Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 December 15

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.

December 15

œ

How is this pronounced in English? The article on it only has IPA, which I can't read. Other sources say it's pronounced how you sound when your lips are making an ū, but you say ĕ. This makes no sense to me. Does someone know an English word to two where this is used, so I can compare?

Also, is there a word for a private meeting with only members of something, like a panel of judges? Not in camera though. I'm trying to remember it, but I can't. I (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

According to its article, it is pronounced /iː/ or /ɛ/ in most cases. As for your second question, I would suggest "conclave", which specifically refers to a private or closed assembly, and comes from the Latin conclāve, place that may be locked up. However, more informal terms could be "huddle" or "confab", and one can communicate the concept by saying, for instance, "The judges will now confer," which is understood to refer to a private discussion. Lantzy ^talk 03:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)If you mean the first IPA on the page, that's just the name of the symbol œ, which is pronounced as I would pronounce the name 'Ethel'. If you mean how is it pronounced in words, that depends on the language, and the word. In English it barely exists nowadays, having been replaced by oe or just e. However it's written, it's normally pronounced ee, as in been. The pronunciation you describe appears to refer to the open-mid front rounded vowel, which is written in IPA as œ. This sound does not occur in English, which is why English speakers have to go through such contortions to try to say it. Btw, IPA is very useful (especially for reading Wikipedia!) and not that hard to deal with; see IPA chart for English for a cut-down version with most of what you need to know. Algebraist 03:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd pronounce 'Ethel' like /ˈɛθəl/, with the unvoiced 'th' of 'thin', not the voiced 'th' of 'then'.  --Lambiam 15:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two pronunciations of "been". Make that "ee" as in seen. --Anon, 06:38 UTC, December 15.

Right. Although that pronunciation is technically correct and invariable (I think), many words that used to have the ligature in them have changed their pronunciation upon dropping it, "estrus" comes to mind, and that new pronunciation is applied to the old spelling when it is seen (œstrus), however rarely. You see conflict between the old and new in some words, "economics" (œconomics) comes to mind, which is pronounced either "eck" or "eek". You'll sometimes hear "œnophile" (oenophile) pronounced "ween", but I'd say a good rule of thumb is to use the long "e" in words that have retained the separated rendering ("oe") of the ligature ("œ"). In proper names, of course, all this is out the window, and we try to say them the way the person himself would. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a vestige that comes from the early years of when the Anglo-Saxons migrated from the European Continent to settle in England. The language they spoke was closely related to such present-day languages as Dutch, Friese, and the Norse languages. Over the years, however, English changed to become the language it is today. Part of this change involved dropping some of the old sounds that at one time were spoken by Anglo Saxons, and one of these sounds is this: the "œ". As has been mentioned, this sound has been replaced by other sounds in words today in modern English, but if you read old texts they sometimes include this letter just to show what it had once been. The modern day equivalent of the œ is the Ö that is used by many Germanic (and some non-Germanic) languages. This letter is also sometimes written as Ø in other languages such as Danish and Norwegian. There is no corresponding modern English letter equivalent to this, but you can get a close approximation to it if you pronounce the word "her" without sounding the "r". But that still is not quite precisely how it sounds. Saukkomies 13:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

On its pronunciation in IPA, what you describe is actually quite good: make an ĕ, and then holding everything else, round your lips, as you would for u. Drmaik (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re Saukkomies - I don't think so. The front rounded central vowels did not exist in many dialects of Anglo-Saxon, and as far as I know the digraph "œ" was never used (unlike "æ", which was not regarded as a digraph anyway). As far as I know, the digraph was introduced to English with the French and Latin words that use it. (I admit that Œ gives an Old English name for it, but Old English language does not list it at all.) --ColinFine (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Terms 'financially established" "financially healthy"

