Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 November 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.

November 11

Transliteration of Hebrew without vowels

I'm trying to find:

(a) the scholarly standards for transcription/transliteration of Hebrew without vowels, as used when discussing a word of uncertain niqqud (e.g. ישראל = YŚRʾL, מלכיצדק = MLKYṢDQ)

Should the transcription be given in capitals or lowercase? With or without diacritics?

(b) the name of this form of transliteration (Google searches for every term I could imagine brought up nothing)

(c) Wikipedia's standards/guidelines etc. if any on using such transliteration. (Case in point: an obscure figure in Jewish history from 13th-century France is called either דילשוט or דילשוש in Judeo-French. Sources disagree on the correct interpretation of his name, so for purposes of neutrality, a vowel-less transliteration is called for.)

Thank you all very much!

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You can start with the article "Romanization of Hebrew", but I did not find an answer there from several minutes of searching.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but that is where I started before posting. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think what you did above is fine -- i.e. DYLŠWŠ or DYLŠWṬ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's odd, though, that I can't find any guide to the academic standards of transliterating texts of unknown vocalization, which is relevant in many languages (Ancient Egyptian, Arabic, Aramaic, Hebrew (especially epigraphic Paleo-Hebrew), Phoenician, Ugaritic, etc.). Nor could I find any reference to the problem in librarians' guides to transcriptions—surely there are cases that a librarian is completely clueless as to the correct vocalization? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I've seen it done in several publications, but I don't remember having seen a special name for it. I tried to search for "vowelless transliteration" and "consonantal transliteration", but Google either "corrected"[sic] "vowelless" to "vowels" and "transliteration" to "translation", or it turned up an absurdly low and obviously incorrect number of search results. It's rather annoying that it's almost impossible nowadays to turn off all second-guessing and stemming and fuzzy searching in Google and do a straight-up literal search for exactly and only what you type in the search box... AnonMoos (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's actually easy to override Google's corrections: just put the desired search terms in quotation marks. Though I should mention that I searched for the same terms already, with no success. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not in fact "easy" -- you can use any combination of quote marks and prefixed "+" signs, but these days it's almost impossible to turn off all forms of second-guessing, stemming, and fuzzy searching in Google... AnonMoos (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a "Verbatim" option, which I see under Search Tools > All Results, which one would hope does what it says on the tin. However, I have never tested it in anger. 86.176.209.235 (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

For Arabic and Farsi special tools are being developed, they are usually called vocalizers or diacritizers. The only other ways are to know the language itself or use a dictionary.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood my question. I asked about cases when vowel-free transliteration is specifically called for, for example when the vocalization is inherently uncertain or being discussed in the text. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Can't you just use standard transliteration schemes but just omitting vowels?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I can, and (as Anonmoos mentioned) this seems to be the norm, but that leaves questions (a) and (b) open. (I guess the answer to (c) is "none".) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Reading of Graeco-Roman names

I'm just now very interested in Greek mythology, and I'm reading some books on this in English and I'm encountering many new names, I've neither seen nor listened before, and I'm not sure in their English pronunciation but I perfectly know how they have to be read in Greek or Latin. Is it accepted to read aloud (or "aloud" to myself) Greek and Roman names in English texts as they are pronounced in the respective languages or should I corrupt them anyway? Or at least could I substitute Greek and Roman phonemes with their closest English correspondences (I mean a=/ʌ~æ/, ā=/ɑː/, æ=/aɪ/, e=/ɛ/, ē=/eː~eɪ/ etc.)? What is the modern practice of reading the names in schools and universities where antiquity is studied thoroughly?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Traditionally-prominent names have accepted conventional pronunciations -- Caesar = [siːzər], Phoebe = [fiːbi], etc. (definitely not [kaɪsɑr] or [pʰoɪbɛː] for any kind of ordinary use). Some less prominent classical names also have traditional conventional English pronunciations, but it may not be easy to find them without consulting specialized reference works... AnonMoos (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems most Wikipedia articles offer an English pronunciation in the first line. Examples: Phoebe (mythology), Zeus, Agamemnon, Clytemnestra, Odysseus. etc. Taknaran (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

