Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 May 28

Language desk
< May 27	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 29 >

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.

May 28

Font for Persian

What is the most accurate font (supported by Wikimedia) for the Persian script?  Liam987(talk) 09:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The Persian script is just the Arabic alphabet, which is supported by all major fonts nowadays. Are you perhaps looking for a font that renders text so it looks like Nastaʿlīq script? Angr (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For Nastaʿlīq to look acceptable to Nastaʿlīq afficionados, you need a software system, not just a font. Most newspapers in Pakistan were based on photographs of hand-written text (not typesetting), until rather recently... AnonMoos (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's the address of a zipped file of Persian fonts which are used in Persian Wikipedia. Persian has four letters that do not exist in Arabic and you cannot produce them with Arabic fonts. --Omidinist (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Here it is. --Omidinist (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The Arabic fonts used by my browser also seem to have the Persian letters. (It was slightly odd that certain older "official" standards such as ASMO 449 and ISO/IEC 8859-6 had many unfilled gaps in the encoding, yet confined themselves to Arabic-language letters only, but practical computer standards such as Windows-1256 have contained basic letters for Persian and Urdu.) P.S. As for the Persian preference for Nastaʿlīq over Naskhi, it surprised me a little when I came across image fa:File:Trinity-persian copy.jpg, apparently created by a Persian speaker for other Persian speakers, yet using the most basic plain-jane Arabic pseudo-Naskh computer screen font (kind of the Arabic version of Arial)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Collapsed like a bad chair on a black Monday

I'm sure I'm not the only person to be intrigued by something Matt Preston said on MasterChef Australia tonight (Monday 28 May).

He was critiquing a cake a contestant made, which was undercooked and sank in the middle. Preston said that it had "collapsed like a bad chair on a black Monday". The way he said it made me think it's a recognised expression, not something he just made up on the spot. But googling it gets me not very far.

Black Monday can refer, inter alia, to Easter Monday, which in 1360 was particularly cold. Shakespeare uses this expression in The Merchant of Venice (Act II, Scene V). Apparently, nowadays it can refer to "any Monday on which a great disaster happens". It certainly proved to be a great disaster for the contestant, as she was eliminated from the show, thanks to her undercooked cake. So for her, it was indeed Black Monday.

So, that's the Black Monday. But what's the bad chair connection about?

Did Preston cobble together bits of assorted, otherwise unconnected, language to come up with something uniquely Prestonian, or was he borrowing from somewhere else? He's English, and maybe he was quoting an expression known in that fair land but not known over here. Anyh ideas, fellow linguamanes. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

TBH Jack I've never heard of that one, but it sure sounds descriptive. In fact, until you said he was English, I was thinking of aphorisms used by the Australian MotoGP commentator Charlie Cox , who often has me laughing at his descriptive prowess! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Phrase finder http://www.phrases.org.uk/ doesn't pull anything up, though it does have entries for Blue Monday. Could the chair be a reference to Goldilocks breaking the small bear's chair? 184.147.121.151 (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipdia has an article called Black Monday which lists many alternatives. The best known to me (and I suspect most Brits) are both financial disasters; Black Monday (1987) and Black Monday (2011). What this has to do with collapsing chairs, I don't know. Collapsing banks would make more sense. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Bank comes from Bench as money changers in pre-Medieval markets did their business at benches. When such a money changer's business failed his bench would be broken, which gave rise to the word "bankrupt". Going from bench to chair is just a short step. Roger (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Or a less cryptic explanation may lie in the phrase "Bad chair day" (a pun on "Bad hair day") which gets one or two hits relating the role of chair(men) in a financial crisis - see Bad chair day: The article profiles Maurice Greenberg, the former chief executive officer of the American International Group (AIG), and his role in causing the global financial crisis.... Alansplodge (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I guess this is one that Matt Preston can chalk up for himself. It helps to have a way with words if you're a highly paid food critic, and to have the linguistic inventiveness to match the culinary inventiveness you expect from cooks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Just passing by : in France, very often when on a Monday morning you ask somebody "How are you ?" , he answers "As on a Monday..." (Comment ça va ? - Comme un lundi...) . T. y. Arapaima (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proper noun - Rivers and connecting article subject to the river.

