Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Language/2006 August 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< August 11 Language desk archive August 13 >


Contents

[edit] chemistry term

Hi

I'm looking for a word I heard used the other day in a chemistry lab that I've completely forgotten. It meant "work the solvent out of a liquid (physically with a glass rod) to make it a solid" and I'm pretty sure it started with a t and it could have sounded like "titilation" maybe with an extra syllable.

Thanks for your help!

Aaadddaaammm 01:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Too slow guys! Someone at the "Science" help desk got it! If you want to know, it was trituration. Thanks anyway! Aaadddaaammm 01:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
What on earth would we language-desk folk know about science??? -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 07:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Too... many... question marks...
Well, the question fell both into the category of "science question" and "looking for a word". I suppose we fall into the latter category. --π! 07:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about transcription (moved from talkpage)

I have been editting the page on Wollongong.

Some nice person has put up the name in phonetics. The only problem is- they have got it wrong.

Even without having a deep knowledge of phonetics it is clear to me that this is the case.

the reason being that the first ong doesn't rhyme with the second ong. Or rather it DOES and it didn't orter, if you take my meaning.

My meaning is that the place is called, most plainly, and impossibly, Woollen-gong.

Not Wal-ong-gong, (that's Wal as in Wally Wombat, OK?)

It should be Woollen as in Onkaparinga. And Gong as in Order of Australia.

See ya!

--Amandajm 13:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I read the article's transcription, which is [wʊlɒŋgɒŋ]. I read up on the phonetics of Australian English to make sure we are on the same page. I'll assume you described it in Australian phonetics.
  • The first syllable, [wʊl], has the same vowel as "foot." So I guess this is right.
  • You are right about the vowel [ɒ] in the last two syllables (ong and gong), it doesn't even exist in Australian English. It's the "a" in the british prunounciation of "what." Originally, it was the vowel in words like "lot," "cloth," etc. but it changed into [ɔ].
  • You said the first vowel is prunounced more like "en." Is it like the vowel in "dress" and "bed"? If it is, then the correct way to write that vowel is simply [en].
  • I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Gong as in Order of Australia." Are you referring to the "or" in "order"? If so, then you'd write it as [ɡoŋ]. But if it's closer to the vowel in "goat," you'd write it as [ɡəʉŋ].
So you'd write it as [wʊl.en.ɡoŋ] (unless, of course, the vowels are different from what I described). The full-stops/periods seperate the vowels, you can remove them if you want.
Please tell me if you need any more help. It's a pleasure to work on phonetic transcription. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there!

Thank you for getting back to me!

This time, I will try to be very serious and not make silly Australian jokes!

Firstly- the "o" sound as in English "hot" and "what" does exist in Australian English. I use it, and I am Australian.

Secondly- My reference to Woollen as in Onkaparinga is because Onkaparinga were (until about 1980) the largest manufacturers of woollen blankets and dressing gowns in Australia.

So it's not Wool-en, it's wool'n, as in reason, bitten, given. The wool part is oo like foot, not ool like school.


Thirdly- "gong". A gong like the big round thing that's used to start a Rank Organisation movie, or summon people to dinner. Like "song" and "wrong"

In Australia, the main award of honour is the Order of Australia which is a very large gold medal which is often called a "Gong". The term is sometimes used for medals in England as well, but as far as I know, it originated with the Order of Australia because it looks exactly like on. Hope this is clear!

--Amandajm 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Then based on your description, it's [wʊl.ɪn.ɡɔŋ] if you pronounce "en" like "in". If you pronounce the "en" in those words like "un," then it's [wʊl.ən.ɡɔŋ]. I don't know which way is the standard in Australia, but perhaps you do. By the way, I'm sorry I didn't understand the Australian cultural references....I try to be international in the way I do things, but there is some stuff that just goes over my head. Anyway, cheers, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how that looks on your computer but in what you've written, how it looks to me is as if all three vowels are identical, which is not the way it is.

oo as in foot, the next vowel is barely pronounced at all, like Allen, Colin and Dylan. the third vowel is o as in long, song etc.

the first ng is pronounced as n-g, as is "Go man, go!" the second ng is pronounced as in long, song and gong.

Maybe I need to find an Australian who can fix it! The pronunciation of Australian Aboriginal place names is inconsistent. Canberra is often pronounced Can'bra, Cairn'bra or Cairm'bra. And Canowindra, which one would expect to be Canno-wind-dra is K-noun'dra. !

--Amandajm 12:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm taking it to the language reference desk. Perhaps we could get a third opinion, to clarify which part of the transcription needs work. It seems the only part that could be wrong are the second and third vowels. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 13:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The abbot-rabbit merger is standard in Australia: "en" and "in" are both [ən].
I hate IPA for pronunciations. British speakers are going to read it and thing we say "gawng". But nevertheless, [ɔ] is accurate for the Australian vowel in "gong" and "what".
I think the first "ng" is actually [ŋ], not [n]. /n/ often assimilates to [ŋ], so it can be difficult to tell them apart.
In my own speech, the l is dark, [ɫ]. This varies from place to place, but I'm going to assume Wollongongian English has it dark too.
So, I would write [ˈwʊɫəŋˌɡɔŋ]. --Ptcamn 19:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Four-leaf clover" in latin?

Subject says it all, I suppose. I'd like to know how you say "four-leaf clover" in latin... TERdON 17:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as 'clover' is trifolium, or 'three-leafed', a four-leafed clover would be a quadrifolium. — Gareth Hughes 17:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Assuming that Pliny the Younger had wanted to write about four-leaf clover (he mentions trefoil in a letter to Domitius Apollinaris), my best guess is he'd have used trifolium quadrifoliatum – "four-leafed trefoil". --LambiamTalk 18:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Which translated into Latinate English would be quadrifoliate trefoil. — Jéioosh 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation of Azania

This is my first question on a reference desk, so I offer my apologies if I did something wrong. Anyways, what is the correct pronunciation of the second syllable (the "an") of Azania? (I don't understand the International Phonetic Alphabet, so please don't answer with that alone) My guess is that it is pronounced like 'ain'/'ane', as in rain and insane. But I figure it could also be 'an', like tin can. Then I thought it might even be 'ahn'/awn, as in autobahnand lawn. I've read the article twice over, and find no mention of pronunciation. Thank you in advance for your answers, as I'm going on wikibreak shortly and might not be here for the response, but will be awaiting it. Picaroon9288|ta co 02:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not an official name, so your pronunciation is "as good" as mine. In the U.S., you'll most likely hear a sound as in sane. In other countries you may hear other sounds. In any case the stress is on the second syllable, unlike for "Tanzania" where it is on the first. --LambiamTalk 03:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you mean that the stress in Tanzania is on the third syllable. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Right, although with a clear secondary stress on the first. --LambiamTalk 05:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)