns. The 1-syllable version crops up as a past tense verb in simple declarative statements like "The priest blessed the child", "I've been blessed with good health", that sort of thing. But the 2-syllable version is most everywhere else, including all or most adjectival/gerundive uses: the Blessed Sacrament, the Blessed Trinity, of blessed memory, Brian Blessed, Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta (before she was canonized) ... -- Jack of Oz 22:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Lord, I hope she was deceased before she was cannonized! μηδείς (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• It's the loss of the vowel between Chaucer and Shakespeare that needs to be explained, not its retention in certain cases. Originally, all simple past verbs in -ed pronounced it as a full syllable: "roll-ed" and "ask-ed" had two syllables. Over time, the -ed was assimilated to a -t after voiceless consonants and -d after voiced consonants and vowels, except in words ending in the dental consonants "t" and "d" where confusion would result (you would not be able to distinguish wound from woundd with the vowel missing.

Stu has it right that in many cases adjectives like wretched would be confused with other words. The usage continues in archaic forms "dearly beloved", poetry (or where meter matters), and where two different senses exist: "learned" meaning "educated, adj." and meaning "was taught". That the wretched forms are original is shown in texts from Shakespeare to the 19th century, where the silent e was replaced by an apostrophe--the writers were aware the original sound was being dropp'd.

BTW simple past and English_verbs#Past_tense have absolutely no references, and seem to be written by people without the historical knowledge to explain the phenomenon. Here's a source from the OED, scroll down to the weak past tense. μηδείς (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Obligatory reference. Henry 21:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I actually had a Taxi driver once tell me I was "wise and learnèd" after I asked him what his life was like in Nepal. (No American had ever guessed his origin.) The fact his name was Indic while his appearance was Tibetan was a dead giveaway. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Then, of course,there's the doubly enigmatic Ms. Michael Learnèd. μηδείς (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed the link. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't refactor other's comments. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

How to find language partner for Cajun French?

Hello, I am from Latin America and I am visiting the US and Canada for one year and part of that time I have an internship nearby Lafayette, in the state of Louisiana. I am told that there are many French speakers there in that part Louisiana, but theyre French is very different. Before I move there in October I would ask to get some practise learning Cajun French (I speak a very little Europe French). Is there some web site where I can ask and find a person who can tutor me maybe over Skype? And I can teach language or music lessons for as an exchange. Thanks for advise! 209.197.170.140 (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'd just suggest you study up on your French and maybe buy a book on Cajun vocab. For example, look up the origin of the term Zydeco. Accent is pretty easy to pick up, and the Cajuns should understand you, even if you don't understand them. It's like being American, and watching a Monty Python sketch in a heavy local British accent. You get it eventually. Hopefully someone else has an actual source, but youtube might be a good place to start. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that only about 10% of Lafayette residents speak some form of French at home (and I would guess that the overwhelming majority of them are fluent in English as well), so it's certainly not necessary to learn any French of any variety to get around there. But it's definitely a fun way to experience some of the local culture. There are some resources here, but the free online course offered by Tulane that they link to sadly seems to have disappeared from the Internet entirely. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not Cajun French they need to learn, but Cajun English, by which I mean English, but with the addition of all those terms and pronunciations that have made it into English from Cajun French. It's quite unlikely they would ever be required to speak any form of French in Louisiana, as businesses there will mostly cater to English speakers. A good start might be in watching videos on Cajun cooking, like this one from Justin Wilson (chef): . In that one 10 minute video I heard "sausage" pronounced "sawseej", "onion" pronounced "annie-on", "siren" pronounced "sireen", "chicken" pronounced "shicken", "things" pronounced "tings", and "gizzard" pronounced with the emphasis on the last syllable. The terms borrowed from French I heard were roux and andouille. He also used the unusually phrasing "What I'm gonna did" and he opened with a joke. So, this is a more entertaining way to learn Cajun English. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The user already speaks English, and actually seems intersted in Cajun French, but this is the "what the OP is really thinking even though he didn't say so desk", so quien suis-je de penser? μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The OP doesn't speak Cajun English and seems to be under the false impression that they need to learn Cajun French to communicate in Louisiana. This appears to be an example of the XY Problem, currently being discussed on the talk page, where they really want to learn how to best communicate with the natives there, but, due to their false assumption that this means they need to learn Cajun French, asked us about that instead. Further, they currently speak "very little Europe French", and learning Cajun French from that point would be an huge undertaking, while they seem competent in English (other than using "theyre" when they should have used "their"), so picking up Cajun English from that point would be far easier, and more useful for the desired task. StuRat (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• The OP doesn't need to learn any French (Cajun or otherwise) to fully communicate with anyone in Louisiana. Everyone, even those for whom Cajun French is a native language, speaks perfectly fine (if accented) English, and they should be perfectly capable of communicating in Standard English. If they just want to learn Louisianian French for a sense of the culture, or out if idle interest in the subject, music may be the best way to get into it. Louisiana French literature may be harder to come by, but the music is pretty rich, Cajun music and especially the Zydeco varient, are rich musical traditions. The word Zydeco is actually an English corruption of the song "Les Haricots sont pas salés" (The Green beans Arem't Salty) That link is to a version of the song by Cajun French band leader Ambrose Thibodeaux (he doesn't have a Misplaced Pages article but here is his AllMusic profile). I would look up recordings of his songs and other traditional Cajun artists; such as Clifton Chenier (King of Zydeco) it may give you some insight into the Cajun culture. --Jayron32 18:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Other little bits of Cajun French culture, as I think on it, are phrases and words like "Laissez les bons temps rouler" and the word "Lagniappe". --Jayron32 19:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

