Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 April 26

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 26

How do you write with a southern accent from the 1900 in Alabama?

• NOTE: CROSSPOSTED; see extended discussion on the Humanities Reference Desk 06:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Specifically I am looking for how too write a letter, with a southern accent of an african american, possibly not the greatest educated, female, living in Maycomb Alabama in the 1930's. I know this is not a real place but I am doing an assingment for my Language arts class on " To kill a mockingbird", so i would really appreciate it if someone could help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 23:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

See Eye dialect. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Read about African American ethnographer and author Zora Neale Hurston (1891–1960), particularly this section where her writing in dialect—authenticated by her academic fieldwork—is discussed. Her studies and fiction would be interesting to bring up in your Language Arts class for being a notable (and IMO admirable) American woman of the early/mid-20th C. Highly recommended: Their Eyes were Watching God.-- Deborahjay (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

strange different forms of the passive in English

Take the following English sentence: "I showed this to him." Now put it in the passive voice: either "This was shown to him" or "He was shown this." So the sentence actually has two passive forms, using either the direct or the indirect object from the active sentence as the grammatical subject. Do other languages have this feature (two possible subjects allowed when turning actives into passives)? It's been emotional (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

According to http://grzegorj.w.interia.pl/typen/morfosynt.html, Polish can form the passive voice in contexts involving direct objects, indirect objects, and prepositional objects. Halfway down the page is the paragraph which begins with the words "Unlike English".

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you misread it, Wavelength. It actually says, "Unlike Polish, English likes the passive voice very much, and the passive transformation is possible in practically all instances of objects without prepositions, both direct and indirect ones, as well as in some instances of prepositional objects." So it's English that is special in this regard and Polish is a counterexample. "He was shown this" would be impossible in Polish. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, Kpalion; I did misread it. Thank you for pointing that out. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

But don't think that Polish is so bland and simple. As I wrote, there's only one way to change the active-voice sentence Pokazałem mu to ("I showed this to him"; mu = "him"; to = "this") to a passive-voice sentence: To zostało mu pokazane. ("This was shown to him"). But you can also change it to an impersonal sentence: Pokazano mu to, where pokazano is a impersonal past-tense form of the verb pokazać ("to show"). This sentence is technically in active voice, as it doesn't use the auxiliary verb zostało ("was"). But due to its lack of a subject, it is functionally similar to passive voice (i.e. it lets you not say who showed this to him).

You can do that in Latin. "Hoc ei monstravi" --> "Hic ei monstratus est" --> "Hoc monstratus est". (It seems like you should be able to do it in French too but I can't think of the particular syntax at the moment.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you know more Latin than I do, Adam. However, my resources show no sign of the dative-based passive example you have shown. Was that a common practice in Classical times? Pallida  Mors 18:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just put "ei" in so the sentence would have an indirect object ("this was shown to him"). It could also use an ablative agent ("a me" or whoever). A dative agent would be necessary in a gerundive construction ("hoc ei monstrandum est" --> "this should be shown by him" or "he should show this"). Is that what you meant? I think I may have completely misunderstood. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Japanese has it, although it's not used much. The translations of the two above would be 「これは彼に見せられた」 and 「彼はこれを見せられた」. Any language with a passive would be able to do this.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. Actually Adam I'm not so sure it can be done in French, because an indirect object is preceded by "a" (I've lost my international character tray that used to be at the bottom of the wiki pages; I want a-grave), and anything with that form apparently cannot be turned into the passive. But I may have this wrong, and it may be only for intransitive verbs; perhaps transitive verbs with direct and indirect objects can be done this way. More info requested... It's been emotional (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It should work fine - "je lui ai montré ceci" --> "ceci lui a été montré" --> "il a été montré ceci". You can add "à moi" to the last two (although "il a été montré" usually seems to be impersonal, "it has been shown (that)", according to Google, so maybe you can't really do this). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather dubious about the French, and also about the Latin. To me the second and third Latin tags are structurally identical (except one has an expressed dative), though one has a masculine, the other a neuter subject. Which do you claim translates "he was shown this"? --ColinFine (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The correct French for the third version is "il lui a été montré ceci". Grammatically correct, but clumsy. --Xuxl (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Colin. —Tamfang (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this does seem kind of dubious the more I look at it. I was trying to make the third one "he was shown this" (as "hoc" can also be an accusative object). I'm still pretty sure all these sentences can work in Latin but I guess I'm not doing it right. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, hoc can't be the subject of the third one, because then it would have to be "hoc monstratum est". But still, there must be a better way to explain this. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

