Language desk
< November 17	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 19 >

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.

November 18[edit]

Pronunciation entries for each topic - they are not understandable. Why are they there?[edit]

Example: The Assiniboine River (/əˈsɪnɨbɔɪn/) I just want to know how to pronounce it. As-ini-bone? The (/əˈsɪnɨbɔɪn/) does not help. Thoughts on why this spelling is there instead of something like "As-ini-bone"? If I have to take a course on how to use "əˈsɪnɨbɔɪn" then it is not a terribly helpful tool. -- 19:32, 18 November 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOY0CH00 (talk • contribs)

It's roughly uh-SIN-uh-boyn. If you hover your computer's cursor over the IPA respelling, it will show you how to pronounce each IPA symbol. You might also want to have a look at IPA for English. Deor (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're there because there are geeks who can interpret that notation which is called the International Phonetic Alphabet. You don't need to take a course. You just have to read Help:IPA for English. More information can be found at International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects. One can also indicate pronunciation through respelling (see Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key) which may seem more familiar to you, but there's no general policy on Wikipedia that recommends one or the other, as far as I am aware. In the case of the Assiniboine River the respelling of the pronunciation indicated by the IPA notation would be "a-SIN-ib-oin", if I'm interpreting the IPA correctly, but I'm not one of those geeks so caveat emptor if you know what that means. The last syllable is "oin" so it rhymes with "coin" not with "cone". The primary stress is on "sin", the second syllable. Contact Basemetal here 19:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous OP, you must understand that fauxnetic transcription systems (like the one you recommended) do not take dialects into account, and as such, while they might help you out, they might be absolutely useless for a guy thirty miles away from you. No one pronounces things exactly the same way, and (as such) the use of fauxnetic transcription systems is a waste of time. Furthermore, IPA is not all that hard to learn, and is also one of the most highly recommended phonetic transcription systems out there. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the OP isn't anonymous. He just forgot to sign. Contact Basemetal here 20:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any college that has an English requirement for graduation should teach the IPA. It's standard in Europe, but in the US each dictionary maker has its own absurd system. Is there an article for fauxnetics? -- 20:39, 18 November 2014 Medeis

Also, because letters in English do not have one-to-one correspondence to sounds, amateur phonetic respellings are often open to more than one pronunciation even within a given dialect of English. Even a well-defined phonemic system will run into problems at boundaries between English dialects, since there is some variation in phoneme inventories between dialects. At least IPA expresses the pronunciation in a specific dialect fairly clearly and unambiguously. Marco polo (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis -- One reason why many UK dictionaries use IPA and most U.S. dictionaries don't is that UK dictionaries indicate the RP (or nowadays quasi-RP) standard pronunciation, while makers of U.S. dictionaries are very aware that most Americans who consult a dictionary don't want to learn the pronunciation of a word in some arbitrarily-decreed standard dialect, but rather what the pronunciation of the word would be in their own dialect... AnonMoos (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? A phonemic transcription of General American with a brief note on non-rhotic varieties, the cot-caught, pin-pen and marry-Mary-merry merger would cover just about everything, and alternative forms could be given. My point is that learning the Am. Her. respelling and then the M.W. respelling and then the Collins Harper respelling makes us captive to corporate editorial boards, is non-transferable, doesn't help with languages other than English, and is still just as arbitray unless they too have notes on non-rhotic varieties, the cot-caught, pin-pen and marry-Mary-merry merger.

