Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

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.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia: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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 5

Which variety of Serbo-Croatian is this?

Which variety of Serbo-Croatian is this?

• http://www.chelseaschools.com/cps/uploads/docs/pic/%2803-04%29.Registration%20Requirements.Serbo-Croatian.pdf

Bosnian? Serbian? Croatian? WhisperToMe (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Croatian.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

lash out in the greyness of the room

Would you explain for me the exact meaning of the phrase "lash out" in the following sentence: "The uncoordinated colors combined in turmoil and lashed out in the greyness of the room." Here "colors" refers to those of furniture. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.180.177 (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty purely subjectivistic, but apparently there has been an attempt to "brighten up" a room by adding in some vividly colored items, and the narrator's eyes are offended by the result... AnonMoos (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

To "lash out" is to react suddenly and violently to something that has provoked your anger. The author is treating the colours of the furniture as a mtaphorically violent reaction to the dullness of the room. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• This reminds me quite strongly of the review of the Modernist apartment building the Enright House designed by Architect Howard Roark in Rand's The Fountainhead: "...AND there it will stand, as a monument to nothing but the egotism of Mr. Enright and of Mr. Roark. It will stand between a row of brownstone tenements on one side and the tanks of a gashouse on the other. This, perhaps, is not an accident, but a testimonial to fate’s sense of fitness. No other setting could bring out so eloquently the essential insolence of this building. It will rise as a mockery to all the structures of the city and to the men who built them. Our structures are meaningless and false; this building will make them more so. But the contrast will not be to its advantage. By creating the contrast it will have made itself a part of the great ineptitude, its most ludicrous part. If a ray of light falls into a pigsty, it is the ray that shows us the muck and it is the ray that is offensive. Our structures have the great advantage of obscurity and timidity. Besides, they suit us. The Enright House is bright and bold. So is a feather boa. It will attract attention--but only to the immense audacity of Mr. Roark’s conceit. When this building is erected, it will be a wound on the face of our city. A wound, too, is colorful."

μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

what's with this torrent of queries asking to explain what I'd condider are fairly basic and transparent metaphors? this is freaking irritating, all the more so as you seem to have an otherwise very good command of the English language. You should be able to grasp all the stuff you're asking about without help. Is it just you, or is it cultural, or are you trolling WP? (metaphors highlighted using italics for your convenience) PS note to self: stop lashing out (hurr-durr) at peopleAsmrulz (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

July 6

I'm looking for sentences containing double successive words, e.g. "Give her her book", "He said that that was clear", "I told you you were wrong", "The owner's dog told it it would be punished", "The doll got broken so please try to put its back back".

Let's exclude the following common cases:

1. Two sentences pretending a single sentence, e.g. "Hi there, there is no rain today", and likewise.
2. Double words intended to emphasize an idea, as in the song: "a big big house and a big big car", and the like.
3. Double words one of which is in quotations marks, e.g. "I'm not referring to long words but rather to 'to' and other short words", "When 'When' comes in the beginning it mustn't follow any word", and likewise.
4. Double words one of which is a verb, e.g. "Can a bow bow down?", "Can a row row a boat?", and the like.
5. Double words one of which is an auxiliary verb, e.g. "What it really is is not interesting me", "What it really was was not interesting me", "Whether he does does not matter", "His will will never be realized", "He had had been there", "This can can get broken", "May May be the month he's talking about?", and likewise.
6. Double words each of which is a preposition, e.g. "He is the person I was looking at at the beginning", "I'm waiting for the person you're waiting for for the same reason", and the like.

So far, I've only found five rare cases satisfying my condition:

• Sentences of the type: "Give her her book" ( Or generally: "[transitive verb] her her [noun]" ).
• Sentences of the type: "He said that that was clear" ( or generally: "[pronoun] [say/says/said and its synonyms] that that [predicate]" ).
• Sentences of the type: "I told you you were wrong" ( or generally: "[pronoun] [tell/tells/told and its synonyms] you you [predicate]" ).
• Sentences of the type: "The owner's dog told it it would be punished" ( or generally: "[subject] [tell/tells/told and its synonyms] it it [predicate]" ).
• Sentences of the type: "The doll got broken so please try to put its back back" ( or generally: "put [article/demonstrator] back back" ).

I will appreciate any additional example. Thank you. HOOTmag (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• It was in doing that that he made his big mistake. [demonstrative that + relative that]
• There was one person he used to speak with with whom he could never agree. [identical prepositions in different clauses]

Not very elegant examples, but these cases do come up occasionally in edited prose. Deor (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to your first important example, I've just added it to my original question. Your second example is correct as well, but it's only an example of the more general case of double preposition, which I've just excluded in sec. #6 above.HOOTmag (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"He brought up the issue again, but I was no mood to for it. We had had this discussion many times before".--Shirt58 (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's an auxiliary verb, so it has already been excluded (see above sec. #5). HOOTmag (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

In your first two examples for number 5, the is and was are not auxiliary verbs. Deor (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I suspect they are, but they certainly are - if I add "me" after "interesting". HOOTmag (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, bloody Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo hell. Yeah, I missed that. Is there any way a sound can immediately be played when you type in a wrong answer here, like the "forfeit" on QI? If "is" is "is" in "it's", is "is" in "isn't" "is", or isn't it "is" is? etc, etc. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Your "buffalo" example violates sec. #4. Your "is" example violates both sec. #3 and sec. #4 (or #5). HOOTmag (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Buffalo (proper nown) buffalo (noun) would seem to qualify, since both are nouns. Presumably other place names which are also non-proper nouns would also work. MChesterMC (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"It's not its breed that troubles me, it's its cold nose".

