Language desk
< November 29	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	December 1 >

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.

November 30

Rioplatense "vos" conjugation

Is it just the vosotros form with the "i" deleted? Or are there exceptions? LANTZY ^TALK 04:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are indeed many variants. You may want to have a look at this description. For your question, I refer you to §2.3.1.
The basic Rioplatense voseo I know (and use) follows your description for the present indicative form. The future indicative, for instance, just follow the tú paradigm. The sames happens with the simple past form, which can also be seen as using the variant of the vosotros form, dropping the final s (e.g. vos tuviste). Preserving the s is not unusual, but considered unproper and completely uneducated. The imperative mood follows the vosotros form, dropping the final d (e.g. cantá from cantad). Pallida Mors 15:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the run-down. I've been curious about that for years, and none of my Spanish professors has ever been willing to explain it to me. They act as if voseo were some sort of impenetrable thieves' jargon, impossible to explain and pointless to learn. But since I'm going to be spending some time in the River Plate region, I would to know what people are saying. LANTZY ^TALK 15:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image vs picture

Hello, I'm a non-native English speaker. Can you explain to me the difference of meaning between "image" and "picture" ? When do you use either word ? I just can't seem able to grasp the difference. Thank you, have a nice day. 130.79.160.112 (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what EO has to say about the two words:[1][2] The root words originally meant an "artificial representation" and a "painting" respectively. So I would say that a picture is one type of image. Another would be a statue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In normal use, they mean roughly the same, with 'picture' being the more usual word. A little child will know the word 'picture', but might not yet know 'image'. 'Image' is generally preferred when people are talking about what they see in their own head, or generally want to imply a less solid 'impression' rather than a literal 'picture' that you could point to. So, having seen a goat attacking a melon, you might say, "That's an image that will stick with me." Having seen a great painting and bought a postcard copy, you might say, "I'll stick this picture on my wall." You can get away with using the other word, but it will sound strange. 86.161.109.130 (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latin root of picture can be translated as 'painting', while that of image is 'copy'. As has been pointed out they're inter-changable in modern usage, but you might use 'image' to describe something created without too much human intervention whilst 'picture' implies an act of composition. Blakk and ekka 13:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, I (an English English speaker) would use "picture" for most uses, but "image" in the context of computers or in some special circumstances. For instance, I would say that the Turin Shroud bears an "image" rather than a "picture". I'm not sure I can explain why - perhaps someone else can do better. Alansplodge (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understand it, a picture may be a two-dimentional man-made image, with a defined and specific content. An image would be instead simply anything that we can sense with our eyes. MBelgrano (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that doesn't explain why one might choose to use the word "image" rather than "picture" to refer to a man-made image, as frequently happens. --Viennese Waltz 14:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting question. I'm inclined to agree with MBelgrano here - a picture is an image created with intent. If I pick up my digital camera, and look at what I see through it, it is an image. If I press the button, I 'take a picture'. Note also that the term is sometimes used in reference to cinematic works: early ones with sound were often referred to as 'talking pictures'. The 'Turin Shroud' example seems to suggest that where intentionality is ambiguous (or at least, not attributed to human intent), 'image' is more correct. For many purposes, the words are more or less interchangeable though, so I'd not worry too much about getting it wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image is a more clinical term than picture. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking metaphorically, an "image" of a person or thing has a greater connotation of reputation while a (mental) "picture" is more to do with the senses. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture is more rooted in the corporeal; image carries a more conceptual flavor. They can be used interchangeably, but the core different shades of meaning can result in new implications when one is knowingly substituted for the other. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You hear "image" more in the worlds of graphic design, desk top publishing etc. These people speak of "high res images" and "image libraries" as a way of making themselves sound ritzier than they really are. The same people who use "font" when they mean "typeface". --Viennese Waltz 15:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, image is definitely the word one wants to use when one wants to sound sophisticated and an expert in some area of endeavor. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See pretentious. 86.161.109.130 (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[unindenting] At the risk of sounding pretentious, I am a professional editor, and in the company where I work, image amounts to a technical term with a specific meaning. We use the term photo to refer (unsurprisingly) to photographs. We use the term art to refer to visuals built using applications such as Adobe Illustrator. Art includes illustrations, graphs, tables, maps, and so on. So a photo of the Mona Lisa is a photo, but not what we refer to for publishing purposes as art. Now, we refer to art and photos collectively as images. I suppose we could use the word pictures, but most people don't think of maps and graphs as pictures. I suppose that most people don't think of graphs as images, either. However, image has more of a technical feel to it than picture, and I suppose that is the reason why this word was chosen for this technical use. I have contact with other publishing firms, and I think that the use of the term image is fairly widespread, at least in American publishing, to describe all visuals in a file format suitable for publishing. Marco polo (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where content is concerned, basically you've got 2 things: text and images. Right? Or what did I miss? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image can also be a natural phenomenon, e.g. images of a partially eclipsed sun created by the pinhole cameras of foliage. —Tamfang (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, in publishing contexts (these days), you have more than just text and images. Other possibilities include video, audio, and interactive templates that can accommodate any of the foregoing. Marco polo (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I betrayed my 19th-century origins. :) Is a video considered an image, or would only individual frames be considered images? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image means still image, so a frame (saved as a .png or such) could be an image, but not the entire video file. Marco polo (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say a "picture" represents a view of something that is real or is meant to look as if real, while an "image" is a more general term and includes any sort of visual display. A computer "image file" can represent anything like that: it might also show a table, a reproduction of a page layout, whatever. Of course, in metaphorical usage "image" and "picture" have pretty much the same meaning. --Anonymous, 23:18 UTC, November 30, 2010.

