Language desk
< November 17	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 19 >

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.

November 18[edit]

Is ‘lo’ or ‘laa’ the correct version for ‘law’?[edit]

The Cambridge online dictionary indicates that US version is ‘laa’, but we usually here this as ‘lo’ (from all medias). And the ‘l’ in ‘law’ doesn’t seem the ‘l’ of the IPA. Where am I wrong here?--Mihkaw napéw (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what type of transcription you're using, but the vowels such as those found in the words "law" and "lo" don't merge in pronunciation in any widespread quasi-standard type of pronunciation of English. Wikipedia has an article on Cot-caught merger; the resulting pronunciations are highly divergent from British quasi-standard pronunciations, but very prevalent in the U.S... AnonMoos (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*laʊ > lɔ: > lɔ > lɑ. Perhaps your dialect does not merge /ɔ/ and /ɑ/. 220.233.133.226 (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In RP it is pronounced /lɔ:/, with the same vowel as "caught". --Tango (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhymes with "jaw", "paw", "raw", "saw", etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are asking about pronunciation, Mihkaw—and I'm inferring that you are not a native speaker of English—it might be best to stick to IPA. Other ways of describing vowels will only lead to confusion, since a given letter in an English word can be pronounced with different vowels in different varieties of English, all of which may be quite different from the usual pronunciation of that letter in another language. In response to your question, there are not really "correct" pronunciations in American English. Instead, there are common pronunciations that most people will understand, and other pronunciations (for example by English language learners) that people may not understand. You might call the second set of pronunciations "incorrect", but there is sometimes no single "correct" pronunciation. Law is a word with more than one pronunciation in different varieties of American English. Probably the more standard pronunciation is [lɔ:], which is identical to the British standard Received Pronunciation. However, a very common pronunciation, particularly in the American South, is [lɑ:]. I would say that this is the [l] of IPA. Marco polo (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are kinds of issues that many people struggle (though not very important to non-natives of English), and it is difficult to say that an education for highest degrees or even heights linguistic degrees helps them to solve these kinds of complexities. Of course, linguists themselves struggle to get these kinds of things strait. You might agree on this as well.

On the question, I think (using few analogies) even the American South accent is not /kɑːl/ for ‘call’ or /kɑː/ for ‘caw’. Interestingly, my friends Cindy and Shapiro, who are very talented orators, also pronounce ‘law’ as /lɑː/ (as stated in the Cambridge online dictionary), which is not custom to most Americans.

However, if the RP is /lɔ:/, then I do not understaned why the ‘l’ is an approximant.__Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the characteristics of an approximant (and specifically lateral approximant) is it missing then? — Emil J. 17:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the description ‘lateral approximant’ in WP seems incorrect, and I do not have the last revised IPA chart. The IPA chart I have is the 2003 version. In order to be a sound ‘lateral’,i think, the defining location is not that the side of the tongue which only approaches the teeth, but both sides of tongue must be in the position for lateralization. Otherwise, the results can only be approximants. In English, the ‘l’ is mostly produced by obstruction of vessel of air in the passive articulator in a liquid manner. Is this correct?--Mihkaw napéw (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be surprising if your friends pronounce law [laː]. More typical is [lɑː]. And in the American South, I think you will find [kɑː] for caw. Marco polo (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong. Yes, it should be /ɑː/, and I now corrected the previous edit.

On the the comment of EmilJ, I think the 'l' approximant have certain type of articulation in the vocal tract like other approximants. For example, ‘r’ in ‘alarm’ versus ‘r’ in ‘three’. Here the former is definitely an approximant but not the latter. So how about 'l'? --Mihkaw napéw (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, /r/ is an approximant in "three". /l/ is always an approximant. As for your question above, it doesn't matter whether you pronounce /l/ on one side of the both or on both. I'm not following your objection to the term "approximant": an approximant is a consonant with less turbulence/frication than a fricative, but more than a vowel. So [j] is tighter, has closer contact, than [i], but not so much as [ʝ] ("y" is some dialects of Spanish). [l] generates less turbulence than [ɮ]. (There are no lateral vowels.) kwami (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Otherwise, I cannot disagree with these complexities. This is what I want to say on this:

To the speaker of native of English in UK and US (non-rhotic), the ‘r’ in ‘three’ is a short alveolar trill. That is, the active articulator contacts the passive articulator in a non-lateral manner. However, this is not the same case for ‘r’ in ‘alarm’, whilst the ‘r’ in ‘alarm’ in non-rohtic accent (e.g. US, UK) is produced without contacting the passive articulator (the roof of the mouth) either by dropping completely or most of its physical property in a gliding manner (depending on the non-rohtic sensitivity).

