Language desk
< January 2	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 4 >

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 3[edit]

Apostrophe & Pronunciation[edit]

I was just reading an article on the BBC about Louis XVI of France, and it was mentioning his blood and DNA, etc., and I saw that it said " Louis' 16th Century predecessor" (talking about another king). Considering the 's' in this name is not pronounced, how would the pronunciation be with the apostrophe? Would it be pronounced as /z/, or left unpronounced? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that "Louis" (the name) is said "LOO-ee" when refering to the French Kings, then when Louis owns something, we say it is "LOO-eez", regardless of how it is spelled. --Jayron32 00:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I suspected. Cheers. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly pronounce it as /z/ (it would rhyme exactly like Huey's or Dewey's; or Louie's, for that matter), for which reason I would write the apostrophe-s in (Louis's). This so-called rule that says words ending in -s do not take apostrophe-s has to be tweaked for words ending in silent s like Louis. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC spelling violates most style rules that I know. Some style guides recommend a singular possessive ending in an apostrophe (without a subsequent 's') after classical names such as Heracles or Jesus, but not after modern names such as Louis, especially names that end in a silent 's'. Possibly the BBC's style guide calls for that spelling, but in my opinion it is nonstandard and should be Louis's. Marco polo (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is also what I suspected, and this is why I found it odd, and decided to ask. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some style books have indeed called for no extra s specifically for words that end in a silent s, the CMOS, for instance, in one of their editions. They have vacillated, though; compare the 15th and 16th editions:

15th ed.: "To avoid an awkward appearance, an apostrophe without an s may be used for the possessive of singular words and names ending in an unpronounced s. Opt for this practice only if you are comfortable with it and are certain that the s is indeed unpronounced."

16th ed. "In a return to Chicago’s earlier practice, words and names ending in an unpronounced s form the possessive in the usual way (with the addition of an apostrophe and an s). This practice not only recognizes that the additional s is often pronounced but adds to the appearance of consistency with the possessive forms of other types of proper nouns."

In the 16th edition they stopped recommending Euripides' too. Lesgles (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a good "rule" is that one should be guided by the prevailing (or at least one's preferred) pronunciation of a term and add an apostrophe-s if it is pronounced with "suhz" at the end. Thus, for some people, "Jesus's disciples" but "Euripides' tragedies". I recall reading this in a book on punctuation; don't have the title with me right now. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good rule too! I tend to pronounce the singular possessive pretty much everywhere, so I write Euripides's. Lesgles (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Euripides trousers, you menda these trousers" (Eumenides) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the answers. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of "slew"[edit]

How widespread or acceptable is the pronunciation of "slew" as "slyoo" (rather than "sloo")? I'm thinking particularly of the sense "large number of". 86.160.219.242 (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe StyewRat can answer this one for a change, :) - Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

It is pronounced "slyoo" (/slju:/) in any region that does not exhibit yod-dropping. It is accepted (as in understood without being construed as a mispronunciation) universally and in some varieties of English (particularly RP) it is the "prestige" pronunciation (soutenue, as we would say in French). 72.128.82.131 (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yod-dropping? expect we don't have any articles on yod-dropping. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My yod dropped to learn that we do, or atleast a redirect to a section on it. --Jayron32 03:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Heritage [1] and Webster's only list one pronunciation - not two. I am not sure two pronunciations are universally accepted. Rmhermen (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Heritage is a U.S. dictionary, while "Webster's" by itself is meaningless (anyone can publish a dictionary and call it a "Webster") but also suggests a U.S. orientation. No surprise that American dictionaries would not include a British pronunciation... AnonMoos (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point I was making. Rmhermen (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's generally pronounced "sloo" in British English - the OED and the Chambers Dictionary lists only that pronunciation. The "yoo" sound is not usually heard after an L, especially with another consonant before it, as in flue, flew, flute, glue, where it would (to my ears) sound rather affected. Even in "lute", where OED and Chambers give both pronunciations, it sounds odd to me. The yod-dropping section mentioned above says "Yod-dropping before [uː] occurs in most varieties of English [...] [a]fter consonant+/l/ clusters". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to comment earlier that the OP was completely wrong and that no one would pronounce "slew" as "slyoo", and then thought better of it. Part of the problem could be with the OP's spelling of the pronunciation "slyoo". It seemed to me to have 2 syllables: "sly" and "oo" and therefore definitely wrong. However, looking at the pronunciation of similar sounding words such as pew (pronounced as /pjuː/), I think I can see what the OP is getting at. While Wiktionary only has the "sloo" pronounciation (as /sluː/), I have indeed heard /sljuː/, usually in RP and Welsh accents. Astronaut (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it said on television that the British RP pronunciation of "suit" /sjut:/ is rapidly losing ground to /sut:/. Perhaps "slew" is part of the same process. Alansplodge (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh English is weird in having [ɪʊ̯] (or [ɪw]) where most other dialects have [juː], with the result that it contrasts "ue/ew" with "oo" in a lot of places where other dialects have merged them, e.g. chews is distinct from choose and rude is distinct from rood. I'm not sure if yew is distinct from you (or if it is, if ewe is homophonous with yew or distinct yet again), but I would fully expect slew to be [slɪʊ̯]. Angr (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some American dialects might have something close to [slɪʊ̯] too, on account that /u/ is fronted either in most positions or triggered by coronals. Since the OP doesn't seem to know IPA, such a pronunciation (Welsh or American) would sound somewhat like "sliw" - a short i followed by w (unless the OP already has this, in which case they probably won't notice). Lsfreak (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some regions of northern English also have /sljuː/. I'm surprised that neither Wiktionary nor the OED allows this as an alternative. Dbfirs 08:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"more slender" or "slenderer"?[edit]

