Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 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

Etymology of Pachelbel

What is the (or a possible) etymology and meaning of the German surname "Pachelbel"? 96.233.6.203 (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Ayeaye

A combination of "Bach", meaning rivulet / brook and the firstname "Elbel", a variation on Albrecht (as in A. Dürer).

As per http://www.duden.de/duden-suche/werke/famnamen/000/034/Pachelbel.34838.html

"'Pachelbel: oberdeutscher, aus →Pach (1.) und dem Rufnamen →Elbel gebildeter Familienname: >der Elbel am Bach<.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That suggests the main stress would be on "el": pach-EL-bel. Yet it's almost always pronounced with the stress on "pach": PACH-el-bel. I once asked a German friend about this name, and she expressed great surprise - she had never heard of it, and said it was definitely not a German name. But then, she was neither a musician nor an etymologist. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The German article does give the pronunciation as [paˈxɛlbəl]. Initial stress occurs in English. — kwami (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that this has been answered, I can't resist describing (from memory, so some misquoting may be involved) one of my favorite New Yorker cartoons. It depicts a fellow, with a glazed expression, strapped to a chair in a bare cell. From a speaker in a corner of the cell come the words "And once again, for your listening pleasure, we present Pachelbel's Canon in D." The caption is "Prisoner of Pachelbel." Deor (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Random observation - While the IP in the article Pachelbel says it is pronounced as JackofOz suggests, and if I were pronouncing it as a German word I would pronounce it as described, in my life I have never encountered the man or the canon named with the first l spoken. I've always heard Pak-(schwa)-bel. Strange. Skittle (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard people say it that way, too, now that the Canon in D has entered the mainstream of common musical consciousness and is no longer restricted to the cognoscenti. Park-ə-bel is commonly heard too. Karl Haas did a few programs on the composer, and he always gave all the consonants their full value (although, being a teutophone, it's interesting that he always stressed the first syllable, not the second). I've derived a vast amount of musical knowledge from ABC Classic FM and its AM predecessors, and the announcers there have always got it right. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comprise

I've noticed that an editor appears to be searching the site and correcting usage of the verb "comprise". Essentially, they're knocking out any use of the phrase "comprised of" as in, "The group was comprised of..." and the authority quoted is List of commonly misused English language phrases. The objection seems to be mainly founded on the views of the venerable H.W. Fowler. While I've found his works informative and entertaining I also know he was idiosyncratic in some regards and I wouldn't look to him as the final authority on all things in English language matters.

I see, from a search of the Archive for this desk that this was touched upon before at this thread but I'd like to put the question afresh.

I challenge this ruling by the aforementioned editor and I invite your comments. Retarius | Talk 07:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's quite simple. He is right; you are wrong. It's a solecism. You say "the group comprised" or "the group consisted of". You do not say "the group was comprised of". Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the pedants, language doesn't work by fiat. I don't know about you, but plenty of people are comfortable with the phrase "the group was comprised of".

Unfortunately for everybody else, there is a place for pedantry in editing an encyclopedia; in this genre there are compelling stylistic reasons to avoid "comprised of". --Diacritic (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Fowler on this one. But more to the point is whether said editor is improving the articles and making them clearer with whatever they put in place of "comprise".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Comprise" isn't quite dead yet. Its proper use is the shibboleth of literacy these days, but once I and my kind die off, the kids will be free to use whatever word comes into their heads regardless of what it really means. I would add that "comprise" is actually pretty rarely called for; there are a lot of write-arounds that are plainer and therefore clearer and better. Bottom line: Who is he? I want to give him a barnstar. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's User:Giraffedata and as to whether he's doing better than the efforts he's replacing - I'll leave that for you to judge by looking at his contribs. Best do that before giving a barnstar! Thanks for your replies. Retarius | Talk 04:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the first ten in his list of contributions, and they look OK to me. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's another usage of "comprise": The president, the secretary and the marketing manager comprise the marketing committee. Which seems to be the reverse of The marketing committee comprises the president, the secretary and the marketing manager, but it means exactly the same thing. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Gateau

I always pronounced this word as Ga-Toe, but the other day I heard someone calling it Gae-Cho. Can someone who is fluent in French confirm its pronunciation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasanclk (talk • contribs) 12:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your pronunciation is correct. It's ga-toe (although the 'toe' part is vocalised shorter than the equivalent sound in English). --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Some variants of English (I'm thinking along the lines of the American East Coast accent) have a little -y- palatization between "t" when it's the first sound of a syllable, and following -o or -u sounds. It could be that accent pronouncing it with that little -y- sound, so it's really Ga-t-y-o. Corvus cornix_talk 17:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah. That only happens with certain speakers in certain words, never in this position. Nobody makes "told" "tyold" or "plateau" "platyeau". You must be thinking of "tyune" for "tune" and the like. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can imagine people who don't know French thinking it should be pronounced like gat-ee-oh or gate-ee-oh but shortening the "ee" to "y" (gat-yo or gate-yo), which could then sound like they're saying "ga-cho" or "gay-cho". In other words, it's a combination of a mispronunciation and a mishearing of that mispronunciation. Also, could this be related to the way some (usually youngish and more often female than male) Americans palatalise the consonant preceding the "oo" sound in words like "do" and "too" (they sound almost like "dew" and "tyew", or even "dee-oo" and "tee-oo"). -- JackofOz (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

