Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 April 10

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 10

Descriptive manual of style

Is there a major manual of style for writing that is based on descriptive grammar rather than prescription? Ryan Vesey 02:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't a manual of style prescriptive by definition? It's not a manual if it doesn't give instructions. Looie496 (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Write Source 2000 may be useful. I used it since seventh or eighth grade. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Merriam–Webster's Dictionary of English Usage discusses all the familiar prescriptive rules but from a critical/skeptical descriptive-minded standpoint, pointing out how famous authors used supposedly wrong forms, and so on.--Cam (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Term for particular verb to use with noun X

What's the term in grammar for a verb that "goes with" a certain noun in English? Examples: to annul a marriage, to cancel a check, to revoke a license, etc. I knew this once; it's con... or com...something. And for bonus points: how does one find a list of these? -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Co-occurrence or concurrence ? A "Dictionnaire des cooccurrences" exists in French, both in physical form [1] and on-line [2], but I've never seen an English-language equivalent. --Xuxl (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Collocation, but it's not limited to verbs and nouns, it can be any parts of speech. I don't know of a specific word for collocations with verbs and nouns. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, collocation is the word I was trying to recall (which explains why starting with con... or com... produced nothing :-/ - and at present I'm looking for a verb+noun: my actual query which I'll post below. Still, Collocation#In dictionaries touches on how this is a pertinent aspect of acquiring a foreign language - and in my case, translating. I'm interested in finding more resources on collocations in English and my acquired languages. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "entrepreneur"

I've heard it in two [three] ways: /ɑntrəprə'nər/, /ɑntrəprə'nu:r/, and [also] /ɑntrə'pri:niər/ [in a very rare case]. Of course, the /nu:r/ segment is expected to sound more like /nʊə/ - in non-rhotic accents, in most of which the initial /ɑ/ may probably sound more like /ɔ/.

• Are you familiar with other ways of pronouncing that word?
• Additionally, and more important: I wonder, if the way the word is pronounced (after putting aside the rhotic issue and the /ɔ~ɑ/ issue) - depends on geography - or on sociolects and likewise. HOOTmag (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I, a resident of Australia, have never heard the second [last] version or anything remotely like it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I also had never heard the last version, and was very surprised to hear it - few weeks ago - on a radio channel by an American speaker. Anyways, how about the middle version, /ɑntrəprə'nu:r/ (or /ɔntrəprə'nʊə/ in Australian accent) - which I have just added to the list? HOOTmag (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I, a Brit, have never heard the second [last] one either. As for the main question, in my dialect, it would be /ɔntrəprə'nɛ:/ or /ɔntrəprə'ne:/ (with the 't' and 'r' almost merging in both cases, and the second 'r' remaining a distinct single flap). This, however, is simply a case of equating 'ə:' with either /e:/ or /ɛ:/, and is a very common feature of my dialect (c.f., the joke where a bald rabbit gets on the bus, and the bus driver asks, "Where's your fare?" ('fur' and 'fare' are pronounced the same in Liverpool)). In outer regions of Merseyside and also the rest of the North, the /ə:/ would be retained in /ɔntrəprə'nə:/ (and 'fur' and 'fare' are pronounced /fə:/ and /fɛ:/ respectively). In any case, any alteration in a word such as 'entrepreneur' (i.e. a foreign word, fairly long, and not used in everyday speech)would either be a dialectal modification based on the local pronunciation of its constituent sounds, or a purely ideosyncratic pronunciation (and in your example above, probably based on Spelling pronunciation. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I suspect I haven't heard /ɔntrəprə'ne:/, although I may have heard it by few Brits. Your explanation is clear. How about the middle version, /ɔntrəprə'nʊr/ - which I have just added to the list? In British accent it would probably be /ɔntrəprə'nʊə/. Have you heard it? HOOTmag (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have actually heard that, now you come to mention it - that, and /ɔntrəprə'nuə/ (more likely in the North). Again, this would be associated with dialect. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. HOOTmag (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