German has (at least) 4 versions: Dies wurde Ihm gezeigt. Ihm wurde dies gezeigt. Er bekam dies gezeigt. Dies bekam er gezeigt. Germans love passive voice. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's actually only two versions, as "Ihm wurde dies gezeigt" and "Dies bekam er gezeigt" are just variations in word-order of "Dies wurde ihm gezeigt" and "Er bekam dies gezeigt". —Angr 17:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting sentence

My grammar teacher wants us to write a 4 page paper on the syntactic analysis of one sentence. I can do the syntactic analysis, but I'm having trouble finding a good, long, complex sentence to use. Any help? 69.16.93.243 (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How good, how long, and how complex do you want the sentence to be? -- Wavelength (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, there is a book entirely composed of one single sentence and goes on for hundreds of pages. It would take a while to write out a syntactic analysis of that, but I think your teacher might be impressed at your effort. I can't think of what the book is called, though, so I can't help any more than this. Googling 'one sentence book' just gives me book reviews about books, but in one sentence.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if our Good News is veiled, it is veiled in those who perish, in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the Good News of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn on them.

[I italicized the sentence. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)]

(2 Corinthians 4:3, 4, World English Bible) (I changed a semi-colon to a comma.) -- Wavelength (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

See Longest English sentence. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Or see a short English sentence with just one word. Bazza (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "pretty little girls school" has been analysed exhaustively, for example at [1] (Lojban is a constructed language). However, that link might give you ideas for other sentences which are ambiguous in English to analyse.-gadfium 04:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

French Translations: 6

How would I translate, "The men to whom I speak are my brothers"? Would it be "Les hommes à qui je parle sont mes frères"? Thanks for the help. Note that I am posting this question again with an additional change. I would appreciate a "yes" or "no" answer rather than a link, because I am on a certain lesson in a book and don't want to go outside the bounds of my knowledge. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.138.117 (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Equendil Talk 02:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to say either Yes or No, because that is one correct answer but not the only one. Another correct answer is Les hommes auxquels je parle sont mes frères. It is difficult for me to know whether the second answer is outside the bounds of your knowledge.

-- Wavelength (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I like that translation better than the given, actually. Seems more natural to me. The Jade Knight (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"The men to whom I speak are my brothers" sounds like something out of the Bible. Why not translate it as 'the men I am speaking to are my brothers'? Or does that make it harder to think in French?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That would actually be the exact same in French: "Les hommes à qui/auxquels je parle" = the men to whom I speak/the men whom I am speaking to. The Jade Knight (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I do understand that. I was pointing out the old-fashioned English, and making a point that English word order is different from French when we speak in a more usual style. 'The men to whom I speak' is modelled on French, therefore making it easier for English speakers to get used to speaking French. Obviously Les hommes je suis parlant à sont mes frères would be ridiculous.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Why don't we call the United Kingdom the United Queendom, considering we don't have a king yet until Lizzy pops her clogs?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there such a word as "queendom"? Ah yes, I see it refers to the position or dignity of a queen. "Kingdom" is a synonym for "monarchy", and applies whether there's a king or a queen on the throne. The payback is that the wife of a king is a queen, but the husband of a queen is not a king. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is also something I never understood, and keep getting asked by my students and Japanese friends. Why isn't Prince Phillip king? When a king marries a woman she becomes queen, but when a queen marries a feller, he ends up 'prince', which sounds like he's her son.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's because there are 2 varieties of queen: Queen Regnant (such as Elizabeth II), and Queen Consort (such as her late mother, the Queen Mother, who was plain Queen Elizabeth, but not numbered, because she was merely the wife of King George VI). But there's only one variety of king: King (Regnant). It's the same deal with the wives of lords and knights - they're ladies, whereas the husband of a lady or dame in her own right is not a lord or a knight, just plain Mr. Unless they happen to have a separate title in their own right, as baroness Margaret Thatcher's husband did (he was Sir Denis Thatcher; whereas, Dame Joan Sutherland's husband is plain Mr Richard Bonynge). -- JackofOz (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I know it's completely off-topic, but I find it an interesting reminder of old-fashioned gallantry and male-female roles. The inference one can take from this age-old system is that a man should always make himself, but that a woman can be made by whom she marries. I can imagine that, in history, a man who took on a title simply because he married well would be looked down upon by his fellows, especially those who had either earned or been born into their respective titles. Women, on the other hand, were expected to gain and benefit by a well-chosen union and it was considered a mark of pride for a man to make a woman "his lady", in title as well as in name. Just a deeper application, I think, of men giving up their seats on buses. Maedin\^talk 07:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not off-topic: that's the basic answer to both of Givnan's questions. It's all about sex roles. It used to be assumed that the normal state of things was that the country would be ruled by a king, and the vocabulary is skewed in that direction. Jack's answer is not a reason why, it's just another consequence of the same basic cause.

