Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 June 14

Language desk
< June 13	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 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.

June 14

The phonetic transcription /ˌmænɪˈtoʊbə/ (Manitoba)

It does not seem correct. Anyone wants to check this in WP? -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems okay to me. I can also imagine hearing /ˌmænɪˈtobə/. The second vowel comes out in various ways in my head and I'm not sure what it should be; /ˌmænɨˈtoʊbə/ and /ˌmænəˈtoʊbə/ also seem possible (or /ˌmænɨˈtobə/ and /ˌmænəˈtobə/). But I am no linguist so maybe I am wrong. What seemed incorrect to you? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to delete this post, but your post came in. Now I have to answer. I have to listen to some native speakers about this carefully because the ending has so far not been like of the schwa, which is little bit weak but then the long ‘a’ also seems little bit strong to my ears. The stresses seem alright, but the first ‘a’ also seem something like of a Canadian specific (not of the RP). -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The schwa sounds right to me; I would pronounce "-toba" the same way I pronounce "sofa", for example. it is a little longer than the schwa in the middle, but I think that is just because there is nothing else after it. The /æ/ also sounds right. It is the same vowel as in the word "man", anyway. (I'm Canadian, by the way, although I'm not from Manitoba.) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that /ˌmænɪˈtoʊbə/ is how an American would say it, and /ˌmænɪˈtoʊbʌ/ is how I as a Canadian say it (the last vowel is not quite a schwa). 220.29.16.77 (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If we're going with the Wikipedia IPA transcription scheme, I'd go with /ˌmænɨˈtoʊbə/. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You can see and hear http://www.forvo.com/search/Manitoba/. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it literally impossible to believe that there's a significant difference between the American and the Canadian pronunciation of the final vowel of this word. +Angr 13:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of the World has /ˌmænɪˈtəʊbə/. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds rather British...there is definitely a rounded vowel in there when I say it. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the majority of Manitobans pronounce 'Manitoba' the same way as in Wavelength’s attached link. So it seems to me that the first ‘a’ is simply /a/, rather than the /æ/ as in ‘bad’. The schwa seems correct for the second ‘a’ on Canada if the first ‘a’ is pronounced with /æ/, but for 'Manitoba', it seems to me that it is not a schwa if the previous vowel is not too enlonged. -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. 220; the final vowel is not a schwa sound, but more like the ʌ sound. I don't know how American versus Canadian pronunciation would play into it, unless you just assume that Americans always pronounce stuff incorrectly :-). Matt Deres (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then it seems like you Canadians have an especially open allophone of unstressed schwa in certain positions. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I think the idea of actual openness is here undermined, rather than saying that it is of an allophone of schwa. -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Matt, are you saying it does not have the vowels of "soda"? — kwami (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's close, but not quite. I would say that the second vowel is more like ə - the ɪ would only be used if you were carefully enunciating. Matt Deres (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's my urban southern/southwestern Ontario accent, but I can't imagine pronouncing Manitoba in the ways that are being described... Adam Bishop (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has some points, but the problem that i have is to tell exactly what it is. I would not say that the first ‘a’ is /æ/ and second ‘a’ is a schwa. That is, it seems to me that the schwa, whether it is silghtly unstressed or not, is still too high as to how it is spoken by majority. Is it may be something that is of history specific because English language does not have many words that have ‘a’ endings? Also, I think some people use /æ/ for the first ‘a’ to pronounce Canada but not for Manitoba. Correct? -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I pronounce the initial vowels in Canada and Manitoba the same, though there will be some slight difference due to the "a" of Manitoba being surrounded by nasal consonants. "Man" and "Can" have identical vowel sounds for me, so far as I can tell. Matt Deres (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for me too. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Unusual use of "The" for a German speaker of English

My middle-aged neighbour speaks pretty much perfect English (she has lived in Australia since the early 70s). However, she does have a few odd turns of phrase. One that I find the most interesting is her use of the word "the". She has a dog, whose name is Lisa. She invariably refers to the dog as "the Lisa". For example, "I am going to take the Lisa for a walk". Her elderly mother (whom we all call oma) gets referred to as "the oma". As in, "I had to take the oma to the doctor yesterday". Just a note, she doesn't do it all the time. Just say her sister's name is Jane, she will never say "I went to visit the Jane yesterday". Is this a common thing among German speakers, or is it just her way of speaking. Thanks everyone!!! 121.44.83.127 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that it is normal to use an article before someone's name in German. There's actually an ongoing discussion at the how-to-learn-any-language.com forums on this topic. See: [1]. Paul Davidson (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This subject has come up on this desk before as well, see the discussion here. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 09:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