The approximants as shown here (approximant) are the typical approximants. That is, as you said, an approximant is a consonant with less turbulence/frication than a fricative, but more than a vowel. It is of simply saying that there is no manner of distinguishable obstruction but a manner of turbulence. That is why, I am saying that the ‘l’ usually (in rohtic or non-rhotic accents) requires the obstruction of air in the alveolar or hard plate.--Mihkaw napéw (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation From Polish[edit]

I've got a pizza here which I bought in a supermarket, and the instructions tell me to 'defrost pizza and then bake in oven,' and just below, 'avoid defrosting.' Now, this was admittedly confusing, so I decided to read the instructions in other languages, and they all seem to mean something like, 'take care when defrosting' (not sure why), but in Polish (where the pizza comes from), it says 'chronić przed rozmrożeniem.' What does this mean, and which is it closer to, 'avoid' or 'take care when'? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid. — Emil J. 12:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! 'Chronić' can mean 'guard against' or 'keep from', so now it makes sense to me - not a language problem after all. Cheers! Additional question, then: is 'rozmrażać' transitive or intransitive? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess what they really mean is "defrost right before cooking, but don't leave it sitting out so long that it rots". Or, alternatively, they might mean "use oven on low to defrost, don't leave it sitting out to defrost". StuRat (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never encountered a frozen pizza that needed to be defrosted before baking, and what frozen food usually warns you not to do is re-freeze it once it's been thawed. +An gr 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Stu was on the money with his first thought, although he went a little too far. It's not a matter of not leaving it out of the freezer so long that it rots; it's a warning not to let it defrost at all before it's ready to be cooked. And that warning would apply just as much to the store as to the buyer. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that more like my 2nd thought ? StuRat (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed in the end what it meant. What had thrown me, though, was the double use of 'defrost' in the English. 'Defrost' implies intentionally thawing something out, for me at least, while 'thaw' (which our good friend Google supplied earlier today) can be intentional or not. If the translation had said, 'defrost before baking' and 'make sure [product] does not thaw out' or something like that, it would never have confused me. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that, in all languages, it would be way simpler with straight "Keep frozen; [defrost before baking]", than with some kind of double negative "Keep from de-frizing". Besides, I think that "keep frozen" is sort of standard English formulation for frozen products? No such user (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question about the meaning is already answered, so I'll just answer the grammatical one: rozmrażać is a transitive verb. You can make it intransitive by adding the reflexive pronoun się:

KageTora rozmraża pizzę. — KageTora is defrosting a pizza.
Pizza rozmraża się. — The pizza is thawing.

— Kpalion^(talk) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you perhaps explain this little more? Usually, if a verb needs to take an object (noun, pronoun, reflexive pronoun, etc.) for a complement, like in this example ‘się’, then the verb is a transitive verb.

For example:

He is thawing a pizza. --a transitive

The pizza is thawing. --an intransitive

He is raising the pizza (for example, by crest or baking powder etc.). --a transitive

The pizza is rising. --an intransitive

That is, a verb form can be the same or different, but it does not require a pronoun for complement if it is an intransitive verb. And if ‘rozmrażać’ is a verb, then the words ‘rozmraża’ and ‘rozmrożeniem’ seem the tensed (for present) and verbal (for participle) forms of 'rozmrażać' respectively. Is this correct? --Mihkaw napéw (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See reflexive verb, which has a large part devoted to Slavic languages. In Slavic languages, there are few verbs which are both intransitive and transitive. Instead, when one needs to express an anticausative action, reflexive form will be used. I'm not sure about exact Polish spelling, but I'll add literal English translations to see what I mean:

"On rozmraża pizzę." – He is thawing a pizza. --a transitive
"Pizza rozmraża" – The pizza is thawing. --an intransitive; incorrect
"Pizza rozmraża się." – The pizza is thawing itself. -- reflexive; correct

No such user (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No such user's explanation and examples are very good. I would just add that a reflexive verb cannot take the passive voice. You can change the first of above examples into passive: Pizza jest rozmrażana przez niego — "The pizza is being thawed by him", but you can't do it with Pizza rozmraża się. The pronoun się cannot be used as a subject.

