Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 December 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.

December 29

Little river cove with no flow

In this scene, the foreground water is a little cove: in the main course of the stream, the water's flowing toward the observer, but there's a small spot here in which the ground is lower than the water flow, so if you took away the water in the foreground, stream water would momentarily flow almost backward until it re-filled-up the cove. I always understood "backwater" to refer to such a place, but Backwater (river) says that the term refers only to alternate stream courses and to water that's been obstructed by higher-than-normal water levels at a stream's mouth, like the Ohio River blockage that caused File:Lickford Bridge.jpg to get a bathtub ring. So what do you call a dead-end part of a stream like this one? Apparently cove refers only to formations within lakes, oceans, etc., not streams. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I've adjusted the phrasing in the article to indicate that the examples were not intended to be exclusive. The OED has the sense "A piece of water without current, lying more or less parallel to a river, and fed from it at the lower end by a back-flow", which matches your scene, and is what I think of first when I read the term backwater. Dbfirs 08:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Languages that don't require pronunciations in their dictionaries

What languages have sufficiently phonetic spelling that (monolingual) dictionaries of those languages don't need to include pronunciations for each word? I would guess that Spanish would likely be a major example of that, but what are some others? Are there words for which Spanish dictionaries have to make exceptions and supply the pronunciation, perhaps because those words were borrowed directly from other languages using the pronunciation from the source language?--Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Two articles/keywords that might interest you (the articles do name some examples and also exceptions within those examples) are phonemic orthography and orthographic depth. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This would apply to languages that have not evolved phonetically since their writing system was developed, such as Sanskrit and Pali. Once you know how to pronounce the individual syllables, you can pronounce any word correctly.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I kid you not, but there are phonetic dictionaries even for languages such as Italian. But I believe the writing of the majority of European languages are quite phonemic (but not necessary phonetic, if this is possible at all), so no need to list them all; it is English and French which are exceptions. However, even in French writing-to-reading is a much easier task, so they rarely provide transcription, except for foreign words.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The reason for the phonetic pronunciations in Italian dictionaries, Lüboslóv, largely relates to the pronunciation of "e," and "o."

Usually at the start and middle of a word—and always at the end of a word—"e" is pronounced /e/ (about halfway between the "e" in the English word "wet," and the "i" in the English word "fish"). Sometimes, however—except at the end of a word—it is pronounced /ɛ/ (like the "e" in the English word "wet").

And, again, usually at the start and middle of a word—and always at the end of a word—"o" is pronounced /o/ (sort of like the "o" in the English word "hold," but without puckering one's lips at the end). But sometimes—except at the end of a word—it is pronounced /ɔ/ (like the "aw" in the English word "law").

There is positively no orthographic rule to this; it is purely lexically specified. For instance, pesca, with the /e/ sound, means "fish," and pesca, with the /ɛ/ sound means "peach." In fact, this is so unregulated that most reputable Italian dictionaries prescribe the sounds based on how Italian newscasters and other media personalities pronounce them.

I hope that this do clear things up for you.

Pine (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I know Italian enough to know there are open and closed "e" and "o" in it. However, they think they need to transcribe entire words in the dictionary. I read in another author - if I remember it right, it was Luciano Canepari - where he explained in details why Italian pronunciation is not so straightforward and obvious as it has always been thought, and how Italian educators fail to address these issues. Of course, these difficulties are nothing in comparison with English.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's also stress. For example ancora means "still, again" if you pronounce it /aŋˈkɔ.ra/, but "anchor" if you pronounce it /ˈaŋkɔra/. --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course, these difficulties are nothing in comparison with English.

No argument here!  :)

Among the major world languages, French, Portuguese, and especially Italian deviate somewhat from their respective orthographies. English, nevertheless, is truly in a class by itself!!!

I mean, just try to teach a nonnative speaker words such as choir, laughing, colonel, Mrs., victuals, Wednesday, or (in British English) lieutenant.