See German name#Order of names and use of articles. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed that isn't mentioned there is that the definite article is very common with the names of fictional characters, especially when you're referring to the character in its capacity as a role, e.g. Rupert Grint spielte den Ron in den Harry-Potter-Filmen ("Rupert Grint played [the role of] Ron in the Harry Potter films"). +Angr 20:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

While there are certainly plenty of German speakers who do put an article before someone's name, it is not universal. I certainly wouldn't use it myself. Probably again a regional dialect thing. I'm from the north BTW.213.160.108.26 (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a parallel to the occasional British use of "our" in front of names. Thus "the Lisa" or "our Lisa" would mean "the one we are all familiar with" as opposed to anyone or anything else named Lisa. StuRat (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Translate short Latin passage

My Latin is too dreadful for translation, despite the four years it made up part of my school schedule! Would someone be willing to translate a short passage for me, please? It is from a page in a public domain work, [2], about Trier and the history of Saint Paulin Church. I've copied it below:

Ursiniano subdiacono sub hoc tumulo ossa

Quiescunt qui meruit sanctorum sociari sepulcris,

Quem nec Tartarus furens nec saeva poena nocebit

Hunc titulum posuit Ludula dulcissima conux.

R.(maybe a B?) V. K. D. Vixit annis XXXIII

I realise the German translation is available below the Latin, but the Fraktur is harder to read at that size and my translation ended up garbled, anyway. Thanks! I wouldn't dare submit my attempt, so I leave it to others, :) Maedin\^talk 12:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Under this tumulus rest the bones of subdiacon Ursinianus, who deserved to rest among the saints, who is not hurt by hell's fury nor by grave punishment. This inscription was made by his sweetest wife Ludula. Died 5 days before the calends of December, lived 33 years. (translated mostly from the German text, my Latin is quite rusty) -- Ferkelparade π 12:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Small point: Nocebit is the future tense, so "whom neither raging hell nor savage punishment will harm". Also, note the spelling of conjux. Deor (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, both, that's just what I needed. Sorry about the typo, typing Latin isn't my forte, ;-) Maedin\^talk 16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Subdiacon" should also be subdeacon. Also, if you want to keep the sense of the dative in the first line, it actually says that his wife Ludula "made this inscription for Ursianus, whose bones rest under this tomb." (Ferkelparade's translation is much more sensible though.) Adam Bishop (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Tumulus is probably more literal (judging by the German?) but would tomb be more appropriate? Maedin\^talk 19:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A tumulus is literally a burial mound, but it also meant any sort of tomb or grave (which is also what "sepulcrum" means). It's possible that the choice of words and syntax is also affected by meter, if someone wants to take the time to scan it... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(Nevermind, it doesn't really seem to scan into anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

German pronunciation of s and ess-tsett

Is there any difference in pronunciation between the German for 'he is' (er ist) and 'he eats' (er ißt)? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. They're complete homophones. (But "he eats" has been spelled er isst, not er ißt, for more than 10 years now.) +Angr 13:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, in colloquial German, at least in the South, "er ist" is usualy shortened to "er is". The Standard German pronounciation is identical to "er isst", as Angr says -- Ferkelparade π 14:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You get that colloquially in the North too. In the South, that reduction would only be found in the Southeast (Bavaria and Austria), as in the Alemannic-influenced Southwest (Baden, Swabia, Switzerland), it's "er isch". I'm not sure whether er isst is pronounced "er ischt" in the Southwest, but I'd expect so. +Angr 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

<squeeze>Negative on the Swabian, "he eats" - "er ißt" (also: "er ißt grad" - "grad" as a shortened form of "gerade [jetzt]" - right now) is clearly different from "er ist". "Er isch grad am Essa." - "Er ist gerade beim Essen.". -- 109.193.27.65 (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)</squeeze>

