Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2022 May 7

Language desk
< May 6	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 7

Hers is severely underutilized

The word hers is defeated by the word her in genitive term Why the female pronoun being biased toward her not hers? 114.122.105.134 (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

They have different grammatical roles, just like the pairs my – mine, your – yours, our – ours, their – theirs. The first of each pair is used attributively, the second predicatively. ("Is this our room? Yes, this one is ours.) The word his is exceptional because it assumes both of these roles.  --Lambiam 08:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, "her" is used both as the oblique and as the genitive case. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

If I understand your question correctly, it's also about the word his. I think I can rewrite it, if you don't mind: The word hers is replaced by the word her in the genitive, so why does the word his have no corresponding replacement? If you look at the Etymonline entry for his, it mentions that a corresponding replacement did briefly exist - or rather, a replacement for his in the role corresponding to hers: In Middle English, hisis was tried for the absolute pronoun (compare her/hers), but it failed to stick. I'm unclear on where the suffix -is (later -es or -s or -'s) comes from. Presumably hisis was not a contraction of "his his".  Card Zero  (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Our English pronouns article describes "her" as the dependent genitive and "hers" as the independent genitive. Seven English pronouns have both such forms:

(1s) That is my home. That home is mine.

(1p) That is our home. That home is ours.

(2) That is your home. That home is yours.

(3sf) That is her home. That home is hers.

(3sm) That is his home. That home is his.

(3sn) That is its home. That home is its. (? Our article seems to claim that the 3sn independent genitive doesn't exist.)

(3p) That is their home. That home is theirs.

In most cases the independent genitive is formed by adding -s to the dependent genitive (in my/mine and the archaic thy/thine, -n is added instead). In the case of "his" and "its", the dependent genitive form already ends with "s", which could explain why the independent genitive is the same as the dependent in only those two words. CodeTalker (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah man... i can use the word hers correctly in genitive form because they are currently phasing iut the word her on genitive. WHY THEY ARE SEXIST BECAUSE OF THE WORD HER ON GENITIVE?! what the heck 114.122.105.134 (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Languages are what they are, not what you, or anybody, thinks they should be. You are, of course, free to use your made-up version of English: you risk being misunderstood or thought a weirdo, but that's up to you. The rest of us will continue speaking English. ColinFine (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, hers made-up version of English is still English, and I'm going to try it. It's more regular.  Card Zero  (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

And you most especially are NOT to use this made-up version English when writing on this website. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Aaaaa (screaming in annoyance) i really caused a scratching head to myself caused by anything related with females because female as a whole is just a mere object according to most male around the world. (Breathing and hissing in anger) it would be pitiful for all female people because of misusing the word her and hers in the past. The word her is one of the most annoying word ive ever seen because of underuse word of hers. (screaming) 114.122.105.134 (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

They both (her and his, or hers and him) get the same amount of use, though, as Wakuran pointed out. Look:

possessive	dative	determiner
hers	her	her
his	him	his

It's irregular, but it's balanced.  Card Zero  (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

114, the unequal treatment of women is a real problem in the world, and that behaviour is partly mediated and supported by language: thus far I agree with you. But the relevant features of language are nearly all in vocabulary, not in grammar (one exception is the traditional use of masculine pronouns to refer to a person or persons in general). What you perceive as a lack of parallel between the treatment of masculine and feminine pronouns is not salient to most people, and your repeated reference to "misuse" is tendentious. I suggest you find a battle that is worth fighting, rather than something where most people won't even understand wht you are trying to say. ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Calling this English oddity "sexist" is really a stretch. Maybe overthinking by a non-native English speaker? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how this is sexist either. It's just the fact that her can be used in multiple grammatical contexts and hers would be wrong in those.