Pine (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Dutch is an example. The dictionary only gives pronunciation for loanwords that deviate from Dutch pronunciation rules (often of French or English origin). - Lindert (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone who has commented here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Polish is an example. I've seen many Polish monolingual dictionaries, but I've never seen (or heard of) one with phonetic transcriptions. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hungarian is another language with a practically unambiguous writing. As to the supplementary question for Spanish, there are some exception to the pronounciation, e.g. México is usually pronounced like Méjico rather than with a true x. And while reading Spanish is almost unambigous with a few exceptions like the one just mentioned, writing a word that you can pronounce is not - b and v have basically the same phonetic value, and diacritics/accents are used, among other uses, to distinguish words with different meanings but identical pronounciation. -- 149.14.152.210 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, though, in Spanish j, x, and—before e and i—g are ALL pronounced /x/ (sort or like the "h" in English, but deeper in the throat). Also, s, z, and—before e and i—c are ALL pronounced /s/, and (as you yourself said) b and v are BOTH pronounced /b/.

I'd also like to add that due to centuries of phonetic drift, y and ll are also now both almost always pronounced /j/ (like the "y" in the English word "year"). In fact, wherever you go in the Spanish-speaking world, you likely will not notice any difference whatsoever between haya and halla, cayó and calló, or Maya and malla. Only in Bolivia, parts of northern Chile and eastern Peru, and a handful of small villages in Spain's Castille region is ll still pronounced /ʎ/ (sort of like the "lli" in the English word "million"). Also, in the River Plate region of Argentina and Uruguay—at least in informal settings—one will often hear ll pronounced /ʒ/ (like the "s" in the English word "measure") although I hear that it has now started trending more toward /ʃ/ (like the "sh" in the English word "shop").

All the same, Spanish orthography remains, by far, the easiest and least sophisticated among the major world languages. And once somebody learns the rules of pronunciation, he can correctly speak every word in the language upon reading it (homophones such as ciervo and siervo notwithstanding). Pine (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

For Italian, ⟨z⟩ is also ambiguous: mezzo has two different meanings depending on whether it's pronounced /ˈmɛddzo/ or /ˈmettso/. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 16:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Homographs and word-repetition

Hello, again!

The English language is notorious for having many more words (than other major languages) that sound alike, are spelled alike, or both, that have very different meanings. And this often annoys me when I try to write in a way that will keep my reader's attention.

For instance, to be, in the passive voice, often seems to stretch the language beyond what it can manage.

e.g.

"John will be screening the movie this afternoon." (active)

"The movie will be being screened this afternoon." (passive)

I myself tend to get around this by substituting different copulative verbs for to be.

e.g.

"The movie will end up getting screened this afternoon.

But other times, such as with the perfect-aspect forms of must, this is more difficult to avert.

e.g.

"He would have had to do it."

"I had had to do it."

In these cases, I feel compelled to substitute other periphrases.

e.g.

"He would have been obligated to do it."

"I had no choice but to have done it."

And in some cases, such as those involving pronouns and conjunctions, this gets even uglier!

e.g.

"The result that (subordinating conjunction) that (demonstrative pronoun) process achieved seemed pointless."

In these cases, my "corrections" seem almost inhuman and robot-like.

"The result achieved by said process seemed pointless."

I wonder, though, am I being too pedantic in my opinion?

Are constructions such as "the movie will be being screened," "he would have had to do it," or "The result that that process achieved seemed pointless" really bad English? In informal settings (or even formal ones) would it now be considered all right to just write homographs in a chain?

Thank you. Pine (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

All three of the sentences in your penultimate paragraph are perfectly good English.

• In colloquial speech the first "that" would commonly be dropped to give "The result that process achieved seemed pointless", with the omitted' "that" being understood. This is the case even when there is no second "that" – one would commonly say "The result the process achieved . . ." or "The result this process achieved . . ." However, strict grammar requires the first "that", so "The result that that process achieved seemed pointless" (or ". . . that the . . ." or ". . . that this . . .") would be correct and expected in formal written English.
• "[H]e would have had to do it" is correct and usual.
• "[T]he movie will be being screened [this afternoon]" is correct, but has a subtly different meaning (for this BrE native speaker) to the more usual "the movie will be screened [this afternoon]." The latter is a simple statement; the former, with its reference to a continuing process ("be being screened") rather than a singular event ("be screened") carries a hint that the screening will be going on at the same time as other (unspecified) events.

In general, (British) English has no issue with "that that", "had had", "be being" and similar paired homonyms or near-homonyms, as the meaning is always clear from context. Whether or not you choose to retain or avoid them is a matter of the writing style and social register you wish to convey. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Further to the above, I wonder if you're familiar with the exercise to correctly punctate the following to create a correctly grammatical passage?

