Language desk
< September 10	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 12 >

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.

September 11

Linguistic Change

Hello Wikipedia! I recently returned one of my student's short story assignments, with some points docked for overly informal language (i.e., 'gonna', 'ain't', misc. youth slang terms and Afro-American Vernacular) outside of thoughts and dialogue (this was clearly not intentional, as she acknowledged). Naturally she complained and I listened, and while I'm fairly sure she was just saying things to hopefully get some points back, she brought up a very good point. She asserted that languages change over time and we should embrace these changes; otherwise we might still speak Latin or Indo-European or some original language. I wasn't sure how to respond to that. My question to the watchers of Wikipedia is: Is linguistic change, focussing on spoken language, a 'good thing', or should we try to slow it or embrace it? On one hand the best literary works (Beowulf, Chaucer, Shakespeare's plays) are products of various linguistic periods and undoubtedly contain much of the slang of that period. On the other, I certainly don't want to start saying things like 'finna' or 'ain't', etc. In other words, should as much attention be paid to speaking in formal standard English as writing it? [This post has been edited to clarify the original question] 24.92.78.167 (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of "should" and "allowed". Languages aren't "allowed to change" or "prevented from changing", it just happens on its own. Even staunchly guarded languages like French (which has its own academy for preserving it) still change. Sometimes the change in spoken language isn't reflected in the written language, but the language is still changing nonetheless. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While languages change, and it is possible that your student will be able to write a successful story in vernacular, she also needs to be able to write in formal, standard English. At the moment, she is accidentally writing in informal vernacular when she intends to write in standard English: once she can reliably write in standard English, she can choose to use vernacular whenever she wants. Formal, standard English is not static, it changes and is changing, and the vocabulary is not the same everywhere. Nonetheless, she will be judged by many people in her life on her ability to write in formal standard English, and it won't make any difference that she can argue for language change. On top of that, formal standard English is clearer when writing for people who aren't part of your specific subculture: if she wants or needs to write things which people outside her friends at school can understand, she needs to be able to use formal standard English. If she wants a decent job, she needs to be able to write formal standard English: at least enough to write a CV! 86.164.78.91 (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a high school teacher in Australia, with many students from a lower socio-economic background, if I was to try to speak the same vernacular as these kids I would replace most of the adjectives I know with f**kin'. Hard to tell if it's a long term change in the accepted language. HiLo48 (talk)

I personally believe that the goal of writing is to connect with readers, and anything that doesn't come across as awkward or jarring to readers is okay. To me, the words you cite would be jarring. Looie496 (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although 'gonna', and, to a lesser extent, 'ain't' have made it into mainstream spoken English, they haven't yet reached the point of being acceptable in formal written English (although they seem to be OK in the news), so although the language definitely is changing, it hasn't changed that far yet. It is right for you to correct your student using such terms in non-dialogue school writing. Lexicografía (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses. I'm sorry, but my question was worded poorly. Of course I realize that being able to write formal Standard English is important and I was right to correct the student, and that languages change whether or not we want them to. My question was actually intended to be more general than this specific case. Reworded, my question is: Is linguistic change, focussing on spoken language (since that's where changes begin), a 'good thing', i.e., should we try to slow it or embrace it. I apologize for any ambiguity. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Steve Pinker has dealt with that question in some of his books, and I believe he makes a pretty convincing case that we should embrace it. Looie496 (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends which camp you're in. Simplistically, there are 3 camps:

(a) the people who either initiate change or immediately jump on the bandwagon
(b) the people who resist any change until either they're convinced it's a good change that deserves to be championed, or they realise it's now become the norm so it's futile to resist it anymore; and
(c) the people who adopt language change without ever really thinking about it. They like to think of themselves as modern and up to date with fashions of all kinds, so it just sort of happens unconsciously.

