Language desk
< April 12	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 14 >

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 13

Ex-wife or widow?

Scenario: Henry marries Catherine. Henry divorces Catherine, then dies shortly thereafter. Catherine attends Henry's funeral. Do those present refer to her as "Henry's ex-wife" or "Henry's widow"? Either? Neither? grendel|khan 02:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She had ceased to be his wife before he died, so she would never be his widow, no matter how long he lived after their divorce. She is his ex-wife, from the moment of their divorce until the day of her own death. Only the wife to whom he was married at the time of his death (if he had such another wife) would be his widow. JackofOz 03:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Often if the man has remarried or has a long-term partner, the ex-wife is called the "former wife", implying there's someone else. --Charlene 00:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or "previous wife", which is even less ambiguous. Bhumiya (said/done) 01:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Catherine, the woman to whom Henry was previously married, but then divorced shortly before he died" which is long-winded but even less ambiguous. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guide for Phonetic spelling? Easiest way to learn?

I decided to look quickly at a article about Siméon Denis Poisson to look at and one thing that struck me was I was told how to pronounce his name by the article, /simeõ d̪əni pwasõ/, but I have no idea how to read that. Where would one go to know how to quickly sound out something like that, or must I spend hours upon hours trying to figure out the IPA (something I'll probably never do alone because from glancing over the article, it would take multiple days to even get an intuition about some of the sounds described). Should I try to find some class somewhere that teaches this? (Not in college BTW). Where? How? How much time and energy must be put into it? I don't need to be able to pronounce every language in the world, just probably a few European languages and English. Maybe I can some African and Asian phonemes later. And I don't even necessarily want to commit all the phonemes to memory, I'd just like to be able to refer to a chart when I need it and possibly learn as I go. I don't know how to approach this. Where to begin? Especially since it seems I'm learning 50 other things at the same time. Sigh.

Root⁴(one) 03:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by looking at Vowel and Consonant, looking at the charts, and clicking on the symbols you don't recognize. (Most of the symbols that look familiar will also sound familiar to European people.) The links will lead to articles such as Mid central vowel and Voiced dental plosive. Most of the time these articles will have audio samples that you can listen to.

BTW, the tilde diacritics over the o indicate nasal vowels and the bridge diacritic under the d indicates a dental consonant. --Kjoonlee 04:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since IPA is very precise, is there some reason it can't be machine-translated into a sound file? That way all of our IPA listings could be clickable oggs, not just the ones someone has recorded. --TotoBaggins 06:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPA isn't actually all that precise. Especially the vowel symbols cover a very wide range of sounds. —An gr 06:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the pronunciation of French and German text, as well as "Latin American" Spanish and several varieties of English, you can try the AT&T Text-to-Speech Demo page, which usually does a good job. --Lambiam ^Talk 10:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vowel page looks like a good starting point, and that TTS link is very helpful. Thanks. Root⁴(one) 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing would be for Wikipedia to use spelling pronunciation or an American dictionary's pronunciation system in addition to IPA, but, in an example of the low priority put on user-friendliness by too many editors, attempts to use alternatives to the IPA have drawn objections from pronunciation pedants. -- Mwalcoff 01:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common word - missing?