When I took Linguistics 201 we were expected to master the basic IPA for English by the time we returned for the second class period. It's absurd to argue that learning the schwa, θ="th" as in thin, ʃ=sh, ð="th" as in this, "ʒ"=zh and ŋ="ng" or /æ/ is the vowel of cat and /ɔ/ the vowel of caught as said in NYC is a hardship. Especially when most of the other signs are based on the latin alphabet. I'd much rather dictionaries say eye is pronounced /aɪ/ consistently, rather than some giving EYE and others "ī". Dictionaries also have the benefits of keys with footnotes, unless one tears out that page. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, when people from the South (for example) look up a word, most of the time they really don't want to know how Walter Cronkite would have pronounced the word -- instead, they want to know how the word would be pronounced in terms of the sound system of their own way of speaking. You may consider the reasons why most U.S. dictionaries don't use IPA to be inadequate, but there are real reasons -- it's not pure arbitrary whim or dumbing down... AnonMoos (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute your claim that they don't want the Gen Am pronunciation, and again, a simple comment for readers on either (1) regional varieties, or (2) on mergers, or (3) alternative entries: "oil": /ɔjl/, /ɔ:l/ (Southern) /ərl/ (NYC, obs.) and "fine": /fajn/, /fa:n/ (Southern) is an extremely simple solution to the supposed problem. μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you have several misconceptions in this area. AnonMoos (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Concise OED was using respelling or their own system of diacritics (depending on the entry) until about 1980. I guess there was a big surge of people suddenly wanting to learn RP about 1980? Besides don't Americans love audio pronunciations which are even more specific than IPA descriptions? In fact anyone (who can decipher IPA) on seeing an IPA description or hearing an audio pronunciation aid in a standard dialect is usually able to transfer that information to their own dialect. There must be some other reason why US dictionaries don't like IPA. Contact Basemetal here 03:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's Dictionary with its more and less successful spelling reforms predated the IPA by some 70 years and in many American homes it might have pride of place next to the Bible. It set the precedent, and other American publishers seem to have followed along. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people who don't know IPA are ignorant, and cannot communicate pronunciation as clearly as people who do. Readers indeed ought not be ignorant; they ought to know as much as Wikipedia editors do. And yes, it's someone else's fault that a great many of our readers are ignorant. But, whom are we trying to serve? Isn't it the ignorant? Jim.henderson (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What mean 'people', 'ignorant', 'communicate', 'pronunciation', 'clearly', 'readers', 'ought to', 'editors', 'a great many', 'serve'? Contact Basemetal here 02:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the reasons why in Europe there exists a stereotype about "dumb Murricans". While mature and educated people in God-blessed Murrica consider the well-known well-established transcription of their own language a great challenge, in Europe pupils from 3 or 4 grades are supposed to know English phonetic alphabet entirely and read it in dictionaries. Are 10-years old European children smarter than 40-years old Murricans?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply better educated in certain subjects. μηδείς (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I tried in America to order a Coke, in my middle of the road Australian accent, I was not understood (more than once). There is no possible standard using common letters. HiLo48 (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want a Coca-Cola? You'd probably've been understood if that's what you'd wanted and you'd said it. Then you'd've been asked if you were a furriner. Of course there's always the option of learning RP. No American has a problem with that. Unfortunately Australian vowels are uncouth to American ears. μηδείς (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about that. A lot of Americans told me they loved my accent. Of course, I don't actually have one. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, of course, but you're bound to find out sooner or later: in the US, "I love your accent" is usually just a euphemism for "I can't understand a word you're saying". It's also often accompanied by a lot of blank smiling and nodding.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 07:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William is, of course, being silly. We all know that the response to incomprehension between an American and a furriner is for the former to speak more loudly, not to smile blankly. HiLo, if you speak High Australian you'll be mistaken for a Brit. If you speak Low Australian you'll be taken for a South African, (at least by those who've heard of South Africa), make of that what you will. I suspect what they heard in your request was intermediate in their ears between coke and cake. Asking for a cake with your burger would be a bit odd. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Любослов Езыкин -- If you're using the IPA to learn the pronunciations of several different languages, then it's great for that purpose. However, if a literate English-speaker is only trying to understand English pronunciations, then the IPA has features which make it less than ideal for that particular purpose, such as [j] being the palatal semivowel and [y] being a front-rounded ("umlaut") vowel, something which is sure to constantly trip up people who have no interest in theoretical linguistics or learning an elaborate code, but only want to understand the pronunciation of a few words in a language which they already speak and read. In fact, the Africa Alphabet is basically IPA, but with certain such problematic features adjusted. Of course, that's in addition to the problem that most dictionary users in the United States want to know pronunciations in terms of their own dialect's sounds, not in terms of some standard pronunciation... AnonMoos (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments. First of all, while IPA can be used for "learning", its primary purpose is describing (as scientificly as possible) and that is what we do as editors. In writing articles we describe things in an encyclopedic manner. It is the readers responsibility to put in the effort to "learn". Secondly some editors in this thread keep saying something similar to "...dictionary users in the US want to know pronunciations...", Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There are other, more appropriate sites to go to if that's all the reader wants.