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:

• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 9

Why The Jesus? What's with the definite article?

What's the intent when Richard Carrier talks about "the Jesus"? As in "Why invent the Jesus?" (Title of one of his videos) What would that imply to a native English speaker? Is it an ellipsis of "the Jesus [thing]"? Is "the Jesus" meant to refer to the story or to the person? Any other talk of "the Jesus" out there from other people (who are English speakers)?

Clearly this is different from say "the Donald" that is funny but that originated with Ivana Trump, who possibly didn't even realize she was being humorous. I don't know if that had anything to do with the Czech language but I do know that in some languages (like Greek) personal names do normally take the definite article (when you're referring to the person, not when you're adressing them).

In French-speaking Belgium (and possibly in some other peripheral varieties of French), where using the definite article with a personal name is not at all common, talking about "le François" implies that you do not think much of that François (at least not in the context of what it is you're telling about him at that moment). It also has a slightly rustic flavor. I think German too may have something similar.

178.51.93.5 (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe watching the video might clarify? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 17:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I've heard that usage in English ("the Jesus" as a complete noun phrase, as opposed to cases such as "the Jesus Freak movement"), but in the original ancient Greek of the New Testament, names were preceded by definite articles in various contexts. Just flipping randomly through my Greek Testament, I noticed ho Iesous in verses Matthew 8:18 and 8:20, and ho de Iesous (article and name separated by a particle) in 8:22... AnonMoos (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

One possible reason is that the first page of a search for "Why invent the Jesus?" online just finds Richard Carrier's video and discussion of it, while "Why invent Jesus?" also finds some other discussions. TSventon (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a clarification on Czech. Like most Slavic languages, it does not have any definite (the) or indefinite articles (a, an). Slavic speakers new to English must learn when to use each type, and mistakes like: adding an article where it's not required ("the Donald"); or omitting an article where it is required ("Cat sat on mat"); or using the definite where the indefinite is required, or vice-versa, are common. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems that Carrier doesn't believe there was actually a Jesus, so it might be sarcasm of a sort. However, the more obvious way to say it would be "the Christ", especially as "Jesus" as a name is not unique in history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

"Christ" isn't either. Here's just one of a bunch of Christs. -- Hoary (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

"The Christ" is valid usage. See Christ (title). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Technically, every Israelite and Judean King was a 'Christ', this being a Greek translation of Hebrew 'Messiah' (various spellings) meaning "anointed one". High Priests were also anointed and could be referred to as a 'Messiah'.

In the first century many Jews did not believe the Herodian monarchs were legitimate, since they were of non-Hebrew origin and not descended from King David. It was hoped that a legitimate Davidic heir would supplant them (and expel the Romans), and the appearance of "The (forthcoming, legitimate) Messiah" was hoped for. It appears that the historical "Jesus" (Jeshua of Nazareth, aka Jeshua bar Yussuf, aka Jeshua bar Maryam, aka Jeshua' bar Pantera) was believed by some and came to believe himself that he was destined to be "The Messiah" in that sense. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.145.123 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It's rather unfortunate that "Jeshua bar Yussuf"[sic] consists of three words in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic), while "Pantera"[sic] drags in a fourth, since it's based on a Greek-language pun between the words Panther and Parthenos (kind of a dumb pun, since Panther has an eta while Parthenos has an epsilon). The 1st century A.D. Hebrew form of his name was almost certainly Yēšūʕ (also borrowed into the Aramaic of the time), which did not have an "a" vowel as such, but did have a pharyngeal consonant. This was the commonly-used late centuries B.C. / 1st century A.D. shortened form of the name "Joshua"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was a bit careless with the names as it wasn't the main thrust, and initially indicated the closing pharyngeal consonant in question and then removed it as confusing to the readership, though I missed the last one.

Unfortunately, unlike yourself I am not a scholar of the languages involved, and rely on the English-language writings and lectures of those who are familiar with the Aramaic, Hebrew and Koine Greek that the protagonists all likely spoke.

I question the 'Parthenos' pun element, since there is some evidence that the Greek-derived "Pant(h)era" was a name used (though rarely, but there is an unconnected 1st-century Jewish ossuary with it) by Jews of the era, and the 'virgin' element was a subsequent introduction to the later-burgeoning myth. The individual in question was (I think) likely that person named on his memorial in Latin as (Tiberius Julius) Abdes Pantera, and I understand a Talmudic passage states (rightly or not) that the name Pantera was one used in Mary's family.

