Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 July 26

Language desk
< July 25	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 27 >

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.

July 26

Remonstrate

I would like an opinion (or more than one) on the use of the word "remonstrate" in the article Brideshead Revisited (film)#Comparison of Movie to Novel. (first paragraph in the section.)

It's a word I never use. I think it is used incorrectly here.

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely wrong. Remonstrate is an intransitive verb, so she couldn't remonstrate Charles. Also, we should avoid fairly obscure words if possible. I've replaced it with "rebuke". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(conflict) The first definition of remonstrate doesn't apply but it was not "definitely wrong" as stated by clarityfiend. However, the word is obsolete no matter what way it is being usedOmahapubliclibrary (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

To point out (a fault, etc.) to another by way of reproof, disapprobation, or complaint; to protest against (a wrong).

To point out, state, or represent (a grievance, etc.) to some authority

To make a strong request to a person not to do something

To urge strong reasons against a course of action, to protest against; to expostulate with a person, on or upon an action.

Hmmm...I appear to be wrong. Although I've never heard or read it being used that way, it can be transitive. Go ahead, remonstrate me. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you obviously can use it transitively. It's just that no dictionary or style guide I've ever seen would support that usage. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

'Remonstrate' can be used transitively, but the direct object is the matter of the remonstration. It's used like the word 'say'. "He remonstrated 'you mustn't ask for permission.'"

Original

In cases like the original Xbox and the original Mario Party, what would they be called (apart from "the original whatever") to distinguish them from other products with similar names? 58.165.52.72 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

eponymous perhaps?87.102.86.73 (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

vanilla is an expression that might apply here, as described in the last paragraph of that article. However, from my experience it is more often used to mean versions of games/software without add-ons, expansions or patches, as opposed to original versions of series. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would call them Xbox and Mario Party. It is the later products that need to be given different names. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a list of retronyms. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what kind of an answer you're looking for here. I mean, The Xbox is the Xbox. The Xbox 360 is the new version of it. I mean, people like to just say "Xbox" a lot of the time even when they're talking about the newer console, but you don't see the official material referring to the current generation version of the console as just "Xbox" (except perhaps when they're referring to the whole brand, not the device itself). It's really pretty straightforward.

As for Mario Party, that's equally uncomplicated. If there are multiple versions of the game for different platforms, then we specify which version of the game we're talking about, if and as required. The later versions of the same product are generally not known by the same name here, either; the sequel to Mario Party, for example, isn't called Mario Party, it's called Mario Party 2. Of course, sometimes someone may actually decide to publish a new version of a product with the exact same name (or another product that has the same name as an earlier product, even). That can get confusing, but even then, it's generally not difficult to distinguish between the two products if people just bother to do so. I mean, certainly you can just talk about Indiana Jones movies and call them all "Indiana Jones", for example, but it's not exactly hard to specify which one you're talking about. But all this seems so obvious to me that I wonder if you meant something else entirely... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Language References

Is the use of Foreign Language References acceptable as several articles are getting into revert battles with a poster who has put up a string of references in Russian to justify additions to the article edits. As 95% + of the English Language Wikipedia will not Read rusian the validity of such refs is questionable. see here for Articles; History_of_steam_road_vehicles Pipeline_transport History_of_the_automobile and associated talk pages, posted by user Special:Contributions/79.176.154.152 Related article also have posts by a user now blocked. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to discuss this. I'd try the Policy village pump. —Angr 16:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to find the right place / help as a language issue , tried looking in refs and various policies sections to no result, ok ill try that then thanks - BulldozerD11 (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd searched for an answer to this myself once, dealing with a Dutch book. The refs for it were also all in Dutch. The conclusion seemed to be that foreign language refs should only be used if no equivalent English language refs can be found. StuRat (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Vowels

In school I was taught that there are 5 vowels in English (a,e,i,o,u) and now sometimes see that y is also considered a vowel. Then according to the WP English language#Vowels there are quite a few more. I think this may have something to do with whether we are talking about letters which are vowels or vowel sounds which are found in the language. Am I correct? And if so, when considering vowel letters how many are there? 5 or 6? --212.120.246.239 (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that it makes a difference whether one is talking about vowel letters or vowel sounds. The usual trope is that the vowel letters of English are A, E, I, O, U and sometimes Y: in a word like "yellow", "y" is standing for a consonant, while in a word like "happy" it's standing for a vowel. So there are six letters that can be used to represent vowels, and five letters that can be used only to represent vowels. (That's the short answer. The long answer is that "e" doesn't always represent a vowel sound either, since silent e in words like "face" doesn't represent any sound at all, and "w" represents a vowel in a tiny number of Welsh loanwords like crwth and cwm as well as helping to represent a vowel in words like "law" and "cow".) —Angr 18:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The chart you linked to is just the technical way of talking about things like "long o" vs "short o" you usually only see the IPA in dictionaries. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In practice Y represents a vowel sound in English significantly more often than it represents a consonant (and even when it's a consonant it's really a semivowel). Wheel of Fortune does the English-speaking world a significant disservice by treating it as a consonant all the time. For example, in this question and the responses so far (excluding words quoted as examples), we see Y as a consonant in "yes" and "you", but as a vowel in "many", "July", "only", "any", "tiny", "usually", "only", "Omahapubliclibrary", "significantly", "really", and "by". In addition, in the words "may", "always", and "way", the combination "ay" represents a vowel sound and if we have to count Y as a vowel or consonant it only makes sense to call it a vowel there too. --Anonymous, 03:38 UTC, July 27, 2008.

It's not quite right that long & short pairs effectively describe the English vowel system as there're more than 10 vowels in English including the diphthongs. The long-short is mostly an orthographic patterning. The vowel in law doesn't fit in the long-short orthographic pattern. And the long-short pattern is complicated by the fact that there're 2 long-short patterns for the letter u.

Another way to look at the y in ay is to consider it to be neither a "consonant" nor a "vowel" but rather a kind of sound modification marker — like the "silent E" example above. Consider the symbol a as representing two different vowel sounds: the default is "short" a as in plan. In order to get the other vowel value there needs to be a marker which can be a "silent e" (ex: plane) or an immediately-following i or y marker (exs: plain, play). English orthography is more complicated than a simple vowel-consonant dichotomy and scholarly treatments of the system talk about the multifunctionality of the symbols. – ishwar  (speak) 06:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Psammoma body

What would the etymology of this word be? I'm trying to find it for the wiktionary entry. Finnish? Nadando (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The article itself says it's from Greek psammos, "sand". —Angr 21:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

OED: German Psammoma (R. Virchow Die krankhaften Geschwülste (1864-5) II. 108; now Psammom) ancient Greek sand. Psammoma first appeared in English text around the 1870s and psammoma body about 20 years later. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So that's why 'It' is called a Psammead... Aw, I love that story. She'sGotSpies (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cree dialect continuum

Is there one standard or dialect within the Cree dialect continuum that is most intelligible by all speakers of the continuum? I want a solution that is understandable from Plains Cree to Innu. Is it possible with just one language or standard? Or would, say, two dialects/standards need to be chosen to cover all speakers from Plains to Innu and everything in between?--Sonjaaa (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like at least two or three.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet

Can a sentence properly begin with the word 'yet'?

Yes. Strad (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"Yet again, a politician gave a speech." 02:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtherDave (talk • contribs)

If word yet is being used as an adjective than yes. However if it is being used as a conjunctive than no. Nice or in evil (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet this sentence begins with a conjunctive "yet". --Anonymous, 07:38 UTC, July 27, 2008.

We have an entire article which begins with Yet... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)