I expected them to be different in Swabian, but I'm not sure how they're different. I know that standard "er ist" is pronounced "er isch" in Swabian; the question is, how is "er isst" pronounced? Is it pronounced the same as in Standard German (with /s/), or is it pronounced "ischt"? +Angr 21:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a hissing sound, so it's "ißt" just like in Standard German. Though the more common way of saying it would be "Er isch grad am Essa." (or "...beim Essa."), rather than "Er ißt grad." -- 109.193.27.65 (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Question: Why did I get the CAPTCHA for my last edit? I don't see any external links in it. -- 109.193.27.65 (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On a similar vein, in the Rammstein song Du hast, there is some ambiguity between whether the singer means 'du hast mich' ('you have me') or 'du haßt mich' ('you hate me'). Here, as in the above examples, the 's' and 'ß' are pronounced the same. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

'du haßt mich' is spelled 'du hasst mich' after the last spelling reform, 'ß' only follows long vowels Rimush (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

For spelling changes, see German orthography reform of 1996#Sounds and letters. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Old High German and early Middle High German had a voiceless dental or alveolar fricative sound, usually spelled with the letter "z", but distinct from both ordinary [s] and the fricative [ts]. This old phoneme generally became an [s] sound in modern German (but [š] in hirsch), which possibly could have influenced the development of "sz" to write an [s] sound... AnonMoos (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Really?!? I've always thought there was a difference between the pronunciation of s and ss in German, just like there is in Finnish. The difference between s and ss is grammatical, for example kasi (the number 8) and kassi (bag) are minimal pairs. People from the capital area can spot people from Turku pretty much instantly when they habitually shorten the properly grammatical -ssa/-ssä endings into the dialectical -sa/-sä. It's an instant sign "that person there comes from Turku!". I've always thought ss in German was pronounced like ss in Finnish, but are you really telling me it's actually pronounced identically to s? I've always pronounced it ss when speaking German, and even native speakers have always understood me perfectly. JIP | Talk 20:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Really. Unlike Finnish, German does not have contrastive length in consonants. A single written ‹s› between vowels is voiced (/z/), as in Hase /haːzə/, and (with a very few exceptions) the vowel before it is long. If /s/ appears between vowels it's spelled ‹ß› if the preceding vowel is long (or a diphthong), e.g. Straße /ʃtʁaːsə/ and ‹ss› if the preceding vowel is short, e.g. Wasser /vasɐ/. It may well be the case that /s/ after a short vowel is phonetically longer than /s/ after a long vowel (I know that this is true in many languages and wouldn't be in the least surprised if it's also true in German), so it's not too surprising if Germans have no difficulty understanding you (JIP) when in your Finnish accent you pronounce Wasser [vassɐ]. After all, they themselves do (presumably) make the [s] of Wasser a little longer, and anyway, they don't distinguish between /vasɐ/ and /vassɐ/, so there's no other word that your pronunciation of Wasser could be confused with. +Angr 21:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In my experience (Bavarian German), ss is only pronounced longer – and louder – if people try to explain the ss/ß difference to schoolchildren or foreigners. The Duden (Aussprachewörterbuch, Pronunciation Dictionary) doesn't make a difference, and if there is one in everyday speech, it is so small that it has escaped my attention. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese "probable" mood

Are there any rules about when verb forms like 行こう express probability and when they express volition? For example, in one place I've seen 行こう translated as "I will probably go", yet in another place 田中さんが行くから僕も行こう　is translated as "Since Mr Tanaka is going, I'll go too." How do we know it doesn't mean "I'll probably go too"? Or can it? 86.173.171.125 (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC).

By 'rules', what would you mean? Grammatical rules? In that case, no. Only by context would you know. However, I will say that the volition usage is more common than the probability usage in the spoken language. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you KageTora. Is there a difference in this respect between a first person subject and a second or third person subject? For example, is "I'll (probably) go" more likely to be volitional and "He'll (probably) go" more likely to be probable, perhaps? 86.173.171.125 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC).

Yes, I'm sorry, in hindsight perhaps I should have explained it like that. With a third person subject, the usage is more 'probable' than 'volitional', for obvious reasons. In a similar way, with a first person subject, the usage is more likely to be 'volitional'. You are correct. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, thanks. 86.173.171.125 (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC).

