Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 April 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< April 2 << Mar | April | May >> April 4 >
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] April 3

[edit] Japanese Sound Symbolism

What would be the kana for the following?:

  • biɕi biɕi 1) the sound of sniffling a running nose
  • kaka 1) the sound a bird makes, 2) the sound of gulping word down
  • kooro kooro, 1) the sound or manor of stirring a liquid
  • sai sai or sae sae 1) the sound or manor in which an object shakes
  • saja saja 1) the sound of two objects clanging together
  • tawa tawa 1) the sound or manor in which an object bends or sags
  • bisi bisi
  • kaka
  • ko2woro2 ko2woro2
  • moya moya
  • sawi sawi (also sawe sawe)
  • saya saya
  • tawa tawa
  • ura ura

Thanks!68.148.164.166 (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The initial response you got was for 8th century examples of onomatopoeia. Next you asked how to pronounce them in 21st century Japanese. There are countless issues just with this premise. So after skipping 13 centuries of phonetic changes, you get the above. Semantically there are numerous problems as well. So now you want to know how to write them in kana. Why not.
びしびし
かか
こおろこおろ
さいさい
さやさや
たわたわ
At this point, the next set are mostly repeats of the above, but in 8th century phonemic. How should I write them? In historical kana or modern kana? Why not both!?
Old: びしびし, Modern: びしびし
Old: かか, Modern: かか
Old: こをろこをろ, Modern: こおろこおろ
Old: もやもや, Modern: もやもや
Old: さゐさゐ (also さゑさゑ), Modern: さいさい (also さえさえ)
Old: さやさや, Modern: さやさや
Old: たわたわ, Modern: たわたわ
Old: うらうら, Modern: うらうら
Bendono (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
O wow, that really did help me, that's amazing! Thank you!68.148.164.166 (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Full Sized Yoon

In historical orthography,

きや [kja]: や follows き (ki)
くわ [kwa]: わ follows く (ku)

(While the English language article Yōon only lists the the palatal -j, historically and also dialectically there was also a labial -w. For example, kwazi "fire" which once contrasted with kazi "house chores". The palatal -j only followed the orthographic -i. However, the labial -w followed the orthographic -u.)

Additionally,

きゆ <-- acceptable
きよ <-- acceptable
くを <-- unacceptable
くゐ <-- acceptable
くゑ <-- acceptable
すを <-- unacceptable
すゐ <-- unacceptable
すゑ <-- unacceptable

The Yoon indicated as unacceptable are so because they do not occur.

So here is my question. Are き and く the only kana that can use full sized yoon? If not, a list of all full sized Yoon would be most help full, including dialectical and historical orthography, Ryukyuan languages, Japonic languages, and any other langauge that uses kana. Many many thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

All yōon were full size until recently, 20th century if I remember right. For dialects, there's no reason you can't use くゑ or くゑ (except maybe for typesetting problems); it's simply a choice of orthography. — kwami (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
But what about the yoon-kana combinations, for example; above?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the question. — kwami (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Some of the 2 kana combinations I listed, I listed as unacceptable, because they do not exist. When I meant full sized yoon, I meant before they turned きゆ into きゅ, きよ into きょ, etc. etc.. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youon.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I still don't understand the question. kwami (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Please cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bendono&diff=prev&oldid=202471833.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That's the question I answered above. All yōon were written full-size until the 20th century. All of them. If you want to write CyV, where C is any consonant and V is a, o, or u, you write them with the kana for Ci plus the one for yV. Historically, if you wanted to write CwV, it was Cu plus wV. In practice, only kwa and gwa ever occurred, and since kwa became /ka/ a couple centuries ago, Japanese learned that the w was silent. Therefore, today, kwa would be written as ku plus a, not wa, and mwa (if you wanted for some reason to write that) would be mu plus a. However, if you're designing an orthography for an unwritten dialect, I suppose you could resurrect the original logic and write it mu plus wa, and similarly mwe as mu plus we. kwami (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ku (kana)

Why is q appearing before qw in the "Other additional forms" table? Is it because it appeared first in Japanese literature or is it because it is more common?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does <q> appear at all? kwami (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Appears in onematopia.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It's utter nonsense and should be removed. The only justification that I can think of is the the Portuguese used q in a number of their romanizations at the start of the 17th century. All k- sounds, including non labials, were romanized as either c- or q-. See Vocabvlario da Lingoa de Iapam for more details. In modern context without such background information, it is absolutely inappropriate. Bendono (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Changed to kw yesterday. kwami (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Before changing anything:

くぁ is ... used ... in ... giseigo.

– ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Next time, please quote the whole thing. They way you "quoted" it could give the appearance of me saying something I may not have said (which is the case here). What I actually wrote was, "くぁ is not really used at all (except perhaps in very unusual giseigo), so there is no reason at all to have it listed." (see archive here). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Obscure sound effects are used in comic books. However, that does not say anything about q or qw. くぁ is kwa. Bendono (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
And the sound effects in manga are often made up, too, so they use (sometimes) really bizarre combinations that would not be used anywhere else. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
For reference,

「クワ、クイ、クエ、クオ」「グワ、グイ、グエ、グオ」が、それぞれ原音のkwa, kwi, kwe, kwo, gwa, gwi, gwe, gwoにあてられる。[...] なお、「クヮ」は、近年は「クァ」と書く。

– Nikkoku, entry for く

Bendono (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't possible other comic books use it for q and qw?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I've traced the edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_%28kana%29&diff=next&oldid=83047211) to User:Akanemoto.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The letter <q> is shorthand to represent the phonetic sound [kw]. Contrasting <q> with <qw> is like trying to contrast [kw] and [kww]. So, what kind of sound that occurs within Japanese do you expect to represent with <q> or <qw> that you can not represent with <kw>? Bendono (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carl vs. Kyle

Please compare the pronunciation of the name Carl with that of Kyle in British English. They sound exactly the same to my American ears.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In Received Pronunciation they would be [kʰɑːɫ] and [kʰaɪɫ] respectively. In Scottish English they would be [kʰaɾɫ] and [kʰɐɪɫ], in Cockney they would be [kʰɑːo] and [kʰæɪo] respectively... not sure about other accents. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd also note that, in my version of RP, Carl is one syllable whereas Kyle is usually two. Skittle (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gray tomatoes

How do the Irish spell gray/grey? I just noticed that Wilde's book is titled The Picture of Dorian Gray. Are they thumbing their noses at the English? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gray" is also an English name, as in Louis Harold Gray. Historically, a lot of English lexicographers, such as Samuel Johnson, preferred that spelling even for the color. In the 19th century, a lot of English writers used both spellings, with grey being a lighter tint, and gray being a 'warmer' colour, maybe with a hint of brown. The current US/UK divide started in the 19th c, but only become standard in the 20th. — kwami (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Clarityfiend, would you care to be true to your name and tell us what this question has to do with tomatoes? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You say tomaytoes, I say tomahtoes? kwami (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Kwami's guess is kwarrect. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Quite aside from the surname issue in the book's title, Oscar Wilde was Anglo-Irish and London-based, and was thus fairly unlikely to be "thumbing [his] nose at the English" in the way you suggest. Certainly, he thumbed his nose at English upper-class society, but there is very little in his work to suggest that he did so from the perspective of a staunch supporter of Irish independence.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that your question reveals more about your personal views of Anglo-Irish relations than it asks about language. The idea that the Irish would adopt the American spelling purely to annoy the English is cartoonish, patronising and - it seems to me - could only have come from the country which believes green Budweiser and Lucky Charms are emblematic of an island with 2,000+ years of culture and history. Apologies if I have misjudged you. Rant over. Malcolm XIV (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, come on. Everyone knows the Irish drink green Guinness, not Budweiser! kwami (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm still struggling with the fact that people drink Budweiser at all. - X201 (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've never tried it, but there is Budějovický Budvar. Corvus cornixtalk 17:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
WTF? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't be an arsehole/asshole. Lantzy talk 11:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dont ignore

