Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 March 25

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.

March 25

beads

Are there in English language any terms to specify beads attached to the fabric from those that are worn on the string, or small from big ones? Seaweed71 (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the term "sequins" is often used for beads or flat platelets attached to clothing, or handbags. As to the sizes, I have no idea, but the Venerable Bead was larger than the rest :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Small, glass beads usually shaped like little tubes are called "bugles".Don't know if that's what you mean but they are the sort you see sewn onto fabric in patterns. hotclaws 11:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

See this extensive illustrated glossary of bead types (just now added to the Beadwork page, which is rather minimal in its present form). It seems reputable and essentially non-commercial. Beadwork is an established branch of jewelry making and decorative arts; for practical purposes, any bead that can be attached to a garment (and withstand laundering) may be used without undergoing a name change. If you're looking for the name of a particular bead, describe it and we'll try to help. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Beadwork means decorated with beads, stringing is on lengths; my popup dictionary gives: adj/vb (beaded) decorate or cover with beads : a beaded evening bag. • string (beads) together. So, beaded (cloth), strung or fringed ? Designers have fabric specially beaded in India so that it looks like embroidery – to incorporate into fashion wear. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Another useful term that might be relevant when searching further info: in textile arts, a fabric surface to which beads and other materials have been attached is described as embellished, so these materials are collectively "embellishments." I'm not familiar with whether this term is likewised used in the fashion industry.-- Deborahjay (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Universal Translator

I've often wondered about the Universal Translator in Star Trek. Do you think it would be possible, 150 years from now, to listen to a few words from an alien species then effectively start a conversation? Given that the UT had problems in its early stages, and later on with non-humanoid life forms - but surely the UT was created to avoid the use of sub-titles and/or repeated communications awkwardness? Sandman30s (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt a few words would ever be enough to translate even the most simple of languages. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how any device could fully analyze or decode a completely unknown language without access to a very significant quantity of information -- though if two entities were actively trying to cooperate in establishing communication, the time and effort needed might be greatly reduced. AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No. We are in the realms of science fiction = 99% nonsense.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. If you look at Sci-Fi of the 60's - let's take Star Trek (original series) - you would find a lot of the technology they considered far-fetched those days are prototype or even commonplace now. Touch a device and talk to the surface? Cellphones. Beam me up Scotty? Photons have been teleported already. Hyposprays are already in use. Also, there are many science fiction novels that have accurately predicted scientific reality one hundred or more years into the future. The novels of Jules Verne are classic examples - talking about voyages to the moon, submarines, and the like. I'm sure people who read his novels in 1890 thought he was talking a whole lot of nonsense too. Sandman30s (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Communicators and hyposprays already existed when Star Trek went on the air. Quantum teleportation isn't teleportation, it's a way of sending quantum information over a classical communication channel. Even for that purpose it's useless in practice since the setup cost is enormous compared to the cost of simply using a quantum communication channel. Quantum teleportation doesn't solve any of the problems that make actual teleportation difficult (read: impossible), like taking apart the object at one end and putting it back together at the other. I don't think Star Trek's transporter and universal translator were ever intended to be scientifically plausible. They were narrative devices. -- BenRG (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Star Trek version is actually doing something closer to mind reading than proper translation. Consider the example of the Rosetta Stone, where even with a key it took very smart people years to work out the second language. Peter Grey (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if it could somehow figure out the grammar very quickly, how would it guess all the vocabulary? Not every thing can be figured out from context ("There is a _____ on planet _____" and such). -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There is one episode (Darmok) that shows how communication can be established without the UT. But then of course there is that one Voyager episode where the alien hears two words and suddenly speaks the language even without using the UT, argh. I suppose what would really happen is that any alien language would be so inconceivably different that the only way to communicate would be through mathematics or music or soomething non-verbal. Adam Bishop 01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're thinking of Hope and Fear, then we might not be expected to accept the alien's explanation at face value (although the Voyager crew evidently do). But as you can see from our Universal translator article, it simply removes an annoying repetitive problem (unless it's essential to the plot). Bovlb (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a long post about this, but got cut offline half way through, then when I got back, the conversation had veered somewhat. So, taking up this new line, why is it that we should think that alien communication should be so different from ours? Granted, they may not use vocal sounds like us, being a completely different species, but given the fact that there are conceivably a semi-infinite number of exo-planets, and therefore conceivably a semi-infinite number of civilisations, there could even be one, or several, or even a semi-infinite number that speak an Earth language, considering also that human civilisation to-date has had a huge number of languages throughout history just within our own species. Just a thought.--ChokinBako (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the premises they tried to explain in the Enterprise series at least. The other is that the UT identifies common language elements and extrapolates using some advanced AI and presumably an enormous database of all earth languages, past and present. ChokinBako might be onto something here - why should ancient Egyptian have not come from aliens that landed and spread their language thousands of years ago, showing the humans how to build the pyramids? There was an episode in the Next Generation I think where an ancient alien species spread their image and thus became the progenitors of all humanoid species across our galaxy - another cheap shot at explaining why all aliens are humanoid in Star Trek but we all know it's for saving special effects budget :) However - I've posted this question here because I was hoping for a language rather than a sci-fi commentary on this. Thanks. Sandman30s (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no. It is logically impossible for some automatic interpretation device to correctly guess a word it has never encountered before. It is also impossible to understand a word without sufficient contextual exposure, and impossible to extrapolate grammatical exceptions without being exposed to them first. These are not mere technical limitations. Paul Davidson (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be just as easy to invent a device that scanned a being's brain and took the meaning right out of its thoughts than it would to construct something that instantly decoded an entire alien language from close to nothing. FreeMorpheme (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Phonic detectors are certainly possible (hear some words of a known language to determine the language and initiate translation). But we're assuming here that aliens will use verbal communication. The possibilities for forms of xenolinguistic communication are very broad. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Name of profession