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 09:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out that {{respell}} (intended to be used in conjunction with Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key) and {{USdict}} exist for editors who wish to add respelled pronunciations to articles. Using these templates is not appropriate when the word in question contains sounds that cannot be accurately represented by a respelling. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is another reason why I do not associate with the Modern United States. They've gone so far off the path that there's no hope for a safe return to it. As such, I associate with my region instead. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the original poster. Those IPA symbols are difficult to understand (to the average reader). As such, they are rather unhelpful. I think many people see all of that gibberish, get frustrated by it, and then simply ignore it and move on. Most readers do not want to "invest" a lot of time (energy) into figuring out what all of that gibberish means. At that given moment, they just simply want to know how the word is pronounced. They don't want to have to "learn" what all that code means. It's not worth the effort. My opinion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its presence does not require the reader to understand it. If it helps some readers, great. It doesn't consume much space, and I have no problem visually skipping over it. Someday I might even feel inclined to learn IPA and make use of it. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my point was: if a person wants to know how a word is pronounced, that is not a helpful tool to that end. Of course, the reader can visually skip over it. But, that doesn't answer their question as to how the word is pronounced. Personally, I find an offer of "rhyming words" to be more helpful than that IPA code. For example, saying "The word gray is pronounced such that it rhymes with clay". Or some such. Using easy, basic words as the guide. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that gray rhymes with clay is not much help if you don't know how to pronounce clay (and there may be differences in the pronunciation of clay, depending on where you live). I assume that IPA is designed to be more universal. I'm not a linguist, I recognize that there's a ton I don't know about the use of English around the world, and I trust that we would use a simpler system if it would work. If you feel the need for pronunciation guidance in Wikipedia articles, stop spending your time complaining about things and learn IPA. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) If a person does not know how to pronounce a basic word ("clay" was my hypothetical example), they clearly will not be able to navigate the IPA code, either. The IPA itself uses "basic words" (for example, this "b" sound is pronounced like the "b" in "boy"). So, the IPA itself is premised (conditioned) upon the fact that a reader knows how to pronounce some basic words. (2) I am not "complaining" (as you claim). I am engaging in discourse on a Message/Discussion Board. There's a difference. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of simple logic. If what you propose were actually a workable solution, someone would have already developed it and become an eponym in their lifetime. Since neither you nor anyone else has produced a link to it for our edification, I assume it does not exist, ergo it is not a workable solution. QED, and I'm out. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't propose anything. I stated what works best for me, as an individual. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss -- I don't oppose including IPA transcriptions in Wikipedia articles, but it's a fact that for people who already speak and read English and who just want to look up the pronunciation of a few English words, IPA is overkill (not entirely practical for that purpose)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fauxnetic spelling works pretty well for English words, because by and large they will indicate corresponding phonemes in different dialects. They work badly for non-English words and names (which includes many place names in most English-speaking areas other than England itself), because the vowels may be represented very differently depending on who's doing the transcription. I've sometimes fallen over American-inspired transcriptions and not realised that they were using the HOT vowel to represent what for me is a sort of 'a' and no sort of 'o'. Conversely, I was puzzled by the pronunciation guide in Eliot's Finish Grammar (round about 1900), and couldn't see how 'ä' could be anything like the vowel in "hat" until I realised that a now very old-fashioned and fruity kind of RP has a rather lower and more forward realisation of this vowel than in contemporary RP. --ColinFine (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject of Americans and accents, how plausible are these Barely Political videos taking the mickey (supposedly) out of the Kiwi accent: Deck maintenance 1, Deck maintenance 2? How is Todd Womack's NZ accent? Contact Basemetal here 21:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is NOT SAFE FOR WORK (or kids) but it's hugely funny. His accent is good enough to know where it's meant to be from, but obviously a put-on. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I give the stranger words I find on Wikipedia to the nice lady at Google Translate. She almost always knows what to say. And if she's wrong, I don't want to be right. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for an essay (moved)[edit]

