Language desk
< June 13	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 15 >

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.

June 14[edit]

Is there a name for this kind of fallacy/rebuttal?[edit]

For example, if a person argues "Abortion is wrong because the fetus could be the one who found the cure to cancer", I can argue that "It could also be the person who starts WWIII..."

Another example: Person 1: "The government should listen to the protesters, because it could lead to democracy." Person 2: "without the necessary condition for democracy, the country could also fall into chaos..."

So the point is, something cannot be proven right or wrong when there's an equal chance that it might have a positive/negative result. So does this fallacy/rebuttal have a name? Cecikierk

It's an example of proof by example. --Anonymous, 00:49 UTC, June 14, 2008.

Not exactly. It most likely resembles an appeal to consequences, where the positive and negative forms can be used to support the two abortion arguments respectively. This fallacy stems from wishful thinking. Kreachure (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kreach has it wrong here, unless the appeal to consequences article is significantly misleading. In the form of argument described there, Person 1 would be saying "The government will listen to the protesters, because it could lead to democracy." In the actual fallacy we're being asked about, the person gives an example of why the thing could be good, and concludes that it is good. (Or bad, as the case may be.) Proof by example. --Anon, 23:10 UTC, June 14.

Note: this question was also asked over on the Humanities reference desk, and various other answers have been suggested there. --Anon, 23:25 UTC, June 14.

pronunciation[edit]

Is it important to teach pronunciation for ESL students? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.186.27.95 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They need to be able to distinguish the basic phonemes of English in their speech to be understood clearly, and learning to distinguish those phonemes will also improve their listening skills. So I think that it is important to teach basic pronunciation. However, I don't think that it is necessary or desirable to try to perfect their pronunciation. In fact, for many students, it may not be possible to perfect their pronunciation. Marco polo (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's important, but not as important as making sure the student understands the language and can use the grammar to build correct sentences. When I did ESL work as a volunteer, I would stress proper pronunciation (my students were usually already familiar with speaking English, but not masters) with the basic aim of making sure they were understood; it does little good for the student to be speaking "correct" English that no one can understand. I also used it as a kind of mental break for the student; learning a language can be very difficult and frustrating and it was sometimes a fun distraction to take a few minutes and work on perfecting a few phonemes by mirroring each other face to face. Bat, bet, bit, bait, beet, bite, bought, bout, but, butte, boot, boat, etc. Matt Deres (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite important. It doesn't have to be perfect like a native speaker, as accents are not avoidable. But your students should at least make themselves understood by other people.--Faizaguo (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Norman[edit]

Where does the ISO code xno come from for this language? Or does it have no meaning? Nadando (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like x codes are for languages that would otherwise conflict with a different code (ang is Old English and ano is Andoque, in ISO 639). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German grammar[edit]

Mann kann Schellings philosophische Entwicklung als von Brüchen, Sprüngen, wechselnden Grundanschauungen durchzogen betrachten.

In the above sentence, what is the grammatical role of the word "durchzogen"? It seems to be the past participle of "durchziehen". But couldn't "durchzogen" also be "durch" + "zogen" (zog, the past tense of ziehen, +en)? Is the whole part of "als von Brüchen, Sprüngen, wechselnden Grundanschauungen durchzogen" an extended contruction predicating Entwicklung, or is it a subordinate clause?

(I can somehow guess the meaning of this sentence. So, my concern is of its grammatical construction.)

Any illustrative explanation is appreciated.

Yes, "durchzogen" could also be the plural of the past tense of "durchziehen", but in this sentence it's actually the past participle. Your first guess is right: "als ... durchzogen" is a phrase predicating "Entwicklung", not a subordinate clause. The construction is "als X betrachten" = "to regard as X". Building up from the simplest sentence it goes as follows:

Man betrachtet die Entwicklung als durchzogen.
Man kann die Entwicklung als durchzogen betrachten.
Man kann Schellings philosophische Entwicklung als durchzogen betrachten.
Man kann Schellings philosophische Entwicklung als [von Brüchen ... durchzogen] betrachten.

Make sense? —An gr 15:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neutral insults[edit]

Is there a name for neutral insults (like "asshole", "dick", "bitch") opposed to insults that include other people (like "faggot", "nigger")? GoingOnTracks (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? —An gr 21:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean insults that don't purport to allocate the victim to some minority group (racial, sexual preference), as opposed to those that do. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word "neutral" in the question above was perhaps somehow misleading. I meant something like that. Of course, insults that don't allocate the victim to any group - minority or not. Simply, insults that do not include other people. If I call you "asshole", not other people will feel included, since it is no social, cultural, sexual or whatever group. That is: is there a name for non-third-party-including insults? GoingOnTracks (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of one. And I think "bitch" may not be the best example, as it may be considered to fall into the same class as "faggot" and "nigger". —An gr 23:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know a girl who considers herself a bitch?

Yes. —An gr 16:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An emerging field. 79.66.60.129 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]