Images do not have to be a visual display. I think Bus stop said it best above - pictures are corporeal and images can be conceptual. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get it now, thank you very much for the detailed explanation, and have a nice day ! :D 130.79.160.112 (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Past of the past

I'm writing an article where, at a certain point, I describe a situation in the past, where a man makes a comparison between the present and a past event (present and past from his perspective, both are past for ours). Are "currently" or "at the time being" acceptable ways to make reference to the former present? If they are not, which ones should I use? MBelgrano (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general linguistic term is pluperfect... Why not "at that time"? AnonMoos (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, or then, often used as in "he said to then-Senator Hillary Clinton" or even "he said to then Senator Hillary Clinton".—msh210℠ 16:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

currently could easily cause confusion. —Tamfang (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Named for"

Is "named for" correct usage in American English? I have seen it used many times here. A made-up example, "The Davey lamp, named for Sir Humphry Davey". In British English "named after" is used. Thanks 92.28.247.40 (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: in American English, either is used.—msh210℠ 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems peculiar to British ears, as saying "named for John" would imply that John could have chosen the name themselves, but delegated the naming responsinility to someone else. Like "shopping for" or "driving for" someone else. 92.28.247.40 (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"For" is one of those very diverse words in English. Like "of". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Named for and named after are nearly synonymous in American English. There are certain situations in which named after would be preferred. For example, "John is named after his father". Whereas, named for, I think, implies that the person (or thing) that inspired the name is somehow renowned or honored. For example, "The street was named for George Washington." In this latter case, named after would also work. Marco polo (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the nuance is that after implies that both bearers of the name are of the same (broad) kind, or bear it in the same way? Many colonial towns are named after other towns; Washington Street is named for ... —Tamfang (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that works: "Boston, Massachusetts, is named after Boston, Lincolnshire." In that sentence (in American English), named after sounds more natural than named for. Marco polo (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Named after" is what my American ears grew up with. "Named for" is not unusual but I've never liked it. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the mystery schwa

I continue to be baffled by entries like this:

Sidereal time (pronounced /saɪˈdɪəri.əl/) ...

