Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 July 28

this is not real

Language desk
< July 27	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 29 >

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.

July 28

French accent

Just hearing Piaf's Milord, her accent seems especially fruity on the r's (and not only) compared to some current French films and tv series. Her diction is strong and clear, but I was wondering if her accent is of the time, cultural or regional in some way. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is typical Parisian accent of that time. Today's Parisians do not really have an accent any more, unfortunately, it has been lost in the massive immigration form all over the country. --Lgriot (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. It sounds truly rich, feeling and emphatic -- sorry it's lost. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You and I are obviously listening to the same radio station, Julia (ABC Classic FM). You have very good taste .. but I already knew that. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahaha. God Jack, of course! Julia Rossi (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

COULD YOU INCONSIDERATE FOLKS TURN THE RADIO DOWN, it´s 3AM. Btw, is Clive Robertson still around? Like other great men <sounds of sycophantic grovelling in the slime down under>, conceived in Katoomba, I just read... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: Many a hangover was made bearable by him and Caroline Jones on ABC. Non, je ne regrette rien...--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You;ll find your man here: Clive Robertson (journalist) but Caroline Jones is begging for an article. Cooky2 you really are an Austr(al)ian. Come home, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I weep daily when I turn the radio on and hear people other than Clive Robertson presenting music. Sure, he upset a lot of people with his style - but that's almost the point, isn't it. There's nothing like a good polariser on radio. As long as I'm in their camp, that is. If I don't see things their way, they're the worst in the world. Sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

JackOz, here[1] you can email him at radio 2UE, : ) I heard a Throsby interview with him sometime last year so you could track that down too if you're keen. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Name of a fountain in italics?

In this discussion, one user has suggested that the name of Crown Fountain be placed in italics, since it is a type of sculpture. Is this correct? I'm not used to seeing the names of fountains written in italics, and I haven't found anything on Google Books that puts this particular fountain's name in italics. Any help would be great. Zagalejo^^^ 06:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's simply a proper noun, capital initials are all that is required. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting), italics may be used to indicate the titles of works of visual art. Italics are never used for article titles.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I'm just asking about the name of the fountain as rendered in the body of the article. Zagalejo^^^ 19:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither Buckingham Fountain (also in Chicago) or the Trevi Fountain (the most famous one I could think of) use italics so I don't think it is necessary in Wikipedia's style for fountain names. Rmhermen (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Do other style guides (eg, Chicago) say anything specific about fountain names? Zagalejo^^^ 19:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is a fountain is not relevant. The point at issue here is that titles of works of visual art are to be italicized, so although it looks a bit odd, if that is its official title and it's being described as a work of art, italics would seem to be required (though hardly essential).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was asking if decorative fountains normally are considered works of art, and from there the rest of your points would follow. I would say it depends on the particular example; check what the sources say and do accordingly. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 09:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

EasyJet/easyJet

Can I just confirm that as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Mixed_or_non-capitalization, the trademark EasyJet (which is stylised as easyJet) should be correctly capitalised as EasyJet. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

no it should not as it is a proper noun and idiomatically stylized.^MY♥_INchile 23:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Stellette pasta

