Language desk
< December 29	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 30

Pronounciation of the Irish or Scottish Gaelic word "Cailleach"?

Would an Irish or a Scottish Gaelic speaker be kind enough to explain to me how the word Cailleach might be pronounced by an English speaker? Thank you very much for your time. --Brasswatchman 04:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, Kylie is a homophone. --Diderot 05:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, rendering the pronunciation (also) in IPA may be helpful. A Google search gives all of the following: cal'yach, call-y'ack, callee, cawl-yatch, coy-luck, coy-luk, k-eye-ach, kaely'-lyach kahl-yuhkh, kal-yaCH, kal-yuck, kale-yaCH, kall-ee-ack, kall-yuk, kayak, kye-luhkh, kyle-yeukh. For several of these one would have to ask: "Please be kind enough to explain how that might be pronounced." --Lambiam ^Talk 05:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Irish, the IPA pronunciation would be /kaːlʲəx/. Not sure about Scottish Gaelic. --Lim e tom 11:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I'm reading the IPA guide right, that would be close to kaa-leh-ach when transcribed into English. Thank you very much. I'll have to update that page at some point. --Brasswatchman 17:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. The ʲ is a y-glide, so it would be more like CAL-yuch (two syllables, not three). --Nicknack009 21:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Brasswatchman: When you update the page, please use IPA instead of ach or yuch, in conformance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation). --Lambiam ^Talk 22:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Being formally unfamilar with the IPA, I wanted to make sure I had transliterated the word correctly. Anyway, the article's been updated. --Brasswatchman 11:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English language expressions

How do I use Wikipedia to find out the meaning and origins of expressions such as living high on the hog? Thank you for your time.

24.148.79.97 08:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By posing it as a question at the Reference desk :) The expression means: "to maintain a luxurious (and presumably expensive) lifestyle". In general, you could also try our Wiktionary sister project. For this specific expression, see Wiktionary:high on the hog. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is "Administrative Streamlining" and "An Continuing Gap"?

"Administrative streamlining" means making management more efficient, but is frequently used as a euphemism for firing large numbers of managers. StuRat 15:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can also be a euphemism for firing large numbers of secretaries. --Charlene 23:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, based on the "Administrative Assistant" euphemism for secretaries. StuRat 15:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A continuing gap" isn't an expression at all, it just means that some difference remains between two things after a long time. For example, "a continuing gap in technology has been observed between the rich and poor". StuRat 15:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Meanings and Origins at The Phrase Finder. I just found this, so I don't know if it's very good or not. --Kjoonlee 14:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Sign Language

What's the history of British Sign Language? Is it a natural language or was it constructed? — Matt Crypto 13:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constructed. There is a little more information at history of sign language. The article could use some expansion.--Shantavira 14:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article History of sign language only mentions Old French Sign Language as "developed", although modelled after the natural sign language(s) already in use. This article on the history of BSL gives no hint of the language being constructed. Same here. My impression is that it is a natural language. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be elements that have been constructed, but basically it is a natural language. History of sign language is seriously deficient in that it could be read as implying that sign languages are supplementary to spoken languages and based upon them, whereas in fact modern sign languages as used by deaf people in different countries are full, independent languages with their own grammars. Furthermore the grammars of sign languages are fundamentally different from those of spoken languages, since the languages can be spatial and non-linear as well as temporal. --ColinFine 18:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word Unreached

is there really not a word called "Unreached" which is the opposite of reach ??

it must be, it is the antonym of 'reached' and also comes from the word "unreachable", no ???

why does my 'computer-correction' say that "unreached" is not a real word ?

which word am i to use instead then ?

here is the end of the sentence i wrote: "...seeking whatever dark corner still remaining unreached by the light."

It is very important that this sentence is not changed but remains the same. if there is no word called *unreached*, then i must simply find another word to fill in its stead, but i cannot change the sentence and build it in another way. i cannot, because its an important sentence in my writing and must be wrote like that.

Krikkert7 14:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)krikkert[reply]

One definition. — Matt Crypto 14:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the OED. Its meaning is obvious so I would have no qualms about using it. Computer spell-checkers are rather limited.--Shantavira 14:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are abridged too far. StuRat 15:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original poster: I think you want "untouched by light". Vranak

I don't. "Unreached by light" has a connotation missing from "untouched by light", that the light is somehow having to work to reach the corner.

Original poster: modern dictionaries record the language, they don't determine it. Even if 'unreached' were not in any dictionary, its meaning is perfectly clear and you may perfectly well use it.

Note, however, that "unreached" and "unreachable" are formed from "reached" and "reachable" respectively (adjectives). There is no word "unreach", but this is not because of what dictionaries say, but because 'reaching' is not among the kind of concepts to which the meaning of 'un-' attaches. --ColinFine 18:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarch's "De Viris Illustribus"

Petrarch's "De Viris Illustribus" starts with Romulus and goes to Titus. As far as I know, presently this list of 24 Lives is in Latin only and NOT in English. It starts with Romuus. Is there a software program that would translate this into English (even if a rough translation)? Does anybody know of an English translation of these Lives? --Doug 20:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarch's Latin prefaces to this work have been translated into English (in History and Theory, Vol. 13, No. 2., May 1974, pp. 132-144, available online by subscription, for which try your nearest university library). At least some of the lives have been translated into Italian (Francesco Petrarca, Prose, ed. G. Martellotti et al., Milan and Naples: R. Ricciardi, 1955). Otherwise, no dice. Wareh 01:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I also did NOT have any luck finding an English translation, even in a library. Maybe later. Do you know if software exists that gives even a "rough" translation from Latin or Italian? Perhaps you can help me on the Petrarch title below. --Doug 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

language

What is correct ? do I fill IN a form or do I fill one OUT, ?

Offhand, filling out a form suggests the need to complete that form. Filling in would more likely mean something less than that, but ... having said that, I'll add that 'filling in a form' might actually be incorrect, technically. Wolfgangus 01:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In North America you fill out the form by filling in the blanks. In Britain at least some people would fill up the form. --Anonymous, December 31, still 2006, 01:43 (UTC)

Logically, 'filling out' a form does not make sense, but is however used in North America. In the UK, we use 'fill in'. In Britain, sometimes we use the phrase 'fill out' to mean 'make bigger', as in clothing or bedding. CCLemon-安部さん万歳！ 02:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty years ago the only phrase I heard in the UK was 'filling in a form', but then I encountered a distinctively American phrase 'filling out a form'. The latter has become more common in the ensuing years, and I would guess that it has now overtaken 'filling in' in the UK. I still say 'fill in a form'.

CCLemon: how does 'filling out a form' not make sense? And in any case what has logic to do with language? --ColinFine 18:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]