In some countries It used to be law that only a male could inheerit the throne. In the UK, obviously, a female monarch is allowed, but only if she has no brothers (who are eligible to inherit; Roman Catholics would also be excluded). Otherwise the oldest brother inherits. (There has been talk in recent years of changing this law, but that's a subject for a different reference desk.) So despite the long rule of Queens Victoria and Elizabeth II, the "normal" state of things in the UK is that the monarch is a king. --Anonymous, 21:12 UTC, April 26, 2009.

It is my understanding that Philip retained his Greek title when he married Princess Elizabeth and then became her Queen's Consort. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In 1947 Philip was naturalized as British (though naturalization was technically redundant), adopted the name Philip Mountbatten and renounced the title(s) Prince of Greece and Denmark. Shortly before the wedding, the king gave him Royal Highness, a knighthood and a dukedom, but not the title of Prince; his wife gave him that in 1957. So for about nine years he was (anomalously) HRH but not any kind of Prince – though some monarchists contend that his renunciation was invalid. —Tamfang (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The name of the country doesn't change, but the "King's Bench" courts become "Queen's Bench" "His Majesty's Ship" becomes "Her Majesty's Ship", and the prayer for the ruler in the Book of Common Prayer is rewritten with appropriate pronouns. AnonMoos (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your answers. They are all very relevant. The reason I mentioned this was because, as in AnonMoos' comment above, certain things do actually change, like our national anthem, for example. Sometimes it's 'God Save The King' and sometimes 'God Save The Queen'.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

