Language desk
< April 15	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 17 >

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.

April 16

Stuck in your head

Is there a word for getting songs stuck in your head? Dismas|^(talk) 01:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earworms are falling on my head. And just like the guy whose feet are too big for his bed... Clarityfiend 04:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Now if I could just figure out why "Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys" was stuck in my head last night... Dismas|^(talk) 05:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pistis

In the New Testament, the Koine Greek word pistis is translated into English as "faith." In English, there seems to be roughly two definitions of faith. One is simply a synonym of belief, with connotations of trust. Belief could be justified or unjustified by evidence. Under the other definition it specifically refers to the kind of belief that is not justified by evidence. Which of these two definitions does the word pistis signify? Or is it ambiguous, as in English? Or is there yet a third definition? Thanks. Schmitty120 01:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pistis Christou. This Greek expression (Gal 2:16c; Phil 3:9) and several similar ones have provoked discussion because of their ambiguity. In fact, the act of believing, so often mentioned in the New Testament (Greek pisteuein: 241 times), is never attributed in the text to Jesus. On the other hand, the New Testament often speaks of “believing in him” (42 3) or “faith in him” (9 3). As a consequence, pistis Christou may be translated “faith in Christ, ” as pistis Theou (Mk 11:22) is translated “faith in God.” But it may also be translated “fidelity of Christ.” Finally, reference can be made to Romans 3:3, where pistis corresponds to the Hebrew 'èmét and designates the absolute “faithfulness” of God. (Lacoste, Jean-Yves (2004) "Faith," Encyclopedia of Christian Theology Vol. 1, p. 551)

A note in one bibliography i came across states that the literature discussing the translation of pistis in Romans 3:22 is nearly endless, so "ambiguous" is most likely the best answer.—eric 03:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion referred to in the quote above concerns the question whether the genitive here is a subjective genitive or an objective genitive, in other words, who is it that is implied to have the faith here, Christ or his followers? The basic meaning of pistis is "trust", and if you have trust in someone, you will have faith in them: you believe they are true to what they say. I suspect that the notion of belief as "blind faith", believing in spite of lack of evidence, is relatively new. The texts in the New Testament (as well as most apologetic Christian writers) are not shy to point out what is supposed to be supporting evidence. --Lambiam ^Talk 07:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lambiam that "belief that is not justified by evidence" doesn't fit; I'm not even sure our Modern English word "faith" can correctly be used to denote this narrowly. Greek pist- is putting your trust or confidence in something (or warranting someone else's trust); the problem with "believe," as in the translation I reject, is that it blurs into the terminology we use for more intellectual truth-affirmations. If pisteuō is a verb of thought, then so are the verbs "hope" and "fear." For a classic ancient example, see the Melian dialogue: the Melians use the verb to say they'll put their trust in the gods and the Spartans (5.112), and the Athenians counter that by trusting in good fortune in this way they are in for a fall (5.113). Now we can certainly make the analysis that the Melians entertained "belief that is not justified by evidence," but that's not specifically denoted by pisteuō. I would assume all trusting is subject to this kind of disappointment, but that doesn't mean "to trust" means "to go in another direction than the evidence indicates"; Greek words meaning to draw inferences from evidence are also understood to be necessarily uncertain. Wareh 14:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most common definition of Koine Greek "pistis" is "being persuaded by evidence" but a particular type that goes beyond empirical evidence--"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1)." By this definition, although intellectual evidence is not excluded, it does not encompass the entirety of faith.

The word "pistis" comes from the verb "peitho," which means "to persuade." It literally means "being persuaded" (the noun form is "pisteuo"). The New Testament uses the word "pistis" to describe true faith (the type that produces good works--I suppose that would be one form of evidence), false faith (no good works), miraculous faith, the doctrine of faith (Gospel), the Christian religion, and general fidelity or assurance. I think there is only one mention of "faith" in the Old Testament.

In modern parlance, I think there might be a conflation of "evidence" and "proof" (the former meant to persuade, the latter meant to make certain). For some, absolute proof is necessary for belief. However, if something was certain in the mind of the speaker, I imagine it is more appropriate to express such a thought as a statement of fact, without the filler "I believe." Therefore, I concur with the other responders that faith need not be blind, and that belief need not absolute proof.