• Now, this obviously shouldn't qualify, since apostrophes count. But increasingly common practice suggests it's just a matter of personal preference whether one spells the possessive pronoun its the traditional way (without an apostrophe), or the new way (with one). If one accepts that such a choice is valid (I don't, for the record) and then chooses the new option, we have "... it's it's cold nose". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The cold doesn't bother me anyway. 86.129.13.205 (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If it's "it is" or "it has", it's "it's", but if it's not, i'ts "its". — Grammar rule

Of course, it doesn't qualify either, per quotes. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 07:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

• "I gave the kid kid to eat." (i.e. "meat of a young goat")
• "Is this mine mine?"
• "After the second second, he already knew he'd lost the game"
• "She gave him the third third of the money"

And then there's the category of words that can be adjectives as well as nouns (e.g. "a kind kind of person", "the final final", "a fair fair", "a gay gay", "an orange orange" etc.) - Lindert (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• There's another use of "second second". If you read the small-print section of movie credits you will often see the job title second second assistant director. This is simply the ordinal use of "second" repeated, i.e. there are two "second assistant directors" and this is the second-ranking of them. Although the linked article attempts to give the job a different meaning from "third assistant director" (and indeed a few movies credit people under both job titles), usually only one of the two job titles appears and I strongly suspect that the term originated as an attempt to keep "third" in "third assistant director" from being pronounced like "turd".
• Another variation on "that that" is where the second "that" is not a pronoun but an adjective. "He said that that man did it."
• Another variation on "each one is a preposition" is where the first word is a particle in a phrasal verb. "He set it up up in the attic."

--50.100.189.160 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"He who loves loves you with your dirt." - Ugandan proverb (search online). This doesn't quite violate #4 as both words, rather than just one of them, are verbs. --Theurgist (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're making a batch of something that solidifies; "The set set quickly" - X201 (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Then there's the famous furniture treatment made in Warsaw: Polish Polish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In China, china has a long history. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In Russia, history has a long china. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 07:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There's what used to be a fairly well-known punctuation example given to primary school children in the UK: James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher. Eric Corbett 22:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

And the publican who employed a sub-standard signwriter, and was left complaining that "there's not enough space between the Coach and and and and and Horses.' Stephen 03:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger...oops, I forgot Carlsberg WP doesn't do internet memes. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 07:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

WSJ (July 5-6): Too Many Eggs In Your Boss's Basket

Boss's - is it correct? How do you pronounce this? Should it not be Boss' with pronunciation: [boss is] or something like this? Thanks --AboutFace 22 (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"Boss's" is correct that context; it's pronounced the same as "bosses". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The short and long spellings are both correct (i.e. widely accepted), although style guides may recommend a specific choice. The short and long pronunciations (like "boss" or "bosses") are also both correct. Different people use different combinations. If your boss wants you to use a specific form, best to go with that. Sadly, the article English possessive does not address this topic at all. --50.100.189.160 (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Our information on the subject is at Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an “s” or “z” sound and MOS:POSS. Tevildo (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Verbs with limited objects

Certain English verbs seem to only accept a very limited class of direct objects. For instance, "wreak" [1] most commonly comes with "havok". We can "wreak vengeance on Joe", but we cannot "wreak happiness on Joe", nor van we "wreak Joe." Similarly, "doff" often goes with hats [2]. I can also "doff my coat", but I cannot doff a dog or a cup or myself (in the sense of the first definition). The questions: Is there a word for this kind of limited-object verb? Any interesting studies about them? Any candidates for "verb that accepts smallest class of direct objects"? I suppose many verbs' objects are restricted to either concrete or abstract nouns (I cannot "punch happiness"), but I'm interested in the more limited examples. Thanks for any insights, SemanticMantis (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It's more a case that a verb has become obsolete except in idioms. Another is "hale", surviving only with "hearty". Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I would call them collocations. --ColinFine (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI... The terms "wreak", "wrack" and "wreck" all seem to come from the same place.[3] The terms "doff" and "don" are short for "do off" and "do on".[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A book on popular linguistics

I am trying to find a book. I used to own it and read but later it's been lost. The book was written by what I dare say a famous European linguist who lived in the 19th century. He was Scandinavian but I do not recall his last name. I also cannot recall the book's title. His name sounded pretty much like Erickson but was almost twice as long. I am sure it is on Amazon but I cannot locate it.

He wrote this popular book at the end of his life apparently. It was all about linguistics. Among other things he discussed how languages originated. He gave a few examples when language sprang out from nowhere. This is one of the stories. Somewhere in northern Europe, perhaps in Belgium in one family identical twin were born. Somehow the family neglected them and they grew up on their own. They had a very little input from outside world and when the story became known they spoke their own language. I think the grammar was pretty much of their mother's tongue which is significant.

He gave other examples. He said that when Europeans came to California they found hundreds of small tribes speaking their own languages. There was a linguistic pandemonium. On the other hand Eskimo up north speak a single language across vast expanse of the tundra. There is one language for thousands of miles. He explained it this way. In California the climate is mild and historically something like this probably happened. A small family separated from a tribe and went on a hunting trip. The little kids stayed behind at a camp while the adults hunted big game. During the hunt the adults are killed and the kids are left to their own devices. Somehow they survive, get by and grow up. In the meantime they spontaneously develop a new language if they started out young, perhaps around 2 years of slightly older. This language deviates significantly in vocabulary from what their parents spoke but the grammar might be similar. Grammar is innate. Chomsky formulated this obvious truth and made an academic career out of it but it apparently was known well before him. In the north behind the Polar Circle if parents are killed during a hunt the children under similar circumstances have no chance to survive and no new language develops.