As to the Principal of the events, the Talpiot tomb inscription on his ossuary is transliterated in that article as "Yeshua bar Yehosef" and in The Jesus Family Tomb as "Y'shua bar Yosef – Aramaic for "Jesus son of Joseph"" (and his mother's, "Maria – written in Aramaic script, but a Latin form of the Hebrew name "Miriam" ("Mary")"). Feel free to give us your more authentic renderings of the other descriptors I mentioned above. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.145.123 (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera seems to be a highly-historical individual, but no-one would have ever thought to connect him, or any person with his name, to Jesus, except by means of a pun between the Greek words Panthēr and Parthenos which was rather far-fetched even in the 2nd-century A.D. when the anti-Christian author Celsus first wrote the Pantera narrative down, while serious scholars without an axe to grind would now consider it rather ridiculous (paragraphs in the body of the Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera article say much the same thing, if you read down far enough)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I have long since read the article thoroughly, and disagree with those conclusions, having studied the books and lectures of other scholars who take different views. However, let's not discuss this further here as it is rather beside the point of the original query. You may have correctly inferred that in these matters I discount any and all claimed supernatural elements as non-factual, whereas I suspect you do not, so we are unlikely to reach mutual agreement. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.134.31 (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

If you believe everything written by opponents of Christianity, then you no doubt believe that Christians worshipped a crucified donkey, based on the Alexamenos graffito. And that's not even getting into modern pseudo-literature, such as The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross and The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors. Good luck in your endeavors. AnonMoos (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not (and in fact reject the concept of "belief" as a useful mental approach in any sphere), but neither do I accept as factual much of what early ex-pagan, Rome-friendly "Christian" converts concocted 4–10 decades after the actual events, inspired by the supposed 'vision' of a somewhat unstable individual who by even his own testimony was in ongoing contention with Jesus' actual family and personal follower. I am not and do not support "enemies of Christianity" any more that I support enemies of Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Asatruism or any other religion, which are all interesting factors in human cultural history, without having to be "true" in their supernatural aspects. I am however an intellectual enemy of those who promulgate provably inaccurate 'facts'.

I read TSMatC when it was first published, and found it amusing but unconvincing. Some general ideas in it (such as the use of perception-altering substances in various ancient religions) likely have some value, but contrary to Allegro's suggestion I do think Yeshua/Iesos/Jesus was a real historical figure, as I already stated earlier in this very thread.

I have no "endeavors" other than to try to discover, largely for my own interest, what actually happened in historical terms, or what at least most plausibly happened in the absence of direct evidence. The beliefs of those involved (including Jesus himself) in supernatural entities and supposed "prophecies" are factors in doing so; acceptance of those entities and prophecies as real and genuine is not. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.134.31 (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I’d assume it’s a reference to the character from The Big Lebowski who refers to himself as “The Jesus”. —Amble (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

See also The Jesus Rolls.  --Lambiam 11:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

VIEW ON CREATING JAT CLAN SYSTEM

first of all Due my request I am trying to start a initiative to create an separate article on the clan system follow under Jatt community based on Reliable sources Khalsajudicary (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

If the creation of an article on a given subject is a good idea, then the experienced, well-informed, careful editor doesn't start an initiative to create the article, they instead create the article. But why should that editor not augment the existing Jat Sikh#Clans? Also, you have just four days' experience of editing articles (and your most recent edit has an edit summary that's bizarre, to put it mildly): I suggest that for a month or so, until you're more experienced, you avoid the area of clans and castes as it tends to attract people keen to air their grievances and to "right great wrongs". -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You also need to learn about reliable sources before editing in that area. User generated sources - such as most Wikis - are not regarded as reliable, and may not be cited in a Wikipedia article. (And yes, that does apply to Wikipedia itself, as well as to Sikhiwiki). ColinFine (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

April 11

Turkish m-doublets

Is there a general name for the process of creating words like "çocuk mocuk", "para mara", "kitap mitap", "adam madam", "eski meski", etc. in Turkish? (more details here, it's word + m- + [remove first consonant] + word) Does it exist in other languages? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

