Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 April 2

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.

April 2

Decode this phrase from Francis Ormond

"With regard to opening the reading room of our library on Sundays, I am also of opinion that it would not be found to answer." - what does 'it would not be found to answer' mean?

ta Adambrowne666 (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be meaning 11 of 'answer' from the OED: 'intr. (ellipt.). To serve the purpose, attain the end, succeed, prove a success. Also (with suitable qualification): To turn out (well or ill).' He means that the Sunday opening would not solve whatever problem it is supposed to solve, or perhaps just that it would be a bad idea in general. Algebraist 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

On ya, Algebraist - I think I must have been having trouble understanding it because the preceding stuff wasn't there - thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi-Hi and Tak-Tak (thankyou) > Icelandic

During a holiday in Iceland, I encountered people speaking English, but using the phrases "Hi-hi" for 'hello' (like on the telephone) and "Tak-tak" for 'thankyou' - anyone know anything about this? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In Sweden people say "Hej hej," (pronounced a bit like English "Hey hey") and "Tack tack." It's a friendly way of saying hi or thanks. Maybe it's related? --Kjoonlee 14:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In Sweden you say "Tack hej," to say "Thanks and goodbye." You'll hear it a lot after you buy something from a store. --Kjoonlee 14:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

See wikt:thank you and wikt:takk. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, guys! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's the same type of reduplication, but in English we do say "bye bye". In some languages reduplication can emphasize the message. Two syllables also allow us to include more prosody in our intonation (friendly or other). Otherwise, we'd have to stretch the one syllable ("taa-aak"), if we wanted it to sound less terse or monotonous. Just a thought. No references. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by language has a link to Category:User is. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact I have heard similar doubled greetings very often and in different languages. Beside the above mentioned, there is in Italy "ciao-ciao" and sometimes "notte-notte" (goodnight), with various dialect forms. Recall also Mork's "Nanoo-nanoo". Isn't this to be ascribed to the general funny childish behaviour kept by people when they say hallo? (small bows, giggling, falsetto,..). A more specific explanation may be the following. When two persons meet, and both say e.g. "bye", the result is a two-voices "bye-bye". This sound remains in their heads associated with greetings. After a while, each starts saying the whole "bye-bye" as a salutation. How does this theory sound to you? An objection is: why then this doubling process shouldn't go on and produce "bye-bye-bye-bye" &c (I don't know; maybe just because we are not machines).--pma (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It does in Polish. Especially in instant messaging, "bye-bye" may be anything from "pa" to "papa" to "papapa" to "papapapa" (it's easy, you only need to hit two keys one after another...) — Kpalion^(talk) 21:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Using 을/를 in spoken Korean

Is it awkward to say 을/를 when speaking Korean? That is, if I were to say something that would always use 을/를 in written Korean, then should I include the verb-object marker in my utterance? Undercooked (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

Category:Wikipedians by language has a link to Category:User ko. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked Korean grammar#Nouns and I did a Google search for "을/를 spoken Korean verb-object marker", but I still do not know.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessarily awkward to mark each direct object with the accusative case marker, but you may sound more formal than colloquial. In the right context, it may be omitted as long as the meaning can still be conveyed properly. Experiment a little, but if in doubt I would recommend not omitting it without reason. Other case markers such as nominative and genitive are also often omitted in colloquial language as well. A fairly accessible reference is "The Korean Language" by Iksop Lee and S. Robert Ramsey, 2000; IBSN 0-7914-4832-0. Chapter 5: Phrase Structure may be useful, particularly pages 141-142 which briefly discusses this. Regards, Bendono (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me add one more useful reference. "A Reference Grammar of Korean" by Samuel E. Martin, 1992; ISBN 0-8048-1887-8. Page 287 deals with this issue. Bendono (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Undercooked (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC).

I'm not sure I understand the question. In which cases would people write "을/를" instead of writing "을" or "를"? --Kjoonlee 02:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say that using 을/를 often has a more formal feeling in colloquial Korean, though not always. Specifically, when you are using it to emphasize something or to disambiguate it is more natural to include it than not to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.136.210 (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)