Even when I still had this book I tried to discuss his assertions in some online forums. The participants’ reaction stunned me. Everyone was saying: "It is an old book!" Indeed it was written I believe at the end of the 19th century but the book I actually had was reprinted most likely by Dover in 1945 or so. The observations like this of course are timeless but it appears linguistics grows on its skin as some would say but I thought the latest statement is more applicable to medicine not linguistics. Does anybody know what I am talking about? Thanks. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Otto Jespersen? Maybe his book Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin (1922) (although I don't know if its contents match your description). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel you are correct. Many thanks. I've already ordered the book on Amazon with "one click." --AboutFace 22 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No need buying until you do like olde good paper books. By the way, his no less interesting The Philosophy of Grammar was one of my first books about linguistics.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

JFYI, the idea that "grammar is innate" is far from an "obvious truth". Most empirical linguists reject Chomsky's "Universal Grammar" because of insufficient evidence. As phrased here:

Theoretically, Darwin makes a number of important observations. First, he recognizes the crucial distinction between the language faculty (the biological capacity which enables humans to acquire language) and particular languages (like Latin or English). The former capacity, which Darwin refers to as "an instinctive tendency to acquire an art" (p 56), is shared by all members of the human species. Darwin neatly bypasses the unproductive nature/nurture debate that has consumed so much scholarly energy by observing that language "is not a true instinct, as every language has to be learnt. It differs, however, from all ordinary arts, for man has an instinctive tendency to speak, as we see in the babble of our young children" (p 55). As ethologist Peter Marler has put it, language is not an instinct, but an "instinct to learn" whose expression entails that both biological and environmental preconditions be fulfilled. It is this "instinct to learn" for which an biological, evolutionary explanation must be sought: a thoroughly modern perspective.

See also Zompist.com for an accessible introduction to the problem.

Moreover, it is highly doubtful that new languages (especially spoken languages) arise as spontaneously as described, and such an occurrence has never been documented securely. Twin languages do not arise completely independently, in total isolation from the surrounding languages (nor do pidgins, by the way, and it is extremely implausible that the Nicaraguan Sign Language should form an exception). The "poverty of the stimulus" is a standard Chomskyan talking point that nobody has ever been able to support with solid evidence. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Chomsky has never had anything interesting or worthwhile to say on the subjects of evolution or genetics. Nevertheless, it has become quite clear during the past several decades that general undifferentiated learning mechanisms (association, conditioning, reinforcement etc.) cannot account for childhood language learning, and that in fact children make highly specific and restrictive implicit assumptions about what it is that they are learning. You can call these "universal grammar" or reject the term as you please, but there is definitely something other than general leaning going on... AnonMoos (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the OP is misunderstanding universal grammar. UG says that the ability to learn grammar is hardwired into the brain, not that specific grammars are hardwired. UG does not mean that a Chinese child (for example) can easily learn Chinese because his genes code for Chinese grammar. If the child is completely isolated from society, and she somehow begins speaking, there's no reason to suspect that her grammar would be more similar to Chinese than to English, or Nahuatl. It's easy to demonstrate that specific grammars are not hardcoded: Chinese people born and raised in the US speak perfect English, and the same applies to every other ethnic group. --Bowlhover (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow! The subject, it turns out, touches some nerves. Well. I am not a linguist, I am a psychiatrist. What Jespersen presented looked very reasonable to me. I don't think he stated it this way but the message was loud a clear that there is a predisposition in the brain to think about the world in a certain grammatical way. The example of a Chinese child being brought up in an English speaking country is incorrect, aside from being primitive. Many of us have innate ability to learn another language if started early and become bilingual. What does this example with the Chinese child say? It says that had he been brought up in bilingual environment (Chinese and English) he would have had easier, much easier, way to learn Chinese than an English child in similar environment. Of course it is only a statement. It is hard to stage an experiment like this and even if we did it must have been done on a grand scale to compare statistics and exclude confounding variables.

I personally interviewed an individual who could not phrase his thoughts in the past tense. It was bizarre and shocking. I knew for a fact that he was talking about something that happened in the past but all his sentences were in present tense. Only later I heard about discovering similar cases in Canada. More than that some people have no way to express their thoughts in the future tense. They do not understand it. I believe Arabic does not have future tense. They allegedly use adverbs for that. What does it mean? It means that when the proto-Arabic first originated it did not have future tense in their grammar. And in essence they did not need it. I believe it is in John's that he asked Jesus when the end of the world would come. Jesus lightheartedly defined it briskly: "Before you die." What does it mean? it means the Jesus and perhaps a good portion of the Jews at that time had no idea about the future. For them the future did not extend beyond a couple of days.

I don't think there is such a thing as a universal grammar. Grammars have been born and died with new historical mutations in Broka and Wernicke parts of the brain. Some of them survived, other died. Each mutation dictated its own grammar, pronunciation, prosody and inflexion. A single proto-language is of course, a nonsense. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No need to go this far. English and, if I recall correctly, Proto-Germanic has/had no "formal" future tense.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you point to a source for the Canadian cases? I think this is fascinating, and I want to read more about it.

Many languages don't have a past or future tense. Chinese is one example: there is no past tense, and speakers depend on context to tell past from present. I guarantee that Chinese people know what the past is, and are perfectly able to make a past/present distinction when necessary. I highly doubt that Jesus didn't have a concept of "future", considering that the Hebrew Bible claims to prophesize events hundreds of years in the future.