Is the following thinking correct. Named rivers have capitalised like places so 'R' in river. i.e. Mississippi River, Colorado River etc.

• There is no Asian River so the the r is not capitalised in South Asian river dolphin, Asian river turtle, same with no Central American river, so we have Central American river turtle and also while there are plenty of rivers in Texas none are called Texas River so Texas river cooter.
• There is an Amazon River so we have big-headed Amazon River turtle, six-tubercled Amazon River turtle, red-headed Amazon River turtle. We have a Gulf Coast so capitalisation is Gulf Coast spiny softshell turtle. Pearl River so Pearl River map turtle. A Fly River and a Fly River turtle. A Mary River (Queensland) and a Mary River turtle.
• Then some things are not so clear. There are many Black Rivers but it appears(?) the black river turtle is so called because it's black rather then a river it lives on. There is an Eastern River but the eastern river cooter doesn't appear to get it's name from it. There is a Southern River but seems unconnected to the southern river terrapin, same for northern river terrapin. How do I know for sure?

If the connection between the subject and the river is undeterminable then the capitalisation should be done how? Is there any faults in the above? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you've got a pretty good grasp already. How do you know how for ones you can't determine? Look it up. There isn't really a better way. Mingmingla (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure "there is/ is no X river" is the best guide. Even if there was an "Asian River" in Wisconsin, say, that doesn't mean "Asian river dolphin" becomes "Asian River dolphin". Whether the "river" in "X [r/R]iver Y" is capitalised depends on whether it is a kind of "Y" named after "X River", or a kind of "river Y" named after "X". Often the context or your general knowledge should help. If it is something you are entirely unfamiliar with, you just need to look it up (as Mingmingla suggested). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the existance of a river doesn't make the name capitalised. It's only if there is a connection in the etymology. Trouble is most of the time no etymology exists for common names. So 'look it up' doesn't help much. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Look at publications about the animal, written by reputable sources. However, I wouldn't be too surprised to find that one author's black river turtle is another's Black River turtle. With a common name, I think it's best to follow the common usage(s) (if there are multiple, pick one and stick with it), rather than trying to trace the origins of the name. If you are trying to eliminate potential confusion, you could also specificy the scientific name, but I don't know how formal you are trying to be. Falconus^{p t c} 16:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Firstly, I'm trying to understand the concept for formal writing, then secondly, apply it to Wikipedia. Reputable sources tend to divide into two groups, scientic based publications that tend not to use sentence case (i.e. IUCN here) and therefore capitalise the first letter in every word of a common name and news sources that mention few turtles, but when they do use sentence case i.e Amazon River turtle. In the application to Wikipedia capitalisation of each of the first letters fails WP:CAPS and WP:FNAME while the news sources don't cover such things as Black River turtle or Black river turtle. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you checked out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) is WP:FNAME written about in the sentence above. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes. Sorry. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Tangent: New World rivers tend to be named after something else (Amazon River after the Amazons, Hudson River after Henry Hudson) or transparently with an adjective (Rio Grande, Rio Negro, Red River); whereas Old World river names, so far as I'm aware, generally refer primarily to the river itself or its personification. I advocate using "River" for the former but not the latter; you wouldn't say "Sicily Island". —Tamfang (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Passé composé

In formal French, do they use the passé composé for its original usage as the present perfect, or do they use the passé simple for that as well? --108.222.4.112 (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For my purposes, I assume that they are equivalent in meaning. However, I am not a native speaker, and I almost never use the passé simple, even in writing. In reality, is there any difference in meaning? Falconus^{p t c} 19:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the passé composé is the present perfect tense, and is used as such. However, in addition, passé composé is now also used in place of the passé simple. One can therefore always replace the passé simple with the passé composé, but one cannot always replace the passé composé with a passé simple.

