Language desk
< January 6	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 7[edit]

Cardinal/Ordinal patterns in English[edit]

I was looking at these patterns:

One, two, three.
First, second, third.
Single, double, triple.(or unique, double, treble?)
Solo, duo, trio.
Unitary, binary, trinary.

I wondered what the pattern is that contains "pair" and what the first is for ..diptych, triptych.

LuckyThracian (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also ".... ternary, quaternary ...", but I don't know the names for the first two words. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'unary' and 'binary' start that (Latin, more or less) sequence. Algebraist 02:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

monoptych, i guess —Tamfang (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the natural word to invent, and going by Google at least one person has done so before. On the 'pair' front, the OED gives it as coming originally from the latin par, 'equal', rather than a word for 2, so I doubt it falls into a pattern. Algebraist 04:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Properly, there should be no monoptych. The Greek ptych element in these words means "folded", or "layered", so only with n > 1 can an n-ptych be defined. (Neat, huh?) OED says that the others are modeled on diptych: "1. Anything folded, so as to have two leaves;[...]". It gives only diptych, triptych, tetraptych, pentaptych, and polyptych. Others could be constructed on the same model: hexaptych, heptaptych, and so on. No doubt Google will find such things.

As for pair, OED has a second division in its entry that seems to connect more directly with Latin par (mentioned by Algebraist), meaning "equal" but not limited to two equal items:

II. A set, not limited to two.
6. a. A set of separate things or parts forming a collective whole; e.g. a set (of gallows, harness, numbles, etc.); a suit (of armour); a string (of beads); a pack (of cards); a complex musical instrument, as ‘a pair of organs, clavichords, virginals, bagpipes’; a chest (of drawers). a pair of arrows, a set of three arrows (Cent. Dict. 1890). All Obs., or only dial. (But see b, c.)[...]
b. pair of stairs: a flight of stairs. Often used as equivalent to floor or storey, as two pair of stairs, or shortly, two pair, the second floor or storey. Also attrib., as in a one (or two) pair (of stairs) lodging, room, window, etc.[...]
c. pair of steps: a flight of steps; also, a portable set of steps used in a library, etc.[...]

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If monoptych is illegitimate, then so is simplex, I imagine. —Tamfang (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton, pair, triplet. --Lambiam 05:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word, and the form, n-tuplet is common among philosophers and associated luminaries. SOED has it, in the entry "-tuplet".– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 06:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer on the n-ptychs is definitive, I think. As to pair, it obviously varies according to context.
Thankyou all for your contributions.

LuckyThracian (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the pattern primary, secondary, tertiary .... Odd how the little word "one" is related to such diverse words as first, primary, single, solo, unary, unit, and unitary. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet..."One is the loneliest number that you'll ever do.." LuckyThracian (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arch (arch) and arch (ark)[edit]

The prefix "arch-" with the meaning chief, first, principal, is pronounced either as:

arch - e.g. in archbishop, archdiocese, archduke, or
ark - e.g. in archangel and archetype.

If it has the same meaning, why does the pronunciation vary? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the examples you gave, it seems like if it is followed by a vowel, it's pronounced with the harder sound. Of course, we might need to see more examples before that's certain. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "archenemy" is not pronounced with ark. I think the rule is as follows. If the compound word starting with "arch-" is derived from a Greek word that was already a compound like that in its Greek form (like ἀρχάγγελος for archangel), we get ark. If the prefix "arch-" was prepended later to a Latin/French/English word (even if derived from Greek, like "diocese"), we get arch rhyming with starch. In a word straight from Greek, "arch-" must be followed by a vowel, so if you have a consonant you get arch. The converse is not necessarily true, as shown by "archenemy". --Lambiam 05:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Prepended, Lambiam? SOED for prepend: "Weigh mentally, ponder; premeditate."]

I think the principle you adduce is generally sound; but there are a few exceptions, if we consider certain cases with e or i interpolated:

archipelago (first found in medieval Latin in 13C, says OED)
archespore, archesporium, etc. (learned late Latin; not found in Greek)
architrave, from Italian, through French with sibilant /sh/.

I find no converse exceptions, with original Greek ἀρχ-words pronounced with /artch/. (In French, of course, the situation is more complex.)

I suspect that with a minor qualification the principle could be made entirely exceptionless.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 06:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For prepend in the sense I used it in, see dictionary.com or Wiktionary. --Lambiam 12:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure L. No problem. But it is a recent and vulgar meaning, not sanctioned in the ivory towers. Not in any "good" dictionary.

Standards!

:)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 14:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "archbishop". It derives from the Greek αρχιεπισκοπος, so one might expect the "ark" sound to carry across ... but no. I'm reminded that "arch" can also be a suffix, e.g. monarch, pronounced ark. Does this mean that the king of kings could be described as an archmonarch, with the first arch pronounced arch and the second arch pronounced ark? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact though, despite Greek precedent, from arch- + bishop.