'Kingdom' isn't a name, it's a common noun. Furthermore, there are two radically different things that it might mean, on the face of it ('the state of being a king' and 'the domain of a king') but in practice it means the second of these. It is always risky to try and import logic into arguments about language, but one might argue that the domain is unchanged when the king is replaced by a queen. --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Some other things that do change depending on the sex of the monarch are Queen's Counsel/King's Counsel, and the Master of the Queen's Music/Master of the King's Music. Conversely, "the King's/Queen's English" can be used interchangeably, regardless of who's on the throne, but that's not a formal title or anything, just an expression -- JackofOz (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of how a woman can marry into a title and not a man, it is interesting to note that the original meaning of the Indo-European root of 'queen' seemed to have just meant 'woman' (c.f. Greek gyna) and that it came to mean 'wife' in Germanic and some other branches, then was specialized to 'wife of a king' in O.E., whereas the word 'king' comes from a word specifically meaning 'leader of the kin or clan'. Etymology is fascinating, really gives an insight into how people thought over the ages.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In earlier English, there were actually two words derived from the gyne/*gwen- root: "queen", OE cwēn (elevated), and "quean", OE cwene (ordinary or derogatory) — until the two fell together in pronunciation in most modern English dialects. AnonMoos (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Jack, that was my point. Expressions involving 'Queen' or 'King' generally do change (and I would find it odd to hear "the King's English" in the present reign), as opposed to expressions involving the common noun 'kingdom'. --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a few examples. Apart from Fowler's famous book, which was written in 1908 under Edward VII, Kingsley Amis wrote The King's English in 1997. There's a bookshop called The King's English in Utah (opened 1977). A publisher calls itself The King's English. Robert N.C. Nix, Sr. (1898-1987) is quoted as saying: Be prepared, be sharp, be careful, and use the King's English well. And you can forget all the [other rules] unless you remember one more: Get paid. - which sounds post-1952. Not to mention that there was a governor of Texs who apparently believed that there was an England, and an English language, and a king of England, in Jesus' time. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Queen's English awaits yet to be written by Queensley Amis. — Emil J. 11:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, no one has mentioned yet that the Queen is also currently the Duke of Lancaster (not duchess) and Duke of Normandy in the Channel Islands (not Queen or Duchess of Normandy) and Lord of Mann (not Lady). She is, however, Duchess of Edinburgh (via her husband) and Countess of Merioneth(in her own right). As with every other aspect of language, there is no consistancy in these matters. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lancaster: no, because she cannot be her own vassal. (Edward VIII used the pseudonym Duke of Lancaster to avoid state protocol when traveling.) Normandy: no, because Henry III renounced his claim to Normandy by treaty in 1259 and/or because Edward III claimed the throne of France in 1340 and could not be his own vassal (I have raised these issues at Talk:Duke of Normandy and got no response). Merioneth: no, that's Philip's again. (Philip's eldest son has the right to use that style, by the way.) —Tamfang (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you speak Chinese? How come - both: "I want" and "I think" - are translated as 我想 ?

Or rather, let's put this way: What's the semantic difference between:

我要

我覺得

我想

HOOTmag (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

我要 + noun = I want [something]. 我要 + verb = I am going to do something. 我覺得 = I think (in the sense of having an opinion). 我想 + noun = I would like (or I miss). 我想 + verb = I would like [to do].--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So why does Google translate "I think" as 我想 ?

See here

HOOTmag (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It means more like 'I feel', than 'I think', but it can be translated that way.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Google translates "I feel" as: 我覺得 , and translates 我覺得 as "I think".

However, I didn't ask about 我覺得 but rather about 我想 . Google translates "I think" as 我想 , so do you say now that 我想 is translated as either "I'd like", or: "I feel", or: "I think"? I hope you see my point...

HOOTmag (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. It's more of a mild desire or feeling. Also, beware of online translators like Google, because they are not human. If you want to test one, try translating a simple sentence like 'My father ran away and stole my bike' or something into one language, then again into a few other languages, and then back into English, and you will most probably see a totally different result from the sentence you started with. Best to stick with human translators, and there are some good websites with people staffing them 24/7, and for free.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've seen my point. First of all, what do you refer to when you say "it's" (in the beginning of your second sentence)? Do you talk about 我覺得 or about 我想 or about both words?

Also, could you please connect now all three meanings ("I think", "I feel", "I'd like") to both words discussed above (我覺得 , 我想)? which word means what?

Also, is there a clear-cut chinese word for "I want" - not to be confused with "I think" nor with "I feel"? and a clear-cut chinese word for "I think" - not to be confused with "I want" nor with "I feel"? and a clear-cut chinese word for "I feel" - not to be confused with "I think" nor with "I want"?

Thank you in advance. HOOTmag (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"It's" was referring to the subject of your question, i.e. 我想. And the meanings of the words have been supplied above. When you are learning a foreign language, you should never think that each word in your own language corresponds to a single word in another or vice-versa. There are nuances for many words, giving numerous translations in other languages.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

To sum up:

1. There's no clear-cut chinese word for "I want" (not to be confused with "I think" nor with "I feel").
2. There's no clear-cut chinese word for "I think" (not to be confused with "I want" nor with "I feel").
3. There's no clear-cut chinese word for "I feel" (not to be confused with "I think" nor with "I want").

