Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 August 7
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 6 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 8 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
August 7 edit
Languages without open vowels edit
Open vowel says that most languages have at least one open vowel, but it does not cite a single language that doesn't have one. Could someone provide an example of a lighter language without an open vowel? HYENASTE 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Pretty much every language has a general [a] type vowel of some sort. I seem to remember that Kabardian was once famously analyzed by a linguist as having only one underlying vowel, but I'm not sure that that has held up... AnonMoos 08:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. See Dates In The Month Of May That Are Of Interest To Linguists for a joking reference to this (as well as a lot of other linguistics in-jokes). AnonMoos 08:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The only one of those jokes I got was the Great Vowel Shift one. =[ Is it safe then to change open vowel to read "all languages" instead of "most languages"? HYENASTE 23:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, because you don't have a reference for that claim. Tesseran 02:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- But the current "most languages" is similarly unreferenced so we have a zero-sum reference in this situation. And it is the responsibility of the editor to cite the exception of the rule that a language contains one open vowel or more. Furthermore, in the case between accuracy and inaccuracy, accuracy should win. Right? HYENASTE 03:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, because you don't have a reference for that claim. Tesseran 02:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The only one of those jokes I got was the Great Vowel Shift one. =[ Is it safe then to change open vowel to read "all languages" instead of "most languages"? HYENASTE 23:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. See Dates In The Month Of May That Are Of Interest To Linguists for a joking reference to this (as well as a lot of other linguistics in-jokes). AnonMoos 08:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are maybe 5000 spoken human languages. No-one has examined the phonology of all. In fact, I am sure that among those there are literally thousands of which the phonology has not undergone a thorough examination. Therefore, even if we found a citation for a claim (as opposed to a conjecture) that all languages have at least one open vowel, we just know the author is totally irresponsible in making such a claim. In contrast, you only need to examine a fairly small random selection of languages to proclaim with very high certainty that most languages are thus equipped. The latter statement does not imply (at least not for me) that there exist counterexamples. However, given the large number of languages with just a single open vowel, I would not be shocked if a counterexample is found, for example in some dialect of Arabic. It might also turn out to be a borderline case. The vowel space is a continuum in which each language's vowel phonemes are fuzzy and elusive subsets, and in several cases allophonically straddle what is normally considered the dividing line between open and near-open. I think that is true for the Standard Arabic vowel normally transcribed as "a" or "e", which ranges from open to open-mid. So one might well have a language with a vowel that some classify as open, and others as near-open. --Lambiam 04:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is serious research into Linguistic typology and universals going on all the time, by individuals who don't consider themselves to be "irresponsible"... AnonMoos 06:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- As long as those researchers define a linguistic universal as a property that applies to all known languages, they are on safe ground. Should they turn this into a pronouncement including the many languages that have not been studied, they are replacing observation by conjecture. --Lambiam 10:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Lambiam, you seem to be applying pure abstract logic, without having any very specific knowledge of the field of study in question. 19:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Now what is it you are trying to say? Obviously you disagree with something I said, but you forgot to leave a clue as to what it is you disagree with. Are you implying that the individuals who don't consider themselves to be "irresponsible" (who does?) and who are conducting serious research into linguistic universals have come to the conclusion that the universals found in all known languages also apply to the languages that have not been examined yet, so that further investigation is pointless? And, moreover, that this extrapolation is justified and must not be criticized by non-experts? If that is not what you are trying to say, then what is it? --Lambiam 00:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I implied pretty clearly exactly what I meant to imply -- that these problems have already been considered at length by those who work in the field, and that your apparent attitude that you can dismiss this whole field of endeavor (which you have no detailed knowledge of) by invoking a few nostrums of generalized abstract logic, does very little to effectively answer the original question that was asked. AnonMoos 03:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was objecting to the suggestion that we were not allowed to leave it at "most languages", but instead were obliged to choose between either stating that all languages have the property, or else coming up with a specific counterexample. I was not aware that in doing so I dismissed a whole field