[moved this where I think it was intended to be -- Hope it's ok -- Apologies to Shirt and KageTora] Contact Basemetal here 13:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the IPA is analogous to the periodic table. The periodic table starts off your basic understanding of chemistry. You don't need to understand the intricacies of isotopes, valence electrons and a whole bunch of other stuff (most of which I don't understand) to benefit from knowing it. Knowing that salt is made up of Sodium and Chlorine and water is made up of Hydrogen and Oxygen opens up your understanding of the physical world.
Similarly, learning that the <u> in "butter" is not the same sound as the <u> in "cough", "caught", "put", "fuel", and so on opens up your understanding of language. For me, finding out about what ə meant was like finding about the elements that made up water and salt.
So: Wikipedia:Why you should learn the IPA should be written. WP:RL/L people: what do you think about this proposal? P AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wrong section. That was two days ago. See above. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

I think the essay is a great idea. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be interesting to a select few, but knowing what salt is made of or what water is made of benefits no-one in the real world. Similarly, IPA benefits only a select few. I can read it, but I doubt anyone at the checkout in ASDA will even have a clue that it exists. Same with the periodic table. Asking the checkout girl 'how many molecules of water, and of which type, are in this bottle' in order to find out how much of each penny goes toward the price of each molecule and how many molecules and of which variety does your present bottle differ from the last one would probably end up with you being arrested. If people don't know what you are talking about, they think you are some sort of nutcase. Tell me what wood is made of. Does it matter to a carpenter? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 13:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is, indeed, true. But I think that the point of the essay is that, after completion, it is available to whoever wants to read it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a colloquial or formal term of address for female bosses?[edit]

I know in Chinese, people may use 老板 to refer to a boss, male or female. People may add a 娘 at the end in order to colloquially refer to a female boss. Likewise, is there a colloquial or formal term of address for female bosses in English? Also, is there a colloquial or formal English term of address for a male boss's wife or lesbian woman boss's wife? 140.254.136.154 (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Female bosses are a modern phenomena and very rare, and lesbians even moreso that I doubt "female bosses lesbian wife" has ever come up in real life, much less enough for a specific word to have evolved to describe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.174.192.16 (talk • contribs)

I just looked outside, and based on the detailed research conducted, I've determined that Chinese people are very rare.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you limiting the scope of your answer to Gansu Province? Female bosses being very rare seems an odd statement to this American. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a single general term, formal or otherwise, but the words manageress (female manager) and chairwoman (female heading a committee) do exist. Manageress has a rather old-fashioned feel to it, and tends to be replaced by manager these days. Chairwoman is still fairly common, though chairperson and chair are gaining in popularity. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The usual way to refer to a female boss in American English is boss. People usually don't specify gender, unless it's relevant, which it usually isn't. The gender becomes evident if you go on to refer to your boss as she. I have had female bosses for years, and I refer to them as "my boss". If my boss happened to be a lesbian, I would refer to her spouse using whatever term she uses, most likely "my boss's wife" or "my boss's partner". No one in the United States today uses words like manageress except possibly ironically. As for "terms of address", in American English today, if people have to address their boss directly, they generally use the boss's first (personal) name. Let's say my boss's name is Diane Smith, and I wanted to ask her if she had read a sales report. I would say, "Diane, have you read the sales report?" Incidentally, that has changed in the 35 years (yikes) since I first entered the work force. In the late 1970s, as a low-level manual laborer, I addressed my manager using his surname. For example, "Mr. Hill, where should I put these?" I don't think even low-level workers in the United States use surnames to address their bosses any more. Marco polo (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English to a Japanese[edit]

