Language desk
< January 28	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 29

Biographies of parents with both living and deceased children

If a parent has both living children and deceased children, what is the most tactful way to convey that information in a sentence or two? I ask after looking at the personal life section of Joe Bryant (Kobe's father). Various editors have been changing the wording, but nothing looks right to me. Zagalejo^^^ 03:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment it reads "In 1975, Bryant married Pam Cox, sister of former NBA player Chubby Cox. Bryant's son, Kobe, won five NBA championships with the Los Angeles Lakers. Bryant also has two daughters, Sharia and Shaya. Through his wife Pam, he is the uncle of professional basketball player John Cox IV. On January 26, 2020, Kobe Bryant died in a helicopter crash, along with Bryant's 13-year-old grand-daughter Gianna and seven others.[10][11]"

Looks good to me. Factual and straightforward. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omitting articles in English text

Way back in the late 1980s, when I got my first Transformers toys, I noticed that the instruction manuals used a form of English that was completely new to me at the time. For example, an instruction manual might say:

Fold front part of car apart to form arms. Pull back part of car back to form legs. Stand robot.

The way I had learned English, it would have to have been:

Fold the front part of the car apart to form the arms. Pull the back part of the car back to form the legs. Stand the robot.

Of course I understood everything, but I didn't know English could be written this way. Is there a name for this form of English? And why were the manuals written in this way? Is it used elsewhere? JIP | Talk 13:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess that various manufacturers wanted to provide instructions in a variety of languages yet do so in limited space. (I remember multilingual instructions for exposing films, all on a single piece of paper that would fit in the box.) So there would have been a motive for this kind of "telegraphese". It became commoner, people got used to it, it then became expected. NB this is mere guesswork. -- Hoary (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the instruction manuals for Transformers toys in the US at the time were written in this variant of English and no other languages. This form of writing is very common in instructions and similar forms of writing. --Khajidha (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This "elliptical style" (as the style manual Words into Type calls it) is also common in recipes, usage in which may predate usage in such manufacturers' instructions. The style manual I mentioned has this to say: "Instructions are sometimes written in an elliptical style, omitting articles. Consistency should be observed, omitting all or none." Deor (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That style has been around for a long time, presumably to cut down on wordiness. "Insert tab A into slot B." That kind of thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Headlinese and Telegram style… AnonMoos (talk)

I remember begging my Dad for a transformer and after months of pleading, one Saturday morning he agreed and took me into town and bought an AC/DC electricity transformer. I was not amused. lol Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The phantom The

Is there a word to cover the action of adding a "The" to the start of a name or title that shouldn't have one? e.g referring to Eurythmics as The Eurythmics - X201 (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but it's an example of hypercorrection. --Viennese Waltz 14:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's called "usual English grammar". The normal rules of English grammar allow for the use of the definite article "the" before plural nouns, especially in situations when dealing with the plural as a specific, designated grouping. Referring to the band as "the Eurythmics" is not incorrect in any way, and mirrors the usage of the word "the" in numerous other similar contexts. Consider "the dogs are barking" meaning "There's a specific group of dogs (where both of us know which dogs they are) that are barking", which is different from "Dogs are barking" which means "Some unidentified group of dogs (where none of us really knows which ones they are) are barking". In the case of "the Eurythmics", the use of the definite article is more natural and how people would normally speak, because, when we say "The Eurythmics are playing a concert" we're referring to a specific grouping, "Eurythmics are playing a concert" feels like it could be any random Eurythmics and not a specific set of them; yes, we can after the fact take the time to analyze the statement and realize what is meant, but in the case of making language as natural and understandable to our listeners/readers, "the Eurythmics" in that context does not feel marked in the way that leaving off the definite article does. So, to answer your question directly, again, the use of "the" before the word "Eurythmics" goes by the name "standard English grammar." --Jayron 32 14:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I've never come across any random Eurythmics. Articles in band names can be a bit of an oddity. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC) p.s. I've always thought Annie Lennox had a great voice.[reply]