May 14

Cow-Honeybourne

How did Honeybourne get its name? The article indicates the place in England goes back centuries, but does not give any indication of the origin. And more odd are the related "honeybone," "honeybum," "honeybun" and still stranger "Cow-Honeybourne." I seem to recall an Old Testament story about bees making an animal skull into a hive, which would be a kind of "honeybone." . A "honeybun" in some parts of the US is a large donut-like thing. "Bourne" or burn is an old word for stream. A website says it is from "pre-7th century old English "hunig" or pure and "burna" or brook. Does this seem plausible? I could only verify the "brook" part with online Old English dictionaries.And how did the "Cow" get added?Edison (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I have two good place-name dictionaries here, Eilert Ekwall's Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names and A. D. Mills' Dictionary of English Place-Names. They're agreed that the first element comes from Old English hunig, "honey", and the second from Old English burna, "stream", the whole thing meaning "(places on) the stream by which honey is found". They differ about the first word in Cow Honeybourne. Ekwall speculates that it "is no doubt cow the animal", but Mills finds a 1374 reference to the village as Calewe Honiburn, and therefore derives it from OE calu, "bare, lacking vegetation", which seems much more likely. Both of your links show that the surnames Honeybun, Honeybum etc. come from the place-name rather than any Old Testament stories, and Reaney and Wilson's Dictionary of English Surnames confirms it. Like you, I couldn't find the meaning "pure" for hunig in any online Old English dictionaries. --Antiquary (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added an etymology to the Honeybourne article. --Antiquary (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

A bare place, lacking vegetation, where there is lots of honey? Edison (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The stream that the village lies on is called the Honeyborne. On my road atlas it looks 8 or 10 miles long. I suppose the villages were named from the stream (in fact now I look Ekwall specifically says so) and Cow Honeybourne was the bare spot on it. Of course, why anyone would choose to settle at such a place is another question. --Antiquary (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Lacking vegetation? Ideal – means you don't have to spend months chopping down trees and burning off other vegetation to clear a place to build your houses and plant crops. Remember that the primaeval state of most of England (post ice-age) was thick forest before we began to populate and modify the landscape. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. The "Cow" spot might have been an exception to an otherwise bee-friendly stream. Edison (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Chinese quotation style

In Chinese, what is the proper format to attribute a quote to its author and work, or song lyrics to the singer and song name? I mean something like:

”千里之行，始于足下。“

－－老子《道德经》

or

你问我爱你有多深，我爱你有几分

－－《月亮代表我的心》邓丽君

219.75.40.52 (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

See Quotation_mark#Chinese.2C_Japanese_and_Korean_quotation_marks. —Stephen (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the article is right with respect to mainland China - inverted comma quotes (“”) are almost universal in print, except in newspaper headlines, where corner quotes are used.

OP: you would put quotes around the quoted text, then use the long dash (——) to connect the quoted text with the source, and then the author, and the work in book quotes (《》). It is common, but not necessarily usual, to include the dynasty (if Chinese) or country (if foreign) in which the author lived, in parentheses before the name of the author. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

'not' favourable

what is the antonym (opposite) of "favourable/favorable" (unfavorable/unfavourable is not the answer).68.151.25.115 (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Adverse? -- Jack of Oz 11:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

What is your basis for saying "un-" is not the answer? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

i mean 'give me a word without the prefix un-'.68.151.25.115 (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

So you don't object to "unfavourable" as such, it's just that you would like a list of additional antonyms. Right? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Correct68.151.25.115 (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Swedish and swahili in "Out of Africa"

Following quote from Karen Blixen "Out of Africa". "At the time when I was new in Africa, a shy young Swedish dairyman was to teach me the numbers in Swaheli. As the Swaheli word for nine, to Swedish ears, has a dubious ring, he did not like to tell it to me, and when he had counted: 'seven, eight', he stopped, looked away and said: 'they have not got nine in Swaheli!" What is that "dubious ring" in Swedish ears? ZygonLieutenant (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Nine in Swahili is "tisa", and in Danish and Norwegian (according to the translations on Wiktionary), "tisse" means "to pee". Swedish seems to have a different word for that at the moment, but maybe it also used tisse back then. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It's always possible that the average Swede was simply familiar with Norwegian dirty words. After all, today almost one in three Swedes speaks Norwegian, and the events of Blixen's memoirs take place only a short while after Sweden and Norway stopped being a unified Kingdom. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Were they ever a single kingdom, rather than technically in personal union? —Tamfang (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"She got pregnant with her/his/their/the couple's baby."

