Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 January 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.

January 16

"Taped" = "pre-recorded", no matter what medium is really used?

For a couple of articles lately I've seen the use of the word "taped" to mean pre-recorded to be played back at a later time. (Today's example was at Lance Armstrong when discussing the fact that he has already been interviewed by Oprah in a "confession" for her program to be played on Thursday and Friday.) "Taped" is almost certainly technically wrong. I would expect modern recording to be done digitally onto disk or a solid state medium. But in both cases, "taped" is the word used by the sources.

Should we use the incorrect word here? Has "taped", sadly, come to mean pre-recorded no matter what the medium? Or is it our job to avoid such technical inaccuracies? I lean towards the latter, unless using the word in a direct quote. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. While it's clear what they meant, it would be better to say "recorded". Of course, don't complain about this too much, or you may sound like a broken record. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose colloquially tape is used to refer to any type of recording, but I wouldn't object if you wanted to change it to record. OED Online defines the verb as: "To record on (magnetic) tape; to make a tape recording of. Also absol." Thus, it hasn't noted the use of the word more generally yet. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"Tape" is colloquially used for DVR's on television, for example. But unless citing someone else's statement directly, "recorded" is the better way to put it. Meanwhile, I'll be here off and on, as I have to dial in to another computer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, to "pre-record" something does not stand up to close examination either. It's apparently been around for a long time, and is shorthand for "recorded for later broadcast". But you can't literally "pre-record" an event. You can only "record" it as it happens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of the prefix "pre" has been around a long time, and has been the subject of much ridicule and scrutiny. See here, start at 1:22. Neologisms with "pre" including prerecord, preboarding, preheating are all noted in that video, and all fail analysis: for the same reasons you note. I could repeat what is said in the video, but it makes the case rather well. --Jayron32 16:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Although "preheating" makes some sense, as you are heating the oven before putting the dish in it. However, "preboarding" would seem to be the time interval spent hanging around the gate before they start taking the tickets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with "pre-record". This is used to distinguish between a recording made prior to broadcast, versus one made during a broadcast ("recorded live"). StuRat (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's how it's used, yes, it just doesn't make logical sense. If you're watching a live show, you're not going to be told it's being recorded live, because there's nothing interesting about that. You're either watching it live, or you're watching a recording. They're using "pre-recorded" as a shorthand way of saying "what you're watching is not a live broadcast, but rather a show that was recorded at some previous date or time." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I laugh when I'm urged to "pre-book" tickets to some event. I thought that all bookings occur before the event, but apparently some "before"s are more "before" than others. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The "event" which pre-booking is prior to is not the actual performance, but rather the normal booking period, similar to pre-boarding on an airplane. StuRat (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"Pre-boarding" is a bit of language that has not yet come my way. What on earth does it mean? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

In U.S. airports, people that get to get on the plane first are said to "preboard". Normally, everyone is seated based on some set procedure, usually based on where they sit (many airlines, for example, seat from the back to the front to minimize the number of times passengers need to pass one another in the aisle). Some people, such as the elderly or handicapped, may be seated first, before the normal "back-to-front" boarding procedure starts. There will often be an announcement like "Shortly we will begin our pre-boarding procedure for the elderly or handicapped, after which we will begin boarding the plane starting with rows 20-24". The term "preboarding" then just means "the boarding that happens before the normal boarding". --Jayron32 20:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Stu. I'm familiar with the procedure, and maybe they do use the word in their announcements here, but thanks to the "special auditory environment" of airports, they're mostly incomprehensible to me so I miss a lot of it. I just follow the crowds when they start lining up at the boarding gates. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Kind of like a Dilbert strip where Dilbert convinced the pointy-haired boss that he needed to conduct a meeting prior to another meeting. The boss labeled it a "pre-meeting meeting". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is "tape" a "technical inaccuracy" here when "record" isn't? So here tape’s etymology lies in magnetic tape which was used to store information. Here record’s etymology lies in Latin for heart, cor, which the ancients thought stored information. Seems like an even greater technical inaccuracy. See etymological fallacy. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The verb form "to record" is suitable for any kind of capturing of information. As with the term "recorded history", for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What makes "to record" suitable, but not "to tape"? --ColinFine (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Because recordings are not made on Magnetic tape much anymore. It would be appropriate if you are recording a TV show on your video cassette recorder. However, if you are recording a TV show digitally, you don't tape it, because there's no tape involved. --Jayron32 02:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