of endeavour. --Lambiam 04:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's something of a shorthand in the field of linguistic universals to say "all languages have property X" when what one means is "no language has yet been found not to have property X". At one level, the difference between the two statements is crucial; at another, as long as everyone knows what you mean, the difference is trivial. It isn't really irresponsible to say "all languages have low vowels", it's just "code" for "all languages examined thus far have low vowels". In my experience, though, universals of the form "all languages (examined thus far) have property X" are quite rare compared to universals of the form "all languages (examined thus far) that have property X also have property Y". On the other hand, linguists do have a reputation for jumping to conclusions about universals before enough data has been examined. One of my favorite linguist jokes is as follows: A mathematician, a statistician, and a linguist were all asked the same question, namely, "Are all odd numbers prime numbers?" The mathematician said, "1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is not prime: No." The statistician said, "1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is not prime, 11 is prime, 13 is prime, 15 is not prime, 17 is prime, 19 is prime: This is a significant tendency." The linguist said, "1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime: My God! It's a universal!" —Angr 06:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's one part of it, but there are also substantive reasons why one would expect that a language would not ignore a whole large chunk of the perceptual vowel space (but rather make use of it to help maximize perceptual contrasts between vowel sounds in the language). AnonMoos 07:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- If researchers in the field of linguistic universals agree amongst themselves to say "all languages have property X" when they actually mean "all languages for which this is known have property X and I see substantive reasons why one would expect other languages to follow that pattern", that's one thing, but I think we must not expect the readers of the encyclopedia, most of who are not researchers in the field of linguistic universals, to be aware of this "code" to the extent that we can freely apply it in our articles. --Lambiam 01:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's one part of it, but there are also substantive reasons why one would expect that a language would not ignore a whole large chunk of the perceptual vowel space (but rather make use of it to help maximize perceptual contrasts between vowel sounds in the language). AnonMoos 07:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's something of a shorthand in the field of linguistic universals to say "all languages have property X" when what one means is "no language has yet been found not to have property X". At one level, the difference between the two statements is crucial; at another, as long as everyone knows what you mean, the difference is trivial. It isn't really irresponsible to say "all languages have low vowels", it's just "code" for "all languages examined thus far have low vowels". In my experience, though, universals of the form "all languages (examined thus far) have property X" are quite rare compared to universals of the form "all languages (examined thus far) that have property X also have property Y". On the other hand, linguists do have a reputation for jumping to conclusions about universals before enough data has been examined. One of my favorite linguist jokes is as follows: A mathematician, a statistician, and a linguist were all asked the same question, namely, "Are all odd numbers prime numbers?" The mathematician said, "1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is not prime: No." The statistician said, "1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is not prime, 11 is prime, 13 is prime, 15 is not prime, 17 is prime, 19 is prime: This is a significant tendency." The linguist said, "1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime: My God! It's a universal!" —Angr 06:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was objecting to the suggestion that we were not allowed to leave it at "most languages", but instead were obliged to choose between either stating that all languages have the property, or else coming up with a specific counterexample. I was not aware that in doing so I dismissed a whole field of endeavour. --Lambiam 04:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I implied pretty clearly exactly what I meant to imply -- that these problems have already been considered at length by those who work in the field, and that your apparent attitude that you can dismiss this whole field of endeavor (which you have no detailed knowledge of) by invoking a few nostrums of generalized abstract logic, does very little to effectively answer the original question that was asked. AnonMoos 03:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Now what is it you are trying to say? Obviously you disagree with something I said, but you forgot to leave a clue as to what it is you disagree with. Are you implying that the individuals who don't consider themselves to be "irresponsible" (who does?) and who are conducting serious research into linguistic universals have come to the conclusion that the universals found in all known languages also apply to the languages that have not been examined yet, so that further investigation is pointless? And, moreover, that this extrapolation is justified and must not be criticized by non-experts? If that is not what you are trying to say, then what is it? --Lambiam 00:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Lambiam, you seem to be applying pure abstract logic, without having any very specific knowledge of the field of study in question. 19:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, why not say "no documented case of a language without an open vowel". If someone finds one, fine. And I've yet to see documentation of an Arabic dialect without an open vowel. /a/ tends to have a very wide range of allophones in many dialects, but including [a] or [ɑ]. Drmaik 08:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- If that is the correct interpretation of the claim (is this claim sourceable at all?), then I think the text in the Open vowel article should be modified to express this weaker interpretation; the current text, after proclaiming their near-universality, lists the open vowels as being just [a], [ɶ], [ɑ], and [ɒ]. The article on linguistic universals goes further and states that there is no known language without /a/ or /ɑ/. I don't think the readers of the encyclopedia, who do not necessarily have any very specific knowledge of the field of linguistic universals, should be required and expected to know that such pronouncements mean something different from what they appear to mean. --Lambiam 00:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we need look no further than Persian to find a language that has neither /a/ nor /ɑ/, but it does have near-open /æ/ and fully open /ɒ/. And while I can't point to a source stating definitively that near-open vowels count as open vowels for generalizations like this, I am confident that if someone tried to publish a paper claiming to have discovered a language without open vowels, but that language did have /æ/ or /ɐ/, the reviewers' comments would come back saying things like, "Come back when you've found a language that really doesn't have open vowels". Phonologists care more about distinctive features than precise phonetic realizations, and near-open vowels are also classified as [+low] in every feature system I'm aware of. What the generalization is really saying is that there is no known language without at least one [+low] vowel. —Angr 05:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- If that is the correct interpretation of the claim (is this claim sourceable at all?), then I think the text in the Open vowel article should be modified to express this weaker interpretation; the current text, after proclaiming their near-universality, lists the open vowels as being just [a], [ɶ], [ɑ], and [ɒ]. The article on linguistic universals goes further and states that there is no known language without /a/ or /ɑ/. I don't think the readers of the encyclopedia, who do not necessarily have any very specific knowledge of the field of linguistic universals, should be required and expected to know that such pronouncements mean something different from what they appear to mean. --Lambiam 00:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Translating simple letters from english into spanish edit
I sponsor a child in Guatemala and he wrote me a simple letter thanking me. I would like to write him back and be able to translate my letter written in english into spanish. How can I do this using Wikipedia? thank you
- Wouldn't writing it in English be a good idea so that the child can practice their comprehension of written English when they get the return letter? Unless you get a Spanish speaker to help you online automated translations are not reliable as many words have more than one meaning and the translator cannot determine which one is pertinent to the context of the letter. If it is a short letter some one might be able to help you. If you want to try online you could try Babel Fish. To demonstrate what I mean about the translator 'guessing' here is the article on Babel Fish translated to Spanish from English and then back again. Lanfear's Bane
- English: Babel Fish is a web-based application developed by AltaVista (now part of Yahoo!) which machine translates text or web pages from one of several languages into another. It takes its name from the Babel fish, a fictional animal used for instantaneous language translation in Douglas Adams' novel The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The word Babel is a borrowed reference to the biblical account of the city of Babel and the various languages which were said to have arisen there. The translation technology for Babel Fish is provided by SYSTRAN, whose technology also powers most of the language pairs for the translator at Google Translate and a number of other sites.
- Spanish: El pescado de Babel es un uso tela-basado desarrollado por AltaVista (ahora parte de Yahoo!) qué máquina traduce el texto o Web pages a partir de la una de varias idiomas a otra. Toma su nombre de los pescados de Babel, un animal ficticio usado para la traducción instantánea de la lengua en la novela de Douglas Adams la guía del autostopista a la galaxia. La palabra Babel es una referencia prestada a la cuenta bíblica de la ciudad de Babel y las varias idiomas que fueron dichas para haberse presentado allí. La tecnología de la traducción para los pescados de Babel es proporcionada por SYSTRAN, que tecnología también acciona la mayoría de las parejas de lenguas para el traductor en Google traduce y un número de otros sitios.
- Back to English: The fish of Babel is a fabric-based use developed by AltaVista (now part of Yahoo) what machine translates the text or Web pages from the one from several languages to another one. It takes his name from the fish of Babel, a fictitious animal used for the instantaneous translation of the language in the novel of Douglas Adams the guide of the hitchhiker to the galaxy. The Babel word is a lent reference to the Biblical account of the city of Babel and the several languages that were said to have presented/displayed there. The technology of the translation for the fish of Babel is provided by SYSTRAN, that technology also drives most of the pairs of languages for the translator in Google translates and a number of other sites.