Is that correct? HOOTmag (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is totally obvious to Chinese speakers which meaning would be meant. As I say, it's best not to think of a language in the context of your own native language, as they will have concepts totally alien to you. This is part of the fun of learning a foreign language, because it opens your mind to a different way of thinking. I work as a translator (actually Japanese, not Chinese - although I am semi-fluent in Chinese) and I think it's great being able to express yourself in other ways, albeit only to people who speak whichever language I am talking in at the time. Anyway, if you read through my explanations above again, you may see that there actually is a clear cut way of saying things and meaning things. Google just can't be arsed translating stuff properly.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As a translator I'm totally aware of the problems existent in translating from one language into another (especially from european languages into asiatic languages, etc.), although I've never come across such a phenonemon: absence of clear-cut definite words for "want" nor for "feel" nor for "think", in a manner independent of the context/syntax etc.

Anyways, do you agree with Google that, in some contexts, 我想 may mean "I think"? If you do then I'd like to hear your opinion about my following suggestion: When I look for a reasonable definite translation for 我想 , which considers all - or at least most - of the semantic possibilities, how about translating 我想 (+ verb) as "I feel like" (+ verb + ing)? e.g. when I say: "I feel like drinking wine" it may also mean: "I would like to drink wine", and also: "I'm thinking about drinking wine", so can my translation be a reasonable solution (or at least a partial solution) for the semantic problem? HOOTmag (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the OP's apparent exasperation with "clear cut" definitions, I feel that it is important to emphasize, as KageTora has already repeatedly stated, that there is not necessarily going to be a one-to-one correspondence between words and concepts from one language to another. Translating Chinese into English, or English in Chinese, necessitates navigating between two modes of expression that do not have exact equivalents for every term. It might be helpful to remember that each individual character has a semantic meaning that is both partially fixed and partially indeterminate, e.g. 想 has a broad range of meanings that encompass thought, desire, and belief, but in specific contexts, or when paired with certain other characters, has a meaning that is less ambiguous.

Modern Chinese, although vastly different from Classical Chinese, still retains many of the ontological assumptions that influenced the logic and grammar of Chinese during the formative stages of its development. These assumptions differed drastically from those which provide the basis of Western thought and language. To assume that every Chinese character has just one solitary, authoritative fixed meaning, and to further assume that such a fixed meaning has a direct cognate in English, is a futile effort that will only lead to more frustration. This is especially true for such fundamental terms as wanting and feeling, these critical terms were developed in such radically different cultural and philosophical environments that conveying their meaning in English requires not just translation, but exposition as well. Aas217 (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As a translator I'm totally aware of the problems existent in translating from one language into another (especially from european languages into asiatic languages, etc.), although I've never come across such a phenonemon: absence of clear-cut definite words for "want" nor for "feel" nor for "think", in a manner independent of the context/syntax etc.

Anyways, do you agree with Google that, in some contexts, 我想 may mean "I think", while in other contexts it may mean "I want"? If you do then I'd like to hear your opinion about my following suggestion: When I look for a reasonable definite translation for 我想 , which considers all - or at least most - of the semantic possibilities, how about translating 我想 (+ verb) as "I feel like" (+ verb + ing)? e.g. when I say: "I feel like drinking wine" it may also mean: "I would like to drink wine", and also: "I'm thinking about drinking wine", so can my translation be a reasonable solution (or at least a partial solution) for the semantic problem? HOOTmag (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to chime in with the others here. You need to stop imagining that there are clear-cut definite words for "want", "feel" and "think" in English, never mind other languages. Even in an English-to-English translation (e.g. rewriting a draft or quoting someone from memory) those words are likely to mutate into each other. When you suggest that something in another language might mean "I think", as though "I think" itself had a clear meaning which could serve as a reference, you're already making a cognitive error. You also need to stop trusting Google Translate to do anything except generate a borderline-comprehensible version of a web page in a language you don't speak at all. If you want to translate, professionally or as a hobby, do yourself a favor and find some good dictionaries. Your primary source for the meanings of words you don't understand should be a professionally edited dictionary of that language in that language. Where that isn't helpful, your secondary source should be a professionally edited bilingual dictionary. Those aren't much use in cases like this but they're good for words that do have relatively clear meanings, like "entomologist". Your tertiary source should be dictionaries compiled by amateurs, like EDICT for Japanese. Google Translate isn't on that list. It's nowhere close to being on that list. Your use of it as a primary reference in this thread borders on the surreal. (When you say you've always found clear-cut definite words for "want", "feel", and "think" in other languages, does that mean anything beyond that they successfully round-tripped in Google Translate?) -- BenRG (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