To me the /-ʊr/ sounds much more AE than BrE. --ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• I (NY/NJ) say ahntruhpreNOOR. I have heard ahntruhpreNEER, but think it was just a slip due to interference from engineer or mutineer. I'd be surprised if that was a literate speakers normal pronunciation. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's French. So simply linguistically it's "on-tron-pr-nur" (four syllables). Why American English bastardises this to "noor" at the end I know not, but to be more authentic to the French, stick with a nur, avoid a noor. I've yet to find an American who say "mirror" or "warrior" correctly too..... ! 17:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• It's French. Why would you bastardize it to -nur? -- Elphion (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Because it's a loanword, and we are not French. We shouldn't have to pronounce it exactly the way the word is pronounced in its original language just because we borrowed it. There is no EULA stipulating whether or not the word may be modified in any way. It is not proprietary. We have borrowed the bits we need (i.e. the spelling) and we pronounce it the way we want to. French speakers pronounce English words that have 'w' in them as if they have 'v', such as 'wagon' and 'whiskey', but I don't say they have bastardised the words. I think, fair enough, tout ce que flotte leur bateau. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you could make it "on-tron-pr-nurr". It's most definitely not -NOOR. That is frankly disgusting! Like pronouncing "mirror" as "meeer" or "warrior" as "wawior". Horrendous...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You can pronounce it the way you want, including even putting the extra -n in the second syllable as you have done twice in this thread. Go for it! KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it's probably better without the 'n' but it's to emphasise the fact it's not just "tro" as in rhyming with throw. I tried. Perhaps the initial poster wanted a nice American-French pronunciation, I mis-judged the situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

My point above is that -nur is just as wrong (too fronted, too open) as -noor (too back, too closed). We bastardize foreign pronunciations according to our own dialects. To profess to be disgusted by someone else's natural pronunciation is to reveal one's own rampant intolerance. -- Elphion (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I am entirely intolerant to the use of "meer" for mirror and "wawior" for warrior. Unfortunately the internet is mainly American so you get rot like this telling people how pronounce French words, rather than spending months or years in France and Belgium listening to the language. Hopefully, Elphion, you can save the day! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess I can count myself lucky that I don't use these pronunciations that invite your intolerance (including the one in the video, since I use -nœr for the loan word). But I don't have a cow when encountering people who do. And seriously, "spending months or years in France and Belgium listening to the language" is not a realistic alternative for most people. -- Elphion (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter in the slightest to me what pronunciation you use, nor whether you "have a cow" or not?! I was just trying to help here but clearly it wasn't to your taste. I'll know not to bother in the future, I'll leave it to experts like you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was another bizarre rant. It's not even accurate, given "eu" is a mid vowel like /o/, not a high vowel like /u/, so /or/ is a better approximation. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Medis, I removed myself from the conversation. The "bizarre rant" comment is somewhat hypocritical given your recent personal attacks and histrionics at ITN. Give it a rest, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

In my area, I most often hear it as /ɑːntrəpə'nʊər/, with the second "r" dropped. Whether this is a distinctive pronunciation or just a relaxed handling of a difficult sequence of phonemes is open to question. Deor (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The word has been portmanteauised into "authorpreneur". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Cute portmanteau (oh, too much French in one thread, correct?). And the word "portmanteauised" you've used, is probably one of the rarest words having four successive vowels at once, isn't it? Btw, I'd like to have your response to my response to your first response in this thread (see above). HOOTmag (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The OED gives "/ˌɒntrəprəˈnɜː(r)/ /ɑ̃tr(ə)prənœr/" for British English, but there is a lot of variation here (as elsewhere). Am I correct in thinking that the "ʊər" form is mainly American? (plus possibly some Northern English dialects? )Dbfirs 07:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think so. We could in the South of England pronounce it to rhyme with manure, but that would be either a mistake or an attempt at a joke. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

For almost all Americans, the vowels of lure and sure are merged with those of lore and shore, making them exact homophobes. My pronunciation of those words is very close to -[ɔr]. You might find some older Southern gentry who would say /luɘ/ and /loɘ/ for lure and lore, but I have never heard that distinction in rhotic speakers or Northerners. The /ʊər/ ending is not General American--it would be transcribed as /ɔr/ to rhyme with nor and or. As I mentioned above, the mid rounded vowel makes perfect sense. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? GA "lure" has the same vowel as "fool", possibly with some slight modification for the following "r". --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What the fuck I am talking about is the pour-poor merger. Make shore you expand the homophobe box and read the examples, including the two I gave above. The vowels of lure and fool most definitely do not rhyme for these speakers, and the possible slight modification you mention is precisely the dropping exhibited in the merger. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The pour-poor merger occurs in British English. If it occurs in American English, it would be strongly regional and probably fall outside of acceptable GA pronunciation. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

@Medeis: Do you have a source for that? I am a featureless GA speaking Northener from NE PA, have lived in CA, IN and IL, and never encountered such a merge. If I were to encounter it, I would consider it substandard or regional. By the way, I encounter those words a lot, from all kind of people, being an avid fisherman and environmental biologist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears that "almost all Americans" don't agree with you, Med's. Bizarre, eh? The Rambling Man (talk)