Does English script look as weird and alien to Japanese people as Japanese script looks to us? 117.174.192.16 (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say how weird it is. But I can say that the "English script" you are talking about is the Latin script. Or you may be talking about Anglo-Saxon runes. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin alphabet (what everyone here is typing in) is known as Romanji (or "Roman letters") in Japanese. Romanji is not exactly rare over there, so there's at least a significant portion of the population who are familiar with Romanji. Most of the Japanese programs I've seen where someone was typing on a computer or sending a text message, they typed a Romanji character first, and the computer then changed it to the relevant Hiragana character. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Romaji. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

117.174.192.16 -- Nowadays the Latin alphabet is pretty much a component of the Japanese writing system, which was not a great stretch, since the Japanese writing system already included 2,000 or more logographic characters, and two different syllabaries containing about 50 syllable signs each... AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Japanese learn English at school. Many, if not all, kindergartens teach English, so they can at least recognize the letters by the age of about five, even if they are unable to put them to any useful purpose (they just learn capital letters and the names of the letters). In elementary school, they study from 1st grade (though not for any exams), so by the end of elemntary school, they have already been exposed to English for at least six years. English is compulsory in Junior High and High schools. Also, the Latin alphabet is very often used in conjunction with Japanese even within the same sentence. I would not say they foud it strange to see, considering they are in contact with it on a daily basis. Also, as said above, in order to type in Japanese (on a mobile phone or computer), one has to type in the romaji first, then change it to the Japanese character required (Japanese computer keyboards do have Japanese characters on the in addition to the Latin ones, but that input method is not popular). Not to mention that website addresses are invariably in the Latin alphabet. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@117.174.192.16: Romaji, or as you call it "English script", it quite common in Japan, so I don't think you'll find many Japanese people shocked by it. However, even though romaji looks like English, it's not really English. Romaji is taught at Japanese elementary schools, but it's being taught as another way of writing Japanese, not as English. I've "taught" English at public Japanese kindergartens, public elementary schools and public junior high schools at various times during the last 20+ years, and can say that much of what KagaTora says is true. Things have changed quite a bit over that period of time and English is being introduced to more and more children at earlier and earlier ages. Even so, the level of instruction is still not very high, so you still tend to get more "let's have fun" types of classes than serious "let's study and learn" types of classes at the pre-JHS level. Based upon my experience, many public elementary schools/kindergartens still treat English as more of a "general studies" or "internationalization" type of thing and "classes" are still often just "taught" by a homeroom teacher, who typically isn't trained to teach English, and a native-English speaker, who is usually hired from an agency. The two "teach" together as a team doing various games and other activities designed more for fun than serious study. Private and international kindergartens/elementary schools, on the other hand, are set up a little differently than public schools, so they may be able to devote more time and resources to serious study. My observations are that even today most Japanese kids still get more exposed to English outside of school than they do at school either through private after-school lessons or through their parents, etc. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not it doesn't. Japanese people are very used to the Latin alphabet. There's three main uses for the Latin alphabet in Japan: to write English (which everybody learns) or any other language that uses the Latin alphabet, to write things like those initials which use the Latin alphabet (e.g. N.H.K. or whatever) inside a normal Japanese text written in kanji and kana (when the Japanese text is written vertically the Latin letters are written sideways), and for transliterating Japanese. This last use is obviously the least useful and important to the Japanese themselves. But you do find some Japanese transliterated in Latin letters for some streets, subway stations, etc. for the benefit of foreigners. The term "roomaji" is used in a broad sense to mean the Latin alphabet in general or in a more restricted sense to mean only the last use (romanization of Japanese) and specifically a particular method of romanization (e.g. Hebonshiki Roomaji, Nihonshiki Roomaji, etc.; see Romanization of Japanese) Contact Basemetal here 14:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC) PS And of course I forgot a fourth important use which may be the most important of all (but which Kage Tora mentioned): computers, where the preferred method is to input Japanese kanji and kana through an English type keyboard. Contact Basemetal here 14:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reckon that the Latin alphabet probably gives off the same impression to the Japanese as Roman numerals do to modern English speakers. They are familiar with them, and they don't look odd, but they give off a certain vibe differently than other things. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If so then in opposite ways. Roman numerals would tend to look old fashioned in English whereas things written in Latin letters would tend to look cool and modern. Contact Basemetal here 14:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic off-top[edit]

