Language desk
< July 26	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 28 >

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.

July 27

Naming of Polish Villages

Greetings! Quite a few Polish village names - for example Rymiatowszczyzna, Moniatowszczyzna, Spitowszczyzna Sibitowsszczyzna, Zborowszczyzna - end on szczyzna, i.e. (name of another village) + (szczyzna) = new village name. What does this ending mean? I was not able to find it in Polish dictionaries. What could be its root? Thanks very much for your help!. -- 06:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs) P.S. Sorry, I signed (logged in) with "Grey Geezer", however Signature was not translated.

Could be the Polish counterpart of Russian "-shchina", as in "Yezhovshchina", and also a number of placenames... AnonMoos (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... "the time of"? -- 10:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

It does not mean "time of". It is a sort of general purpose possessive derivational suffix, it has no particular meaning on its own. — Emil J. 12:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It exists as far south as Slovenian Ajdovščina. Still, that extra "z" in szczyzna makes me wonder if they're true friends... No such user (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I was considering adding this, but comming up with no other Slovene -ščina town or village, decided against it. In the Slovene language, the -ščina suffix is used in mass nouns, for instance: "poljščina" = "polje" (field) + "-ščina" (indicates mass noun) = anything you might grow in a field. It is by far most common to form language names, though: [1] TomorrowTime (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to interpret: Then Zborowszczyzna would mean something like "Zborow-likish"? Is it that? Greetings -- 12:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

I would say, more like "Zborow-hood" -- sort of generic suffix (of, by, belonging to), but which is applicable only to certain words. No such user (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're moving seriously into guesswork here (especially considering I don't even speak Polish, only Slovene), but I think No such user might be right. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also left the question on the persPage of a Polish WP-User - but it seems he is on vacation. (using the Button to sign) -- 07:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

-Szczyzna/-cczyzna is a combination of two suffixes: the adjectival suffix -ski/-cki and the nominal suffix -yzna. The former, as you probably know, is commonly found in Polish family names, especially noble family names. The latter is often used in the meaning "territory, domain, etc. of...". For example:

ojciec, father → ojczyzna, fatherland.

It is not uncommon that a noun is converted into an adjective with -ski, and then again into a noun with -yzna. The -sk- cluster gets palatalized into -szcz- in the process and you get -szczyzna. Examples:

pan, lord → pański, lord's → pańszczyzna, serfdom;
król, king → królewski, royal → królewszczyzna, crown land.

The names of villages you're asking about most likely come from the names of their original owners. Rymiatowszczyzna, Moniatowszczyzna, Spitowszczyzna, Sibitowszczyzna and Zborowszczyzna were probably founded by Messrs Rymiatowski, Moniatowski, Spitowski, Sibitowski and Zborowski. Geographic names ending in -szczyzna/cczyzna may also refer to regions named for their major towns:

Wilno → ziemia wileńska, Wilno territory → Wileńszczyzna;
Nowy Sącz → ziemia sądecka, (Nowy) Sącz territory → Sądecczyzna.

The same pattern may be used to refer to languages:

angielski, English (adj.) → angielszczyzna, English language
polski, Polish (adj.) → polszczyzna, Polish language

Now you can ponder how to render into angielszczyzna the phrase used by Julian Tuwim, the great Jewish poet of the Polish language, to describe his real home: ojczyzna polszczyzna. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds similar to "-ingen" in Germany, which roughly means "the place of the followers of <insert medieval warlord name here>", for example, modern Böblingen, reportedly named for an ancient warlord named Bobilo. This town name suffix is very common in parts of southern Germany. Cheers 91.32.107.15 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In English – according to at least one book I've read – there are a number of pairs like Blanking(s) and Blankington or Blankingham, where the ton or ham was smaller, perhaps at first only a single farm. —Tamfang (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hard /ð/ (voiced dental fricative)

In IPA transcription, the < d > of Spanish is represented by /ð/. However, at least in some dialects, its pronunciation is much closer to /d/ (although the tongue is still kept in the /ð/ position). I.e., it is a "hard" /ð/. How can this be represented in IPA? The sound /dð/ or /d͡ð/ seems to come close, but puts the tongue in back of the teeth instead on the tip of the teeth. An imaginary voiced dental "infricative" (as in the voiced dental implosive) would have a somewhat similar sound, but would also be wrong, and furthermore cannot be written in IPA. Is there some way to represent a hard /ð/? — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 06:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pullum and Ladusaw (Phonetic Symbol Guide, 2nd ed.) describe /d/ and /ð/ as "dental or alveolar" and "apico-dental or interdental" respectively. I guess what you want is a voiced interdental stop, but then again if the tip of your tongue is there I don't see how you could achieve a stop. As the subscripted "+" is IPA for further forward than usual, how about a "d" with a little "+" underneath it? NB (if it's not already obvious) I am not a phonetician. -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That sounds plausible. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Korean /d/ and /t/ are frequently interdental or dental; the tongue tip can touch the bottom/back of the front teeth, if they don't touch the alveolar ridge instead. Anyway, if they touch the bottom/back, they're both dental, and so you can just use the dental sign:

/d̪ t̪/

This is the normal convention for Korean phonetics, as far as I know. --Kjoonlee 17:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't it simple be a Voiced dental plosive? --BishkekRocks (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Alveolo-velar lateral approximant"

Is /lˠ/ technically an alveolo-velar lateral approximant? The term "alveolo-velar" does not seem to be much used, if used professionally at all. But since /ˠ/ velarizes, and /l/ is an alveolar lateral approximant, and, for example, when a velar plosive (/g/) is labialized (/ʷ/) it is a labio-velar plosive (/gʷ/), does that not make /lˠ/ an alveolo-velar lateral approximant? ("Velo-alveolar lateral approximant" would be truer to form, but I can find even less attestation of the term "velo-alveolar".) If the answer to this is unknown, then the root of my question is this: what is the technical name for /lˠ/? — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I got the answer elsewhere. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 08:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone else reading this who may be interested, the answer is that [lˠ] is a velarized alveolar lateral approximant, also known as the "dark L" and also transcribed [ɫ], which occurs in most varieties of English (except varieties spoken in Ireland) as the kind of "L" pronounced at the end of a syllable, e.g. in bill, ball. It can be heard at the beginning of syllable (e.g. like) in Scottish English, Australian English, some varieties of North American English, and stereotypical Russian-accented English. +An gr 12:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there not some distinction between between [ɫ], which is both velarized and pharyngealized, and [lˠ], which is simply velarized? For example, "wool" has a velarized and pharyngealized ell, while "loot" has simply a velarized ell? — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 17:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually true that [ɫ] is both velarized and pharyngealized, at least, not necessarily. The tilde diacritic indicates velarization or pharyngealization. Thus, [ɫ] in Russian is pharyngealized but [ɫ] in Catalan is velarized. Of course, simultaneous velarization and pharyngealization is indeed possible as this is the property of Standard Arabic's "emphatic" consonants (from what I can tell), though the difference is often glossed over. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French Question

Spotted through Twitter, I notice mention of "Grand Prix de Hongrie". Why is this not "...d'Hongrie?"

Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.130.5 (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some French words which have a so-called h aspiré (which is a misnomer in linguistic terminology, since no actual phonetic apiration is involved). What it means is that the usual contractions before vowel-initial words don't take place. In many dictionaries, the words with h aspiré are listed with an asterisk. AnonMoos (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We even seem to have an article on it here: Aspirated_h (though it has problems with respect to linguistics...). AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I will investigate! 80.193.130.5 (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]