Language desk
< August 16	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 18 >

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.

August 17

Become overrun

How do languages handle passive constructions with helping verbs other than be/get, such as "to become overrun"? 24.130.24.40 (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification. I want to know how languages that aren't English deal with passives like "These flowers look trampled" or "This food smells fried". I know some languages like the Romance languages can make a participal adjective out of almost any action verb, but what about the languages that can't? 24.130.24.40 (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't directly translate smells fried or even smells yummy into French; I'd unpack the English idiom to something like "smells as if it were fried". —Tamfang (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many languages don't use helping verbs in passives. For instance, Japanese marks the voice with an inflectional ending. Consider "step on", which is 踏む (fumu), while "be stepped on" is 踏まれる (fumareru).--Brett (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

24.130.24.40 -- I don't think that the examples in your second comment would usually be considered passives. Rather, they contain participles used as predicate adjectives. It's similar to a small clause construction, but with an intransitive main-clause verb... AnonMoos (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

particular type of question

Is there a word for the situation when someone asks a question, but the questioner knows the answer to the question he has just asked? I am interested in this in an educational setting (for example, when the teacher asks "what is three times seven?", knowing full well what the answer is) but I guess the same thing happens when a police officer asks questions of a suspect. Anyway, any hints as to the proper linguistic terms for such a situation (or even further examples) would be very welcome. Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't a more specific term, I suppose it could be called a loaded question though without the presumption of guilt or negative connotations that are normally associated with them. Dismas|^(talk) 09:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Dismas. I never thought of loaded question, It put me on to leading question and suggestive question which are closer, but still not quite right. Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And neither Rhetorical question nor Hypothetical question is quite right either, though they may well be used in educational settings. ~~I don't think English has a special term for a question to which the questioner already knows the answer.~~ I suppose one could call them "educator's questions" (and "interrogator's questions" for the police). Dbfirs 11:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also similar to a Socratic question. --Amble (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk at its best. Socratic method is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!

Resolved

Robinh (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think of 'Socratic question' as a very particular type of educational discussion, as used in law school for example. From the way it's described in the original query above, I would've thought you were looking for a more general term like "didactic question" -- "convergent, factual, and often begin[ning] with 'what,' 'where,"' 'when,' and 'how.' They can be effectively used to diagnose recall and comprehension skills, to draw on prior learning experiences, to determine the extent to which lesson objectives were achieved, to provide practice, and to aid retention of information or processes."[1] We have a related wiki article on the Didactic method which mentions a contrast with the Socratic method. El duderino ^(abides) 07:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with El duderino. A Socratic dialogue is a technique that involves this type of question; but most questions you already know the answer to aren't Socratic questions. So it's not a perfect answer to Robinh's original question. --Amble (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Democolacs

What is that word in this sentence from a Schopenhauer's paper : 'Go to the Democolacs and get praised'? Thanks. Omidinist (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be from Greek δημοκόλαξ (dēmokolax), defined by Liddell & Scott as "a mob-flatterer". Deor (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Thank you, Deor. --Omidinist (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old English Adjectives as substantives

I'm looking for an expert opinion on the following: It's claimed that in OE all adjectives were completely free to occur as substantives. Is this overstating things? For example, would an adjective like fæġen (fain) occur as a substantive? Thanks for you help!--Brett (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a handy reference for your right now, but judging from how this is easily possible in modern German, and how Old English and German are generally highly similar in the nominal systems, I'd guess yes, this would generally be possible. See e.g. Beowulf "Gesette sige‐hrēþig sunnan and mōnan" ('the triumphant one placed the Sun and the Moon'). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Isn't sige a noun here though?--Brett (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's only a compound modifier of "hreþig", which is the actual head of the compound word, so the entire thing counts as an adjective. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a word in English for this?

Frequently done in movie titles and posters, when one uses symbols or modified symbols from another language as symbols in one's own language to express a feel for that foreign language. For example, if an American movie about Russia had a title with 'R' and 'N' in it, so they use the Russian ya and ee letters. 24.125.223.117 (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See our article Faux Cyrillic. There are also faux Greek fonts used to give that Classical feel, and other sorts of faux fonts. Deor (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which direction does the R face in the Moscow branch of Toys "Я" Us ? :-) StuRat (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Since Google Street View imagery is available for Moscow, I was hoping to be able to answer that question, but, sadly, it turns out that the company has no locations in Russia or other countries using Cyrillic. (P.S. my CAPTCHA to post that link was "kookducts". How fitting!) --50.100.184.117 (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3rd-person singulars of "to degas" and "to diminuendo"?

Greetings!