I suppose it's similar to "I suppose" in English. "I suppose I'll go"; "Since Mr Tanaka is going, I suppose I'll go too." Either of those could express either a probability or a definite intent (but no strong desire). -- BenRG (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't directly express volition of a third person in Japanese, whereas you can of yourself. For instance, you can say ikitai 'want to go' of yourself, and you can ask it of a 2nd person. But for the 3nd person, you need a special evidential form, ikitagaru. I expect the readings of ikoo relate to that. — kwami (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The sample sentence expresses decision. If you want express probability, you have to use the subjunctive mood for the first part. 田中さんが行くのなら、ぼくも行くかもしれない/ぼくも行くつもりだ/たぶんぼくも行く/たぶんぼくも行くだろう/ぼくも行こうかな。Oda Mari (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity of “Mitsubishi car”

Why is the term “Mitsubishi car” ambiguous? --84.62.217.198 (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think it is? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. ""Mitsubishi car" could refer to either a motor car (aka automobile) made by Mitsubishi Motors or a railcar made by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. It's possible that other products made by one or another member of the Mitsubishi Keiretsu or its forerunning Zaibatsu can or could validly be called "cars". 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And for an ambiguous sentence, how about "I'm running late, I'm at the train tracks waiting for a Mitsubishi car to move". StuRat (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this same guy who used to ask us questions like "Why isn't Mitsubishi a possible word of Yucatec"? +Angr 06:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I digged up a little, and one of IPs of that guy was 84.62.205.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). So this one is probably the same. No such user (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I was suspicious when I saw the question, but answered anyway. Thanks. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the pronunciation for "Only" a regional thing?

I was stunned when looking at a dictionary and seeing that only was pronounced - or supposed to be pronounced - with the "-ly" at the second syllable, and he "on-" like it came from "alone," as ur article on only seems to suggest. But, growing up, I don't remember anyone ever saying it like that - I always heard it said as "olny."

have I discovered one of the key elements in an Ohio accent , or is this actually the normal way to say it? Or, is it a U.S. way? (I suppose it could be like many people used to say "nuclear" as "nucular," but I always said "nuclear" and many people I know did, too.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.155 (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Olny" certainly wasn't the usual pronunciation in the parts of the U.S. where I grew up, when I was growing up there. I've never noticed hearing it before. I think I may have heard "on'y" from time to time when I was growing up in Texas, but "olny" is new to me. +Angr 20:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember ever hearing it either, and I've spent time in various states across the US, though never Ohio. — kwami (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I've never ever heard 'olny', from my limited experience of working with Americans in Japan. I've heard "on'y", but never paid any attention to it because we say that here in my part of England too. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I speak Inland Northern American English -- the majority of my extended family still live in the Akron-Canton-Cleveland area -- yet I don't pronounce it "olny" and neither does anyone else in that region. Xenon54 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've only heard "olny" as a pronunciation for Olney, Maryland. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This question instantly reminded me of an article I stumbled upon here a while ago: Metathesis_(linguistics) --91.67.77.67 (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm Canadian and have visited most of the States. I have never heard "olny" in my life. (I've never heard "ony" either, but I haven't spent much time in England). Is it possible the original poster simply mishears the word? I've met people who always mispronounce certain words in bizarre ways, swapping sounds or inserting new sounds, because of errors that fossilized in childhood, and thus fail to hear how the words are actually pronounced. Paul Davidson (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I grew up in western Michigan, and I do say both "only" and "olny". I can't find any definite pattern to which I use. In casual speech, they both exist in free variation (with maybe a slight preference for "olny"), whereas in formal speech I only ever say "only". 173.66.161.221 (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I find this thread very peculiar. If I ever heard anyone say "olny", I'd assume they just momentarily got their tongue twisted. As a regular pronunciation it sounds, to me, plain illiterate (I do not intend any offence to people whose regional dialect may have it pronounced that way). 86.184.235.66 (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I was skeptical when I first read this, but upon analyzing my own speech (I could use a computer spectrogram, but instead I'm just watching my tongue), I find myself hybridizing the n and l. Note that I use a "dark" or velar l in non-initial positions (American Chicago/midwest standard + lazy mouth accent), so it's /n‿ʟ/. Now, add that to my pronunciation of the o, which is a backed-round-schwa into high-back, /əʊ/, and I'd say my initial articulation is at the velum, making my pronunciation indeed more like "olny" than "only", but just barely. Conclusion: don't discount double-articulation in the American dark-L. SamuelRiv (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm from central North Carolina, and I have never in my memory heard it pronounced "olny" or "ony". I have always pronounced it and only ever heard it "olnly". Note: I have parents from Ohio and Pennsylvania, so as much as it pains me to admit it, I don't have much of a Southern accent. Falconus^{p t c} 11:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Was that a typo or did you really mean "olnly", Falconus? Seems to be making a lot of unnecessary work for the old mouth there. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I use olny fairly often (SW Ontario). I've done so all my life when I don't consciously make myself pronounce it OWN-ly, which still sounds forced to me. I suppose I picked it up from my parents. While it sounds obvious when you carefully enunciate the word, the sounds run together well enough in speech that listeners generally don't hear it - I've never been "called" on it, for example, and I hang around the kind of folks that still give me a hard time for once saying "drindle" instead of "dirndl" while half unconscious at Oktoberfest. Matt Deres (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic, but confusion between "n" and "l" is common in northern, especially north-east England where chimney is often "chimley" and one even hears "kidley" for kidney. I've always assumed that this was just lazyness because of the difficulty in pronouncing "n" following "m" or "d", but is there something else going on? Dbfirs 21:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Olnly - yes, I have heard that! I can't remember where. I don't know if it's related no olny, though: [l] tends to get inserted after some vowels. I've heard sawl for saw quite a bit, for example. Perhaps a confusion of back vowels and dark [l]? Perhaps it was only --> olnly via the same path as saw --> sawl, then a reduction to olny because of the dbl el? — kwami (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Kanji problems