In American university classes, the reconstructed ancient Latin or Greek pronunciation is used consistently only in language classes, that is languages in which students are studying Latin or ancient Greek. Outside of language classes, for example in literature courses offered by departments of classics to students who are not expected to read Latin or ancient Greek, the traditional English (corrupt) pronunciation is used for most ancient names. Marco polo (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Given you are just reading to yourself, be comfortable with popular pronunciations like seezer for Caesar, (including the popular pronunciation used in your native tongue, not just English!) even though you know it's Kighsar. If you come accross an uncommon name, pronounce it the way they would have originally--no need to make up a popular name when you can say the original. The most important thing is raeding should flow, and you should be able to understand and enjoy the meaning without getting hung up on a word's pronunciation every time you come across it.

I have found myself reading books with names of ambiguous pronunciation, and after being driven crazy by it every time I came across it, just finally picked one pronunciation and stuck with it. Don't be afraid to do this even if it is just for convenience. One of my favorite books is Mists of Avalon which tells the Arthurian legend. The author chose the Welsh spelling Gwenhwyfar for Guinevere. There was no way I was going to pause and say "gwen hwee var" and think "Oh, that's Welsh", every time I read it. I just decided it was pronounced Guinevere and moved on.

The thing to be proud of is that you know the difference between the original and the common or modern pronunciations, and can use them when necessary, not that you make yourself jump through linguistic hoops when you are reading. Reading is supposed to flow. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a really interesting comment, Medeis. Reading silently to oneself requires no pronunciation of any words, because it's essentially a visual experience. Do you have a voice reading the words in your head, and does that voice have to stop at unfamiliar words and sound them out syllable by syllable? Each time you come to 'Gwenhwyfar' (after the first time), do you not just recognise it and move on instantaneously, or do you have to silently sound it out each time for it to make sense to you? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I must have been doing it wrong all these years. Reading silently is not quite like reading out loud, but I find there's a vocal element nevertheless... a "voice in the head", so to say, albeit one that can speak pretty fast. Having been trained in phonics when I was a youngster, I can take a pretty good shot at just about any unfamiliar word, and that "becomes" its pronunciation until such time as I bother to look it up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The sound of the written word is always there, just in fluent adult reading it is usually beneath the level of conscious awareness. (Just like the fact you are not normally aware the type you see is black on white, or Arial as opposed to Times.) It has become automatized and is no longer attended to so that in flow the higher-level task of abstract comprehension can be attended to. It is only when there is some tension, as with oddly spelled, foreign, or intentionally alien or impossible names like Mxyzptlk that the tension comes to attention. The the brain stalls at the abstract level, and has to shift down to a lower gear before getting started again.

That's why mippsellings are so annoying when you notice them. I almost had to stop reading a book once because the author intentionally and repeatedly used "should of gone" instead of "should've gone", even though there was actually no difference in pronunciation.

If you haven't "chosen" how to pronounce a new word, you are going to pause every time you come across it. The point is, you as the reader should feel entitled to choose whatever reasonable pronunciation you find comfortable. That doesn't mean you are now going to stop, pause, and focus on the word's sound as you have chosen each new time you see it. On the contrary, it means you have settled on something, decided this is no longer an issue, and can go on ignoring the issue from that point further.

