Language desk
< March 15	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 17 >

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.

March 16[edit]

The father turned the boy's shoulder around and talked to him.[edit]

Hello! I have a question about the phrase "turn sb's shoulder around". I'm not sure if it is proper to say "The father turned the boy's shoulder around and talked to him." I need your clarification. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.176.241 (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds bad, like he dislocated his son's shoulder. How about "The father grabbed his son's shoulder and turned him around, to talk with him". StuRat (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turned him by the shoulder, maybe, or took him by the shoulder ('grabbed' sounds a bit violent) – I might not bother saying both, if it's clear from context. — kwami (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italian and Spanish Similarities[edit]

Was curious if anyone can shed light on why, despite the considerable distance between them relative to the European continent (especially in the ancient world), there are greater similarities between Spanish and Italian than between either language and French? (Moreover, Italian and French are phylogenically related.) Would anyone see either of the following as possible factors explaining this: the populations that adopted what later became Italian and Spanish were Gothic/Lombard/Germanic speakers, whereas the ancestors of Parisian and the other French topolects featured a Celtic (Gaulish) substrate...and the fact that trading routes connected the Italian and Iberian peninsulas more closely than they did with Gaul/France, despite the geographical proximity? --2604:2000:1054:7E:9C10:34AD:712:5A7B (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has long been attributed to a Celtic substrate in French, so much so that it's part of the national mythology, but AFAIK that's never been demonstrated. Whatever the reason, phonologically French has diverged more from Latin than Spanish and Italian. The reason that the later two are more similar is that they are (in some ways at least) more conservative, not that they've converged. That is, French has moved on and left them behind, they didn't move together and leave French behind. — kwami (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--that is very helpful!--74.72.255.103 (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish, Italian and French did not always follow current borders. In each country, a very long list of Romance languages, often overlapping between these countries. were more or less systematically and aggressively repressed in each country with the advent of nationalism. If one traveled when I was young from Valencia, Cataluña via France and Switzerland to Northern Italy and one could hear similar languages spoken all the way, Valencian, Catalan, Provençal, Monegascan, Rhaeto-Romance, Piedmontese. These languages were closer to each other, to my ears, than each of the languages that were decreed as official by the central authorities. Today, many of these languages are still strong in Spain. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Star Lord. Nonetheless I believe most non-Castilian Romance languages of Spain, e.g. Catalan/Valencian, Galician, etc. are still slightly closer phonologically and perhaps grammatically to Tuscan and even northern Italian non-standard "dialects" than to French, due presumably to the conservatism Kwami pointed out.--74.72.255.103 (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just felt like addressing the background a bit. Kwamikagami gave a good direct answer to your question. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The peculiarities French is well-renown are, in fact, of the late development, which occured quite not so long time ago. Uvular "French" R is from 17-18th century, for example. Old French looked and sounded more like Modern Catalan. And, in turn, Old Castillian was closer to Old Catalan, than today, while all of them (Castillian, Catalan, Portuguese-Galician, French, Occitan, Italian) were closer to each other then. So when French began to diverge from the others, any possible substrate traits had to disappear by that time (the second half of the 2th millennium), so we cannot trace the "unique" French peculiarities to the quasi-mythical Gaulish substrate of the beginning of the 1st millennium. Attempts to trace every deviation to substrates is a very bad flaw of popular linguistics, which must be avoided.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uvular R is a rather late and superficial feature, which is probably not what most people mainly have in mind when they speak of the accumulated phonological divergences between French and other Romance languages. The reduction in number of syllables in most words, loss of many consonants, rise of front rounded vowels, nasalization of vowels (accompanied by the loss of many of the original conditioning nasal consonants), are probably more relevant, and most of these traits were solidly established by 1500 (though I think there has been some additional loss of word-final consonants since 1500)...

Both Italian and Catalan continue the basic late Vulgar Latin vowel system resulting from the aftermath of the changes ī → i, ū → u, ĭ and ē → e, ŭ and ō → o, ĕ → ɛ, ŏ → ɔ, and ā and ā → a. That is, the vowels of many individual words have changed in Italian and Catalan, but the basics of the overall phonological vowel system have remained in place. By contrast, the French vowel system has gone through several radical restructurings since that time. Continental European language scholars of the first half of the 20th century were sometimes too fond of invoking substrates to cover any divergent language developments, but French has been less phonologically conservative than some other Romance branches for a long time... AnonMoos (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese character identification - pre-war?[edit]

Can someone please identify the characters shown at http://i59.tinypic.com/im0ah5.jpg? [overlooked in previous query] 121.215.154.87 (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

變更　⇒　変更. It means 'change'. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again, Kage. 121.215.154.87 (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The writer wrote the novel in/on/at Elm Street.[edit]

I am not sure which preposition is the right choice in the sentence "The writer wrote the novel in/on/at Elm Street." It means that the writer wrote the novel when he lived there. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.152.50 (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In" would be incorrect, unless rephrased, for example: "The writer wrote the novel in his Elm Street apartment.". "On" is okay, but could be ambiguated with "about" (..."he wrote his novel on Elm Street in order to tell the story of the residents who live there...) "At" sounds odd, unless clarified, for example: "The writer wrote the novel while at Elm Street" (still a bit awkward). — For clarity, the sentence should be rephrased slightly, in my opinion. —:71.20.250.51 (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[modified example for clarity:71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Notice that "on Elm Street" could have a completely different meaning than "in/at Elm Street"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"On" is the default American usage here. Brits do say "in" a street to mean what Americans mean by "on" a street--hopefully one will comment. But you could also say he wrote at Elm Street on the weekends and at the park during the week. μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To us colonials, to build a house in the middle of a street would be Madness! —Tamfang (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd insert "while living". Without that, I can't decide which preposition is least bad. —Tamfang (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was he a vagabond so he couldn't afford a house and had to write in/on/at the streets?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. If you said he wrote it while 'in the street', it would mean he was outside all the time while he wrote it. Same with 'on', but 'on the street' has connotations of a much older profession than being an author. 'At the street' seems to imply he was there temporarily (still outside, however). Better to put 'while living', and use 'on', or 'at', but not 'in'. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 19:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be made clear that American and British usage here varies widely. I wouldn't be giving categorical advice without qualifying it as following a certain dialect. If we already know the author had one or two addresses, I see no problem with saying "on Elm street" or "at Elm street" without saying "while living". The wider context and the dialect of the author are very important here. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a novel on a street would require a great deal of chalk, but would be an interesting piece of art. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A work of art like that should get a lot of traffic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]