Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 February 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.

February 15

Czech transcription of Chinese

Apparently Czechs have their own transcription of Chinese: cs:Standardní česká transkripce čínštiny. Since I can't understand Czech, I would like to ask if it's official in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Names of articles about Chinese cities seem to follow this transcription. Are these the only two languages written with Latin letters that don't use Pinyin, which is an ISO standard? --2.245.89.47 (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing in the article about it being "official", just a standard based on the Wade-Giles system, adapted for Czech. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Slovakia, there is this document by the Slovak Academy of Sciences, which contains rules for transcription of Chinese, Japanese and Korean (pp. 47-51). Particularly the Czech, Slovak, Hungarian and Vietnamese Wikipedias pretty consistently apply their own spelling rules to Chinese names (someone more knowledgeable about Vietnamese will have to explain whether what the Vietnamese do is just phonetic transcription, or some other form of nativization). And there are some languages, like Latvian and Azerbaijani, in which all foreign names, even those originally written with Latin letters, undergo transcriptions (Gerhard Schröder is lv:Gerhards Šrēders in Latvian and az:Gerhard Şröder in Azerbaijani), so they don't use Pinyin either. --Theurgist (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Vietnamese indeed has its own system of transliterating Chinese. Basically it's based on the way Chinese was pronounced by the Vietnamese when they made it their official language after independence from China (or thereabouts), after which it has followed all sound changes Vietnamese has gone through (such as s > t, leading to Shanghai being Thượng Hải and the like), and then you just apply usual Vietnamese spelling rules to the result. MuDavid (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd've

Jack's question above about transcription has got me thinking. If I were to transcribe "I'd've" (as in "I would have done that" or "If I had've done that"), but the 'v' is not pronounced, how shoulld I spell it? "I'd'a"? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 09:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a scientific answer, but most on-line lyrics sources for the third verse of If I Knew You Were Comin' I'd've Baked a Cake give "I'd a-hired a band", and there are plenty of similar examples ("I'd a-known"). "I'd-a known" and "I'd 'a known" are also common - one word with three apostrophes ("I'd'a") or no apostrophes ("Ida") are less common but still attested. Tevildo (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd go with I'da. I'm pretty sure I've seen that spelling used; Google Books claims 550 hits on an exact-phrase search for "I'da done it" (but I don't know if it's really taking accout of the apostrophe, though the first few search results show it the way I used it). That spelling is also listed in Wiktionary but not in any "real" dictionaries I've checked. --70.49.169.244 (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Not definitive, but my English teacher, who was very strict about these things, insisted on apostrophes (so "I'd've") when writing words spoken in pure English, but permitted alternative spellings without apostrophes when writing dialects or the speech of the uneducated (so "I'da"). Her summary: "If you respect someone, they get apostrophes". RomanSpa (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding to what your teacher said, it's my understanding that, in general, respellings (either as eye dialect or pronunciation respelling) to indicate nonstandard or casual speech is deprecated in literature. Doing so typically makes the speakers seem uneducated, unintelligent, or even less likable. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Despite the fact that every character in a soap opera, or every footballer, speaks in one dialect or another, and yet they are revered like some sort of god or whatever? This is because when people hear a local dialect, they become more attached to the character(s). They can, in some way or another, identify with them. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 16:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. But the problem is that respellings aren't a good way of getting a reader to "hear" a character's dialect. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any alternative suggestions for getting a reader to hear a character's accent, other that IPA, which the majority of the population don't even know exists, never mind how to read it? Most people would think it referred to India Pale Ale. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You can leave cues through altered syntax, punctuation, word choice, and even (as our article on AAVE says) use of rhetorical strategies. The idea is to prompt a reader to access their memory of a given speech pattern. Not only do non-orthographic signals accomplish this without the potential baggage that mispellings come with, but if a reader is unfamiliar with a given variety, no amount of misspelling (especially given our opaque spelling system) is going to work.