I am sure it is possible there are people who read primarily visually (the deaf come to mind) and expect it applies to a minority of non-deaf people. But that written words have an underlying phonic representation is the normal case. (If it weren't, myhspelngz that evoke a sound without much visual similarity to the target word either would not bother or be noticed by people, or would be totally incomprehensible.) μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I do notice the typeface. And some teachers along the way have told me that the purpose of seriphs (as with Times New Roman) is to make it easier to read because it visually flows better. Given that, I wonder why folks use Arial so much, or other sans-seriph typefaces. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Serif fonts seem to improve readability on the printed page, but the serifs can impair readability onscreen because resolution is often not as sharp as in print. Marco polo (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I notice the font (when it varies from times) when I pick up a book. The typeface used in Larry Niven's Dream Park is so bad I stopped reading it. See this reviewer. But I don't renotice it with every word I read. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

So it appears that Arial is used so much because it works well on the computer screen. In any case, e-books look ugly to me, but I guess it's not going to change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I notice the font only at the beginning of reading a new book but then I don't.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If the font is sufficiently eyestrain-inducing, I don't get past the first paragraph. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yall. I agree with Medeis, even in your native language you unconsciously read aloud the text with your "internal voice", though I read some time ago that internal voice while reading was disapproved by the proponents of speed-reading (I neither like this nor I ever intended to read 1000 words a minute, so for me my internal voice while reading is not a problem). And while reading in a foreign language I think it is important to read internally all the words. The issue with Greek and Roman names that they are treated as English ones and underwent the Great Vowel Shift as well. For example, you can read Welsh names closely to Welsh pronunciation with English accent. This is applied to Russian, Italian, French, Arabic, and so on (except for well-assimilated names like Ivan). With Graeco-Roman names this trick seems not to work as I understand. It is bad news for me. I know the pronunciation of well-known names and read them as received but there are many other names which are not listed in dictionaries. And these are indeed very numerous. When I read just about Hercules I encountered dozens unknown names (both personal and geographic). Though I'll well probably never pronounce them in the future but still I have a dilemma whether I have to be puzzled every time how to fit them to English according to the GVS or just read them letter to letter. Yes, I accept I can't pronounce Ancient Greek or Latin properly but it is better to say /sθɛnɛlʊs/ or /stɛnɛlʊs/ or something close for Sthenelus than to puzzle my head with "proper" English pronunciation (/ˈsθiːnələs/? /sθəˈniːləs/? /ˈsθɛnələs/? - and this is not a so difficult name).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy to know good people in the past knew the problem and compiled lists of the names (with inconvenient notation but nevertheless).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In the particular case of Sthenelus, I myself would settle on /'sθɛnələs/. If English were not my native tongue, but I was reading an English text, I might settle on /stɛnələs/--and this has justification as the earlier state in Greek anyway, even if English /st-/ is not aspirated.

As for speed readers, the claim there is no underlying pronunciation would make sense in the case where you were scanning a page for words at some higher level of abstraction, such as for foreign words, for words that begin with qu-. for proper names, for the names of atomic elements, or so on. In that case you can, assuming years of practice, scan quickly for all sorts of categories without vocalizing any of the other words. Nevertheless, if you want to understand the sentence it is found within, you will have to read the sentence, and the pronunciation is implicit in doing so. Try the following experiment. While reading the following list of words aloud (do it now without practice or saying any other words but them aloud or in your head) count how many words are in the following list:

alligator, hearken, mushroom, basketball, corndog, deadfall, dig, nuthatch, olympics, pander, Susan, quite, yellow.

