< September 10	Language desk archive	September 12 >

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< August	September	October >

September 11[edit]

What is the name of this decade?[edit]

We have the 60's, the 70's, the 80's and the 90's... but what do we call this decade?

There are a couple of web pages that seem to spectulate about this:

Slate.com: http://www.slate.com/id/2111435/

Blogcritics.org: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/15/142852.php

JSOnline:http://www2.jsonline.com/news/2000/y2k/jan00/ballot01123199.asp

But none of them seem to be confident in the answer.

Can someone help resolve this once and for all?

--- JAMES ---

If we haven't come up with a consensus by this point, then we might as well wait for the next century. ;) Durova 02:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed here before somewhat recently. Regardless of what one thinks "should" be the name, I don't think there's any standardized usage yet. AnonMoos 02:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Post-Nineties decade, perhaps? -- RayBirks 02:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the "oughtas" since things haven't gone the way they "should oughta."Edison 04:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever becomes colloquial in a few decades. It would possibly stick for the centuries range. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

When I asked the question before, the answer seemed to be that 'noughties' was the most common term. But I prefer 'naughties'. DirkvdM 06:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.... --Proficient 06:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See noughties. I mean 2000s.--Shantavira 08:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the 2000's

See FAQs--Light current 22:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPA synthesizer[edit]

Is there any software program that converts IPA text into speech?

Thanks,

lots of issues | leave me a message 09:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody asked this exact question on the LJ Linguaphiles group a week or so ago. Maybe it was you. I'll go get the answer from there anyways. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 09:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It totally wasn't Linguaphiles, it was conlangs, but whatever. This link was given, though I'm not sure how close they get to IPA with their research. Wow, I just tried it out the demo, and it's pretty damn convincing! freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 10:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, this demo, but the input is not IPA. What if you have [hɛːn wlaːd vənˈhadaɨ] as input? --Lambiam ^Talk 16:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until they release a more customizable demo! freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 01:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OT, but what do you mean [vənˈhadaɨ]? Surely [vəṇadaɨ] (where I don't really mean /ṇ/, but an unvoiced /n/, for which I can't find the symbol on the editing page). ColinFine 22:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be /n̥ /, I think. -- the GREAT Gavini 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever people start talking about IPA, I find little dirty specks on my screen and I can never get them off. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 12:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copied these specific specks from page Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau. Not being familiar with Welsh phonology, I didn't realize it was wrong. --Lambiam ^Talk 17:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf thought[edit]

Hi!
I've got an unusual question: What does a person born deaf think in? I mean most people will "think" in their native language. My question is what would a deaf person think in, and does a lack of a language to think in impair the deaf person's ability to learn? --Fir0002 10:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I would guess they would think in Sign Language, if they know that, or maybe in writing, if they only know a written language. People with no language skills apparently think in pictures, which does greatly limit their ability to think about anything abstract. StuRat 10:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)If they learned it during the critical childhood period, they think and dream in sign language. WP's article on language acquisition mentions an example illustrating how natural sign language is to human beings lacking the sense of hearing.---Sluzzelin 10:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely thought is much more to do with imagination than language. Although language helps to refine certain specific types of thought process, thoughts would be very very slow if they had to be articulated as words.--Shantavira 11:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we all have "inner monologues", which (certainly for myself) often manifests itself in a kind of "voice" that kind of "speaks" in English. Certainly, when I am reading a book I can frequently almost hear myself reading along, with my voice, in English. If this is the common experience of those of us who can hear, what do deaf people "read along" in? Batmanand | Talk 11:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so! That's just what I'm asking! Like if I was going to be making a cake (for example) I'd be thinking in my head "how many eggs? Ok 6. Damn! Bit of eggshell fell in! I'll get a spoon. There's no clean ones. Why is there never any clean spoons..." etc. And I'm thinking particularly with a young child. Would that make it hard for the child plan ahead etc? To scheme and judge things? It's a very intersting concept IMO! --Fir0002 11:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well as long as the deaf person can read, then they have the vocabulary they need.--Shantavira 12:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sign languages have their own vocabulary, grammar and their own writing systems. They don't always correspond closely to English or any other spoken language. Because of this, not all deaf people find written English (or any other spoken language) easy to read. But their cognition is linked to their native (sign) language in a similar way that a hearing person's cognition is linked to his/her native language.---Sluzzelin 12:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People usually think in images (visually), I don't see why deaf people couldn't. When language is involved, I guess they'd think in writing or sign language. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have never thought without words? When I read or count, and some other activities, I can do so without "an inner voice." Some people think in numbers, or shapes. I always think it would be interesting to think in music. That would be a fun day. "Day of Mac, in C minor." — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