Apparently, 光 is pronounced "mitsu" (as in the names Mitsuko and Mitsumi), but romaji.org and everywhere else I've looked gives the pronunciation of 光 as hikari. What's up with this? Was the website with the first claim wrong? --BradfordAssay (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is correct. 光 can be pronounced "mitsu", as well as 'hikari' (and 'kou', for its on'yomi). Many kanji have multiple readings, and are not just limited to one each for kun'yomi and on'yomi. In this particular case, I can say off the top of my head that the pronunciation 'mitsu' is used only in names (only because I can't think of a normal word in which it is pronounced like that - perhaps someone else can come along and jog my memory). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Like KageTora says, "mitsu" is a common pronunciation when the character is used for a name, and extremely rare otherwise. The only common noun I can find which uses that pronunciation is 竹光, takemitsu, meaning "bamboo sword". Paul Davidson (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Can the expression "There is Y for X" be replaced by the expression "X has Y"?

For example, can the expressions: "there is a message for you", "there is no demand for sugar", "there is a greater number for every number", be replaced by the expressions: "you have a message", "sugar has no demand", "every number has a greater number" ? HOOTmag (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In these examples, yes, but not in every example. E.g., "there is water for your horse" and "your horse has water" are not equivalents. John M Baker (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sugar has no demand" and "Every number has a greater number" aren't really idiomatic where I come from. I doubt that either would fall naturally from the lips or pen of someone whose native language is English. Deor (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Both other editors are from US, and they approved the usage mentioned above in my three examples, so maybe you're not from the states, or this reflects different kinds of English. HOOTmag (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sugar has no demand" is not only unidiomatic, it means something other than what you suppose it to mean. It's consumers etc who have demands for sugar and other commodities; the commodities themselves do not have demands. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jack, I fully understand your reason, but I'm still waiting for more clarifications from Americans, because all Americans who have taken a part in this thread (i.e. the first editors) did approve of the expression "sugar has no demand". It surprised me too, like you, but it's a fact...:) HOOTmag (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that's a fact is that 2 editors who happen to be Americans think your alternatives are OK, and 2 others disagree. From such vanishingly small sample sizes, you cannot extrapolate any meaningful general conclusions. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jack. Only one person (i.e. Jack) has expressed disagreement with the sentence "Sugar has no demand" (while Ludwigs hasn't referred to this specific sentence but rather to the sentence "you have a message", and also to the whole general issue of equivalence between existence and possession). Anyways, I haven't claimed that the two Americans who have taken a part in this thread constitute a satisfactory sample. Rather, I pointed at the fact (which is really a fact) that both of them happened to be Americans, and also at the fact that both of them had approved of the usage of "Sugar has no demand", and then I asked whether these two facts are related to each other. HOOTmag (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am also American, and as you can see above, I do not approve of the usage. Deor (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for having forgotten you.