Chances are, if you didn't cheat, you counted the words on your fingers while you said them aloud, and checked your finger count at the end. This is because both reading and counting require subvocalization and you can't do both competing tasks at once. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I counted 13. I counted them in groups of 3 and there were 4 groups and 1 additional. No fingers, and not out loud. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting, because knowing that most people count on their fingers I used the count by threes method myself! The problem is you are still implicitly pausing at every third item and upping your implicitly spoken count by one, or using your fingers, or the like. The bottom line is that you can't count large numbers (more than a "few") without using some sort of known, ordered, perceptual tag. μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right. I only count on fingers when I'm observing something that requires a tally but lacks a "rhythm". If I were more awake I could give you an example or two. In the case of your 13 words, I read the first three, paused slightly, read the next three, paused slightly, and so on. That was a short list. Above a certain size, I might have to tally the groups of three, in order not to lose track. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd also pronounce such a way as it follows the rules: the word has three syllables and the third from the end is stressed and its vowel is short. But many times I was mistaken when I followed the rules so I prefer to look at a dictionary (even simple words break the rules: eleven /ɪˈlɛvən/, not /ˈɛləvən/, level /ˈlɛvəl/, not /ˈliːvəl/ - thousands of them). I have no problem with English consonants I can pronounce /sθ/ but this combination seems not to have existed in Ancient Greek and Latin, /sθ-/ looks like "demoticised" pronunciation.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what that means -- σθενος "strength, might, prowess" and several derivatives from it with initial σθ are listed in standard ancient Greek dictionaries, while medial σθ occurred frequently in mediopassive verb endings... AnonMoos (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It means in Ancient Greek ‹σθ› was /stʰ/ but in Medieval and Modern Greek it is /sθ/. Pronouncing ‹θ› as /θ/ I follow the pronunciation habits of modern Greeks (they read Ancient and Modern Greek the same).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you're going for modern Greek, then γυναικιζοντες becomes [jinekizodes], etc... AnonMoos (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Still better than /ˌdʒaɪniːˈsaɪzəntəs/ or what it should be... (what does it mean, btw?)--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think a fully traditional English pronunciation (of the spelling gynaecizontes) would be more like /dʒaɪniːsɪzɒntɪz/. It means "those who are womanish" (not referring to actual women)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems you beat Google. This word is too rare in Greek or is not found at all in Latin script. I still wonder why you gave this strange example.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted a form that would show off some modern Greek pronunciation features. I thought of γυναι- = [jine] right off, and then looked in my ancient Greek dictionary for something that also had ντ = [d], or could be inflected to include this. Also thought about including an instance of δ = [ð], but couldn't work out how a single word could contain all three... AnonMoos (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Other Greek and Latin words

I also always wonder how special scientific Greek and Latin terms are pronounced in English. In medicine or chemistry there are many, many thousands of them. And they are read aloud, for example while studying medicine in universities. In the languages with (quasi-)phonemic letter-to-letter orthography (Russian, Italian etc.) it is not a problem but in English? Yes, there are dictionaries and lists for common terms, but what about uncommon?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems poor medics use special big dictionaries to know pronunciation. I don't envy them.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Has nobody any experience to share with?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I recall an Isaac Asimov essay that advised using the rhythm of The Irish Washerwoman with the example, para-dimethylaminobenzaldehyde, I can't get the word and the tune out of my head sometimes 30 years later! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.59.101.74 (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You gave me an idea how to pronounce such words. We should split them into smaller elements and then look at their pronunciation in a dictionary, then join together these pronunciations. This appears to be like /ˌpærəˌdaɪˌmiːθaɪləˌmiːnoʊbɛnˈzældɪhaɪd/.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I/Me/Myself

I tend to say "John Doe and myself went back to the store to buy a CD", but I've heard people saying "You and I" (Like Lady GaGa in a song), or "You and me"... What's the right way of saying it. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Following strict grammar, "You and I" is the correct way to say it, but using "me" or "myself" is quite widely accepted nowadays. - Lindert (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The best way to tell which pronoun to use is to divide it into two separate sentences, one for each person: "John Doe went back to the store to buy a CD" and "I went back to the store to buy a CD." Same thing works for objects of sentences: "She gave donuts to Larry and me" becomes "She gave donuts to Larry" and "She gave donuts to me."    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 14:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so I was saying it the wrong way? How embarrassing! I've heard Bono saying myself as well, so we both are wrongy. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The slippery one is "myself". And if I'm remembering correctly, "me" and "myself" are the same word in Spanish. As in, como se llama, "how do you call yourself (i.e. what is your name); and me llamo Juan, "I call myself John (my name is John)". In English, "myself" is used in certain situations. It tends to be used for emphasis or when you are the subject of your own verb. I'm reminded of this line from a Gilbert & Sullivan song: "When I went to the Bar as a very young man (said I to myself - said I)..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I know myself/yourself...etc as "pronombres reflexivos". In the sentence He kissed me, you can translate it as Él me besó o Él me besó a mí, to emphasize that he did kiss me -- Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You can use reflexive pronouns for emphasis in English, too: "Actually, the person in the Godzilla costume was I myself." "Don't try to fool me; you yourself were the murderer!" Deor (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Steven Pinker has a lengthy discussion of this problem in The Language Instinct. The upshot is that dividing the sentence in two is not linguistically valid, and it is not obvious that any one way of saying it is more valid than any other -- "John and I/Me/Myself" is a collective entity, and the rules governing collective entities are not the same as the rules governing their parts. Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That runs counter to what all my English teachers said over the years. But what did they know, compared to whoever this Pinker is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

He is a scientist and a science author. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. I'll go with what my English teachers said, because (1) they were students of English; and (2) regardless of what Pinker says, it does work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I was being ironic because Looie had provided a link to the man and I thought you had clicked on it. :D Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Very good. :) I hadn't linked on it because I knew he had it wrong. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Steve Pinker is by far the most famous linguist who is currently active, and quite possibly the most famous cognitive scientist. He is also a brilliant writer, and has written around a dozen bestsellers. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's nice that he's considered a cunning linguist. But he's still wrong about the I/me rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Steven Pinker is not a linguist (per se), and Noam Chomsky is both alive and far more famous. (Although I'd take half a pinker over a dozen chomsky's.) μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I am watching a lot of House Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Remember how in school you'd put your hand up to indicate you wanted the teacher to recognise you for some reason. They'd typically say "Yes, <name>", and that would be your permission to speak. Well, I had a teacher who would point at the kid and say "Yourself". Whether he couldn't remember anyone's name, or because he was Irish, or maybe both, I couldn't say.

As for "John and myself went to the store", that always sounds to me like someone who's avoiding saying "I" because it's supposed to sound selfish to talk about oneself, which is probably a very early childhood lesson that got over-taught and went in too deeply. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Irish people tend to say myself?? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

See Irish English μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• The confusion arises because Spanish me covers both English me and myself. The important thing is to know when to use myself. Once you know that, whether to use I or me is the largely same as in Spanish.

You have to use myself when the subject and the object are the same in a verb that is not usually necessarily reflexive: Yo me odio: "I hate myself." (Odiarse is not a normal verb.) In normally reflexive verbs, like lavarse and afeitarse you can use myself, or leave it out as understood. "I shave in the morning" and "I shave myself in the morning" are both fine. The simple "I shave" is more normal. If you were in a troop of dancers, you might sya, I shave myself first, then I shave the rest of the girls."

In other cases, you use myself to indicate emphasis, or that you did something alone. Examples of emphasized contrast: "(As for) myself, I like liver; the rest of my family hates it." "I don't feel like going myself, but you can if you want to." Or to indicate lone action: "I read the book all by myself." "I found it myself, don't expect me to share it." (In these cases in Spanish you would probably say "lo hice solo" or "Yo mismo lo hice" and would no use a second pronoun.

Once you know whn to use myself, when to use I and me is pretty obvious. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

So, is it correct to say "And then, Sharon and myself looked at each other surprised by Robert's stupid comment"? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 20:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say, "Sharon and I looked at each other..." Sharon looked at me. I looked at her. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Technically, it's wrong. But you would definitely hear such things, and unless I were being paid to coach someone, I wouldn't even notice it. The problem is you can't grammatically say "myself looked at", you have to say "I looked at", per Bugs. I wouldn't remove it from dialog in a novel, except if the speaker were giving a formal speech. "Sharon and me" would also be more common in this instance thatn "Sharon and myself", but technically it would be equally wrong. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What does this mean: unless I were being paid to coach someone? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 20:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Cuando me pagaran para corregir su lenguaje profesionalmente. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, te pagaría para que corrigieras mi shitty Inglés si tuviera dinero. :P Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 21:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The "rule" forbidding "Me and John went" is an example of what John Lawler calls a "peeve": a rule that somebody invented (quite possibly in order to have more rules to put in their grammar book, and so outsell the competition) sometime in the last couple of centuries, and generations of pedagogues and pundits have insisted on ever since. In 1986 Joseph Emonds, of the University of Washington concluded in a (rather technical) paper that "PU ['prestige usage', i.e. the 'John and I went' rule] is a purely social code which is excluded as a possible rule of Modern English by ... universal grammar". (emphasis added)

In the case of most such peeves, most people quite happily go on speaking English until they find themselves in a classroom or similarly formal situation in which case they recall the nonsense which has been drummed into them. In this case, since the rule is not expressible within the grammar of English (as Emonds explains), most people who have not had the luxury of a classical education have been unable to internalise the rule, and either substitute a different rule (which gives the 'hypercorrection' "between you and I") or seek to avoid the problem by using "myself". --ColinFine (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

References

There were always a number of folks peeved when Tonto would say things like, "Me and Kemo Sabe go to town." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You'd need to find me an example of another case-preserving Indo-European language that allows "me went" before I'd swallow that hook, Colin. Either that form is inherited from PIE or Proto-Germanic, or it originated at some point in English, which it hasn't. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that "me went" was ever grammatical in English. I'm saying (or Emonds is saying) that as all other exponents of case disappeared in English, the remaining morphological exponent of it (in the personal pronouns) was reanalysed as a purely syntactic feature, something like "use the I form when preceding the verb in the same syntactic node" (it's a bit more complicated than that, but that gets the gist of it - see Emonds' paper for the details). But that rule did not apply in the context of conjoined subjects, because the pronoun is no longer in the same syntactic node, but in a subnode, the conjunction; therefore "you and me" became grammatical in any position, including subject position. As Pinker explains (see Bugs' post above), there is no a priori reason why the case of the conjunct NP has to percolate inside the conjunction; after all, number doesn't. --ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite get the "percolate" comment, but the rest of what you've said is clear and undoubtedly correct, that the language is undergoing a reanalysis where case is lost and "me" becomes the normal form found in compound subjects. My point is that people who lack this recent reanalysis don't necessarily do so because they've studied Latin. It's simply the earlier and, in many cases, still current state of the language. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Are we not conflating two different rules here? The "others before I and me" rule is recent and is not used, for example, in the King James Bible. The case rule for "I" and "me", even with a conjunction, has always been part of formal English (carried over from Old and Middle English), though I agree that it is ignored in many varieties of spoken English. Dbfirs 22:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about pronouns

Person A: "I am trying to think of the name of that famous actress who was murdered by Charles Manson."

Person B: "Oh, you mean Sharon Tate."

Person A: "Yes, that is her!"

As far as grammar is concerned, is the final statement correct or incorrect? Should it – in order to be grammatically correct – actually be "Yes, that is she"! ... ? Or is either version acceptable and correct? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Does Predicate nominative help? RJFJR (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I see. I assume you are referring to the section of "disputed forms" within that article? Thanks. So, the answer is that there is no clear answer, it seems. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