To answer Mihkaw's question, yes, rozmraża is the third person, singular, present tense form of the verb rozmrażać. Rozmrożeniem is a verbal noun in the instrumental case. The nominative is rozmrożenie, and it actually derives from the verb rozmrozić, not rozmrażać. The difference is that rozmrozić is a perfective verb and rozmrażać is an imperfective verb. Examples:

On rozmrażał pizzę. — He was defrosting a pizza. (imperfective)
On rozmroził pizzę. — He defrosted a pizza. (perfective)
Pizza rozmrażała się. — The pizza was thawing. (reflexive imperfective)
Pizza rozmroziła się. — The pizza has thawed. (reflexive perfective)
Chronić pizzę przed rozmrażaniem. — Protect the pizza from (continuous or repetitive) defrosting. (imperfective verbal noun)
Chronić pizzę przed rozmrożeniem. — Protect the pizza from defrosting (completely). (perfective verbal noun)

— Kpalion^(talk) 11:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link between "boreal" and "arboreal" ?[edit]

Resolved

Do they share a root word ? The first means northern and the second means wooded, so they don't seem related (unless you're talking about northern woods, I suppose). StuRat (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relation. Boreal comes from the Greek Boreas, meaning "north wind", but probably originally meaning "wind from the mountains", ultimately derived from an Indo-European root *gwer-, meaning "mountain". Arboreal comes from the Latin arbor or "tree", probably deriving from an Indo-European root *erdh-, meaning "to grow or rise". Marco polo (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Don"/"Dan" river names[edit]

There are several rivers in Europe named River Don. In addition there are the Dnieper and Dniestr Rivers, and the Danube, all with a similar d*n root. Do these river names come from a common source, i.e. an Indo-European word meaning river or something of the sort? There is an etymological discussion of the river's name in the Dniepr article, but what about the others? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, all the river names you cite are derived from the IE root *dānu-, meaning "river". The names of the Danube and the Don in Scotland are Celtic in origin; those of the Dnieper, Dniester, and Russian Don are Iranian in origin. Deor (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the Russian Donets presumably also. +An gr 17:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same Celtic "don" is still reflected in the cognate Welsh word for river, afon, and the large number of rivers in England and elsewhere called Avon. Grutness...wha? 22:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure that? There's no "d" in afon or in any of the forms it's derived from. In fact, afon/Avon comes from an earlier *ab- and is related to the ab of Punjab (five rivers). +An gr 23:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. My Welsh teacher must've got that wrong then. Interesting that Punjab means five rivers, given what "five" is in Welsh (pump). Grutness...wha? 23:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering they are both Indo-European languages, it's not incredibly surprising. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's rather more surprising than it looks, because Indo-European /p/ was always lost in Celtic, and all /p/'s in Welsh are secondary, generally from /kʷ/. The sequence seems to have been IE /penkʷe/ > proto-Celtic /kʷenkʷe/ > pre-Welsh /pumpe/ > Welsh /pɨmp/. The first stage, from /p/ to /kʷ/, is relatively rare, but occurred in Latin for this word ('quinque'), as well as a few other words where the /p/ was followed by a /kʷ/: 'coquo' ('I cook') apparently from *pekʷ-, and I remember reading a suggestion that 'quercus' ('oak') had undergone the same change, though I don't recall the cognates. --ColinFine (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IE root from which quercus (and its descendent cork) derives is *perkʷu-. A Germanic cognate that doesn't show the /p/ > /kʷ/ change is fir. Deor (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a Celtic cognate which does show it is Welsh perth 'bush, hedge, thicket' < *kʷerxt- < *kʷerkʷ-t- < *perkʷ-. So Welsh does have words where p goes back to Indo-European p, because it got changed to kʷ first and then back to p. (Do we have an article on the Duke of York gambit?) Another example is poeth 'hot' < *kʷokʷto- < *pekʷ- 'to cook'. +An gr 21:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mispronouncing "et cetera" as "ek cetera"[edit]

