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

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

April 25

Russian names

According to the article on Russian names, everyone has a patronymic name. Does that mean that if you had more than one child of the same gender, they would all have the same patronymic name? I was curious because I was reading about Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, who had an older brother named Mikhail, and I wondered if his name would be Mikhail Mikhailovich Dostoevky.

On a semi-related note, why are some Russian names (like Dosto(y)evsky or Mendele(y)ev) sometimes spelt with a "y" and sometimes not? – Psyche825 _(talk) 02:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To the first question, yes, provided they have the same father. So assuming Mikhail was Fyodor's whole brother (and not half-brother by the same mother but a different father), his name would have been Mikhail Mikhailovich. To the second question, it's a matter of transliteration style. Some prefer to transliterate in a more phonetic way, including the y to indicate the [j] sound in the pronunciation, while others prefer to transliterate letter-for-letter, excluding the y since there's no letter between the vowels in Достоевский and Менделеев. —Angr 04:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate a little on the second question, the Russian iotating letter е is graphically identical to Latin e which gives people incentive to romanize/transcribe е as e. As far as I know, there are no words that have a non-iotating э following a vowel so the y could be considered a redundant feature of romanization that helps with pronunciation.

To make things even more complicated, depending on the stress of a word, there may not be a y pronounced anyway. For example, Aleksandr Zbruyev's last name is pronounced [ˈzbru.ɪf]. I don't think this governs the difference in transcription, though. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To fill in just a little behind Aeusoes: every vowel in Russian has a soft and a hard form. Hard forms are a, e, i, o, u, that is, just the plain vowel sound. Soft, or jotating vowels have a "y" sound at the beginning: ya, ye, yi, yo, yu. The soft and hard forms are shown by different characters, so the soft "a" looks like a backward "R", Я. It's a matter of choice whether this is transliterated as "a", ia" or "ya". SaundersW (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"As far as I know, there are no words that have a non-iotating э following a vowel..."

поэт! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolbreez (talk • contribs) 11:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn those loanwords! — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up! – Psyche825 _(talk) 03:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Я. It's a matter of choice whether this is transliterated as "a", ia" or "ya". (SaundersW). I'd agree with "ia" and "ya", but does it ever transliterate to just "a"? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In names like Виктория, and words like иcтория the jotation of the я can be masked by the preceding vowel. SaundersW (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, true for those types of cases. However, I wouldn't say that in general it's appropriate to render Я as "a". In the great majority of cases "a" would be wrong, and we're restricted to "ya" or "ia". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair cop. I was not very specific about the grounds for choice! SaundersW (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Я" is rendered as "a" with some diacritic in some transliteration systems. For example, it's rendered as "â" in ISO 9:1995 (a letter-for-letter system). — Kpalion^(talk) 16:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinese: Mono-syllabic?

There's a slight contradiction (or at the very least, it's unclear) on Wikipedia's articles about the Chinese language.

From Chinese language:

Modern Chinese has often been erroneously classed as a "monosyllabic" language. While most of its morphemes are single syllable, Modern Chinese today is much less a monosyllabic language in that its nouns, adjectives and verbs are largely di-syllabic.

From Written Chinese:

At the inception of written Chinese, spoken Chinese was a monosyllabic language; that is, Chinese words represented independent concepts (objects, actions, relations, and so forth) that were generally only one syllable in the spoken language.

So, Chinese isn't a mono-syllabic language, but it was? This clarification added to Chinese language would be useful. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Mandarin is no longer monosyllabic. However, Cantonese to a large extent is. Even Classical Chinese, however, was only 80% monosyllabic (excluding borrowings and proper names). kwami (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Middle Chinese was more monosyllabic than modern Chinese, but still was not monosyllabic. Classical Chinese is largely monosyllabic, but that is because it is meant only to be written, not spoken, and is somewhat of an artificial language. Steewi (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What are those character?

What are those character?

I have two paintings, but I can't read signature at backside. Image Link : www.sejul.com/1.JPG , www.sejul.com/2.JPG

It would help if you told us which nationality they were. They look something like "Priaguatá" to me, but that's just a guess. kwami (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

("Óxido" suggests Spanish or Portuguese, but Bashandi could be an Egyptian name.) kwami (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All nighter

Moved to Miscellaneous Desk. -Elmer Clark (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Persian : "لاك"

 Done

I have a question about the Persian "لاك" in the following verse of parodic poetry (from the 16th century, by Abū Isḥāq, pen name Būsḥāq):

رشته لاك معرفت مائم

The verse has been translated (by Paul Losensky) as "We are (مائم) the noodles (رشته) of gnosis (معرفت)". My question is about that "لاك": what is it, and what is it doing there?