Asparagusus (interaction) 23:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The English language has no genitive, but the possessive is sometimes referred to as the genitive. I am unable to assign a meaning to the statements that the word hers is defeated by the word her in genitive term, and that they are currently phasing out the word her on genitive. These words are used now just the same way as they were a century ago.  --Lambiam 23:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Ahh (anger) why the determiner and dative are both her?! Huh huh?!?!?! I am really annoying now because the word her is very bad at all in my opinion if not the wordst english in the universe. I will use hers in determiner even if its incorrect. Curse you card zero. I will try fix that mistake. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (screaming on top of lung due to annoyance to the word her.) Whats happening in the world that someone use her same as him and his? More like degrading the reputation the women as a whole in english speaking world. I cant even make jokes in this section because its prohibited! Why they even ignoring the word hers in everyday typing the computer usage? 114.122.107.129 (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with computer usage. It is just the English language. A child may say, "Where's Mommy? I don't see her." If instead she says, "Where's Mommy? I don't see hers", her siblings or playmates will likely correct her grammar. Screaming at the child will not contribute to the abolishment of the word her, which, as far as I know, does not annoy anyone in the world except you.  --Lambiam 07:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The IP has aptly demonstrated an underdeveloped ability to write English sentences in general. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't understand what many editors have been trying to explain to you. However, you cannot just accuse an entire language of being sexist. English (both modern and not) has been around for a very long time. Hers would simply not be correct in the contexts that her is. Just because you don't get something, it doesn't mean that you get to yell at people who are helping and ignore the facts that they are telling you. Good luck with English.

Asparagusus (interaction) 23:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

This may be relevant: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 January 7#Why are there hymns but not hers?. 2A00:23A8:4015:F500:5505:1061:B999:241B (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

A related question: Why are their hernias, but not himnias? --Jayron32 12:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Then there's the matter of the lesser-known Asian mountains, the Heralaya Range. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Is the OP saying, given that you would never say Susan house (rather than Susan's house), that her house is wrong in the same way, and somehow dehumanizing? I wonder what is OP's first language. —Tamfang (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Japanese translation request

A photo of a fossil in a museum in Japan, Cladophlebis nebbensis - National Museum of Nature and Science, Tokyo - DSC07005.JPG, [1] is in Wikimedia Commons. The photo contains a description in Japanese written by the museum curators, which is visible at the bottom of the photo (next to fossil's the Latin genus/species name Cladophlebis nebbensis). I am hoping that the Japanese text may include details of the fossil's age and the location where it was found. Can anyone tell me a translation in English, please? GeoWriter (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Eirikr: as the most-recently-active Japanese-speaking user I know. (The description looks to be just a few words long.) -sche (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

My Japanese is very limited, but that description doesn't look like an actual text, as it lacks any hiragana. I don't think it mentions anything about the age, although I could at least make out the word Yamaguchi Prefecture. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Over the kanji characters (in the parenthesis in the top line and in the bottom line) we see furigana, "small print" hiragana indicating their pronunciation. Especially the furigana on the bottom line is not sharp enough to be easily legible for someone not used to reading Japanese. Apart from the kanji character 三 meaning "three" but here possibly the beginning of a proper noun, there are no numeral characters, so there appears to be no indication of the age. The top line reads (if I made no mistakes) "kuradofurebisu (shidashokufutsu/shidarui)". Clearly, kuradofurebisu is a transcription of Cladophlebis. I have no clue about the meaning of the parenthesis and am happy to leave the deciphering of the bottom line to others.  --Lambiam 22:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the first half of the bottom line is the age. The second half is 山口県 Yamaguchi Prefecture 美祢市 Mine city 大嶺 (not totally sure about the last kanji, too blurred; probably means 大嶺町, a town in Mine city), giving the location. —Kusma (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

And the time period is 三畳紀後期, which probably means "late Triassic period". Disclaimer: I don't actually know Japanese, but I can read Chinese and decipher kanji. —Kusma (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

This is consistent with this entry in the museum's database of specimens. So it appears that the specimen is from Yamaguchi Prefecture Asa-gun, Asa-cho Yamanoi, Mine unit. The geologic age is given in the database as just "Triassic", which is 三畳紀 in Japanese.  --Lambiam 22:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The furigana over the last character seem to be みね, "mine". That may make the last two characters 大嶺, Ōmine. There is a town by that name, which is part of Mine City.  --Lambiam 23:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC) — Sorry, I did not see that Kusma had already come up with this theory; the furigana corroborates it.  --Lambiam 23:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

No need to apologise, I sneakily edited my answer. Good to see that we agree. —Kusma (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, what's a few 50 million years in the long run of things, anyway? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

For シダ “shida” see wikt:しだ, meaning “fern.” —Amble (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you. This information is very helpful to me. GeoWriter (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to @-sche for the ping!

Here's the label text and translation and commentary.