See Shm-reduplication and Echo word. --147.142.246.75 (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe Reduplication#Turkish. Alansplodge (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Also found in informal Modern Greek, e.g. ταψιά μαψιά (tapsiá mapsiá) "oven pans and such". As in Turkish, this echo reduplication can also be used with verbs: γκρίνιαζες μίνιαζες (gríniazes míniazes) "you whined and such". It seems likely that the feature, also using the ⟨m-⟩ substitution, was borrowed from Turkish.  --Lambiam 15:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know that Greek used ταψί (Turkish tepsi). Is this echo replication structure also used in other Turkic languages? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Azerbaijani does, for example "böcək möcək".  --Lambiam 01:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Just heard DJ MJ [diːdʒeɪ miːdʒeɪ] so it can really be used with any word... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess it would be spelled "meejay" or similar in English, though. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it can be used with any word mord :) not already starting with ⟨m-⟩ (so you cannot use this with "muvaffakiyetsizleştiricileştiriveremeyebileceklerimizdenmişsinizcesine"). For example, one can also use "hayır mayır" and "yok mok" when reporting implicit denials.  --Lambiam 14:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

What about words already starting with m-? I can initially imagine a "triduplicated" form like "m- mem-", although such forms might not be used in practice. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The feature is simply not available. Using "lacivert" for the colour (navy) blue, you can say "lacivert macivert". But when using the less specific colour name "mavi" for blue and you want to say "blue or such", you have to say something like "mavi falan filan". Or you can say "mavimtrak", using a suffix "-mtrak" meaning as much as "-ish".  --Lambiam 14:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there any difference between "mavimtırak" and "mavimsi" btw? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware they are interchangeable, and both are fairly common. I'm not a native speaker, though.  --Lambiam 21:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

April 13

if this will fix your problem

Recently I wrote the sentence:

A: I'm not sure if this will fix your problem or not, but it's worth a try.

But then I read it over again and it seemed "off" to me, so I changed it to:

B: I'm not sure whether this will fix your problem or not, but it's worth a try.

Is sentence A grammatically correct? Is sentence B grammatically correct? Is one preferred over the other or are they both acceptable? OptoFidelty (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

A is descriptively correct, in that "if" is commonly used in this case even though the textbooks say to use "whether". B is correct, both descriptively and prescriptively.

Be like me and use B, and you'll have that inner glow that religion is powerless to bestow. (Apologies to Miss C. F. Forbes (1817-1911)) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like "if" is winning out over "whether".^[1] Even more common is to omit the conjunction ("I'm not sure this will fix your problem or not, but it's worth a try.").^[2] The part "or not" is IMO redundant; whether to use this (or not) seems a matter of taste, but I get more GBS hits for just "not sure this will help but" than for "not sure this will help or not, but".  --Lambiam 21:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting that you use "whether" in a very similar construction: whether to use this (or not) seems a matter of taste. You certainly cannot use "if" there. Nor could you use it in a variation of option B: Whether this will fix your problem or not, I'm not sure. The "if" is only available in the original word sequence, as per option A. "Whether" is like the universal donor; "if" would kill certain transfusees, as it were. Why risk it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It is also a matter of one's taste whether one prefers an inner or an outer glow – or perhaps no glow at all, but merely an inward tranquillity which linguistic prescription is powerless to disturb.  --Lambiam 10:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

April 16

Can I use a pronoun before introducing its antecedent?

Can I use a pronoun in a sentence before I introduce its antecedent? For example, is something like “Because of her attitude, many people dislike the club president” permitted? If so, what are the restrictions on this usage? Primal Groudon (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Examples are legion throughout the literature, and your example is fine.

The trick is not to fall into the trap of stranding the connected parts. If your example had been: "Because of her prejudice, Mary dislikes the club president", it might at first glance seem to be saying that Mary is the one with the prejudice, but you may have meant the club president (assuming she was female). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. This is called cataphora, while the more common backreferencing is anaphora. --Theurgist (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice that in most examples, the pronoun is in a subordinate clause preceding the main clause of the sentence. AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It could be in the main clause, though. "Her height contributed to Alta's success at basketball." (But not "Her height led Victoria to select Alta", which is ambiguous.) --142.112.220.50 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

