Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 January 17

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.

January 17

Original sounds of ancient languages

I’m sure this has been asked (and answered!) before, but I’m not sure what to search for.

The other day I was watching a television program in which (supposedly) Beowulf was read aloud in the “original Anglo-Saxon”. My question is – how do they know what “original Anglo-Saxon” sounded like. Taking this further then, how do they know what any “dead” language sounded like… Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Greek, Latin etc?

Oh, and apologies, I’m not a linguist – so please don’t go all IPA on me :-) CoeurDeHamster (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

For Greek and Latin, you can look at the semi-famous books "Vox Graeca" and "Vox Latina" by W. Sidney Allen, which are not too long or too technical (though they presuppose a basic familiarity with certain linguistic concepts). In general, while there's a lot we don't know about ancient languages, when sufficient information is available, so that evidence can be correlated and methods of linguistic reconstruction applied, some things become overwhelmingly more probable than others. One important methodological principle is a "unformitarian" assumption -- i.e. the same types of linguistic structures and linguistic changes that we see in languages today would also have occurred in ancient times, and conversely, structures and changes which are never observed in living languages would not have occurred in ancient languages either.

In the case of Old English pronunciation, the main uncertainty is the details of the "fracture" dipthongs (ea, eo, ie etc., occurring in both long and short forms).

For ancient Egyptian, the pre-Coptic orthographies (hieroglyphics etc.) almost completely failed to write any vowels, so that there's quite a bit we don't know about the pronunciation of Ancient Egyptian. Traditional transcriptions of Pharaonic-era names follow rather arbitrary procedures in which semivowels often become the Latin letters "i" and "u", glottal stops or pharyngeals become the Latin letter "a", and then enough "e" vowels are sprinkled semi-randomly among the remaining consonants so that the word looks pronounceable... AnonMoos (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

See Linguistic reconstruction. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Anglo-Saxons, Latins, and Greeks all wrote in alphabets.. alphabets very closely related to our own. Not too difficult. That, plus the comparative method, internal reconstruction, multilingual texts, etc... obviously we don't know *everything*, but using various methods we can even tell, for example, whether Sumerian stops were aspirated or not (see Jagersmå). Honestly, I don't know where this idea that we have no idea how extinct languages were pronounced comes from... 67.158.4.158 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your time and efforts. I guess I'll have to get myself a copy of "Vox Latina" to read in the cold winter evenings. CoeurDeHamster (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Strange Limerick

Having asked one question, I feel emboldened to ask another…

I seem to remember, many years ago, reading a Limerick (AABBA form) where the “A” lines tried to rhyme “enough” with “cough” and “plough” (or some other combination of ough-words). Can somebody please point me to an example?

Many thanks CoeurDeHamster (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't find it in [1]. But keep in mind that this could be an example of near rhymes; or, if the limerick is old, it's possible that it was written in a time or place that these did rhyme (English pronunciations have changed a lot over time). rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it is a joke limerick illustrating the idiosyncrasies of the English Language.CoeurDeHamster (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"I often find it comical / How nature always does contrive / That every boy and every gal / That's born into the world alive / Is either a little Liberal / Or else a little Conservative." -- W.S.Gilbert ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Was it one of the ones in here [2]? Mikenorton (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a limerick, but Dr. Seuss once wrote The Tough Coughs as He Ploughs the Dough about someone whose whole life was upended by "-ough" words... AnonMoos (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why he didn't take the opportunity to write 'The Tough Coughs as He Ploughs Through the Dough'? Blakk and ekka 16:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, not a limerick, but I once saw in a "Reader's Digest" the following: "I wonder what would help my cough?

A cup of coughey should.
At least it wouldn't bump me ough,
and it might do me gould"
which is on similar lines. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Some bloke on the Internet offers this:

The farmer was tending his plough,
when he suddenly swallowed some dough.
He started to cough
and then to hiccough,
which left him feeling quite rough!

--Antiquary (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This thread reminds me of a memorable scene from the old sitcom I Love Lucy, in which Ricky attempts to read a children's story full of these "-ough" words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmwZqJB_8dQ ~Amatulić (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

In case there are other non-native speakers of English here who can't decide at first sight which of these actually rhyme, I have a list of -ough words with their pronunciations just over here. – b_jonas 10:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help - the "farmer" version is not the one I remembered but it's more than good enough. CoeurDeHamster (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Meaning

I'm not sure about the meaning of the end of the following sentence:

This study found that antibiotic use 4-14 days after admission showed a significant reduction in all cause mortality (risk ratio 0.54 [0.34,0.87]), which is quite substantial, and a number needed to treat to alleviate one death at 8.