Is there a better way to phrase this kind of situation? Person A is male. Person B is female. Person A and Person B marry, and Person B gets pregnant. The unborn child is Person A's child and Person B's child.

• She gets pregnant with her baby.
• She gets pregnant with his baby.
• She gets pregnant with their baby.
• She gets pregnant with the couple's baby.
• She gets pregnant.

50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Being pregnant sort of implies the presence of a baby. How about "She became pregnant to her husband"? -- Jack of Oz 21:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "pregnant to (the father)" is not used in any variety of English that I'm familiar with. Can you provide a citation of somewhere that it's been used?

"Pregnant with her baby" is unusual because a woman cannot be pregnant in any way other than with her own baby. The other four examples seem perfectly acceptable to me. CodeTalker (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"Pregnant with the couple's baby" sounds to me as if it refers to a different couple's baby, e.g. an implanted fetus following artificial insemination. If you're talking about, ah, the traditional method, then I'd say it has to be "with his baby" or else no mention. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"She gets pregnant with their baby" sounds more natural to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Assisted reproductive technology has led us into all sorts of murky waters, not least linguistically. I would concur that with husband and wife doing it the old-fashioned way (sex, marriage, baby carriage), "She got pregnant" is the best and simplest option. But often these days one needs to clarify. Gestational surrogacy involves at least three adults, possible five. "Amira got pregnant with Jim & John's baby, using John's sister's egg." Google Ngrams, anyone? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

A slightly old-fashioned phrasing would be to say that she fell pregnant, or 'fell for a baby' - see under 'fall' here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The expression "to fall for a baby" is not an idiom synonymous with "to fall pregnant" in standard British English. I've removed it from the article that you linked. Is there some regional (Irish?) usage that someone had in mind? Dbfirs 13:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the mentions above that the inclusion of the baby is probably redundant. That aside, it seems like they'd all be appropriate in different contexts, such as when you need to specify fatherhood and/or motherhood to varying degrees. Rewording slightly to include ordinals might make the sentence sound more natural "She gets pregnant with their first child.", "She gets pregnant with his second child (her first)." That kind of thing. Matt Deres (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

A more polite phrase is "They are expecting". StuRat (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

And also a more incorrect one. As I'm sure you're aware, only the woman gets pregnant. You don't talk about a couple expecting a baby, only the mother. --Viennese Waltz 15:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Not incorrect. ngrams shows that while the "she is..." variant is more common, the "they are..." variant is common enough to be recognizable and thus not incorrect. --Jayron32 15:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I was about to make the same comment, though the "they are" form is less of a euphemism, of course. Dbfirs 15:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the objection. The mother gets pregnant, but surely they're both "expecting" a baby at the end of it. It's a euphemism, but it is handy because it both includes the father while also not assigning him the status of "pregnant", which I find ludicrous. "We're pregnant!" "How handy for you kids these days to share the burden in that way!" Matt Deres (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I found almost as many Ghits on "expectant father" as "expectant mother". StuRat (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not even a euphemism. Both parties were highly involved in the procreative act, and both are expecting the child. Only the mother is pregnant in the medical sense (although it's common to hear "We're pregnant"), but both are definitely expecting. -- Jack of Oz 22:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

May 15

Transliteration from Arabic

I would be grateful if a user could please transliterate from Arabic letters to English letters the entry in a population register shown on the link. <a href="http://chaimsimons.net/Arabicletters.jpg"> </a>Thank you 89.138.85.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

They are not legible. Omidinist (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

There are two methods which might improve the clarity of the Arabic letters. One of them is to decrease the size of the image. The second is to go to the actual Population Register. This can be found on the internet at: http://www.archives.gov.il/archives/#/Archive/0b0717068002269e/File/0b071706809d4c06 Scroll down to page 75. The required entry is the fourth family down from the top of the page, or alternatively it is the fourth family up from the bottom of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonschaim (talk • contribs) 04:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

How many languages have ever existed?