I've checked Hayyim's New Persian-English Dictionary, which translates it as either (a) lac; shellac; sealing wax; lacquer; etc., or (b) a wooden cup; the shell or carapace of a tortoise. Steingass' A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary gives basically the same, with the addition of spoiled; ruined; good for nothing; etc. The added meaning in Steingass would seem to fit, sort of, though my worry is that Steingass' dictionary is not always the most reliable (he just made some things up, from what I've heard), and also Losensky chose not to put anything like such a meaning in the translation (though that might be chalked up to poetic license).

Anyhow, if anyone can offer any help as to the meaning and/or function of that "لاك" there, I'd really appreciate it. Cheers. —Saposcat (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You must read it like this:

رشته ی لاک معرفت مائیم

"reshte" is a sort of noodle or pasta; and "lak" is a kitchen utensil in which "reshte" is made or formed. Good Luck. --Omidinist (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

When you say "read it like this", and then put "رشته ی لاک", I'm assuming you mean pronunciation, and the ezāfe (i.e., "reshte-ye/yi lak". Am I right or wrong in thinking that? (I was guessing there was an ezāfe there, but I'm so much more used to seeing it written with a final "ﮥ" that I couldn't be sure, especially since I'm still learning the language.)

In any case, your explanation of the meaning of "لاك" has been very helpful, and I appreciate it very much. (I just wonder why that definition wasn't given in Hayyim or Steingass or Aryanpur, which I checked also; or maybe it's meant to be the "wooden cup" in Hayyim's entry.) !خيلى ممنون —Saposcat (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure you're right about ezafe. My problem is with fonts which are not standard everywhere and I cannot trust them in this long digital travel. By the way, since writing and reading ی is easier, it is taking the place of ء. And about لاک, it is not common these days, so you will find it only in large etymological dictionaries like Dehkhoda and Moin. --Omidinist (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Illiterate sheep questioner?

In the section above entitled 'Common' words used in only one 'situation', the assertion is made that 'in the lyrics to "Baa baa Black sheep" ... "Have you any wool" is technically ungrammatical in American English.' How so? Have you any proof? I did ask the question within the thread, but it looks like the archive monster might devour the section before there's an answer. --LarryMac | Talk 14:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

But the user who made the assertion did come back later to "explain" it (post timed at 01:38 on 22 April). His explanation is flawed, though. He didn't really mean it was ungrammatical in American English, just that it has fallen into disuse. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Right you are. I got lost in a maze of twisty little indentations, all different. My baaaaad. --LarryMac | Talk 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

From Algeo, British or American English?, CUP, pp. 29-30:

The operator is a verb (the auxiliaries be, do, have, or one of the modals) that inverts with the subject in yes-no questions (Are you there?) ... In common-core English, the copula be ... functions as an operator ... in British, the main verb have can similarly function as an operator: I hadn't any; American generally uses do with have: I didn't have any ...

In the Cambridge International Corpus, the ratio don't have a:haven't a is 6:1 in British texts and 55:1 in American texts; the ratio don't have any:haven't any is 10:1 in British, 60:1 in American.

From Trudgill & Hannah, International English, Arnold, p. 62:

In traditional EngEng ... [the question] Do you have coffee in the cupboard? could only imply the rather unusual activity of drinking coffee in cupboards. Nowadays, however, and especially in the south of England, the stative forms with do-support typical of NAmEng are beginning to be used in EngEng also.

p. 94:

In many forms of ScotEng main verb have does not require do-support, even with dynamic meanings ... and it can also occur in and with phonologically reduced forms: Had you a good time? Yes, we had. Had you coffee with breakfast? ... We'd a good time. ... We hadn't a good time.

From Hargraves, Mighty Fine Words and Smashing Expressions, OUP, p. 46:

It is worth noting here a small difference in the use of have and get that is often misreported or at the very least overemphasized as a difference between American and British English. Speakers of both dialects naturally produce sentences such as Have you got any money? and I haven't got any relatives in this area. It is however rarer for British speakers to say, Do you have any money? and very unlikely that an American speaker would spontaneously produce Have you any wool? unless she were reciting a nursery rhyme ... Happily no obstacle to understanding arises from any of these variations.

Jack^(Lumber) 20:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jacklumber. I guess I can't make sweeping generalizations about all varieties of American English, but hearing "have you..." as a synonym for "do you have..." is certainly as ungrammatical to me as "I haven't ate yet" and "I'm a faster swimmer than she." (Yes, I know that these are grammatical to certain speakers). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a sidenote, but this is another thing I love about the BBC iPlayer. If your download manager is empty it says 'You haven't any programmes to watch'. The other thing to really love about it is that the volume control goes up to 11 :) 79.66.99.37 (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what dialect of American English is spoken in Margaritaville? How Buffet's tattoo got there he hasn't a clue. I'd say the construction is not quite all the way dead over here. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Different construction. The one at issue is the question "Have you a clue?", which might indeed be possible in verse, but is not idiomatic in prose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)