But recordings are not made on the heart much anymore either. When I go to the page The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey it calls it an adventure film. That's a perfectly appropriate name, even though it wasn't recorded on photographic film. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

All true and correct. I'm not saying I disagree with you. Let's just say that I was reporting the objection that people have to the use of tape without endorsing that objection myself. --Jayron32 13:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, and the term broadcast refers to a type of agriculture. I am not sure how that means we should quote the pathological concept of the "etymological fallacy" to justify sloppy contemporary speech. I am curious what the opposite of the etymological fallacy is? Education? Culture? Knowledge? History? 02:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Methinks y'all are being overly pedagogical -- unless you've already considered and absolutely accepted the explanation that pre-recorded CANNOT POSSIBLY be nothing more than a shortening of "previously recorded"??

Further, may I suggest that "taped" itself cannot be ruled out unless we have eyewitness evidence to the contrary as well. Television (nor any other industry that still lists a "Best Boy" in the credits) is not known for its rapid takeup of new technology, particularly if doing so results in the elimination of a well-paid union position.

67.6.97.34 (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've often heard people say they are going to "tape" a TV show... on their DVR. As regards "tape" vs. "record", the etymology of both may be of interest - especially the point that "tape" in this context is short for "tape recorder/recording".[1][2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I recall a past discussion on this page about the continued use of terms that relate to historical technologies no longer in use. Wonder if there's a name for that. For example, we still dial our phones, though hardly any phones have a dial any more. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there should be something buried in the archives for somewhere within the past year or so. I don't know that anything was said about a term for it. It's almost like a reverse anachronism. Regarding dial phones, they actually still work, unless you get a pre-recorded (ha!) message that asks you to push the pound or star button. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, this is doubtless the thread that Smuconlaw and Bugs are referring to. Deor (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The word Bugs is grasping for is Retronym. Terms like "acoustic guitar" and "vinyl record" are retronyms. Before electric guitars and other forms of recorded media, they were just called "guitars" and "records". --Jayron32 04:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that covers a lot of this ground. Taking it a little farther, "records" were called "phonograph records" to distinguish them from written records, a term in common use for centuries. Furthermore, early phonograph records were retronymed "acoustic" records once electronic recording became available in the 1920s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Now we have "snail mail", to distinguish it from that other newfangled kind. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding us about retronyms, Jayron32 (and Deor for finding that past conversation!), but I don't think tape is a retronym, which is (as our article defines it) "a type of neologism that provides a new name for an object or concept to differentiate its original form or version from a more recent form or version". Here, we are talking about a word relating to a particular technology that has been repurposed for use in connection with some newer technology that differs from the old technology such that the use of the word is no longer technically correct. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Bengali name for "Peel District School Board"

How best should one render the name "Peel District School Board" in Bengali? Would anyone mind searching the pages at http://languages.peelschools.org/Bengali/home/ to see if the school board made its own transliteration or translation of the name somewhere?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. here, just before the English name in bracket. I'll add it to the wikipage.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

After adding, it seems to me that it should not have been added in the beginning of the article. Please move it to appropriate position. Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, GDibyendu! The Bengali name (পীল ডিস্ট্রিক্ট স্কুল বোর্ড thanks to GDibyendu) isn't supposed to go in the English article - but there will be a Bengali language article on the Bengali Wikipedia on this subject and the title will be পীল ডিস্ট্রিক্ট স্কুল বোর্ড. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Tuu tii tu tööti tuu