I've been wondering, has anyone attempted to estimate how many languages have ever been spoken? If so, how are these estimates made, and what are the results? I realize that this question is probably impossible to answer conclusively, but I'd be interested to know of any attempts made. 2602:306:321B:5970:9889:9295:DC56:B865 (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

First define "language" unambiguously, then we might be able to start a meaningful discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This blog - http://thelousylinguist.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/94000-language-deaths.html - suggests about 100,000 (give or take 40,000) and links to some research on the subject. Wymspen (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

To save anyone the bother of reading the blog which Wymspen linked to, his/her argument is that If we assume that languages come and go at a pace that correlates with populations, then we can assume that the current 6000 living languages are about 6% of the total number of languages that ever existed. That means the total number of languages that have ever existed is around 100,000. Not a whiff of a basis for that assumption. this essay is one of several to mention David Crystal estimating in his Language Death (which I don't have, so I've no idea of the reasoning) between 64,000 and 140,000; it also quotes a figure from Mark Pagel of up to 500,000; and presents a model which I haven't read (but which you might, if interested) which gives a figure of ~150,000. At a minimum, it's not such a silly question that no-one's bothered to ask it. Henry 20:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your point being that there is no such thing as a silly question? Do you have an RS for that? One simple question. How many indigenous language families were there in Europe before the advent of Indo-European? The answer? No one has a clue. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No, my point being that respectable linguists have addressed the question; and that this being a reference desk, we could (shock horror) actually refer people to them. Henry 04:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

"Respectable" perhaps is a relative term, Origin of language notes that the subject is nigh-on impenetrable, and that ANY attempts to answer questions such as this one (any discussion of the number of languages ever spoken has to first start with how language originated!) are basically impossible to answer, and that attempts to do so amount to little more than wild speculation, albeit some speculation done by people with certain post-nominal letters sometimes gets more attention, it isn't necessarily any less speculation. --Jayron32 15:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I've always been fascinated by the certainty with which some linguists state there was exactly one. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied that I understand the phrase "a pace that correlates with populations". Does it mean that there are 16 times as many dead humans as live humans, and therefore we can estimate that there are 16 times as many dead languages as live ones, or something else? —Tamfang (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it means. Henry 09:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ethnologue has catalogued just over 7000 current languages, but there is always a problem that languages often exist on a dialect continuum and that "There is no universally accepted criterion for distinguishing two different languages from two dialects (i.e. varieties) of the same language". This sort of calculation is bound to vary wildly depending on the criteria used for the counting. After all, people living in Brazil today speak a version of Latin, though the transition from Vulgar Latin to Brazilian Portuguese didn't happen in one instant. There wasn't ever a time when people suddenly couldn't understand their neighbors, like one day a group of Latin speakers woke up and suddenly was speaking Portuguese. Such changes happen gradually over many centuries. So, while we may be able to say, today, that Latin and Brazilian Portuguese are distinct languages, at some point in history, they weren't, and what was THAT? Was that a variety of Latin? A variety of Portuguese? A distinct third language? --Jayron32 14:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• One might as well ask how many families have existed. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

One answer is "All of them." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Which of course, probably isn't correct. For example, there are plenty of sign languages, e.g. New Zealand Sign Language, American Sign Language and perhaps even International Sign which aren't spoken, at least in accordance with the ordinary English meaning of the world. In fact our article says "Sign languages share many similarities with spoken languages (sometimes called "oral languages")". Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That assumes the OP meant "what percentage of languages have ever been spoken?" as opposed to other forms of communication. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

May 16

Ah (阿)

What is the English linguistic terminology for the Chinese naming prefix Ah (阿)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

According to Chinese name it is a signifier of a nickname. I don't know that there is an English equivalent, maybe diminutive? --Jayron32 01:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary says "Used in front of persons' given names or kinship terms to express familiarity (traditionally in rural or southern Chinese dialects)." 阿 gobonobo 02:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I am Cantonese so I understand the meaning of the term. I am just surprise there is no official linguistic categorization/terminology for it. Maybe it could be a diminutive, can anybody confirm that?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this similar to the Northern British dialect use of "our"; "our Jim" (for a brother, son, or close relative Jim), "our mam", etc. ? -- Q Chris (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it really answers the question but there was a similar discussion about this prefix last month. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It's similar to a diminutive in other languages, the closest analogy I can think of in English is modifying someone's name or form of address with a "-y" sound or "-a" sound, like "daddy", "Jimmy" or "Gazza". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The question shows up the limitation of seeking classification of every word or particle. I am reminded that in French you can use the definite article with similar effect. "T'as vu la Marie?" could. be translated into English "Did you see our Mary?", or "did you see that Mary one?", depending on the relationship. Languages do weird things especially when you get into dialect and colloquial usage. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a Hypocorism? --ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It's actually one of the examples listed in that article: in Cantonese and related dialects, the addition of a word-final very high tone, or changed tone sometimes in combination with the addition of the prefix A before the name. The A syllable is also used in other dialects originating in southern China as a term of endearment or closeness. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Underdots for cerebrals

