Language desk
< February 14	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 16 >

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.

February 15[edit]

Intepreting a sentence[edit]

Hello. This is going to be another one of those complex challenges. What do you interpret out of the following sentence:

David Spooner et al.: "A 'single' origin is here supported to mean an origin from a single species, or its progenitor (S. bukasovii), in the broad area of southern Peru."

To help you out, here are the interpretations of some other folk:

Jai Gopal and S. M. Paul Khurana, Handbook of potato production, improvement, and postharvest management (Psychology Press, 2006), page 7: "Spooner et al. (2005) supported a single origin of potato from a wild species progenitor in the S. brevicaule complex in southern Peru."
John Reader, Potato: a history of the propitious esculent (Yale University Press, 2009), page 25: "In particular, DNA sequencing has enabled a team led by research botanist David Spooner to trace the origin of all modern potato varieties to a group of about twenty morphologically similar wild species, known as the Solanum brevicaule complex, grown by farmers in Peru more than 7,000 years ago."
Alison Krsgel and Alison Krögel, Food, power, and resistance in the Andes (Lexington Books, 2011), page 34: "Recent genetic analyses of wild species of the potato point to a single point of origin for the tuber's cultivation to the north of Lake Titicaca, approximately seven thousand years ago. The research botanist David Spooner argues that all modern-day varieties originated from a widl species known as Solanum brevicaule complex, thus contesting the multiple-origins argument."
Jaspreet Singh and Lovedeep Kaur, Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology (Academic Press, 2009), page 157: "More recently, Spooner et al. (2005a) have provided evidence for a single domestication in Peru from the northern group of members of the S. brevicaule complex of species."

Currently, at Talk:Potato and the RS/N, we are discussing how to interpret the sentence. I won't state my position or theirs, and would like to hear what the language experts here understand from the top sentence. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This question is not a reference desk question, but a continuation of a content dispute. Any answer here would be meaningless except in the context of the greater discussion. The opinion of "language experts" is not desired by all parties to the discussion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It is hard to figure out the meaning of any single sentence outside of the context it is in. One would have to read the entire article to know what the meaning is. The best thing to do would be to discuss the matter at the talk page, rather than here, since one shouldn't be basing editing decisions on interpretations of a single sentence taken out of the context from which it was originally written. --Jayron32 06:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is just meant to find out what people understand from the sentence. The sentence stands fine on its own.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the sentence is part of a larger publication (apparently an article in a scientific journal), and you have asked us to compare this one sentence with statements from other scientists that refer to the entire publication in which this sentence appeared. What is relevant to your dispute is the conclusion of the publication as a whole, not just this one sentence, which might be (and according to the statements from other scientists probably is) mediated by conclusions elsewhere in the publication. What you need to resolve your Talk page dispute is an understanding of the scholarly consensus on the matter, or, if there is no consensus, an accurate understanding of the controversy so that the controversy can be presented in the Wikipedia article. Asking the opinion of this reference desk about a single sentence will not get you closer to an accurate understanding of this much larger discourse. Marco polo (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence doesn't stand fine on its own. The sentence quoted is a conclusion statement. It was intended to be read in context with the previous supporting arguments. The somewhat strange wording "A 'single' origin is here supported to mean" implies that the authors are using definitions of terms and/or references to previous concepts that might not be widely held, or may have specific-to-this-paper meaning. The "interpretations" you list realize that the additional context is important, and reference it: DNA sequencing is not mentioned at all in the sentence, so why does John Reader mention it in his "interpretation"? Where does the "seven thousand years" of Krsgel & Krögel come from? - I'm assuming from the remaining context of the article. Finally, just because a given author flatly states his experiments support a particular conclusion, it doesn't mean the general scientific community agrees with that assessment, so even a proper interpretation of the sentence wouldn't necessarily mean anything without the context of the rest of the scientific literature. -- 140.142.20.101 (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, effectively, the "interpretations" can be considered a summary-conclusion of the article? Yes, no?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless we actually read the article in full could we comment intelligently on such a question. Again, you're going to have to discuss this matter on the article talk page, or at WP:DR/N or somewhere like that. This page is not for helping you win a dispute. --Jayron32 02:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how answering the questions I have raised up to now could in any way or form help out my position (especially since I have not even stated what it is). The purpose of me coming here is to clarify my understanding of the matter, and nothing more. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taken out of context, this sentence has multiple possible interpretations. Reading it in context of the original article, it appears to me that the word "supported" has been misused, and the sentence merely defines the term "single origin". A different sentence in the article makes the claim that the genetic evidence presented in that article supports said "single origin" of the potato.--Itinerant1 (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your response helped, thank you! Your interpretation of it makes the sentence flow better, and provides a clearer understanding. Thank you for taking the time to read the article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eifersucht[edit]

As we all know, "ei" in German is pronounced /ai/. Now in the song Eifersucht by Rammstein, the word Eifersucht is at one time preceded by three /a/ sounds, as if the singer was stuttering. But "e" by itself is not pronounced /a/ in German, its pronunciation only changes when followed by "i". So how should this be written? E-e-e-Eifersucht or A-a-a-Eifersucht? JIP | Talk 20:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ei-ei-ei-eifersucht is going to be much clearer. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC) von Milwaukee[reply]

No it's not. People will interpret that as /ai-ai-ai-ai/fersucht. I think only A-a-a-Eifersucht (or maybe Ah-ah-ah-Eifersucht) would make it clear. Angr (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ei-ei-ei-eifersucht will lead to people wondering what this "egg-egg-egg-jealousy" is supposed to mean. JIP | Talk 20:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, reminds me of the English exam at this school where I translated Eifersucht with egg-searching... --Eisfbnore ^talk 21:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