John where Frank had had had had had had had had had had had the teacher's approval.

Doubtless you or another editor can supply the answer. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting discussion here. “[T]he movie will be being screened [this afternoon].” I have never heard this in American English, and I never would have known it is correct until you said so. Most of the time, I’d just omit the “being” word. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes; one would rarely hear it (in BrE either) because it carries a shade of meaning that one would rarely need to express, but grammatically it's quite correct. It can be instructive to look at an old-style Latin primer (that is, an introductory textbook of Latin grammar), where in order to explain the meaning of Latin word inflections, unusual but entirely correct English grammatical constructions are necessarily employed. (I myself had to study Latin at school (in the late 60s to early 70s), and indeed learned much of the more "advanced" aspects of English grammar by doing so – which probably is evident from my prose style! Nowadays English grammar is generally analysed in rather different terms.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this correct: “Water will be being drunk by Michael”? (answer: "Syntactically, yes, the sentence is correct. It's the Passive Future Progressive"). Agree that this construction is rather unusual in BrE, but it wouldn't sound odd either. Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

See Had had had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.221.49 (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Anything in English can be made sensical with the right context. If water being drunk is a nightclub act, then “Water will be being drunk by Michael Friday, Saturday, and Sunday evenings and on weekend matinees” would make perfect sense. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That's possible, but there's a more mundane application, where the "being" indicates that a process is happening at the same time as something else. Drinking by Michael is a silly example. Here's a better one: "The dining room will be being renovated at the time your convention takes place and the hotel has made arrangements for your meals elsewhere." This indicates that the renovation is an ongoing process during the convention. Compare with: "The dining room will be renovated at the time your convention takes place...", which is ambiguous until the second part of the sentence follows. It might indicate that the renovation work has finished by the time the convention starts. Akld guy (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree wholeheartedly, Akld guy and Medeis; just the same, wouldn't it seem somewhat neater and less eye-glazing to write “Water will be getting drunk by Michael Friday, Saturday, and Sunday evenings and on weekend matinees” and "The dining room will end up becoming renovated at the time your convention takes place and the hotel has made arrangements for your meals elsewhere." Or am I just nit-picking, here? Pine (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• "Water will be drunk" and "the dining room will be under renovation" are normal concise unmarked constructions. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• "end up becoming renovated" is absurd. "will be under renovation" per User:Medeis is probably the preferred construction, but we weren't asked for alternatives. We were asked to pass judgement on a stated phrasing, and "will be being renovated" is entirely acceptable in Brit/Commonwealth English. Akld guy (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it could end up becoming renovated if the intentionally destructive act of tearing up the carpet has the paradoxical effect of revealing a finely finished hardwood-paneled floor. This happened to my parents who tore up a ghastly lime green rug, intending to replace it, and finding it overlay a wonderfully done oak floor, which needed only a light sanding and a coat of stain. Realtors have commented on its attractiveness and value. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Please notice that some repetitions are inevitable: "He gave her her book " (unless we insist on "He gave her book to her"), "The fishכמבוארrmen fish fish ", "His will will be respected ", "He likes likes ", and the like.
• The longest natural repetition I can think of, using no quotation marks (such as those needed in the Had had had sentence) and no proper nouns (such as those used in the Buffalo buffalo sentence), involves four successive identical words: "The house he had had had had a red roof ".
• Here is a somewhat surprising repetition I discovered some years ago, with a double which (without any quotation marks and any proper nouns), even though its (definitely grammatical) syntax is a bit awkward: "The country, the mountains of which - which are very high - are also very snowy, is Nepal ". However, we can avoid the repetition, by rephrasing it as follows: "The country, of which the mountains - which are very high - are also very snowy, is Nepal "; Or maybe even better (without any "which" and any "that"): "The country, whose mountains - being very high - are also very snowy, is Nepal ". HOTmag (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

He returned her book. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

But that would leave ambiguity: "He returned her book [to the library]." The second "her" (or an equivalent wording) is required to make the particular scenario clear. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.253 (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

We could always rewrite it so he keeps the book, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

They mean, the first "her" in my original sentence provides some necessary information not provided by your sentence. HOTmag (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hulk hears him or her. It's a snippet, though; it's bound to be vague. Out in the wild, it'd have context to explain what needs explaining (who they are, what the book's about, whether she wanted it back), and this would allow avoiding the doubles. Not that doubles should be avoided, mind you. But it's always possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking for linguistic terms

The -ow in “cow” is made with the tongue spreading out very quickly and widely in American English. If the tongue is fixed into a ball-like shape, then it no longer sounds like a “cow” in American English.

