Language desk
< October 23	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 25 >

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.

October 24

Slovak Language help - AfD could use some input and research ASAP - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Perny

This is a long-shot, because it's a two-parter: I need help from people familiar with the Slovak language, and I need someone who can dig up the references listed in the AfD.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Perny, an article about a Slovak drummer, could use attention from editors familiar with his work and particularly who might be able to access the references being submitted and do some interpreting. As it is, some SPAs have popped up to nominate the article for deletion, and some have popped up to save it. However I don't think that any of the English Wikipedia regulars can tell whether the sources provided help the subject meet the general notability criteria or any of the other specific notability criteria. With no URLs in the refs at the AfD it's impossible to discern whether the sources are reliable and whether the coverage of him is significant, or just passing mentions. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably more likely to find somebody capable and hopefully willing to help at Wikipedia:Translators available#Slovak-to-English. If nobody listed is active, somebody at Wikipedia:Translators available#Czech-to-English should be able to help out.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 05:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, great tip, WilliamThweatt! Much appreciated, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read over the AfD and looked at the article and some of the sources. There's not really any need to translate the bulk of any of the documentation because it is all links to blogs, youtube, and self-promotional material. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Native speaker (Ukrainian): Please Help! (Part II)

In an English article you would call the cossak hairdo (see above Native speaker (Ukrainian): Please Help!) an "it".

My problem: In German you have to assign a grammatical gender - "die Locke" (lock) , "die Haarsträne" (thread of hair), "die Frisur (hairdo), but "der Haarschopf" (shock of hair) - the tendency being "sie" (fem.) for most of the terms that describe this hairdo.

So my question: What is the grammatical gender in the original languages of:

хохо́л (Khokhol) - Russian:
chochoł - Polish:
Чуприна (chupryna) - Ukrainian:
Чуб (chub) - Ukrainian:
Oселедець (oseledets/oseledec) - Ukrainian:

! Bikkit ! (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For most nouns( in citation form)in most Slavonic languages, you can tell the gender by the form: if it ends in a consonant, it is masculine, if it ends in '-а' or '-я' it's feminine (and there are neuters as well). So хохо́л, chochoł, and Чуб are all masculine, and Чуприна feminine. For words ending in a soft sign ь it's not always clear, but from the article uk:Оселедець атлантичний, with its masculine adjective, I deduce that Оселедець is also masculine.--ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin's remarks are spot on in regard to gender in Slavic. But a google search for Ukrainischer Tschub does get results such as "Hinter jedem Busch wird ein Ukrainer mit einem Tschub auf dem Kopf und . . ." as quoted in a 100 year anniversary article about WWI in Der Spiegel. Hence these words may already exist with an assigned gender in German.

In this phrase it's obviously ambiguous whether Tschub is masculine or neuter (in another part of the article it is unambiguously masculine), and past experience shows that the gender assigned to words borrowed into German is not always straightforward. I'm not sure it's a big deal. Obviously if you chose das Tschub and someone came along and corrected it to der Tschub there'd be no harm done, but a search of older German texts for these words might be worth a try. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Tschub" had escaped my radar when I did searches which of the many terms to use as lemma. I prefer this to Chochol (in German books) because Tschub is derived from the original language as well as does not have the negative connotation. Ich changed the order and preferences accordingly in the article-to-be. Thanks again for this very helpful remark! Bikkit ! (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question

Tschub leads me to Tschup(p):

Is there any knowledge, whether the slavic Чуб or the Germanic Tschup(p) "was first" in the meaning "shock of hair"?
Is there a connection to "Schopf"? (I found: tirol.-kärntnisch tschopf) ! Bikkit ! (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) Чуб is a native Slavic word and Tschup looks like a Slavic loanword into German.
2) Чуб and Schopf are possible cognates on the Indo-European level (see Max Vasmer's dictionary).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect reference! Thx! Bikkit ! (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the following sentence (the italicized one) correct?

Person 1: What do you need a passport for? Are you going abroad?

Person 2:"I'm not planning on leaving the country any time soon, but you just don't know when a passport may come in handy"?

Is this correct or should I replace "planning on leaving" and "may" with "planning to leave" and "will", respectively?88jaymm (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both are fine.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

12:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Planning on leaving" is kind of slangy, but its meaning is clear enough. If you were saying it in writing, in anything approaching a formal sense, "planning to leave" would be better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To my ears (British English), "planning on leaving" comes over as US English. I would say "planning to leave". I would also use "might" in place of "may".--Phil Holmes (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Though it could be worse. At least he didn't say "fixin' to leave." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Planning on leaving" is fine to my BrEng ears. I would probably use "might" instead of "may", depending on the context within which your sentences are to be used. The addition of a full stop at the end of the sentence would make it perfect. Bazza (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bugs about "planning on leaving". As to the second clause, I think "may", "might", "could", "will", and "is going to" are all correct, and while they usually convey different nuances, in this case I think they are all pretty much equivalent. The words "you just don't know" already provide enough uncertainty to eliminate the differences. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of saudade

Our article gives the Brazilian pronunciation of saudade as [sawˈdadi].