In a school, virtually all students will be in camp (a), and virtually all teachers will be in camp (b). (A teacher who's in (c) should not be teaching language to begin with.) This tension can only be resolved if one side or the other gives way, and that ain't gonna happen. I think it's a teacher's job to inspire fluency and confidence with the language as it is today; if that means refusing to acknowledge this week's latest neologism as a legitimate form of expression, so be it. It will be taught soon enough, just as soon as it's recognised by the lexicographers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the student's example of Latin, you could say that spoken Latin did change a lot and was quite different from classical written Latin, and that's how the Romance languages developed, but at the same time, an educated person needed to know how to read and write the proper form in order to be understood everywhere in the Roman world (and throughout history, since classical Latin is what we still learn today). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your (c) seems to be the same as the second part of (a) (those who jump on the bandwagon)? 213.122.17.213 (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The bandwagonners in (a) do it deliberately, and most importantly, consciously. They can and would discuss the change with you, and explain why they and their peers now say "<X>" where they used to say "<Y>". They could also explain why they've chosen NOT to adopt certain expressions coined by those who they consider to be the wrong people. The people in (c) are hardly even aware, if aware at all, that they're speaking differently now. The (a) people drive the change; the (c) people are like mindless victims of it. I did say it was simplistic. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the thing about evolution, right, is that it's a process of trial n' error. Therefore you can't "go along with it" - that would mean blindly accepting errors; but of course it would be backwards of you to completely resist it. I think we should actively participate in the evolution of language, which means both experimenting and criticizing. 213.122.17.213 (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has been going on as long as people have been writing about language! Languages change naturally, and it is useless to try to freeze a language at any one point in time. However, formal written language, while changing, tends to do so more conservatively than does informal spoken language. The word "whom," long gone from informal spoken English, is disappearing from formal written English as more publications drop it from their styles. Yet it will be a long time before we see "gonna" used in professional writing. People who buy novels expect the language (outside of characters' quotes) to read a certain way and will complain if they don't. Your student may not go on to write a novel, but she will write resumes, reports, and the like, and the audience for those things will expect the text to be written in a certain way. It doesn't mean that informal spoken English, slang or dialect is "wrong," only that it's not appropriate for certain contexts. This is not just an issue for young people for for African-Americans but for people all over the world, where people speak in one manner (a regional dialect, for example) and write in another (Standard German, Norwegian Bokmål, etc.). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

parsing Chinese sentence

I'm learning Chinese via Wikipedia!

(接口) (描述了) (如何) (通过方法) (与)(类-及其-实例) (互操作)

(Interface) (describes) (how) (via method) (for?) (class and instance) (inter-operate)

The interface describes how to interact with the class and instance via the methods.

Have I figured out this sentence correctly? I'm a little unclear on the role that 与 plays in this sentence. Thanks RF volunteers Duomillia (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this I would guess it is about computers or programming. The individual translations of the phrases seem accurate, but without more context I can't tell if you are interpreting it correctly. '与' is generally a synonym for '和' and acts as a conjunction. '互操作' could also be translated as 'interact'. Intelligentsium 01:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have included the source: http://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/类_(计算机科学) Duomillia (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Chinese, but see Interface (object-oriented programming) for what the passage ought to say. Looie496 (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Class (object-oriented_programming). It's the third sentence of the third paragraph. :) I guess the only thing I'm not clear on, is 与 the preposition attached to 互操作 - one interacts WITH such and such ... Duomillia (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, '与' could also be translated 'with', though it generally means 'and'. Even in this context, '与' could be translated 'and', if one thinks of it as '方法', '类', and '实例' interacting with each other. Intelligentsium 00:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of translation

A German editor from the German Wikipedia has made an English translation of two chapters from a German article. The translation are not perfect as he said himself, so would some English speaking persons please help. We need persons to read the two chapters and correct the English mistakes. The chapters are now on the discussion page of the article.
The chapters are:

– Talk:Steinway D-274#History
– Talk:Steinway D-274#Introduction of the type D-274 of today design

The German editor has written this notice: Talk:Steinway D-274#Addings to the history from the german WP