The -o in “dot” is made by opening the mouth and saying “aaahhh”, but this “ah” is shortened by the two consonants on both sides. The t is short. If you try to elongate the t, then it just sounds like wind rushing out of your mouth, no t sound.

English has no growling/roaring/purring sounds. Though, some English speakers can “purr” when they pronounce the r in purr to mimic a cat’s purr.

How would linguists describe these sounds? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Phonemes would be one such analysis. Note that you say "English" has no growling/roaring/purring sounds", but the "rolled R or Alveolar trill is normal in, for example, Scots English. I myself cannot produce this (having not learned it in childhood) so when I lived in Scotland I had to substitute an Uvular trill. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought a responder would use fancy linguistic terms like “uvular trill”. I remember a website that mentions “affricates”, which mean “no friction [against the teeth]”. Okay, so there are uvular trill, alveolar trill, affricates... anything else? Words to describe tongue movements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Does our List of consonants and Table of vowels help? See also International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects. According to Wikt:cow the IPA is /kaʊ̯/ - you can do the rest. Alansplodge (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

... and, of course, though dot is pronounced /dɑt/ in Ohio, my guess would be that when the doctor asks you to say aaaahhh, you say something more like [äːː]. Dot would be /dɒt/ in British English, whereas /dät/ (with a shortened aahh) would mean "that" in Scouse, African-American, and Low German. In addition to Alan's excellent links above, we also have IPA vowel chart with audio that might be of interest. Dbfirs 19:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The "ow" in "cow" /aʊ/ is a diphthong, a sound which by definition requires the tongue to move from one position to another within the same syllable. While "ow" is a phoneme of English, the other sounds are not. So while people may have the skill to pronounce them, they do not get used in standard words.

The only proper answer to "anything else? Words to describe tongue movements?" is read phonology and the associated links, and don't expect us to teach you an open-ended question the answer to which would be a doctorate in linguistics. I am sure the Ohio State library has tons of books, you can also check with their reference librarian. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Anybody know how to lip read?

Is someone available to lip read a few sentences from a video? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.187.192 (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Where is the video? SSS (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Somewhere near Basildon, Essex, apparently. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Drawing a Ѯ

The letter Ѯ is very difficult to draw. Any simplifications that are sometimes used?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry. You don't have to draw it. This letter has been eliminated from the Russian alphabet by the 18th century. [1] Unfortunately, I can't find any resources on actually drawing this letter. Based on the video, the font style of the letter makes it appear that the letter has 2 brushstrokes. The top u shape thing, the bottom 3-curve thing. SSS (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A man went to his doctor, and said, "Doc, when I bang my head with my fist like this it hurts. What should I do?" The doctor replied, "Stop banging your head with your fist."

Seriously, what's so hard about a tailed 3 with a haček, and in what context is this the most annoying of your problems? Are you not either being paid or graded for this? μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The OP may be concerned about brushstroke order. Maybe he's wondering whether he should write the haček first and tailed 3 last, or vice versa. When I was a child, cursive writing was taught by the Palmer method, which greatly influenced my handwriting and other people's handwritings today. I often have to go through the motions of the brushstrokes when I want to figure out what someone has written in cursive. In East Asian cultures, brushstroke order is very important. SSS (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The letter has had two forms. The early one was written in a zigzag way like ž over ʒ, the middle line being merged. You draw a line from left to right, then right to left 45 degrees, then again left to right, then again right to left 45 degrees, then draw the final small ɔ-like tail. In other words, you draw two 7, one under another, then make a half-ring. Finally you make a check mark v over the letter.

The second and modern rounded form has been developed later. You draw number 3, but make a small left-to-right tail, then make a check mark v over the letter. Or another way: draw ∩, then 2 under, then v over. In speedwriting they could really draw a long zigzag with one stroke. See more variants here[2][3].--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)