Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Language desk
< September 5 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 7 >
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.


September 6

[edit]
[edit]

If the word “poultry” is for birds such as chicken, what word is for, cow, goat, camel meat (and othes land types), and for fish type? 103.67.157.114 (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In general, larger animals kept for farming are livestock. Cows, bulls and oxen are cattle. For the other animals, if talking about farming, you just use the name of the animal - sheep farm, goat farm etc. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Farmed fish is generally known as aquaculture, though that's something of a neologism. Historically, it was just known as "fishing" or "fish farming". --Jayron32 11:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP is talking about food. Poultry is bird meat. Pork is pig meat. Beef is cattle meat. Bison meat is a type of meat from a ruminant animal. Fish can be used for the whole live fish or fish as a dish. Mutton is lamb meat. Veal is the meat from a young cow. Venison is deer meat or wild game. I think goat meat is just goat meat, and camel meat is just camel meat, unless loanwords are used. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Flesh-meat" is an archaism used for poultry and land animal meat, as something Catholics abstain from on fast days. The scientific definition of animal is not the only one and "animal meat" may apply for some other definitions. "Seafood" = fish + shellfish (though freshwater fish are not strictly "sea" food). NormanFrench/AngloSaxon meat/animal pairs include beef/cattle, mutton/sheep, and pork/pig: the Norman conquerors were rich enough to eat meat often. jnestorius(talk) 13:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where would seaweed fit in? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usually pressed into sheets and wrapped around bits of fish and rice. --Jayron32 14:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are some inaccuracies above: mutton is the meat from a sheep (French: mouton) whereas the English word "lamb" does for immature sheep both alive and slaughtered. "Game" is by definition wild. "Veal" is more likely to be the meat of an immature bull than a cow. The meat of a mature goat is particularly pungent, so they are usually slaughtered as kids. If the OP is asking about restaurant terminology, then the tripartite division of poultry/meat/fish may be sufficiently simple and all-encompassing. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meat = the edible flesh of cattle, goats, camels (and other land-types, including all red meats from animal sources), although usually only beef, veal, pork, and lamb are eaten in this category in Western countries.
Poultry = turkey, chicken, duck, as well as pheasants and other less common birds.
Fish = broadly includes edible flesh from all aquatic animals, such as fish, whales, crustaceans, shellfish, seals, and mollusks. Some aquatic animals such as whales and seals may be put in the same category as cattle and sheep. In the narrower sense, fish is confined to aquatic animals with fins, gills, backbone, and skull, as well as mollusks (clams, oysters) and crustaceans (crabs, lobster). Instead of fish, you can use seafood. —Stephen (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In Chinese, there is 海带, which refers to a type of edible seaweed; and of course, there is 紫菜, which refers to seaweed paper, but the English term borrows from the Japanese term, nori. In American English, they are all recognized as seafood. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Minor quibble: in my part of England (South and South-West), venison is more commonly eaten than goat meat. I suspect this is also true in parts of continental Europe, such as Southern Germany. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.2301.95} 2.122.61.201 (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"would actually contain" versus "actually used to contain"

[edit]

At first, I replaced "would actually contain" with "actually used to contain" because it looked like the second conditional, and I thought it was not. Then my edit was reverted.

In my opinion the verb "contain" is stative, and therefore we cannot use "would" with "contain" to talk about repeated past actions. Only "used to" is possible when we talk about past states. But my opponent ignores sources that I provided, and calls my version "bad grammar" although he didn't provide any sources. I can provide many more sources, but it doesn't seem to change anything. Could you please do something about it? Here is the whole talk.
85.193.242.133 (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Used to" is informal and ambiguous so best avoided. In colloquial speech and writing (never formal) it can mean "did", but you should not do that in formal writing, because it can also literally mean "is utilized for". If you mean "used to" as in "did", then just use the word "did". --Jayron32 14:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "then just use the word "did"". Did you mean the following sentence?

"The bag, sold unopened, did contain a cat or dog, ..."

The word "did" only emphasizes the word "contain", which was not the intended meaning. But if I write:

"The bag, sold unopened, actually contained a cat or dog, ...",

then I will lose important information about repetitiveness, and it will become a one-time event. On the other hand the verb "contain" is stative, and therefore we cannot use "would" to talk about repeated past actions. So the current version