You might also refer to George MacDonald's sermon on faith (http://www.ev90481.dial.pipex.com/faith_brixton.htm).Myzembla 02:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese pronunciation

How is the Portuguese word 'sou' (as in eu sou, meaning 'I am') pronounced? Many thanks, --Alex16zx 12:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standard pronunciation, in IPA, is 'so'. There is a regional variant pronounced with a diphthong, 'sou'. The closest approximation in English would be the word so. Marco polo 13:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Alex16zx 13:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more, what about meu?

'e' like in "met", "oo" like in "moot": "me-oo". "Eu" is the same way, but without the 'm'. /ex-brasileiro. --TotoBaggins 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

crosswords

Several members of my family enjoy doing crosswords, so I've often been recruited to help. I've noticed that some incorrect answers can corroborate each other. I've often wondered if an entire puzzle could be built like that--a puzzle which two English speakers could complete both thinking they've gotten every clue right, yet were they to compare their puzzles they'd find that they don't have a single clue in common, perhaps not even a single letter. Has anyone ever made such a puzzle? Shui9 14:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. I think it's extremely unlikely, given the number of factors involved. Even so, it might be possible to create a very small simple one. I shall work on it and post again if I manage it.--Shantavira 17:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly easy to find synonyms with the same number of letters, and sometimes they will even fit the same word pattern, but not for an entire crossword puzzle. The very simplest puzzle would be a 3x3 definition one, for which you might find two or even three pairs of synonyms to fit, such as DOG and MUG intersecting in one, and PUP and CUP in the alternative, for example, but then you would have to find three-letter words ending in D and M that have three-letter synonyms ending in P and C, which is unlikely, even if the clues were extremely vague, such as name of a tree, name of an animal, etc.--Shantavira 19:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The alternatives do not necessarily have to be synonyms; for example, given the description "body part", in a 3-letter slot EYE and EAR are both acceptable, as are ARM and LEG. The additional freedom should be enough to construct small but not entirely trivial examples. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that not all crosswords have grids where every letter is part of two ~~intersections~~ intersecting words (otherwise called being "checked" or "keyed"). In cryptic crosswords usually only about half the letters are checked, and in Britain even non-cryptics often use that kind of grid. This sort of grid would allow additional freedom. I have heard in the newsgroup rec.puzzles.crosswords that newspapers in Malaysia routinely publish contest puzzles where many of the clues are ambiguous -- this, it is claimed, allows them to offer large prizes with the assurance that they will rarely or never have to actually award them because everyone will guess wrong on at least one of the ambiguous clues. However, I have not seen such a grid for myself.

I have also heard of a puzzle set by a British newspaper once, as a holiday special, where all clues were ambiguous but one, so it was possible that you could fill in almost the whole grid and then when you got the last word you had to go back and change everything. Again I have not actually seen this.

One interesting thing that was done with an ambiguous clue was the New York Times puzzle on Election Day, 1996. There were 7 ambiguous "down" clues, and an "across" clue that read "tomorrow's lead story". So solvers had to wait for the election results to know whether to fill in CLINTON ELECTED or BOB DOLE ELECTED!

--Anonymous, April 16, 2007, 22:14 (UTC).

Hmm, that sounds like an urban legend. Especially since everyone knew who was going to win in 1996 long before election night. —An gr 05:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may sound like one, but it happens to be true. I've actually solved this puzzle (years later, knowing about the gimmick). If you don't believe it, find a public library that carries New York Times back issues on microfilm and see for yourself. --Anon, April 18, 08:24 (UTC).

With different clues this is not difficult; I've seen several papers with 'cryptic' and 'normal' clues for the same grid. D aniel (‽) 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the "different clues" bit. That 1996 puzzle had only one set of clues. As I said, it was done by carefully chosen ambiguities. I believe one of the "down" clues referred to an animal and it could be either a BAT or a CAT, for example. --Anon, April 19, 23:04 (UTC).

