Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 November 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Language desk
< November 29 << Oct | November | Dec >> December 1 >
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.


Contents


[edit] November 30

[edit] "Go to bed" in Hebrew

How would the phrase "go to bed" translate into Hebrew? Mo-Al 04:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more common to say go to sleep - lech lishon, or lechi lishon to a girl/woman. The ch is pronounced in the throat, like the way the Scots pronounce the word loch. Bed is mitta, accented on the second syllable. If you get the accent on the first syllable, it means death, which is unfortunate. --Dweller
Hmmm, my friend always says she's going schluffy (sp?), but I guess that's Yiddish? Anchoress 09:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yup. I think the Yiddish word derives from the German "schlauffen" (sp?) but I know v little about either Yiddish or German! :-) --Dweller 09:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The German word is "schlafen", but I think claiming Yiddish derives from German is like claiming Swedish derives from Norwegian or Scots from English. 惑乱 分からん 10:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
My schluffy friend (who lives in Israel) says it's lech le mita. Anchoress 11:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that the people who have posted suggestions have all assumed that 'go' is imperative. This is appropriate if the phrase stands alone, but if it is in a sentence (eg "It's time to go to bed") it will be a different form of the verb halach. --ColinFine 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
In which case it'd be zman lalechet lishon. I still don't think colloquial use of Ivrit would call on the word bed/mitta. --Dweller 09:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romance Languages

Which are the closest of Romance languages? It seems to me, as if Romanian and French are more related, as are Spanish are Portuguese, with Italian being somewhere in the middle. What do you think? Vikramkr 04:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

See Romance languages and then see if you really want an answer to your question. There are other languages that must be considered. -THB 05:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia actually has a table comparing the different Romance languages. I can't remember the name or the criterion, but it uses percentages. I believe Italian and Sicilian were pretty darn close. Also see dialect continuum. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see that table if anyone knows where it is. -THB 04:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well there's this: Differences between Spanish and Portuguese. Not exactly what was spoken of. Anchoress 04:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
--Anchoress 04:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I found both of the above articles helpful! Vikramkr 21:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PC swears

Hello - We're looking for insult and swearwords in english that don't refer to anything religious or anything scatologic or to do with sex. It's hard. So far we've got "blast", "shoot" (adaptation from "shit"?) and we're not sure about "bloody ...". Thank you - Keria 08:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Blithering" and "bother"/"botheration" come to mind. If you're accepting "shoot", I guess you'll take things like "dang" and "blimmin". I'm trying to think of words that may be used by the Vicar of Dibley (!) --Dweller 09:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"Bloody" is supposedly a contraction of "by Our Lady", although I've seen alternative theories. I'd say "shoot" is a euphemistic way of saying "shit" (but that may just be etymological horse-shit). I think that "dang" is a variant of "damn". JackofOz 09:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems most etymologists consider "by our lady" a folk etymology. 惑乱 分からん 10:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. While 'blimey' makes sense as a contraction of 'by our Lady' (not that it necessarily is), bloody makes absolutely no sense like that, since it is not used as an exclamation but an adjective. Plus, there is no evidence to support it. Skittle 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Try list of profanities and list of ethnic slurs.--Shantavira 09:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Cor lumme", though I've never actually heard anyone say that. "For Pete's sake". "Gordon Walters" and "Gordon Bennett". --Dweller 09:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Gordon Walters? Now, I've never heard that variation before! But these are not really swearwords, are they, Dweller? More expressions of a sense of frustration. You could try a rather novel term once thrown at me at school. A home economics teacher, in a mood of complete frustration at my disruptive lack of interest in the subject, obviously wanted to call me a 'slut'. But she managed to catch herself mid-flow and called me a 'slitter' instead. I've always treasured this! Clio the Muse 10:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always been a fan of "shucks," which looks like a portmanteau of two other swears but probably isn't. I can't find the etymology of the interjection, so it could conceivably be indirectly sexual (as in "shuck off your clothes and let's get busy!"), but it's a pretty safe bet. LWizard @ 10:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