"The bag, sold unopened, would actually contain a cat or dog...",

is incorrect, right? 85.193.242.133 (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Actually contained" indicates it was expected it would contain something else. 92.8.216.51 (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Would contain" is, I believe, a conditional present statement. It seems that "Would have contained", the conditional perfect makes more sense in that "sold unopened" is in past tense, so the follow-on conditional should be in the perfect tense. The word "actually" is an adverb, and does not substantively affect the mood or tense of the sentence; though it's use to modify or intensify the verb "contain" is important, its use is not relevant to the discussion of the mood or tense. This is also unrelated to the use of the phrase "used to" as a past-tense marker, which is informal and should be avoided for reasons noted above. --Jayron32 16:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question! First, Jayron's idea that "used to" is ambiguous is a complete red herring. There's no possibility of confusion between "it used to X" and "it was used to X". Secondly, on the basis of linguistic intuition, I'm quite sure that "would contain" is correct; "used to contain" is dubious. You are right, however, that the prescriptive rules which others have derived from their own intuitions seem to indicate that you are right.
The best I can suggest as to why the "would" is correct is that we are not talking about a bag which would, for a state of some length of time, contain a cat; rather, we are talking about a series of bags, each of which would at one particular moment turn out to contain a cat. So this isn't really a stative use of the verb. "Used to" implies that the bag in question habitually contained a cat, then didn't. HenryFlower 16:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to myself, here's another example of the point I was fumbling towards. When I was a child I would believe in Santa Claus is wrong, because this refers to a continuous state. He would tell her he loved her, and she would believe him is fine, because it refers to multiple occasions, not a persistent state. The problem is with our rule of thumb categorisation into "stative verbs" and "action verbs", rather than thinking of "stative usage" and "action usage". HenryFlower 18:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bag used to contain the potato chips": Does that mean "Here is a bag, and its purpose is to contain potato chips" or "Here is a bag, and it formerly contained potato chips". If you use other words, you avoid that problem. --Jayron32 16:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The former interpretation is a sentence fragment, which is unlikely in the prose of an encylopedia article. It is more plausible as an image caption, or in popular fiction ("Then he saw her, holding a bag. The bag used to contain the potato chips.") A sentence beginning "The bag used to contain the potato chips" might lead to a garden path sentence miscue, but there is more danger of misinterpreting a noun phrase as a complete sentence than vice versa, and this example is vice versa. jnestorius(talk) 18:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but it still causes parsing problems, and as such, if an equivalent less ambiguous sentence can be used, use it. There's no need to force language which an be ambiguous when we have equivalent words that are less so. --Jayron32 18:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the context of this edit, "used to" means "formerly", and that's too informal for Wikipedia. Also, the original version didn't need fixing. It was quite good as it was. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My general advice to 85.193.242 is that native speakers are much better at knowing whether something sounds better or worse than knowing why it does. Quoting a grammar textbook will rarely if ever convince a native speaker that their linguistic intuition is wrong, but their intuition may not be backed up by meta-knowledge. jnestorius(talk) 18:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the phrase "used to contain" is always apparent from the context. If you don't use it as an auxiliary verb denoting the past imperfect you would have to use a cumbersome circumlocution to convey your meaning. Moreover, when spoken the pronunciation is different. As an agent of purpose "used" is stressed and the "d" is clearly enunciated. As an auxiliary verb it is elided. 92.8.216.51 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense! That's just lazy pronunciation. Careful speakers always pronounce the "d". Akld guy (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That many people write "I use [sic] to do so-and-so ..." just means they're used [sic] to hearing people speak it carelessly or ignorantly. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd to expect people to say an informal phrase in a formal way. I would expect something sounding like "it usta be" not "it used to be". StuRat (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We understand that, but it's lazy. Careful speakers also use informal speech and take care to pronounce the "d". The problem is that the d is followed by the t and they are a difficult pair to enunciate distinctly. In this way are the careful and the lazy sorted out. That's why it's such a pleasure to hear well-spoken English. My enunciation is sadly, middle to broad kiwi accent and falls into the "usta be" category. Akld guy (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not lazy, it's different. Dialects spoken by thousands of people do not cause all of those thousands of people to share personality traits! The French are not lazy because they don't pronounce the "t" sound at the end of words like "bouquet", because that's how their language works. Non-rhotic English speakers are not lazy because they don't pronounce the "r" at the ends of words, because that's how their language works. It's the same with the above. The notion that "different than me = lazier than me" or "different than the prestige social class = lazy" is bullshit. Different is not worse. --Jayron32 11:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man argument. I never said anything about foreign languages. My comments pertained only to the "used to be" phrase. Stay on topic please. Akld guy (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle to imagine "used" in the auxiliary verb "used to" or the verb phrase "be used to something" being pronounced the same as "used", the past tense of "use". The latter has a voiced /zd/ at the end and the former has /st/. RP and other "prestigious" accents elide syllables too. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 11:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but because they are rich people, when they do it, they aren't called lazy. --Jayron32 11:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw the original sentence: 

The bag, sold unopened, would actually contain a cat or dog, which was substantially less valuable as a source of meat.

I immediately thought: Is it talking about repeated events in the past or a hypothetical future situation? Now I see that, even for natives, this is not a trivial question. I am not a native English speaker, but I want to make my English perfect, which is extremely hard because English itself is very far from being perfect, even compared to German, let alone Esperanto.