True, but it's kind of a variation on a theme -- the pronoun "her" is embedded inside the subject of the main clause, but is not itself the subject of the main clause. AnonMoos (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The main clause of an English declarative sentence usually starts after with the subject, so if there is no clause preceding the main clause there is hardly a spot a cataphoric pronoun referring to its subject could occupy. But an adverbial (not itself being a clause) can precede the subject of a main clause: "At the time of his death, O'Connor had just started research on a new topic." A question allows an inversion, also creating room for a cataphora referring to the subject: "How much of his effort had Jonathan invested in making this promise come true?"  --Lambiam 19:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The responses above are good, but note that the terminology varies. "Cataphor(a)" can indeed be contrasted with "anaphor(a)", but some linguists define the latter more broadly, to encompass what above is called "cataphor(a)". And an "adverbial" is also called an "adjunct". 118.18.141.213 (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Not all adverbials are adjuncts, and next to adverbial adjuncts there are also noun adjuncts.  --Lambiam 13:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

April 19

"Sitzfleisch" (German)

Aspiring pilots train their seat flesh (sit-flesh, or sit-meat) as a 6th or 7th sense for the flight attitude of their aircraft in the (real) flight simulator (on three pairs of hydraulic stilts). (I had the flight simulator to maintain and debug.) What do American or English pilots call this sensory organ? --Virtualiter (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Organ? It's an ability. As a capacity to endure long periods of sitting, Wiktionary claims it's become an English loanword. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I know the ability to sit for long periods of time from Leo.org. I mean the 6th sense.

Is that sense in actual usage? It's not mentioned at German Wiktionary. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

In (German) flight simulators for instrumental flight. Elsewhere this usually means Popo. --Virtualiter (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a matter of endurance, but one can fly by the seat of one's pants. DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The idiom is already heading in the right direction (flying with your butt). But do pilots actually say that? German interpreters don't know this meaning at all:https://dict.leo.org/forum/viewUnsolvedquery.php?idForum=2&idThread=838577&lp=ende&lang=de (Following your intuition and hoping that something will come out of it. But targeted training is different.) --Virtualiter (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

When flying or driving, the moment-by-moment variable forces (both lateral and horizontal) seemingly sensed by the posterior give useful feedback. There may also (my speculation) be an element of psychologically induced proprioceptive sensation, since particularly risky vehicle movements (such as nearly skidding in a car) induce an enhanced feeling in that area (see also "half-crown tanner", a piece of British slang I cannot for the moment find any formal reference for).

@151.227: Sixpence is "a tanner" and two shillings and sixpence is "half a crown". In what circumstances did you encounter the phrase "half-crown tanner"? 2A02:C7B:100:AA00:D9ED:5C02:4C7B:F3D7 (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

www.trucknetuk.com/t/foden-park-brake/107528#:~:text=tanner and www.dartsnutz.net/forum/thread-36170-post-580324.html#:~:text=tanner suggest the phrase "half-crown tanner" is used to signify an alarming experience. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Presumably because a half-crown tanner is five times the worth of an ordinary tanner, and thereby really off the charts.  --Lambiam 18:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It is actually a description of the supposed variation in the diameter of one's anus in frightening moments, as the half-crown was the largest-diameter coin in common circulation and the 'tanner' (sixpenny piece) the smallest. I should strictly have written it as "half-crown–tanner".

As for the 'circumstance[s] of [my] encountering the phrase', it has been a lifelong part of my ideolect, being in widespread use both in The East End of London whence my family hails, and in the British Army within which I grew up as an 'Army brat'. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.134.31 (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I seem to recall that a current Formula One driver recently(?) said words to the effect that the posterior is one of the most important sensory organs when racing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.134.31 (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

If we need a term for this fundamental ability to sense attitude, I propose posterioception.  --Lambiam 09:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

A Google search didn't find much, bur in the comments section of this article, a contributor uses the term "butt sensors" (presumably American, but the use of "butt" over "bum" is gaining ground in Britain too). Alansplodge (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this the right place to ask for IPA transcriptions?

Hello, is this the right place to ask for IPA transcriptions? I have two doubts. Stephen was reported to have a minority pronunciation [ˈstɛfən] (Philippines?) but there were no sources and so I deleted it. Karkade Arabic pronunciation (كركديه) is [karkaˈdiːh], right?-- Carnby (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Some questions about Japanese

1: Are there some morae or syllables that occur either primarily or only in kango? (Gairaigo is ignored for the sake of this question.)

2: For kanji that are phono-semantic compounds, is the idea that two characters with the same phonetic component would have the same or similar pronunciation only applicable to the Chinese-derived on'yomi, or is it also applicable to the native reading as well?