I don't understand the consonantal /w/ before the d. How is it possible to pronounce that distinctively from a /u/? If it's just a /u/, why don't we write [sau'dadi]? --Trovatore (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diphthongs may be transcribed in IPA, either with two vowel symbols, or with a vowel symbol and a semivowel symbol. In the word "saudade", the less prominent member of the diphthong can be represented either with the symbol for the labiovelar approximant [w], or with the symbol for the close vowel [u] (but not with the symbol for the near-close vowel [ʊ], according to the Portuguese pronunciation). For more details, see our article diphthong#Transcription. HOOTmag (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So to be clear, the choice of the approximant [w] is not intended to indicate any expulsion of air through the lips or anything like that? It would really be just the same if it were transcribed as [u] instead? --Trovatore (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If - by " expulsion of air through the lips " (while pronouncing the /w/ ) - you mean "addition of a vowel" (after pronouncing the /w/ ), then the answer to your question is Yes. Generally, when the sign "w" (in IPA) is followed by an immediate sign representing a consonant, then no vowel should be inserted in between - when pronouncing that. Actually, using the "w" in the transcription of "saudade" is only intended to indicate that the letters "sau" in the word "saudade" reflect one syllable only, so using the "w" in the transcription makes it much more precise. However, those who don't like the "w" and still want to be precise (i.e to prevent the "sau" from being interpreted as something that reflects two syllables), can use the arc /a͡u/ for the same purpose. HOOTmag (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't mean a vowel after the [w]. I was just trying to figure out how [w] could be a consonant before a stop. I thought maybe if you sort of drew out the [w] and made it slightly longer, holding the lips close enough to produce turbulence as the air is expelled, then that might qualify as a consonant and be distinctive from the [u]. --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the English word "out" may be of help here:

Try to utter the English word "out". Now, what you've just uttered is transcribed in IPA, either by /a͡ut / (the arc indicating that the word has one syllable only), or by /awt / - pronounced just like /a͡ut /, whereas the transcription /aut / is less precise - because it has two syllables (although that's the popular way to transcribe the English word "out" in IPA, because the reader is supposed to know that English has no pair of successive vowels pronounced as two syllables).

So, I wonder how you can claim that you were just trying to figure out how [w] could be a consonant before a stop, whereas - whenever you say "out" - you actually say what is transcribed in IPA as /awt / (pronounced just like /a͡ut / ). However, if you drew out the [w] and made it slightly longer, holding the lips close enough to produce turbulence as the air is expelled, then you should transcribe it in IPA as /aw:t / (pronounced as if it is transcribed /awwt / ). HOOTmag (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't recall seeing "out" transcribed as /awt/, or at least not frequently. In Wikipedia we typically write /aʊt/, though of course the exact realization varies by accent (I have something between [aʊt] and [æʊt], Canadians say [ɔʊt], ~~RP speakers say [ɛʊt]~~, etc). I am not used to seeing /w/ in IPA except in a clearly consonantal position. --Trovatore (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Strike the bit about RP. I was confusing it with how they say "oat". --Trovatore (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

No doubt, /a͡ʊt / is more precise than /a͡ut / - for transcribing the English word "out". However, the popular transcription /aʊt/ (generally indicating two syllables) is less precise than /a͡ʊt / - in which the arc indicates that the word has one syllable only. The only justification for omitting the arc, is because we are dealing with the English language - whereas the reader is supposed to know that English has no pair of successive vowels pronounced as two syllables, so that the arc may be regarded as needless - as far as the English language is concerned.

As for /aw / vs. /au/ in "saudade": Note, that the /w/ is not a real consonant. Actually, it's a semivowel (i.e. an approximant, something between a consonant and a vowel), and when it's followed by a consonant - it is uttered just as /u̯/ - i.e. as the non-syllabic close back rounded vowel (the "hat" at the bottom of the /u̯/ indicates that it's a non-syllabic /u/ ), so that /sawdade/ is uttered like /sa͡udade / - which can btw be indicated also by /sau̯dade/ (i.e. with the "hat" under the "u").