If "nor" (not or) is the negative of "or" and it is regularly used in common spoken and written language what is the word regularly used in common spoken and written language that is the negative of "and"? I know that in logic it is "nand" but I've never seen this used even rarely in common spoken or written language and every spell checker I've used does not contain it in the dictionary. Nebraska Bob 03:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably no single answer to this. Compare "I have 3 apples and 2 oranges" with "I have 3 apples but no oranges". Or, "I have a book and a pen" with "I have a book but not a pen". JackofOz 04:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English language provides a rather poor approximation of mathematical logic. Fortunately, we have an article on this (by a rather brilliant author): Boolean_logic#English_language_use_of_Boolean_terms. Unfortunately, that article does not specifically address the lack of NAND in English. StuRat 07:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin had a specific word for "and not" (nec, from ne-que) -- and also separate words for "disjunctive or" (vel) and "exclusive or" (aut) -- but I would wonder if any language would have a specific word for "not and"... AnonMoos 07:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Sheffer stroke, the common language equivalent of nand is "not both...and...". It gives the example "We will surely die if we do not have both food and water", translated into logicalese as "We will surely die if we have food nand water". I don't know if any natural language has a word that corresponds exactly to "nand" in that sentence (i.e. used without negating the verb). Latin nec isn't it, I don't think; despite its etymology as ne + que, it really means "nor", and doubled means "neither... nor...". In Latin, si habemus nec cibum nec aquam would mean "if we have neither food nor water" (i.e. one or the other would suffice, rather than meaning both are necessary). —An gr 10:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "We will surely die if we lack either food or water" ? StuRat 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That implies that one or the other is sufficient, which isn't the case. Both are necessary for survival. If we only have food but no water, or only water but no food, we will still die. —An gr 14:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Either...or" means "one or the other", thus we will die if we lack "one or the other". Had we said "We will surely die if we lack both food and water" , then you would be correct. StuRat 15:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original quote from Sheffer stroke is "We will surely die if we do not have both food and water", which clearly means we will die if we lack both. Your version, and the Latin, both mean we will die if we lack only one or the other. That's why neque doesn't mean nand. —An gr 15:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, we will die if we lack either one or the other, or both, although death from dehydration is much quicker than death from starvation. "Or" is ambiguous in English, sometimes meaning logical OR and sometimes logical XOR . However, the English "or" is generally taken to mean logical OR, unless qualified like so: "We will surely die if we lack either food or water, but not both" (see the article I cited previously). StuRat 15:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading a book or essay by one of the pioneers of computing (couldn't say who - it was forty-odd years ago) where the author bitterly decried the neologism 'nand', and insisted on referring to 'not and' gates. 'Nor' was a word, 'nand' wasn't, in his view. --ColinFine 11:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then where you would say "We need [to bring] food or water." or "We need [to bring] neither food nor water." or "We need [to bring] food and water." you would not say "We need [to bring] food not and water." (logically meaning to bring nothing or to bring food and not water or to bring water and not food but not both food and water. Is "not both" then the closest we can come to a common word or phrase for "nand"? Nebraska Bob 07:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to make the three cases completely unambiguous, in English, is to say "we need both food and water, as neither alone is sufficient", "we need food or water, or both" or "we need food or water, but not both". StuRat 17:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese help

How do I say words to the effect of "X school is located in X suburb of X town"? Also, how do I say "X school caters to year levels 7 to 12" (using the Japanese equivalent of grades 7 to 12)? Also, if X school goes from grades 7 to 12, do I still call it a high school or do I call it something else? --Candy-Panda 11:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Japanese doesn't go that far, but if you find a suitable school in Category:High schools in Japan that has an interwiki link to ja:, you may be able to pick up the right phrases. For example Kawawa High School (chosen at random) links to ja:神奈川県立川和高等学校, and you may be able to pick up bits of that, for example 川和町 looks like 'Kawawa-cho' (Kawawa town) to me. Good luck --ColinFine 21:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I think I still some help though. ^^; --124.180.194.47 04:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"X school is located in X suburb of X town"　＝　X学校はX市のX町にあります。