What's the proper translation from Italian for this type of pasta? Is it star-shaped or star-like or little stars? Or is it none of these, is it just a made-up word? Google translator doesn't translate it. Jooler (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Stellette literally means "little stars"; however, I think it's common practice not to translate the names of Italian Pasta dishes (they are proper names after all). We don't usually call Farfalle butterflies or Vermicelli little worms -- Ferkelparade π 12:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So if you were referring to a pattern on cloth that consisted of little stars, would you be more likely to use 'stellette' or 'po 'di stelle' or 'piccola stelle' which is what Google translator gives for "little stars" and "tiny stars"? These are obviously plural, if you wanted to call a child a "little star" what would you use? Jooler (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If I wanted to translate the pasta into English, I'd call it stellate pasta, with an a. --Kjoonlee 15:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For the inanimate pattern, you can use "piccole stelle" (plural) or "stellette". "Un po' di stelle" refers to multitude, not size, and would mean "a little bit of stars" (better: "a few stars"). For the animate child, I'd use the feminine singular diminutive suffix "-ina" (instead of "-etta"): "Sei una stellina!" ("stellina" can also mean starlet, even though "la starlet" exists as well, as does "l'attricetta". ---Sluzzelin talk 19:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Stelline" would work for the pattern too. As the Italian subsection of the article on diminutive correctly states, the rule of animate "-ino/-ina" and inanimate "-etto/etta" is weak, and there are many counterexamples; one is the attricetta given above, although the objectification is intentional in that case. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe pasta shapes are proper names; they're rarely capitalized. And I think "stellate", as an English word, is very technical; I am put in mind of stellation. Ditto "stelline", which puts me in mind of nothing at all. I would use "star-shaped" for stellette in general; for "covered with stellette", you could go with "star-spangled"; for the pasta I think star pasta might do, if translation is needed at all. jnestorius^(talk) 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(By "stelline", I meant the plural of the Italian noun "stellina", not a made-up English adjective. Only mentioning it, because no one else typed "stelline". ---Sluzzelin talk 20:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the responders have got the wrong end of the stick here. I don't want an english name for the pasta. The reason I asked this question is because my wife was feeding my seven-month old son stellette pasta mixed in with some other baby mush, and while she was doing it she called him her "stellette". I was busy doing something on my laptop at the time and didn't know what she was feeding him or that there was even such a pasta shape in the first place, but when she called him that, I queried it and she said she was calling him a little star in Italian. Being the anal, know-it-all, geek that I am immediately Googled it to prove that what she was saying was did not mean "little star", at least in respect of a name for a little child. Would "Sei una stellina!" still be correct for a baby boy?Jooler (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If he's a sharp kid, you could ditch the mush and just call him stiletto. Might be awkward in the teen years if the name sticks, but it could toughen him up. Matt Deres (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not quite a "duty"?

Salutations. I'm trying to write an essay to encourage a certain form of behaviour from editors who share my wiki philosophy. I don't want to say we have a duty to behave like this, I want to intimate that it would be good form of us to do so, being generous in victory. I've tried searching online thesauruses (proper plural anyone?), but couldn't find anything precise enough. So my request, oh skilled linguist is for a word that connotes to one's fellow traveller's that it is something less than a moral obligation, but more necessary for the wellbeing of the project than an admirable virtue. Any suggestions? Skomorokh 14:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Roget's #894 ("Courtesy") has a bunch of words that might be of use? (For reference I found that by doing a "text query" for "duty".) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid none of the linked words suffice. My sentence is something analogous to the following "The Communist's X: Although it is not mandatory, Communists who successfully overthrow a country's capitalist regime have an x to try and improve the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants, including the former oppressors." Skomorokh 20:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you're coming from now. I like wikt:desideratum, but that might be considered too obscure a word by some? Can't think of anything better so far... --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 20:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a delicious find! One worry, would "The Communist's Desideratum", referring to any Communist, imply that all Communists consider the thing desirable? Not all of my communists might, but I want to say its desirable for communists to do. Skomorokh 21:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, in the above example sentence, it seems like the x would be the desideratum of the capitalists rather than the communists ("if you're going to overthrow us, we desire you to treat us nicely" rather than "if we overthrow you, we would desire to treat you nicely"). Skomorokh 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Some kind of -onym?

The "1st grade question" from yesterday that led to a discussion about contronyms got my girlfriend and me talking about other fun onyms ('cuz we're geeks like that). Is there a word for something like a contronym, but instead of one word having two opposing meanings, involves two words or phrases which mean the same thing but would seem to mean opposing things? I guess this really only works for slang words/phrases. Example: "Knock off" and "Hold up" both mean "to rob" (i.e., "They knocked off/held up that liquor store"). "Bad" (itself a contronym) and "good" can both mean ... well, "good" (if we're still in the 1980's, I guess). I guess this particular phenomenon wouldn't necessarily get a name since it applies to slang words ... can't think of any proper examples. Dgcopter (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ravel and unravel, flammable and inflammable meaning the same thing? ;) --Kjoonlee 19:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, there ya go! The inflammable/flammable thing is a good example of what I mean. I guess it's the concept of "visual antonyms" ... words that look like they'd mean opposite things, but really mean the same thing. Kind of like the concept of false cognates Er, rather, false friends (always thought those were the same thing...thanks for learnin' me something, 'pedia!). Dgcopter (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also "press" and "depress"! Wiktionary seems to list wikt:inflammable as a contranym, are they right? Who knows! :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 20:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Two of my favorites: "to" and "unto", and "till" and "until". ;-) —Angr 21:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I guess those are visual antonyms...Well, since there doesn't seem to be a term for this particular phenomenon, I propose either "visual antonym" or -- in the spirit of "false friends" -- "false enemies". Dgcopter (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The dis- of disgruntled, disannul and disembowel is an intensive, not a negation; the words mean the same without it. jnestorius^(talk) 22:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is quite in the ballpark, but there was a famous British criminal case from the (?) 60s where a young man was convicted of shooting dead a police officer. There's a long story, most of the details of which I don't know, but it came down to an encounter where the police turned up, asked him to hand over his gun, and the man's accomplice said "Let him have it". Somehow the gun went off and the police officer was killed. The man claimed in court that he understood "Let him have it" to mean "hand over the gun", and he was in the process of doing that when somehow it went off accidentally. The prosecution argued that he understood "Let him have it" to mean "Shoot him", and that the firing was intentional.