What they do exactly mean? Wealthy, employed, not bankrupt?217.168.0.96 (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they have precise and technical meanings. A start-up company generally needs to burn money in the hope to make a future profit; when such a profit eventually shows up and can be reasonably thought of as being permanent, you can call the company "financially established". The main use would be in a negative form: the company is not yet financially established, which can be a way of saying: "our company is operating at a loss, OK, but just wait and see". A person who is in the beginning of a promising career might get the advice to wait with engaging in a lavish lifestyle until they are financially established, meaning that they earn an income that is more in line with what they can eventually expect, or in any case enough to support the desired level of expenditure. Calling a person or an institution in a steady-state situation "financially healthy" would mean something like: not operating at a loss, and generating sufficient income to take care of possible expenses needed for debts and such. In other words, not likely to go under, financially.  --Lambiam 16:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

presence of digraphs cs and gs in Latin

I'm learning Latin (lvl 1 in Babel terminology) and I've read that the digraphs cs and gs become 'x' whenever they appear. Does this mean that 'cs' and 'gs' never appear? Is there a website that has a frequency table for things like Latin digraphs? Thanks 203.221.126.9 (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My first impression is that x represents two sounds, that could be matched with the digraphs you give: lex=/legs/ and crux=/crucs/.

For entry lookups, I think you will find this handy. Pallida  Mors 18:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[1] also describes how X replaces other combinations of letters. It's important to remember that Latin was for the Romans a language that was spoken before it was a written language, and the orthography was an attempt to represent the sounds of the language. SaundersW (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

cs and gs never appear in Classical Latin. They may appear in Old Latin inscriptions before classical spelling was standardized. As Pallida Mors says, lex = legs and crux = crucs, hence the g and c in the actual roots of those words (legis, lege, etc). Some third declension nouns are able to take consonant+s (pars, mors, urbs), but g and c did not look or sound pleasant to the Romans, so they were replaced with the conveniently-sounding letter X. It seems to me that cs and gs might occur in Greek borrowings, or medieval/neo-Latin inventions based on other languages, but I can't think of any at the moment. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

But in the case of lex, don't think it was pronounced gs: it was ks, with the underlying g assimilating in voicing to the following s. Greek did (does?) much the same thing. Drmaik (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Drmaik: With due respect, I have doubts about your commentary. I was always told that leg(s) is the pertaining root for lex. And the fact that you have legis, but crucis (and not crugis), tells us something of a phonetic difference in the roots.

Adam, I guess ecstasis is the example you're looking for, or at least one of such. Pallida  Mors 00:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good example, from the Greek, where I suppose it must be spelled with xi? Also, Drmaik is probably correct - the root is leg-, but there originally was no separate letter G in Latin. It was pronounced the same as C (which was of course phonetically /k/). That may be a reason they didn't come up with some other letter for the combination -gs-. Or, more simply, the g assimilated to the following s by losing its voicing. Similarly, urbs was pronounced "urps". Adam Bishop (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

er, wait, no, of course it's not spelled with an x in Greek! Adam Bishop (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. I heard of something called kappa and sigma :p True point about birth of g as a different letter. I forgot about that. I mean, no initial orthographic separation of g and c sounds Pallida  Mors 14:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

There is every reason to believe that /k/ and /g/ were distinct at all stages of Latin. But the alphabet the Romans got from the Etruscans used the letter 'C' for both, (possibly Etruscan did not distinguish them). That does not, of itself, tell us whether the /-g-/ in the root 'leg-' devoiced before the /s/ or not, ie whether it was /legs/ or /leks/, or even some other possibility such as /legz/. Do you have evidence for /urps/, Adam? --ColinFine (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Search this page for "urps" for evidence of devoiced b. Also see here. SaundersW (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For "urps", I guess I can only say "that's what we learned on the first day of Latin class". It's mentioned in the pronunciation guide in The New College Latin & English dictionary, and Wheelock's Latin, to mention two books I have at hand. A google search confirms this. Some ancient grammarian must have written about it. (Logically, though since Latin has no native Z sound, I can't imagine how they would have pronounced it any other way, since you either have to assimilate the B to P, or the S to Z.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those references, SaundersW. I don't attach much value to the Ohio State document - it's just a practical guide, not a scholarly discussion. The Lord book is very much more to the point; but still I'm not wholly convinced. Lord quotes Quintilian, but Q is only talking about prefixes - this is a different phonological context from -s#. I'm pretty sure nobody ever told me to devoice the 'p' when I was studying Latin at school: I voiced both the 'b' and the 's', and I'm pretty sure everybody else did too. (I suspect that if you had pointed this out to us few - including the teachers - would even have been aware that we were doing so. And we regularly voiced the final /s/ in -es anyway). Adam says that Latin has no native Z sound, but this is not necessarily the case. Lord says "In Greek words written also with Z, as Smyrna (also written Zmyrna), it probably had the Z sound, and possibly in a few Latin words, as rosa, miser, but this is not certain"; and it's pretty clear that early Latin must have voiced intervocalic /s/, as most of them got rhotacised to /r/ (though that doesn't necessarily mean that [z] survived into Classical Latin). I'm not saying the 'b' doesn't devoice, I'm just asking for proof. --ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Superficial googling urps and urbs doesn't throw up better authority than the Lord book, [2] but it does give many different sites giving urps as the pronunciation of urbs, in several languages. (I noted German, Italian, Polish and Romanian.) The first two are in JSTOR papers that I can't access from here. The convention is widespread, if nothing else. SaundersW (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