English does have definite words for "want", "feel" and "think", e.g. the very words: "want", "feel" and "think"! and there are many close synonyms, e.g. "I desire", or "I'd like", which really don't absolutely overlap "I want", but yet all of the three are very close words. i.e. they tend to overlap semantically in most of the frequent contexts. Similarly, when I said I had clear-cut definite words for "want", "feel", and "think" in other languages, I didn't refer to Google Translate, but rather to my own knowledge in other languages. As a translator, I'm quite aware of the trivial semantic problems you've indicated, but they unfortunately don't directly refer to my original questions: 1. Are there any frequent contexts in which 我想 may mean "I think"? 2. How about my suggestion of translating 我想 (+ verb) as "I feel like" (+ verb + ing)? May both words overlap semantically in most of the frequent contexts (say, as "I want", "I desire", "I'd like" - do)? HOOTmag (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried to use Japanese to Chinese machine translator. See the results.I think→我考虑 and 我思念. I want→我想要 and 要做. I need→ 我欲. I want to see you 想遇到你. I want to drink tea→我想喝茶. I think that's good→我想那个.I think about my future→我考虑自己的将来. I think about the matter→我考虑这个问题. I guess there are more words for "want" and "think". Oda Mari (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm looking now for a proffesional translation. HOOTmag (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are contextual situations where 想 means think, but these situations are generally clarified with an object or resultative compliment, e.g. 我想出了一個辦法 (I've thought of a solution), 我想起來了 (I thought about/recalled something). 我想 by itself isn't even a full clause, it needs an object or a verbal compliment to make it unambiguously clear. Chinese does have definitive words for want, feel, and think, but these are not expressed with direct English equivalents of want, think, and feel. For instance, if you strongly believe something, or you know something to be true after carefully considering it, you don't say 我想 or 我覺得, you say 我認為... If you realized that something you originally thought was right but later turned out to be wrong, you'd say 原來...

You seem to be very eager to derive or discern a definitive meaning for something which you know very little about, which is undoubtedly the cause of your frustration.

Aas217 (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No frustration, I'm just asking. I find it rather interesting.

The western culture distinguishes semantically between "I've thought of a solution", and "I've wanted a solution". Can the chinese culture, and mainly the chinese language, make the same semantic distinction?

If I want to translate the english words: feel want think, into Chinese, so that each chinese word may overlap the english correspondent word in most of the frequent contexts, would you have any reasonable translation (though not a perfect one) for me? HOOTmag (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the context. In fact, 'feel, 'want', and 'think' can all mean roughly the same thing depending on the words that follow. This is the problem you are trying to address, although, if you look deeper into it, you will see it is not a problem. "I feel like eating" and "I want to eat" and "I'm thinking of eating" only have differences in shades of meaning, and all are totally intelligible from context.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The western culture distinguishes between the meaning of "I want to eat" and the meaning of "I'm thinking about eating", even without depending on the context. This is a cultural fact (of making that semantic distinction)! My question is whether such a semantic distinction can be made by the chinese culture as well - without depending on the context!