Total OR, but we used up a class period discussing this at University. First, the Greek and Roman majuscules as well as the Futhark are supposedly influenced by the exigencies of carving on wood and stone. This tends to favor simple combinations of straight lines: AEFHIKLMNTVXYZ, for example. Note also the Greek sigma, Σ and delta Δ. The minuscules were developed for a more cursive style using ink on parchment or papyrus, hence the rounded forms of the lower case, especially Greek: αβγδεζηθικλμνξοπρσ/ςτυφχψω.

Now, for the OR. We noticed that Chinese ideograms (the OP speaks of Japanese, but geolocates to western China) are much more 'organic' than the Wester alphabets, resulting in part from there being closer to pictograms, and the need to have many hundreds, rather than a few dozen forms.

While the Latin alphabet seems to have evolved for simple geometric forms (consider T, L, and X used to describe angles and intersections, and the K turn and the U turn) the Greek minuscules seem to aim for elegance and maximal distinguishability. English has qpbd, while no lower case Greek letters are simple rotations of each other, and only nu ν and upsilon υ really ever run the chance of being mistaken for each other if one is not careful. The Cyrillic alphabet was criticized for its many very similar letters that one needs to make sure are clearly distinguished:БВ ДЛП ЪЫЬ ИНЙ ЧЦ ШЩ. μηδείς (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can reassure that judging by this criteria Latin deserves more critics for its illegibility and similarity than Cyrillic: h-n-b, rn-m-u, l-I, i-j, v-w, b-p, q-g etc. Many Russian children have problems distinguishing one or another letter when they firstly learn a European language. Those lazy Westerners who cannot distinguish Б-В or Ч-Ц, must either learn Cyrillic better or buy glasses.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Westerners? Contact Basemetal here 09:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I already mentioned qpdb, Ljuboslov. In any case, you'll be happy to know the occasion was the last day of Greek 202, after the final exam. Students were allowed to leave once the finished the exam, but many had nowhere to go and we were all familiar with many languages, so the comparison was between the superiority of the Greek alphabet, the minimalism of the Latin alphabet, and the brutality of Cyrillic. (Now someone's going to call me a Rusyn.) μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Wise men say, only fools....." Don't worry, Medeis, we can't help falling in love with you... :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

many had nowhere to go and we were all familiar with many languages, so the comparison was between the superiority of the Greek alphabet, the minimalism of the Latin alphabet, and the brutality of Cyrillic - this is just stupid (was it enough brutal to say?).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Westerners" are those silly poor people who historically have had to live at the of very edge the Eurasian continent and later they even have been forced to travel to another big continent (called "Murrica" in their corrupted creole) at the western edge of the Atlantic pond as nobody could stand them anymore. As usual they are characterised by their arrogance, ignorance and even fear of the people to the east of their edge.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Russians were part of those silly poor Westerners. They are the silly poor Westerners who got their asses kicked numerous times by real Easterners (such as the Mongols) and so, to guarantee this doesn't happen again, they had to go all the way up to Vladivostok and Sakhalin, but in so doing they just extended Europe to the Pacific. Just ask the Chinese if they think Russians are "Easterners".

Contact Basemetal here 08:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Russia is "the West" or "the East" is an everlasting existential Russian dilemma which may be dated back to the 16th century (if not to the 11th century). The early West-European authors of the 16th-18th centuries tended to treat Russians as "eastern despotic schismatic barbarians" as opposed to their holy only true western Christianity (later relabeled as "Freedom and Democracy"™). Most probably the well-known concept of "Russian (Red) peril" came from those times. Unfortunately, as you mentioned right, the "Eastern Easterners" like Mongols or Chinese or the "Western Easterners" like Turks or Arabs do not want treat Russians as any-sort Easterners either. So Russian are stuck in between. Maybe they are just "Centerers"? The ancestors of both Europeans and Asians came through Russia anyway. If we return to the perceptions of alphabets, so "brutal Cyrillic" (which sounds absolutely silly for me) is rather an echo of 500-year old "Russian/Eastern schismatics peril" stereotypes. Especially if we know that Cyrillic is just a 9th-10th century Greek alphabet with extra letters which later in the 18th century was restyled by Dutch typographers.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it's the Dutch who made it brutal! I'm not surprised seeing how they play soccer (cf. Robin van Persie's "Flying Dutchman")!