But then German and Polish, at least, regularly devoice final consonant (clusters) anyway. We're probably not going to get much further on this one! --ColinFine (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Reduced use of case endings, Russian

Would love to read anything available demonstrating how subject tendency works live! I can see how it happened in Latin, but cannot imagine same in Russian, especially genitive. I have, however, seen the preposition 'of' developing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PADRAEG (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Something you might like to explore is the disappearance of case endings in the Bulgarian language and also Macedonian language. SaundersW (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Addressing a female priest

One addresses a male priest as "father", how should one address a female priest? "Mother" is used for some species of nun, so would seem improper for a priest. DuncanHill (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC) In general terms, "father" does not carry a gender as a religious title and so "father" may be acceptable to some women priests. Otherwise in written salutation simply "Ms." or "Mrs." is acceptable.

In the churches I've been to in my life, the priests are usually addressed by their first name anyway, so it's not an issue. We have a female priest in my current church who is occasionally called "Father" as a joke. Someone above pointed out that "Reverend" is not properly a title, but in this case one might make an exception if one were speaking to a female priest (incidentally never called a priestess!) and didn't know her name. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly bring myself to use "Reverend" in that way (it makes me cringe). DuncanHill (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, then you'll just have to call her by name, or if you don't know her name, call her "Hey you". —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally female priests are from the branch of the church that doesn't use the title "Father" anyway. They tend to be known as "Sue" or something like that where we come from. SaundersW (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Anglican priests are Fathers. I tend to meet priests when I visit old churches, so would not know their name, and "Oi, you" strikes me as a tad too informal, even in these modern, shirt-sleeved times. DuncanHill (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Anglican Church in North America is using Mrs. or Ms. for women priests. Only the militant seem to demand something akin to father. User:LaurenChaplains 00:47 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Male nursing sisters and matrons are still called "sister" and "matron", or am I behind the times? Why not female "fathers", particularly now that some churches are ordaining openly gay people. This will lead inevitably to male nuns and female brothers. Bring it on. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In the UK (IIRC), male nurses with the rank equivalent to "sister" are addressed as "charge nurse". --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The article on Minister (Christianity), section "Forms of address", subsection "Anglican Churches" states that "female priests often go by the title Mother or Pastor". No reference. St. Andrew's Episcopal Parish in Leonardtown, Maryland, says: "The proper term is either Reverend or Mother. Our current rector prefers Reverend Paula, or just plain Paula." [3] ---Sluzzelin talk 00:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Some more: The rector of St. Christopher's Episcopal Church in Portsmouth, Virginia, says: "Just call me Jane. Some women use Mother or Reverend, but to me there is something wrong with almost every title you can give people, so I use Jane or for little children or people who are not comfortable without a precise title, Reverend Jane" [4].