About yesterday's "gâteau"

From a frenchie just hapening to be stolling by : in the usual french tongue , "gâ" is brief (more than the circonflex accent usually stresses it ), while "eau" is mouthed a lot longer than "o" , so I think "go-taw" will actually be nearer to the mid-France pronounciation . But never , never say "ga-choe" if you have a Portuguese maid and a cat you love : a friend of mine told her Algarve brunette to put " le gateau en el frigidario" , and fainted the day after when she looked for her morning butter ...Best regards to all GB , specially to GB ladies with a cat ... signé a french user ...--91.165.97.71 (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

whats the difference

whats the difference between am and i'm ?example am gone and I'm gone. 2.Am currently doing 35wpm.on a scale of 1 to 10 how am i in speeds.Am planning to start transcibing.

"Am" is a verb (first person singular of to be). "I'm" is a contraction of the first person singular pronoun, "I", and that verb: I am --> I'm. Aleta ^Sing 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In normal, standard speech and writing, every English verb needs an explicit subject (except in the imperative). So, in ordinary speech or writing, am cannot stand alone. It normally appears with the subject I, often in the contraction I'm. You will find instances where am stands alone, usually in writing. This is an example of "telegraphic" or abbreviated style, often used in note taking, which omits words for the sake of brevity. However, English speakers do not leave out the I in ordinary speech or writing. Marco polo (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement about obligatory subjects is too strong. You can have a lack of subject in coordinated structures like Tom kicked Dick and slapped Harry, in certain wh-questions like what to do now?, which way to go?, why no smiles?, why talk to her?, and in cases where the listener can retrieve the subject via linguistic context like told you so, going to the store (said to someone right before leaving), looks like rain, see you later, gotta go, had a fun time, did you?, hot?, any tea left?, looks good, want some?, etc. The last two types are common in spoken language, it's not restricted to note taking. – ishwar  (speak) 22:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The instances that you cite are idiomatic expressions. Even if my statement was too strong, sentences using the verb am without the subject I are certainly not common in spoken or written American English. Marco polo (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

New Hampshire Demonym

What do you call someone from New Hampshire? (As in, "Virginian" for a Virginia resident; "Bay Stater" for a Massachusetts resident)96.233.6.203 (talk)RedPanda —Preceding comment was added at 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the "correct" term is New Hampshirite, but I'm partial to Granitehead. --LarryMac | Talk 20:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

New Hampster? Paul Davidson (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does the Nat King Cole song LOVE say "can"?

I love singing the song L-O-V-E by Nat King Cole. However, I don't understand why the word "can" is at the end of the E line.

L is for the way you look at me
O is for the only one I see
V is very, very extraordinary
E is even more than anyone that you adore can
Love is all that I can give to you
Love is more than just a game for two
Two in love can make it
Take my heart and please don't break it
Love was made for me and you

Any ideas as to why this is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderley (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess: You're supposed to mentally complete the line by appending "be", as suggested by the rhyme scheme. Leaving it incomplete produces an artistic effect that the writer liked. --Anonymous, 21:24 UTC, April 2, 2008.

My interpretation: For some unspecified action that the people you adore can do, Nat can do it even more. But really, I don't think these lyrics are there to have coherent semantics. You might as well ask what Ella Fitzgerald means by "doodly-a-dop-ba-da-dop" or where exactly is the "Gadda-Da-Vida" that Doug Ingle is in. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida means "In the Garden of Eden". 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Third possible interpretation: The lack of a pause between can and the following love (along with the pronounced pause after the latter) makes that love function ambiguously both as the completion of the verb phrase "can love" and as the subject of is. (Of course the main reason it's there is so that "you adore can" will rhyme with "even more than.") Deor (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Deor's explanation. It's an amusing bit of enjambment in which the "love" that joins the verse and chorus is made to do double duty. - Nunh-huh 23:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how I always heard it. — kwami (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the great ideas here. Much better than what I initially thought. I initially assumed when I sang it in karaoke and saw "can" that they meant "and". And I sang it that way. But then I heard it at the end of "The Parent Trap" remake and what I heard (and the subtitles on the DVD) said, "can".
So, to be true to Nat, I've sung "can" ever sense but had no idea why. I do understand what all of you have posted and it goes to show you understand English verse much better than I. But, I must confess, I like "and" better. "Can" requires too much thinking.
For years the word "can" has stuck out to me. So, now every time you hear this song "can" will stick out to your head - Sorry about that ;-)
If anyone else has any ideas, I'd love to hear. Thanks again.--Wonderley (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think can is there as an internal rhyme for than in the same line. He has swapped the last two words of the line around to enable this. Literally, it would be "...anyone that you can adore." --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds right to me. And it's two internal rhymes in a row:

V is very very

Extra-ordinary

E is even more than

Anyone that you adore can

--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO It is a play on words and timimg: "E is even more than anyone that you adore can LOVE." is the first complete sentence, but he begins the next line with the same word being, I think, very poetic and getting out of a tough spot.