Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 May 3

Language desk
< May 2	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 4 >

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.

May 3

is this correct

is the sentence correct did i use "criteria" in the proper context "What is the criteria for that writhing project" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.86.190 (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it is correct.69.218.226.160 03:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. "Criteria" is a plural noun, which does not agree with the singular verb "is".

• If there is 1 criterion, it would be "What is the criterion for that writhing project?"
• If there are more than 1, it would be "What are the criteria for that writhing project?".

(and did you really mean writhing, or writing?) -- JackofOz 03:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Knot theory. That looks interesting. A.Z. 07:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I intend to become fully conversant with this field of human endeavour, and put it to good use. My first project will be making a Hangman's knot. :) JackofOz 08:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer depends on who you're trying to impress with your "correctness". As you can see, some regard it as a singular and some as a plural. --Ptcamn 23:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And some answers have more credibility than others: "criterion" is singular; "criteria" is plural. See "Ask.oxford" and "Merriam-Webster online." --Bielle 00:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. "criteria" is never singular. Corvus cornix 02:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ptcamn, it's not generally helpful to attribute to others motives such as trying to impress people. There is such a thing as correctness for its own sake, a very noble aim in my view. Otherwise, places like Language Reference Desks, dictionaries and thesauruses, and teachers of languages, would have no purpose or point. True, a lot of people do say "a criteria", and "a phenomena", but this is mainly due to ignorance, laziness or perceived peer pressure (just as writing I in lower case; failing to differentiate between its and it's; confusing affect and effect; writing horrendously long run-on sentences or comma splices - the list is endless - are). It's one thing to speak and write a certain way because of peer pressure, but it's another thing to reflect negatively on someone who aims for a higher quality in their use of language. Getting the balance right is but one of the many conundra we have to face daily. JackofOz 02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's quite amusing that you think people make "mistakes" because of peer pressure. The people who write I in lower case and confuse its and it's are not known for criticizing or thinking of less of people who do otherwise. There is, however, strong, overt pressure on people to conform to what's "correct", to the point of (facetious) threats of violence.

There is absolutely nothing "high quality" about correctly using Latin or Greek morphology in English. (If I extend this to genitives and start writing criterii and criteriorum, does that make my writing even higher quality than yours?) In language, the only thing that makes correct things correct is that people regard them as correct. Correctness is not an objective or intrinsic quality, and it doesn't make sense to speak of "correctness for its own sake". It's in the eye of the beholder.

Also, I find it slightly disturbing that you think there is "no purpose or point" to dictionaries and language teachers etc. besides learning what's "correct" and what's not. When I turn to a dictionary, it's usually to look up the etymology of an interesting word. When I learn a language, it's so I can understand it — regardless of whether the speaker/writer happens to be using the correct forms or not — and so I can speak/write back in a way that's appropriate for the situation and audience. --Ptcamn 04:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I made no assertion that people who spell I in lower case etc think less of people who do otherwise. Nor do I believe they do, generally speaking. In a lot of cases, they seem to be oblivious to the difference, as many of the questions (and answers) we get on the Ref Desk demonstrate. I happen to be a Lynne Truss devotee, but I think everyone will agree that for the most part she's preaching to the converted. It's only the people who care about such things who'd be interested in reading her books in the first place.

But I'm convinced about the peer pressure. It may not be overt à la Truss, and it has a lot to do with the inconvenience of using standard orthography and spelling out complete words in text messages etc. - but for a lot of young people just starting out with texting, when they get messages from their friends with such spellings, despite anything they may have been taught at school, they will quickly adopt the more convenient approach. For some, not all, it will be a question of "doing what all the others are doing and be seen to be doing so" - that's what I meant by "perceived peer pressure". It's one thing to do whatever to fit in with the group (that's responding to peer pressure) - but it's another to think less of anyone who does not conform (that's inverted snobbery and acting judgmentally). The most recent apparent evidence I've seen of anyone doing the latter (albeit in a very different context) is someone who said "The answer depends on who [sic] you're trying to impress with your "correctness".  :)

There's also the question of ambiguity, something that any lover of good writing deplores. In the sentence "What is the criteria for that writhing project", it's hard to know whether the questioner believes there's only 1 criterion and wants to know what it is; or whether he/she has no idea how many criteria there are, but however many there may be, he/she wants to know what they are. My suggestion above would eliminate this ambiguity.

As much as I hate labels, it may also be that you see things more the descriptivist way, whereas I'm more of the prescriptivist persuasion. If that's the case, we'll probably never agree on anything language related, so we may as well just agree to disagree, leave it at that, and remain on friendly terms. JackofOz 05:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that whenever someone says "the purpose of language is to communicate, not to follow fussy rules laid down by dusty dead guys with nothing better to do," it's practically always in defense of some usage that increases ambiguity.

No, you would not be more correct in writing criteriorum, because that's a Latin ending on a Greek noun. —Tamfang 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Malay translations

Any chance some kind person could translate the following words for me? I assume they are in Malay: they were used in the 40s and 50s in what was then British North Borneo, now Sabah. They are from handwritten letters, so I hope I've written them correctly. I can give the context in which they were used if that would help.