Does the text in bold means that for every eight treated person one would die if not for this treatment? So if they treat 24 person all of them would survive, but without the treatment 3 would die? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.74.50.52 (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I really do not understand that particular phrasing, but it's likely to be connected with odds ratio, risk ratio... AnonMoos (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

See Number needed to treat. From the lede: The NNT is the average number of patients who need to be treated to prevent one additional bad outcome (i.e. the number of patients that need to be treated for one to benefit compared with a control in a clinical trial). If you give the treatment to eight patients, one more patient would survive on average than if you do not give the treatment. So my interpretation, without taking the mortality information into account, is that the bolded statement could mean 8/8 survivors instead of 7/8, 5/8 instead of 4/8, or 1/8 instead of 0/8. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 17:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In combination with risk ratio 0.54, this most likely means that, without treatment, 2 out of every 8 patients die, and, with antibiotic treatment, that number goes down to 1 out of every 8.--Itinerant1 (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Even with the explanation of NNT (thanks NorwegianBlue - without knowing that is a set phrase it was even less parsable) I cannot make any sense of the preposition "at". You seem to be interpreting it as meaning "out of", which I agree makes most sense, but is not a meaning I can find in "at". --ColinFine (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Think of "Number needed to treat to prevent one death" as an entity. Call it "NNTTTPOD". Now read the following: "This study found that antibiotic use 4-14 days after admission showed a significant reduction in all cause mortality, with mortality rate at 12%, NNTTTPOD at 8, and the risk of adverse reactions at 2%". --Itinerant1 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Three syllable three letter words

There's a town in Australia called Omeo - a four letter word with three syllables. Just got to thinking: are there any three letter words that are three syllables (I'm talking standard English, not foreign languages, and would accept other names, but not abbreviations, acronyms, etc; for example I wouldn't regard aka (when pronounced a-k-a) as a word). I can't even think of any other four letter ones off the top of my head. --jjron (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Area", "urea" and (depending on your accent) "idea" are 4-letter, three syllable words. Rhyme Zone suggests the surname "Cea", which apparently rhymes with "idea", but I haven't a clue how that that would work. Smurrayinchester 15:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, facetiously wikt:baa, as in the onomatopoeic sound of a sheep, can be as many syllables long as your throat can handle. According to Wiktionary, it can be [bæ̰ˀæ̰ˀæ̰ˀæ̰ˀ]. Smurrayinchester 15:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, a syllable requires a vowel. In that case, we would be looking for a three-letter word, each of which is a vowel and each of which is separately pronounced. I don't think any such words appear in English. Bielle (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(Actually, a syllable can be a consonant, but usually that just happens between or adjacent to other consonants--so long story short, you're still right that the word the OP is looking for would have to be three vowels. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC))

If proper nouns (like Omeo) count, then perhaps 'Aoa or Aoi. There is also a genus of moth called Eoa. There are probably more obscure examples. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather words, it's just that it was the name that got me thinking. Regardless, I believe Aoa would be Polynesian and Aoi is a Japanese actress, so wouldn't fit into the criteria of being English words. Eoa is possibly more acceptable. --jjron (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The state of ioa fits your description. 188.6.94.79 (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Never heard of Ioa. Do you mean Iowa? Which would be four letters. --jjron (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

We do have an article on such a word, IOU. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

But that would be an abbreviation, like my aka example. I wouldn't say it classes as a word. --jjron (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Euro. 84.229.86.183 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

But "euro" doesn't have three syllables. British pronunciation: [ˈjʊə̯.ɹəʊ̯], American pronunciation: [ˈjʊ.ɹoʊ̯]. --Theurgist (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Words without consonants. — kwami (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

"A Few Words"

What does it mean if you know "a few words" of a language? I recently said to someone I know that I know "a few words" of a certain language, meaning I can only say "hello" and fifteen nouns, but in Faith Like Potatoes the farmer claims he knows "a few words" of Zulu, and he can put together full sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.163.154 (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's really just a vague statement with no exact meaning. In other words, your definition of only knowing some key words, or the farmer's definition of being able to put together (presumably) simple sentences could both be regarded as correct. Conversely the farmer may intentionally be understating his abilities as many people do when they can do something unexpected, and his statement could be taken to mean anything up to "I know a bit of Zulu, but am not fluent in it", or "I speak Zulu well, but it's not my native tongue", or even "I speak Zulu, but don't want to brag about it". --jjron (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I generally understand "a few words" to mean anything from knowing only "yes", "no", "hello" and "thank you" to being modest about knowing enough to hold a conversation. Often, one learns a few basic words and one or two supposedly useful phrases, such as "where is the toilet", though not all phrases are actually useful; see "My hovercraft is full of eels" or "My postillion has been struck by lightning" for some amusing examples. Astronaut (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if your South African farmer was of British or Boer descent, but amongst the higher social classes in the UK, self-deprecating modesty is the rule rather than the exception. I once read an article by a Russian journalist in London, who was puzzled by a heart surgeon that described himself as a plumber. Alansplodge (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

English

hello,

if you have legendary English skills, you should find mistakes in these sentences:

1. With city's permission another mass took place (comma missing? Maybe the s-genitive is incorrect)
2. In a meeting with Polish Ambassador Stanisław Ciosek in 15 March 1995, acting mayor of Moscow, Alexander Musykantski, assured him that the return of the church would be complete by the end of the year.
3. In March 2002, members of the cathedral and Catholics from other European cities participated in a rosary led by the Pope by video conference.
4. Latter were fitted out with benches until the closure of the church in 1938; unlike today, the left side reserved for women, the right for men

Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

1. With the city's permission, another mass took place.
2. In a meeting with the Polish Ambassador Stanisław Ciosek in 15 March 1995, the acting mayor of Moscow, Alexander Musykantski, assured him that the return of the church would be complete by the end of the year.
3. In March 2002, members of the cathedral, and Catholics from other European cities, participated in a rosary led by the Pope via video conference.
4. The latter were fitted out with benches until the closure of the church in 1938; unlike today, when the left side is reserved for women, and the right for men. I don't know what "latter" refers to, but the verb following it ("were") must agree numerically with it.