Oh, here we go - the movie they made about it was called Let Him Have It, and further details are there. It was 1952. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about "-onym". -- Wavelength (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dgcopter, BTW, do you know that there are words that look like synonyms or near-synonyms but actually aren't? Ultimate and penultimate comes to mind. --Kjoonlee 02:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure ... is there a word for that? Language is funny. Dgcopter (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Ultimate and penultimate are near-synonyms: "last" and "second last". jnestorius^(talk) 15:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In many practical senses, they're close in meaning. In a race involving 30 horses, it hardly matters whether Flying Boy comes last or only second last. (Although, in a 2-horse race, "second last" would actually refer to the winner.) But in a grammatical sense, they're very different because they involve clearly distinct concepts, as separate as 999 is from 1000, or "black" is from "very dark". -- JackofOz (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as idioms go, don't forget could care less/couldn't care less, a lovely source for internet backdraft. Baranxtu (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

How seriously is the linguistic community taking the Saphir-Whorf Hypothesis today?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.186.7 (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Sapir–Whorf hypothesis#Influence and reactions, "Today researchers disagree—often intensely—about how strongly language influences thought". -- Wavelength (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds rather diplomatic to me. In my experience, professional linguists consider the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis to be flat-out wrong: thought influences language, not the other way around. It's mostly non-linguists who believe language influences thought. —Angr 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how does it work in this case. In English it's always the idea of I am what I am - I'm angry, for example. I can't remember how it is worded in French, but isn't the literal translation something like "I anger myself about ___..." Rather than "I'm angry about ____"? Why wouldn't that kind of thing influence thought? To me it's a lot different to say "I'm angry" than allowing for the choice of getting angry? Or is it that way just as a result of French culture? Thanks, --Falconus^{p t c} 22:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to read too much into differences of wording. Think about the sentence "I'd like a beer, please." "Please" is short for "if you please", so what you're saying, literally, is that you would hypothetically enjoy a beer if one happened to be brought to you, provided that be the listener's pleasure. But that's not what you're thinking when you say it, and it's not what you hear when someone says it to you. For practical purposes, at least to a fluent speaker, it might as well be "Idlikeplease a beer", and "Idlikeplease" might as well be short for "give me". The words don't matter nearly as much as what they imply about the speaker, and since it's considered impolite in most circumstances to say "give me a beer", about all you can conclude from "I'd like a beer, please" is that the speaker wants a beer and knows the customary way to ask for it. It doesn't tell you much about how they think. -- BenRG (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny. I'd consider "I'd like a beer, please." to be quite a rude way to ask for a beer, unless it immediately followed "What would you like to drink?" and even then it's a bit iffy. It carries connotations of expecting people to serve your whims, and feels snotty and presumptuous. The polite, customary way of asking 'round here would be the more circuitous "Could I have a beer, please?", "Could I get a beer please?" or "Do you think you could pass me a beer?", "Do you think I could have a beer?", "Would it be possible to have a beer?", etc etc. Now, you may think this doesn't tell you anything about how people think... 79.66.124.253 (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It tells you what you perceive about people, but I think that's irrelevant. --Kjoonlee 02:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant? Ooookay. 79.66.124.253 (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC) It does occur to me that perhaps it was unclear that I was comparing cultural norms, rather than suggesting that a given phrase was objectively rude. Was that unclear? Or am I misreading curtness in Kjoonlee that was unintended? Or a third option? 79.66.124.253 (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that sort of request ("I'd like a beer, please") would be received very differently depending on whether it was spoken gruffly with a scowl, as opposed to to with a cheery tone of voice and a big smile on your face. The essence of the communication would come from the non-verbals. Naturally, discussing such requests in a written forum like this has its limitations, because all we have to go on is the words. It's sometimes tempting to assume a certain affect display on the part of the speaker/writer, but their real affect may be markedly different. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree it comes down to the inflexion and non-verbal cues but I must say I wouldn't consider walking up to a barman and saying 'I'd like a beer please' rude; possibly clumsy but not rude. I've noticed when going out for dinner with friends that some will ask the waiter 'Would it be possible to have the salmon and then the steak please?' (usually with increasing pitch towards the end); I think they go too far to try and avoid the concerns 79.66.124.253 was alluding to, when simply telling him what you want suffices. If you go too far to avoid seeming demanding you can end up seeming apologetic, which is patronising in its own right..I've strayed off topic, sorry.Od6600 (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Which in turn tells us interesting things about the people who use these different forms and perceive them in different ways :) 79.66.124.253 (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is even more irrelevant IMHO... --Kjoonlee 16:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I chose a bad example. Just imagine a situation in which "I'd like a beer please" is a polite thing to say, or a phrase that's polite to say in the situation you were imagining. I was only saying that fluent speakers unconsciously "hear through" the word choice to the underlying intent, and I still think that's true, notwithstanding my bad choice of words. -- BenRG (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

