Language desk
< January 22	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 24 >

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.

January 23

The ich-Laut in beschäftigt

May I know what the sound of "g" is in the above word? It also appears in unbefriedigt and some others, whenever a verb, for example, whose stem ends in g, is followed by a t in some conjugations. I've heard of a k sound and an ich sound. Are they both correct?--147.8.16.235 (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are both correct, the pronounciation mainly depends on where the speaker comes from - as a rough guide, people from the North tend to say "-icht" while people from the South tend to say "-ikt". (It's a bit more complicated in practice, personal preference and the speaker's mood also play a bit of a role, but the basic distinction is geographic). -- Ferkelparade π 08:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ferkelparade, but note that there are purists who insist that using the voiceless palatal fricative (the "ich"-sound, see also German_phonology#Ich-Laut_and_ach-Laut) is the only correct way to pronounce words such as König or beschäftigt.

In this article, a speech trainer with the wonderful name of Eggolf von Lerchenfeld calls "ig" and "t" at the end or inside a word "Horrorlaute" (horror sounds) of the German language. "igt, no matter whether at the end of a word or within a word is almost always pronounced "icht", as in the word ich, and no differently." (my unauthorized translation in direct quotes). Von Lerchenfeld says this despite being Bavarian himself.

Television announcers and stage actors too pronounce it "ich" more often than "ik", and the Bühnendeutsch ("stage German") according to Theodor Siebs's Deutsche Bühnenaussprache (1898) dictates "Könich" for "König" too. (Sorry I still don't know IPA :-( ) Another regional variety, apart from "-icht" and "-ikt" is "-ischt"; definitely not standard stage phonology by any measure though. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Duden too acknowledges only the "ich"-Laut as standard in -ig. Interestingly, while Northerners tend to actually pronounce -ig as "ich" in ordinary speech, they believe it to be wrong, and will pronounce it -ick when they're enunciating carefully, such as when singing. I was in a choir in Berlin singing the Brahms Requiem and the conductor kept scolding us for saying "Selick sind die Toten". I suppose it's a hypercorrection since Berliners (like other Northerners) say "Tach" for Tag, etc. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-to-English translation

Kindly give me the cheat codes from these Polish webpages of the video game Robbo:

--Masatran (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only found two cheats on the last of the websites you linked to:

If you type JANUSZ PELC in the initial screen, you'll start with 80 lives.
During the game, if you collect a screw while pressing the keys Start, Select and Option, you will immediately advance to the next level.

— Kpalion^(talk) 23:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

When do we spell it Prime Minister, and when Prime minister? Or is the latter (without caps) totally wrong? kawaputra^torque 16:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that you should always capitalise both words in this title, but there are some style guides that would tell you otherwise. You might see "Prime minister Brown..." at the beginning of a sentence, for example, or "...prime minister Brown..." in the middle of one. There are no hard and fast rules. Consistency is the key. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not "Prime Minister Brown", he's "The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown". DuncanHill (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot but admire DuncanHill's correctness; but "Prime Minister Brown" is ubiquitous, and I wouldn't expect "The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown" outside UK (except for very formal addresses). Please feel free to correct me, Duncan.

