Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 May 2

Language desk
< May 1	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 3 >

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 2

-ton ending

I'll be grateful to know where this ending (in hundreds of names like Newton, Dalton, Burton, Charlton, Middleton, etc.) has come from and what does it mean. Many thanks in advance.--Omidinist (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it just means "town", i.e. "Middleton" is the "Middle Town", "Newton" is the "New Town". I'll look it up to find something definitive. But I've always assumed it just means "town". --Jayron32 05:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

See List of generic forms in place names in the United Kingdom and Ireland. -ton (and its relative -tun) comes from an Old English word meaning "enclosure" or "estate". Which is the exact same origin as the word town. So yeah, -ton and town come from the same origin. --Jayron32 05:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. But all the examples mentioned in that list of generic forms are real towns. Can it be generalized to include people's names like Burton? --Omidinist (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Surnames came about a lot later than place-names. Mr Burton was presumably descended from someone who was from a place called Burton, eg Burton on Trent. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, since Burton is a real town as well. Without a specific source to back me up, I would guess that all English names ending -ton are derived originally from a real place. For instance, from your list: Newton, Dalton, Charlton and Middleton. Sometimes the place referred to might have long gone - such as Winton, meaning 'the enclosure belonging to Winne'. By the way, the reason you find names often referring to small villages and less often big cities (Newton & Middleton are more common surnames than London or York) is that they were used by people who moved away from the place they were named after - so someone from Newtown moving to London would become known as John Newton, to distinguish him from John Burton. People from the cities either stayed put more, or when they moved out there would be more than one 'Jack from London' so they would become known in a different way - Jack Farmer and Jack Cooper, for instance. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

There are also the -toun variants: Hopetoun, Dennistoun, Gordonstoun, etc. No Lounytoun, though. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

o rly? - filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The "-toun" suffix is a Scottish variant. You won't see it in England (somebody's going to prove me wrong now!). Alansplodge (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried hunting up a counterexample, but it looks like places in the Borders (on both sides) more often end it -town than -ton or -toun: Abbeytown, Fletchertown, Longtown, Wigtown (which is on the Scottish side, and not to be confused with Wigton on the English side)... AlexTiefling (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that "ton" in an English place name does not mean "town" in the modern sense, although they have the same root as Jayron says above. "The commonest Saxon place names are those ending in -ton or -ham. These two words are derived from the Old English (O.E.) words Tun, meaning fenced area or enclosure, and Ham, meaning village, estate or home (or sometimes the O.E. word Hamm, meaning meadow). Often these were joined with the name of the person who founded the settlement, or an important person who lived there, such as Ceatta's Ham (Chatham) - the home of 'Ceatta '. Other times the name described some feature of the area, such as Brom Tun (Brompton) -'the enclosure where broom grew'. These are not the only Saxon place name elements to survive today, there are literally hundreds."[1] Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Great! Well-rounded. Many thanks. Omidinist (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Basic grammar for non-native learner

Can somebody please name a few? Raymond Murphy, I know. Thomson & Martinet is too cramped with details. What else are there? --117.253.198.143 (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I recommend Rediscover Grammar by David Crystal. ISBN 978-0582848627.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not a basic grammar book for non-native learners. It's for native speakers or very advanced non-native learners. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Murphy books (the red one and the blue one) are more than you will need to get you to the point where you can start comfortably reading actual texts. They're the best, and you don't really need anything else.

The only other book I use with my highly motivated students who want to make fast progress is a drill book that comes, unfortunately, only in Polish. Drill work requires a good partner, though, and a VERY high level of motivation (and LOTS AND LOTS of time per week). Most students absolutely hate it. There might be a drill book that comes in your language.

Remember that learning vocabulary is MUCH more important and time consuming than learning grammar, and the bulk of your time should be spent learning vocabulary, preferably by reading contemporary fiction and looking up ALL the words you don't know. English grammar is simple enough that you will pick up the fine points simply by reading a lot, and asking a qualified teacher when you get stuck.

Students often waste years of their lives obsessing about grammar while ignoring vocabulary building and reading, so get reading as soon as possible, and read as if your life depends on it.