3: Did Old Japanese have long vowels or were they a later development? If the latter, is it known which specific developments resulted in their emergence? Primal Groudon (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

2. Since kanji were borrowed from Chinese hanzi, native correspondences seem unlikely on any level higher than pure chance. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Primal_Groudon -- For an interesting discussion of the Japanese writing system which won't necessarily answer your specific questions, but is very illuminating as to the details of the ways that Chinese characters are used in it, see chapter 9 of "Writing Systems" by Geoffrey Sampson. -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

According to the WP article, Old Japanese did not have long vowels. The following should be double checked as it's about a topic I haven't looked at for a very long time, but if it can be useful to you here it is: Long vowels in Modern Japanese appear mostly in onyomi. The northern Chinese language, Mandarin Chinese, at the time of the earliest borrowings at least, still had syllables ending in -p, -t, -k. When borrowed into Japanese those ending in -t and -k became disyllables ending in -tsu and -ku (sometimes -chi and -ki), for example "koku" the onyomi of the kanji that means "country" 国 (the kunyomi is "kuni"). But those ending in -p became words ending in long vowels (not words ending in -hu or -hi for some reason, which I do not remember, even though dissyllables ending in -hu or -hi do exist in Japanese). Chinese syllables ending in -ng also produced long vowels in Japanese ("mei" or "myou" from 明 "ming"). However not all long vowels in Japanese are in onyomi. For example long a "aa" cannot be produced this way and I don't think it ever occurs in onyomi. You'll have to look for another development. Maybe a consonant falling off between two syllables. Also there's long o and long e in kunyomi (mostly long o). Sometimes the spelling is different. Long o in onyomi is always written "ou" whereas in kunyomi it may be written "oo", e.g. 遠に hiragana とおい "tooi" "be far away". Note also there's "ou" that is not the long vowel o but simply o + u, e.g. 思う "omou" "think", but then the "u" is written separately as hiragana, it is native, and is never part of the reading of a kanji. I've ignored modern borrowings where long vowels can also occur as in コーヒー "koohii" from English "coffee", etc. In katakana long vowels are not written by adding a kana to the short vowel but with a dash. I do hope this proves useful but like I said double check everything. 178.51.93.5 (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC) PS: Article On'yomi or Kun'yomi claim all onyomi are monosyllabic. Not true (as I show above): "koku" and hundreds of others!

Apparently Old Japanese is hypothetized to have had three more basic vowels than Modern Japanese, so I guess it might have been more like Korean in that aspect. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually it's complicated. The analysis of the manyogana used in the verse parts of the Kojiki (the prose is in Chinese) shows 88 distinct syllables (89 in Miyake 2003). But only three or four columns of the syllabary (k-, g-, m-, and in Miyake 2003 p-, but not b-) have all 8 variants. How those 88 or 89 distinct syllables map to distinct vowels is not at all clear. There are several systems and as you can see some add 1 vowel, some 2 vowels and some 3 vowels to the 5 vowels of modern Japanese, and some add no vowel at all and work with the 5 vowels of modern Japanese. Incidentally I have no special knowledge in this matter, I'm simply quoting from the article. One thing I don't understand is how the various variants of the syllabary are correlated: on what basis Bi1 goes with Pi1 and Bi2 with Pi2 and not Bi1 with Pi2 and Bi2 with Pi1. The article doesn't explain but I'm sure there is an explanation. Maybe the Chinese vowels (this is not modern Chinese) or the tones? However the article also quotes Miyake 2003 on the danger of circularity because the values of the vowels in ancient Chinese are themselves in part based on Japanese (and other) data. So it's more complicated than saying that Old Japanese had 8 vowels. It'd be more accurate to say that Old Japanese is a headache. 178.51.93.5 (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

April 20

Emblazoned for emblazed: how common is that?