(ec) I don't think your (Jayron32's) informative answer exactly answers the question. X201 carefully wrote "The" (with an uppercase "T"), twice, so asking specifically about the word being part of the title. I don't think I'd say "The Dire Straits", "The Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark", or "The Sparks, so I think the answer is more complex. Bazza (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the nail on the head Bazza. I was trying to think of other groups or TV shows as examples, but my mind came up blank. - X201 (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite. RP/BBC English has often been ridiculed for adding an unwanted The, e.g. The Pink Floyd. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. In their early days they were known as The Pink Floyd. --Viennese Waltz 15:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wasn't claiming they were never called that. Only that the BBC failed to drop the The when it became unfashionable. Partly why I chose that as an example! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen such added "The"s (capitalized) at the beginnings of sentences (or fragments). I've never noticed such in running text, "I saw the Eurythmics last night", yes, "I saw The Eurythmics last night", no. --Khajidha (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least they're consistent. The Beatles were most often "The Beatles", but on some of their albums they were only "Beatles". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The Beatles" vs "the Beatles" has been a long running saga at MoS. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's of minor concern, such subtle differences in orthography have little effect on the understandability of the language. The greater concern is that, among the "article is not a part of the name" crowd, there is an ardent subset who also removes any article, without regard to capitalization, from the text, so we get such monstrosities as "I bought an album by Beatles last week" or "Have you heard a new song by Beatles". There's numerous examples of such things all over Wikipedia. --Jayron 32 15:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A waste of money. Most of them are now dead, allegedly. Although they were more popular than the Jesus. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that, in the specific example given, it is blatantly clear that the current Wikipedia article titled Eurythmics is using incorrect grammar. When we check ngrams, here, we see that comparing the phrase "by Eurythmics" vs. "by the Eurythmics" there are literally no examples from the corpus of the former usage (the "the"less one). this one using "to the Eurythmics vs. "to Eurythmics" also shows similar results. We can probably debate and allow for a variance of opinion as to whether the use of "the" should be capitalized or not, but omitting the definite article altogether is simply unknown in the English corpus, so the Wikipedia article pretending that is the proper way to write is utter bullshit. --Jayron32 17:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That pedantic plague appears to have begun 15 years ago,[1] by an editor who bailed in 2007. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting. One of the things I've "learned" from Wikipedia is that Eagles (band) should not be referred to as "the Eagles". If that's wrong, I'd like to know.
    By the way, if re-run Jayron's query for "by Eagles" vs "by the Eagles"], I find a substantial preference for "by Eagles". But my guess is that if you looked into those occurrences, you would find that a lot of them were talking about the bird rather than the band. No obvious, easy way of checking that comes to mind. --Trovatore (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can turn off the default case-insensitivity and re-re-run the query. The result is interestingly different. --Lambiam 07:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did that, actually. Considered mentioning it, but the results, while suggestive, are not really definitive, and it seemed like too much work to report on. --Trovatore (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a search comparing "song by Eagles" and "song by the Eagles"; that should hypothetically eliminate much of the noise from the bird portion of the searches. Once again, the "the-less" version is essentially unknown. While the proper name of the band is "Eagles", that still does not override normal English grammar when using the word in a sentence. --Jayron 32 13:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok Jayron, nice one, just try and chill thy article beans. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate the fuckin' Eagles, man. Deor (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This aggression will not stand, man! --Jayron 32 14:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    
    You're a Cowboys fan? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, just wants the rug back. It really brought the room together, you know? --Trovatore (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Pronunciation of ʻokina

The ʻokina marks a glottal stop in words like Hawaiʻi. How do you pronounce the name of the punctuation mark itself? (I've also asked at Talk:ʻOkina, but no responses so far.) Thanks. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikt:okina, it is oh-KEE-nah. Jmar67 (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In English? Or in Hawaiian? I would guess that the Hawaiian name would be pronounced with an initial glottal stop. However, that isn't a sound that English uses at the beginnings of words. --Khajidha (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is, when an utterance starts with a vowel. If you say "ʻokina is the Hawaiian character representing a glottal stop", it shoud come out about right. After "the" I'd say it's 50–50. I find that if I start a sentence with "the ʻokina", it seems to depend on whether I pronounce "the" as /ðʌ/ (in which case I want to use the glottal stop) or /ðiː/ (in which case I don't). --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The younger generation should have no problem. They now routinely spout atrocities like "Thə interesting thing is that thə answer is 'ə apple', not 'ə orange'". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Maybe this is some Oz trend that hasn't made it here yet? But beyond that I'm not sure what the complaint is in the first place. I use /ðʌ/ and /ðiː/ fairly interchangeably, with /ðiː/ being maybe just a touch more formal. --Trovatore (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just noticed that you meant "a apple" instead of "an apple". I don't say that, of course. But Mr Bumble probably would have, so it's not all that new. --Trovatore (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that. When you say "the answer", is it elided to "thee-y-answer" or is there a glottal stop as per my example? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I use both forms interchangeably. --Trovatore (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're only half the man I thought you were. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not by a elk." —Tamfang (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realized on reflection that there's a manifold confluence of threads that's too interesting not to mention (at least from my possibly slightly idiosyncratic view of interestingness).