SPEAKING ENGLISH

When was the english language first used in the uk? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.137.175 (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The English language was brought to the island of Great Britain in the mid-5th century, but the UK didn't exist until several centuries later. —An gr 16:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the English language spoken then would be like a foreign language to the modern English speaker. The earliest English that would be intelligible to a modern speaker would probably be around the 1500s. Shui9 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Old English,Middle English, English Language etc. It was Anglo-Saxon or Old English that arrived in the mid 5th century (for an example try reading Beowulf, probably with a translation along side!), changes occured due to Viking control of the North of England(Danelaw) and the Norman invasion of 1066, leading to Middle English (see Chaucer, more familiar when you know what it means, but still difficult to understand without translation). And as said above recognisable English developed around 1500 (it was of course a gradual process). The work of Shakespeare may seem old fashioned but is actually modern English, as you'll see comparing to the other works I mentioned!137.138.46.155 07:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish question

I was wondering if someone can explain to me why the Turkish lira appears to be lirası in Turkish, but the Cypriot pound appears to be lira in Turkish (or maybe not). The Turkish wikipedia puts both articles at lirası. The Cypriot notes only say lira (see [1]). The Turkish notes say lirası (see [2]). Do they speak different dialects of Turkish in Cyprus and Turkey? Are these different forms of the same word? Thanks, Ingrid 19:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word is lira, but in combinations nouns can get a suffix, which – very roughly expressed – indicates something like being a possession. So, for example, at = "horse", araba = "car", but "horse car" is at arabası. It is the combination with the word Türk that triggers the presence of the suffix. (See Turkish grammar, and search for "indefinite compound".) Although there are (not officially recognized) dialect differences in the spoken language, this would not be reflected in the written language. Also in "continental" Turkish "one pound" is bir lira. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the way to say 'Turkish lira' in Turkish is 'Türk lira-sı', literally 'A Turk, his lira'. (I have separated the possessive suffix with a hyphen for clarity. People who don't know Turkish and see "100 Türk lirası" sometimes assume that "-sı" is a plural suffix, but Turkish does not usually use plural forms with explicit numbers. --ColinFine 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An

Can someone explain to me why it makes sense to use "an" in this sentence: "Yorkshire is an historic county" in the intro for the Yorkshire article? --Lets Be Friends 21:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct, is it? An is only used if the following word begins with a vowel. Doppelganger 21:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Historic' is a exception to he rule, I believe. From the article A and an:' Hence an may be seen in such phrases as "an historic", "an heroic", and "an hôtel of excellence" was the by-line in an advertisement in a New York City newspaper '. Duomillia 22:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using 'an' before h may be permitted when the first syllable is not stressed, which is why 'an historic/heroic' is OK, but not 'an history, hero'. It would also explain 'an hotel', though that doesn't work for me. 'an hystrionic'? Please not the 'h' is still pronounced by most Brits (if they're h-pronouncers) in these cases, so comments below about dropping h are confusing the issue somewhat. Drmaik 06:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh very interesting, thanks! --Lets Be Friends 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the rule is that you use "an" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, not an actual vowel. So, you would have "An X-ray", for example. Leading H's are problematic because they are pronounced for some dialects and certain words, but not others. ~~I think "herb" (the flavoring) is always pronounced "erb", so it would always be "an herb",~~ but "historic" is only pronounced "istoric" in certain dialects, and not in others. StuRat 23:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely vowel sounds. In my speaking (Surrey UK), it is "a herb" not "an erb". I would say "an istoric", "uh heroic", "an X-ray", "uh hotel", "a hat", "a hen", "a hill" or "an ill" depending upon context, "a hole" or "an ole" depending upon context and "a hump". -- SGBailey 23:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that, except I (Home Counties and Cornwall) would say "an otel" and "an eroic". But never, ever "erb" - that's American. -- Necrothesp 23:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounding "H" in herb is now standard in Britain but not America. "An 'istoric", "an 'otel", "an 'eroic" were formerly universal and are still common in Britain, where initial unstressed syllables often have silent H; this is rare in America. "A historic" is not considered incorrect; however, saying "an historic" (sounding both N and H) is often considered an affectation or hypercorrection. It can be tricky if you have to read aloud a text written by someone who adopts the opposite practice! "An 'ole" and "an 'ump" are common in some British accents in casual speech, but are considered H-dropping, and generally avoided in careful or formal speech. See also H#Value. jnestorius^(talk) 23:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so "herb" is just the reverse of the normal "Americans say the leading H and Brits don't" rule. StuRat 23:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "Herb" (Herbert) refers to someone's name, the "H" is pronounced, even in American Standard English. For example, you would say: "Is there a Herb Moss staying at your hotel?" This thread is starting to sound like a _Family Guy_ episode...:)Myzembla 02:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a store selling herbs, run by a guy called Herb, and named "Herb's Herbs", British/Australians would say "Herbz herbz", but Americans would say "Herbz erbz", I guess. JackofOz 02:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a herbivore (an herbivore ?) a cannibal who only eats guys named Herb ? StuRat 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. But do Americans say "erbivore" or "herbivore"? "erbicide" or "herbicide"? JackofOz 04:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard (and used) both. Tesseran 04:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without the "h" sound in both words. At least, that's what I would say. -- Mwalcoff 04:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually know someone named "Herb Moss." I didn't make that up, but no, he does not have a son named "Pete." Here is an explanation from the askoxford.com:

"A Word From ... Dropping your aitches - an orryble abit. A Word from Mark Dunn

The practice of dropping one's aitches is not simply a feature of modern 'estuary' English. It has been going on for centuries, and has led to the strange situation whereby it is regarded as bad grammar to write an herring, but as good grammar to write an heroic effort. Why can an be used before some H-words but not others? And which words are they? Why can an heroic effort be correct, but not an herring? The answer lies with sloppy Romans, zealous scribes, and the slow pace of change in the English language. Many English words have their origin in classical Latin. For example, horrible, habit, and harmony are derived from the Latin words horribilis, habitus, and harmonia respectively. But the later Romans were prone to drop their aitches, and when the words passed into French and then English, the h had disappeared from both the pronunciation and the spelling. The earliest recorded English forms of horrible, habit, and harmony are orryble, abit, and armonye respectively. So it was perfectly natural to use the indefinite article 'an' before these words (e.g. an orryble abit). At a later date, scribes who knew the original Latin restored the 'h' to these words. (They got so carried away, in fact, that an initial h was added to some words that had never previously had one, such as hermit and hostage.) However, the h was still silent, and the indefinite article remained an, rather than a (e.g. an horrible habit). Gradually, the h in these words began to be pronounced, until now only a very few words in standard English have a silent h (heir, honest, honour, hour, and until quite recently, herb and humble). Lagging further behind was the use of a as the indefinite article, in place of an. It has still not entirely caught up, but the situations in which an is still used before h are now chiefly restricted to the few words where the h is still silent. Occasionally, an is also used before words where the first syllable is unstressed (an heroic effort, an historic moment), but it is not incorrect to write a heroic effort or a historic moment. Of course, many words beginning with h did not originate in Latin and were never pronounced with a silent 'h', so the indefinite article before these words was always a rather than an (a hand, a hedge, a holiday). So if you drop your aitches, you can legitimately claim to be using the original English pronunciation, but only if the word is derived from Latin!"

