Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 October 8
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 7 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 9 > |
| 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. |
October 8
editDifficult time with this bit of Brazilian Portuguese administrative language
editHaving a tough time figuring out what this bit of legalish administrative language from Brazil says. I've been using the aggregate translation service http://itranslate4.eu/en/ but I still can't quite figure out what this portion means "Processo MDIC/SECEX 52100.006488/2011-15". Processo is translated as "process" but I can't quite make sense of that. Does Processo mean application number? Administrative action?
"e tendo em vista o que consta do Processo MDIC/SECEX 52100.006488/2011-15 e do Parecer no 22, de 11 de julho de 2012, elaborado pelo Departamento de Defesa Comercial – DECOM desta Secretaria"
Breakneckfast (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I reckon it means a court decision. Wiktionary gives meanings "to serve a defendant with a writ or summons", "lawsuit" and "trial". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you a lot. Breakneckfast (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Alveolar trill
editI've been trying to do the alveolar trill, without any success. How can I know whether I just need to work more or I have the speech impediment that makes that sound impossible? --168.7.233.164 (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- You are asking for a perceptual judgment, which is impossible without a sound file uploaded by you, and a medical diagnosis, which we don't give. Upload a sound file and someone will give an opinion as to whether it's an alveolar trill, preferably with several examples in varying contexts. For the medical opinion seek a speech therapist. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Mitt Romney: should the "tt" be phonetically transcribed as a glottal stop?
editI need the phonetic transcription of Mitt Romney into some foreign languages having a character for the glottal stop. HOOTmag (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it is a hard "t" sound, unlike in "putting", which is often pronounced "pudding". StuRat (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's an exact rhyme with "bit", "fit", "hit", "kit", "lit", "pit", "sit", "wit", etc. Whatever the IPA gibberish is for those, "mitt" should be the same. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- More to the point: in some varieties of English it may be a glottal stop, but in both General American and Received pronunciation it is pronounced as /t/. The only time it would be a glottal stop is if it is being said in a dialect of English where every /t/ is substituted with /ʔ/. Those dialects exist, but they are not usually considered "standard". --Jayron32 22:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's phonemically /t/ in General American, but it might arguably be phonetically a glottal stop. It's very hard to hear the difference between an unaspirated /t/ preceding a consonant, and a glottal stop (and I think in GA it's standardly unaspirated). --Trovatore (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the difference is in the articulation of the tongue. An unaspirated t isn't a glottal stop, it's a alveolar stop, and it's articulated in a very different location: behind the teeth instead of at the back of the throat. --Jayron32 01:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Right, so I think AnonMoos has it right — this t is realized as a glottal stop in GA, in phrases like "night rate" or "Mitt Romney". --Trovatore (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I speak essentially General American, and I say nothing like a glottal stop there. I've also never heard a glottal stop in any other speakers of General American. It's absolutely an alveolar stop. --Jayron32 16:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, it is very hard to hear the difference, so you simply didn't notice it. If you think GA speakers don't use it, you're just wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've said it 1000 times to myself to check. The point of articulation is the tip of my tongue on the back of my teeth. The back of my throat remains open the whole time. --Jayron32 04:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I trust you that you don't say it. That doesn't mean GA speakers in general don't. --Trovatore (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've said it 1000 times to myself to check. The point of articulation is the tip of my tongue on the back of my teeth. The back of my throat remains open the whole time. --Jayron32 04:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, it is very hard to hear the difference, so you simply didn't notice it. If you think GA speakers don't use it, you're just wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I speak essentially General American, and I say nothing like a glottal stop there. I've also never heard a glottal stop in any other speakers of General American. It's absolutely an alveolar stop. --Jayron32 16:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Right, so I think AnonMoos has it right — this t is realized as a glottal stop in GA, in phrases like "night rate" or "Mitt Romney". --Trovatore (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the difference is in the articulation of the tongue. An unaspirated t isn't a glottal stop, it's a alveolar stop, and it's articulated in a very different location: behind the teeth instead of at the back of the throat. --Jayron32 01:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's phonemically /t/ in General American, but it might arguably be phonetically a glottal stop. It's very hard to hear the difference between an unaspirated /t/ preceding a consonant, and a glottal stop (and I think in GA it's standardly unaspirated). --Trovatore (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- More to the point: in some varieties of English it may be a glottal stop, but in both General American and Received pronunciation it is pronounced as /t/. The only time it would be a glottal stop is if it is being said in a dialect of English where every /t/ is substituted with /ʔ/. Those dialects exist, but they are not usually considered "standard". --Jayron32 22:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
In some American dialects, the word "Mitt" pronounced on its own would not be pronounced with a glottal stop, but in "Mitt Romney" pronounced as a connected phrase, the "t" could become a glottal stop (in such dialects, "night rate" could have a glottal stop, but "nitrate" wouldn't)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect that 'nitrate' as well as 'night rate' and 'Mitt' would probably get a "glo'awl" stop here in "sahf Lund'n". AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, here's "Mitt Romney" - (can anyone tell me where the "IPA-1" userbox is located?) - in some varieties of English where the "t" is regularly replaced by glottal stop. Knock yourself out.