If you did omit the "f" and get Eiersucht, that would actually mean "egg addiction". Angr (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here they spell it a-a-a-eifersucht (in German text). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just came to think, the Finnish word for "egg", muna, is also vulgar slang for the penis (if singular) or the testicles (if plural). I'm quite sure this doesn't exist in German, but it would be a nice way to tie in with Rammstein's habit of including sexual innuendos in their lyrics. JIP | Talk 22:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the word for eggs is slang for testicles not only in Finnish. For German see de:wikt:Ei or wikt:de:Ei, meaning [6]. Returning to your question, a German speaker understands a-a-a-Eifersucht as jealousy and nothing else). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it would fit in as Ei-ei-ei-Eifersucht or possibly even Ei-ei-ei-Eiersucht. JIP | Talk 16:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the sexual innuendo would work for most German ears. As explained in Pp.paul's link to wiktionary, meaning [6], "Ei" in the sense of testicle is usually used in its plural ("Eier"). I doubt the repeated singular "ei ei ei" would raise a snicker. More likely it'd evoke the interjecting sense of "ei" (not capitalized); that would mean something like "well, well, well" or "dear dear dear". ---Sluzzelin talk 19:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That might very well be true, but how about this word Eiersucht ("egg addiction") that was mentioned here earlier? At least the literal Finnish translation, munahimo, can certainly be understood as "penis/testicle addiction". JIP | Talk 00:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin's a native speaker and I'm not, but I do think Eiersucht could be interpreted as "testicle addiction" in an appropriate context. If I heard Ei-Ei-Ei-Eifersucht in a song I would probably think first of all of the TV ads for Verpoorten egg liqueur, "Ei-Ei-Ei Verpoorten!". Angr (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French Language[edit]

I would enjoy to know how to speak french. Sadly, I don't have a web-cam. So if by any means O.K., I was wondering if someone could send me a document on so french words. Pronunciation's to, please. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HanEll348 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://fr.wiktionary.org should get you started. Of course, that doesn't cover grammar and semantics and idiom and other aspects of the language so well, but it does have lots of words and pronounciations. --Jayron32 21:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to sound hopelessly retro, but if you're starting from zero, then it might be a good idea to go to a local bookstore or library and check out the language-learning books and CDs there... AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This site might be a decent starting point for finding free material, particularly if you're primarily interested in the French spoken in northern France (including Paris). Also, here is a free French course from the BBC. 96.46.204.126 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend to get a good language program. It's easier to learn how to pronounce other languages when you hear someone speak it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that someone who writes "Pronunciation's to, please" has some work to do in their own linguistic backyard before venturing onto their neighbour's. But I thought better of it and bit my tongue. OUCH!! -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I'm glad you thought better of it, because it would have been not only rude but also wrong. I'm sure there are many poor spellers out there who have been successful at learning a second language (and can get around, say, Paris better than most of us can now). 96.46.204.126 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We do not even know that the OP is a native speaker of English, so please.... --NorwegianBlue^talk 23:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was wrong of me to say that. I withdraw and apologise. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A website that I used to use was Livemocha: [1]. It was excellent, and I used it when it was in its infancy; it is probably even much better now. Widener (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! I still have an account! Maybe I should start using it again. Widener (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Livemocha is an excellent service because you can help other people learn your native language as you learn theirs. For example, while I was learning French at school, I would use this website to help me learn more French and attempt some other languages. At the same time, I would help nonnative speakers of English learn English. It's very engaging as a result; you can actually make friends or pen pals there. Widener (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Half-voiced affricate?[edit]

Can you have a half-voiced affricate (e.g. tz, ds), where voicing starts/stops between the plosive and the fricative? --108.225.117.174 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think there's anything physiologically impossible about it, but natural articulatory tendencies would favor assimilation in voicing (unless the stop and sibilant are separated by some kind of pause or boundary, in which case they aren't part of a real affricate at all). AnonMoos (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't researched this myself, but I imagine it's not only possible but likely. A lot of research on phonetics and articulation has shown that articulatory gestures are not instantaneous but gradient--for instance, the constriction in a fricative (e.g. between the tongue and the alveolar ridge in [s]) doesn't happen instantaneously and stay the same throughout, but gradually reaches its maximum and then subsides. I'm not sure of specific examples in voicing but I imagine voicing has this same feature, since it takes some time for the vocal folds to be adducted and for enough subglottal pressure to build up to make them vibrate. That is to say, if it's in the right context where it's preceded by no voicing and followed by voicing (e.g., at the beginning of a word before a vowel), then it seems entirely possible to me that voicing wouldn't start until partway through the affricate.

Note that here I'm talking about articulatory voicing (whether the vocal folds are vibrating), not phonological voicing (whether the 'segment' is considered to be voiced by speakers of the language and whether it behaves like other voiced segments). For the reasons AnonMoos described above, it doesn't seem likely for an affricate to be phonologically half-voiced. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine with a language like English, without clear voiced-voiceless distinctions, they could easily appear as allophones. If English had /dz/ as a native affricate, I'd imagine /dza adza adz/ would appear as [tza aˑdza aˑds], contrasting with /tsa atsa ats/ as [tsʰa aʔtsa aʔts], which is the same type of schema for other pairs of stops (except, obviously, without the change in manner of articulation concurrent with the change in voicing). Lsfreak (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: In fact, I wasn't thinking. I'd about 90% sure this happens in my near-GA with /dʒ/, and it happens with plural/possessive after a voiced stop. Lsfreak (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be iffy to call the sound at the end of a plural/possessive with a voiced stop (e.g. bugs [bʌgz]) an affricate, I think most phonemic analyses consider this a sequence of two segments. But that issue of what distinguishes between a sequence of segments and one homorganic segment has always been a hairy issue in phonetics and phonology anyway. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]