Generally speaking of offices and capitalization, the usual rule (see as a good reference, for instance, this) is that the name of the office is capitalized unless it succeeds the name of the holder, or it is used in a generic way. Hence, Prime Minister Brown (or better, the Prime Minister, G. B), President Bush, Pope Benedict XVII, etc. Also, "I will meet the Pope today". However, "the pope is the one that names new cardinals", or "in a constitutional monarchy, the prime minister is appointed to the office in respresentation of a parliamentary plurality". Pallida Mors 18:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanations. Just a bit more to fully understand: So, i take it that in the sentence "The chief ministers of Indian states are elected by..." and "Past Japanese prime ministers have been reluctant to..." are correctly uncapitalized? And "The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu" and "The Prime Minister of Japan" are correctly capitalized? kawaputra^torque 19:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as long as the last expressions do not refer to ~~very~~ generic circumstances. Pallida Mors 19:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Prime Minister Brown" is ubiquitous but incorrect. He is "the Prime Minister" or "Mr Brown" or both together (or "the Right Honourable Mr Brown"). In the UK, "Prime Minister" is an office, not a title or rank. Similarly, we wouldn't expect to see "Foreign Secretary Miliband" or (heaven forbid) "Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Miliband". Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question of style, but the clearest style rule is to capitalize these terms only when they are used as proper nouns either as a title before someone's name (e.g. "President Bush") or when they are used to refer to a specific individual (e.g. "The Prime Minister made a startling admission today. Mr. Brown confessed that he sees himself as nothing more than a dull bureaucrat."). However, they are not capitalized when they are used as generic nouns (e.g. "Under the U.S. Constitution, the president may not declare war." or "Seven prime ministers attended the conference."). Marco polo (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd capitalise both words "Prime" and "Minister", or neither of them, depending on the circumstances. The only exception I can think of is when Prime is the first word of a sentence that's about prime ministers generally, e.g. "Prime ministers have a thankless job". If the sentence is about a particular PM, it should at least be "Prime Minister Brown", never "Prime minister Brown"; but I agree with those who prefer "The Prime Minister, Mr Brown", or "The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown". When it comes to honorifics such as "The Rt Hon", the word "Mr" never appears; so it would be "The Rt Hon Gordon Brown", never "The Rt Hon Mr Gordon Brown" and never "The Rt Hon Mr Brown". If he were knighted, however, it would be "The Rt Hon Sir Gordon Brown". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was actually a lame edit war about that very issue a couple of years ago at Prime minister. A few users thought it should at Prime Minister because, as you said, either both words are capitalized or neither. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic nonsense II

Watching while they opened up the rocky hillside ground with pick and mattock and brought to light a great bolus of serpents perhaps a hundred in number. Collected there for a common warmth. The dull tubes of them beginning to move sluggishly in the cold hard light. Like the bowels of some great beast exposed to the day. The men poured gasoline on them and burned them alive, having no remedy for evil but only for the image of it as they conceived it to be. - I understand everything up to the last comma just fine, but after that it's too scrambled for me to interpret. ----Seans Potato Business 17:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The men don't have a way of eliminating evil, but they can eliminate 'the image of it' (the snakes). The snake is often used as an symbol of evil, at least in countries with a history of Christianity. So, the men are burning the snakes because they can't solve the real issue (whatever that might be). Skittle (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see it now. Thanks. ----Seans Potato Business 20:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you put Japanese words in "alphabetical order"?

How do Japanese speakers arrange their words in "alphabetical" order, for say, a list of names or a filing system in a computer? I've only ever seen Hiragana and Katakana arranged in a chart form, and I have no idea how Kanji would be ordered. I thought they might go by pronunciation, but Kanji have several different pronunciations. And what would be listed first in a set of three words that are pronounced the same but spelled with Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana respectively?

Thanks, --69.207.99.230 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Collation#Radical-and-stroke_sorting. --Sean 19:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese is organised so well that it is already in alphabetical order.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 21:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That could do with some explanation, pal. Does this mean, for example, that when a Japanese Hamlet says the Japanese equivalent of "To be or not to be, that is the question", it would be translated as "Be be is not or question that the to to"? :) JackofOz (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) indeed, Jackman.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely puzzled by your statement, Noetica. What do you mean by "Japanese is already in alphabetical order"? --Taraborn (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke, Virginia.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two kinds of Japanese dictionaries, dictionaries of words and dictionaries of kanji. The former have headwords in kana arranged by the gojūon order (or historically iroha) or headwords in romaji arranged alphabetically. The latter are usually indexed by radical and stroke count, though there are other systems like SKIP codes. There's more than one radical-based system too. Spahn & Hadamitzky uses a modernized radical-and-stroke system that's a lot easier to learn than the traditional one. -- BenRG (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]