As for my example with the child, my point is that language-specific grammars are learned rather than inherited. There is nothing in a Chinese person's genes that would make her better or faster at speaking Chinese than English, or any other language. If you locked her in a cage for her entire life (which happened to Genie (feral child), except she wasn't lucky enough to get a cage), she likely wouldn't speak any language and would lose the ability to learn a language in her adult years, just like Genie. If she somehow did start speaking spontaneously, there's no reason to assume that her speech would resemble Chinese and not Kwadi. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that Jesus and his contemporaries almost certainly had a well-formed concept of the future, it isn't true that the Hebrew Bible predicts events hundreds of years in the future. There is absolutely nowhere in the text where it literally says such a thing. Such readings started being applied to the text later, by readers who may have had a significant Greek influence. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a few days late to your discussion, but I hope this is helpful: My L1 is not Arabic but Standard German. We don't usually mark the future grammatically. Yet we do understand the concept of future just fine. Even as a child when I didn't know any other language, I had no trouble distinguishing between present and future events, despite not distinguishing between those in grammar.

Some linguistic phenomena (progressive tense in English, aspect in Russian) may take some time to get used to for people who are not used to them from previous languages. They are simply not used to having to think about those concepts whenever they want to write or say something. That does not mean that the concepts themselves are alien to those people; only their intrusion into one's established linguistic habits is.

Not sure how relevant this is, but I was surprised, even incredulous, when I first read something along the lines of Mandarin lacking a past tense, because I was used to having a past tense in my L1. It did not occur to me that the case of Mandarin is not all that different from my own L1's lack of a future tense (I guess there is one, but I hardly ever use it to mark the future), a lack that may be equally shocking to people who only know languages with a compulsory present–future distinction. Other shockers for me were Russian's lack of "is/are/am" and Korean's lack of "you". 82.83.108.127 (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the third paragraph that the OP posted I would take the whole book with a grain of salt. In Inuit languages it points out that they could be considered a "system of closely interrelated dialects" or "a group of languages". However, the ability to understand a dialect/language drops with distance. So a native speaker in Ulukhaktok will have no difficulty speaking to someone from Kugluktuk (same dialect with minor differences), little difficulty in speaking with someone from Sachs Harbour, great difficulty in speaking with someone from Gjoa Haven and would probably be unable to understand someone from Rankin Inlet, Nunavut.

If you look at Inuit culture#Family life and Native American cultures in the United States#Gender roles you can see that both peoples had similar gender roles. The males were the primary hunters although the women were expected to have a knowledge of hunting as well. This would mean the chances of the children being left alone were slim. A major hunt in either type of culture would have be males only. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 01:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Jesperson's stories aren't totally useless, but they are pretty much of the "just so" type nowadays. When I was a babe, Mario Pei was the popularizer of linguistics, although I can really only recommend his work on the romance languages to layman. Anthony Burgess's (A Clockwork Orange) A Mouthful of Air remains the best rigorous popular work for laymen of which I am aware, a penny plus shipping at Amazon. Fromkin and Rodman would be the next step up from Burgess, it is the standard college 201 introductory text for majors. Don't bother paying for a recent edition, one from the 80's will do. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Pinker's The Language Instinct is a very readable introduction, aimed at non-specialists, to a resolutely Chomskyan view of language. Other views are available. --ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Answering to Bowlhover, No, I don't have a source/quote. I heard that on National Public Radio morning news broadcast many years ago while driving to work. However, over the years I have been coming across some bits and pieces of such information from various sources I cannot recall. Keep it in mind I am not a linguist. I wish I could recall where I read that in Africa there are tribes who speak only in the present tense, no past, no future. As far as Chinese is concerned, and that may be true for some other languages, the lack of past tense seems to indicate that when the language first sprang up and the languages are always spring up from nowhere when appropriate mutations appear in the population, the Chinese did not have past tense. It is possible that the gene for past tense appeared in the population later on and no grammar developed or perhaps their "past tense genes" are somewhat different from corresponding genes in Northern Europeans who perhaps historically began without past tense genes but acquired them hundreds or thousands years later.

I just want to say that in my opinion language is a behavior, pretty much as handwriting or the manner we walk is a behavior and every behavior is mediated by the genes. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, AboutFace 22. I'm afraid your conclusion is not warranted. That Chinese doesn't have a past tense (in some formulations of what "past tense" means) is a fact about the mechanisms that the language uses. It tells you almost nothing about the mental models of its speakers, still less about their genetics. A comparable analogy would be to claim that because meso-Americans didn't have the wheel, they couldn't travel, and were lacking a gene for travel. --ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

AboutFace 22 -- unfortunately that sounds like a shallow or severely outdated version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Languages differ enormously in their "obligatory categories" (i.e. what is expressed in inflections, so that one must generally choose between using the singular form or the plural form of an English noun, etc.), but all human languages have ways of expressing that events took place in the past... AnonMoos (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support the theory that specific grammars are genetically encoded and plenty of evidence to refute it. For just a few examples out of hundreds of possibilities, we know that many Italians are genetic descendants of Etruscans who spoke a language with a grammar radically different from that of Latin or Italian. Hungarians are largely the genetic descendants of peoples who previously spoke a Slavic language, and before that, Celtic or Pannonian languages, yet Hungarian grammar is radically different from those of the languages spoken by most Hungarians' ancestors. And, speaking of Chinese, many or most of the ancestors of the present-day population of Northeast China spoke the Manchu language or other Tungusic languages, whose grammar is radically different from that of the Mandarin Chinese dialect now spoken by the overwhelming majority in Northeast China. Because language shift has occurred so frequently among historic populations, there is no reason to think that it occurred less often in prehistoric times. So, which grammar would be genetically encoded in the inhabitants of Northeast China: the Mandarin grammar that has been in use for 5-6 generations, the Manchu grammar that was in use for a few centuries before that, or the grammars of lost prehistoric languages spoken by those people's ancestors? Language continuity is more the exception than the rule for populations with more than 2,000 years of recorded history. Even in populations with some linguistic continuity, such as the Greeks or the remaining speakers of Irish, grammatical rules and structures have undergone quite substantial change. This makes it impossible to maintain that specific grammars are genetically encoded. Marco polo (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I must have the Jespersen's book tomorrow and will refresh my recollections. This discussion is too heavy for me. I even had to read hastily on Hungarian language. Of course none of the Hungarians ever spoke Slavic. They are members of Ugro-Finnish group and that's it.