Google searching reveals about 8 times as many hits for "more slender" and dictionary sites seem to use both. Wiktionary defines "slenderer" as "more slender". It is far from conclusive, but "slenderer" just sounds odd to me. Astronaut (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OED redirects "slenderer" to its entry on "slender". The citations for "slenderer" are pretty ancient (17th century for " Females vsually in euery kind haue lesse & slenderer feet than males.", 18th century for " Roundness makes it appear slenderer than it really is."). It sounds pretty odd, child-like almost, to my ears, so I'd continue to use "more slender" if I were you doktorb _words^deeds 09:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds odd to me too, probably because of the repeated syllable 'er'. Comparative is not much help (as well as being : it says that 'more' is used instead of '-er' for 'polysyllabic words borrowed from foreign languages', but that would imply that one should use words such as 'beautifuler'. I've just been involved in a production of Bat Boy: The Musical, in which one of the songs uses the obviously-'wrong' word 'normaler'. Is there a better rule? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I blitzed that nonsense sentence in the comparative article. The rule of thumb is use -er for one syllable words, -ier for two syllable words ending in -y, and more/less/fewer for longer words. But there are exceptions of course, cleverer is perfectly acceptable. - filelake shoe  09:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old saying: "The hurrieder we go, the behinder we get." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number governed by "each"[edit]

Greetings to each and every one of you.

I was always taught that "each" requires a singular verb. But that's not always the case:

sentences of the form "Each of the X does Y" take a singular verb,
but sentences of the form "X and Y each do Z" take a plural verb.

Here's a sentence I've just come across in Electoral system of Australia that uses both types of construction:

The Australian Senate has 76 members: each of the six states elects 12 Senators, and the Northern Territory (NT) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) each elect two Senators.

Despite the apparent inconsistency, it reads OK to me and I have no plans to change it.

Can someone explain to me what makes the difference? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like it's agreeing with the singular and plural subjects. In the first part, "each of the six states" is a singular subject, while in the second part "the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory" is a plural subject. --Viennese Waltz 10:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly it requires a singular subject, however when the adjective follows a plural subject, the verb agrees with the subject. Simple. Question solved. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 10:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the appearance of a singular/plural conflict is mitigated if the second clause is reworded to "the Northern Territory (NT) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) elect two Senators each". Deor (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Ah yes. Deor posted while I was composing my contribution.]

Voyons, mes petits:

1. the Northern Territory (NT) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) each elect two Senators

Simplifying harmlessly, the subject is "NT and ACT"; it is not "each". As Viennese Waltz says, above. So the verb agrees with a plural subject: "elect", not "elects". This can be seen more clearly if we distance "each" from "NT and ACT", or remove it entirely:

2. NT and ACT elect two Senators each

3. NT and ACT elect two Senators

Now, what is lacking from 3, exactly? The meaning is still there, but compromised by ambiguity. It lacks the clear distributivity that is secured in 1 and 2 by "each". Having that role, "each" cannot itself be taken as plural, in more formal registers at least. This has lately broken down. Many more people these days make sentences in which a pronoun "each" (or a fused head "each", as some say; or whatever!) gets a plural verb form. Compare replacement of "none is" by "none are", which is very widely accepted of course.