• serang
• koti
• sanie (? - or sarie?) - someone who works in a house from the context
• kedai
• orang tuah kampong
• tuan
• tuan besar

Many thanks Jasper33 06:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The sections "External links" of our articles Malay language and Indonesian language give several links to online Malay and Indonesian–English dictionaries or translation services. Using this, I get

• serang = attack
• koti = ?, kota = town
• sanie / sarie = ?
• sari = concentrate, extract, pith
• kedai = shop
• orang = person, tuah = good luck, orang tuah = lucky person, kampung = village
• tuan = sir, besar = big, tuan besar = overlord

 --Lambiam^Talk 09:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lambian Jasper33 15:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Words for Food

I am aware that words from French are often used for food in English, and older English terms for the animals (e.g. beef/cow, pig/pork), but the French also have separate words for the animals sometimes (e.g. vache/boeuf). Why are some the same (lamb, chicken) and some different (beef/cow etc)?137.138.46.155 12:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A linguistics prof told me it was because after the Norman Invasion in 1066, the upper classes spoke French, while the lower classes still spoke English. Needless to say, the former were more likely to come in contact with pork than with a pig. --TotoBaggins 13:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(written during edit conflict) Each word has its own history. For English words, I think that the general principle is that during the 12th and 13th centuries, certain kinds of meat were virtually reserved for the Norman aristocracy, and English-speakers would seldom have spoken the names of those foods other than in the Norman French of their masters. "Slaughter the cow; the lord will have his beef." The meats with French names were prestige foods, referred to in the language of prestige. Other humbler foods, such as chicken, may have been more readily available to English-speaking commoners. As for "lamb"; maybe "agneau" or "agnel" was just too hard for English-speakers to pronounce, or maybe some lambs were raised secretly by shepherds for a holiday meal, and never recorded as part of the lord's herd. But here I am just speculating.

In the case of the French words you mention, "boeuf" originally meant any kind of cattle, male or female (from Latin "bos/bovis"). But words for domestic animals typically shift in meaning, as there is a need for words for specific types of each animal. For example, in English, we have cattle, cow, bull, ox, steer, calf, heifer, etc. In French, "vache", which like "cow" originally referred to only female bovines, gradually became the generic term for the species, whereas "boeuf", originally a more generic term, took on the sense of "ox", "steer" (a castrated male raised for meat), and "beef" (the meat from a steer, for example). Marco polo 13:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Language Samples

Hi. I'm looking for a site that has language samples. I mean, audio files containing spoken phrases in various languages. Wikipedia's spoken articles do very well until I happen to want to hear a more exotic language, where the Wiki in question does not have any spoken articles. If anyone knows of such a site, I would be grateful if he/she could recommend it to me. Thanks, Danielsavoiu 15:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Try [1]. It has the wren story in many languages. --141.35.20.90 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There's also The North Wind and the Sun. You can find audio samples at Linguistics Handbook. --Kjoonlee 16:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How to pronounce

I am hosting a "roast" for the General Manager, and in doing some research on his last name (McInerney), I fould some folklore that fits him perfectly. One of his ancestors was called:

Oircheannach

Any idea on how to pronounce it? 156.101.1.5 17:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sincerely, Stephen Garcelon

I'm not convinced this will help but...McInerney has that word appear in its article within the 'folklore' section, it has bits saying how to pronounce Oirchinnigh (on arc kenny) you could maybe use that as a starting point. It appears to be sometimes spelt airchinneach so google-searches on that might help too ny156uk 18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't studied the Gaelic language, let alone the Irish dialect, but looking at this page on Irish Gaelic pronunciation and drawing on my previous linguistics experience, I'm able to surmise it would be pronounced something like "ire-can-nuck". That's not precise, but it's close enough - I doubt you'll be needing a tip-top Irish pronunciation for a one-time roast, anyway :) Ozarker 06:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Wikipedia has its own featured article on Irish phonology! —Angr 08:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Biosphere

Can the word biosphere refer to the set of all living organisms on Earth? If it doesn't, is there a word that does mean this? I want to be able to use it something like "Most of the biosphere is smaller than the size of a duck". Thanks for your help. Aaadddaaammm 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you want biota. "Most of the Earth's biota are smaller than a duck." However, some people use the word as a singular, meaning the whole set of living things, and not the things individually. Of course you could just say "living things". --Anonymous, May 4, 2007, 00:21 (UTC).

Most languages?

I want to know what the world record is for number of languages known by one person. I've checked Wikipedia and the Guinness Book of World Records, but neither place had it. --Zemyla^t 23:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The current recordholder is reputed to be Ziad Fazah. --Cam 23:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you can find out more at Guinness by searching for "polyglot". I have the record for world's slowest Internet connection, so I can't confirm that right now. --Cam 23:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 August 16#Greatest Polyglot.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)