(And greetings from the Dandenongs, JackofOzMate.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 14:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack tips his metaphorical hat in a Dandenongly direction

So the adjective Archiepiscopal would be pronounced with [k], while the noun Archbishop would be pronounced with [tsh]. You have to love it... AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I love it. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attaboy?[edit]

What is the meaning and origing of 'Attaboy'? 86.88.146.120 (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See attaboy at Wiktionary, the free dictionary. Algebraist 04:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So who has the accent?[edit]

Do Americans have an American accent and the British/Australians talk normally? Or is it the other way with the British and Australians having an annoying accent and Americans talking normally? Bellum et Pax (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Americans and Britons walk correctly and Australians upside-down, or do Americans and Britons walk upside-down and Australians correctly? AnonMoos (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why lump the Brits and Australians together, Bellum? Maybe the Brits and Americans talk normally and the Australians have a weird accent. Or maybe all three have annoying accents and it's the Irish who talk normally. Or the Finns. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the ears of some Americans, some Australian accents sound like slightly altered London Cockney accents... AnonMoos (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew someone who hated her Texas accent and affected her own version of RP. At least one person guessed that she was Australian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamfang (talk • contribs) 06:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They all talk abnormally. --Lambiam 05:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're all different except one.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The longer answer is that Americans have an American accent and the British have a British accent and the Australians have an Australian accent. How funny people sound depends on your perspective but there's no objective way of determining which is the "normal" way and which is incorrect or funny. This is especially so with English because we don't have a real international pronunciation standard accepted by all English speaking communities. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a foreigner and I use a British accent because it sounds more "correct" or "cleaner" to me than the apparently "lazier" American news anchors use. I think it's mainly a matter of personal preference and bias. --Taraborn (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just to scramble things up a little more, what's an American accent? Southern? Northern? Midwest? Appalachian? New York? New England? There are a bunch more. And then what's a British accent? Queen's English? Cockney? Yorkshire? (I know there are a more, I just can't think of them). I don't know if Australia has regional differences also, but I would guess that they probably do. --Falconus^{p t c} 11:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious other British accents are Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish. Algebraist 14:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always assume an "American accent" and a "British accent" to be the one you hear in nationwide broadcasts, that is General American and Received Pronunciation. --Taraborn (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Received Pronunciation is not the only British accent heard in nationwide broadcasts, at least not for a good few decades now. 86.141.89.83 (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just take the core, the others seem deviated. Where did English originate? --Omidinist (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English originated in northwest Germany and the northern Netherlands, according to the first sentence of our History of the English language article. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our History of the English language article states that English originated from dialects brought to Britain from these areas, which is not quite the same as saying that it originated in these areas. --Lambiam 19:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the most famous epic in Old English is about a Swedish warrior who fought in Denmark. --Kjoonlee 19:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the early colonial days there was no divergence between the English dialects spoken in the American colonies and spoken in England, except that the concentration of certain dialects as bound to certain areas was quite pronounced in England and less so in America, where a certain amount of mixing occurred. Since the declaration of independence of the united colonies both British English and American English dialect pronunciations have evolved; it is often claimed that the American dialects are more "archaic" in the sense that they have retained more of 18th century pronunciation than British English. --Lambiam 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Falconus's comment, the Australian "accent" is fairly uniform across the nation, but there are subtle differences in both pronunciation and word-choice. South Australians are renowned, for example, for swallowing their "L"s ("school" sounds like "skoow") and for using some (often German-based) words that other states don't use. Victorians are reputed to call their capital (Melbourne) "Malbourne" - although they all vehemently deny this, others can hear it quite clearly. And there is a funny pronunciation of "o" that many Victorians seem to have adopted - words like "phone" and "home" sound more like "fine" and "hime", and "no" sounds like "noy". Christi Malthouse is an exemplar par excellence of these strange ways. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to what Lambiam said, I have actually heard (but don't hold me to it) that the US Southern accent is believed to be very similar to 17th and 18th century British accents. How they determined this, though, I have no idea. --Falconus^{p t c} 19:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US accent or dialect alleged to be most archaic is Appalachian English. (There are actually several different dialects or accents in the US South. See Southern American English.) Marco polo (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "weird accents", we all talk differently because we live apart. Even within the U.S, there are people that speak differently. You could probably tell a New Yorker apart from a man from Tenessee pretty quick by the way they speak. So, i guess accents are just hints to show where a person is from, but it doesn't determine which person speaks proper english.--Dlo2012 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persian[edit]

is there any GOOD academic institution that teaches persian in lahore (pakistan) i m an 18 year old university student..i have impressive command on urdu. what time will it approximately take to learn to speak fluently and/or to be able to read a book in that language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on how determined you are to learn the language. To learn a language to the point that you can speak it with no problem, it might take a couple of years. You might want to google search for the university, because i'm not sure a lot of wikipedians here have attended schools that teach the language.--Dlo2012 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"9/11 Truth Movement" in Turkish?[edit]

I want to translate the term "9/11 Truth Movement" into Turkish but it sounds bad, somthing like Tarzanish. "11 Eylül Doğruluk Hareketi" mi olsun, kulağa çok kötü geliyor. Önerisi olan var mı? Any suggestion from Turks or anybody who knows Turkish? this was in talk page of 9/11 Truth Movement --Ilhanli (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11 Eylül Gerçek Hareketi sounds better. --Lambiam 19:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can add that ""11 Eylül Gerçeği" gets about 1,470 Google hits, whereas "11 Eylül Doğruluğu" gets no hits. --Lambiam 19:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11 Eylül Gerçeği Hareketi sounds much better --Ilhanli (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also prefer, for example, Mezuniyet Ödülü Töreni to Mezuniyet Ödül Töreni? In this case it is a bit confusing that gerçek is both a noun and an adjective, and that in the combination Gerçek Hareketi it could be an adjective, but in 11 Eylül Gerçek Hareketi it is unambiguously a noun. I would tend to analyze the structure of "9/11 Truth Movement" as "9/11 {Truth Movement}" (i.e., "Truth Movement of 9/11"), and not "{9/11 Truth} Movement" (i.e., "Movement of 9/11 Truth"). The form 11 Eylül Gerçeği Hareketi can only be analyzed as the latter. --Lambiam 14:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In English, I've always interpreted it as "{9/11 Truth} Movement". Tesseran (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11 Eylül Gerçeği means the truth of 9/11
11 Eylül Gerçek menas 9/11 is a truth.
So, i think that it has to be 11 Eylül Gerçeği; the truth of 9/11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilhanli (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]