2.Am currently doing 35wpm.on a scale of 1 to 10 how am i in speeds.Am planning to start transcibing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.220.225.250 (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to place you on a scale of 1 to 10. Maybe 5 or 6? I do know that I once typed that speed and was rejected by a temporary employment agency in the United States for clerical work. The minimum qualifying speed would have been 50 wpm, with 55 wpm or greater preferred. Marco polo (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
From what my wife (a technical typist) says 35wpm is a little on the slow side for general documents, though employable for general work, i.e. not 100% typing but maybe copying, manning a switchboard, etc. If you can do the same accurately on technical documents (which contain formulae and figures that probably mean nothing to you) then 35wpm would be excellent. My wife types at a sustained 80wpm for general letters, but for a technical publication she would manage 20wpm for typed and checked documents with essentially no errors (one error per five pages was the target). -- Q Chris (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, so this question is about typing speeds? Well, bugger me! I thought it was about how high one could achieve on the impertinence scale. I'd just make the point that there's no point getting to 35 wpm if what you type is full of punctuation and spelling errors. (Maybe your question above is not a good example of your usual quality; if so, I wonder why we didn't qualify for one. Was there a question # 1, by the way?) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This question makes more sense if you view Whats the difference, asked on this desk yesterday. While their first question under that heading was answered, the second (as written here) did appear to be ignored. Obviously they have not gone about this the way we would have, but at least it makes sense... Skittle (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Question #1 was:
"whats the difference between am and i'm ?example am gone and I'm gone."
Aaaargh, I believe I am transcibing. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
For Jack, a speed isn't usually just the pace, it's the amount of copy in words minus mistakes which even if it's a blisdstering pace, maybe cut down to 20 for errors. 35 without errors is competent reliable mostly and is a usual starting point for someone with ambitions -- quickness then builds up from drill. Personally, I feel questions are not typing exams, but that's fwiw. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Julia. No, they're not typing exams, and we can usually manage our way through them, allowing for cultural differences and varying competencies in English. In this particular case, I was somewhat negatively impressed by the lack of respect the questioner displayed in the header (not to mention saying nothing about the nature of the question), which was exacerbated by the lack of information supplied in the question. It really was very rude - in any language - and called for appropriate feedback. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Guess I mostly focus on getting the point of the question and the header seemed like a plea implying a reason though I just saw Skittle's clarifier, and yes (phone) texting style does seem blunt or demanding on a larger page. Pity the NZ teachers whose system allowed it as a legitimate language in exams! Maybe it's all about transcribing, : ) or zzz Julia Rossi (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "X-ray" or "X ray"

I'd like to find out if there a correct usage of the hyphen in 'X-ray', or is it always used? I've been informed that certain scientific journals drop the hyphen when 'X-ray' is used as a noun, rather than as an adjective. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Our article "X-ray" uses the hyphen throughout, though it flips between "X" and "x" (which I'll fix as soon as we're done here). The AP Stylebook wants "X-ray" in all uses. The dictionaries at Onelook are split about 50-50 between "X-ray" and "x-ray" for the entry word. AHD likes "x-ray" and says "also 'X-ray'", and for the noun, "also 'x ray' or 'X ray'", which corresponds with your information at least as regards the hyphen. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
In essence, it's not so much a spelling issue as a style issue. There is no single "correct" way. But within the same context, be consistent in the spelling. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Writing for several Wikipedias in different languages

--Sibilla Lucrezio (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a German with a Ph.D. in French and Spanish who has lived in the United States for over 40 years. You say, what a problem! I have just signed up with Wikipedia in English and want to know if I can edit and write contributions in Wikipedias of the other languages I know.

Sibilla Lucrezio (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You can, just not on this Wikipedia. We have [1] (French), [2] (German), and maybe 50-ish others. Paragon12321 (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are translation projects you can join. Wrad (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias_by_language_family gives a list of Wikipedias by language and language families. I believe there are 255 languages available.
In German you have the choice between
  • German (Standard High German)
  • Low Saxon (Plattdeutsch)
  • Ripuarisch (Rhineland Frankish)
  • Limburgish
  • Allemannic (home turf of the respected user:Sluzzelin)
  • Austro-Bavarian
  • Gothic (for which you need the proper font of good old Ulfilas) as well as
  • Pennsylvania Deutsch and
  • Yiddish.
  • Als Betthupferl empfehle ich die Wikipedia in Latein, http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_Latina.
Have fun ! --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You will, however, have to register separately on each language's Wikipedia (although you can use the same name, provided it isn't taken). -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I might not be understanding this correrctly but since when do you require a near-perfect understanding of a language to edit its Wikipedia? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 00:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)