'Bastard' and 'bitch' are both insulting and sweary terms when used in certain contexts ('I can't get this bastard door to open!'), and are neither religious, scatalogical nor sex-related. Proto::type 12:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
'Bitch' is not sex related? Well, that's a new one! Clio the Muse 12:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you mean sex in the sense of gender... "Bastard" would at least indirectly refer to sex, used akin to "Yo momma's an impure slut"... 惑乱 分からん 12:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It is either used descriptively, and correctly, to describe certain types of female animal, or as a swear word. In both cases it is sexually specific. Clio the Muse 12:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
When Proto said it wasn't sex-related, s/he meant unrelated to sexual practices, not to gender. At least I think s/he did. Which is surely correct? --Richardrj talk email 15:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, me too, although I think it probably could mean both "slut" and the opposite (i.e. not wanting to have sex with the person uttering the insult @_@) depending on context, although I'd agree that's not the word's general meaning... 惑乱 分からん 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Gordon Bennett" is my personal favourite - I find myself using it regularly. From an English perspective, git (for an irritating/contemptible person) is a common one in the south [1]; Flamin' Nora! (or "Flaming Nora!") is an expression of amazement or (frustrated) surprise in the north - possibly a bit clichéd ... and here's one from my Mum ,who is originally from a rural part of Northern Ireland (Waterfoot, County Antrim, for info): she has always used the term skitter (presumed spelling) as a very mild, somewhat jokey term for somebody who is being naughty or a "pain in the neck". I know that other relatives who still live there use the term as well. Incidentally, have any other Wikipedians familiar with Northern Ireland heard of the term? Hassocks5489 13:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly skeeter, short for mosquito? My grandmother used to call such people "silly 'a'p'orth". Marnanel 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope, it's a scatalogical one. "The skitters" - diarrhoea. --Nicknack009 23:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the insults part of the question. Anyone imaginative can come up with zillions of non sexual, non religious, non scatological insults. --Dweller 13:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it opens a world of possibilities but I was looking more for phrases like "you little brat" or other more humorous or light ways of showing anger. I like Gordon Bennett (expression) too bad it seems it might be a euphemism for "God" - Keria 14:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The general name for the words the questioner is looking for is minced oath - Nunh-huh 17:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Check out the Tintin books, Captain Haddock always has an amusing insult or curse for any occasion. You will probably find a complete list of his curses on the net. Sandman30s 05:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Batten yer hatches, you miserable blundering barbecued blister! You cachinnating cockatoo! You miserable molecule of mildew! Prepare for amazing alliterative acrobatics by way of swearwords at the rather charming Tintinologist website. --Dweller 09:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia had its own article on Haddock's exclaimations until it was merged away a few weeks ago. You can see it at this old version: [2] Rmhermen 17:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess you could include such classics as...'plonker' from Only Fools and Horses, smeghead from Red Dwarf (though that is a fake-swear word they created to get round censors I think). I would probably add flaming to the list, maybe also add freaking (as in "What the freaking hell was that"). Scum (and/or scumbag) is also a bit of a nasty word but maybe not swearword material. Nice question. I gave up swearing about 3 years ago so none of the traditional ones are uttered beyond the internals of my mind. My mother would consider 'mongy' a swearword and spacca (as in spastic) was, when I was a child at least, a particularly naughty word. ny156uk 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
What about "bull"? It's obviously shortened from... well... you know, but it doesn't make any scatalogical reference. --Bearbear 16:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What about "dirty, double-crossing buzzard"? Or to call someone a louse? Maybe a "four-flushin', no good scoundrel"? Instead of BS you can say hooey, bunk, or hogwash. Can also use some adjectives with the noun 'trash'. Hays Code era movies would probably be best for what you are looking for. --PhantomS 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe also go for phrases like "They'll be picking iron out of your liver." You can also attack intelligence and/or weight with 'imbecile' or 'bloated idiot'. --PhantomS 20:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doesn't/Does not

The other day I noticed that although a sentence such as "Doesn't it seem quiet?" or "Shouldn't you be in school?" or "Couldn't you try harder?" sound perfectly fine, expanding the contraction makes "Does not it sound quiet?" or "Should not you be in school?" which sounds ungrammatical and disjointed, as if it is being said by Yoda. Is this sort of structure not allowed, or is it simply that people never say "Should not you...", so it sounds alien to my ears? Laïka 11:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It can be said in full, but the 'not' would come after the pronoun. In your examples, it is permissible to say "Does it not sound quiet?" and "Should you not be in school?" In fact I prefer saying it that way to using the contracted version. --Richardrj talk email 11:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It's been argued that because of this (among other things) -n't should not be considered a contraction of "not", but rather a negative suffix. Zwicky, Arnold M.; Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1983). "Cliticization vs. Inflection: English n't". Language 59 (3): 502–513.  --Ptcamn 15:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the prob is that the "not" doesn't belong in those questions in the first place. They are perfectly fine, and simpler, as "Does it seem quiet ?" or "Should you be in school ?" or "Could you try harder ?". Or, if we like to get tied up with extraneous nots, why don't we write "Isn't it not untrue that it doesn't not seem unquiet ?". StuRat 06:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"n't" implies the verb is implied, and the asker is asking for an explanation on why the subject didn't do the verb. In contrast, leaving it out sounds more like a general question. In "n't", the asker already knows the answer. --Wooty Woot? contribs 09:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Does not it sound quiet?" - a little reordering to "Does it not sound quiet?" "Should not you be in school?" - "Should you not be in school?" -- both medieval-sounding renditions of the same phrase. Theavatar3 01:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surname

Mate of mine has the surname Bibby, and is unsure of where it may come from, or what it may mean. I know -by is Nordic (I hope I've got that bit right at least, hah!). Any ideas on "Bib" ?doktorb wordsdeeds 14:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the Penguin Dictionary of Surnames, it's a double diminutive form of "Isabell." The book also says that Isabell is the Spanish and southern French form of Elizabeth, "my God (is) satisfaction," from Hebrew. --Kjoonlee 15:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) From what I could find by googling, it appears to be a pet name of Isabel, itself a variant of Elizabeth. 惑乱 分からん 15:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Wiki am rule :) And cheers you two, that's not what I was expecting at all. Aceness, thank you doktorb wordsdeeds 15:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
'-by' is Norse as part of a place-name. Many surnames are originally place-names, but it appears from what the other posters have said that your friend's is not. --ColinFine 00:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nzambi ia lufua