I've recently come across a bit of information (pp. 258-259) which attributes the invention of underdots for "cerebrals" in Indic languages to Franz Bopp. I was about to add this information somewhere, when I discovered a slightly different story in Hunterian transliteration where there is no mention of Franz Bopp. Who in fact did invent the underdots? I could have dug myself and looked through every book by the authors mentioned, though I hope someone may already know the answer.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It may help to know that cerebrals are usually called retroflex consonants in most other contexts. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yet they did not use this term back then, so it's unlikely to find anything with such a keyword.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I've found it myself. In 1808 Charles Wilkins published his grammar of Sanskrit, where he explicitly use underdots; Franz Bopp (b. 1791) was only 17 by then. In Bopp's own Sanskrit grammar, published in 1827, he did not used any dots at all; yet he introduced over- and underdots in his famous Comparative Grammar (1833) , as well as in his earlier Analytical Comparison (1820), where he directly cited Wilkins. So this misattribution to Bopp may be explained by the popularity of his main work: people who are more familiar with his works than with Wilkins' may think it was Bopp who had invented the dots.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

May 17

incredible

does this word ever mean "not credible"?68.151.25.115 (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That's where it came from, as with "unbelievable" which is essentially the same word. Nowadays they're both used very often as slang terms for "extraordinary". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I consider both of those to be "weasel words" and should be avoided in Misplaced Pages articles. I'm undecided on extraordinary. Context I guess.196.213.35.146 (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, while there are shades of difference between "incredible" and "unbelievable" they are basically synonyms, and have etymologies which indicate it as well, "cred-" being a root that roughly beans "belief", compare words like "credibility" and "credulity" and "credulous" etymonline has information on the origins of the word. --Jayron32 12:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

One time I can think of it being used correctly was Jack Buck in calling Kirk Gibson's home run in Game 1 of the 1988 World Series: He said "Unbelievable!" and then immediately followed up with "I don't believe what I just saw!" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. He is still using it to mean extraordinary. He doesn't literally believe that somehow a fictional event has been displayed in an attempt to trick him. Contrast with the statement that "Trumps claim that 5 million votes were cast illegally for Hillary is incredible/unbelievable". StuRat (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Certainly he's still being metaphorical. But the context of this situation was very, very extraordinary: Gibson hobbling around the bases on two bad knees, after he had somehow muscled the ball into the seats, off the seemingly unbeatable Eckersly. Here are parts of three calls: And because of the over-hype around those words, I wouldn't call Trump's claims "incredible" or "unbelievable" because those words aren't strong enough nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

In the OED Online, "Not credible: that cannot be believed; beyond belief" is the first sense listed for "incredible"; since's it's a historical dictionary that means it's the oldest sense. The first example of use is from a book published between 1414 and 1420. And it was still a reasonably current sense when this part of the dictionary was written in 1900: they have an example from 1871, with Sir Leslie Stephen writing: "The small nucleus of fact round which so many incredible stories have gathered." Perhaps when this entry is updated for modern times they will add an annotation like "obsolete" or "now rare"; I can't say. (Of course they also list what they call the "weakened" sense that they define as: "Such as it is difficult to believe in the possibility of, or to realize; said esp. of a quantity, quality, number, etc., of a degree beyond what one would a priori have conceived as possible; inconceivable, exceedingly great." Their earliest example of this usage is from 1482 and in modern spelling it would read: "An inestimable and incredible sweetness of joyful comfort".) --76.71.6.254 (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

"I am an alt"

What does "alt" mean in the context of Curtis's comment? "I am an alt. These colors do not work for me. I backed the project without realizing that there would be no colors available for alts at this time. How long until black?" Urban Dictionary was no help. 173.18.56.232 (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Who is Curtis? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The person who made that comment, in the link I provided. I don't know anything more about Curtis than that. 173.18.56.232 (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It's rather obviously a shortening of alternative. To judge by the stuff I'm finding online (such as this), the "alt" culture seems to be rather similar to the goth subculture, though I'm sure that there are fine distinctions to be made. Note that Curtis is disappointed that the garment isn't available in black. Deor (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Usually, in Internet jargon, "alt" means "alternate character" (or account). More commonly it's just short for alternative (like alternative lifestyle or culture). The former doesn't fit the context here, certainly. Since he apparently doesn't like the current pastel colors and wants black, maybe it does have to do with alt lifestyle/culture. But I can't find anything online to verify that. clpo13_(talk) 17:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Subculture slang, especially youth subculture slang, like this is ephemeral and arcane, often intentionally so. People outside of the subculture are not supposed to understand the language, though context can sometimes give clues, in this case the use of "alt" probably means "alternative" in the sense of "not part of the mainstream"; what specifically it means is different is probably unknowable here beyond that, however. You can read more about this sort of language in articles at Misplaced Pages like Cant (language) and Argot. --Jayron32 18:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

In that context? It seems clear: someone who likes to wear black. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A Spanish/Russian r and a French/German r, in the same language.