Anyways, would you agree that the english clause "I feel like" (+ verb + ing) overlaps the chinese clause 我想 (+ verb) in most of the frequent contexts? HOOTmag (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

HOOTmag: Well, you could translate "I've thought of a solution" into "我想了一个办法" and "I want a solution into "我想要一个办法". Like we've said, different shades of meaning are created by different contexts. bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 21:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So, would it be correct to say that - in most of the frequent contexts - the clause "I feel to..." (i.e. 我想要...) tends much more to mean "I want to" than the clause "I feel the..." (i.e. 我想了...) does, whereas the latter tends much more to mean "I think of" than the former does? You can take my question also to the other direction: would it be correct to say that - in most of the frequent contexts - the clause "I feel to..." (i.e. 我想要...) tends much more to mean "I want to" than to mean "I think of", whereas the clause "I feel the..." (i.e. 我想了...) tends much more to mean "I think of " than to mean "I want to"? HOOTmag (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

American English problems (for me)

I read Cracked a lot because it's hilarious, but some of the phrases in it are difficult to understand, so retelling the stories to British mates can be hard, as I have to either guess what it meant, or change it to something else. For example, what does 'on the lam' mean?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It means you are running from police (or some other authority I suppose). On the lam actually redirects to fugitive. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That actually makes sense in the context. --KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even realize that it was an Americanism. Incidentally there used to be a wonderful word, 'lamster', which has fallen out of use. It's so much better than the word 'fugitive'. LANTZY^TALK 16:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I can readily imagine Archie Goodwin saying lamster, giving his boss something to scowl at in quiet distaste. —Tamfang (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There's good slang and there's bad slang... LANTZY^TALK 02:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Off tangent: Interestingly, our article implies that it is an "Icelandicism". Any Wikipedians from Gimli on this desk to supply the full list of Icelandic loanwords? I remember reading that amERICa the Red (who was on the lam from the law of the Old Norse) is the obvious one. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by language has a link to Category:User is. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Odd etymology. Two sources (Chambers 21st Century Dictionary and Apple's built-in Oxford American Dictionary) give a Norse source - "lemja: to make someone lame" and "lamme: paralyze". Both of these seem to lack the essential "running away" element of "on the lam", and the (unsourced) etymology in the fugitive article just seems weird. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Urban Dictionary's definition doesn't give the etymology, but the definition there seems to tie up with Adam's account up above. I'd be interested if it was actually from Icelandic, though.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

[2] has this : ""flight," as in on the lam, 1897, from a U.S. slang verb meaning "to run off" (1886), of uncertain origin, perhaps somehow from the first element of lambaste, which was used in British student slang for "beat" since 1596; if so, it would give the word the same etymological sense as beat it.""--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I remember a silly movie from the 60s with Bob Hope and Phyllis Diller, called Eight on the Lam. When I first heard people talking about it, I assumed it was something to do with eating lamb. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Call me mint jelly, 'cause I'm on the lam! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Frong

What is a drug front?68.148.130.72 (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

See front, the one but last meaning in the first list. A front is something that is in front of something else. Which can mean it hides the other thing. So the term is also used to indicate that something is set up to hide what is really going on. In this case the suggestion is that the restaurant merely serves to cover up the fact that there is (illegal) drug dealing going on. This is often said about busineses that don't seem to be very profitable but miraculously stay in existence for a long time. A front organisation is something similar. DirkvdM (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless you meant drug use associated with one of these. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Commission or order a building?

I want to mention somewhere that Peter Schunck told an architect to build the Glaspaleis. Now that doesn't sound very eloquent, but what would be a better way to say it? Commission a building appears to mean something completely different. Did he 'order the building'? That sounds more like something one does in a restaurant. DirkvdM (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

He contracted an architect... --VanBurenen (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