If you're curious for examples, take a look at The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein and End of California by Steve Yarbrough, with narrative voices written with (what seems to be) a Russian accent and Southern American English in mind, respectively. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Altering the speech actually defeats the purpose of a faithful transcription, however. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 05:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the difference between literature and transcription. But really, unless you're doing some sort of linguistic analysis, a "clean" sort of verbatim that keeps the speaker's grammar intact should be faithful enough. If I heard [ˈaɪɾə], I would probably write "I'd have" and move on. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 06:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference in King Lear in Edgar's letter about killing his father, Gloucester

In Shakespeare's King Lear, Edgar purportedly writes a letter indicating his intent (or desire) to kill his father (Gloucester) in order to obtain his inheritance. The exact words that he uses are: "If our father would sleep till I waked him." (Act I, scene 2, lines 56-57). What exactly is the reference? How does this translate to "I want to kill my father."? I assume that the word "sleep" is a euphemism for death. I don't understand the "waking him up" part. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It always puzzled me. Two possible readings of that line discussed here are that it means "if our father would remain deceived until I kill him", or alternatively "if our father would remain sleeping, or be killed in his sleep, until I awakened to find myself Earl of Gloucester". See what you think. --Antiquary (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a pretty tricky line to interpret. Both of those suggestions do seem to make some sense. (That was also an interesting link, for other information contained therein.) The only interpretations I could manage on my own were these two. (One) "If our father would remain asleep, and then I would wake him up from his sleep, in order to kill him at that moment." And (Two) "If he would sleep (i.e., be subjected to the process of getting killed by me) until I changed my mind and let him awake (sarcastically). And, there is no way I will change my mind and ever let him wake up." In the second interpretation, I picture Edgar putting a pillow over the sleeping father's face to smother him. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• It's a pun: "If he would sleep till I threw his wake." μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So the pun is the word "wake" (meaning "to stir him out of his sleep") and the word "wake" (meaning "the ceremony of grieving before the funeral")? Is that the pun? Did they have that second meaning of "wake" (the funeral ceremony) back then? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The above is my OR that it is a pun, but it was the first thing I thought when I first the heard the play (which is my favorite). And yes, to waken, to watch, and to stand vigil are all cognates, see EO. μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, wake: "To keep watch or vigil over (a dead body) until burial;" is attested in the OED from 1300 onwards. Dbfirs 09:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That's genius. Both Shakespeare and Medeis. --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That's quite a compliment; but hardly fair by an order of magnitude or more. It's sort of like saying the Grand Canyon and a grand piano are both grand. μηδείς (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't say to whom the comparison is unfair. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Aha! But I cleverly aligned the terms in analogical order Shakespeare:Medeis::Grand Canyon:grand piano to stave off just such a challenge. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the choice, I'd definitely prefer to have a grand piano in my living room over the Grand Canyon. Now, as for having dinner with Shakespeare or Medeis, that's a real toughie. Let me get back to you on that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I can assure you my table manners would be better and my knowledge more au courant, but even I would rather have dinner with Shakespeare than myself. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Number of REGULAR verbs (in English)

Hello to many people. Today I faced a strange situation; we were 5 teachers speaking of the irregular verbs in English and in French. I’m French. A British woman who teaches French made a strange remark “All the English verbs are irregular”. The 3 French people there disagreed. Three pages for these verbs in English and a book for the French ones. I checked here English irregular verbs and it appears that there are less than 200 irregular verbs. Although these 200 verbs are the most commonly used, I have questions that puzzle me. Q1) Do we know approximately the number of REGULAR verbs? Q2) Is there a list of such verbs? Q3) Is there a list of verbs that can be both regular and irregular? Regards and thanks.--Jojodesbatignoles (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Since nearly any noun can be verbed in English, I don't think there is such a list. The closest approximation to it is a large dictionary, but it won't have them all, as new ones are made up, if not every day, certainly every month. There might be a list of verbs that can be strong or weak, but I don't know where. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

One, Jojodesbatignoles, she may have been speaking ironically. If she said "ALLLL the English verbs are irregular" with stress and lengthening it was probably irony.

Two, the -ed ending in "regular" verbs has three forms: -/ɨd/ after 't' and 'd'; and otherwise -/t/ after voiceless sounds (like s,p,k,f) and -/d/ after voiced consonants (like z,b,g,v,n,l) and after vowels. So the regular verbs are not all the same, but they vary according to a predictable rule.