Example: Quand j'ai fini mes devoirs, je sors. (When I have finished my homework, I go outside.) In this sentence, the passé composé is used as the present perfect. It would not be possible to replace it with a passé simple. V85 (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The subtle difference is explained (with an example) on the Passé simple WP page. — AldoSyrt (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I should have guessed that we'd have a Wiki Page on that... Thanks! Falconus^{p t c} 21:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Best natural universal language?

Today, English is almost a universal language. But guess it would be decided that one of the known natural languages had to be the universal language, not judged on its current international importance, but only by lingustic criteria. Would there be languages that serve the purpose better than English? Omniglot has come to the answer "no": "In conclusion, it is lucky for us that our universal language [English] is the simplest and easiest, even though that simplicity and easiness weren't the reasons that lead English to that condition." I failed to find other, more detailed studies on that question - do you know any? --KnightMove (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

My English teacher used to say: "English is the easiest language to learn poorly" (I live in the Netherlands). There are certainly arguments for choosing English, such as the lack of a complicated case and gender system, having only a few verb forms, consistent word order and using the basic Latin alphabet. However, a disadvantage is that spelling is less phonetic than in some other languages, e.g. 'case' when pronounced ends in 's', 'apple' in 'l', 'though' and 'tough' have different endings, 'now' and 'low' have a different 'o', the 'k' in 'know' is silent, etc. Many languages have adapted the spelling of words to conform to their pronunciation, but English has had no significant spelling reform for centuries. German e.g. is much more consistent and logical when it comes to spelling.

I've read on many places the claim that Malay is (one of) the easiest language(s) to learn (see e.g. [1]), though I have no experience with that language. - Lindert (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

English is not necessarily easy for many speakers of other languages to learn when it comes to certain sounds or grammatical constructions which are only found in a relatively small minority of the languages of the world, such as [θ] and [ð], phrasal verbs, stranded prepositions, etc. Many linguists would say that creole languages approach the simplest common denominator of human languages. Unfortunately, our creole language article doesn't really give an overview of the structural characteristics which many creoles share... AnonMoos (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say that whoever wrote that article on Omniglot, probably hasn't done very thorough research. And in the end, who can blame them? I don't think any person would be able to learn all the languages of the world, and then be able to make an assessment of what the easiest language to learn would be.

English does have some major shortcomings: highly irregular orthography, many sounds that are not used in other languages, and although the grammar might be easier than that of other European languages, there are still many complications such as a rather complex verb system (even if those tenses are formed in rather simple ways) with a lingering subjunctive; the separation of definite and indefinite nouns and singular and plural forms.

One advantage with English, though, is that we are so used to hearing it being spoken with various accents, that mispronouncing certain words isn't going to impede understanding of what people say.

I think that creoles, as mentioned, might be a good alternative, or a version of Malay. Although my knowledge of Malay is very limited, I think it would certainly fit the bill of the author of the Omniglot article: non-accented, phonetic Latin orthography; non tonal and a simple grammar (compared to European languages, incl. English). In addition, thanks to colonisation, Malay also uses a large number of Latin and Greek loan words, which are shared with European languages. However, there are bound to be things even in such a simple language, that would be drawbacks for it.