Are you saying, Vobisdu, that you do not rhyme lure with lore? If not, do you rhyme lure with sewer? μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not. Nor have I ever heard any other GA speaker do so. "Lure" is monosylabic for me, and "sewer" disylabic. The "u" vowel has the same quality, though. I have heard many people pronounce "sewer" as one syllable, though, rhyming with "lure". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Just be careful how you apply the word "homophobe". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, "lure" is a single syllable word which rhymes with "cure". "Sewer" has two syllables, "Sue" and "er". Lure and sewer don't rhyme in British English. (And do you really mean "homophobe" Meds?) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, Vobisdu, I would certainly like to hear a sound file from you. I can't say I have ever heard the lure/lore distinction made by any American with a rhotic accent. Any chance yu are from Lucerne county? μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am. From Dupont. I lost the local accent long ago, though, and can't even fake it anymore. The merge you are describing wasn't a local feature there, as far as I remember. If I remember correctly, you also have ties to NEPA. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Parents and grandparents from Philly originally, I have lived 3/5 in NYC and 2/5 in SJ. Ruthenian relatives in your area. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I remember now. You do realize that many speakers in NYC, Jersey and Philly have strong regional features that diverge markedly from GA. The pronunciation of "orange" is particularly striking. I could believe that you are hearing a local merger, but believe me, it's not a feature of GA. Like I said, I never heard it anywhere I've lived. My pronunciation of "lure" is the same as in this video: [[3]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Is that where they say "arnge", like Johnny Cash does in his recording of Orange Blossom Special (which I think lots of folks don't even know has lyrics at all)? --Trovatore (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Had a nun from Philly who tried to get us to pronounce "orange" like "ahrange", because that was the "correct" way. Nutter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I natively say ahringe (although I code switch now since they don't have that in NYC), but that's a separate issue affecting only a limited set of words, not a merger. I say or and force, not ahr and fahrce. If anyone can find a rhotic American speaker who distinguishes the shore and sure vowels, I'd like to see a clip. μηδείς (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's me, fer shore. I'd have to futz around a bit to figure out how to make a sound file, though. --Trovatore (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(Oh, but in the song it's not "ahringe"; it's really "ahrnge". Just one syllable.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the song. I prounce it with two sybbles, the second with a slabic enn, as do all the real people from the DV that I know. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Which verb + citizenship: revoke or annul?

Context: I'm describing a Nazi document from Jan. 1942, Krakow (administrative HQ of the Generalgouvernement): a set of regulations about Jews with German citizenship. QUERY: I’d thought "revoke [their citizenship]" is the correct verb in English, until a comparative search via Google yielded many and varied sources using "annul" in this context. Perhaps AE vs. BE is the culprit... but is there an authoritative term, and how might I verify this? (see my query on Collocation, the second before this one)-- Deborahjay (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Redacted to add: Might it be that a practitioner's license is revoked for malfeasance or as punishment, whereas a change of status (e.g. citizenship, marriage) would have its authorized validity annulled? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What about "stripped of their German citizenship" (are you sure it was their German citizenship? Jews in Poland were also stripped of their Polish citizenship.

Or 'denaturalized'? OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

'Withdrawal' comes to mind too. Lectonar (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Denaturalization isn't a good choice. At least some Jews would have acquired their citizenship by being born in Germany, not through naturalization. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Annul means to make null and void, whereas revoke has the sense of removing something that was granted in the first place. If a person possessed German citizenship as of right (for example, by place of birth or parentage) rather than having it conferred by the relevant authorities, it would not be very accurate to describe the citizenship as having been revoked. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Revoked requires a prior invoke; withdrawal implies something granted; and denaturalised needs its counterpart. All these are the wrong words for people born into a nationality. Annulled is my preference to cover all eventualities. Bazza (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There was a Law on the Revocation of Naturalization and the Deprivation of German Citizenship. German article:[[4]]. So, maybe deprivation is also possible. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that is making things overly simple, but could one say that they 'lost' their citizenship? Oh, and what does the original document say in German? Lectonar (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The original doc is a law, that looks exactly as dry as any other legal text, with paragraphs and sub-paragraphs and special cases. It is a scary example of how persecution was institutionalized from the onset of the Nazi regime, on 1933.