English is moving toward a system with disjunctive pronouns, rather than strict case agreement. Saying "It is I" when you knock on the door just sounds pedantic. But, "It was I who stole your money" is less jarring, as it is followed by an implied sentence where I is the subject. μηδείς (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've always heard Honey, it's me. I'm home and I thought that was the correct way of saying it. Can you say It's I? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You speak some French, non? It's like, Chérie, c'est moi. Again, see disjunctive pronoun. If you said "Honey, it's I", she would think you were more interested in obsolete grammar rules than in her. μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I imagined how it's pronounced. If spoken very quickly a new foreign-sounded greeting is coined: Hunneetzye! Can be a shibboleth for a family.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a glottal stop between honey and it's I in my dialect, and I expect in most, if not all. Without the glottal stop it sounds like Hannah Yitzai, the famous Dadaist poet and hand model of pre-war Vienna, turned Depression-era film star and voice actress. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Nearly everybody would say "It's her". A few of us have been taught that the grammar of Latin is somehow relevant to English, and so say "It's she". Some of those few are, or think they are, the arbiters of fashion, and will tell us that "It's her" is wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct word

In the above question on this Reference Desk (question about pronouns), I stated: "So, the answer is that there is no answer." The funny construction of that sentence reminded me of a similar sentence that I once heard on a TV show or a film: a character said to another, "The rule is that there ain't no rules" (in some type of competition they were about to engage in). Is there any word by which this odd type of sentence construction is known? What, if anything, is that construction called? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, "...ain't no rules" is called "incorrect grammar". HiLo48 (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It still works in selected cases. Like the Lewis Carroll comment, speaking through the Tweedle brothers: "If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Webster's second called it that. Webster's third didn't. --ColinFine (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Loophole Abuse, maybe. —Such a gentleman 20:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Technically, using a concept or its foundations to deny its own validity is called the Stolen Concept fallacy. See also:

  Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms or derivatives as “stolen concepts.”
  
  Men have been wrong, and therefore, he implies, they can never know what is right. But if they cannot, how did they ever discover that they were wrong? How can one form such concepts as “mistake” or “error” while wholly ignorant of what is correct? “Error” signifies a departure from truth; the concept of “error” logically presupposes that one has already grasped some truth. If truth were unknowable, as Descartes implies, the idea of a departure from it would be meaningless.
  
  The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of “insanity” is impossible to form or define. If we cannot recognize the state of being awake, then we cannot recognize or conceptualize a state of not being awake (such as dreaming). If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X” stands for nothing. --L. Peikoff, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

  μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• • As with the Babel fish - proving God's non-existence by proving His existence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

See also chiasmus, which has some of the same structural elements. Matt Deres (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of the warning I sometimes see: "Absolutely never do X, but when you do, be sure to take precaution Y". For example, "Never have premarital sex, but when you do, use a condom". StuRat (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Or like the drug disclaimers on the ads during Jeopardy!? If you stop breathing, stop taking zeeagra (you would keep taking it?) and call your doctor immediately. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Whenever I walk past a door with a notice saying "THIS DOOR MUST REMAIN LOCKED AT ALL TIMES", I wonder why they don't just brick it up and be done with it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That in turn goes along with the old Detroit Tigers ballpark, where one of the dressing rooms supposedly had signs reading "Visitors Locker Room" / "No Visitors Allowed". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, using a dual meaning for "visitors". I had a similar problem when I went to work one day and saw this sign at the parking lot: "NO CONTRACTORS". I was baffled at why they no longer wanted me, a contract employee, to park there, until I figured out they were talking about construction workers. Also, highway rest stops often direct cars to park in one area and trucks in another. I eventually figured out that "TRUCK PARKING" meant big-rigs, not pick-up trucks. It should probably have said "TRUCKS OVER 2 AXLES PARK HERE", or something like that. StuRat (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can be hard for foreigners to get used to American parking signs. There was also once a sign I saw in a K-Mart: "No Shoplifting: All Violations Will Be Upheld". μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Then there's the one about the poor schmo who misinterpreted the meaning of a sign that read "Fine for Littering". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Then there was the time Ole was driving from Minneapolis to Duluth. As he approached an interchange near the city limits, he saw a sign that said "Duluth left". So he turned around and drove back to Minneapolis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Much appreciated. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)