- * Australian English: /miʕ ˈɺɔmniː/
- * Bromley Contingent English: /mɪʕ ˈɺɔmni/
- * Trainspotting English: /mɪʕ ˈromnɪ/
- --Shirt58 (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect that 'nitrate' as well as 'night rate' and 'Mitt' would probably get a "glo'awl" stop here in "sahf Lund'n". AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, it should be transcribed phonemically as a /t/, which is the underlying sound, whatever the surface representation. μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've emphasized: "phonetic" transcription, in order to make it clear that I'm looking for the surface transcription from GA (rather than for the underlying representation). HOOTmag (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- However, in most if not all English varieties, a t can be used in emphasised or careful speech, even though it would be replaced with a glottal stop in fast speech. A parallel is that in RP h's are often dropped in fast speech, but never in careful speech, and they should be indicated in dictionaries and pronunciation guides. Also, do you have any evidence for the glottal stop (alone) in Scottish varieties, as opposed to an alveolar stop accompanied by a glottal stop? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, you have the wrong vowel in Mitt in Australian English. Unless you want to introduce him: "Meet Romney!". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Judith
! As a youth I wore Thespis' buskins so I tend to be more careful with "pronounciation" [sic] than my fellow antipodeans. But I still hear myself saying the <i> in "bitter" as short version of the <ea> in "beater". Compared to other varieties of English, the AuE /ɪ/ is very close (both in the plain English sense of proximity, and phonological sense) to /i/.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Whoops, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Double whoops. My opinion was pure obiter, your comment should still stand.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Whoops, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Judith
- By the way, you have the wrong vowel in Mitt in Australian English. Unless you want to introduce him: "Meet Romney!". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- However, in most if not all English varieties, a t can be used in emphasised or careful speech, even though it would be replaced with a glottal stop in fast speech. A parallel is that in RP h's are often dropped in fast speech, but never in careful speech, and they should be indicated in dictionaries and pronunciation guides. Also, do you have any evidence for the glottal stop (alone) in Scottish varieties, as opposed to an alveolar stop accompanied by a glottal stop? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've emphasized: "phonetic" transcription, in order to make it clear that I'm looking for the surface transcription from GA (rather than for the underlying representation). HOOTmag (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am still not sure what the underlying purpose is here, but the /t/ in Mitt is only preglottalized in General American, not simply replaced with a glottal stop, which sounds quite odd. See glottalization. Mitt is either said [mɪth], with a fully released, aspirated, and un-glottalized /t/, or [mɪˀt], with an unreleased and pre-glottalized /t/. Try saying it yourself, even in the glottalized version your tongue will contact your alveolar ridge, even if there will be no release. It will feel quite odd if you say it without articulating the alveolar stop at all. Also, if you're giving a phonetic transcription, it should be [mɪˀt] or [mɪth] in brackets, not a phonemic transcription between slashes.