Three, short common verbs tend to develop irregular form by analogy: dive/dove < (drive/drove); light/lit < (bite/bit) & even sneak/snuck. Native English speakers get all this with a little correction from their elders at the ages of 3-5 when they will say things like "he taked it".

Four, she might view dealing with irregular verbs while teaching ESL students as an onerous burden compared to English noun plurals and genders.

Then there is the question of preposition stranding and of idiomatic phrasal verbs like "to take off" and "to take out" meaning to depart and to defeat/kill, not predictable from their parts; while meanwhile one can still literally "take off a sweater" or "take out the trash". μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In the French understanding, English may have only irregular verbs. French, of course, has three classes of "regular" verbs: the -er verbs, the -re verbs, and the -ir verbs, each of which follow very strict rules of conjugation. English does not have any "regular" infinitive endings as French does, so since English infinitives are not "marked" by the presence of anything like the three French infinitive endings, they must all seem "irregular". Of course, English does have a "regular" conjugation pattern, whereby ALL verb forms EXCEPT the third person singular takes the unmodified infinitive form (less the preposition to) while the third person singular takes -s on the end. For example, "I walk, you walk, he/she/it walks, we walk, you walk, they walk" is the way "regular" verbs work in English. Because the infinitive form "to walk" is not marked in English (except by the preposition "to"), from the French perspective, all verbs feel very irregular (where in French, infinitives are marked by a particular one of three suffixes). See Regular and irregular verbs for a more thorough discussion of the topic. --Jayron32 03:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

But Jayron, that's not a standard view either in linguistics or among people who teach English to French speakers. "Walk" is precisely a regular verb, as are "play", "attend", "realise", "stack", "view", "click", "jump", "comprehend", "download", "text" and thousands of others. Colin Fine is correct, it would be impossible to count all the regular verbs, because newly-created verbs are always regular. These verbs have only four forms: play, plays, played, playing. An irregular verb like "sing" has five forms: sing, sings, sang, sung, singing. And it is very different from "bring": bring, brings, brought, bringing. I'm sure it would be useful for learners to have a list of some of the common regular verbs, but I don't know where you would find one. It's rare for a verb to be "both regular and irregular". There's "dive", where the simple past is "dived" in British English and "dove" in American English, but I can't think of any others, and I wouldn't think you could find a list. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Strange to disagree with me, when I first pre-agreed with you by already writing the point you're trying to make. When I stated that English does have regular verbs, what I meant by that was that English does have regular verbs. They're different regular verbs than the French regular verbs are, but I clearly gave an example of a regular verb, called it a regular verb, and even gave examples of how to conjugate regular verbs in English. Perhaps you missed all of that when you wrote your response agreeing with me? --Jayron32 21:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a list of verbs which are regular in British English and irregular in American English, or vice versa, here. --Antiquary (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

To slightly clarify, the basic devision of English verbs are "to be", with 8 forms; defective auxiliary verbs — the class of preterite-present verbs; with only two: can/could, may/might, shall/should, or just one form: must, ought to. The rest are strong verbs and weak verbs. Regular strong verbs show five forms: speak, speaks, spoke, spoken, speaking. The show vowel alternations in various classes, and past participles in -n. Some of these are evolving to make the past tense form the same as the participle: he slings, he slang, he has slung becoming: he slings, he slung, he has slung.

Then their are the weak verbs, listed above by Itsmejudith as "regular" verbs, which have dental (usually -ed) past and past participle forms, and no inherent vowel alternation (although this has developed in cases, like sleep/slept. To have and to do are the only weak verbs that are irregular in the third person, e.g., with has instead of *haves, and past had, instead of *haved. Most of the weak verbs are regular as noted above. There are some like put that have only three forms: put, puts, put, put, putting. And some like sleep, sleeps, slept, slept, sleeping with four forms and vowel alternation. To go is a strong verb whose simple passed was replaced (suppletion) by went. That reminds me, I should of went to the store this morning. If I'd've done it then, I wouldn't need to tonight. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting — so what would be the "regular" preterite of go? Maybe I gew? Has this form ever existed in English, and when did it die out? --Trovatore (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Per our article Go (verb), it was previously ēode - which was no more etymologically related to "go" than went is - until the fifteenth century. This source notes gaed, apparently a new coinage, used instead of went in Northern England and Scotland.