Let's note however that printing was introduced to Russia much earlier and using presumably a less "brutal" type. Already Иван Грозный founded Russia's Московский печатный двор in 1553 (having some innocent brutal fun here), which was Russia's first publishing house, although I don't know if that means it was Russia's very first printing shop. The first printing of Cyrillic characters however was done in 1513 by the Belarusian Francysk Skaryna on the territory of the then Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Regarding where Russia stands, let Russians not let themselves be defined by others. Besides, if UEFA and the Eurovision say that Russia is in Europe who cares what Hitler and Napoleon thought. Note that the Byzantine Empire and other places were at one time as eastern, as despotic and as schismatic, but never were as maligned as Russia. (That is if you ignore things such as the Sack of Constantinople where the Crusaders on their way to defend the Holy Sepulcher from the Turks thought they'd stop at Constantinople instead and burn the last remaining copies of Menander, Sappho, etc.) So there could be something else. Maybe size?

Contact Basemetal here 12:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The type of Fyodorov was nearly identical to the book handwriting of the style of the time (polu-ustav "Cyrillic uncial") that was in turn nearly identical to the Greek uncial of the end of the 1th millennium. Skoryna printed his books in Prague and was a sort of outsider to the Eastern Christianity (some suspected him of heresy and advocacy of western Protestant ideas). His type was quite unique. The story of the Petrine typographic reform is well told here (if you don't understand Russian, you can use Google Translate and get a general idea and look at fine illustrations at least).

The West-East Russian dilemma is a difficult subject, here is not too convenient place for discussing. But one thing I can say: the starting point and the first motive force of these anti-Russian sentiments were Russian-Lithuanian and later Russian-Polish wars. Lithuanians and Poles were the main intermediates between West Europe and Russia (this is why Russia fought westward then - it needed no intermediates). In their best interest was to create a bad image of their old rival for their Western potential allies. When Lithuanians beat Russians in 1514 under Orsha they even were issuing one of the first propaganda pamphlets about "barbaric schismatic Muscovites". Later on history this scenario has repeated many times, as you can see even from modern Western MSM (I think I stop at this point). And yes, other things like Russian geography complicate the matter also as well. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Любослов for your remarks and for correcting my errors. Indeed the Библия руска of Skaryna (or Skoryna, Russian spelling?) dates back to 1517 when he was in Prague. Contrary to what I said it is also not the first book printed in Cyrillic. That belongs to Schweipolt Fiol's Октоих. (Not gonna import yet another picture here, there's enough of them already, but you can follow the first link and see what it looks like). Contact Basemetal here 23:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word brutal was used by me, Любослов Езыкин to refer to the blocky, and unsubtle nature of Cyrillic, with its general lack of distinct minuscules, and preference for straight lines over letter like s,g, and so forth. Cyrillic handwriting and italics are much more elegant, but also much more recent: абвгдежзийклмнопрстуфхцчшщъыьэюя. Rusyn uses both Cyrillic and Latin, BTW. As for living on the Western margin. Shoreline geography is much more productive. Historically the route of population shifts in Eurasia has been away from the barren, brutal, and bare central steppe and towards the coast. Look ate the Manchu, Mongol and Hun movement into China and Europe. No sane Irishman has ever wished to live in the Tarim basin. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How come you can get (true) italics on the Russian WP but not here? If you want to see what Cyrillic italics, which Medeis mentioned, look like check out the picture at ru:Курсив where you will also see that the Russian WP displays them in its text. Regarding Central Asia: I don't know about Irishmen, but somebody must have gotten into Central Asia for people to come out of it afterwards. Contact Basemetal here 23:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The big thing with Central Asia is it was a harsh proving ground where horse training advanced more quickly than elsewhere. So waves of invaders from the east invade Europe, and from the west, China. The PIE peoples came first, followed in historical times by the Bulgar Turks and Hungarians, The Ottoman Turks, and the Mongols. Pictures of the early Turks show people with Oriental features. The same happened eastward from the Altai Mountains into China. This expansion from the center is paralleled by the Algonquian-Ritwan peoples, who seem to have originated from the area where the Blackfoot people live in the northern plains of North America. μηδείς (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for an essay[edit]