You guys confuse genetic wiring of the grammar with plasticity of the nervous system. Of course, anyone can find countless examples as to how a person born into one ethnicity being brought up in another language milieu will completely adapt the fruits of it and blend into the new medium. Our nervous system can do it provided people are gifted enough, shall I say endowed with enough IQ? Still if their children at a very young age brought back into the original ethnicity where the original language is preserved they will have a much easier time to master it than people who are not genetically related to this population. I will try to come up with some examples in a day or two if I find them. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• It seems unfortunate you have no desire in educated opinion here. Ignore me and the sources I've given, but Colins, Maroco's and Anon's statements are established science. As for Hungarians not having spoken Slavic, thanks for the laugh on a personal basis. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • From the other hand, Hungarians indeed never spoke Slavic as if they spoke Slavic then they were Slavs. ;) Hungarians are those who speak Hungarian, if they spoke Slavic they were not Hungarians, obvsly.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean to imply that all Hungarians spoke slavic or that Hungarian was a slavic language, but I'm a Slav with plenty of Hungarians in my ancestry and neighborhood where I grew up. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, I understand. In such cases better say that a great bulk of the ancestors of modern Hungarians spoke Slavic hence were linguistically still Slavs and not yet Hungarians. If they did not, then modern Hungarians were sharply different anthropologically from surrounding population (and looked like original Uraloid Magyars) but this difference is absent. So modern Hungarians have not inherited their language "genetically" but rather socially as here was already said.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I never said that Hungarians spoke Slavic, I said that the ancestors of today's Hungarians spoke Slavic languages. A person's genetic inheritance is quite distinct from his or her cultural inheritance or identity. Rapid cultural change can and does occur without corresponding genetic change. As AnonMoos correctly stated, language, one aspect of culture, changes much more readily and rapidly from one generation to the next than the genome. Marco polo (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

AboutFace 22 -- All available evidence that I've ever seen is that human babies are primed and highly motivated to learn a language, but not any particular language. Certainly languages change much faster than genes do. If all of the details of human language were directly encoded in the genes (rather than the ability to learn a language), then there would be a much smaller vocabulary than seen in actual languages, and an inability to adjust language to fit changing circumstances (new inventions, or moving to a geographic area with different plants and animals) except through slow genetic mutation... AnonMoos (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 8

Arabic help

File:Daira.jpg has three items on a white background: text at the top, text in the middle, and something at the bottom. Is it a stylised Arabic letter, or is it a non-letter shape that's potentially copyrightable? The image is up for deletion, and the answer to my question may determine whether or not it's deleted. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a non-letter stylized shape...although I should note that the text is Urdu, not Arabic. I don't think that matters though (unless it's a stylized chōṭī hē for some reason). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks much more like a version of the Zen unclosed circle symbol, or an abstract depiction of a fetus, than anything that could be an Arabic letter... AnonMoos (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sanction

How did the word sanction collect such contradictory meanings - permission to do something, and a punishment for doing something? -- 03:28, 8 July 2014 User:HiLo48

Try using Google, HiLo48. "Sanction etymology" will give you the answer and I am sure even you have heard of google. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Drop the attitude, Medeis, please for goodness sake. IBE (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I still think HiLo's using google would do him more good than my not having an apparent attitude. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been warned about your attitude by so many people, over such a long time, as for example here. It is unique to you. The constant complaints about your behaviour should have shown you this. IBE (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I move we ban trade with Medeis in all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to his or her enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems. Better safe than sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

When and where were those topic bans rescinded? Was it conditionally on the problem behavior not continuing? Because if so... -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall a topic ban, only a warning. Perhaps it was a near thing. The warning seemed to work very well, and since then I have stopped keeping a file of diffs by troublemakers, showing trust and respect. This patience has been challenged a few times, but not broken. I generally believe we should be slow to anger, but implacable once a limit is reached. This one was pretty close to going in the diff file, for use on a future occasion. I am hoping it will not prove necessary. IBE (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

EO may help.[5] It's from the same root as "saint", and has to do with decreeing or ordaining. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

For general reference, 'sanction' is a good example of a contranym. Some of them emerge from fairly obvious polysemy, e.g. the verb "dust" can mean to add or remove dust. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A sanction is a decree about what some entity may or may not do. The word appears to be contradictory due to the tendency of English speakers to shorten things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Then how did it acquire its third meaning -- that of an officially approved contract assassination (as in The Eiger Sanction)? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Sanction" means "official approval" full stop. So an officially approved assassination would be a sanctioned assassination. --Jayron32 22:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep. That works for all the nuanced meanings of "sanction". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That definition would have to be stretched a bit to fit the discussion that led me to bring this here. It was some soccer people desperately trying to explain the offside rule. (Some even claiming it was simple.) The rule includes the sanctions for breaking the rule, i.e. the penalties or punishments. And the trouble with what I just write there in the language of soccer is that even "penalty" has its own unique meaning. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Sanction" in this context refers to the decision-making process of the referee penalising a foul, not to the consequences of breaking the rule. In effect the ref has made an order for a particular law of the game to be enacted. Hack (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Disaster