"X school caters to year levels 7 to 12" ＝　〇年生から〇年生までの生徒を受けます。 In Japan, the school grades are 1-6 for elementary (ages 6 to 12), 1-3 for junior high (ages 12 to 15) and 1-3 for high school (ages 16 to 18). Hope this helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Givnan (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As said above, you can say "X school is located in Y suburb of Z town" like "X school は Z town の Y suburb にあります" in Japanese.
An educational system integrating junior and senior high school is called 中高一貫教育 chūkō ikkan kyōiku, and so the most effective way for asking if X school caters to year levels 7 to 12 would be "X school は中高一貫教育を行っていますか？" X school wa chūkō ikkan kyōiku o okonatte imasuka?, or simply "X school は中高一貫教育ですか？" X school wa chūkō ikkan kyōiku desuka?.
There are two possible forms of a chūkō ikkan kyōiku school; officially separated, practically consecutive junior and high school, and formally integrated one school. The former should be referred as distinct schools, and the latter, introduced into Japan in 1998 and not so widely known for now, is called a "secondary school," 中等教育学校 chūtō kyōiku gakkō. This link [1] might be useful to you.

Cheers! --Tohru 03:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone! So, my school, which goes from year levels 7-12 in one single school, would be reffered to as a 中等教育学校? --Candy-Panda 04:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you'd like to tell your Japanese friend(s) "Hej, I'm going to this kind of school and I'm 9th grade right now..." or like. I mean, you're NOT going to a Japanese school of this kind (but an Australian one, perhaps), right? In that case it might be better using "中高一貫校" which is more famous and probably more easily understandable for many Japanese; ja:中等教育学校 seems to refer to a Japanese school system and it doesn't seem to be a general term... thus I think it's not so suitable for Australian or wherever. --marsian 07:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stressing of prepositions in English announcements: unique to English?

There's a curious phenomenon, common among announcers in England - media newsreaders, weather forecasters, train staff and so on - that makes them want to stress exactly the least important words in a sentence.

For instance, the guard on my train yesterday said, "We will shortly BE arriving AT Peterborough".

I can find little stuff on the Internet about it (though there is an interesting Times Online column on the subject by former TV newsreader Frances Coverdale from 2005) but I'd be curious to know: 1. If anyone can suggest why it's so widespread 2. If it's so prevalent in other English-speaking countries 3. If it happens in other languages

I'm told it is sometimes referred to as 'plonking', a term evidently coined by reviewer Clive James in 1981.

Thank you FOR any help you might be able TO provide...

RA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I can't say that I've encountered this in the United States. Marco polo 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't? I certainly did when I lived in the U.S. I noticed it especially at the end of an airplane flight: "We know you have a choice OF airline, so we'd like to thank you FOR choosing Continental (or whoever)". Used to drive me nuts. —An gr 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been Air Canada. "Mgrwrgr qwrvr gmrrrmrrm...." And that's the English. --Charlene 04:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very common in Australia, particularly among TV reporters (not so much newsreaders, who tend to be a little more mature and polished). They also stress the wrong syllables within a word ("serə-MOWNY" instead of "SERə-məny", "hurrə-CANE" instead of "HURRI-cən", "re-SPITE" instead of "RE-spət", and so on). I've always assumed it was sheer ignorance, but maybe that's a little unfair. They only know what they're taught. JackofOz 15:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I fly fairly often, I have not noticed the form of diction that Angr mentions, though I have no doubt that this occurred on Angr's flights. Thinking about it a bit more, I have a conjecture: The instances that people have mentioned all involve professional announcers of one kind or another. I suspect that when you read the same announcement three hundred times, or when you spend your working hours reading from a teleprompter, you might tend to skip or slur unstressed words. Perhaps it is to counteract this tendency and to make sure that EACH word IS fully pronounced THAT these announcers give a little extra stress to normally unstressed words. Marco polo 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... do you have an example that you think demonstrates this phenomenon? A link to an MP3 file somewhere would help a lot. dr.ef.tymac 20:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word Origins.