I would suggest that the IPA is analogous to the periodic table. The periodic table starts off your basic understanding of chemistry. You don't need to understand the intricacies of isotopes, valence electrons and a whole bunch of other stuff (most of which I don't understand) to benefit from knowing it. Knowing that salt is made up of Sodium and Chlorine and water is made up of Hydrogen and Oxygen opens up your understanding of the physical world.
Similarly, learning that the <u> in "butter" is not the same sound as the <u> in "cough", "caught", "put", "fuel", and so on opens up your understanding of language. For me, finding out about what ə meant was like finding about the elements that made up water and salt.
So: Wikipedia:Why you should learn the IPA should be written. WP:RL/L people: what do you think about this proposal? P AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong section. That was two days ago. See above. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Westerners? Contact Basemetal here 09:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "u" in caught? What the devil does that mean? The "au" represents /ɔ/. The "u" by itself represents nothing here. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not supposed to read beneath the lines. Contact Basemetal here 09:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The "u" in caught? What the devil does that mean?" It means that orthography ≠ phonology. Moshi-moshi KageTora. Have you read "Exercises in the Yokohama Dialect, Oh my? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha. "Japanese" along the AnonMoos principles. It's so demented it's brilliant. I love pp. 20-21 "Church = Oh Terror" (presumably from お寺 "otera"?) and "Punishment = Pumpgutz" (not able to decipher that one; anyone?). Contact Basemetal here 11:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And another good one: "Officiating priest = Tacksan hanash bosan" that is "The Monk Who Talks A Lot". I think in normal Japanese this should be たくさん話す坊さん "Takusan hanasu bousan". And this is only from two pages and there's even more on those two pages. Thank you Shirt for uncovering this treasure trove. It should be clear this is not normal Japanese but a kind of pidginis Japanese that was presumably in use in the city of Yokohama as a communication means between Japanese and foreigners in the 19th c. Contact Basemetal here 14:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's only now that everyone is realising that our ~~United Kingdom~~ tiny group of islands were the safest place all along, so now there are so many here, we are on the verge of sinking! :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 09:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to write United Kingdom or did you in fact intend tiny group of islands? Wiki syntax has got a few "irrversible binomials". Not a native speaker yet? Contact Basemetal here 10:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like I did indeed. Thank you for pointing that out. I should employ you as a proofreader. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It contains such amusingly rubbish glossary items like "bootmaker = coots pom pom otoko" (くつポンポン男 - "shoes bang-bang male") and "earthquake = okee abooneye pon pon" (大きい危ないポンポン - "big dangerous bang-bang").

(Kage, I'm - as they might say in the Exercises in the Yokohama Dialect - "bikooree star" you hadn't heard of it!)

Now, about this proposed essay...

--Shirt58 (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not gonna produce an IPA version of the "Exercises..." are you!

(And not to sound pedantic but "pom pom" is supposed to mean "hammer" (so "shoes hammer male person") while it's "pon pon" that's "bang bang". What distinction in Japanese that is supposed to represent is anyone's guess.) To be fair, if you read the preliminary matter, the humor is not entirely involuntary and Japanese readers were aware of it, witness this humorously despondent comment from a Japanese newspaper, the Nisshin Shinjishi (日新真事誌) (founded as it happens by the Scotsman J. R. Black): "We have feared this. Our currency tampered with, and our hair cut the wrong way; and now this book comes along, and pulls the roof off our language." Contact Basemetal here 19:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]