Language desk
< July 9	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 11 >

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 10

Three Brothers

The articles H and eta seem to explain decently how Latin and Greek have such different values and miniscules for the letter H. But does the Cyrillic letter en (Нн), again with a different miniscule, have any relation to these two? Inter change able 02:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Нн is derived from nu. Its form actually resembles a Ν in Early Cyrillic texts. The Cherokee character Ꮋ is the fourth brother, but is likewise very much unrelated. --Theurgist (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it a brother. It's pronounced [mi], so I'd call it a masked imposter—identical only in shape. Inter change able 19:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Laid on the ground" or "lied on the ground"

I know that the distinction is determined by what is on the ground but what do I use if it is an object ("disturbance") that turns out to be a living person? And suppose someone is waking up and they are kind of speechless and they aren't thinking anything? Its like the kind of scenes in movies where someone is coming to in an unknown place and their almost on auto pilot. --Melab±1 ☎ 03:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, the past tense of lie is lay, not lied, which is the past tense of 'to tell an untruth'. Can you give an example sentence? Then we can give the proper correction if need be. There should be an article lay versus lie as well. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The source of the disturbance laid on the ground. Frank woke up..." --Melab±1 ☎ 17:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the intransitive "to lie" which Jack mentions below. The simple past would be "The source of the disturbance lay on the ground." μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the distinction is not to do with the nature of the object on the ground, it's what's happening to it. Let me explain.

If I take an object and I place it on the ground in a certain way, I am "laying" it on the ground. The object could be an item of clothing or a piece of timber or a dead body or a live body, makes no difference. The verb for what I did to the object is "to lay". What did I do to it? I "laid" it down. (past tense). "To lay" is a transitive verb; it takes an object. You always lay something, you don't just lay.
I go away and someone comes around the corner and sees the thing I've just ~~"lain"~~ "laid" (past participle of "to lay") on the ground.
As far as this person is concerned, the object is just "lying" there. That's from the verb "to lie". This is an intransitive verb. Things don't lie something, they just lie. (Example: Don't just lie there, do something.) The past tense of "to lie" is, as Medeis said, "lay". (Example: I thought he was alive, but I wasn't sure, because he just lay there for a hour without moving).
The continuous past of "to lie" is "was/were lying": (Example: I thought he was alive, but I wasn't sure, because he was just lying there without moving).
People often say "I was laying in bed but had to get up". The grammarians would prefer "I was lying in bed". And that's no lie. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on, Jack, you've laid it out clearly, but if birds could speak ... Dbfirs 06:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm supposed to be afraid to ask. And I am. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Actually, the past participle of lay is laid. The parts of lie are lie, lay, lain, lying. Inter change able 20:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: I lied after all. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The direct object pronoun me (for myself) is important in "Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep".