The Rev. Kimberly D. Lucas from St. Ambrose Episcopal Church in Raleigh, North Carolina: "The titles of clergy are given as terms of respect. If you call a male priest father, it is respectful to call a female mother. But, because I’ve hung out with clergy from a lot of different denominations, I’m not picky. I’m comfortable with pastor or reverend. Ive even been called father, which is ok by me.. Kimberly (Kym) is my Christian name and it works too." [5] ---Sluzzelin talk 01:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The situation I would specifically need it is if one is mooching about in an old church, and a priest walks in. If a male priest, one can say "Hello Father, can I creep into your crypt? (or whatever)". "Hello, Reverend" is clearly wrong, and "Pastor" just don't sound right in the CofE. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "ma'am"? How would you address a respectable-looking woman whose name you didn't know and who wasn't a priest? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd use "ma'am" for a magistrate in court, or the Queen in the course of a conversation, but not otherwise. I probably wouldn't use any specific form of address when approaching a strange, respectable woman ("Excuse me" would suffice). DuncanHill (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's probably safest for female priests, then, too. Just pretend they're laity and address them accordingly. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Entrepreneurs and polyglots

Why do employers like (apparently) polyglots so much? I mean, in which way is it beneficial to have an employee with a good knowledge of German or French? Of course if you wanted to translate something into French or German you'll need one, but that's not my point, I don't mean a translator but an engineer that speaks, say, English, French and German. If that engineer worked for a German enterprise based in an English-speaking country, couldn't he just communicate in English with everyone? Why isn't English enough in some situations? I'm sorry but I couldn't reword my question in a better way. --Taraborn (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The effects of speaking one or more languages besides your native tongue go significantly deeper than just being able to read Grass, Cervantes, Vergil or Dante.

One bonus is, that you can read Finnegans Wake. And whilst that may sound obscure, it indicates - in a nutshell - what other languages do in our mind, when a single language does not suffice. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The advantage would vary immensely based on the business, and the position, obviously, but a key factor might be very simple: speaking multiple languages, while perhaps only occasionally advantageous, is never disadvantageous - that is to say, an individual who speaks English and another given language is able to perform every task an English speaker could, while one who speaks only English cannot necessarily perform every task a polyglot could.

At my (small) business, we have two "full" polyglots, myself a native English speaker who is proficient in German, a colleague speaking native English and nearly-native Spanish. Neither of us are quite as fluent in the second language as the first, but both of us use the second language multiple times in the course of a year. In my case, the vast majority of Germans speak all-around better English than I do German, but there are a few who do not feel wholly comfortable in English, and more who are not versed in the vocabulary specific to the business. For them, having access to a speaker of German - even one who has to circumlocute or pause excessively or ask for clarification - is a tremendous boon.

I have worked with several customers who simply could not have patronized the business had there not been a German speaker on premises, and even those German-speaking customers for whom it has not been strictly necessary have been quite pleased to have the opportunity of speaking their native language, and impressed that the business provides that option. We have yet another coworker who has a very limited command of two more European languages, and even simple greetings or clarifications from him have impressed customers immensely. That goodwill and potential word-of-mouth are a bonus to the business, with no cost or trade-off.

In other fields or positions... a polyglot is able to read trade-based articles without translation, better understanding the original intent, and/or accessing information or developments faster, from multiple sources. Businesses with international offices save every time a translator is not needed for an employee to communicate with headquarters. Employees who speak the language are more likely to understand the culture of, and better interact with, employees from abroad. This, again, while it may provide only the barest nominal advantage over someone who speaks only a single language, is at no cost to the employer, only to their benefit. All other factors being equal, it's only logical for an employer to prefer a polyglot. --Narapoid (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Impressive answers, thanks. In my particular case, what made me begin to learn German was, generally speaking, the great presence of an almost completely unintelligible language to me in the Internet, sooner or later I ended up stumbling upon a German site and not being able to understand a single word. Actually, the main responsible for this was my wish to being able to read the German Wikipedia. --Taraborn (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, perhaps, to what has already been said (which I fully agree with), the very fact that someone has gone through the process of learning another language indicates something about them: they can work hard and learn new skills, and are probably moderately intelligent. This is also a boon for employers. Daniel (‽) 17:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm an english engineer working in a german company, in an office in France. French is the day to day working language, as it is the first language of most of the workforce. A good level of english is required for most jobs, and german is a plus. Company policy encourages the recruitment of polyglots (specifically, people who have actually lived abroad) for a number of reasons, many of which have already been mentioned here. We bid for contracts in a number of countries. Cultural knowledge is a factor, as it is all to easy to unwittingly offend a foreigner, despite the most innocent of intentions. We deal with clients and subcontractors abroad. Although english is supposedly an international language of business, not all employees of the companies with whom we deal speak it well (or at all). Interpreters are expensive, and do not always have the technical knowledge to exactly convey the more complex aspects of a project. A multilingual engineer may well know subject-specific vocabulary better than everyday words. From a management point of view, it simply means a more versatile workforce. Mcgurkle (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Proper use of semi-colon?