I've been studying semi-regular, English conjugations, and have now gotten bewildered. The Oxford American Dictionary (Third Edition) gives the 3rd-person singular for the verb to degas as degass (Wiktionary gives degases). At first, I dismissed it as a typo, but the OED website also gives degass.

Similarly, it gives the 3rd-person singular of "to diminuendo" as diminuendos. This strikes me as odd since the OED prescribes the -es suffix for all other <consonant+o> verbs (e.g. "goes," "does") and also, for that matter, nearly all <vowel+o> verbs (e.g. "radioes," "videoes"). Only in the case of stems ending in "-oo," does it use "-s" (e.g. "coos," "tatoos").

Is somebody at Oxford snoozing on the job?Pine (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the results you report. I don't have a subscription to either OED or OAD; don't know if that matters. But the OED does give me a hit for degas aside — really ought to use the hyphen in this one, so people don't think you're talking about a French painter and no variant degass occurs in it.

As for dimenuendo(e)s, I'm sorry, yuck. Turning an Italian gerund into an English verb, that's just wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twinpinesmall -- I'm not sure why one would convert the surname of Edgar Degas into a verb, but if one did so, the pronunciation would remain vowel final (i.e. [deɪɡɑː] with silent letter "s"). The spelling degases would strongly indicate a pronounced (non-silent) letter "s", and also the meaning "to remove the gas from". The spelling degass looks strange, but would be suitable for the third person singular present of a verb derived from Edgar Degas and pronounced [deɪɡɑːz] (e.g. "It out-Degass Degas")... AnonMoos (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The full OED online has no verb "to diminuendo", only the noun. It does have an entry for the verb "to degas" (earlier cites have a hyphen), but gives no indication of the form of the third person singular (from which one normally deduces that it is regular). I found your version on-line and I assume that it is a typo by a clerk entering data onto a website which was then mirrored to the other website. I would trust Wiktionary here. Collins Millennium Dictionary allows either "degases" or "degasses". Perhaps that's what the Oxford website intended to convey? Dbfirs 07:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ AnonMoos: Isn't Edgar Degas's surname pronounced [dəɡɑː]? The e is not acute. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The correct French pronunciation is [dəɡɑ] or [dəɡa], but its traditional English (mis)pronunciation is [deɪɡɑː]... AnonMoos (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have bussing and busses from both "to bus" and "to buss", so why wouldn't it be degassing and degasses (or at least degases). Never just degass for 3rd person singular. He degass? Nope, he de man! 3rd person plural is OK, though: They degass. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My off-line version of the OED gives only degas "to remove gas" hence degas(s)es, degassed, degassing.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subtitles for people speaking in English

I am watching a National Geographic documentary about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A Japanese woman is telling her story in English, yet subtitles are provided. I recall seeing subtitles on another channel (CNN, I think) during an interview with a South African man, also speaking in English. I am a South Slav and not a native speaker of English, yet I was perfectly able to understand both, so the subtitles struck me as bizarre. Is it possible that a native speaker cannot understand English spoken with strong accent while a non-native speaker can? Or is there another reason for the subtitles? Surtsicna (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the person is not speaking in a "standard accent" - it is common for subtitles to be used. I understand that some in London do not speak with a Scots or Yorkshire accent, and subtitles are thus essential. Collect (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your listening ability in English must be quite good! Although most native speakers would presumably also be able to understand both of these, I can suggest a couple of reasons for the subtitles:

The National Geographic documentary is not intended only for native speakers of English. Quite a lot of the viewers may have a different native language, and have trouble understanding these accents.
It becomes much more difficult to understand an unfamiliar dialect when there's some other impediment such as poor sound quality, ambient noise, a "busy" sound environment within the show, or divided attention. Even as a native speaker I sometimes turn on subtitles in English, especially when the program is in a different national variety of English and I'm watching on a laptop. For similar reasons, I sometimes see subtitles appear when someone is speaking in a noisy environment like a factory or a crowd. --Amble (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've just been watching the BBC's "Countryfile" programme where subtitles were provided for a speaker with a strong Irish accent (the inspiration for one of Seamus Heaney's poems). At first I thought "why are they doing that?", then, as I listened, I realised that some words were difficult to make out for those not familiar with the accent. As I get older, I find it increasingly difficult to decipher strange accents, so perhaps the subtitles are just a courtesy for those whose hearing and brain cells are deteriorating. Dbfirs 23:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I have seen American TV shows where my dialect, Australian English, was subtitled. Obviously I could understand it, but I guess some Americans couldn't. It all depends on what one is used to. I have trouble with a small set of American accents, although American TV shows have educated us in most of the mainstream American accents. And English from Yorkshire and further north in Scotland can be quite incomprehensible to me (even though that's where my ancestors are from!). HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Language acquisition is not a genetic thing. Identical twins separated at birth and brought up in mutually hostile linguistic environments will have just as much difficulty understanding each other when reunited, as unrelated people would. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish accent is a bit strange. It's my favourite and I understand it much better than others (except for GenAm, which also quite good) but at the same time I often cannot comprehend a word from a usual conversation. Looks like there are two types of Scottish speakers: ones speak normal articulate Scottish English or at least Anglified Scots, others speak alien gibberish (I cannot call it either Scots or English). And it does not directly depend on age, education level and so on, what is even more strange.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The accent that you find difficult to understand is probably Glaswegian. I struggle to follow it, and I live less than a hundred miles from there. Dbfirs 19:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ah, if only they did subtitles for the phone. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Aye, klazweejn, Ah cã'e ã'stõ' a 'er' frae i'. Hey spee' a peer alyã lãgij. But other Scots from other areas also can speak like aliens.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Harder They Come was subtitled in U.S. theatrical release. In recent decades, the broad U.S. moviegoing public seems to have become rather intolerant of more-than-minimal use of subtitling in wide-release commercial movies... AnonMoos (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a good movie, but without the subtitles I would have had a heck of a time understanding much of the dialog. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Riff-Raff too, iirc. —Tamfang (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a good movie too, but I only got Japanese subtitles for that one.

- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above by Dbfirs there is a good chance that these subtitles were provided for hearing-impaired individuals. For what it's worth, Japanese TV programs/documentaries do occasionally provide Japanese subtitles even for dialog spoken in Japanese. This is not only because a particular dialect is being used, but also for people with hearing problems. Turns out to be good listening practice for me. Sometimes, however, the actual spoken dialog is a little crude sounding, so the subtitled version is "translated" into a more polite, standard form of Japanese. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Japanese TV has a quite frankly annoying habit during so-called comedy/variety shows, of printing the celebrity's 'funny' comment in big colourful letters, then repeating it up to four or five times, just to make sure you get the joke, which wasn't particularly funny in the first place. Only the audience - which is inevitably made up of university-age females - is laughing, and the people watching at home aren't. Bizarrely, the audience only gets to see it once, and without subtitles. The only good thing is when a celebrity sticks some food in his/her mouth and a millisecond later - way before the brain has time to even process the fact that food is in the mouth, never mind the taste - he/she will open his/her mouth and say 'UMAI!', and the unnecessary subtitle distracts you from the fact that the person is breaking all rules of etiquette by speaking with food in the mouth. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 18:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be getting more and more common to provide subtitles in any occasion when the speaker has a really thick accent or there is background noise. It might be for the hearing impaired, but I'm not such, and I find it useful. I wish they had provided subtitles for the Yorkshire farmers during the TV series All Creatures Great and Small, as their English was sometimes unintelligible. That might have been the point, though, as author "James Herriot" had kind of a sly sense of humor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen plenty of Shakespeare films in English that offer subtitling on the DVD. That is a great help for things that when spoken in a freer order come out as mondegreens. As to Surtcina's exact examples, I have sometimes almost thought it parody or racism. They have perfectly clear and grammatical speakers, but because they are not British or North American they get subtitling. When it happens in newscasts I figure the subtitler's got to get paid, so he subtitles every chance he gets. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of the DVDs I watch offer subtitling, whatever the dialect. —Tamfang (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious reason: subtitling for people that are deaf or hard-of-hearing. --VanBuren (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that they would typically have subtitles turned on for all programs. What we're talking about here is where subtitles are provided as part of the default mode, and all viewers get to see them whether they wanted to or not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here, we have an American voice, a Canadian voice and an English voice. One apparently isn't English enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subtitled guy sounds like a cross between French Canadian and stereotypical Mafiosi. And is basically unintelligible. I'm not so sure the subtitles even match what he's saying. It's actually "cleaned up" to read like normal English as opposed to the way he's saying the words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's Dynamite Kid (the unsubbed "Amazing" French Canadian is Jacques Rougeau; coincidentally, the story in that video also involves Dino Bravo, who was "allegedly" in with the Québec Mafia). He's obviously not a kid anymore, but even before the drugs and concussions caught up with him, he was hard to understand. Just one of those Englishmen. They like to cram their syllables together, but can apparently understand each other fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's general knowledge that common Englishmen speak English worst of all.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately for American viewers, when he and his only slightly more intelligible (and slightly more juiced) cousin reached the big stage, they were paired with an extremely articulate Italian (who, of course, previously wrestled as a stereotypical Sicilian). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I wish this type of people were obliged to wear an automatic personal subtitler on their neck. They speak simply like retards. Even East Asians can speak Ingrishu better.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like the subtitles of so-called "Jive" in Airplane!... -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]