There's a track on the most recent album by Whitehouse with the above title. It looks/sounds to me like a phrase from some African language like Swahili. However, googling the phrase doesn't return anything except references to the track. Does anyone know what the phrase means, if anything? --Richardrj talk email 15:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but it seems to be Kongo. Nzambi apparently means "God". But then, for all I know other related languages might use the same words. --Ptcamn 19:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The article on Kongo has as illustration a prayer that, it seems, is the Hail Mary. In the last phrase the word lufua occurs: ouau ye muna utangu'a lufua lueto. Unless the order is changed, that phrase corresponds to English "now and at the hour of our death." Based also on other Google evidence, lufua means "death" or "dying".  --LambiamTalk 22:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
A qulified guess, "God is dead". 惑乱 分からん 23:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
As it happens, I have a dictionary of Lâri Kikôngo on hand. It confirms that Nzambi means "God" and lufua as "death". However, I'm pretty sure that this could be written as Nzambi yà lufwà in Lari and that it means "God of death". I'm not absolutely sure though. My father spoke Kituba fluently. I don't. --Diderot 23:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Rethinking, I am now positive that it's correct. The Republic of Congo is Repubilika ya Kongo in Kituba, so Nzambi ya lufwa (no tone markers in atonal Kituba) must be "God of death." --Diderot 00:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for all these helpful replies. --Richardrj talk email 00:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modeling or modelling?

Both seem to be in use, but is one preferred to the other? Does it have to do where in the world you live? Thanks. —Bromskloss 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Modeling would be preferred in North America, and modelling in the UK. --Richardrj talk email 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. —Bromskloss 17:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] translation please ?

what's this mean in English: "喂,你在做什么?" ?

"Hey, what are you doing?" –mysid☎ 19:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I note with some amusement that Google Translator translates it incorrectly as "Hey, what do you do?" Shoulda hired a coupla linguists, guys. --Diderot 00:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm assuming there's no distinction. Like French - "Que fais-tu?" means both "What are you doing?" and "What do you do?". --Bearbear 16:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Here 在 [zài] suggests that it is what would be the Chinese equivalent of the present participle (-ing). –mysid☎ 16:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah. It's wrond to assume! --Bearbear 17:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syllable stress or pitch accent or tones in various languages??

Are there any universal trends for syllable stress or pitch accents or tones? There are many langauges that stress the first syllable, many htat stress the penultimate, many that stress the last. If somebody were to devise the ultimate "neutral" or "most universal" language, which stress or pitch or tone pattern would be easiest and most natural to use for the broadest amount of humans?--Sonjaaa 22:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Universal grammar might point you in the right direction.--Cnadolski 23:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
See also downdrift. --Kjoonlee 02:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that these things vary even from British English to US English. StuRat 06:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No. There is no preferred way.
In contrast to the claims of some universal grammarians, it's somewhere between nearly impossible and impossible to identify universals of that kind. It's not even clear how one would develop an unbiased sample of languages to test such claims against. A lot of UG people - I think most at this point - have stopped making that class of claim altogether, preferring a parameter model of linguistic variables in which no particular parameter setting is more natural than another.
There are a few universal general tendencies in phonology that are broadly accepted: the three vowel system (like classical Arabic) and the five vowel system (like Latin) tend to be highly stable and relatively easy to learn. It is widely believed that physiological restrictions in human sound production and perception are the reason those two schemes seem so stable. For stress systems, I know of no research reaching similar kinds of conclusions.
French and Bahasa Indonesia/Malaysia have more or less no fixed phonological stress. They have suprasegmental patterns which may be more complicated, but words don't generally have a stressed syllable. The result is that it's harder for native speakers of those languages to minimize their accents when they speak other languages with fixed phonological stress. So, if you're looking for a stress pattern that will minimize the risk of being hard to speak, none is a viable option.
--Diderot 09:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree, since it seems you're into conlanging, try to make a language where stress doesn't change a word's meaning or appearance. 惑乱 分からん 13:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
But this shouldn't be overdone, since surely all languages probably have suprasegmentals. Personally, I think it makes sense for natural languages with lenient phonotactics and/or syllable structure to have tone/pitch distinctions, in order to avoid homophones. But then, natural languages are extremely complex; you might not want that with your conlang. --Kjoonlee 17:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't think of any conlang which specifies suprasegmentals. I imagine a lot of Esperantists use the basic pitch pattern of their native languages. One might imagine adding to Interlingua the rule that, if it's not in the manual, then do it like they do in Italian. But, it is a dimension of linguistic diversity neglected by the conlangists. --Diderot 20:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/f/Wikipedia%7EReference_desk_Archives_Language_2006_November_30_97c9.html"