The same pattern applies in across the Germanic languages, and article Go (verb) - plus Wiktionary entries gan and gāną - suggest that there may never have been a regularly-formed past tense of to go as far back as Proto-Germanic, except for new words such as "gaed" formed by analogy. Kahastok talk 22:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much! But what about modern German ich ging? Is it another invention-along-the-way like gaed? (It's strongly reminiscent of Scots gang, as in what the best-laid plans do agley, but you would more expect ging as the present tense and gang as the past if you saw them in the same Germanic language.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, Trovatore: German "hängen" has past "hing". --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK. So then what is the exact relationship between German ich ging/ich bin gegangen and Scots all the seas gang dry? --Trovatore (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget to say, a third weak verb that is irregular in the third person in speech (similar to to do). Kahastok talk 22:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are many classes of English weak verbs, with plead and pled, bleed and bled, and pay and paid being other versions. Both the weak and strong forms have a huge number of versions and common exceptions. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Only in some accents, Kahastok. Here in Yorkshire many people pronounce says as /seɪz/. And I have always interpreted the American eye-dialect spelling sez as indicating that the pronunciation /sɛz/ was regarded as non-standard. --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Eode is from the same widespread Eurasiatic root i- "to go" found in Latin, Russian and elsewhere. "To go" is of uncertain etymology, it may have cognates in Greek and Sanskrit EO. But it may also be a result of Verscharfung or a borrowing from a non-PIE source into Germanic. In any case, it hardly affects the main divisions of Germanic verbs. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• For the conjugation of "aller" in French, look at the three stems shown, developed from the Latin ire "to go", ambulare, and vadere. "to wade". μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget the English word gangplank. It doesn't mean a plank with a gang on it. It means a plank for someone to go. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 16:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the OP. I thank you all for these long and rich answers and explanations. I noticed that those explanations turned to be a "discussion forum" of scholar linguists speaking far above my knowledge.--Jojodesbatignoles (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If you think about it for a moment, if ALL English verbs are irregular, that means that every single verb has some characteristic that is unlike ANY other verb. That would require children learning their native language to remember thousands of unique sets of verb forms, ultimately extending to the hundreds of thousands for adults. As loopy as English can be, it just isn't that stupid. For all the exceptions we have to remember, there are still the core rules about verb forms, which apply in most cases. The truth is that regular English verbs WAY outnumber irregular ones, and I'd be surprised if any language on Earth has it any other way. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've read somewhere there was a language with myriads of conjugated forms. Even if all verbs were regular, remembering all those forms is already very much. --2.245.69.61 (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's the Georgian language. If God speaks Hebrew, Satan speaks Georgian (no offense). See Georgian_grammar#Verbal_system and Georgian verb paradigm. The Navajo language is similarly complex, with Navajo made easier: a course in conversational Navajo literally saying something like there are no regular verbs in the language. We do have a Navajo speaker here who at least used to frequent these desks. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead of the article on the Archi language (permanent link) states:

... [Archi] has a remarkable morphological system with huge paradigms and irregularities on all levels. Mathematically, there are 1,502,839 possible forms that can be derived from a single verb root.

The references are:

I googled {archi verbs}, and there came up a brief explanation how this number is calculated. --Theurgist (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Italian slang phrases for politicians

I'm looking for any colourful Italian phrases used to refer to bad or corrupt politicians or bureaucrats. Not necessarily common phrases, but something that wouldn't seem completely out there to Italian speakers. Thanks,  Liam987(talk) 21:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I could give you a whole slew of Italian curses, but I trust there's also regional and dialectical expressions. For those, I can consult friends from various regions. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Shevat 5775 22:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You could always use a joke. Most jokes translate fine, except for puns. Here's one appropriate for the time of year: "It's so cold today that the politicians have their hands in their own pockets for once." You can make it specific to a politician, party, etc., if you prefer. StuRat (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

There is also the elephant in the room.... That exchange would go something like this: "Davvero, 'sto stronzone e' il nuovo Berlusconi!" "Ma che cazzo di me hai detto, figlio di putana di merda?!" (Yes that much swearing is necessary). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 27 Shevat 5775 01:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)