Noetica^Tea? 12:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We just had this same exact discussion four months ago. See this thread. Each behaves as three parts of speech

(1) Each of the children studies two languages. (singular pronoun governing a singular verb)

(2) Each child has his own instructor. (adjective modifying a singular noun)

(3) They each recite poems they compose in class. (adverb modifying a verb governed by a plural subject)

In Jack's example above, the first each is a singular pronoun governing a singular verb, in the second instance it is an adverb meaning 'individually' and the inherently plural subject governs the plural verb, modified by the adverbial 'each'. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite clear now. Thanks to all (and to each). Special mentions to Medeis and Noetica. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A later thought. The word "each" is performing the same logical function in each of its uses in the example I gave. But they have different syntactical functions, and hence are governed by different rules. It's the (essentially irrelevant) logical sense that I was focussing on, that was stopping me seeing the real reason for the difference. Most intriguing. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will also help if you realise that the adverbial use must always occur with a plural verb (*He each recited a poem) while the other uses always occur with a singular verb. (*Each have his own instructor.) Of course the tendency toward singular they confuses the latter point. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And further confused by the tendency to use both "both" and "each" in the same construction ("Both of them each have their own instructor", or "Each of them both have their own instructor", or "Both of them have their own instructor each"). It's as if these words mean the same thing (they don't) - but even if they did, that would still be an intentional tautology, so I dunno why they do it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bar at the top of the letter J[edit]

In the letter J, is the bar which sometimes goes across the top considered a serif or something else? To me it certainly seems bigger than a serif, but some typefaces set it exactly like a serif. Contrast to the letter T, where nobody would render the bar across the top as a mere serif. In typefaces that make it bigger than a typical serif, what is that thing called? (If anything.) Staecker (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a serif. Most sans-serif fonts don't provide a bar, though some include something similar to the serifs occasionally added to 'I' to help distinguish the latter from 'l' and '1'. -- Elphion (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is a serif. For reasons which escape me, it is often exaggerated in Japanese fonts so that it looks more like a hybrid of J and T, but in traditional typefaces, it’s a regular serif, just as in an I.—Emil J. 16:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the letter has disappointing little on the history of the shape of it. Rmhermen (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typeface anatomy is an OK article, and it has a nifty graphic. --Jayron32 18:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true, but how does it help with the subject? As far as I can see, the only part of J it mentions is its tail (the thing down left).—Emil J. 19:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It goes through various shapes of serifs, so a specific top serif on a J (with or without additional flourishes) can be described. --Jayron32 19:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some font designs include J with a left-sided top horizontal bar (to use the terminology from that article) - the Consolas font being one. I don't consider these to be serifs, which the same article suggests are smaller flourishes consistently applied. Bazza (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some "J" glyphs have no bar at the top, others have "J" with a bar to the left, and still others have "J" with bars to both sides. It's not a serif, as you can find sans serif fonts that include a capital "J" glyph with bars to both sides (Kahlo black is an example). It's just a variation in font design. - Nunh-huh 01:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Regional handwriting variation says: The capital letter J — In Germany, this letter is often written with a long stroke to the left at the top. This is to distinguish it from the capital letter "I". As a Dutchman I can add: this is also common in Dutch. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Martin[reply]

Japanese question[edit]

Hi! What is the Japanese text in File:Marunouchi London Street 1920s.jpg? I want to make an annotation with that text. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It reads from right to left. And from left to right, it would be "馬場先通ヨリ宮城ヲ望ム". BTW, there's a similar postcard. Oda Mari (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mari! What are the last two characters on the first postcard (in parenthenses)? What is the rest of the Japanese on the second postcard? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the characters in brackets could be 東京 (Tokyo). 86.146.105.126 (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC) ... by the way, what is the significance of the word "London" in "Marunouchi London Street 1920s"?[reply]

I think the other card reads （東京名所）馬場先門ヨリ宮城ヲ望ム (= (Famous places in Tokyo) View of 宮城 from 馬場先門)
ＫＩＮＯＵＹＡデジタルアーカイブ (= Kinouya Digital Archive)
教育用途限定 (= Educational use only)
86.146.105.126 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]