Does phonotactic theory insist that /r/ cannot immediately follow a front vowel? Is the /ǝ/ meant as a kind of off-glide? I have a hard time imagining anyone saying /VərV/ (other than in words like theoretic), and yet I see this intrusive /ǝ/ in numerous articles (particularly in astronomy, though I assume that's selection bias). —Tamfang (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this is a British pronunciation. I agree that in General American English, there is no schwa in that position. Marco polo (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I heard the word pronounced without the schwa at http://www.forvo.com/search/sidereal/ and http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=sidereal&submit=Submit.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I speak British English and indeed I pronounce it as sigh-deer-real, with /dɪər/. Well, I think so, at least... Does that count as an off-glide? Thanks. --Kjoonlee 22:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there words that you pronounce with /ɪr/ or /ir/, no schwa? —Tamfang (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, no. o_O (I'm very surprised by this, by the way.) My English is non-rhotic, so "beer" and "deer" are [bɪə] and [dɪə] in isolation, but when a vowel follows, they become [bɪər] and [dɪər]. (I also have intrusive R, whereby "the idea of it" becomes "thee eye deer of it.") --Kjoonlee 10:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kjoonlee - are you sure you don't pronounce "mirror" or "Sirius" with [ɪr]? Your accent is similar to mine (judging by your description), and I certainly pronounce "Sirius" [ˈsɪriəs] - not [ˈsɪəriəs], which is how I say "serious". AFAIK that is the answer to the original question - Wikipedia's IPA guide uses /ɪər/ because it is distinct from /ɪr/ in many forms of English, although the number of minimal pairs may be small. Lfh (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I do pronounce Sirius and serious the way you do. I was just thinking about syllable-final "ir". --Kjoonlee 23:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure that discussion of individuals' pronunciations is very enlightening in this case. Whoever constructed the IPA rendering of sidereal (and presumably the other ones that Tamfang has noticed) was following the instructions in Wikipedia:IPA for English. The very first thread in that page's talk archive deals in part with this very question (and shows how much heat such matters can generate). How other dictionaries handle such vowels can be seen in the table at Help:IPA conventions for English; the pronunciation of sidereal in my copy of the the second edition of the OED, for example, is /saɪˈdɪərɪəl/. Deor (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that archive link, though it was not enlightening at all. :( —Tamfang (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone can suggest where I can hear someone pronouncing words with /ɪərV/? —Tamfang (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might find, among the articles in Category:Spoken articles and Wikipedia:Spoken articles, an article spoken by a person who speaks in that manner.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. With effort I might persuade myself that only my conditioning prevents me from hearing a schwa in Hero ... but it's far from obvious, let alone phonemic. —Tamfang (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can record myself, this week. --Kjoonlee 23:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is phonemic, in that there are minimal pairs for /ɪrV/ vs. /ɪərV/ – albeit not many of them, e.g. there is no word "hirro" to compare with "hero". But often the distinction is made through length rather than an actual schwa vowel, i.e. /ɪərV/ is often realised more like [ɪːrV], making "serious" [ˈsɪːriəs] vs. "Sirius" [ˈsɪriəs]. That may be why you're finding it hard to pick out. Lfh (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vowels and English verb forms

One aspect of the English language that is obviously Germanic in origin is verbs in which the main vowel changes with the tense: "give", "gave", "keep", kept", "come", "came", etc. One pattern frequently occurring in both English and German is "i", "a", "u" as in:

I sing.

I sang.

I have sung.

The bell rings.

The bell rang.

The bell has rung.

etc. I had thought that changes in the vowel when the verb changes forms without any change in the tense happen with some German verbs but not in English (I hadn't thought about this very much, apparently). As far as I know this happens in German only in the present tense ("Ich nehme", "Er nimmt", etc.). But then I noticed:

I say.

He says.

"Long a" as in "bait" in the first form; "short e" as in "bet" in the second. That's certainly a commonplace word, and that's why I say I must not have thought about this a lot.

What other examples are there? (The vowel changes with the verb form while the tense does not change.) Michael Hardy (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of English irregular verbs#Present tense irregular verbs has all the rest. --Kjoonlee 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for quite a few people round me in Yorkshire, "says" is regular in pronunciation. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kjoon.

So: "say" and "do" are the only ones in which the vowel sound changes with a change from one present-tense form to another present-tense form. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]