But, of course, what is the definition of 'best' in this context? In addition to being easy to learn, I think it would also include the ability to convey messasges clearly, with very little ambiguity. Furthermore, it also needs to be a language that has a lexicon that can deal with rather complex issues, so that we can write scientific papers using that language. This would mean that some languages, even if their grammar is simple, might be inappropriate for such use. I don't speak any creoles, but I have the impression that in these contexts, the creoles are used in daily life, whereas the 'original language', whether it be English, French or whatever, is used in more formal circumstances, such as government and academia. Also, I am not sure if 'simple grammar' is what people who are learning a language want: Many people are willing to spend lots of time learning languages which, at least from the outside, seem rather complex, such Latin, Sanskrit, Klingon, Na'vi... Latin and Sanskrit are historic prestige languages, but the latter two are surely of limited practical use. V85 (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I find the calls for a "spelling reform" for English heretical and will fight the idea fiercely should it ever arise in earnest. Spelling indicates etymology. Throw the whole etymology out, and for what? How will etymologists in 500 years time know that "lajikl" is cognate with λογος? (not to mention that it's fugly.) Spelling is the littlest obstacle on the way towards speaking a nice and idiomatic English, anyway (a thing I know poses difficulties to me.) When spelling and pronunciation have diverged so far that it's become as bad as in say, Gaelic, something will probably have to be done, but English is nowhere near this yet. Уга-уга12 (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I do agree, somewhat, with this argument, however, nobody here has so far said that spelling reform should be undertaken, merely that English spelling could be an impediment to learning the language. Furthermore, a spelling reform might not go as far as to change logical into lajikl. For example the word thought: This word doesn't really show any link with its cognate think, other than the initial digraph. On the other hand, English spelling actually includes several examples of false etymologies, such as that superfluous s in the word island. V85 (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If we were writing English phonetically, I certainly would not be using "a" as my first vowel in the new version of "logical". Already you can see the issues we'd have to deal with, most of which are permanently irreconcilable due to the many different languages out there that all call themselves English and all use the same spelling for words that often sound nothing like each other. It's the nonnest non-starter of all time. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it about time that someone mentioned Ghoti? That's what usually happens in discussions like this. - X201 (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Since we're not discussing how to make English spelling better, that'd be a mute point. V85 (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Omniglot's conclusion. English may be relatively easy for most Europeans to learn, because English is grammatically similar to but in superficial ways easier than other European languages. (As Lindert says, English is easy for Europeans to learn poorly, because in fact its grammar is not so simple when it comes to features such as verbal aspect and modality and the many idioms involving separable verbs, not to mention features such as definite and indefinite articles that can be very difficult for non-Europeans.) However, English, like other European languages, can be challenging for speakers of unrelated languages, especially East Asian languages. The best test of the ease of learning a language is the language's ease of learning for speakers of unrelated languages and languages not connected by a regional Sprachbund. Using that test, I can say from experience that Swahili probably beats English as a language that would be easy for speakers of unrelated languages. I have heard that Malay/Indonesian is also easy for speakers of unrelated languages. It is no coincidence that both are trade languages that began as pidgins. Probably the same would be true of other trade languages derived from pidgins. Marco polo (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's hard for me to see how Swahili would be easy for speakers of unrelated languages to learn, since it's a highly-inflected language with inflectional characteristics which are not too widespread among different language groups, starting with a heavy emphasis on prefixing (when suffixing inflection is more common typologically), noun-class concords, negative pronominal forms distinct from positive pronominals, relative verbal inflections (only seen in Celtic among Indo-European languages, as far as I know), applicative verbal inflections, etc. I think that the easiest language to learn (broadly by speakers of many different languages) would be an artificial (constructed) language with similarities to the common structural characteristics of creoles; the earliest such that I know about was Lancelot Hogben's Interglossa of the 1940's... AnonMoos (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I would guess Malay/Indonesian is more of a koine than a true creole... AnonMoos (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The one with the largest army. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Having formally studied French, German, Russian, Greek, Latin, and Zulu, and speaking English, Spanish and Rusyn to some extent, I would suggest that English, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese and Indonesian all have their merits. As a second language, Spanish is probably the simplest. Its only fault is its arbitrary gender distinctions--but these are for the most part simple and regular. Chinese orthography beats out English spelling for difficulty. English has the largest vocabulary, best literature, one of the most simple grammars, and among the least arbitrary distinctions. My advice? Learn either English or Spanish as your second language, and Chinese as your third. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Creoles