My condolences, Mac. C minor is too heavy and doom-laden a key to have a whole day in. Why not modulate your day into E flat major, now that's something worth celebrating! JackofOz 20:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linguist Steven Pinker says we don't think in English or French or German but in "mentalese." We "translate" from mentalese to English or American Sign Language or whatever when we want to say something. This is why, in Pinker's view, our thoughts do not depend on the language we use with others; thus, Newspeak wouldn't work. -- Mwalcoff 23:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that makes sense, and that you have to translate the mentalese inte more concrete matters such as language, images, music etc. to be able to grasp it. 惑乱分からん 00:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note there's an 'image' in 'imagine'. Fir0002, surely you can picture what's in your mind? :) I am constantly surprised by how even scientists think that thought depends on language. I suppose it's a way to believe that humans are unique in that we can think, because we have language. But then you'd have to assume other animals don't have language, which they do. Language is symbolism. It doesn't matter much what kind of symbols are used. Then again, I can imagine that people who have a good understanding of mathematics will have a different view on life. But can one understand mathematics without the written symbolism we're used to? Or does the language(s) we speak influence the way we think? But then the question is which is better and in which sense? Are, say, Chinese better at certain things and wors at others because of the language they speak? And are multilinguists more inteligent? (Now there's something I'm particularly interrested in.) DirkvdM 06:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can certainly imagine when I think ;-). But particularly when I'm planning something I'll have a litte inner voice talking my thoughts aloud. See I would think without being able to go through something in my head I wouldn't be able to think in the future. Now for a young child who hasn't comprehensively learned sign language, would that make them more "on the spot" thinkers - unable to plan? --Fir0002 10:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese kids are better at arithmetics than French children, because the words for the numbers are closer to the decimal system's logic in Chinese than they are in French which has words such as 'four-twenties-ten-nine' for 99.----84.75.129.157 09:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed 惑乱分からん 15:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quattre vingt dix neuf. And you may quote me on that. DirkvdM 04:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know quite well how the French count, what was suspicious was that their numerical system is the same decimal-based Roman numbers the rest of the world is using, and it doesn't have any direct connection to the French words for certain numbers. There shouldn't be any inherent difficulty or incongruence between Roman numbers and arithmetics. 惑乱分からん 14:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is emerging evidence that incidence of dyslexia is correlated to the native language of the sufferer, with native English speakers the most heavily represented. The data isn't complete, nor has it been analysed fully, but some interpretations include the notion that language affects brain development, or that modern high rates of dyslexia are correlated to new methods of teaching English (whole language learning, anybody?). Anchoress 18:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexic people also seem to be risktakers, ending up either rich or in prison. Now if we look at the US .... DirkvdM 04:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviorists discounted the importance of thought. Behavior was supposed to be the result of conditioned responses. "Thought" was just small movements of the vocal apparatus. Supposedly someone did the "crucial experiment" of having curare administered so he couldn't move a muscle, and being given artificial respiration until the drug wore off, and found he could still think while completely paralyzed. Yet there is truth to it: I certainly engage in internal speech. That there is a motor component to it is shown by my experience that when thinking of a song, and being careful to not subvocalize the melody, a richness of imagined tone is lost. Electromyography experiments back this up. Edison 17:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a related question...is a room full of deaf people signing to each other "noisy"? Adam Bishop 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To a deaf person, I wouldn't be surprised if it was referred to that way. I heard that a deaf with shaky fingers was "stammering", for instance... 惑乱分からん 18:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is speech in sign language processed in the same way as gestures, or as speech in spoken language? (if you know what I mean) Linguofreak 03:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, different from both, I'd guess. Probably processed as sign language. 惑乱分からん 14:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly has made a great conversation. But tell me - does anyone know a born-deaf person who can put their perspective on this? --Fir0002 10:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do. He thinks in pictures. Not pictures of sign language or words, but actual images. Some hearing people do this too; Pierre Trudeau, for instance, wrote in his memoirs that he normally thought only in images. Instead of thinking "I'll go to the office", he imagined himself walking to the office.