- That's news to me. I have a general American accent, and I pronounce Mitt with a glottal stop with no tongue contact with the alveolar ridge, when followed by another word such as Romney. My impression is that this is quite common. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- And the article that you cite, glottalization, says To a certain extent, there is free variation in English between glottal replacement and glottal reinforcement. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly true, that when said in the context before Romney, it assimilates to the retroflex alveolar with the curled tongue making contact with the alveolar ridge, not the tip. So it's then a preglottalized retroflex. But not when "Mitt" stands alone, which is what the OP asked for and what you may notice I described. And there is simply no circumstance in General American under which the /t/ is a stand-alone glottal stop. I cannot imagine under what circumstances a layman would need to know or even understand this; perhaps the OP can clarify. Any phonetic analysis on this detailed a level will run into dialectal and idiolectal issues like the Northern cities vowel shift (which Romney seems to suffer to some extent) and become far too detailed to hold true as a general description. If the OP needs a narrow description of a single utterance that can be done, we'd need a sound file. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion that the OP wanted the word "Mitt" standing alone. The question title says "Mitt Romney", and the initial question body also says "Mitt Romney". --Trovatore (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I kind of went by the "tt" quote. In any case, the answer is no, a plain glottal stop would be wrong. I am sure that is quite clear. μηδείς (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- To make it clearer: I'm asking about phonetically transcribing "Mitt Romney", into languages having a character for the glottal stop. HOOTmag (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I kind of went by the "tt" quote. In any case, the answer is no, a plain glottal stop would be wrong. I am sure that is quite clear. μηδείς (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion that the OP wanted the word "Mitt" standing alone. The question title says "Mitt Romney", and the initial question body also says "Mitt Romney". --Trovatore (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly true, that when said in the context before Romney, it assimilates to the retroflex alveolar with the curled tongue making contact with the alveolar ridge, not the tip. So it's then a preglottalized retroflex. But not when "Mitt" stands alone, which is what the OP asked for and what you may notice I described. And there is simply no circumstance in General American under which the /t/ is a stand-alone glottal stop. I cannot imagine under what circumstances a layman would need to know or even understand this; perhaps the OP can clarify. Any phonetic analysis on this detailed a level will run into dialectal and idiolectal issues like the Northern cities vowel shift (which Romney seems to suffer to some extent) and become far too detailed to hold true as a general description. If the OP needs a narrow description of a single utterance that can be done, we'd need a sound file. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Medeis, you say there is simply no circumstance in General American under which the /t/ is a stand-alone glottal stop. Pretty strong statement. (1) Do you have some references for that? I'd be interested in seeing more about it. I know I've seen the contrary asserted many times, but I'm afraid I can't recall particular sources (I've read enough phonology texts that it all blurs together). (2) Are you saying that in reasonably rapid speech we Americans don't pronounce words like "button" with a pure glottal stop? I know I do, and I've heard it plenty of times. For example, I've read analyses of how the only way to distinguish "sudden" from "Sutton" is that the former has a flap while the latter has a glottal stop. (3) If what you say is true, where did I pick up the pure glottal stop in phrases like "Mitt Romney" (when spoken at normal or fast speed)? -- did I independently invent it rather than picking it up from others around me? Strikes me as unlikely. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- HOOTmag, if I understand your question right, you are asking whether you should transcribe the tt as a glottal stop if you're using a language that uses a specific character for that sound? No; I don't think in Arabic, for instance, that you would ever transcribe Mitt Romney into Arabic as مئ رومني or into Hebrew as מיא רומני, regardless of how you pronounce it in English (though I did have fun figuring out how those would be written). Lesgles (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- There are a lot of languages having a character for the glottal stop, e.g. Japanese (っ), Malay (k), Maltese (q), and also Arabic and Hebrew - as you've pointed out. Btw, why do you think you can't write مِئ رُومْنِي (in Arabic), or מִיאְ רוֹמְנִי (in Hebrew)? These languages do allow such a way of writing (as appearing also in the Quoran and in the Hebrew Bible). HOOTmag (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Mitt Romney would never be written ミッ・ロムニー in any serious article in a newspaper or magazine in Japanese, because that is childish anime writing. It is in fact written ミット・ロムニー, with the 't' clearly pronounced. The small 'tsu' is not a glottal stop in standard Japanese - it indicates a lengthening of the consonant. It is used occasionally in kids' books (and daytime TV shows which feel the need to emphasize the 'funny' thing some celeb said or did, by writing it on the screen, and repeating it several times) to indicate an abrupt end to a vowel, but not a glottal stop. Japanese does not have glottal stops. In fact, you might as well look at the Mitt Romney article, and click on the various languages on the left, to see how it is written in those languages. It's not hard, and I'm surprised no-one else has even thought of this. Also, transcribing a person's name into a language which uses the Latin alphabet does not necessarily need to have the spelling changed - Juan, for example, does not get changed to 'Huan'. Mitt Romney does not need to be changed to 'Mik Romney' for the Malaysians. Anyway, that link has both Hebrew and Arabic, and I see a clear 't' in both. Is there a specific reason you need to show your particular pronunciation, rather than the globally accepted one? Please clarify. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- As to Japanese: so, our (English) article glottal stop should be changed a little bit, as far as Japanese is concerned, shouldn't it? As to other languages that use the Latin alphabet: I can't see how Maltese can spell "Mitt Romney", whereas Maltese assigns the word "mitt" for another meaning ("a hundred of"). Anyways, how about languages that don't use the Latin alphabet? I just wonder: if "Mitt Romney" is really pronounced in GA - with a glottal stop - rather than with the sound /t/ (as some editors here have claimed), then why should those languages transcribe it by the sound "t", while they don't use the original Latin character for this sound? Again, I'd like to make it clear again, that I'm referring (as I've always been) to the phonetic transcription. HOOTmag (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sokuon also says that っ/ッ is a glottal stop when it occurs at the end of the sentence. 81.159.107.204 (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, it is an abrupt end to a vowel, sometimes a long vowel, and sometimes a short one. It was extremely difficult to teach an intervocalic or preconsonantal glottal stop to adult students in Japan, because many simply couldn't hear it, or distinguish it from other sounds, and even if they could, the sound was completely alien to them and they were unable to produce it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- If those articles are definitely wrong then ideally they should be fixed... 81.159.107.204 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Does the Swedish Chef sing "Bort! Bort! Bort!" or "Bork! Bork! Bork!"? It may only be distinguishable to the sound producer, not the hearer. Back to Mitt Romney, when I say it my throat does have to open to produce the R sound, so although the front of the tongue on the alveolar ridge (at tt) is the more noticeable obstruction, there does appear to be a closing of the glottis as well.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just to pile on: I'm another GA speaker who uses an alveolar stop here, not a glottal stop; the glottis does not close. -- Elphion (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, it is an abrupt end to a vowel, sometimes a long vowel, and sometimes a short one. It was extremely difficult to teach an intervocalic or preconsonantal glottal stop to adult students in Japan, because many simply couldn't hear it, or distinguish it from other sounds, and even if they could, the sound was completely alien to them and they were unable to produce it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Mitt Romney would never be written ミッ・ロムニー in any serious article in a newspaper or magazine in Japanese, because that is childish anime writing. It is in fact written ミット・ロムニー, with the 't' clearly pronounced. The small 'tsu' is not a glottal stop in standard Japanese - it indicates a lengthening of the consonant. It is used occasionally in kids' books (and daytime TV shows which feel the need to emphasize the 'funny' thing some celeb said or did, by writing it on the screen, and repeating it several times) to indicate an abrupt end to a vowel, but not a glottal stop. Japanese does not have glottal stops. In fact, you might as well look at the Mitt Romney article, and click on the various languages on the left, to see how it is written in those languages. It's not hard, and I'm surprised no-one else has even thought of this. Also, transcribing a person's name into a language which uses the Latin alphabet does not necessarily need to have the spelling changed - Juan, for example, does not get changed to 'Huan'. Mitt Romney does not need to be changed to 'Mik Romney' for the Malaysians. Anyway, that link has both Hebrew and Arabic, and I see a clear 't' in both. Is there a specific reason you need to show your particular pronunciation, rather than the globally accepted one? Please clarify. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- There are a lot of languages having a character for the glottal stop, e.g. Japanese (っ), Malay (k), Maltese (q), and also Arabic and Hebrew - as you've pointed out. Btw, why do you think you can't write مِئ رُومْنِي (in Arabic), or מִיאְ רוֹמְנִי (in Hebrew)? These languages do allow such a way of writing (as appearing also in the Quoran and in the Hebrew Bible). HOOTmag (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Lesgles/HOOTmag -- the Hebrew spelling מיא רומני would not indicate a glottal stop at the end of the first word, since glottal stops at the end of a syllable had already become silent in pronunciation by the time of the Masoretic period of more than a thousand years ago. In modern Israeli Hebrew, the glottal stop is contrastive or phonemic ONLY in the context -VCV- vs. -VCʔV- (e.g. [lirot] "to shoot" vs. [lirʔot] "to see") -- and even that contrast is not necessarily preserved in colloquial or rapid speech... AnonMoos (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)