—Wavelength (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2000 and up

Why don't I hear people read the years 1999 and below as one thousand nine hundred ninety-nine, one thousand nine hundred ninety-eight etc. but I hear people read the years 2000 and up as two thousand, two thousand one etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.240.243.100 (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those things. Many people prefer the form "twenty-xxxx", so in that case 2009 might be pronounced "twenty-oh-nine". That is, of course, more consistent with past usage, but also sounds a little forced in practice (try it and you'll see what I mean), and if you use it in conversation, you're very likely to get weird looks. We really should have an article Pronunciation of year names, or something similar. We do have a section on it here. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say "twenty-oh-nine" all the time. I don't think it sounds forced and I've not yet noted any strange looks. Maybe it's a geographic thing. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this question would be better phrased "why don't I hear people read the years 2000 and above as 'twenty double-oh', 'twenty oh-one', etc"—though I suppose it's obvious from the extremely strange-sounding "twenty double-oh" why we don't do that, now isn't it? Basically, enough people think it sounds stupid reading it as two two-digit numbers to not want to do that. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 06:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a question of what is shorter to pronounce, wich is mostly a function of the number of syllables. "One thou·sand nine hund·red nine·ty-nine" is eight syllables long as opposed to "nine·teen nine·ty-nine" with only five syllables. On the other hand, "twen·ty dou·ble-oh" has five syllables, but "two thou·sand" has only three. Starting with 2010, the "twenty" pronunciation become shorter again – compare "twen·ty ten" (3) and "two thou·sand ten" (4) – so it's possible it will become more popular with time. "Twenty twenty" may sound awkward, though. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Twenty ten" and "twenty twelve" sound natural to me but "twenty eleven" does not, I wonder why that is... but yes, I'm sure after 2020 the convention will set back into reading the two pairs of numbers again. - filelake shoe  08:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Spanish, for example, they do spell out the entire number. 1999 would have been mil novecientos noventa y nueve, or something like that. Very awkward, if you ask me. It may be that a lot of folks were saying "two-thousand..." just because of the novelty of it - we don't go into triple 0's very often. One thing I've noticed especially since 2010 arrived is that more and more spoken media (TV and radio) are saying "twenty..." rather than "two-thousand..." Charles Osgood has been saying "twenty..." for quite awhile now. Now it's a trend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some Spaniard may have been responsible for an edit I undid yesterday. I seriously hope that doesn't catch on. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish is an interesting parallel. The situation is different even in languages that are quite closely related—many Swedish speakers prefer to call the current year tjugohundratolv: tjugo 20 + hundra 100 + tolv 12, similar to how we may refer to 1900 as "nineteen hundred". Norwegian speakers are more likely to call it totusen(og)tolv, "two thousand (and) twelve". dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 03:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The French do exactly the same as the Spanish: 2012 deux mille douze, 1992: mille neuf cent quatre-vingt-douze. As for Norwegian, there was a discussion preceding 2010 as to how to read years higher than 2009. Many speakers naturally followed the English model of twenty-XX, however Språkrådet argued that since we refered to years 1000-1099 as one thousand XX, it should be the same for the years 2000-2099. The form similar to Swedish of 20-hundred is practically unheard of, since Norwegian normally doesn't deal with multiples of one hundred higher than 9, i.e. 1200 is one thousand two hundred, usually never twelve hundred. V85 (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, Riksmålsforbundet (and I am big fans of theirs) advocates that for the same reason. On a somewhat-related note, Språkrådet seems to lean in favour of tjue instead of tyve for 20, and tretti instead of tredve for 30, while Riksmålsforbundet prefers things the other way around. (This discussion in turn reminds me of the internal turmoil I always experience when deciding whether or not I should put English "the" in front of definite form Norwegian/Swedish/Danish words, but that's a discussion for another time.) dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 08:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purely anecdotally, the date convention of "Two thousand and . . ." rather than "Twenty . . ." (in parallel with "Nineteen . . .", "Eighteen . . ." etc) seems to have been influenced by the popular titular renditions of Clarke and Kubrick's film and book 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I have heard it said in the SF Community that Clarke originally expected it to be pronounced "Twenty-Oh-One." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A century ago, did people say "nineteen-ought-six", as seems to be implied in the "thirty-ought-six" (.30″) rifle caliber standardized in that year? —Tamfang (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. Also, after the Kaiser stole the word twenty, the third decade of the last century had to be referred to as the Roaring Ticketies. μηδείς (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Highly dubious! Adam Bishop (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an Emmy-winning Ken Burns documentary, supports Tamfang's supposition as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARXfQzfl9EQ μηδείς (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Yes. Or, at least, some people did. My grandfather always referred to the year of his birth as "Nineteen-ought-four". TheMathemagician (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See a previous thread here. Alansplodge (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to agree with Kpalion on this one: There probably is no external logic to this, other than what is simpler/easier to say. For the years 2000-2009, the reason for not using the word "twenty" is obvious: 2001 read as "twenty-one", sounds like 21. The same goes for twenty-two, twenty-three ... twenty-nine. One could have inserted an "oh" there, (twenty-oh-eight), but that yields just as many syllables as two-thousand-eight, which (in my mind) is clearer. V85 (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, in British English, where we say "two thousand and eight" (albeit the "and" tends to degenerate to "n"), there is a slight economy of syllables in "twenty oh eight". 86.179.2.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly British. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It most definitely is. 86.179.115.69 (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's British in as much as using the word "is" is British. It is common to all dialects of English. You'd confuse the heck out of an American if you told him, we Brits speak different to you, we say bread 'n' butter pudding. He'd say, you can get the ingredients both at the Shop 'n Save 'n' at the Shop n Bag further down the road. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that Americans often omit the "and" in a "two-thousand-and-eight"-type construction, as V85 did above. British and other Commonwealthians always include it. If anyone omits it, that marks them at least as a North American, possibly specifically from the USA. I'm not sure what the Canadians do here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a kid (in the U.S.) my mother told me quite directly that it was wrong to say "nineteen-oh-eight" and the like; only "nineteen eight" was correct. "Nineteen hundred and eight" wasn't even mentioned as a possibility. "Nineteen and eight" sounds like a price in pre-decimalization Britain (fourpence less than a pound). Angr (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, mothers, bless them. My mother once told me the only time the Moon is ever visible is at night-time. She also told me that Mussolini was known as "Il Duce", but in her pronunciation the second word was exactly like the English word "deuce". That's understandable for someone who'd never heard Italian; I've never understood the Moon thing. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I've heard the moon thing taught as science in English schools D: I have never understood how people can be so unobservant about something that is so easily visible so often. 86.164.62.161 (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. It's obvious from TV quiz shows that most people can't tell you the names of the people depicted on the coins and banknotes of their own country, although they handle these objects most every day of their lives. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

It's easy for us Brits. It's the Queen, in every case. I think she uses them as ID when she wants to go to a pub, or buy alcohol from an off-license. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The archived discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 December 24#Six days left and I'm still uncomfortable calling them the "ohs", "aughts" or "noughties". How about you? has related information.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translate Chinese sign

Can anyone translate the sign in the image half way down this page? I'm guessing it tells people not to climb on the sculpture. --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like "危险" (first line) "禁止攀爬" (second line), which translates basically to "Danger", "Climbing prohibited". The word used for "climbing" here is, literally, "climb-crawling", a specific type of "climbing" in Chinese which refers to climbing/crawling on one's hands and knees (as up a hill) as opposed to vertical climbing (as up a rock face). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wasn't expecting the "danger" bit. Wonder whether the "danger" relates to health and safety or the overzealous response of security officials to anyone unfortunate enough to be caught climbing/crawling on it... --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would be more scared of the latter... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]