Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Language/2006 September 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 1 Language desk archive September 3 >
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.

Contents

[edit] Lexical similarity between English and Spanish

I have a question about the table in the lexical similarity article. There is a dash seemingly indicating "no similarity" between English and Spanish. I have only a modest Spanish vocabulary, but I can think of a couple dozen words between Spanish and English that are similar - things like "interesante" (interesting), "rata" (rat) and "tren" (train) - even one or two very common words like "no" (no) and "es" (is). If English and French, another Romance language, have a similarity of 27%, I'm surprised that Spanish and English would have zero. I'm not sure if this is Wikipedia's problem or if there is something about the concept I've failed to grasp. Why does the table report zero similarity? --Grace 07:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the dash in the table means that no data were at hand for this particular cell. In other words: '-' does not mean '0', it means 'no data available'. ---Sluzzelin 08:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Spanish "no" comes from quasi-PIE ne oinom (and is used as a verbal negation), while English "no" comes from quasi-PIE ne aiwom (and is used as a nominal negation). AnonMoos 11:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
But at least the first part n* is the same, the *o part is a false cognate. Would that make 50% lexical similarity? Anyway, I don't know how lexical similarity is calculated, but looking at what Spanish and English I know, I estimate the similarity should be at least between 10-20 percent? Personally, I think the table is slightly off balance, though. Of 11 languages, 8 are Romance with only 2 Germanic and 1 Slavic examples. 惑乱 分からん 11:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
They probably use a binary measurement, that is a given word is either 1 (understood) or 0 (not understood). In that sense, French non might count as a 1 or a 0 with English. That would probably explain why Spanish and Portuguese are at .89. They've got a lot in common but their phonologies are quite different. AEuSoes1 00:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Still seems like a very rough judgement, especially for English which often has both Germanic and Latinate synonyms, where the Germanic word could possibly be understood by a Germanic speaker, and the Latinate by a Romance. 惑乱 分からん 00:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the dash in the table must mean no data.

[edit] Weird German accusative and dative, and a tiny extra question.

Hello,

I am refreshing my German back from high school, and I noticed that I didn't quite understand some things.

I was listening to some music in German:

1.In "99 Luftballons" by "Nena" (lyrics : [1]) "99 Jahre Krieg Liessen keinen Platz für Sieger" Now "der Sieg"="the victory" is a male noun, and here the accusative is used. As I understood the accusative, I don't have to change the noun itself, only adjectives or articles accompagnying it. Is this some strange rule for uncountable nouns or something.

2. In "Engel" by "Rammstein" [2] they sing "Wer zu Lebzeit gut auf Erden wird nach dem Tod ein Engel werden"

"auf Erden" is a dative, right? But I thought that in the singular case, the noun itself was not changed in the dative? Again : are we dealing with a special rule for uncountable nouns?

And extra question, can anyone provide a very literal translation of the first six words? I understand that all of it together is something like "who.... will after the death an angel become." But the translation on that site gives a "is"(who is good in his lifetime on Earth), where did that "is" go?

Thanks! Evilbu 18:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

1. The Nena quote means: "99 years of war left no room for victors". "Sieger" is male (here in its accusative indefinite plural form) and means "winners"/"victors". If it meant "victory" it would be "keinen Platz für (den) Sieg", if it meant "victories" it would be "für Siege".
2. "auf Erden" is indeed an old female dative with an archaic ring (as in "Friede auf Erden": "Peace on Earth").
extra Q: "(He/she) who (is) good on Earth while alive, will become an angel after death". Poetic freedom. The "ist" is implied. ---Sluzzelin 18:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It seems there are quite a few grammatically weird things in that Rammstein song...Evilbu 16:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Accusative / Genitive question

Sometimes in Russian you say:
Я люблю этого человека, which means I love this man. However, "этого человека" is a Genitive, "this man" is an Accusative. I heard that Russian accepts direct objects both in the Genitive Case and in the Accusative (Я вижу этот человек). My question is: is there any way of knowing when to use the Genitive and when to use the Accusative, or is it verb-dependant? Thanks. --Danielsavoiu 20:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically этого человека from the first sentence is in the accusative, it just so happens that, because it is a masculine animate noun (a noun of masculine gender that denotes a living thing) the accusative form is the same as the genitive form. In standard Russian grammar, the accusative of animate nouns like человек is always человека. So Я вижу этот человек is not correct. (Disclaimer: I only know the grammar I learned in the courses I took; Russians may not really speak this way!) --Cam 21:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, Cam. By the way, when I say "У меня нет наследников", why do you use the Genitive? Or is it the same situation as above? --Danielsavoiu 12:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's another initially surprising, but universal rule of Russian grammar: the direct object of a negative verb goes in the genitive, not the accusative. (And нет is a negative verb, though it's often not thought of as such). I suspect it's originally a partitive ('none of'). ColinFine 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Learning Hebrew

Arabic is my native language. Would it help me to learn more easily Hebrew, since they are both semitic languages? And do you know good websites? Thank you. CG 21:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I would think so, yes, in that they are similar. On the other hand, you might inadvertently interchange words between the two languages, since they are so close. However, this would be more of an issue if you knew two similar languages, where neither was your native language, so you should probably be OK. StuRat 23:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Depends, for languages being very closely related, such as Spanish/Portuguese or the Scandinavian languages, language interference is prone to occur. The advantage is that you will likely learn the language much faster, the disadvantage is mixups of false friends and a high likelihood that manners of speech from your first language always will slip through. 惑乱 分からん 00:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hebrew actually has a number of specific resemblances to Arabic colloquials (as opposed to standard written Arabic); I should think it would be much easier for an Arab-speaker to learn than English or French... AnonMoos 15:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afghan biscuits

Hi

I'm looking for the origin of the term "afghan biscuit". The best I've found so far is pretty much "something to do with Afghanis in Australia". Can anyone here do better?

Thanks for your help.

Hi, Afghan biscuits were made by the early Afghan settler/cameleer who came to Australia. They have rich history and if you’d like to learn more about them, get hold of the book titled “Tin Mosques and Ghan Town” by Christina Stevens. Thank you Aaadddaaammm 23:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren't Afghan biscuits what an Afghan dog leaves behind when you walk it ? :-) StuRat 04:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if anzac biscuits are muddling your search? Skittle 13:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Are you perhaps thinking of Anzac biscuits? JackofOz 13:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I win Skittle 14:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You won a skittle? That's not much of a prize. -- the GREAT Gavini 19:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I would have won if I hadn't dallied about whether or not to query StuRat about his increasing tendency to make references in his witticisms to excrement, bodily fluids and associated smells. I was wondering if he had anything he wanted to get off his chest, but I guess he'll tell us in his own good time.  :--) JackofOz 00:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)