Regarding your post, it's "crammed", not "cramped". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A space can be cramped if too many people or things are crammed into it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Moreover, as a native English speaker, I would personally consider a book "crammed" with details to be a good thing - the opposite being taken to be a book that is empty of information, or has too few details for its length. ("Too crammed" would be a bad thing, though - as that's what "too" means: overly much to the point of being unwanted.) On the other hand, a book which is "cramped" with details carries a strictly pejorative connotation - it's not just that there are a lot off details, it is that the number of details is hindering effective use of the book. -- 71.35.109.118 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Advanced Grammar in Use is a very good tool for learners of English who've moved beyond the very very basic stuff. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all. Dominus Vobisdu's reply reassures me of Raymond Murphy. I was wondering if anything more innovative appeared after Murphy. Regarding your stressing vocabulary, online search indicates that Longman Activator series is being discussed a lot. It's pricey, though. Any opinion on it? Also, thanks for correcting me on 'cramped'. --117.253.198.143 (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Renaming of categories relating to the Hwaseong Fortress at the Wikimedia Commons

Hi, I have a query which could do with assistance from a Korean speaker. An editor has asked for a number of categories relating to Hwaseong Fortress to be renamed at "commons:User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands", but I'm not sure whether the proposed category names are appropriate. Here they are:

• East-1 Sentry Post (Hwaseong Fortress) → Dong1 Sentry Post (Hwaseong Fortress)
• East-2 Sentry Post (Hwaseong Fortress) → Dong2 Sentry Post (Hwaseong Fortress)
• Dongichi (Hwaseong Fortress) → Dong2-chi (Hwaseong Fortress)‎
• Dongilchi (Hwaseong Fortress) → Dong1-chi (Hwaseong Fortress)‎
• Dongsamchi (Hwaseong Fortress) → Dong3-chi (Hwaseong Fortress)‎
• Seoichi (Hwaseong Fortress) → Seo2-chi (Hwaseong Fortress)‎
• Seoilchi (Hwaseong Fortress) → Seo1-chi (Hwaseong Fortress)‎
• Seosamchi → Seo3-chi‎ (Hwaseong Fortress)

Is it common in Korean to write terms like Dong1 and Seo2? Would terms like Dongilchi or Seoichi be better? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. The point is not if this or that specific name is appropriate. We have a huge quantity of medias about Hwaseong Fortress, and a lot of sub-categories is needed. The point is to fix the name of *all* of these categories. Here are some items:

• (Hwaseong Fortress) should be appended to each name (seosamchi is a common name, and would refer to all Turrets in the world that are at the third place on the East wall of their respective Fortress)
• Quite all of the time, the Revised Romanized Korean name should be used since most of the users are using these names.
• In the special case of the *poru* structures, we have to deal with the fact that the technical terms 砲樓 (Pào lóu= fortified tower, blockhouse) and 鋪樓 (pù lóu= platform) have been alphabetized with the same Hangul 포루, generating several naming collisions (e.g. 서포루). In order to enforce an efficient categorization, and in accordance with the authoritative Hwaseong Seongyeok Uigwe (1801), I have proposed to alphabetize 砲樓 as 'GunTower' and 鋪樓 as 'SentryPost'. See the Hwaseong Fortress page for more details.
• Due to the number of sub-categories, an uniform spelling is needed: one can not memorize all of them, their names should be easy to guess.
  • If one decides 'no spaces', this should be uniform, implying not only 'Seosamchi (Hwaseong Fortress)' but also 'Dongnamgongsimdon (Hwaseong Fortress)'.
  • If one decides 'hyphen', this should be uniform, implying not only 'Seo3-chi (Hwaseong Fortress)‎' but also 'Dong1-SentryPost (Hwaseong Fortress)‎'
  • If one decides 'spaces', this should be uniform, etc.

Once again, the point is to decide, in one move, how to name *all* of the 'Hwaseong Fortress' subcategories. In this respect, 'Dong1 Sentry Post (Hwaseong Fortress)' would be totally weird, and was not my proposal. Pldx1 (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that "[t]he point is not if this or that specific name is appropriate". Category names should be assigned based on the usual way terms are used in the language in question. We should not be making up non-standard naming methods. That is why I am asking on this page what the standard method for naming places is in the Korean language. If it is usual in Korean not to put spaces in the names of places (e.g., "Dongnamgongsimdon"), then we should use that method. I found terms which you used at the Wikimedia Commons like "Dong1-SentryPost" rather strange, because in English we generally do not combine words and numbers together ("Dong1"), and we certainly do not combine more than one word together (like "SentryPost"). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)