- Wow, that's actually quite impressive. I haven't done that round-trip in several years, and it really has gotten *a lot* better. Except for the "fabric-based use" part, it's a completely usable translation, which certainly was not the case in years past. --TotoBaggins 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it is better than it used to be, but I think it still loses quite a lot. A personal letter would probably lose more context that a factual article (I didn't have any examples of personal letters and it might detracted from my point). While useable, it's more of a stopgap than a solution. Lanfear's Bane
- Somewhat OT, but bear in mind if ever using that Asian languages still tend to be utterly crap (not surprisingly given the greater differences between the languages etc). For example
- To Simplified Chinese: Babelfish 是一种基于互联网的应用由AltaVista 开发(现在分开雅虎!) 哪个机器翻译文本或网页从几种语言的当中一个成另。它采取它的名字从Babelfish, 一个虚构动物被使用为瞬间语言翻译在道格拉斯・亚当斯的小说里旅行者的指南对于星系。词巴比伦是说出现了那里在巴比伦城市的圣经的帐户的被借用的参考和各种各样的语言。翻译技术为Babelfish 由SYSTRAN 提供, 技术并且供给大多语言对动力为译者在Google 翻译和一定数量的其它站点。
- Back to English: Babelfish is one kind (the present separates Yahoo! based on the Internet application by the AltaVista development!) Which machine translation text or do the homepage become from several languages middle in addition. It adopts its name from Babelfish, fictionalizes the animal to use for the instantaneous language translation in the Douglas Adams's novel traveller's guide regarding the galaxy. Word Babylon is said appeared there in the Babylon city Holy Bible account the reference and various language which borrows. The translation technology is Babelfish provides by SYSTRAN, technology and supplies mostly language to power for translator in Google translation and certain quantity other stands.
- Google doesn't use systran in this case and is arguably better:
- To Simplified Chinese: 巴别鱼,是一个基于网络的应用开发有altavista (现在的一部分,雅虎)其中机器翻译文本或网页时,其中几种语言到另一种.需将其名称从巴别鱼,水底动物用于瞬时语言翻译道格拉斯亚当斯的小说便车银河系漫游指南.字是汉语借来参考圣经到市通天塔和各种语言,据说已出现了.翻译技术到齐鱼类提供systran ,其技术也最权力的语言,对为译者在翻译谷歌和其他一些网站.
- Back to English: Babel Fish, is a network-based application development with altavista (now part of Yahoo) which machine translation or text pages, which in several languages to another. Takes its name from the Babel fish, underwater animals for instantaneous language translation Douglas Adams novel lift roaming the galaxy Guide. the word is borrowed from Chinese reference to the Bible and the city of Babel of languages, is said to have appeared. translation provided SYSTRAN gala fish, and most of its technical language of power, the translator for the translation of Google and other sites.
