From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< March 2	<< Feb | March | Apr >>	March 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 1 March 3 1.1 Pronunciation: IPA for the word "anole" 1.2 Corrected colloquialisms: "proof in the pudding" 1.3 Robert Bly poem 1.4 Sounds: dental, alveolar, and postalveolar 1.5 Rounded lips during [ʃ] and [ʒ] 1.6 Knowledge of communication skills in discussions

[edit] March 3

[edit] Pronunciation: IPA for the word "anole"

Could someone throw the IPA for anole at me please? HYENASTE 00:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The OED gives /ə'nəʊlɪ/. The word is spelled anoli there, though. Deor (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A more American pronunciation is /əˈnoʊli/.  --Lambiam 05:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just go to dictionary.com and click on "Show IPA Pronunciation" on the first entry. Their IPA conventions are very similar to what we use here. Anyway, I added it to the article. kwami (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Deor and Lambiam, for the answer, and thank you, kwami, for showing me where to go next time. HYENASTE 06:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corrected colloquialisms: "proof in the pudding"

looking for the correct colloquialism. most people incorrectly quote "the proof is in the pudding." the actual quote is "the proof of the pudding is in the set." is this correct or not?Derharjo (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always heard it as "The proof of the pudding is in the eating". -- JackofOz (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No wonder the phrase has never made sense to me; it's always been said wrong! HYENASTE 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, your version does make sense, Hyenaste; it might be said that one test of a pudding's having been prepared well is whether it sets up properly (particularly if the pudding is what most folks in the United States first think of when the word is used—the creamy Jello dessert thingie). That version isn't, however, mentioned in Michael Quinion's discussion of the expression. Deor (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As JackofOz states, I have always heard the "long version" as The proof of the pudding is in the eating. However, The proof is in the pudding is not so far off base. It is simply short-hand / abbreviation for: The proof (of whether or not it is tasty) is in (actually eating) the pudding. Or ... The proof (of whether or not it tastes good) lies within the actual pudding itself. Those latter two sentences are just shortened -- as all of these sayings tend to get -- into a compact The proof ... is in the pudding. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

I thought I'd also heard the in the set version, albeit rarely. At least, it makes sense. However, it doesn't get a single Google hit, compared to 90,000 for in the eating. It's kinda like you can't have your cake and eat it too - it doesn't make any sense until you know where it comes from. kwami (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Bly poem

Last line is: "We are perishable, friends. We are salty, impermanent kingdoms" What is it called? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.32.151 (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be an improvised poem which he recited, but never published. You can listen to him read it (he recites it twice, along with three other wonderful poems) here: http://www.kuow.org/defaultProgram.asp?ID=13857.

My transcription follows (I warn you, it is completely subjective and I make no claims to his spelling, punctuation, and line division; those are purely mine):

Improvisation on im:

The nimble ovenbird, the dignity of pears,

the simplicity of oars [or ores?], the imperishable engines inside slim fir-seeds:

all of these make clear

how much we want the impermanent

to be permanent;

we want the hermit wren to keep her eggs,

even during the storm;

but that’s impossible.

We are perishable, friends;

we are salty, impermanent kingdoms.

It's a beautiful poem. Thanks for sharing! СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 05:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

- Thank you!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.174.163 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 

[edit] Sounds: dental, alveolar, and postalveolar

Why are dental, alveolar, and postalveolar sounds allophonic, except for the fricatives? HYENASTE 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

First, although that's true for English, it's not true of all languages; other languages do have phonemic distinctions among non-fricatives at those places of articulation. Second, the only answer to the question "Why are they allophonic" I can think of is "Because there are no phonemic contrasts made between these places of articulation", but that isn't really an answer, it's just restating the question as a statement with different words. Basically, there is no real reason why a possible phonemic distinction isn't made in a language, it just isn't. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Many Australian languages are famous for having phonemic contrasts of stop sounds in this area of the mouth... AnonMoos (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the acoustics of it, but small differences of place are easier to hear in fricatives than in stops. You get the something similar with bilabial vs. labiodental (although I've heard the argument (speculation?) that's because it's hard to make labiodental stops if you have gaps between your teeth). kwami (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rounded lips during [ʃ] and [ʒ]

Why do we (in English at least) round our lips when makes these sounds? Several pages mention that we do it; none tell why. HYENASTE 06:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The French also do it. Perhaps it's an areal feature. kwami (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

All coronal fricatives involve some labialization compared to stops. We do it more with these sounds than with the alveolar fricatives because of the amount of noise required to produce them. Try saying ʃʃʃʃʃʃʃʃ with your lips as spread as possible versus with your lips rounded, and see how much noise you get for each. — Zerida ☥ 07:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what you're saying. I can make the same volume of noise for [ʃ] regardless of labialization. It feels a bit weird, but that's because I've always rounded lips. HYENASTE 04:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The airflow should be more obstructed with the lips in their normal position, so there is less turbulence. It's similar to whistling. Acoustically, you get more turbulent airflow from a narrower channel than a wider one. So if you imagine your oral cavity being a tube that narrows at one end and you blow through it, you should get more turbulent airflow like you would if you were whistling. I suspect this is why we typically round our lips when we shush someone. Not all languages have lip rounding during [ʃ], but they end up being acoustically different sounds. — Zerida ☥ 06:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Isn't that like asking why we pronounce /t/ and /d/ as alveolar rather than dental? It's just the way our language has evolved. Though I might speculate that labialization enhances the (already existing) acoustic differences between alveolar and postalveolar sibilants.

There have been a number of linguistic changes that are attributable to increasing the phonetic differences between two similar phonemes; it's easier to distinguish between [i] and [ɯ] than [i] and [ɨ], it's easier to distinguish [k] and [q] from [dʒ] than [g], etc. If I recall correctly, another driving factor in phonetic change is ease of articulation; it's easier to pronounce /t/ as palatalized before front vowels ([tʲi]), it's easier to pronounce [tɕ] than [c], it's easier to pronounce pre-obstruent nasals as homorganic to such obstruents, etc. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knowledge of communication skills in discussions

-Team work -Taking part in discussions -What is expected in a discussion at workplace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.167.134.1 (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Groan. I hate homework. Anyway you could try our article on Small-group communication, or find something in the library or on google about teamwork and leading a small group (our article "Leading small groups" is not relevant since it's a political cog in China). There's usually a leader and up to 12 people in the group. You must have notes about your subject that these questions are based on. Did you read them? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)