All the real linguists I've met and talked to in real life think that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is utter rubbish. --Kjoonlee 02:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Falconus^{p t c} 03:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Language in Mind - The MIT Press. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't offer any useful comment on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. However, I have to say I'm very puzzled as to how "I'd like a beer please." could be considered rude, assuming it is said to a bartender in a civil tone of voice. Can someone please enlighten me? Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That relates to what I said above about the affect display. The civil tone of voice is what would make it an acceptable question. The exact same set of words, but spoken in an uncivil manner, would be received very differently. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it's something that can't really be explained in a rational way, since it's really just a cultural thing. But really, if someone said to me in the nicest way possible "I'd like a beer, please." I would be taken aback at their presumption and rudeness. I would be able to make allowances for them coming from a different culture, but I would still hear it as rude. No matter how nicely it's said, it carries an assumption (to me, raised as I was raised, blah blah blah, all the interesting - but apparently irrelevant - aspects of linguistics and sociology) that you expressing your wish is all it takes for me to serve you. As if I'm here to wait on you. Obviously there are ways of making it worse with tone of voice, but the actual phrase itself is rude to me. What can you do? 79.66.124.253 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

'Utter rubbish' sounds a bit extreme to me. Truly, virtually none of them accept the original common interpretation of the theory; but there's many who go back to what Sapir and Whorf actually wrote on the matter and realize that what they actually said is far more reserved and subtle than the radical strawmans that were attributed to it. Most current linguists would say that there's a relationship between the two and although they vary in opinion about the extent and nature of it, virtually all of them reject the traditionally understood version of the hypothesis that Edward and Benjamin would most likely have rejected as well. The more generally accepted 'tempered' versions of it are actually closer to what was originally said. On a side note, just because someone is a linguist doesn't mean they're really qualified to speak professionally on all aspects of linguistics. I wouldn't let a urologist perform brain surgery on me. -LambaJan (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Angr and others who think the Sapir Whorf hypothesis has been discarded are wrong. Firstly the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has different formulations all of which have been posited by their opponents not by themselves. The strongest version is that Language determines thought. This has been discarded, and furthermore there is very little evidence that Sapir and Whorf themselves actually held this opinion. The weak one is that "language influences thought" and this version has been proven to be right so many times that it is nearly trivial. Accodirng to those who now work with the subject (linguists like Barry Levinson, John Gumperz, John Haviland, John Lucy, George Lakoff and others) the think to find out now is to "what degree language influences thought". Some studies about this have been published, among other places in the influential anthology "Rethinking Linguistic Relativity" and have shown that the hypothesis of linguistic relativity (a better name for the sapir whorf hypothesis) even holds water in some enviroments where it would have been thought not to. Examples are peoples whose language lacks terms for right/left and who apparently orientate themselves purely by the cardinal directions and have a very hard time learning the notion of left/right. And the Pirahã whose language lacks quantifiers and who therefore have extreme difficulties in learning how to count and calculate. 16:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)·Maunus·ƛ·

"Kabiawu" etymology

Does the name Kabiawu come from a known word in the Yoruba language? NeonMerlin 19:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)