Language desk
< October 13	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 15 >

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.

October 14

Is there any living language, other than English, which makes a full distinction between: "in", "at", "to"?

HOOTmag (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? German has three prepositions in, bei, and zu, but they're not used in exactly the same way as in, at, and to in English. +An gr 19:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does English even do that? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"bei" doesn't mean "at". For more details, see my following post. HOOTmag (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I know any language that doesn't have those prepositions (or corresponding forms). Also, "in" is rather indistinct, since it's both 'into', i.e. the opposite of 'out', as well as 'inside' e.g. "in the house", as well as having a temporal meaning "in the morning". --Pykk (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll be more specific: English distiguishes between "I lived in NY", vs. "I landed at NY". Similary: "I visited him in July", vs. "I visited him at 3 PM". Is there any living language which can make such a distinction? HOOTmag (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are likely to have been studying French, in which some usages of all three English prepositions are covered by the French à. French is really the unusual case in assigning such a variety of functions to a single preposition. However, prepositions in one language rarely have exact equivalents in another language. For example, as Pykk points out, the English preposition in has a variety of functions, each of which could be handled by a different preposition in a different language. For example, the English phrase "in the room" would be translated into German as "im Zimmer", using the contraction im, built on the German preposition in. However, the English phrase "in the beginning" would be translated "am Anfang", using the German preposition an. So, in this case, German makes a distinction that English doesn't. Or, more accurately, German distinguishes among the functions of various prepositions differently than does English. This will be true when comparing English with any other language that uses prepositions. Of course, in some languages, the functions of prepositions are more often handled by case, but that is another matter. Marco polo (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your second question, I think that it would also be possible to say "I landed in NY." Putting that distinction aside, the German translation for "I visited him in July" would be "Ich habe ihn im Juli besucht." "I visited him at 3 PM" would be "Ich habe ihn um 15 Uhr besucht" (or "...um 3 Uhr nachmittags..."). So German, like English, uses two different prepositions in these two cases. However, here too, German divides labor among prepositions differently. For example, the translation for "I spent the night at his house" would be "Ich habe bei ihm übernachtet." So German makes a distinction between um and bei in these two cases where English uses at. Marco polo (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I asked my original question I wasn't thinking about (nor influenced by) French.

Of course, I'm aware of the various meanings of "in" in other languages, I'm just asking about whether there're other languages which (for example) make a distinction between "in NY" (e.g. "I lived in NY") and "at NY" (e.g. "I landed at NY"). HOOTmag (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)In talking about 'a full distinction', you seem to be assuming that there is some natural or logical significance to the particular set of three prepositions you have chosen. I suggest that there isn't. Every language divides up the 'space' of spatial and temporal relations in its own way. "At New York" is an utterly different relationship from "at 3PM" and it is a metaphor built into English (and many other languages) to use the same word to denote the two. Notice also that English uses 'at' for events (eg 'at the wedding') where one might equally reasonably expect 'in'. When the same word is used for the building and the event this is even odder: 'at the theatre' and (in the UK but not much in North America I believe) 'at school'.

The answer to your revised question is, Yes, of course. Russian is an example: 'в' and 'у' correspond quite well to 'in' and 'at', though I'm sure that their clouds of meaning don't abut each other at the same point as the clouds of the English words. --ColinFine (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of 'в' and 'у' is more similar to "in"? HOOTmag (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"В" ("v") is more like "in" and "у" ("u") is more like "at". But of course, they're not used exactly in the same way as "in" and "at". "At school" is always "v shkole", never "u shkoly". "At work" is neither "v" nor "u", but на работе "na rabote" (literally "on work"). Additionally, "u" is used to form possessives, e.g. "I have a book" is "U menya kniga", literally "At me a book". Kpalion (for some reason, I can't log on where I'm sitting now) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.39.218.10 (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)In that case, I don't understand the distinction in English, although it is my native language. I'm not sure why you would say "landed at NY" instead of "landed in NY". The simple answer to all of your questions is that each language that uses prepositions has a unique system of dividing functions among them. So no other language will have a set of prepositions, each of which is exactly equivalent to a unique English preposition. Marco polo (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me put it this way: Do you understand the distinction between "in the airport" (e.g. "The plane was in the airport") and "at the airport" (e.g. "The plane landed at the airport")? HOOTmag (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get that. German uses two different prepositions (in vs. an) in those two cases, but there are other cases where English would use two different adjectives where German would use just one, and there are cases where German would use two different adjectives, and English would use just one. Marco polo (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of preposition there is simply due to the word for 'airport'. A boat docks at a port, therefore a plane lands at an airport. But the plane lands on the runway - there's no reason it has to be 'at'. One preposition English doesn't have, for instance, is the Scandinavian hos - 'in care of/at the place belonging to'. So they can distinguish between 'med Sven' ('with Sven') and 'hos Sven' ('in Sven's care'). --Pykk (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hootmag, I daresay almost every language makes this distinction. They don't necessarily do it with prepositions alone, but there are always ways of making the distinction. For instance, both Chinese and Uyghur distinguish between "in" and "at" roughly the same way, by attaching a locative to a possessive+"inside". For example, in Uyghur, to say "in the house" (and specifically distinguish from "at") it's literally "house-GEN inside-POSS-LOC", or "at the house's inside"). Chinese is roughly the same, just with different order (zai fangzi limian, LOC house inside). French has the pretty general à which can mean a lot of prepositions, but to express "inside" specifically they also have dans.