Are there European languages, having both a Spanish/Russian r (whether or ), and a French/German r (whether or ), as two distinct phonemes (disregarding: loanwords, and allophones of or of )? HOTmag (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, Kabardian_language#Consonants is the first place I looked; it has r and ʁ. You can include various other Caucasian languages and Maltese if you accept a voiceless fricative for the ʁ. Spanish has the flap, the trill, and the ɣ. It all depends on how strictly you want to define the Parisian arr. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not clarifying my question enough. I meant Indo-European languages, spoken in Europe. As for Spanish, I don't think it has , as a phoneme. HOTmag (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

See lago for in Spanish.--Wikimedes (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it an allophone of  ? (Thanks to your comment, I've just excluded also allophones of ). HOTmag (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's a after a pause or a nasal and a elsewhere. European Portuguese, too, exhibits something similar. --Theurgist (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Greek has /r/ and /ɣ/ as distinct phonemes. Oh, and Irish too, I almost forgot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for Irish. As for Greek, isn't its an allophone of  ? (Thanks to your comment, I've just excluded also allophones of ). HOTmag (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I think it isn't. --Theurgist (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

HotMAG -- I don't think that a simple velar would satisfy the definition of a standard French "r"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

But I didn't say what you think I said. I said: "French/German r (whether or )". HOTmag (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Armenian has /ɣ ~ ʁ/ (Armenian script: ղ), /r/ (ռ) and /ɾ/ (ր) as distinct phonemes and is an official minority language of many European countries.--William Thweatt 09:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And it's official in Armenia itself. Often in various terms, such as geopolitics, culture, history, sports and Eurovision, Armenia is counted as a European nation, even though it's in Asia according to the most common purely geographical definition for the boundary between Europe and Asia. --Theurgist (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. HOTmag (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Dutch, Luxembourgish, Icelandic. --Theurgist (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for Dutch and Luxembourgish. As for Icelandic, isn't its an allophone of  ? HOTmag (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Several dialects of Hebrew (Iraqi, Yemenite), reflecting different phonemes in Tiberian Hebrew. (Though is theoretically an allophone of in Hebrew.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Please notice that I asked about Indo-European languages, rather than about Semitic languages (for which Arabic is a better example than Hebrew, because Arabic has an as a distinct phoneme, besides ). HOTmag (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The question is futile since you are not asking about actual sound appearances, which others have already provided, but about phonemes. Phonemicization is an abstraction. Different authors have different interpretations, the choice of a symbol is merely a tool for their works. You could also say that Spanish, Russian, French and German all have /r/ just like English writers use /r/ for the English R, which is definitely not a trill in most varieties. The Greek example illustrates the problem well. Of course, modern Greek's developed from ancient Greek /g/. So do we use still use the phonemic symbol /g/ because it's historical? Or has sound change altered the phonological system? The problem is that the sound still exists in modern Greek, but you spell it γκ. So the most accepted interpretation today is to keep and separate. In another case, a Spanish phonemicist had to justify the use of the phonemic symbol /ɡ/ because is way more common in connected speech. --88.67.125.45 (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Uses of the terms "Middle" and "Old English"

When was the linguistic distinction first recognized between Old and Middle English, and between Middle English and what we call modern English? When were the terms first used? 70.190.164.57 (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Great English Vowel Shift. μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Old English has been known about since the Cotton library was assembled. The "Reliques of Ancient English Poetry" apparently contain some Middle English. AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• The article titled History of English discusses the events and changes that shaped the three languages. --Jayron32 02:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• But the question isn't asking about the history of English: it's asking about the historiography of English. When did people first conceive of dividing the history of the language into Old, Middle, and Modern English periods? I don't know the answer myself. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Merriam_Webster has "Old English" first used in 1869 but "Middle English" from 1830. Rmhermen (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Which begs the question: what was Middle English considered to be "between" from 1830 - 1869? --Jayron32 02:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Possibly between "Anglo-Saxon" and "Modern English". The OED may have some earlier usage examples for "Old English". Rmhermen (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If you're looking for historiography of English, then this book seems to be related. --Jayron32 02:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not helpful to the IP; it's in Arizona, and all WorldCat records for all editions of it are in the UK or the European continent. If it were only across the US, I could recommend interlibrary loan, but I understand from my colleagues in the ILL department that due to factors such as shipping difficulties and lesser openness toward ILL on the part of European libraries, they don't even bother requesting ILL from non-American institutions. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There's an interesting book that deals with at least part of the topic: The Making of Middle English, 1765–1910. The section "The Sense of a Middle" in the Introduction is particularly relevant. One sentence reads "In 1874, Henry Sweet cleared away all these fine distinctions and asserted a simple model of Old, Middle, and Modern English", so that's one important benchmark. Deor (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• See Ngram for Middle English. See the Neogrammarians who split languages into pre- proto- old- middle- and modern- periods as part of historical linguistics. μηδείς (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