Where in the States? Washington D.C.? (like John M Baker, who did approve of the usage)? HOOTmag (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, this is not true by necessity. 'Existence' and 'possession' are not equivalent: a message may exist for a person without that person having possession of that message. further, uncountable nouns present different problems - 'there is a cup for water' can not be replaced by 'water has a cup' in any general sense. in the most general sense, though, this is a syllogistic fallacy: A implies B; A exists; therefore B exists is necessarily true; A implies B; B exists; therefore A exists may be false. --Ludwigs2 08:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Who talked about "existence" per se? I haven't talked about "existence", but rather about "existence for", and I've asked whether "existence for" is equivalent to "belonging". In other words, my question is whether a sentence like "for every X there exists a Y", is equivalent to "every X has a Y". Do you think it's not equivalent? Ok, so your opinion is legitimate, but I don't see here any connection to syllogistic fallacies. HOOTmag (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"There is enough food for everyone" is not the same as "everyone has enough food". Gandalf61 (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but I haven't talked about your sentences, but rather about the equivalence of "for every X there exists a Y", and "every X has a Y". Look again at my recent post you've responded to. HOOTmag (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for responding to your original query without realising that you had just changed the question. Very remiss of me. It won't happen again. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

---

By the way, in some languages (such as Hebrew), the ordinary way of saying "I have X" would literally translate as "There is X for me"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... not quite. Rather than "There is X [available] for me," it's "There is for to me X" (i.e. the X is mine, allocated to me)." -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Hebrew monoconsonantal preposition ל can sometimes be translated as "for" as well as "to". If we want to translate a sentence like yesh li kos "I have a cup" while trying to somehow preserve the Hebrew construction, then "there is a cup for me" sounds a lot better in English than "there is a cup to me"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that Deborahjay's point is more about the order of words ("there is for me a cup"), rather than about the difference between "for" and "to". Anyways, you're right: "there is a cup for me" sounds a lot better in English than "there is a cup to me"; Similarly, it sounds a lot better in English than "there is for me a cup". HOOTmag (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To be even more tangential, the Scottish Gaelic equivalent for "to have" is "to be" followed by "at." Thus, "John has a dog" would be "Tha cǜ cù aig Iain" (There-is (a) dog at Iain). --- OtherDave (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Except that, as far as I know, Scots Gaelic doesn't use umlauts. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Right you are. I chose the first special-character U that looked right to me. Thanks; fixed in the text above. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Linguistically, this question was both the motivation for, and experimental downfall of, Noam Chomsky's Transformational-generative grammar. According to Chomsky, these would be fundamentally equivalent up to transformation, though the "active voice" would require less processing time in the brain than the "passive voice" version (the passive voice would be "There is..." in your examples). With a bunch of papers over the course of the decade, this mode of thought became almost dominant until a series of psychology experiments showed that the processing time in the brain was largely independent of the grammatical construct, notably for small sentences as you listed. Thus, in the 80s a new type of formal analysis came about, Cognitive linguistics, which looks at such constructs in terms of the metaphor represented, in which case "there is" is a very different metaphor, representative of some very different object of thought, than "you have" - one can imagine a different focal point. In the first case, I'm thinking of the object itself existing statically, while in the second I am thinking about its existence only in terms of another object, a person in this case. It's a neat concept, but lacks the mathematical formality that Chomsky sought. SamuelRiv (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying that "I have an X" and "There is an X for me" are underlyingly same sentence, altered in different ways by syntactic transformations to produce different surface forms, sounds much more like Generative semantics than "orthodox" early 1960s and mid-1960s Chomskyan tranformational grammar... AnonMoos (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