To is even easier to distinguish from in/at, since it's generally dative/directive whereas the others are locative. So, for example, Uyghur has a totally different suffix for it (-DA for locative, -GHA for dative), and Chinese has a different word (roughly the same idea; zai for locative, wang or xiang or several others for dative). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP's comment: Thank you all! HOOTmag (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are the easiest natural languages for studying by non-natives?

After having considered all possible difficulties, e.g. in phonology (variety of phonemes/sounds/tones etc.), in morphology (variety of affixes etc.), in syntax (variey of cases/prepositions, variety of possible orders of words, etc.), in lexicography (variety of terms/synonyms etc.), and in semantics (variety of meanings etc.), can we point at the "very easy" (so to speak) natural languages for studying by non-natives? Note that I'm referring to natural languages only, i.e. excluding Esperanto etc. HOOTmag (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends who the non-native is (ie, what background they have). French is easy for a Spanish speaker to study, but maybe not for a Chinese speaker. Turkish is easy for an Uzbek speaker to study, but maybe not for an English speaker. etc. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were a Chinese looking for an "easier" foreign language for studying, I would prefer Spanish to French (e.g. because of the phonology).

To sum up, The non-native I'm referring to is anybody whose native language is (linguistically) far enough from the foreign language they're going to study. HOOTmag (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that languages who are easiest in some respect are hardest in others, e.g. Japanese has very easy grammar and phonology, but very complicated honorific system and spelling system; Italian and Russian have easy spelling but somewhat complicated grammar, and so on. (There are languages, such as French, which have complicated phonology, complicated grammar, complicated everything; but I don't know of any language with simple phonology, simple grammar, simple everything. Do you count creoles and pidgins as natural languages? If so, one of them might be it.) Anyway, the only languages I'm fluent in are Italian (my mother tongue) and English, and the only other languages I've ever "seriously" studied are French and Latin, so my knowledge of more "exotic" language is only stuff which I read somewhere on the 'net when I'm bored. ___A. di M. 22:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creoles and trade languages tend to be easy to learn, with relatively simple phonologies and grammars. I can attest that I found Swahili, and African trade language (and possibly a creole), easy to learn. I have heard that Indonesian is easy, too. As for genuine creoles, I think Haitian Creole would be relatively easy for speakers of most European languages. There are several English-based creole languages that may be even easier for an English speaker. Marco polo (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP's comment: Thank you all! HOOTmag (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any English word having double-h, except for "withhold" (and its derivatives, e.g. withheld etc.)?

I'm referring to "pure" (so to speak) English words, i.e. excluding new loanwords borrowed from exotic languages, etc., and also excluding onomatopoeia, and meaningless words, e.g. "ahh". So, is "withhold" (and its derivatives) the only "normal" English word having double-h? HOOTmag (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you count compounds, there are plenty of words, like bathhouse. Without compounds, probably not. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows more "bath house" than "bathhouse". HOOTmag (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always hesitate about the spelling of threshold. I pronounce it "thresh-hold", but (without consulting a reference), I'm pretty sure it's spelt with one 'h'. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one h. HOOTmag (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitchhiker, of course, although that's usually hyphenated. Notice that the first H is modifying a preceding T, C, or S, while the second provides an aspirate sound (modifying, if you like to think of it that way, the succeeding vowel.) —— Shakescene (talk)

Google shows much more non-hypheneated spellings. HOOTmag (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not a dictionary.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both for bathhouse and hitchhiker, it doesn't matter which one google has "more" of; the non-hyphenated, non-spaced spellings still exist, and are still English words. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but I'm looking for a word which (like "withhold") is generally written as one word. HOOTmag (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These words are "generally" written as one word, especially in the UK. They are also "generally" written as two. There is no one right way; both are possible. It just depends on the person. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of compounds starting with arch- and church-. Excluding words which are often hyphenated (ash-heap, fourth-hand, high-handed, rough-hewed, etc.), there are several rare words in -hood or -head (birthhood, pariahhood, muchhead, etc.), German borrowings or things named after Germans, like Hochheimer, Leichhardt, and Kirchhoff, some other foreign words like Wahhabi, etc. But it would seem that otherwise hh is obsolete in English apart from withhold. kwami (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're prepared to accept esoterica, there's the word feythhed, meaning "a (hostile) band of armed men, military might or force". It's from Middle English, but seems to have survived, if only to appear in lists of word oddities, as opposed to being actually used in practice. That also applies to plihht. This gives us boughhty and pathhypongathous, but there is precisely 1 google hit for the latter word, that very website, so it hardly seems to be a legitimate word. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My old Webster's indicates "withhold" is a compound word. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OED also has Tachhydrite.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yabbut follow that link and see what it gets ya ... —Tamfang (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another answer is "roughhousing" and related forms. --Anon, 10:24 UTC, October 15, 2009.

OP's comment: Thank you all! HOOTmag (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the result of a grep (minus some derivatives): archhead archheart archheresy archhost archhouse archhumbug archhypocrisy bathhouse beachhead bleachhouse Britishhood bushhammer chhatri dervishhood doughhead Eichhornia Englishhood fishhood fishhook fishhouse fleshhood fleshhook freshhearted highhanded highhearted hitchhike ochheimer lathhouse mlechchha mushhead pitchhole roughhearted roughhew roughhouse sahh sleuthhound sulphhemoglobin touchhole toughhead toughhearted washhand washhouse watchhouse weighhouse witchhood withheld withhold youthhead youthheid youthhood. (youthheid?!) —Tamfang (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]