Now, would someone British or from an ex-Brit colony explain to me why you guys say: "He went to hospital?" without the definite article "the"?Myzembla 03:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably for the same reason we say "He's not here. He's gone to school". JackofOz 04:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which reason is? 75.3.125.27 04:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you haven't really answered my question?--Myzembla 05:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just off the top of my head, I'd say it's to distinguish between a child going to school (in both the general sense of being a school-aged person, and in the specific sense of what he's up to today), and another person going to the school (ie. physically going to the building, but not attending as a student), eg. to pick the child up. Same for hospital. If I go there to be admitted as a patient, I go to hospital, but if I go there to visit a patient, I go to the hospital. JackofOz 05:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if you work at a hospital? Are you going "to hospital" or "to the hospital" when you're a doctor, nurse, or other staff member who works there? —An gr 06:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, your response unfortunately still doesn't answer my question. In American Standard English, one would *never* say "to hospital" or "to university" (unless you also say "at ABC College."). It doesn't matter if you are going as a patient, health care worker, student, etc. We do say "I go to school" and that can refer to someone attending a variety of educational institutions, but it can also refer to someone physically driving to a school (though you'd probably have to cite the specific times you go). I guess I am asking *why* there is this distinction in British English for hospital or university, not what that distinction entails. Moreover, the explanation you gave is not valid for all words, is it? I mean, you guys don't say "I go to pub." I guess perhaps the British distinguish between direct and indirect participation in "going somewhere"?--Myzembla 06:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would use "going to hospital" when using it as a generic word and "going to the hospital" for a specific hospital. -- SGBailey 21:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myzembla, I'm British and I would agree with JackofOz, that 'to hospital' is a phrase used only to convey the idea of being admitted to hospital for treatment, and that it would be unusual to drop the article in any other instance - even when visiting a relative in hospital, you would still use the article when telling someone about it. At least where I come from - in many regional dialects the article becomes elided (in speech) to a momentary pause, so in various places up North you would quite commonly hear 'to t'pub' (or 'down t'pub'), where the t' is virtually silent. And there isn't really any specific reason for it, it just is. I suppose it's a usage that became current after our respective dialects - British English and American English - became independent of one another. 86.154.157.14 22:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer a question someone asked several lines above, I (an American) drop the "h" from herb, but not from herbivore and herbicide, both of which are h-ful. —An gr 05:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I am American, and I have heard "herbivore" and "herbicide" both ways, though I agree those words officially have spoken H's.--Myzembla 05:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I work at a hospital, and when I say I'm going to work I say 'I'm going to the hospital', because it is a specific hospital. If someone is ill I would say 'He is going to hospital' because it is the idea it represents rather than a specific hospital that I'm talking about. --Alex16zx 12:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember teaching this once: the places that can drop 'the' are ones one goes to as a matter of course: work, school, church, college, university. But I worry about hospital: does it imply us Brits feel we need to go there regularly? (It's probably got something to do with large institution which serves the general population as well, but I'm just making that up). Drmaik 06:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of issues have come up here, all branching out of this curious an question. First, I think the reason that Americans say herb without an /h/ is that the word is classified as a borrowing at some level (yes I know the source is French herbe). In English, there is a kind of language ideology that borrowings should preserve their original pronunciations. So, since the French do not pronounce the <h>, we shouldn 't either. This pattern of a word being seen as a French borrowing in American but not British is also seen in filet and claret, both of which get the /t/ in Brit but not NA. In British English, these words are classified as fully naturalized, like hotel is in all US dialects. It's ultimately an arbitrary systems of word classification. Sometimes, the language ideology leads to hypercorrections, as in the Brit tendency to say /makizmo/ for machismo or many speakers from all over to say /pinotʃe/ for Pinochet, but it's an ideology not fact. That would explain why herbivore does not lose its aspiration for many Americans; Latin and Greek borrowings are not subject to that rule.

Second, I'm not a syntactician, but it seems to me that to church, to hospital, or go home phenomena must be related to the non-argument quality of those nouns. It's related to "to work" as in "She's not here. She went to work. Argument status means that they are not treated as things but kind of like adverbs. Where British and North American diverge is in the licensing of specific words as possibly treated in that way. After all, no one says, as far as I know, no one says *"He went to bank to deposit the money. So in British and southern hemisphere, hospital is allowed this quasi-adverbial status, following church, work etc. But in the US, it gets put into the bank class, with no such permissions.

Finally, how often do different people find that the /n/ is being lost even before vowels? I have students doing an experiment on that now in NYC, where it is fairly common. mnewmanqc 13:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The American h-less pronunciation of herb has nothing to do with perceiving it to be a loanword and so applying the French pronunciation (although that phenomenon does exist). The h of herb was lost by regular sound change already in Vulgar Latin; the French word has never had a /h/ sound; and so it was h-less when it was borrowed into English in the 12th century or thereabouts. The current British h-ful pronunciation is a later spelling pronunciation that didn't catch on until after America had been settled, and that spelling pronunciation never really caught on there. —An gr 14:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That historical explanation is not incompatible with my guess (As I call something less than a hypothesis). The question is why it didn't catch on when other spelling pronunciations have. Some do and some don't and some do for some speakers and not for others. The problem is that there is no way to know. All we can do is speculate, so it's probably not worth the effort to puzzle out. mnewmanqc 14:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French and Latin words beginning with H entered English with silent H in their source language and initially retained it in English. Most such words have since gained a spoken [h] in English. Exceptions are more recent borrowings like hors d'oevres which as Mnewmanqc says are regarded as foreign, and a select few older ones: hour, heir, hono(u)r/honest. Humble was one of the last to gain H; herb in America and, to a lesser extent, homage, are variable. Perhaps a silent H results from an impression of foreignness; perhaps rather it serves to create such an impression. How many of us regard hour as exotic? jnestorius^(talk) 23:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 April 16

Contents