What's the difference (if any) between a disaster and a catastrophe? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Etymologically, 'disaster' means 'bad star', 'bad omen', while 'catastrophe' means 'overturning'. But in practice they have pretty much interchangeable meanings. I guess if I was pushed to it, I'd say that (a) 'catastrophe' is probably even stronger than 'disaster', but there's not much to choose between them, and; (b) that J R R Tolkien coined the term 'eucatastrophe' for an event which overturns a bad state of affairs in favour of the side of good, but that aside, 'catastrophe' has pretty universally negative connotations, just like 'disaster'. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

So in other words, the only real difference is the number of dead bodies? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. An airplane crash is often called a disaster, while its underlying cause (if mechanical) can be described as a catastrophic failure. There's a subtle difference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I hear it, now that you mention it. "Disaster" has a sense of evil/doom/misfortune, while "catastrophe" is more objectively about systems breaking down. "Catastrophic medical event" makes it clear that a person's entire body is (or was) in jeopardy. "Disastrous medical event" would imply this person's death was fate being tragic, and that's a bit smug. People die all the time. When they die all at one time, there's a sort of social bonding mentality among survivors (and TV fans) that makes either word acceptable, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Though Merriam-Webster disagrees with me, calling a catastrophe "a terrible disaster", and using the words "tragic" and "misfortune". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

When I lived in Germany, I noted that the newspapers (or, at least, the Süddeutsche Zeitung) had a strict hierarchy of nouns (Unfall > Unglück > Katastrophe) for such events, which seemed to be tied to the number of fatalities. I don't know if this was in any way official, though. Tevildo (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

According to EO,[6] the broadening of "catastrophe" to equate to "disaster" is relatively recent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Different syllables. Depending on the rhythm of the speaker, one will have more punch (or "impact"). That's important if you're trying to emotionally convey the scene, as a news reporter, mayor or humanitarian spokeswoman should.

Also works well for poets, if there are any working poets left. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Of course there are. The world only continues to turn courtesy of poetic impetus, which is technically known as centripoetal force. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

One should be punished for such an offense... --Jayron32 15:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• In case anyone is interested, there is a very specialized meaning for 'catastrophe' in mathematics, see catastrophe theory. Also in engineering, we have catastrophic failure. These uses also support my personal connotation: disasters are events that have direct impacts on human property and life, e.g. natural disaster (the article doesn't say this explicitly, but we call a storm a natural disaster when it destroys a town, but we don't call a storm in Antarctica a disaster unless it hit a boat or a research station). Catastrophe can then be used in a more mechanical/physical/mathematical contexts, without any reference to body counts or property damage. This is similar to what Bugs and Hulk are getting at above, just adding links for the curious. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

In the London Insurance Market, Lloyd's of London issues codes for those events which they consider to be catastrophes or "cats", losses that will have a major impact on the market. According to the Lloyd's website, only four events have achieved this status so far in 2014, including the Malaysian Airlines disappearance. Another is an outbreak of fungal meningitis in Massachusetts, which is going to cost somebody a few bob. Alansplodge (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

July 9

Best way to punctuate this sentence? (related to semicolons and the likes)

it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem, an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake but can be corrected with surgery.

Would that be..

• it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem; an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake, but can be corrected with surgery
• it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem - an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake - but can be corrected with surgery
• it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem - an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake, but can be corrected with surgery
• it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem, an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake, but can be corrected with surgery

I originally had it laid out with the semicolon but it looked weird to me after I looked at it 10 minutes later.. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 17:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

First off, you'll probably want to put it in the active voice. Who discovered this? Then drop the "that" after "discovered".

If it's not important who discovered it, the passive is appropriate. And the first "that" helps the reader parse the sentence, improving readability. --50.100.189.160 (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd go with Option 3. Using a second dash would require the pieces on either side still make sense if the middle is omitted. In this case, it would imply the woman can be corrected instead of the problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

If you intend to use this sentence on Wikipedia, I'd also drop "been living with", per WP:EUPHEMISM. She just had a breathing problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

It's not a euphemism. It conveys the information that the problem had been affecting her life for some time. --50.100.189.160 (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It certainly isn't as blatant as some. But there's a subtle "So courageous!" vibe to it. It's like the opposite of "suffering from" (poor thing). Right between the two is "having" a problem. Boring and neutral. No left/right opposite to it, just the on/off "not having". The cleanest way to convey "for some time" is (at least roughly) stating that time with numbers (if it matters). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

There's a short word for "affecting her life for some time": chronic. —Tamfang (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Could do without the second punctuation break completely by changing "but" to "and". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

There's some tense mixup, too. "Can" should either be "could", or "restricted" become "restricts". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:29, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I will change "can" to could and use option 3. I'll also take out "been living with". Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 19:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd probably put "an entrapped epiglottis which restricted her air intake, but which could be corrected with surgery." Neither relative clause is defining, so "that" is technically incorrect. Tevildo (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No, "that" is correct for non-defining (non-restrictive) clauses, and is preferable here because it doesn't need repeating after the "but".

No, it isn't. See English relative clauses#That or which for non-human antecedents. "Which" is arguably sometimes correct in defining clauses, but "that" is never correct in non-defining clauses. From a pedantic point of view, of course. People can (and do) say anything which they like. Tevildo (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, when posting multiple contributions to a thread, it's advisable to sign all of them, not just the last one. Tevildo (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd venture to disagree with Inedible Hulk here, on a couple of points.