Why are creoles counted as separate languages even though they're just dialects? --108.222.4.112 (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What's a language and what's a dialect is not clearly defined (a language is a dialect with an army and navy), and some linguists don't draw any distinction between the two. A creole, on the other hand, usually incorporates parts of two often very different languages - for example, the grammar of one and the vocabulary of the other - so it's not "just" a dialect, regardless. FiggyBee (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, a creole usually incorporates parts of several different languages, not just two. Creoles are descended from pidgins, which mostly arise when speakers of multiple languages are thrown together and need to communicate. (If there are only two languages, one group generally just learns the other's language rather than developing a pidgin.) If your only experience of creoles is with languages like Jamaican Creole, it's not surprising that you consider it a "dialect" of English, since Jamaican speakers can fluctuate along the post-creole continuum, the highest (acrolectal) level of which really is practically just standard English with a Jamaican accent. But take a look at other English-based creoles like Saramaccan or Sranan Tongo and you'll see they can't be considered dialects of English by any stretch of the imagination. Angr (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

So why do they use the same word for things like Jamaican Creole or Hawaiian Creole, which are clearly just dialects of English, and others that could more reasonably be called separate languages? --108.222.4.112 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Creoles in general have a grammar which is quite different from those of all the languages from which their vocabularies are drawn, so in no reasonable sense are they dialects of anything (though a particular creole may exist as several different dialects). --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the Wikipedia articles gives this example text in Hawaiian Creole: "God wen get so plenny love an aloha fo da peopo inside da world, dat he wen send me, his one an ony Boy, so dat everybody dat trus me no get cut off from God, but get da real kine life dat stay to da max foeva." It's clearly just a dialect of English. --108.222.4.112 (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The ones that can be fairly called "dialects of English" are actually mesolects, and not true basilectal creoles. In any case, Saramaccan, for example, is a historically-English-based creole which has zero mutual comprehensibility with standard English... AnonMoos (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

In linguistics, rather than just common speech, creole has a very specific technical meaning. A dialect of a language is simply a local form. The dialect has been passed down from mother to child without interruption in transmission from first language speaker to first language speaker. A creole comes about when this normal transmission is not the case. Creoles occur when pidgins, which are "broken" (in common parlance) languages become learned as a child's first language. Let us say that African slaves of various tribes speaking different languages come together on the plantation of a European owner. They will learn a very simplified working language with phrases such as, "Me done say you work yesterday, me say you work today, me gone say you work tomorrow, sabby?" This is not the way native English speakers talk and they have not learned it from their mothers, but as a second very simplified "compromise" language with maybe only a 500 word vocabulary, a simplified set of sounds (no "th") and a limited grammar--no "I would have fled hence hadst thou told me." Now, let's say a slave from one tribe takes a wife from a different tribe. What language will the children learn? In this case they will learn the pidgin, which until now was limited and no person's first tongue, rather than their mother's native tongue. The limited pidgin will now become recodified, with rules made up to cover more complex and subtle situations. This emerges spontaneously out of wordplay no differently from the way slang emerges among youths. If this speech becomes adapted as the general speech of a population, as Haitian Creole did when the Slaves revolted and killer or exiled their French masters, you have a fullblown Creole. If the Creole speakers stay in contact with their "target" language, as speakers of Jamaican English have with speakers of the Queen's English, their creole evolves toward the "standard". This is the case in American Black English, which has largely reassimilated with Standard American English, but retains traits from its time as a creole. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sam Wanamaker

The Sam Wanamaker article says he was the father of Zoe Wanamaker. Shouldn't that be he is the father ..., even though he is no longer alive? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Would anyone say "Henry VIII is the father of Elizabeth I"? No, they wouldn't. Using the past tense does not indicate the father-daughter relationship has ceased to be, just that either he has, or both he and she have, ceased to be. On the other hand, we would say "Zoe Wanamaker is the daughter of Sam Wanamaker", because she is the subject of the sentence and she is still alive. But if she had died and her father was still alive, it would then become "Zoe Wanamaker was the daughter of Sam Wanamaker".

What it comes down to is that you can't use the present tense in reference to a dead person, except in cases like "Rasputin is my idol", but there it's really about me and my decision to idolise him in 2012, rather than anything he did personally in 1912.

Or, "Jimmy can't come out to play, because he's dead". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)