As for /au / vs. /aʊ/ in "out": Note, that /ʊ/ (as in "look", "could") is more open than /u/ (as in "Luke", "cooed") - whose corresponding semivowel is /w/. However, IPA has no sign for the corresponding semivowel of /ʊ/, i.e. for the semivowel more open than /w/; That's why, when I transcribed the English word "out" (by a͡ut and by /awt / ), I unwillingly had to use the less precise signs /u/ and /w/. However, when I used the "u" (in /a͡ut/ ) along with the "w" (in /awt/ ), I really meant: /ʊ/ (rather than /u/), along with the corresponding semivowel of /ʊ/ (rather than of /u/ ). HOOTmag (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's pronounced as a single syllable, or is that simply the lazy way to pronounce it? I ask because in the Maori language, there are found many 'wau', 'tau', 'rau', 'kau', 'mau', and other strings, such as in the city named Tauranga. The missionaries who transcribed Maori into written language around 200 years ago wrote 'Tau' for a reason, and even today you will hear Maori people pronounce it 'Ta-oo-rah-ngah' with the 'Ta-oo' pronounced quickly, but as distinctly two syllables. Unfortunately, non-Maori New Zealanders lazily slur it to 'Tow', (as in towel), one syllable. This is the pronunciation given in Wikipedia simply because it is the common, but not correct, pronunciation. Is there perhaps a similar historical basis to the spelling of 'saudade' and should the 'sau' perhaps be pronounced 'sa-oo'? I'd be interested in hearing from native speakers of Portuguese, rather than those who point to IPA derivations. Akld guy (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ask the same question about the English diphthongs as well? Anyways: all diphthongs, including the English ones (e.g. in "now") and the Portuguese ones (e.g. in "mau"), reflect (by definition) one syllable only. For more details (regarding the Portuguese diphthongs), see our article: Portuguese phonology#Oral diphthongs. HOOTmag (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the very top the OP says that the article gives the pronunciation as [sawˈdadi]. Wikipedia articles favour the way the word is commonly pronounced, even in the country where that language is spoken. That's not necessarily the correct way. Rather than believing Wikipedia, I'd like to hear from a native Portuguese speaker. Akld guy (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't you like to hear from native English speakers, for knowing whether they pronounce "now" as one syllable (i.e. /naw/ i.e. /na͡u/) or as two syllables (i.e. /na - u /)?

Similarly, why wouldn't you like to hear from native Portuguese speakers, for knowing whether they pronounce "mau" as one syllable (i.e. /maw/ i.e. /ma͡u/) or as two syllables (i.e. /ma - u /)?

Anyways, the letters "au" in Portuguese are always pronounced by native speakers as a diphthong (representing one syllable), rather than as two syllables; Just as native English speakers never pronounce /a - u/ (i.e. as two syllables). This is not always the case in other languages, like Maori (as you've already mentioned), the Semitic languages, and the like. HOOTmag (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CESARIA EVORA - Sodade. Live In Paris at Le Grand Rex, April 2004. Bus stop (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she pronounces it as a monophthong, /o/. There are various ways to pronounce it. See here, and also here. HOOTmag (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She is singing in a creole language of Portuguese basis, spoken on the islands of Cape Verde. HOOTmag (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you couldn't get enough of that, go to approximately 4:35 in this. Bus stop (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't you like to hear from native English speakers, for knowing whether they pronounce "now" as one syllable (i.e. /naw/ i.e. /na͡u/) or as two syllables (i.e. /na - u /)? That's an absurd question. I'm a native speaker of English and know very well how to pronounce 'now'. Besides, there's no hint of a double syllable in it. Akld guy (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Now" can approach two syllables in a Cockney accent. Listen to "Anarchy in the U.K." for a well-known example. (OK, John Lydon is from Holloway, but still.) Tevildo (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The well-established way of transcribing of diphthongs is with a small inverted breve under the weak element of a diphthong, e.g. /au̯, ai̯/. There is indeed a reason to treat differently /u̯, i̯/ and /w, j/ as they are acoustically different. But in Romance studies there is a not so good tradition to transcribe diphthongs with /w, j/. So /sawˈdadi/ is most likely a broad transcription from some Portuguese dictionary, while the right IPA transcription would be /sau̯ˈdadɯ/ or /saʊ̯ˈdadɯ/ (though in The Handbook of the IPA the breve below is not usually written in diphthong). Also note that the English /aʊ, aɪ/ are also conventional, the pure strict narrow transcription would be /aʊ̯, aɪ̯/.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of common pronunciations, I don't think the article's wording "Brazilian Portuguese: [sawˈdadi] or [sawˈdadʒi]" is a good one. In most of Brazil, the /d/ and /t/ surface as [dʒ] and [tʃ] before an [i] (or a nasalized [ĩ]), so [sawˈdadʒi] must be the more common Brazilian pronunciation and [sawˈdadi] must be the less common one. --Theurgist (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reader is supposed to know that English has no pair of successive vowels pronounced as two syllables. What about "hiatus"? 80.44.163.151 (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that every English (monosyllabic) vowel, is either a monophthong (as in "be") or a diphthong (as in "go") or a triphthong (as in "riot"). English has no (monosyllabic) quadriphthongs, so "Hiatus" is really pronounced: /ha'jeitəs/, although it's usually transcribed (in IPA) mistakenly as /hai'eitəs/. HOOTmag (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]