If I have a degree in Physics and after college I work for 40 years as a sales manager until retirement, why is it right to say that I am a physicist, but wrong to say that I am a sales manager? 217.168.3.246 (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem correct in either case. What is the context? --LarryMac | Talk 14:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sales manager can only mean employment, physicist can mean employment, but also recognition of education or academic credentials, or passion for and knowledge of physics, etc. Peter Grey (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say you were a 'retired sales manager'. --ChokinBako (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity he/him

From the NYT: "Billy Wolfe, now 16, was recently attacked while waiting for the school bus in Fayetteville, Ark. One boy jumped from a car and punched him, while his brother filmed the assault on a cellphone camera."

Whose brother filmed Billy?Mr.K. (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence itself offers no clear clues, but the context of the article suggests that the assailant's brother filmed the assault. Marco polo (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, the article explains that the assailant's brother was the 'cameraman'. How could this sentence be minimally changed so to as be understandable in any context?WikiProteus (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just change "his" to "the assailant's". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is ambiguous indeed, as it may well have been the victim's brother who filmed the assault, not wanting to get directly involved but wanting evidence to show to authorities afterwards. The sentence also implies that Billy became 16 since the attack, which only happened recently. It also implies (sorry to be pedantic) that there is only one school bus in Fayetteville (which may be true). Not very well written, this article, is it? Is the NYT always like this? --ChokinBako (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the judgement that the sentence implies there is only one school bus. Billy was not just waiting for a school bus, as if any old school bus would do. The use of the here is idiomatically preferable. Further, the use of One in One boy, combined with the fact that the while clause is in the same sentence, are a clear cue that "his" refers to the assailant. If it had been the victim's brother, the author would more likely have written something along the following lines: "Billy Wolfe, now 16, was recently attacked while waiting for the school bus in Fayetteville, Ark., when a boy jumped from a car and punched him. His brother was able to film the assault on a cellphone camera."  --Lambiam 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one might typically be prone to interpreting his as referring to the Agent/subject of the sentence rather than to the direct object, but it's not really a grammatical requirement. It's interesting that some languages like Danish and, I believe, Russian have separate forms of the possessive pronouns if the antecedent is either a subject or a direct object. It's more ambiguous in English; at first, I actually thought his was referring to Billy (the direct object/Patient) in the second sentence. — Zerida ☥ 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're correct about Russian, unless you're thinking of свой, which corresponds to X's own. But that doesn't seem to fit your description. Tesseran (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes, your description fits with what I was thinking of--at least if that form must take the subject One boy as its antecedent, and not the direct object him. It's a type of reflexive possessive pronoun. — Zerida ☥ 04:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair answer, Lambiam. I have never tried, nor will likely ever be able to give a better answer than you. :) --ChokinBako (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew font formatting problem in FAC candidate Tel Aviv

Please contribute at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Hebrew_language_in_infobox_of_Tel_Aviv --Dweller (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the problem is solved if you don't use Template:Hebrew, which needs to be fixed or deleted. Use Template:Lang instead (e.g. {{lang|he|תֵּל־אָבִיב-יָפוֹ}}). - Nunh-huh 00:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust

DOES ANYONE AT THIS DESK KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST? LIKE WHAT HAPPENED DURING IT? WHEN IT WAS? WHO THE MAIN GROUPS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN IT WERE? FIVE IMPORTANT FACTS ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST!! SOME WORDS THAT THE MAIN GROUPS USED AT THIS POINT IN TIME? MEANING THE HOLOCAUST.............. THANK YOU... I CAN USE ANY INFORMATION THAT Y'ALL CAN GIVE TO ME....... THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU HAVE DONE FOR ME IN THE PAST..... ON RECENT REPORTS... BY THE WAY THIS A REPORT FOR SCHOOL... I AM IN THE 9TH GRADE... AND AM TRYING TO DO A BOOK REPORT.. BUT CANT FIND ANY INFORMATION ON THE HOLOCAUST.... IT WOULD EVEN HELP IF YOU GUYS OR GIRLS OR WHO EVER CAN LEAD ME TOO THE RIGHT DIRECTION.... THANKS AGAIN.... 25 March 2008 (UTC)17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. Poechalkdust (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

See our article Holocaust. You will find a list of books and other sources on this topic at Holocaust (resources). Marco polo (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You can also find CAPS-LOCK located to the left of the 'a' key on your keyboard. --ChokinBako (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a Language question. Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Enunciated T

A guy I know has an interesting way of pronouncing most of his Ts which come at the ends of words which are also at the ends of sentences. When he says something like "I will do it", the T is very crisply pronounced. Is this just a quirk of his pronounciation? Or is this a common enough thing to have a term applied to it? I've never encountered anyone who enunciates their Ts so much. Dismas|^(talk) 22:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to know without more description, but I guess that you are referring to an ejective consonant. In some dialects (for example round Liverpool) final /t/ is often strongly aspirated, but I doubt you would describe that as 'crisp'. --ColinFine (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I know exactly what you're talking about, Dismas. A friend of mine does this, not only with final t but also with final p. When he says "hit", it sounds like he's tsk-ing or tut-tutting, only even more crisply and clearly sounded. It's very easy to emulate, but I don't know of any description of it. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't be sure without hearing an example, but my bet would be that he aspirates his sentence-final plosives instead of unreleasing them or changing them into glottal stops. --Kjoonlee 00:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, on second thought that wouldn't be interesting, though. --Kjoonlee 00:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he engages in deliberate over-pronunciation because he mistakenly thinks it's incorrect to speak normally. He might have gotten that idea if he has had vocal training as a singer. Paul Davidson (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I heard a paper (by Paul Foulkes I think) a while back about Geordie (Newcastle-upon-Tyne) which noted that utterance-final (end of a sentence generally) t was always released and aspirated, which is not common for other varieties of English where you can choose to release or not. Being from Newcastle myself, but with a near-RP accent, this is one local feature I have kept. (and that's a clear release on kept!) Drmaik (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a speaker of American English, I know that unreleased final [t] is quite common in many places--in fact, this is the only way I'd pronounce it. To the original questioner, see unreleased stop. It's also been called "glottalized t", though I don't know if I'd go as far as calling it an ejective. It does sound a bit like a glottal stop. — Zerida ☥ 06:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it proper to use ð in English?

The symbol makes the th sound in then and on it's article it is shown being used as the "th" in "this". Since it's Old English, would I be allowed to use it? Andrew Kanode (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not normal to use it in Modern English, and you would confuse most readers by doing so. It is perfectly proper to use it in Old English, but be aware that it was not systematically distinguished from 'þ'. The distinctive use of the two for voiced and unvoiced consonants respectively is a modern phenomenon in Icelandic (where they are part of normal orthography), and anywhere else that people choose to use them. --ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but would it still be a technicality to use it? Like if I was trying to mess with friends I could claim that þat was a real word. Andrew Kanode (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So you want to be Ðe Ƿinner... --Kjoonlee 00:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a thorny subject. Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Andrew Kanode (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You could use it, I suppose. You wouldn't get any extra marks in Scrabble, though. --ChokinBako (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's obsolete by several centuries. It would be a spelling error. Peter Grey (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You can say it *was* a word, but it isn't a word now. It would be an amusing way of making your notes just that little bit less accessible to everyone else. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is still used, but with the graphic form of <y>. The ye in "Ye Olde Smoke Shoppe" is really ðe. — kwami (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the y in 'ye' is an alternate form of þ (thorn). Paul Davidson (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)