• First, about the active voice. If it's not important to know who discovered her problem, then it's not necessary to state it, and the passive voice is just dandy for such a circumstance.
• Second, changing "but" to "and" is contraindicated. We're discussing a problem she's just discovered, so we need a contrast to reflect the good news that it's not the end of the world, and that is provided by "but", not "and". If it were even worse news, such as "... living with a breathing problem - an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake and shortened her life", then "and" would be perfect and "but" would be out of place. See the difference? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a fan of changing "buts" to "ands" on Wikipedia. "But" always has a way of slanting things, making what comes before look better or worse, depending on the context. If you put the second thing first (it could be corrected, but restricted her air), the POV may be more apparent. Here, not so bad. If it really isn't important who discovered it, passive is fine. But it begs the question, I find. If it were in an actual article, I'd look for the "who", just for factual accuracy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Often "but" should be changed to "and", but I'd caution against a wholesale slash and burn policy. See, I just used "but". "And" there would have been completely wrong. "But" always has a way of slanting things - dead right. It's supposed to make a contrast with what's gone before. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not totally heartless. If I'm mowing down howevers, althoughs and buts and a single harmless one seems to say "Please, sir! I have a purpose to fill," I'll let it go (and regret it later). I'm mostly after the ones where someone tries, "but" fails. Implies a contrast, but nobody fails without trying. It's cause and effect.

Same with failed presumptions, predictions or prevailing views. In hindsight, we can see they were wrong, and perception had no bearing on the outcome. If we say "Paulo thought it would work, but it didn't", we lend undue weight to Paulo's side of the dualism. Contrast needs roughly even opposites. Here, a guess about the future doesn't just pale next to the way things actually went, it was part of the way things went. Past Paulo didn't know any better. We should, by now. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

I think the original is better than any of the four alternatives listed, but a sixth version would be even better:

• it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem: an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake, but could be corrected with surgery

--50.100.189.160 (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Introducing a clarifying apposition is a full colon's job; never send a semicolon to do that. A semicolon precedes an independent clause that is loosely related to the first clause. — I'd favor She was found to have a chronic entrapment of the epiglottis, which … —Tamfang (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Borboletta

What does the word "Borboletta" signify in the relevant language? I guess "relevant language" may mean Portuguese or Spanish. 86.160.87.215 (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

According to wikt:borboleta, borboleta (with only one t) in Portuguese means "butterfly".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hence the butterfly on the album cover. Oddly enough, Spanish does not use that word. Instead, it's mariposa, which literally means "María poses", or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, any ideas why one "t" should have been changed to two? 86.160.87.215 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Double consonants are common in Italian. See User:Wavelength/About Italian/Double consonants.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The Italian for butterfly is farfalla. Neither the single nor double-t versions of that word seem to exist in Italian. Carlos Santana was born in Mexico, so he might be expected to use Spanish. But this could be some kind of play on words which is not immediately evident to an English-speaker, or it could just be a non-standard spelling. The article indicates the album title was in reference to another album done by a Brazilian group. In Google, "Borboletta" seems to refer strictly to the Santana album, and with no explanation on the spelling discrepancy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

July 10

posse-artist

I can't find "posse-artist" in the dictionary. What does it mean in the following sentence? "It would be foolish to suppose that each and every gangbanger and posse-artist (and every Yardie and jihadi) in the entire manor had heard tell of the great asocial." Your help would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.230.78 (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I literally cant find it anywhere. It could be a term created by the author themselves. Many authors create their own words (See A Clockwork Orange for example). --Jayron32 02:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that the sentence in question was written by Martin Amis, I think that's a likely explanation. Another sentence of his, this time spoken: "I don't want to write a sentence that any guy could have written." [7] ---Sluzzelin talk 15:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Simply suggests an artist with a posse/entourage/crew. Something like Floyd Mayweather or Jay-Z has. Sort of like a gang, but glitzier. More like human bling. Though both of those guys' posses have (allegedly?) also gotten violent, from time to time. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:46, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

In the UK there is also the term 'piss artist' to mean a drunkard, so it could be a play on words.83.104.128.107 (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

la:Cynthia Crawford

This article, hosted on the latin wiki, is about a person who sculptors UFO things that she believes aliens make her do. I feel this is very un-encyclopedic and self-advertising. Also it is easy to take advantage of the fact Latin is not a popular language. Would you have comments or suggestions? Thanks in advance for your attention. --Jondel (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

We at English Wikipedia have no control over Vicipaedia's content. The instructions for nominating a page for deletion there can be found (in English) at la:Vicipaedia:Deletio/en. Lack of notability is not actually listed as a reason for deletion there, but you still might be able to convince people. You can use English as the language of discussion. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this use of the word "inspire" correct?

On a certain website, I frequently see the word "inspired" in a certain manner. For example: "The manga inspired an anime series adaptation". Is this use of the word "inspire" correct? Or is the correct sentence "The manga was adapted into an anime series"? I checked this page on an online dictionary and Wiktionary but neither of them mention this use of the word "inspire". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That wiktionary entry sucks ("to produce in [sic]"?). Your perfectly fine sentence inspired me to answer you. See the first Merriam Webster definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's an actual example from the website (taken from here, emphasis mine):

The project already inspired a weekly online four-panel manga, and the light novel's "second season" began last year.

My question: is the use of the word "inspired" in that sense correct? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, although I prefer "had already inspired" to show that it preceded the second season. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes.--Jondel (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Turmeric pronounced

I have just realized that I have mispronounced 'turmeric' for, let's say, many years. Specifically not sounding the first 'r', saying 'tumouric'.