May 18

Translating Rohan

In translations of The Lord of the Rings, how is the speech of Rohan most commonly rendered? Is it typically left alone, or is it typically rendered in an ancient form of the destination language? The latter seems more in line with Tolkien's wishes (I can imagine him appreciating the Rohirrim speaking Old Church Slavonic in Властелин колец and their poetry following ancient Slavic forms), but that would potentially require someone skilled in the older form of the language, and I can imagine it being cheaper just to leave the Mercian Old English in place and retain the alliterative half-line structure of the poetry. I suppose that the other languages are typically retained unchanged, as the only other related speech is the potentially Indo-European speech of the House of Bëor (see discussion of Finrod Felagund's name "Nom" in their speech in The History of Middle-Earth, perhaps in The Lost Road) and the Elven speeches and Khuzdul have no relationship to the Mannic speech rendered as English in the original text. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Tolkien wrote up some notes for translators, the "Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings", in which he advises not altering Rohirric names (as is the case with almost all names and terms which are not predominantly modern English)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure of the copyright status, but you can read those notes here. Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

'To share a measure in common'

Is this expresion a pleonasm? Our article on irrational numbers says that two line segments are 'incommensurable' if they 'share no "measure" in common'. Isn't it redundant?

I suppose 'they share a measure' is equivalent to 'they have a measure in common' or 'they have some common measure' (a measure being such a smaller length which, if considered a unit, makes both segments' lengths whole numbers).
Using both 'share' and 'in common' in one expression seems incorrect to me. Am I right?

And if I am, does it need fixing in the irrational number article? --CiaPan (talk) (non-native speaker) 06:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"incommensurable" seems to be just another way to say that one or both of the segments is an irrational number, hence the two can't be expressed as a ratio. If a right triangle's legs are both of length 1, then the hypotenuse is the square root of two. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: No, no, no. A segment is not a number, either rational or irrational. Segments are geometric objects, and a natural number (in Ancient Greek maths) expresses how many times one of them fits in another. Often this can't happen, so the Greeks invented an idea of a fraction, telling how many times a common measure (some 'unit length segment') fits in each of two given segments. Incommensurability is a situation when such a common measure does not exist.

But that's not what I asked about. See, this is a Language, not Math RD, and I seek for explanation of 'share sth. in common' in/correctness. --CiaPan (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I should have said the length of one or both segments is irrational. Actually, it doesn't matter, since no matter the size of the triangle it can always be said to have a measurement of 1, while the hypotenuse can always be said to have a measure of square root of 2 in relation to each leg. Trovatore's explanation is what I was trying to say, only he said it better. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 

It's a very old-fashioned way of putting it. I mean really really old-fashioned, like to the days of the Pythagoreans, though of course they didn't speak English. They had a rather rigid view of mathematics; as I understand it the only "numbers" they recognized were the natural numbers greater than or equal to 2. (Not only was 0 not a "number"; 1 was not a number either, but rather the generator of numbers.) This was akin to a religious belief.

So for them the only way to express the proportion of two lengths was to find a third smaller length, such that both lengths were natural-number multiples of the smaller one. That would be the "measure in common".

It came as an unwelcome surprise when they found out that the hypotenuse of an isosceles right triangle could not be thus compared with one of its legs. There's a story that they forced the one who discovered it to drown himself. I think it's just a story, but it goes to how they felt about it.

With the modern conception of the real numbers, this all seems a little bit silly (perhaps more importantly for the reals specifically, so do Zeno's paradoxes). But it was important at the time, and to some extent it has survived in language, albeit very dated language. --Trovatore (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I re-read your question, and now I realize that wasn't what you were asking about. I guess share...in common is a tiny bit redundant, but it doesn't sound bad to me. "Share a measure" doesn't make a lot of sense. You could substitute "have a measure in common", maybe, but I don't think it's an improvement. --Trovatore (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Trovatore: Actually, I'm not going to improve the article at the language level – I don't speak English well enough. When asking the question I aimed my own learning, not Misplaced Pages improvement. I just tried to learn something new about the language in the part of 'feeling correct'. :) Thank you for the explantion. --CiaPan (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've reworded it. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems clearer now. But did you intend to tell us your location? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What's that got to to with the question? --76.71.6.254 (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Your IP address can be tracked. A registered user ID cannot. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not perceive the current phrasing as being clearer now. The previous wording share no measure in common reflects imho in a very appropriate way the word in-comm(on)-(m)ensurable, which to explain it is intended. BTW, this wording was there for years (since 2004), already. Additionally, while tinkering around this paragraph in March, I did like the mutual corroboration by redundancy of share and in common, as pointing to a core concept of irrationality. The current formulation appears as clear to me, but also as not an improvement. Purgy (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Share no measure in common" is a reasonable exegesis of the etymology of "incommensurable", but it doesn't make sense, in English, for the concept being described. The word "measure" does not mean "submultiple of an interval".