The section above talks about the Eagles, which I would almost certainly render as /ðʌˈʔiːglz/ because using the /ðiː/ pronunciation would blend into the first syllable of "Eagles".

But I was also going to give an example in German, suggesting that if you know German you should try to pronounce der Adler, which has a glottal stop before the A.

I think it's a pure coincidence that Adler means "eagle". --Trovatore (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bit late, but thanks for the answer! In IPA, would /ʔoʊˈkinɑ/ be right? I’ve added it to the article, so please correct it there if needed. Thanks! —96.8.24.95 (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not really right as regards Wikipedia standards. Using {{IPA-en}} implies that this is an English-language pronunciation (and indeed it would be wrong if it were meant to be Hawaiian, because I'm reasonably confident the /oʊ/ diphthong is not Hawaiian). But all English words that begin with vowels actually begin with a glottal stop (when pronounced in isolation). So an English-language broad transcription that starts with /ʔ/ is kind of bizarre.

It might be better to give a phonetic transcription, in Hawaiian rather than English, and put it between square brackets rather than slashes. Something like [ʔoˈkina]. But I'm not at all confident of the exact value of the vowels. --Trovatore (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Von der Leyen and Eliot

Ursula von der Leyen tells UK "Only in the agony of parting do we look into the depth of love": [2]. But where and when did pre-Brexit novelist and poet George Eliot ever write this? (It's also a popular quote for funerals, it seems). 81.153.151.61 (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by also for funerals? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In chapter 44 of Felix Holt, the Radical, she wrote "And 'tis a strange truth that only in the agony of parting we look into the depths of love." ---Sluzzelin talk 23:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)One of my favorite authors. The quote is from Felix Holt, the Radical, published in 1866. You'll find it on page 377 here: [3].--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 23:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I speak not lightly, but as one who hath endured." - Rev. Boris van der Lyon. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

English pronunciation of qaf and kaf

How can anglophones distinguish the names of these 2 Arabic letters?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qoph#Arabic_qaf discusses how to pronounce "qaf". Do you see anything about an Arabic letter in Kaf? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 00:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on kaf is at Kaph#Arabic kaf--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia_guy -- This Arabic letter has an extremely wide range of realizations in different modern Arabic dialects (part of the reason why there are so many Latin-alphabet spellings of "Gaddafi"); some of these are similar to sounds found in English, some not. In early medieval Arabic, it was usually a voiceless uvular stop. It comes from a sound which was probably a velar ejective stop in early Semitic. Some sounds written by Semitic alphabets (Hebrew, Arabic etc.) are so alien to the English sound system that there's not much point in trying to pronounce them in English, such as the letter Ayn/Ayin E+/e+, which originally represents a voiced pharyngeal consonant. AnonMoos (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But how about distinguishing their names?? Both names would have the same English pronunciation, similar to the first syllable of the word "coffin". Georgia guy (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For many speakers, the position of the tongue in making /q/ and /k/ affects the sound of the following /a/. After /k/ it sounds closer to [æ] (like the "a" in English "cat" or "calf"). After /q/ it has a sound closer to your "coffin" example. Find youtube videos by native speakers trying to explain the Arabic alphabet and listen to their pronunciations of the letter names. For example: [4] or [5]. I don't know how common these pronunciations are and they may be exaggerating for effect, but my Beginning Arabic teacher, many many years ago, pronounced them that way too.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem for some English speakers is that many dialects (especially in the US outside of the Northeast) have undergone the Father/Bother merger and as such, may not recognize the two different vowel sounds as unique. --Jayron 32 14:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamThweatt -- the Classical Arabic term for fronting or raising of an "a" vowel (often inhibited by an adjacent emphatic or guttural consonant) is Imala. By the way, my favorite Qaf is not the letter, but the mythical mountain which makes an appearance in many of the Arabian Nights tales...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In layman's terms, can one just say "the Arabic letter K" and "the Arabic letter Q"? --Theurgist (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2020 January 29

Contents