I called my deaf friend to ask him about the reading part. When my deaf friend reads, he doesn't hear or imagine anything. He's completely involved in the words. --Charlene.fic 18:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! users[edit]

How many users are there in the Yahoo! network? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.16.64 (talk • contribs)

I think the public figures are around 200 million registered users and a much larger number of users. See this estimate for an example. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, why are you asking this question at the language reference desk? Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 13:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking this at Wikipedia. Surely Yahoo! has the better info about their own business. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C. G. Jung's anagram[edit]

I have read several analyses on C. G. Jung's famous anagram (all of them in German, e.g. this site), but I couldn't find any small selection of actual, heuristically understandable suggestions. The anagram can be found at the end of Jung's Septem Sermones Ad Mortuos and goes: ANAGRAMMA: NAHTRIHECCUNDE GAHINNEVERAHTUNIN ZEHGESSURKLACH ZUNNUS. Does anyone know of any 'good' (as in close to evident) suggested solutions out there? (I posted the same question on the German Wikipedia reference page, but am asking it here too, since many people with good answers read this page). Thanks. Pat83.78.191.142 14:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhi[edit]

Hi. How is Sandhi pronounced? (in IPA if possible). Its spelling is ambiguous in English. --Estrellador* 16:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather from our wonderful Sanskrit article, /sändʰi/. I think. -- the GREAT Gavini 17:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're speaking English, in which case it's /ˈsʌndi/ or /ˈsændi/. --Ptcamn 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Better add those to the article. --Estrellador* 20:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I also listed the pronunciation I was taught, with an /ɑ/. — Jéioosh 03:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phrase[edit]

Where does the phrase "let's blow this joint" come from? For that matter, where to the terms "blow" (meaning leave) and "joint" (meaning building) themselves come from? Black Carrot 21:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary says only that both terms are American slang. The first quotation the OED has for joint used in this sense is from 1821, and the first occurance it lists of blow in this context is in the phrase blew the joint, from 1902. I suppose the phrase was coined in America sometime in the 19th century, but I don't know any other details. Philbert^2.71828 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was "joint" used as a slang term for marijuana in the 19th century? I've always extrapolated the meaning of "let's blow this joint" when used to mean "let's leave here" to have originally meant "let's [finish] this cigaweed [so we can leave this place]", though I'm not sure if anyone would have said/meant that more than a hundred years ago. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 01:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joint isn't quoted in the OED as referring to marijuana until sometime in the mid 20th century. I can't quite tell from the dictionary entry, but the first quote using joint to mean a marijuana cigarette is either from 1967 or 1952. In either case, it looks like blow this joint would not have been interpreted to refer to marijuana in the 19th century. Philbert^2.71828 01:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that joint in this term refers to the American slang for a place where something illegal is going on (originally an Opium den, apparently); the OED refers to an 1821 use of the term "I slipt the joint", and this seems to be intimately related.Ziggurat 04:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the OED def. Philbert. So I guess that leaves us only with Black Carrot's original translation, "Let's [get out of] this [place]". Puzzling. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 12:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the last thing we ever do-(hotclaws**== 21:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The Alan Price Set? Am I right?--Light current 22:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You all may want to read Juke joint. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ida & Shushumna in Devanigari[edit]

I've asked the question before but I lost the answer . How are these words written in devanigari ( they are nadis in yoga ) ? Hhnnrr 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For ida, see Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Language/2006 August 21#Devanagari ( Sanskrit ). For shushumna, I don't remember the question having been asked. --Lambiam ^Talk 06:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I only asked about " Ida " , " Shushumna is new question . ( By the way , how did you find the link above ? ) Hhnnrr 08:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Google search term [ida devanagari "reference desk" languages site:en.wikipedia.org] will do the job. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

simple subject vs. complete subject[edit]

I feel like a complete idiot. My son is doing some homework (he's in the third grade) and has to decipher between a "simple subject" and "complete subject". I consider myself somewhat intelligent. Boy, I have been humbled.

Help. --Kdsoell 22:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's break it down:

A simple sentance with only a simple subject and simple predicate would be as follows.

She is.

The simple subject is "She" and the simple predicate is "is." Let's make a more complex sentance:

Jane was happily striding.

The simple subject would be "Jane," and the simple predicate would be "was striding." Happily is left out because it describes the manner in which she was acting.

The complex subject would be "Jane," and the complex predicate would be "was happily striding."

Think of the subject as a noun, and the predicate as the verb. The complexity arises when you decide to add things that describe the verb and noun. Such s:

The incompetent pilot was shot down over Czechoslovakia.

The complex subject is "The imcompetent pilot" and the complex predicate is the rest. The simple subject and predicate are only "pilot," and "was shot down."

Ka-peesh? — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Your explanation makes some sort of sense, but I do not recall having met the terms in any of the many theories of grammar I have read about. Are they terms that somebody somewhere has defined, or are you guessing them? ColinFine 22:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This site [1] will give you a clear idea. --Tachs 10:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So it's some particular pedagogue's analysis. No wonder I hadn't heard of it. Note the clarity of thought on that site:

Question:  Do all sentences need both a subject and a predicate?
Yes, most complete sentences need both.

ColinFine 11:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]