Source	クラドフレビス（シダ(植しょく物ぶつ)／シダ類(るい)） Cladophlebis nebbensis (三さん畳じょう紀き後こう期き)／(山やま口ぐち県けん)(美み祢ね市し)(大おお嶺みね)
Transcription (Romaji)	Kuradofurebisu (shida shokubutsu / shida rui) Cladophlebis nebbensis Sanjōki kōki / Yamaguchi-ken Mine-shi Ōmine
Target	Cladophlebis ( Pteridophyte / Polypodiopsida) Cladophlebis nebbensis Late Triassic / Ōmine, Mine City, Yamaguchi Prefecture
Comments	The parenthetical text is literally "fern plant / fern class". Binomial name. Date / where found. Ōmine was formerly an independent town, which merged with other nearby municipalities in 1954 to form Mine City. Part of that area is still serviced by the Minami-Ōmine Station.

Happy to field any questions, just ping me.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Very comprehensive. Thank you. GeoWriter (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! For the benefit of future editors I added this information to the file (File:Cladophlebis nebbensis - National Museum of Nature and Science, Tokyo - DSC07005.JPG). -sche (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Egyptian "alphabetical" order

In our entries on the stages of Egyptian writing, e.g. Transliteration of Ancient Egyptian and Demotic (Egyptian), uniliteral signs are "ordered alphabetically" (in the words of the first of those articles) such that, for example (skipping the first few signs to get to ones that have consistent transliterations), the sign transliterated b (𓃀) is followed by p (𓊪), then f (𓆑), then m (𓅓). What is the basis for this order? Is it found in Egyptian sources, the way there are Runic inscriptions that give the alphabetical order of Runic ("f u þ a r k g...")? Or is it modern convention, in which case, what is it based on, since it doesn't match the Latin or Coptic or e.g. Hebrew or Arabic (other Afroasiatic languages') alphabets? -sche (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Gardiner's 1927 Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs has on page 27 a table entitled "The Alphabet". This table uses the same order. Gardiner's grammar being considered a standard reference, others apparently have followed suit(e). Gardiner does not present an explanation or rationale for this order.  --Lambiam 21:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

It predates Gardiner's book. Budge (1899) uses a very similar order (if not identical; I didn't check too closely): [2]. On the other hand, the table given in Champollion's 1822 letter to Dacier was clearly ordered in a way consistent with Greek/Latin. I don't know whether the order originated with Budge or existed before that, but it could probably be determined by reading enough old books.

I found one book that dubiously states that the order is based on frequency of usage [3]. The same author also claims that Egyptian is the source of all Semitic languages [4], when it's not even Semitic but a cognate Afro-Asiatic language, so I was skeptical. However, I wrote some code to test this hypothesis [5] and it does not seem to explain the data very well. In order of frequency in a corpus I found, the letters are ntjwrmꜣspḥꜥḫfbḏkdṯšzẖqhg, although this could vary (to a relatively small degree) using different methodology. As a way of formalizing disagreement between two alphabetical orders, we can use the Kendall tau distance. The Kendall tau distance between the frequency order and the standard order is 94 (normalized: ~0.34). For comparison, the Kendall tau distance between abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz and etaoinshrdlcumwfgypbvkjxqz is 126 (normalized: 0.39). While the distance of 94 is still better than random chance, and in fact only ~1.5% of the time would you get an agreement that good by chance with random permutations of 24 items, it still is clearly not just a frequency ordering. The distance between the corpus-based frequency ordering I computed and one I found in an older paper was only 9; and the distance between my ordering and that of letters in Egyptian headwords (ignoring word frequency) on Wiktionary is still only 21.

What actually seems to be going on is that signs are being arranged in phonological groups. Perhaps early on in the deciphering of Egyptian it was not clear the difference between different versions of h, for example, and so they were all lumped together. The phonology might even represent the Egyptological pronunciation rather than an accurate reconstruction of ancient speech. Anyway, here are the groups:

• (ꜣ j ꜥ w): everything "vowel-like".
• (b p f); /b/ and /p/ are both bilabial plosives, and /f/ is considered similar as well, e.g. /p/ and /f/ are represented by different variants of the same letter in Hebrew.
• (m n): nasals.
• (r): apparently stands on its own.
• (h ḥ ḫ ẖ).
• (z s š): all basically alveolar fricatives.
• (q k g): velar and uvular plosives.
• (t ṯ d ḏ): variations of dental plosives.

It's not clear to me why this order of groups was chosen, but the groupings themselves seem pretty natural. The particular order within each group of the standard order doesn't seem to reflect any consistent phonological principle either. For example voiced /b/ precedes voiceless /p/, while voiceless /k/ precedes voiced /g/. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)