So I wouldn't object to putting the phrase back as an explanation of the etymology, but we shouldn't use it as though it actually made sense, because it doesn't. --Trovatore (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

In no way I intend to modify the status quo of this paragraph, nor do I object to the notion measure having a special meaning in math (often), but I want to remark that I left the quotes around this word specifically to allow for the desired interpretation as some arbitrarily small line length (for heaven's sake, no infinitesimal), as an etalon, like the mètre des archives, to exhaust other line lengths. Purgy (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What did Rushin ca. 17-18th. C. really sound like?

If someone were transported from 17th C. Russia/Muscovy/whatever into the $current_year, would they have an accent? What would that sound like? 80.171.99.241 (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking whether a Russian from that time period would sound different to modern Russians? Someone with knowledge of Russian might know, but consider this: If you beamed an English speaker of similar vintage into modern times, he might well sound different, and also he would be unfamiliar with modern idioms and slang. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

We have History of the Russian language, but it is not very detailed, and deals more with spelling and vocabulary changes. The most important changes that affect Moscovy Russian compared to other dialects are akanje, and the other types of vowel reduction in Russian and the development of the yers, unstressed forms of short 'i' and 'u'. Unfortunately, our articles don't give time periods for these changes, but they are the main reasons for the differences between the modern Eastern Slavic languages.

For example, one, nine, and rain in the Rusyn language are /'jɛdɛn/, /dɛwjat/ and /dɨt͡ʃ/, while due to akanje and ikanje, "one" is /ad'in/, nine is /'djevɪt'/, and rain is /dɔt͡ʃ/. These are all stress-induced changes, with Rusyn slightly closer to Old Slavonic, but /dɨt͡ʃ/ being an innovation in a word that originally had a yer vowel, like 'book'.

I highly suspect a 17th Century Muscovite would sound like a Ukrainian to a modern Russian, as Ukrainian is more conservative in its vowels. I'd ping Lyuboslov Yezikin, but he spells and signs his name so incongruently I can't recall it at the moment. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Любослов Езыкин:. —Stephen (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Classifying sounds: consonants and vowels vs. obstruents and sonorants

When young children learn to classify the sounds of language, they learn to use consonants and vowels. Misplaced Pages, however, says that the classification into obstruents and sonorants is more natural. Which classification is more natural?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that children distinguish consonants and vowels in any conscious meta-linguistic way unless they become literate in an alphabetic writing system. In traditional Chinese society, any segmentation going beyond syllable onset vs. syllable rhyme was mainly of interest to some specialized scholars, and I'm not too sure how aware ordinary Chinese-speakers were of individual consonant and vowel segments which did not form a whole syllable onset or a whole syllable rhyme. AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

In English, it's easier to learn the vowels versus the consonants, because the vowels can be said with the mouth open, and relatively little other motions of the mouth other than lip rounding and position of the root of the tongue. Also, one has such sets as beat, bit, bait, bet, bat, bot, bought, but, boat, boot and book. Once you learn about syllables, you can learn that butter, battle, bottom, and button all end in syllables without real vowels, although we pretend, and say there is a schwa present. But one can't always substitute a sonorant for a vowel. Bert is fine as brt. But there's no such word as the impossible /bmk/ in English. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Look at Misplaced Pages's template at the top of several articles, including Affricate. It DOES say that obstruent vs. sonorant is important. Georgia guy (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No classification is "natural", they are all created by people for their own convenience. When you ask which classification scheme is "better", you need to specify better for what. Also, what linguists do is different from what teachers do; how a language is taught is pedagogy which is different than how linguists might want to study the phonology of language. Two totally different fields with two totally different classification schemes for two totally different reasons. --Jayron32 10:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Are there some ways the obstruent vs. sonorant classification is better?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Better for what purpose? --Jayron32 14:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Your post implies that there are some pros of the obstruents vs. sonorants classification. How is it important?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Languages differ greatly in their phonetic systems. As I mentioned above, in English, the vowels form a coherent class, and any vowel can replace any other and create a word that fits in the phonetic system of English. Sonorants can also be syllabic in English, but they cannot substitute for vowels in all cases. But in other languages, you can have items like the surname Ng or other words without vowels. How to analyze those languages depends on their nature.

There is not one ideal system that fits all languages, any more than there's a single way to classify vertebrates. For example, whether an animal lays eggs, or has placental or marsupial development of "liveborn" young is an ideal way to distinguish the three major living clades of mammals. But that method of classification would be totally useless if applied to birds. Words (concepts) are tools we use to investigate reality. If the words we are used to using don't fit with the reality we want to describe, we don't shoe-horn reality into our terminology, we change or develop new terminology that better fits the reality we are dealing with. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

May 19

• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk