Language desk
< July 17	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 19 >

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 18

Foot fetishism or podophilia in different languages

How to say foot fetishism or podophilia in Korean, Arabic, Persian, Dari, Pashto, Somali, Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch, Gujarati, Tamil, Sinhala, Kannada, Telugu, and Malayalam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.192 (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to introduce Google Translate. Have fun. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cell camera verb

First we had film and Super 8 cameras. Then came camcorders, which used videotape technology, and people were often corrected for whining, Stop filming me!! Finally we (or some of us) got used to saying "videotaping" instead. Now we have digital memory, but at least one Wikipedia article refers to an eyewitness videotaping an event with his cell phone.

What is the best encyclopedic language to refer to modern-day, memory-based digital video recording? "Recording" might be adequate where there is enough context, but it could be ambiguous in other cases because one can record audio-only. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've used to video, without mentioning a tape. To video means (OED) "to make a video recording", which refers to a video, which means "That which is displayed or to be displayed on a television screen or other cathode-ray tube; the signal corresponding to this." No mention of tape. Myrvin (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Merriam and Webster, video is never a verb. Dictionary.com disagrees, but its definition is, "to record (a television programme, etc) on a video cassette recorder"; no mention of a camera of any type. The "programme" spelling implies a British influence.

To my American ears, it has a colloquial sound unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I don't think I could bring myself to type the word "videoing" in a mainspace Wikipedia edit window and then actually click Save page. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is British. Here[1] is a discussion.Myrvin (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears a little in WP[2] from 2013, as does videoed[3] - not obviously only British. Myrvin (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it could be used in BritEng articles, I guess. AmEng remains an issue in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both are appearing more and more in American English.[4] More in British Englis, and might be tailing off.[5] Myrvin (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect them to appear more and more as video recording became more common. But there's no way to compare that frequency with alternative ways of saying the same thing; that usage could be in a 1% minority for all that tells us. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but it's on the way! The US dictionaries haven't caught up yet. I see that to shoot is popular. I seem to remember that some US TV shows were "Videoed in front of a studio audience", but I can't find any. Myrvin (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not nessecelery [sic]! They could remain at 1% forever, and still increase over time. It's not the numbers but the relative numbers. You could be right about the studio audience, but I've never heard that. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will make a change to hear an American cursing those damned Britishisms for corrupting the language. See mother-of-two above. Myrvin (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, here's a Google book search.[6] Myrvin (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The verb has in the past referred to the recording medium - filming, videotaping. That suggests "memorycarding" or "memorychipping". Stop memorychipping me!! Maybe not. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you Americans never video a TV program(me) like I did? Myrvin (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't presume to speak for all Americans, but I taped TV programmes. In any case, that's not using a camera and it's not what I'm looking for here. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree, I was trying to find an American precedent for the verb to video, and hence videoed and videoing. I used to videotape things too. but I was happy to say I was videoing something. Myrvin (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're in luck. We have an article on the American precedent. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

What context do you need a new word for? It seems that a new term was never really adopted for digital media. "Taping" and "filming" still carry the meaning even if it is inaccurate. After all, we still "dial" and "hang up" phones. Mingmingla (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Conversion (word formation), a valid linguistic concept. English is very open, as a language, to "noun --> verb" conversions, and many such conversions have migrated out of slang or colloquial speech to formal speech. For example, one can chair a meeting (where "to chair" is a verb formed from the noun "chair"). There is no problem with this process, it is a natural part of language evolution, and has been happening, is happening, and will continue to happen forever. --Jayron 32 20:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting, but I'll consider "video" acceptable for Wikipedia AmEng articles when I see it as a verb in Merriam-Webster. I'm sure you'll agree that Wikipedia should follow language evolution, not drive it. The noun-verb conversion would be "cell phone camera'ed", even worse (or "memorychipped"). Merriam-Webster says for "film": "to make a movie of (something) : to photograph (an event, scene, etc.) with a movie or video camera", so I guess I could force myself to use "film" despite not liking it much. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested a reference for people to read further about the subject under discussion. Because this is the reference desk. Where we give references. --Jayron 32 05:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to have only one reference as the criterion is too narrow. Arguably, any RS could give support for using video as a verb - certainly it could be quoted. As M says, it's not there yet in AmEng, but it could easily be used in British English articles. For Americans, I think M agrees that film would do. I'll also throw in again the verb shoot. M-W[7] has "12: to take a picture or series of pictures or television images of : PHOTOGRAPH, FILM". Myrvin (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with "filming"? Lots of words persist, even when technology change makes them technically inaccurate. We still refer to seamen as "sailors" even when their ships don't have sails, many armies still have "cavalry" regiments that use tanks or helicopters rather than horses, etc Iapetus (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what's wrong with "to make a video recording"? "An eyewitness made a video recording of an event with his cell phone." Sounds formal enough to me. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's quite long, and people will probably shorten it. Out of interest, you will all have gizmos capable of doing this. Do your manuals (in various parts of the world) refer to make a video recording, or videoing, or something else? My Cannon Sureshot calls it "Shooting Movies". 13:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

My Hudl tablet (maybe not available in the US) says shoot video and capture video. An Olympus manual calls it "recording movies. Myrvin (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to own the gizmo to read its manual. Most of them are available online; you just need to Google them. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, That's where I got the Olympus from. Myrvin (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Sony camera manual shoots movies. Nokia Lumia online guide has record a video. Kodak has taking a video. Myrvin (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transliterating Chinese sounds with the letter x

How did certain Chinese consonants that sound like the "sh" sound come to be transliterated with the Latin letter "X". I don't think the x normally makes that sound in any Roman alphabet languages that I'm aware of, so why settle on the "x" instead of "sh" or "c" or something. I do realize that there are several different systems of Chinese-to-Latin alphabet transliteration, but I am referring specifically to the one that uses the X for some "sh" sounds.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that they needed another letter for the sound that was a bit like sh (which exists as SH) but not quite. I think they might have used hs in the past - but that's a guess. Anyway Chiang Kai-shek was born in Xikou, so I'd blame him. Myrvin (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Winnie Hsin or Xīn Xiǎoqí. Myrvin (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to pinyin, the x is similar to its use in Portuguese, Galician, Catalan, Basque and Maltese. See Voiceless alveolo-palatal sibilant.Myrvin (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And formerly in Castilian, whence the use of ‹x› for /ʃ/ in Nahuatl, and the English word sherry for wine from the city whose name was written Xérez (now Jérez). —Tamfang (talk)

In Pinyin, 'sh' and 'c' are already used for other sounds. I think the idea was to use a letter which would otherwise be redundant, i.e. 'x', as there is no /ks/ in Chinese.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

15:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Who made the decision? Myrvin (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russians. I think Latinxua Sin Wenz is the ancestor of pinyin. Contact Basemetal here 15:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviets weren't all Russians. Stalin wasn't, for ex. And that's an odd choice for a Russian to make, since X in Cyrillic has the same pronunciation as X in Spanish etc, the -h- or -kh- sound. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hence its double-usage, User:JackofOz. It was not only used for 'sh' but also for 'kh', another very common sound in Mandarin. You can read the article if you want to. 82.35.216.24 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about 'q'? At least (as mentioned already) there is a precedent for 'x' being used for a similar sound in other languages, whereas, as far as I know, the way pinyin uses 'q' is without analog. Contact Basemetal here 15:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pinyin article says, "the pinyin q is akin to its value in Albanian; both pinyin and Albanian pronunciations may sound similar to the ch to the untrained ear." Myrvin (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the Voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate. Myrvin (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, 'q' - a redundant letter, as Chinese has no other need for it - is used because 'ch' is already used for an entirely different sound.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

16:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does the attributive modify here?

"She favored the roses of other ages---the York and Lancaster rose, the cabbage rose, the damask and the rugosa rose in several varieties." Does the prepositional phrase "in several varieties" modify only "the rugosa rose"? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.176.62 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't see how it could be interpreted in any other way without changing the punctuation or the word arrangement.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, its a matter of interpretation rather than grammar, but normally I think one would read it as modifying rugosa rose. The wording is a bit odd, however; the omission of "rose" after damask can lead one to conclude that it modifies damask and rugosa rose, though one might say "the damask and rugosa roses in several varieties" if one wanted to make that more clear. And one could also, quite unexceptionably from a grammatical standpoint, take the prepositional phrase as referring to all the kinds of roses. (I'm not gardener enough to know whether that would be logical—are there multiple varieties of York and Lancaster and cabbage roses?) Deor (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence is ambiguous too. It could mean "She favored all the varieties of the Y rose, the L rose, the C rose, the D rose, and the R rose" (to use the Oxford comma}; or it could mean "She favored the several varieties of the R rose, and she favored the Y rose, and the .....". I agree that I would prefer to see "damask and R roses", as well as "the Y and L roses", otherwise it looks as if there is a rose called 'York and Lancaster' rose - maybe there is, but I doubt it. You shouldn't be expected to know if one or other rose had varieties to make sense of it. Myrvin (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Tudor times, I've read, someone did go to the trouble of breeding a red-and-white rose. —Tamfang (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They carved and painted the Tudor rose, but I don't think they grew them. I'd like to see one though. Myrvin (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well well - willya lookit that [8]. And it's a damask too. Oh me of little faith. Myrvin (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So there is a Y and L rose, but it is a damask.Myrvin (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is a gallon jug

What is a gallon jug? Does it mean a jug that can contain one gallon of water? The context is as follows: "She propagated her roses herself from cuttings stuck directly in the ground and protected by upended gallon jugs." Lots of thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.176.62 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a flower theme here. You should sign your entries with 4 ~s.

I would say a gallon jug is what you guess. Of course, the volume of a gallon differs in the USA and Britain. Myrvin (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I've found the site where this is.[9] Myrvin (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See, for example, the section "Recycled Plastic Jug Cloche" on this page. Deor (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., the phrase "gallon jug" invariably refers to the 1-gallon sized plastic jugs with the handle seen here: [10]. Of course, one can make a "jug" of a capacity of "one gallon" in any shape one wishes, but the actual phrase "gallon jug" usually means that specific design. --Jayron 32 20:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's meant buy a gallon jug are the squat, translucent plastic milk jugs you'll see here at google which are clear enough to allow light to pass. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC) (Apologies to Jayron, his image is correct, it just doesn't show they plastic is translucent. Industrial gallon jugs are often opaque.)[reply]

"Buy a gallon jug", you say? I will not! --174.88.133.35 (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a gallon is a unit of liquid capacity, not weight, so a jug that will hold a gallon of water will also hold a gallon of any other liquid, regardless of density (although mercury might be heavy enough to rip the container apart when you try to lift it by the handle). StuRat (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether vs. If

Are there any languages, other than English, that allow to replace every "whether" by "if" (e.g. in "I don't know whether he's here"), yet not every "if" by "whether" (e.g. in "you'll be punished if you're late")?

HOOTmag (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question has a false premise. People often say "if" when they really mean "whether". I don't know whether you knew that or not. Notice I didn't say "I don't know if you knew that or not". "If" should be confined to "if <condition X> then <circumstance Y>" constructions. If it's just a case of not knowing whether A or B is the case, and there's not necessarily any consequence of having that information (maybe you're just idly curious), then it's "whether", not "if". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply has a false premise. If 'people often say "if"' in that context (which they do), then that is one of the meanings of if. Your beliefs about what they "should" say are irrelevant. --ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me a resource for students of English that confirms that "whether" may be replaced by "if" in every case, as per the OP's question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Colin is objecting to your "'If' should be confined..." sentence. You seem to be claiming that "if" can only be used for a material conditional - however a brief survey of usage indicates that is not the case. I don't know if you care about that, but there it is :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, of course I care about how people actually speak and write. I think in practice we're all descriptivists to a greater or lesser degree, if not in theory. I guess I was focussing on the OP's use of the word "allow". Maybe I have a lower tolerance of, shall we say, unorthodox uses of the language, and an awareness that descriptivism can take far more forms than the relatively narrow range of variations "allowed" by prescriptivism. I mean, for example, I know people for whom it is completely natural and normal to say "I seen it", "He done it", "You should of went earlier" and the like. In their particular ~~idiologue~~ idiolect, those are unexceptionable. But without such a context, can we say that such things are "allowed"? Certainly not in any standard version of English known to me. I take a similar view to the misuse of "if". Others may be more willing to concede that it has become the norm to use "if" where "whether" would be prescriptively mandated, and they may well be right, but I don't know how this is measured in any objective way. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, when a certain usage changes, enough to become widely and generally accepted without the raising of eyebrows, how long do the prescriptivists take to record the change in their Book of Rules? They must eventually cave in, because language does change, whether they like or not, but I imagine they could withhold their acquiescence for decades or even longer in some cases. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the split infinitive. A reasonable analysis tells us it was never wrong to do this in English, but somehow its proscription ended up in the Book of Rules and that became holy writ for a number of centuries. Now that it's widely known that the initial ban was wrong-headed, people are generally more relaxed about it. But many writers remain uneasy, and I'm sure some authorities still actively discourage it, if not explicitly banning it. I fear, though, that I'm drifting inexorably towards irrelevancy vis à vis the OP's question.. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide an example of a rulebook that contains the "whether/if" rule you describe? The rulebooks I'm familiar with don't mention it, or don't call it an error. Brians for example opines that "'If' can’t really be called an error, but when you are discussing two alternative possibilities, 'whether' sounds more polished." This use of "if" is not at all a new phenomenon, as you can find plenty of very old examples in print [11]. Also, I think you mean "idiolect", not "idiologue". --Amble (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler (2nd ed, 1978, "if", p. 264) says: To avoid possible ambiguity it may be prudent to confine if to its proper duty of introducing the protasis of a conditional sentence, and not to use it as a substitute for whether or (with not) to introduce a possible alternative.

The 2nd example he gives is germane to my argument: Please inform the secretary if you intend to be present (to which the reader may wonder Whether you intend, or only if you do intend?). I interpret this as a recognition that if has indeed been used to mean whether, but that is not its "proper duty". That's good enough for me. Thanks for the sp corr. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the reference. This is a reasonable recommendation but far short of indicating that the use of "if" would be unorthodox or ungrammatical. Another edition notes that both are used, noting that "whether" is "somewhat more formal". --Amble (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You admit that "People often say 'if' when they really mean whether", and that's exactly what I meant (sorry if I was not clear enough). My question is about whether, there are other languages whose speakers tend - to replace "whether" by "if" - yet not vice versa. HOOTmag (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is still not particularly clear. What exactly do you mean by "replace whether by if? I am not aware that any language other than English has the words "whether" and "if". Finding verbatim translations of such "little words", prepositions and conjunctions and so on, is often problematic.

In Italian, for example, I can't think of a direct translation for "whether". Most English sentences using whether I would either translate with se ("if"), or reword to use the subjunctive (che tu sia in tempo o meno non importa tantissimo, "whether you are on time or not doesn't matter very much"). --Trovatore (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP means: "whether" = conjunction which introduces indirect yes/no questions and "if" = conjunction which introduces conditional clauses. I wonder if what he is trying to ask is not: How many languages (1) have separate conjunctions for introducing yes/no indirect questions and conditional clauses (2) can use the conjunction that introduces conditional clauses to introduce yes/no indirect questions but (3) not vice versa. Contact Basemetal here 23:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. However, not "how many languages" but rather "are there any languages - other than English - which..". HOOTmag (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latin. However the use of 'si' to introduce yes/no indirect questions belongs to a more popular register as far as I can recall. Also there is no word that specifically introduces indirect yes/no questions like 'whether' does. The words that introduces direct yes/no questions are the same as the ones that introduce indirect yes/no questions. So nothing really equivalent to 'whether'. Contact Basemetal here 00:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latin has many words that introduce questions, some of which ask a question where the speaker expects an affirmative answer ("nonne"), some where the speaker expects a negative answer ("num"), and some where the speaker has no expectations (adding "-ne" to a word in the sentence). There is also "numquid", another fancy question particle. More relevant to this question is the "utrum...an" construction, which asks two different things ("did you do this, or did you do that"). That construction can be used for "whether" (and "utrum" and "whether" are actually two evolutions of the same Indo-European word, etymologically), but only if the question is asking whether/or - the example from the Oxford Latin Course is "senex Quintum rogavit utrum Venusiae mansurus esset an parentes quaesiturus" ("The old man asked Quintus whether he was going to stay in Venusia or look for his parents"). However, if there aren't two parts to the question, Latin always uses "si", the usual word for "if". To modify the previous sentence, you would have to say "senex Quintum rogavit si Venusiae mansurus esset". So...this was a long way around to answer HOOTmag's question, but, using the examples given in the original question, no, Latin only uses "si" in both those instances. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what is not clear in my question: I have given very clear examples: "I don't know whether he's here", as opposed to "You'll be punished if you're late". English uses here two different words: "whether" (as in the first sentence), and "if" (in the second one), and yet most speakers afford to use (in the first sentence) "if" instead of "whether", but never afford to use (in the second sentence) "whether" instead of "if". So my question is as following: Is there another language, which - like English - has two different words: the first one, used in sentences like the first sentence mentioned above (when translated into that language), can be translated into English as "whether", whereas the second word - used in sentences like the second sentence mentioned above (when translated into that language), can be translated into English as "if". Additionally, like English speakers, most speakers of that language afford to use (in the first sentence) the second word instead of the first one, but never afford to use (in the second sentence) the first word instead of the second one.

As for Italian: Although the word "che" is not a direct translation of "whether" (because the main meaning of "che" is quite another one), your idea (being consistent with my initial definition) is interesting ... HOOTmag (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is complicated. The presumption that languages should behave somewhat like English is in part based upon a generalization of Standard Average European, which really does not necessarily apply to the rest of the world. English and German have either/or, entweder/oder. German also uses wenn and ob, cognates of when and if.

But the Romance languages pretty much just use si or the equivalent; while isiZulu has both uma ("if, when") and ukuba, literally "to be (i.e., being); and Russian has li, esli, and ili which can mean if, when, whether and or. (Spanish can also use cuando venga, literally "when he come" (i.e, "should he come") to express the if idea using "when" and the subjunctive mood of the verb.)

I have no idea how Semitic languages or Chinese or Japanese treat this issue. Since the concept is not one that refers to a rather well defined physical object, like bird, sun, or tree, there's no particular reason any specific language should have a word that translates exactly for "if" or "whether". That is, when is the last time you saw an "if"? μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A note on very long section titles: I've noticed the OP likes to have very long section titles. He seems to like to put the entirety of his question into the title. I don't think that's a great idea. For example that makes every edit summary extremely long for no good reason. I think it is much better that the title just give a general idea what your question is about. Contact Basemetal here 00:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit section titles to match our guidelines, Basemetal. They should express the essence of the question as concisely as possible. But if you edit the title, you have to add the template {{anchor|original title}} immediately above the question and below the new title. That way it tracks in poeple's watch pages. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why Basemetal and not you or me? Anyways, I have just done that. HOOTmag (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame me, I just answer questions, I don't assign guilt. See Saint Peter. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that the "whether" in the first sentence has a silent "or not", whereas the "if" in the second sentence would mean something totally different if one tries to add an "or not", nor would it make much sense. Separately, I suppose one could say, 'I don't know if he is here' but you could also say, 'I don't know that he is here' (so is 'if' "replacing" 'that', not 'whether [or not]'?)Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "or not" is implied after "whether" in English. But you can also say, "I don't know if he's coming (or not)." Syntax is not my area of focus, maybe Любослов Езыкин can say more. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, it's always possible to rewrite the sentence using "whether or not", if "whether" is the correct word. But it's never possible to write "if or not"; not without violating native idiom or inserting words in between. Cf. "I don't know whether or not he's arriving today", vs. "I don't know if or not he's arriving today". One might be tempted to say "I don't know if he's arriving today or not". but the fact that it's possible to say "whether or not" instead, means that "whether" is the correct choice and "if" is wrong. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, I rather specialize on phonetics/phonology and alphabetic writing systems (not to mention dozens of other things) than on syntax. In fact, theoretical syntax is my weak side in both English and Russian.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this helps or not, but both whether and if came into English from old English and Germanic languages. A guess would be that modern Germanic languages have equivalents, or at least different words for if and whether. Any Germanic speakers out there? The most relevant entry in the OED has "By suppression of the second alternative, whether comes to introduce a simple indirect question, and becomes the ordinary sign of indirect interrogation = IF conj. 9.". It gives examples of "Uncertainty..whether her letter had been ever forwarded." and "Thither the Londoners flocked..to hear whether there was any news." So I think that's saying whether can be used in place of if in certain circumstances. The relevant part if of the if entry says, " Introducing a noun-clause depending on the verb see, ask, learn, doubt, know, or the like: Whether." Anyway, I'm having a punt on some Germanic tongue. Myrvin (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find ob in German for whether - the same as if. Myrvin (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My German isn't great, but I have the notion that ob means "if" in the sense of "whether", whereas for "if" in the sense of "if", wenn is more usual. --Trovatore (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch has hetzij[12] as well as words for if, like of. Myrvin (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danish has hvorvidt[13]. But I am blind blind here. Myrvin (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian.[14] Myrvin (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish has huruvida.[15] Myrvin (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps KageTora or others can comment on how the if/whether issue is handled in Eastern languages? μηδείς (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to User:Medeis, in Japanese, they say 'kare wa kuru ka konai ka wakaranai' (lit. he is coming not coming [I] don't know), to mean 'I do not know if/whether he is coming or not.' There is no word for whether. 'If' however in other places is pronounced as 'moshi' - 'Moshi ore no niku wo tabetara....' (If you eat my meat....), for example.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

00:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So konai is the negation of kuru? Why the vowel shift, if you know, KageTora? I suspect that verb-not verb construction is pretty common. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Just an irregular verb. See [16]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.19.115 (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It's just an irregular verb, Medeis. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two of them, one of which is 'kuru/konai/kita' and 'suru/shinai/shita', the latter meaning 'to do'.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

11:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One other mild irregularity: iku "goes" gives itta "went" instead of expected *iita (cf. kaku "write" which gives the regular kaita "wrote"). The negative ikanai "doesn't go" is regular. The following is not an irregularity since it results from a sound law but iu sequences in Japanese tend to become yuu (at least in the standard language), so the verb (written) iu "says" is mostly pronounced yuu. Maybe worth pointing out even though, again, this is not a grammatical irregularity, but the consequence of a sound law standard Japanese spelling has not caught up with yet. Contact Basemetal here 15:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware it's an irregular form, which is why I asked. Telling me it is irregular is like telling a patient who asks why he has a fever that his body temperature is elevated. It's entirely possible that the reason is obscure, given the poor documentation. But even though laymen often don't know why a certain word is irregular (goose/geese) the answer historically is not just, "Why not?" Or, "That's the was it is." The reason in the goose case is i-mutation. μηδείς (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The verbs kuru and suru were already irregular in Old Japanese. Which is not an answer to your question. There might still be an explanation. Or there might not be. Or there might be several competing explanations. One of the best people to ask is Alexander Vovin. This is his page at the U. of Hawaiii. Tell us if you do get an answer. "That's just the way it is" is often just a way of saying "I don't know". Contact Basemetal here 17:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a solution, perhaps, but it does give an explanation as to why the cause remains unknown: lack of documentation of the pre-Old Japanese period when the irregularity might have arisen. The only other hope would be internal reconstruction, or the quite unlikely case that a comparison with Korean or Altaic would give clues. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also possibly comparison with Ryukyuan. Contact Basemetal here 18:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]