What is the origin or cause behind this common mispronounciation in the US? I have also seen the abbreviation "etc." misspelled "ect." Would this be due to the same reasoning? Our article says, "A common use of the abbreviation is "ect", which is not supported by official English dictionaries..." I believe that's because it is wrong, but why is it "common"? --Thomprod (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a hypothesis here. The mistake in the written form probably isn't related to the spoken form. I doubt people make the mistake in pronounciation due to the erroneous "ect." because I don't think people consciously try to mimic the written form. Rather, I think it's because the English language has few words beginning with the "etc" sound, but may words beginning with the "ek" sound, such as exception, except, excerpt, etc. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same line, I have even heard some teachers mispronounce "especially" as "ek-speh-shu-lee". No wonder our youngsters pick this up! --Thomprod (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the "stas-tis-tics" on this sort of thing, you have only to "ah-ks". :) -- JackofOz (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mispronunciation occurs in the UK, as well. I would suggest that the mistake in the written form is a result of the mispronunciation. And I believe that it's a mixture of lazy speech and a certain lack in education. For English speakers, it's much easier and more natural to form the "ek" sound, as 71.111.194.50 said, than it is the "ets" sound. Even the majority of people who do pronounce it "properly" are still pronouncing it wrong, as they turn it into one word, instead of the two that it is. Not to mention that "cet-er-a" turns into "setra". I make a point of pronouncing the two words correctly, and the reaction is usually that I'm considered stuffy and haughty or showing off. Maedin\^talk 18:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maedin, I am reminded of the iconic performance of Yul Brynner as the King in the musical The King and I who ending many of his lines with a very well-articulated "et cet-er-a, et cet-er-a, et cet-er-a." --Thomprod (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It 'should' be pronounced "et ketera" if you want to quote the Latin (that's not to say you actually should, just we have to draw the line between "pure" and "useful" somewhere). Frankly, I thinks this is a particularly minor fault. Anyone who has ever been to Norfolk will know that pronunciation is rather fluid. (I cite Happisburgh.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't care how people pronounce it as long as they don't say "and et cetera". +An gr 20:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Latin teacher was, in fact, the one who turned me on to pronouncing et cetera properly in the first place; she insisted on "ketera", of course, but I've had to give that part of it up, lest I so completely disengage myself from my peers as to lose all semblance of a social life. Et setera it is! Maedin\^talk 21:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's et "ketera" in Latin class, but in English it's et "setera". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always assumed that people were mis-analogizing it as "excetera"; after all it's Latinate, like except(ion) and excerpt. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to pronouncing it "et ketera", maybe we should revive the use of "&c." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no phonologists want to contribute? It might be an example of dissimilation, where the /t/ sound is velarized to a /k/ to contrast with the later /t/ in the word. But it also might be some sort of environmentally conditioned sound change. Like Maedin mentioned, it's harder to pronounce a non-final /ts/ cluster than a /ks/ cluster for most native English speakers. Indeterminate (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Et "setera" is a lot easier to say than "maths" (the British way of abbreviating "math"), in that it doesn't require you to spritz like Daffy Duck. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on Bugs. The reason you find "maths" hard to say is because you don't often say it. And it's the British may of abbreviating "mathematics", obviously. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's so hard to say about maths!? And yes, it isn't an abbreviation of math, but mathematics . . . we Brits like to keep our abbreviations in agreement, at least, :-) Maedin\^talk 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. It's no harder than "breaths", "myths" or "moths", to none of which has exception ever been taken, to my knowledge. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation along the lines of "You haven't lived until..."[edit]

It's something to do with committing treason, sleeping with someone of the opposite sex and something else. My friend mentioned it to me to see if I knew, and it rang a bell, but I didn't know if it was just something we'd made up ;) Thanks in advance for your help :) 129.67.144.200 (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't sound related to language to me, but there's purity test... AnonMoos (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that, but thanks. I'm starting to get worried now - am I going mad? :P 129.67.144.200 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Try everything once -- except incest and folk-dancing."? -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Dictionary of American proverbs OCLC 466027982 gives the first citation as: "You haven't lived if you haven't loved" from Captives by John Gay, 1724. A Dictionary of Catch Phrases OCLC 26628502 lists: " if you've never been to Manchester, you've never lived!" by Graham Stark in the radio series Ray's a Laugh as maybe the origin of the "if you haven't X" form.—eric 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not those either... I must therefore be the victim of some sort of anomaly in time. This time next year, you will all know my phrase. Either that, or I am simply mad. ;) Thanks guys 129.67.144.200 (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]