He commissioned a design from an architect. Architects don't build buildings, so the architect (or more likely a project manager) contracted one or more firms to build it, according to the designs. These firms probably subcontracted other firms or individuals for detailed work. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(Further) there are several marginally different meanings for the verb "to commission". See for instance the Chambers Harrap dictionary, which has (among others) to place an order for something, eg a work of art, etc./to prepare (a ship) for active service.' The meaning under Building commissioning is the "prepare for active service" meaning (which applies to more than ships, in fact; buildings, power stations etc. are all "commissioned" in this sense). An architect (or interior designer, and so on) is also given a commission, or "commissioned" to produce a design, under the "place an order" meaning. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"In 1933 (or whatever) Peter Schunck commissioned Frits Peutz with the design of the Glaspaleis" seems perfectly correct to me. The above mentioned "... contracted ..." seems equally acceptable. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. "Ordered the building" would look odd; as Dirk says, more like ordering a pizza. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Schunck commissioned Peutz to design ... —Tamfang (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I didnt ask the question very well. I didn't mean to include the architect in the sentence. Just "Peter Schunck ordered/commissioned/whatever the Glaspaleis". Sorry about that. DirkvdM (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Initials at the end of names

There is a practice of putting initials attached to a name at the end of a name rather than at the beginning. In some parts of India this is the common practice as can be seen here [3] I suppose these initials in such contexts are still called by that name. My questions are: 1. Is such a way of writing names prevalent in other parts of the world? 2. Is there a punctuation guide available in naming of this sort? Do you put a full stop at end of the name and before the initials? To show that the name and initials are separate units, is there the need of that dot or would a mere space would do? --Drumstickmajor (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This reverse order is common in lists of names as people usually search by surname. The conventional punctuation is:

Obama, Barack H.

Roosevelt, F. D.

I tried checking this in WP:MOS but couldn't find an example for Wikipedia use. I am sure there is one. // BL \\ (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names and abbreviated names

and Wikipedia talk:Lists#Alphabetization and collation. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In the outside world, I've never seen a surname end with a full stop in any circumstances, except where it's the last word in a sentence. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What about a middle name with a colon in the middle of it? —Angr 14:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In my case, the names are not surnames but given names. Very often people don't have a surname at all unless they opt to have a caste name ending of their name like Nair, Menon etc. Thus we have M.T. Vasudevan Nair, K.P. Appan, two contrasting examples. The first one has a caste name ending and the second one has an abbreviated given name. The initials are very often abbreviations for the family estate (the homestead). In any case, given names are what they are known by in most cases and are hardly abbreviated except in bookish contexts (for example the inline citations of dissertations which is evidently a mistake arising from the wrong notion that the caste names are actual surnames). Writers have a tendency to abbreviate their given names as the latter of the two above examples shows. The real life rendering of the above two examples would be in reverse order, that is, the initials would come at the end. There is no consistency in punctuation regarding this. However, most of the print reference works would give the stem first and a comma followed by the initials as seen in the case of a government-owned encyclopedia here [4] That encyclopedia is originally in print form and in order to order the entries in alphabetically, initials have to come after the name. --Drumstickmajor (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've encountered one person on the Web who spells his name with a comma before the surname. —Tamfang (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That apparently is a sign of strawman theory. —Tamfang (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

In some Spanish-speaking countries, the second surname (apellido materno) can be abbreviated to just an initial. So someone whose legal name is Juan López García might write his name as either Juan López G. or Juan López. —ABehrens (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

5 vowels for operatic Italian?

I've seen some IPA transcriptions for Italian opera that use [ɛ(:)] and [ɔ(:)] for all instances of <e> and <o>, and I've heard some performances that seem consistent with this, using uniformly open values for the two vowels. Is this standard or common for opera? Does it have any other uses? (It certainly bears a certain attraction for me, a lazy aspiring polyglot, who's found the open-close contrasts one of the few annoying things about the language.) --Lazar Taxon (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

From my Google search for "italian opera open closed vowels", the first result is

http://italianoperadiction.com/english/librettoinfo.asp?emne=tryksvageeo. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It may have something to do with the relative difficulty of singing certain vowels at the highest pitches. —Tamfang (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Italian vowels seem easier for Anglophones than English vowels for Italophones. [5] -- Wavelength (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See Dizionario d'ortografia e di pronunzia. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! That's the first really good online pronouncing dictionary that I've seen for Italian. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I found it at Italian language#External links. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See http://www.italianlanguageguide.com/italian/pronunciation/vowels.asp. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)