The Finnish article fi:Tankero says that Prime Minister of Finland Ahti Karjalainen is said to have ordered two cups of tea to his hotel room number 32 by saying Tuu tii tu tööti tuu, a Finnish pronunciation approximating "two tea to thirty two", or rather "too tee to thirty too", but without any /r/ sound in "thirty". How is this pronunciation supposed to be written in IPA to be used in a Wikipedia article? I would write it as /tu: ti: tu tø:ti tu:/, as Finnish has an almost, but not quite, exact match between written glyphs and pronounced sounds, which English is notoriously very far away from. But despite speaking Finnish natively and having a good knowledge of English, I don't know nearly enough about phonetics to write this correctly. JIP | Talk 19:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I would style it [tuː tiː tu ˈtøːti tuː], assuming the bolded syllable is stressed - the Finnish phonology article seems to agree with the vowel sounds you used. - filelakeshoe 23:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Are voiceless Finnish stops aspirated? If not, an American might interpret the request as "Doo dee duh durdee doo", in the same way some people say "bendejo" for the Spanish curse word. Pendejo. μηδείς (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Voiceless stops in Finnish are unaspirated (technically, all stops in Standard Finnish are voiceless, but most Finns adapt for foreign loanwords and place names). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspected that from general linguistic universals, assumed it was true based on my study of Uralic in general, and believe you. Do we have an article that addresses it? Finnish phonology doesn't mention aspiration one way or the other. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that as well; it's a glaring omission given that aspiration is a well-known shibboleth to detect non-native Finnish speakers. I do have a source in case someone wants to expand that phonology article. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll try adding the source to the talk page, since I understand the unaspirated voicelsss stops become voiced (and fricative?) in certain environments. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Ballad of Bill Hubbard

After the gentleman say "We had gone three shell holes", what does he say after that? "Trevor said..." Who's Trevor? Or is he using an unusual pronunciation of the word 'traversed'? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You know better than not to give us at least a link, Kage Tora. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did mean to. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The uploader's transcription of the lyrics here (no doubt a copyvio audio and transcription)—"traversed that"—agrees with what I hear (except that he doesn't recognize the name "Arras", apparently). Deor (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

'traversed that' ! Why didn't I pick that up? This has bothered me for years. Thanks!! KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Hindi and Punjabi names for New York City Department of Education

At http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/0C11683B-D763-4764-9F31-0577F07B77F8/11542/TitleIIIparentletter_Punjabi_rev060906.pdf - What is the text of the Punjabi name of the department? The second column of the letterhead should have the Punjabi name

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/0C11683B-D763-4764-9F31-0577F07B77F8/48056/HLIS_Hindi_rev05232007.pdf has the Hindi name too. What is the text for it?

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hindi: at the left hand side of "The New York City Department of Education" string (before the slash) on both the pages. Although, the spelling is incorrect. It's "New Yaark" in PDF. — Bill william compton^Talk 01:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot copy and paste the Hindi text. What is the Hindi text, so I can make an article request and so I can post the Hindi text to the Commons category about the department? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not a native Hindi speaker. I would have thought it would be न्यूयौर्क, but the New York City article uses न्यूयॉर्क. I would be interested in comments from Native speakers as to why I am wrong! -- Q Chris (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

@WTM: I've created a stub article.

@Q Chris: Please read this article (or its Hindi version). If you have any questions feel free to ask. — Bill william compton^Talk 12:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Bill: Thank you so much for the stub :) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hebrew name for New York City Department of Education

At http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/0C11683B-D763-4764-9F31-0577F07B77F8/48054/HLIS_Hebrew_rev05232007.pdf What is the text of the Hebrew name of the department? Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hebrew: מחלקת החינוך של העיר ניו יוק --ColinFine (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I omitted a letter: Hebrew: מחלקת החינוך של העיר ניו יורק --ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok :) - Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The first one could be "New York" as pronounced in a New York accent... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)