- Note that Google uses systran for Spanish and is exactly the same although you can make suggestions to improve the translation (you shouldn't in these round trip cases of course). Also note that Google translates Babelfish, Yahoo and Google whereas Babelfish only translates Yahoo
- Nil Einne 22:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
What did CJK type cases look like? edit
If they had to contain instances of all the Hanzi / Kanji / Hanja characters, then they had to be really huge and unhandy... I just cannot imagine a case divided into ten thousand boxes. Did they take up several rooms in the printing houses? --195.19.132.65 10:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- See History of typography in East Asia. In short: it was a problem. --TotoBaggins 14:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The story as told there ends around 16th century... What did they use for printing in the first half of 20th century, for example? --195.19.132.65 16:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was big honking typecases. The L.A. Times had an article ca 1988-9 about the closing of one of the last L.A. area Chinese letterpress shops and they had massive cases. Some han are more common than others, so the arrangement was presumably based at least partially on frequency, just like in the California case for the roman alphabet. Donald Hosek 01:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Re wording sentence edit
Hi all, I could use some help in rewording this sentence to sound better: "The squad leader, Davis, a seasoned soldier, fired his rifle" I just can't figure out how to use 2 descriptive in 1 sentence like that above. 67.169.185.206 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Davis, the squad leader and a seasoned soldier, fired his rifle." Well, it reduces the commas, but is not much more elegant. SaundersW 16:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- OR -- "A seasoned soldier, the squad leader Davis fired his rifle." Not the best but ... perhaps you are trying to squeeze too much into one sentence? (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
- --or-- "Squad leader Davis, a seasoned soldier, fired his rifle," --or-- "Davis, the seasoned squad leader, fired his rifle." --Reuben 17:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am trying to sqwwze too much in, Thanks anyways! 67.169.185.206 17:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It sounds more natural in two sentences. "Davis, the squad leader, was a seasoned soldier. He fired his rifle." Xn4 15:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Too many sloppy journalists would write: "Davis was the squad leader. A seasoned soldier, he fired his rifle." (I like Reuben's versions best.) —Tamfang 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- That one's definitely ungrammatical. --Reuben 21:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
"God Forbid" in Arabic edit
- How does one say "God Forbid!" or "Allah Forbid!" in the Arabic language (using Roman letters)? I see we have articles on the Arabic versions of "God willing" and "God is great," but we seem to be missing the phrase that one would say if something is either unfortunate or immoral. Thanks!--M@rēino 18:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- A quick Google search gives معاذ الله ، لا سمح الله ، لا قدر الله as three variants. --tyomitch 19:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think the colloquial phrase would be بعيد عنك (ba`īd `annak), meaning 'far from you'. — Gareth Hughes 22:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- معاذ الله, as tyomitch suggested, is used twice in the Qu'ran, in Sura 12, verses 23 and 79. I would have guessed "Allah yuharrama" but apparently that doesn't exist. Adam Bishop 06:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's vocalized as "ma`adu-llah" (مَعَاذَ اللَّهِ) there. s:ar:سورة يوسف --tyomitch 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- معاذ الله, as tyomitch suggested, is used twice in the Qu'ran, in Sura 12, verses 23 and 79. I would have guessed "Allah yuharrama" but apparently that doesn't exist. Adam Bishop 06:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
There's also Ta'awwudh... AnonMoos 06:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- So, if I understand this right, it would be stylistically correct for an Arab American to say to his brother, "If I die, ma'adu-llah, I want you to take care of my kids." --M@rēino 14:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Random off-topic question, why's the nationality required? 68.39.174.238 02:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- The nationality's not required. I was making an example to confirm whether I understood the answers to my question. An Arab American is an example of someone more likely than most to use an Arabic-language phrase in the middle of an English-language sentence, and it's the one that happened to come to mind. --M@rēino 14:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Trio edit
Is "trio" a singular noun or a plural noun? i said 23:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Singular --Miskwito 23:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is this different in British English? i said 23:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- No. You can have "a trio" of things, after all. And the word takes singular agreement in verbs: "the trio enters the room". I'd be shocked if those examples were ungrammatical in British English --Miskwito 23:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Google shows many examples of a plural verb with "trio" as an antecedent, most of them (by a cursory observation) from India, Australia, and the UK. Try it yourself. There's a definite tendency in Commonwealth English to reanalyze collective nouns as plurals. It's become fairly generalized. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- ...It's worse than that. I just thought about it and realized that even for me, "the trio enter the room" (with plural agreement) is acceptable, although I probably wouldn't use it. Ugh. Sorry, I. --Miskwito 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's certainly a singular noun (see: trios, crowds), but that doesn't mean that in some parts of the world it doesn't take a plural verb. Tesseran 02:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Google shows many examples of a plural verb with "trio" as an antecedent, most of them (by a cursory observation) from India, Australia, and the UK. Try it yourself. There's a definite tendency in Commonwealth English to reanalyze collective nouns as plurals. It's become fairly generalized. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- No. You can have "a trio" of things, after all. And the word takes singular agreement in verbs: "the trio enters the room". I'd be shocked if those examples were ungrammatical in British English --Miskwito 23:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is this different in British English? i said 23:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Appreciate it. i said 00:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The issue is dealt with in American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. --Lambiam 03:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)