Is the grammar, especially the use of a semi-colon, of this sentence correct?

A sense of looming tragedy hangs over this excerpt, as Othello is adamant about the fact that his wife must die; yet he is hesitant and utilizes copious and apt metaphors in an attempt to tip the balance in favor of his wife’s survival.

Thanks. Wesley. 99.240.177.206 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I noticed is that Othello's determination that Desdemona must die is just that, his determination - it's not a fact until it happens. I'd change it to "... as Othello is adamant that his wife must die". I see no problem with the semi-colon. Some might say a comma is needed after "yet", but imo it's not mandatory. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I leave the grammar to the natives, but I feel the sentence could be made more concise. For instance, you have "a sense of tragedy...", "...looming tragedy..." and "tragedy hanging over...".

These are somewhat synonymous figures of speech, which may be considered partly redundant. Mind you, once your sentence gets "improved" by the full treatment of assembled linguists, grammarians and nitpicking semiologists it will be about as healthyas Desdemona :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a very simple test as to whether to use a semicolon or not. Take the 2 parts of the sentence on each side of the semicolon and make them separate sentences on their own. If they both work as complete and grammatically correct sentences, then you may connect them with a semicolon. So in your example, here's what we do:

A sense of looming tragedy hangs over this excerpt, as Othello is adamant about the fact that his wife must die.

...AND...

Yet he is hesitant and utilizes copious and apt metaphors in an attempt to tip the balance in favor of his wife’s survival.

Although the second sentence is a bit awkward, and probably needs the comma after "yet", it is a complete and grammatically correct sentence on its own. So, to answer your question: yes, the semicolon is okay to use there. Saukkomies 04:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The simple test is very useful, but I interpret the use of it a little differently. If the second part doe not work as a standalone sentence, then you can't use a comma with no other revision. You can a semicolon, or break it into two sentences, or probably something else. But if the second part doesn't stand alone as a sentence, your options are open--you can use a comma, but a semicolon is often acceptable even when it's not necessary. There are other uses of a semicolon too...

But I do agree with the conclusion that it's OK in this instance. Ccrrccrr (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would actually break with previous posters, and hazard that the semicolon is actually not fully correct in this sentence. The semicolon is used to join two fully freestanding clauses; they should interrelate in concept, but not be connected in flow.

In a way, it depends on your intent: Is it that "A sense of looming tragedy hangs over this excerpt" solely because "Othello is adamant about the fact that his wife must die", or does it loom because "Othello is adamant that his wife must die, yet is hesitant"? If the latter, the comma seems more appropriate, and the use of the conjunction (yet) further argues against the semicolon. Generally, a semicolon replaces a conjunction; it generally only supplements one when the number of commas in a clause would make the use of a comma confusing.

As an example: "A sense of tragedy looms over this excerpt, as Othello is adamant that his wife must die, yet hesitant to see it happen; despite the stated necessity of her death, he utilizes copious and apt metaphors to tip the scales in favour of her survival." These are two fully freestanding clauses, but their conceptual connection is highlighted by the semicolon.

I highly doubt anyone would object to the semicolon used as you have in the original. Some likewise might object to how I've used it above - it's not a device I use often, for just that reason. Your Mileage May Vary. All the same, if the question is one of purely objective right or wrong usage, I tend to think "not quite right." --Narapoid (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Narapoid. To my ears, your "yet" is functioning as a conjunction, which makes the semi-colon unnecessary. However, it could be interpreted as an adverb (modifying "is"), in which case the semi-colon works just fine. I would probably re-phrase the passage as above. Matt Deres (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct!!!!!