Thank you all for sharing your knowledge. It was very helpful, and totally different from my previous experience with natives. They often said that some sentence was good or bad. But I've always wanted to know why. And you have just answered that question, satisfying my curiosity. It was a great experience.

@Henry: Your explanation was brilliant and surprising, but also clear, exactly what I was waiting for. @User:Jnestorius: Your general advice on native speakers was very important. It was a sobering experience. After all, I am also a native speaker in my native language.
85.193.242.133 (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it helped! HenryFlower 08:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Henry Flower: Thanks for your explanations. I'm the "native speaker" who wasn't able to explain the why to the IP's satisfaction. I suggested that they post here, and I'm glad you and the others were able to be of assistance. Thanks all!. - BilCat (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consonant doubling in regional pronunciation of Latin

[edit]

I have yet to find any information on whether or not double consonants such as ⟨cc⟩ in 'peccata' are geminated in various regional pronunciations of Latin (specifically, German for Baroque performances of music) as they are in Church Latin. 41.114.196.207 (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be intersted in this book: Singing Early Music--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
41.114.196.207 -- The pronunciation of Latin traditionally used in singing in the Roman Catholic church is actually pretty much the Italian regional pronunciation of Latin. Italian is one of the relatively few modern western European languages that has phonemic geminated consonants... AnonMoos (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I just now took a look at "Latin regional pronunciation" (didn't know that was an article before), and the "English" column of the table there is something of a mess -- it indiscriminately mixes together long vowel pronunciations affected by the Great Vowel Shift together with "reformed" pronunciations introduced afterwards, while [əʊ] for a "long o" vowel is based on old-style British "RP", and doesn't really conform to Help:IPA/English. The Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching article seems to be better than the Latin one... AnonMoos (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos, what do you mean by "western European languages"? It's not a linguistic category, as far as I know. Anyway, consonant gemination is phonemic in Polish, so Latin words with double consonants are geminated in Polish pronunciation (and, I bet, in most other Slavic languages). — Kpalion(talk) 12:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a geographical category. AnonMoos (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where in North America is this the accent?

[edit]

[1] The US South? (except non-rhotic parts) Anywhere else? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They explained it well in the video. It's supposed to be how somebody sounds wearing a dental retainer. StuRat (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But presumably, dental devices don't impart an accent too. Alansplodge (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a real accent. It's a stupid meme. There is no useful answer for the OP beyond that. --Jayron32 01:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might've been the (maybe exaggerated) accent of some places. I guess not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally agree with this map, but New Yorkers can distiguish themselves by borough to a point, especially Brooklyn from Bronx. In South Philly the football team is called The Iggles, not The Eagles. There's a discernable difference between West Phillywith characteristics from Western Pa., and South Philly (This is an ethnic influence in part, with Irish and German whites more from the west and Italians and Slaves from South Philly.)

Oh, and Peter Jennings and Alex Trebek, both Canadian, typify the American ideal!

Typically South Philly Residents are portrayed By New York actors, like Sylvestor Stallone, who played Rocky, from Philly. There are also highly distinct class differences in the eastern cities.
New Jerseyans typically identify as North or South, having grown up in the South, I have been mistaken by the Atlantic City area locals as from out of state. I code switch when in The North/NYC but adopt Phillyisms and a Southern accent at my parents'. μηδείς (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map of dialect regions

[edit]

References

  1. ^ a b Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006:148)
  2. ^ a b c d Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006:141)
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Labov 2006 123–4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006:135)
  5. ^ a b Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006:237)
  6. ^ Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006:271–2)
  7. ^ a b Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006:130)
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference labov133 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006:125)
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference labov127 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006:124)
  12. ^ Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006:229)
  13. ^ Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006:137)
  14. ^ Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006:230)
  15. ^ Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006:231)
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference Labov et al. p. 182 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ a b Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006:217)
  18. ^ Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006:223)
  19. ^ a b Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006:221)
  1. ^ Dialects are considered "rhotic" if they pronounce the r sound in all historical environments, without ever "dropping" this sound. The father–bother merger is the pronunciation of the unrounded /ɒ/ vowel variant (as in cot, lot, bother, etc.) the same as the /ɑː/ vowel (as in spa, haha, Ma), causing words like con and Kahn and like sob and Saab to sound identical, with the vowel usually realized in the back or middle of the mouth as [ɑ~ä]. Finally, most of the U.S. participates in a continuous nasal system of the "short a" vowel (in cat, trap, bath, etc.), causing /æ/ to be pronounced with the tongue raised and with a glide quality (typically sounding like [ɛə]) particularly when before a nasal consonant; thus, mad is [mæd], but man is more like [mɛən].
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2017_September_6&oldid=1138619231"