I see, but what word(s) did they use? 'Entzug/entziehen', which would indeed imply revocation, or 'Verlust/verlieren', or any other word? I know very well what Germany did at that time, but still I am interested, as I only know the laws from the beginning of the Nazi -regime. Would it be possible to see the document (could you link to it?). And I think that 'stripped of their citizenship' seems to catch the meaning quite well. Lectonar (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It was Widerruf and Aberkennung (I saw it translated as revocation and deprivation). [Linking to the original text in German]

The law you linked to deals with people who had been naturalized between november 9 1918 and january 30 1933, and Widerruf is indeed revocation, whereas Aberkennung is withdrawal or deprivation. To catch the manner in which it was done, I would still go with stripped, though. Lectonar (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

OP adds: The document is a digitized file from a microfilm of a photostat, quite illegible especially as I won't have the onsite aid of a German-speaking colleague till tomorrow. I did decipher that it refers to an order of the Reichsbürgergesetz from 25 November 1941 (in the Generalgouvernement, HQ in Krakow). -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, that is the "Elfte Verordnung zum Reichsbürgergesetz vom 25. November 1941", which regulated specifically the loss of German citizenship of a Jew if he moved (or indeed was moved) to a foreign country. It was meant to facilitate the appropriation of wealth and property of said then ex-citizen without having to follow a legal procedure. Especially perfidious is the fact that this regulation specifically stated that if the loss of citizenship (and they talk about Verlust, loss) was due to the regulation, the weakth and property fell to the German state Lectonar (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"Lost" the citizenship, would not imply that indeed it was taken away from them. If I got to choose, then I'd say "stripped of their Polish/German citizenship." OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Annulment is a declaration/finding that <something> never really existed - as in the Catholic Church's annulment of marriages which they declare were never proper to begin with. On the other hand "revoke" does not deny/declare that it never existed, it simply cancels it with effect from <whenever>. So in this case, was it the intent of the law to declare that Jews were never really German citizens or does it acknowlege that it is cancelling their previously valid citizenship? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What do Hollywood stars do for accent reduction?

It seems to me that their method is the best I have seen (or heard), in terms of good accent. However, I wonder if their voice is post-processed or if they try several times in a lab until they got the best sounding version. The questions doesn't apply to Arnold Schwarzenegger, of course. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Dialogue is very often recorded in post-production using ADR, meaning the dialogue is recorded later over the film, so that the filming (production) process is focused on good acting rather than good dialogue. In an ADR session, it's very rare for the first take to be good enough, so each line will usually be tried at least 2 or 3 times (I think my personal record as a sound engineer was over 100). The first most important thing is sync, but accent and feeling are too. Using processing to change someone's accent or tone is very very frowned upon from what I know, processing in post-production is rather used to create the atmosphere of the space the actor is standing in (reverberation, delay, EQ in case he's in the next room, etc.) - filelakeshoe (t / c) 16:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Vocal coaching is big in Hollywood. If you can get a voice coach to help a Californian to do a passable English accent, you can get a voice coach to help an Austrian do a passable American accent. (Unless the actors don't want to bother.) Training to do vocal impressions also helps. I get the sense that one of the reasons Hugh Laurie (a Brit) did such a convincing American accent on House, MD is he was an experienced comedian with practice doing a number of vocal impressions. -- 71.35.98.207 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

See also dialect coach. Lesgles (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

endemic

When you say that a plant or animal is "endemic" to a particular region, does it mean that it exists (natively) only in that region? 86.169.184.182 (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise that would be indigenous to a place. Endemic is unique. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of Endemism says: "Endemism is the ecological state of being unique to a defined geographic location, such as an island, nation or other defined zone, or habitat type; organisms that are indigenous to a place are not endemic to it if they are also found elsewhere." (My emphasis) So endemic means "indigenous to only <this place>" Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It does if Wikipedia is correct. The thing is that plenty of definitions (e.g. in dictionaries) do not give that restriction. 86.169.184.182 (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Could a species be endemic but not indigenous if an original population elsewhere had died out? Rojomoke (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That is certainly the technical meaning I am familiar with, but I have also encountered the word used more loosely. Interestingly the OED says "Of plants or animals: Having their ordinary habitat in a certain country; opposed to exotic. Now used spec. of plants and animals that are indigenous only in a specified area.", i.e. this technical meaning is a narrowing of an older, less specific meaning. --ColinFine (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the clearest I've seen it explained... 86.169.184.182 (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I’m guessing largely due to lack of a better word for it, people have tended to use endemic specifically instead of indigenous to convey that it is not found elsewhere. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Unabomber of universities

If the Unabomber is so-named for sending bombs to university personnel, why is the term spelled with an a and not an i (Unibomber)?--Wikimedes (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

(UNiversity & A irline BOMber), he bombed not only universities....Lectonar (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

See Unabomber. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

For those too lazy to scan through the article; "Before Kaczynski's identity was known, the FBI used the title "UNABOM" (UNiversity & Airline BOMber) to refer to his case, which resulted in the media calling him the Unabomber." Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I see my scanning skills are lacking; there it is right in the last paragraph of the lead. Thanks for the answers.--Wikimedes (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries - I looked through twice before I found it! Alansplodge (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)