What is the word for how words are derived. For instance television is from the greek roots for far and see. It is not entomology the study of ants but some word on the tip of my toung that is close to that. Czmtzc 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology. Recury 16:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Entomology links to Etymology in the first line, and vice versa. I tweaked those links like that, so I know. ;) --Kjoonlee 16:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, going to the wrong page when looking for word origins really bugs me. StuRat 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My uncle told me quite possibly the geekiest joke ever to help me remember the difference. The joke: "Do you know the difference between an entomologist and an etymologist? The etymologist does." I told you it was geeky.... Dismas|^(talk) 17:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the study of ants is not antomology, but myrmecology. --TotoBaggins 18:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, television is actually from the Greek root for "far" and the Latin root for "see". Were it wholly Greek, it'd be called something like teleopticon, and if it were wholly Latin I think it'd be something like distavision or removision. --Charlene 00:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably longavision from the adverb "longe", "far off" or "distant". Adam Bishop 18:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imus know

Is there a term for words that members of a group can use with impunity, but are considered grave insults when used by outsiders? Clarityfiend 18:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slur. dr.ef.tymac 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naah, that's not what I'm looking for. A slur's derogatory all the time. Clarityfiend 04:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to pick nits, but although it may not be what you were looking for, it is not necessarily the case that a "slur's derogatory all the time" ... at least not if the article I linked for you has any credibility, Term_of_disparagement#Use. dr.ef.tymac 16:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the presupposition of "impunity for insiders" is not necessarily justifiable, as a close reading of the responses to one of your previous questions would indicate. dr.ef.tymac 19:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the idea that two wrongs somehow can make a right. --Charlene 03:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who's as much of a loud mouth as him is libel to get fired. StuRat 19:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a word meant as an insult, but adopted by the group so insulted, see Les Gueux. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See reclaiming for other examples of insulting exonyms adopted as defiant endonyms. Though there are also endonyms which are adopted as insulting exonyms (e.g. pavee for an Irish Traveller), which don't fall under "reclaiming" but might fall under "reappropriation". jnestorius^(talk) 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the question is based on a misconception fostered by claims around the word, "nigga"/"nigger," and to a lesser extent "queer." The idea is that the insult can be used by in-group members but not by out-group members. In practice, this holds a kernal of truth, but it is not the whole story. First, many Blacks complain about ANY use of the words "nigga" or "nigger." Second, anyone who spends time with people in the hip-hop world in the US will tell you that the two words do not denote the same thing. The r-less version refers to a member of any race, usually a male. Many will argue that it is no longer a slur, nor do they necessarily feel they are reclaiming anything. It just means "dude," "guy," and so on. I am NOT defending this claim. I am just passing on what I have heard. The r-ful word is essentially a slur, with a race-exclusive meaning. Third, the use of the r-less version is not exactly limited to African Americans, but is used with impunity by Latinos in NY at least, and to an extent by those European Americans who can make a bona fide claim of being part of the hip-hop world. In fact, a student told me that the whole thing came to a head on the White Rapper Show, which I think is on BET. One who was used to saying it with impunity around "his boys' did so on national TV, with unpleasant results. The term is sensitive but not entirely out of bounds for Whites. The status is unclear. As for "queer," the situation is compounded by the fact that there is no cover-term for sexual minorities ("pervs," anyone?) and in any case, it got co-opted by "queer studies," etc. In my opinion, it can be used by someone who it is obvious is not using it to insult. But that's just me. mnewmanqc 00:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jnestorius' answer was what I was looking for (take a bow J), but you raise some interesting points (but I think I'll avoid the n-word just the same). Clarityfiend 04:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do too, btw, except of course in talking about it. It's a sensitive issue, and it is a good idea to respect people's (different) feelings on it. Same is true for "queer" mnewmanqc 15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin chant in South Park episode Fantastic Easter Special

Could someone translate a rough transcription of these lines?

Sanctum Peter cottium, deus in reunium, hippitus, hoppitus, reus domine
In suus viatorium, lepus in resanctum, hippitus, hoppitus, deus domine

Much of it is Dog Latin, and based on the melody of the chant runs along the lines of "...Peter Cottontail...hippity, hoppity...". I took a rough guess at a translation on the article's talk page, but I'd like to have a more knowledgeable source. Hoof Hearted 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found some on this page:[2] --Charlene 03:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]