Language desk
< July 11	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 13 >

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 12

What ethnic group is the name "Ali Ag Wadossene" from?

I asked this at the Humanities desk some time ago but got no help, so I'm moving it here on the assumption there may be more linguistic nous at the Language desk.

Can you tell what ethnic group the name "Ali Ag Wadossene" would belong to? A person of that name, presumably a Malian citizen, has just been killed by French special forces in Mali. The main local languages (according to WP article Mali) are Mande, Fula (or Peul), "Senufo", "Bwa", Tuareg, Songhai. From his looks I would put my money on Tuareg, but I'm not sure. Contact Basemetal here 16:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for the name in French sources, expecting it might be transliterated Ouad- rather than Wad-, but they use the same spelling. The name Wadossene doesn't appear in Google Books. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Ag"? When I Google "Ag Tuareg" and "Ag Touareg" I do get many hits with Tuareg names which contain that "Ag" (e.g. Ibrahim ag Alhabib) but that is no garantee that that "Ag" is used only by Tuaregs and no one else in the region. Any idea what that "Ag" may mean? Contact Basemetal here 02:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After some research it turns out that "Ag" means "son (of)" in Tuareg and so "Ali Ag Wadossene" would mean in Tuareg "Ali son of Wadossene". Whether this "Ag" is only used by Tuaregs is still not clear to me, but it does appear to be a Tuareg word. While looking around for information I stumbled upon this amusing piece of trivia (third paragraph): apparently in one Tuareg tribe, using "Ag" in combination with the name "Abdallah" about someone is a way of saying, not that that person's father is named Abdallah, but that that person is an illegitimate child ("est un bâtard"). Therefore if someone's father is really called Abdallah, they only use their own (first) name, never the formula "Ag Abdallah", when introducing themselves to someone of that tribe, and all the other tribes seem to know that. Contact Basemetal here 03:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this. I bet the Tuareg are thinking "How could this lower form of life ever manage to build one of the mightiest countries ever?"

Contact Basemetal here 17:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Good question.Manytexts (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Myths about the invention of a skill

I am working on the bicycle kick article (and the Invention myths of the bicycle kick article), but I don't know if I am using the right language when referring to the stories about how the skill was invented. Is "myth" the right word, or should I use the word "legend" or "folktale"? Is there any significant difference between these terms? Also, is the word "invention" correct (in meaning), or should I use something more along the lines of "origin myths of the bicycle kick"? (Might there be other articles in Wikipedia that deal with invention legends?). Thanks in advance!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible origins? Why not refer to its "possible origins"? Bus stop (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Possible origins" seems a better choice, as myth implies that the story has some sacred value. Myths can apply to known history (for example, the signing of the Declaration of Independence is not only a historical event, but certain understandings of it serve as a foundation myth for many Americans), but there must be some sort of sacred value to the story. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Bus and Ian! I appreciate the clarification on the word "myth." It is certainly being misused in the article; too far away from the original meaning. I like "possible origins"—it's a much better use of language.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 03:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could use discovery instead of invention.
Sleigh (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When not used in the technical sense of a sacred narrative which explains how the world and humanity evolved into their present form, "myth" tends to imply "not true". "Legend" on the other hand tends to imply a story that probably has basis in fact, but has been changed (or at least lost its verifiability) over time. "Legend" would probably be more appropriate than "myth" in this case, but the alternatives others have already given are probably most appropriate. Iapetus (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great information! Thank you, Iapetus (I also appreciate the suggestion, Sleigh)!

Now I have a good grasp on "myth" and "legend". I also use the terms "folktale" and "lore" in my works. How can these be explained relative to "myth" and "legend"?--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Latin Magna Carta book title

Happy 800th anniversary of Magna Carta! Could someone knowledgeable please provide an accurate translation of the book title Magna Charta cum statutis, tum antiquis, tum recentibus, maximopere, animo tenendis, nunc demum ad vnum, tipis ædita, per Richardum Tottill. Cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solum? This is for the file information page at the Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The great charter with statutes both old and new most worthy to be remembered, now finally published in one volume by R. T. with exclusive privilege to print. (This is just an attempt. Not an authoritative translation.) Contact Basemetal here 17:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks very much. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried my best but the comma between maximopere ("greatly") and animo tenendis (from animo tenendus "to be kept in mind") bothers me. I ignored the comma but it could be the comma indicates that maximopere is to be construed with tipis aedita (more properly written typis edita; typus being an individual movable type character) instead to give something like "published exhaustively" (to convey the idea that the book presents a full and complete collection of the relevant statutes) or simply to mean "published with great care". I had hoped others here would weigh in and correct any mistakes. Since this has not been the case I suggest you double check my translation at the Vicipaedia Taberna which is their "Teahouse", except, since Romans knew nothing about tea, they drink virtual wine and beer

There's no problem posting your question in English. If you do get an answer please post it here too. That will make the Archives more useful. Contact Basemetal here 16:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your translation is fine...I didn't say anything before because I had nothing to add :) The comma is a bit odd, but maximopere must go with animo tenendis, right? So I suppose it's just an odd 16th-century punctuation style. Maybe someone with more expertise in the history of printing can clarify, but "tipis aedita" (which is actually "typis edita") means it is a printed edition as opposed to a manuscript. In this case it means this is the first time all these documents have been printed together in one book. More literally it's "Magna Carta, now issued in print for the first time in one volume, with the statutes, both ancient and recent, that should especially be kept in mind..." But your version says the same thing in more idiomatic English. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam. You put my mind at ease. I was starting to imagine syntax more fit for Virgil. Thank goodness you stopped me.

Contact Basemetal here 00:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for weighing in. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there (healthy adult) people who speak no language at a native or near-native level?

I know one (healthy adult) person, who speaks no language at a native level, but still speaks a few languages at a near-native level: He is an orphan who had to migrate many times since he was a kid, so he never had any opportunity to acquire any mother tongue nor any language at a native level. Additionally, English Creole, French Creole and Swahili (being an Arabic Creole), were once considered to be a "near-native" variety of English/French/Arabic (though today they are considered to be a native language called "Creole"). Now, try to think about many editors in Wikipedia who can speak many languages at an "advanced level", or at an "intermediate level". My question is about whether they must speak at least one language at a native or near native level. HOOTmag (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Children who weren't exposed to any language by a certain age never seem to get very good at language. They could be physically healthy, but their mental health may be questionable. See feral child. StuRat (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but did that ever happen? HOOTmag (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Feral_child#Documented_or_alleged_cases. StuRat (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Anyways, I was asking about "healthy" people, and this includes mental health. HOOTmag (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a matter of semantics then, as it could be argued that a person who can't speak any language well must be mentally impaired (assuming there's no physical problem). StuRat (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As StuRat implies, that depends on how you define healthy people, including mental health. The only cases that I am aware of in which a physically healthy adult speaks no language at a native or near-native level are either feral children, as mentioned above, or persons who suffer from a profound degree of developmental disability. If HOOTmag is saying that the inherent nature of humans is that they will acquire language, typically in the first three years of life, and will acquire it at a native or near-native level, then I agree. Language is what makes humans human. We are taxonomically Homo sapiens, but an excellent case has been made that we are Homo loquens. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just think about many editors in Wikipedia who can speak many languages at an "advanced level", or at an "intermediate level". My question is about whether they must speak at least one language at a native or near native level. HOOTmag (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine someone having to change languages every 3 months from birth till they reach the age of 30 and imagine all those languages are very different from each other. This is just a thought experiment. I don't know of any actual case. It's obvious that such a person will never have the opportunity to master any of those languages to even close to near-native level. Yet such a person may be perfectly normal. Unless of course you're gonna argue that no one can be subjected to such a treatment and still come out normal. Contact Basemetal here 22:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Swahili an Arabic creole? Where did you get that? Contact Basemetal here 23:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only was it once an Arabic Creole, but the very word "Swahili" is in Arabic, and means "Coast [Language]". HOOTmag (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The very word "nihongo" (Japanese language in Japanese) is Chinese. The word "français" comes from a Germanic word meaning "Frankish", a Germanic tribe. So what? That doesn't make Japanese a Chinese creole or French a Germanic creole. Article Swahili language doesn't use the word "creole" even once. Swahili has borrowed lots of words from Arabic and is sometimes written using the Arabic script, but otherwise it is a typical Bantu language. Contact Basemetal here 23:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have an article Swahili language. It was originally the normal Bantu dialect spoken in the areas of Zanzibar and Dar es Salaam, areas of Arabic colonization. That dialect served as the basis of a widespread lingua franca that adopted a large number of Arabic (and other) loanwords and lost its tonality (almost if not universal in Bantu languages) and changed somewhat phonetically. One can compare the Chinook language to Chinook jargon which developed from it and became much more widespread. Swahili has a very large number of second language speakers, and at least a few decades ago there were traces of speakers who did not share the simplifications and loss of tone brought by creolization.

The point is, no one talks of creolization in the case of Swahili. Just because a language spreads as a lingua franca does not mean it becomes a creole. Creoles, btw, have native speakers, and that's what makes them creoles, as opposed to pidgins, etc. Check the article, not a single use of the word "creole". (Incidentally, you didn't provide the right link, but I did, so use that). Contact Basemetal here 23:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is talk of creolization. There are the original Bantu speakers, those who learned Swahili as a somewhat pidginized lingua franca, those who adapted this creole, which has become the "standard" Swahili that is taught to second language learners. Here are some google results. I am going on my memory of Comrie's World Languages. I'll have to reread the history essay when I have time in a few hours. Sorry and thanks about the link; I had meant to fix it, then got distracted. μηδείς (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Some varieties of Swahili may result from processes of creolization. But look where we started: the OP asserting that Swahili, as a whole, was a creole, and an Arabic based creole at that. That surely can't be right. Contact Basemetal here 01:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed the "Arabic creole" point which would be flat out wrong. Also, according to the key work on Creole languages by Thomason and Kaufman, Swahili would certainly not be a creole, since it was never fully pidginized and reanalyzed like, say, Haitian Kreyol, but was always maintained by a group of native speakers, passed along genetically, and retaining a core Bantu vocabulary and grammar. I don't speak Swahili, but its relationship to isiZulu and its full membership in the Bantu languages is clear just from a reading of the Lord's Prayer as imaged in the language's article. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably specify that a language need not be spoken. A hearing child raised by the deaf may learn sign language, but otherwise be normal and healthy. StuRat (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are also cases of children left together, without a strong source of language to model on, who then develop their own languages. The language could be entirely their own invention, or it could have influences from other languages. However, I would argue that they do speak one language fluently, the one that they invented (although such languages are typically quite limited). StuRat (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as to a hearing child raised by the deaf, but it takes a village to raise a child, and so the child will probably also learn (although perhaps not to a native level) the language of the village. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Identical~~ twins would tend to do that (see Idioglossia) Maybe human language was invented by a set of ~~identical~~ twins sharing a mutation that provided them with the language ability. In any case the occurrence of the mutation that gave rise to the language ability would have to be pretty close to its being put to use (otherwise, if it doesn't provide any actual advantage, it risks being lost) and that can only happen if there are at least two individuals endowed with the same mutation born simultaneously to be in position to develop a language together since there's no incentive to develop a language on your own. Contact Basemetal here 23:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Language isn't a binary thing, there are many steps between animal communication and modern human communication. One interesting gene is the FOXP2, which in humans seems important in speech, but also has other functions in other animals. StuRat (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotal, but I have a friend whose parents moved to America and insisted that they only speak English at home so he would grow up knowing English. However, his parents didn't know English, so now he speaks English as a second language and... That's it. It gets really annoying for him because people assume he must know Spanish since he only speaks broken English with such a strong accent. Nope, I'm fluent compared to him, and I only retained enough to order food and start bar fights. Despite this linguistic disability, he enjoys subtitled anime, has gone to college, and now works in IT. The worst you could describe his mental health is "noble savage," but I'd consider that an insult.

However, he doesn't treat conversation as a series of preprogrammed prompts and responses, but as a constantly fluctuating equation. (Refdesk regulars may have heard the following before, feel free to skip). While working at Walmart, I noticed that many customers usually did not respond to what was actually said, but the situation it was said in. (e.g. "I'm good, and you?" is not exactly a valid response to "Did you find what you were looking for today?" and yet that was usually the response I got, because the situation they were programmed to deal with said "how are you?"). Customers who did treat conversation as a dialogue prompt were the least capable of handling anomalous scenarios (and, judging from their purchases, the behavior of their kids, and how often the police showed up, any other facet of their lives). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They probably didn't hear the start of the sentence, and didn't want to say "What ?", so did the best they could to interpret "...today ?" StuRat (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

A few isolated incidents would be one thing, but when it happened every day despite me using teacher voice and a newscaster-like middle-American accent? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, consider that a greeting from a cashier/greeter at Walmart probably gets a low priority in their thought process. They may be focused on other more important things, like which coupons they can use, whether they will be charged full price for that item on sale, if they will hit the limit on their credit card, if they forgot to get anything they need, etc., and really don't want to spend any time or thought on a conversation at that time. Note that this isn't true of every customer, though. Some seem to love the "personal touch". I hit the self-checkout lane and avoid the greeter if I can. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

That's the case for some of the customers, but I'm talking about ones who would come up looking right at me, expecting "How are you today?" And hitting the limit on their credit, debit, or EBT card would be one of those "anomalous scenarios" I mentioned. I was there for over a year, and started intentionally experimenting with the prompt-response idea a couple of months in, in addition to conferring with similarly misanthropic cashiers who had comparable experiences. Maybe the Fort is just running the world's worst Stepford Wives program. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have met many people of Latino descent in NYC who speak neither proficient Spanish nor proper English. One person I know had been placed in English as a Second Language courses for his entire education, on the presumption that he was a native Spanish speaker, which he certainly wasn't. He knew some nouns, adjectives, and curses, but could not conjugate a verb or speak a spontaneous grammatical Spanish sentence to save his life.

He was also totally illiterate in English, which he spoke at a very uneducated level, but fluently enough that it was basically a native language which the school system was doing its best to deprive him of. The best way to describe his case would be that if you heard him speak English, you would be sure, counter to the facts, that Spanish was his native language.

μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My late ex-father-in-law may fit into this category. He was born in 1912 of Russian parents, but in Kharkiv in Ukraine, so there was language intermingling right from the start. When he was a small boy (about 3 or 4) his family was wiped out and he was taken by the Red Cross to Serbia. While he certainly got by, he never learned to speak Serbian like a native, as there was always a strong Russian influence in his vocab, grammar etc, and his schooling was abysmal (that's when he wasn't running away from abuse and brutal treatment). Equally, he forgot much of what he knew of Russian, and whenever he professed to speak that language, it was always strongly conditioned by his Serbian surroundings. The closest he got was a kind of Serbo-Russian, or Russo-Serbian. He and his wife were displaced after the war, spending time in Germany, Belgium and Italy before migrating to Australia, where he actually spent the majority of his life, but his command of English was always rudimentary. So, apart from his first 4 years, he lived most of his 89 years in hostile linguistic environments. And if he ever had the chance to pick a country where he would have been taken as a native, the answer would have been "nowhere". His wife was born in Serbia of a Serbian father and a Polish Jewish mother, and she learned Russian, German, French, English and Serbian at a Russian Orthodox monastery in Slovenia, but studied in Sarajevo where there was a significant Turkish speaking Muslim community along with the Bosniaks. When they came to Australia, they figured the Russian community would be more useful to belong to, so they identified as Russian (albeit with Serbian connections), and spoke mainly Russian at home, although they had Serbian friends and spoke Serbian with them. Only later did it become clear that any of the "Yugoslav" languages would have been far more useful than Russian, but by then they were too cemented into the Russian community to switch over. Then there's the question of ex-father-in-law's health: he was a paranoid schizophrenic, but that may have been more experiential than innate. (No wonder my ex-wife is a crazy mixed up kid. That's part of her feminine mystique, I'm told.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]