When the language has been corrected in the two chapters, the chapters can be copied and inserted in the article: Steinway D-274. I can do that. Peoplefromarizona (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a native English speaker, but I know the language fairly well. (I got the second highest grade in my matriculation exam about English, even.) So I have taken a try at correcting the translation. There must still be mistakes left, so a native English speaker should take a further look. JIP | Talk 06:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a whack at it, even though I'm not a musician, so perhaps someone else can smooth out some technical terms/phrases that I puzzled over. I posted my version separately from the original there on the talk page. Textorus (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space Languages

Did they ever explain why all the aliens in Stargate speak English? I know Star Trek had the universal translator, but Stargate didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ussenterprizejtkirk (talk • contribs) 13:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of disbelief? rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which worked fine until the episode that centred around them not understanding the written text of an alien newspaper article (something about the population becoming infertile), while speaking without problem to the people of the planet for the entire episode. That was a rather stupid way of putting the suspension of disbelief on its edge, and it certainly broke it for me. If you succeed in not making the viewers think about the gaps in the logic, it is usually best to stay clear of them with a bit extra distance. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at http://www.gateworld.net/the_stargate_faq.shtml#general.1 -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, if you can accept the notions of the matter transporter and backwards time travel, language issues are tinker toys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No...Because those other concepts are explained, and the language isn't. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those items may be "explained", but the explanations are bogus, as there can't possibly be any such thing. As for the language, maybe the answer is the "Babel fish"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except, as explained above, babel fish doesn't really work in this case. We're shown a lot of the tech and problem solving, but we aren't shown that and so cannot assume it. We might be able to assume some magical property of the stargate translates, or that everyone randomly speaks English, but when they throw in the difficulty of reading the language, you can't assume that any more. Scifi and fantasy tread a narrow line with the willing suspension of disbelief, and remaining consistent or distracting the audience from contradictions is important. Otherwise, anything could happen and there is no tension. It's why the Harry Potter books have to establish that death is final and cannot be reversed, it's why you have to establish a technology or magic before it can be used to resolve the plot, and it's why you decide whether or not everyone can understand everyone. One of the many ways in which the film Stargate was so much better than the series was the handling of language issues. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Goa'uld seem to be one of the few races with a language, but they only seem to use it to shout "kree" and related commands. Rimush (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more like The Time Tunnel, where they landed in ancient Rome and everyone spoke British English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Anyone who plays Rome: Total War would know straight away that the Romans all spoke American English. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, they spoke King James English. Anyone who's read the Bible would know that! Lexicografía (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In The Jungle Book (the actual book), Kipling uses Prayer Book English for the reported speech of the various animals; "Now I know that thou art a man and a man's cub no longer. The jungle is shut indeed to thee henceforward.". This device shows that they are speaking the language of the jungle and not standard English. Zoltan Korda uses it in his 1942 film but sadly Disney misses the point. Alansplodge (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They played a trick like this in "Masada", the 1981 miniseries. Peter O'Toole and the rest of the Romans spoke British, to represent Latin, while Peter Strauss and the rest of the Jews spoke American, to represent Hebrew or Aramaic. Great series. PhGustaf (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a common device for film-makers to use British English for the bad guys (Star Wars) and good ol' farm boy American for the heroes, whatever language the originals spoke. However, we Brits, to this day, still have no idea why Robin Hood spoke American in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Imagine if that had been a film about the Alamo, and Davy Crockett was played by a Brit. The director would be laughed into early retirement. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes they just mix them all up willy-nilly. In The Ten Commandments (1956 film), we had the American-sounding Charlton Heston (although he could do a passable imitation of a Brit when he wanted - see Khartoum (film), where he played General Gordon), alongside the Eastern-European-Slavic sounding Yul Brynner and his American-sounding children (Yes, fatherrrr), alongside Pharaoh Seti played by the clipped-upper crust-English-sounding Cedric Hardwicke. And all of them were supposed to be Egyptians. Sometimes it just seems to work better when they don't try too hard to take themselves too seriously. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jack, I was going to mention that, but I couldn't remember the name of the film, bizarrely enough. Anyway, enough of me tonight, as one has some tedious rebels one has to crack down on on Rome: Total War and one must do these things once in a while, being ~~British~~ ~~Roman~~ an evil ruler as one is. One is just waiting for the hotdogs and hamburgers with Gallic-cowboys shouting 'yiippee-aye-eh!' and such other fun stuff. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing exciting, but since no one has linked it yet: The article on universal translator has examples from Farscape to Stargate, from Dr. Who to Google. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TvTropes has extensive coverage of this phenomenon. This is the general language category, but you could start with translator microbes and click around. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One does wonder why, in films where Native Americans are featured, when they're speaking to each other and they speak in English so the audience doesn't have to read subtitles, why the Native Americans speak with stereotypical "Indian" accents. They're obviously speaking their own language, even though it's being represented as English, and surely they don't speak with "foreign" accents in their own language. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same as, in British films about WW2, how the Germans all speak English with German accents even when speaking to each other, and even though the actors are British. In American films about WW2, however, all the Germans speak English to each other with perfect British accents, even though the actors are, in fact, Germans. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On ze ozer händ, ze Tshermans in Hogan's Heroes schpiek in different Tsherman Dialekts - zätt is, ven juh watsch ze Schow in Tsherman:

Klink speaks in a thick Saxonian dialect, fitting his backstory of being born in Leipzig.
Schultz speaks an Austro-Bavarian dialect - in reality, it should be South Franconian ("Badisch"), since his backstory mentions Heidelberg as his hometown.

Ze onlieh Ällaid wiz ä notizäbl äkkzent is ze Frentsch Gai.

-- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Newkirk has a noticeable British accent. And Hogan, Kinch, Carter and Baker all have noticeable American accents. Everyone has an accent; it's not just "other people". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the German dub, where all the allies speak standard German, except for the French guy. Obviously, their original English voices will have different accents - either their actors' native ones or ones fitting their role. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's like the aliens Kang and Kodos on The Simpsons, who are really speaking their own language, which by astonishing coincidence, is exactly the same as English. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Allo 'Allo deals with these issues superbly, IMHO. Robinh (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Situation

Is there an article for the modern American trend of taking a name of "The" and then an ordinary noun? Michael Sorrentino, for example. This is popular in Jersey, supposedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lantern Red (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on how you define "ordinary". There's both a White House office and a TV show called the Situation Room (disambiguation). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's referring to Michael Sorrentino, who has decided to start calling himself - or rather, his abdominal muscles - "The Situation" and in fact recently lost his bid to get the name trademarked. Offhand, I can't think of any other examples of "The X" being used as a name like that, but I try hard not to pay attention to popular culture these days, in large part due to the efforts of fine gentlemen like Mr. The Situation. Matt Deres (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Donald. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand. How you define "ordinary" has determined whether there is an article about this? Lantern Red (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand the original question, nor do I understand this one. This is strictly the English Language Reference Desk for questions about language, but, if you feel you can clarify in another language of your choosing, then please go ahead. Many of us here do speak multiple languages and we will endeavour to help whenever we can. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is perfectly easy to understand if you are familiar with Jersey Shore, which unfortunately Matt and I are (and it is praiseworthy that you and Bugs are not). I can't think of any other examples either though, except for wrestling nicknames and comic book characters. I wouldn't call it a "modern American trend" exactly... Adam Bishop (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about mobster nicknames, or The Mouth (redirect to Mike Matusow)? "Can we build a person from nicknames?" ---Sluzzelin talk 09:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's libel, dammit! I have no idea what Jersey Shore is, I only recalled the nickname from browsing the TSG website. Matt Deres (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

So I'm the only one here who has watched it? I hope everyone appreciates the sacrifices I make for the Reference Desk! Adam Bishop (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]