---

It looks like I missed some of the discussion after my original post. Anyway, with respect to the original three pairs of examples: "There is a message for you" and "you have a message" are equivalent statements and are both quite idiomatic. "There is no demand for sugar" and "sugar has no demand" are equivalent statements, but the first is idiomatic while the second is unlikely to be used in colloquial contexts. However, it could be used idiomatically in some contexts, such as businessmen, economists, or business journalists discussing the demand for commodities: "There is strong demand for salt, but sugar has no demand." "There is a greater number for every number" and "every number has a greater number" are equivalents, but to my ear the former sounds less idiomatic. I would expect to hear "for every number, there is a greater number," although "every number has a greater number" might not be too bad in a mathematical context. John M Baker (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the new details. Yes, I've really meant: "for every number, there is a greater number". HOOTmag (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

ESPN's use of African language

Hello! During the brief introductions to ESPN's halftime shows of the World Cup in the US, a speaker with a South-African-English accent says something like "Oola! Welcome to ESPN's halftime show presented by..." or "Etada! Welcome back to...", which is English preceded by some foreign-language word, presumably from a language of South Africa. Can anyone who has heard this identify it? Sorry, I would have posted a clip to make this a lot easier, but besides it being copyrighted, I haven't found any with this introduction on Youtube. Googling for words like "welcome" or "hello" in Zulu, Xhosa, and other South-African languages hasn't helped, nor has trying those transcriptions above in Wiktionary. Here's my impression of the various interjections in IPA: [oːˈla] [ˈeːtadaː] [ˈlekʌlʊː]. Can anyone identify the language or what they mean? Thanks for any info!--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 21:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

[oːˈla] sounds like Spanish ¡Hola! "Hello", so maybe it's just an international selection of languages rather than specifically South African ones. I can't identify the other two, though. +Angr 06:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

For some reason the official World Cup song is in English and Spanish... AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

[oːˈla] doesn't sound like Spanish ¡Hola! to me. Spanish ¡Hola! has stress on the first syllable, and the o isn't long ([ˈo.la]). On the other hand, maybe the presenter is mispronouncing it. Rimush (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've found a Youtube clip of it [3]. Please go to 1:10 in. You'll hear what sounds like [oːˈla] to me, and after that it cuts right to [ˈeːtada]. Any ideas? Thank you!--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There's also a longer example at about 0:40.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 17:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like there'll be many more takers, which is a pity. The best I can do is direct you to speakers of South African languages on Wikipedia through Babel categories (Category:User xh, Category:User zu, etc.).

I myself cannot find any words resembling those, even on sites like Jennifer's. It might be possible that those are words from South Bantu languages. You give /ʌ/ as a phoneme (as well as /l/), which should narrow it down a bit; our Niger-Congo languages article mentions reconstructed Proto-Niger-Congo /ʊ/ but nothing like that on individual South Bantu language articles. They may be mispronunciations, as per Rimush. Googling etada (naturally) yields many Basque results (=ETA da) so not much success there, as you've said. But I'd direct you to the native speakers on Wikipedia, like the Language Reference Desk has done in the past with similar questions. -- the Great Gavini 18:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't watch the Language Desk (but that will change!). El Aprel contacted me on my talk page.

0:40 the announcer says "Aweh! Hoe lyk hulle?". This is typical Cape flats slang (Cape coloured might also be a pertinent link here). The term "aweh" is just an interjection; it doesn't mean anything. "Hoe lyk hulle?" is Afrikaans, literally translated it means "how look they?" (i.e. how do they look?) which is slang for "how is it?", "how are things?", "how are you?" etc., an informal greeting. It is VERY low-brow but also universal slang (particularly on the Cape flats).

1:10 can't quite make out the words

1:20 The first word I thought of was heita which is a slang "hello" particularly in the African languages, although in the clip it sounds more like "heitada" or something.

I'll ask one of my work colleagues for help tomorrow. Note I know almost nothing about indigenous African languages, just enough basic words to vaguely recognise what's being said and chuck it into Google. Zunaid 00:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok we discussed it and concluded that 1:10 is the Spanish "Hola" or similar, not an African language. 1:20 is "Heita", the extra "da" is either just an extra slang syllable or it could be the Afrikaans word daar which mean "there", as in "Hello there". Zunaid 14:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I know it's rather late to be commenting on this, but I have to add something. "Ola" is slang amongst younger South African, used as a greeting (in the same sense as "heita"). It might be derived originally from Spanish, but it's used in the same sense as, "Hi, how are you?". SmallMossie (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)