Bazza (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I assume these are editing questions rather then some random quiz you found in the internet or your English language homework.

1. It could be "With the city's permission another mass took place" referring to the city as a place, or "With City's permission another mass took place" referring to City as the name of a sport's team (papal visits often include outdoor masses in large venues such as sports stadiums). I would consider a comma between "permission" and "another" as optional.

2. "...with Polish Ambassador Stanisław Ciosek in 15 March 1995..." would be better as "...with Polish Ambassador, Stanisław Ciosek, on 15 March 1995..." (added commas and fixed typo in -> on). I am also unsure what "...the return of the church..." means. Is it a portable church borrowed by the city of Moscow for some reason, or maybe the city borrowed some artefact from a Polish church, or maybe a church used by Polish ex-pats in Moscow has been undergoing repairs and it will be returned to use by January?

3. "...cathedral and Catholics from other European cities participated..." might be better as "...cathedral, and Catholics from other European cities, participated..." (commas added). I'm unfamiliar with the ceremonies in a Catholic church, but perhaps "rosary" should be "mass". Finally, "...led by the Pope by video conference" could be difficult to read with the two "by"s close together; perhaps "...led by the Pope via video conference" would be better.

4. It is unclear what it is supposed to mean. Maybe "...was later fitted out with benches, with the left side reserved for women and the right for men, until the closure of the church in 1938." there is perhaps no need to mention the changes seating situation today since the church closed long ago.

Astronaut (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks!--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Reworded my answer slightly. Astronaut (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There are benches in the main aisle and confessionals in the side aisles. The latter...--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe "There were benches in the main aisle and confessionals in the side aisles. The latter were also fitted out with benches, with the left side reserved for women and the right for men, until the closure of the church in 1938." Astronaut (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Participated in a rosary led by the Pope" is probably okay. It would completely change the meaning to change "rosary" to "mass". Many Roman Catholic churches (and Anglo-Catholic churches too) hold rosary services where one person recites the rosary out loud while the rest of the congregation prays. They're frequently held immediately before mass starts, but at other times too. To be clearer, you could say "Participated in a rosary service" or "in a recitation of the rosary", but "rosary" alone is clear enough in context. I don't think a comma is necessary in "With the city's permission another mass took place". It's possible but optional. Angr (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked for a description in our articles, to link here, but I can't find one. A 'rosary led by the Pope' implies that the Pope himself was announcing the 'mysteries' and reciting half the prayers, with the people reciting the other half. So I'd say, assuming that is what was meant, it is indeed fine to leave the wording as is. I wouldn't say 'a recitation of the rosary', because that implies a judgement that people aren't actually praying and meditating. A 'rosary service' can imply there is more to the service than just praying the rosary, so I'd only word it like that if you actually mean more was in the service than the rosary. At least in a Catholic context, it's just a scaling-up of a individual, family, or group praying of the rosary, rather than a service. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"in 15 March 1995" should be "on 15 March 1995". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

MLA Quotations

I'm writing an essay for school, and I've mostly finished it. The only remaining problem is in regards to some quotes I've included to emphasize my points. I found all of them on random quote websites. I put who said them in the content of my essay ( e.g. ' So and so said, "blah blah blah" '). My question is, since I included the name of the person who said it, do I have to cite it? And if so, do I cite the random website I got it from, or what? I've searched Google, but I haven't found anything. Thanks, --Thekmc (Leave me a message) 22:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ideally you should find more reliable sources than random quote websites. A lot of those places just make stuff up and you can't be sure the person ever actually said what the site claims they said. Wikiquote is pretty good about saying which quotes can be reliably traced to an author and which ones are merely attributed but not proven. When you do find the source of a quote, you should cite the original source, not the website you found it from, even if it's a fairly reliable one like Wikiquote. Angr (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's good to be cautious with questionable attribution of quotes. Keep in mind that Yogi Berra, famous for malapropisms, once complained that, "I never said half the things I said." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help so far. I've found two new quotes with reliable sources. However, there's still one I can find a source for. Does anyone know if this quote was really said, and if so, where it's from? "Anyone can support a team that is winning - it takes no courage. But to stand behind a team to defend a team when it is down and really needs you, that takes a lot of courage." -- Bart Starr. I can't find any other quotes that fit what I'm looking for, so I would appreciate any help. --Thekmc (Leave me a message) 00:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)