Since this error went on for so very long without me realizing, I'm wondering, do many people say the word without the first 'r'? Or is this a quirk peculiar to me and my family? Thanks. CBHA (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I said it the same wrong way as you for years, and only recently changed. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Forvo has four recordings at http://www.forvo.com/word/turmeric/#en.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've never pronounced the first R and don't plan to start now. I only pronounce it at all about once every few years, anyway, so no harm done. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:34, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

The first "r" in Turmeric went on vacation with the first "r" in February. They spent some time in Colonel, giving the "l" and "o" a little break themselves. No one has heard from the "d" and second "e" in Wednesday for years, I think they retired... --Jayron32 17:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you checked the libary? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever pronounced the word turmeric at all, but the Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary lists your pronunciation (basically like "tumor" with an "-ic" tacked on) as second option after the orthographically expected pronunciation (basically like "term" with an "-əric" tacked on), so it's not just you. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I pronounce it like this, except maybe not quite so ponderously. For me, "tumour-ic" is just wrong. If you want a word that everyone™ mispronounces, try "anemone". 86.160.87.31 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

He prepareth a table for me, in the presence of my anenomes... --Trovatore (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• From where I am from you'd get a wry eye if you said anything but toomeric. And if you put anything but carmel or choclate surrip (with jimmies) you'd be denied service, if you were lucky enough not to be lambasted as well. The concept Jayron was alluding to is dissimilation. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems fairly likely that there is at least some US/UK variation. 86.160.87.31 (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Top of my list of oft-mispronounced words are: capsicum (which many pronounce with a final n, for some odd reason), and pejorative (which ought to be stressed on the 2nd syllable -jor-, but many stress the first syllable and make it sound like perjure + ətiv. It has nothing to do with per- anything. It's from the Latin peior, worse). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Here, capsicum is a scientific word, so I don't think it's mispronounced very often. What you call capsicum is I think what we call bell peppers, though I'm not sure whether you include hotter varieties as well. --Trovatore (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Bell peppers, yes (although why such a name is used when they have no hot peppery taste eludes me). The thinner hotter ones, we call chillies. There's a PLE-thora of such cases. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

But they're all capsicum. --Trovatore (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

To a scientist, maybe. In a culinary context, they have different names, for obvious reasons. Try using chillies rather than bell peppers in your next ratatouille or gazpacho and see how many of your guests lap it up. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

More for me. --Trovatore (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

(But in any case, sure, they have different names. One is "bell pepper", the other is "hot pepper". Makes as much sense as "capsicum" vs "chile".) --Trovatore (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to take this digression too far, but there's a continuum in pepper varietals in terms of pungency. There is not a sharp, binary division between sweet peppers and hot peppers. Bell peppers are probably the mildest, but Peperoncini and Poblano and Anaheim pepper can all be quite mild, culinarily almost indistinguishable from bell peppers. Scoville scale will introduce you to many varieties of peppers of all levels of spiciness. --Jayron32 05:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The names of many herbs seem to have different pronunciations across the English speaking world, based on location and, dare I say it, the degree Anaheim pepperof pretentiousness of the speaker. Some herbs I've noticed with varied pronunciations include coriander, cumin, marjoram, and oregano. Even the word herb varies. Here in Australia it is usually pronounced with an "h" at the front, as in the abbreviation of the name Herbert. But I've certainly heard many from the US and elsewhere leave the "h" off. One obviously cannot be prescriptive. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I must admit that until well into my early twenties, I mispronounced all of turmeric, cumin, fenugreek and coriander - as "curry powder". --Shirt58 (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

July 11

Xenophon, Hiero 1.7

εἰ τὰ ἐν τῷ ἐγρηγορέναι σαφεστέρας ἡμῖν τὰς αἰσθήσεις παρέχεται ἢ τὰ ἐν τῷ ὕπνῳ

I try to understand the sentence - but I don't understand τὰς αἰσθήσεις παρέχεται. tr. if sensations, when we are awake, are clearer (to us) than when we are asleep. τὰς αἰσθήσεις παρέχεται- what is it acc cum inf?\there are sensations?

thanks, --84.108.213.48 (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This English translation may help you. Omidinist (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

So this is how I would read it:

The τὰ is the subject of παρέχεται, τὰς αἰσθήσεις is the object. παρέχεται is middle so it can mean "present themselves as" (the subject is plural, but neuter, so the verb is singular). So "the things in being awake" (i.e., things experienced while awake) present themselves as clearer perceptions to us. σαφεστέρας is of course just an adjective modifying τὰς αἰσθήσεις (hence they are both feminine acc. plural words).

So the full sentence (from before where you quote) in Translatese: "And perhaps [this is] no surprise if the things in being awake present themselves as perceptions to us clearer than the things in sleep." Or in actual, albeit poor, English: "And perhaps it's no surprise if things are presented as clearer perceptions to us while awake than they are in sleep." The translation you give above is fine too.

Proper English cannot closely match the syntax of the Greek. Part of what makes it so hard to translate is that ἐγρηγορέναι is of course being used as a substantive, but English does not have a substantive which closely matches its meaning.

--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday

As far as I recall, the word "yesterday" was always pronounced with the stress on the first syllable, "YES-ter-day". Recently I seem to be noticing increasing numbers of people saying "yes-ter-DAY". Where did that one come from? Or has it been around all the time, but I've never noticed before? 86.160.87.31 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I just checked several dictionaries, and none of them have stress on the last syllable, even as an alternate form Wiktionary [8], Miriam Webster [9], NOAD (local copy), and OED (link requires institutional or paid personal access [10]). Interestingly, NOAD, OED, and MW mention "YES-ter-dee" as a possible variant. So - from this I conclude that what you describe is a rather recent or regional/local pronunciation. Where do you hear this, and from what kinds of speakers (e.g. young white people in big cities) ? I'll also add that I've never heard that pronunciation, living in 5 different states all around the USA. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The OED's /-dɪ/ is a short vowel, not "dee". I've never heard a final stress here in the UK either, but there is a slight secondary stress on the final syllable. Dbfirs 21:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you ran into Charles Aznavour fans. Here's Dusty Springfield's rendition. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)