CNN's Laura Coates says: "A man has emblazoned himself in front of the courthouse". Strictly speaking she should have said "emblazed". How common has that switch become? Is there a name for the process where longer forms (sometimes even incorrect ones) replace shorter ones (for example "notice" for "note", etc.)? 178.51.93.5 (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a malapropism, "emblazoned" refers to the heraldic blazon, not a blaze of fire. A quick Google search failed to find any similar misuse of the word, although the CNN quote has been widely reported. Alansplodge (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I was not asking for the meanings. I knew them: "Strictly speaking she should have said emblazed". My question was about how widespread it had become. Sometimes malapropisms become widespread, through false etymologies, or sometimes (perhaps) the pedantic attraction of longer forms. Incidentally, I wonder if it can nevertheless happen in the other direction: do people really use "emblaze" to mean "emblazoned" (as Wiktionary claims)? 178.51.93.5 (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Do people really use "emblaze" at all? I've never encountered it before. Traditionally one immolates oneself, in an act of self-immolation. DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever (in over 60 years of literacy) previously encountered "emblazed", though it has a very brief entry in my 1,690-page Collins dictionary. Emblazoned for me only takes the heraldic meaning (usually "to describe [a coat of] arms in heraldic terminology"), as it's a subject I've long been interested in. It can be used poetically: there is a Thomas Hardy poem 'The Self-Unseeing' that includes the line "Blessings emblazoned that day" – I remember arguing with an English teacher over whether Hardy had used it appropriately; I thought not.

I think anyone familiar enough with heraldry to be mentioning the action at all would know that it's "emblazon", not "emblaze". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.134.31 (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

ASP wrote: "A quick Google search failed to find any similar misuse of the word". That was clearly a response to your question about how widespread it had become. Apparently not widespread at all.  --Lambiam 21:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

April 22

Greek letters and origin

Are there any Greek letters or letter combinations that are more prevalent in some of these types of words than in others?

1: Native words.

2: Older loans, which refers to loans borrowed into Greek back when each letter and diphthong still had its Ancient Greek pronunciation.

3: Newer loans, which refers to loans borrowed into Greek after each letter and letter combination had already shifted to its modern Greek pronunciation. Primal Groudon (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Generally, letters and letter combinations like ⟨ω, η, υ, ει, οι, αι, αυ, ευ, γγ⟩ are indicators for a native word, because the sounds they represent have more 'straightforward' spellings, which loanwords generally use. To an extent the same goes for ⟨δ, θ, γ, ψ⟩, as their sounds are rare in the vocabulary that Greek borrows. On the other hand, ⟨τζ⟩ and, especially if initial, ⟨μπ, ντ, γκ⟩, are indicators for a loanword. --Theurgist (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

English ⟨ee⟩ tends to be transcribed in proper nouns as ⟨η⟩, though (for example Ληντς for Leeds and Στηλ for Steele), but neither this nor other conventions are set rules. And occasionally, for unclear reasons, the conventional Greek transcription of a name does not suggest its original pronunciation.  --Lambiam 16:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The Greek Wikipedia's article about the city is at Λιντς, while bearers of the surname are given as both Στιλ and Στηλ, the latter article also citing Στιλ as an alternative. I did not say those are absolute rules; variations exist especially for languages such as English and French which themselves spell those sounds variously, and less for others. --Theurgist (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

By “the sounds they represent” and “their sounds”, do you mean their current or original/ancient sounds? Primal Groudon (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Current. --Theurgist (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this corresponds to your 1: or 2:, but some combinations are thought to be characteristic of the Pre-Greek substrate. I have previously read somewhere that this includes the 'νθ' ['nth'] combination found in place names of pre-Greek origin such as 'Κορινθος' ['Corinth']. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.134.31 (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

New Deal protest sign

hello, on this sign, why is a word ("government") written that way? (reverse N/Cyrillic И (?)) ? Thank you everyone in advance Aecho6Ee (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Substituting in a few similar looking Cyrillic characters is sometimes used in graphic design to give a Russian flavour; e.g. the cover of "Superman: Red Son", about an alternate comic book world where baby Superman lands in the USSR and is raised by Russian peasants. Perhaps in the context of not accepting "government relief", the suggestion is that government relief is a Russian or (in 1940) Communist concept.

Or it's a typo. 91.194.221.225 (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Not in a literal sense, since the sign is evidently hand-written. Semi-literacy is possible, but unlikely since the short statement contains 4 correctly-written 'Ns' preceding the one in question. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.134.31 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

They missed the obvious chance, though, to write GOVEЯИMEИT. Mistakenly copying the letter in a mirrored form seems more likely.  --Lambiam 15:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the letters are stenciled: if you look closely, you'll see that the "S"s of THIS and IS are completely identical, including slight serifs that would be quite unlikely in freehand lettering. It's therefore possible that the stencil for the second N in GOVERNMENT got turned around by accident and by the time the sign-painter noticed, it was too late and/or the sign-painter didn't care enough to fix it. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Good solution! --142.112.220.50 (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)