Language desk
< February 8	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 10 >

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.

February 9

Plural of "series"

Is the plural of "series" simply "series"? For example, see the following sentences. (1.) Actor A starred in one television series. (2.) Actor B starred in three different television series. Is sentence #2 correct? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. StuRat (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes series, just like species and similar words from Latin, but I would trust StuRat's opinion more than wiktionary. ;) μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the historical origin, go to the Latin declension article, and look at the nominative singular and nominative plural forms of the 5th declension... AnonMoos (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maldonado

I terribly regret once telling a smart but uneducated immigrant neighbor of mine, who, knowing I spoke several languages, asked me the etymology of his last name, Maldonado. I told him that it almost certainly meant "badly given" which I told him probably meant one of his ancestors was condemned or a bastard. He was obviously heartbroken, and I learned shortly afterwards he had returned to his homeland dying of AIDS from an intravenous drug habit. Looking for the etymology now, I see several googled sources including wiktionary that give the "badly given" etymology and suggest it means "ill-favored" among other things. It is comforting to see my speculation is perhaps not far off, although I still wish I had remained silent, but the sources seem to lack references. Can anyone provide a better, referenced etymology? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I am curious whether donatus could have the sense of given in both "the slave was given a meal" and "the slave was given to another master". Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use "donatus" like that, in the sense of "a meal was given to the slave" ("cena [or whatever] servo donata est"). Isn't this a peculiarly English construction? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "Somebody gave a meal to him" to "A meal was given to him by somebody" is a perfectly ordinary type of passivization. Changing "Somebody gave a meal to him" to "He was given a meal by somebody" is a less usual type of passivization (though not confined to English); it does not occur in Latin... AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adam and Anon, that is why I asked. My study of Latin was only through the last chapter of Wheelock. That's what makes me wonder whether Maldonado is someone who was poorly given (something) or poorly given (to someone else), or whether maldonado is not actually an adjective describing the person bearing that surname at all. μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, remember that Latin has no perfect active participle, so "donatus" doesn't really mean "given", but "having been given". In this case, the person would have to be the thing given. I'm not sure how you'd describe someone who had received a bad gift, but it couldn't be with "donatus" (which would have to describe the gift, not the person). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry.com gives the "ill-favored" meaning, and I'm pretty sure they copy their entries from the Dictionary of American Family Names. Lesgles (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had the impression that it was a nativized version of MacDonald ! —Tamfang (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew-English relationship

This site (of questionable reliability) gives a brief essay on the supposed relationship between the Hebrew language and the English language, in particular covering alleged two- and three-letter etymological roots purported to exist... well, pretty much everywhere. The thing is, I'm almost certain the author of the essay is off-base entirely. A list is given of English words supposedly derived from Ancient Hebrew originals, but I am suspicious of ~~nearly~~ all of them. I'm wondering if anyone more proficient in linguistics than I can confirm my suspicion that the article I linked to is nothing but ill-informed nonsense. (Interesting note: I originally found the site while researching the idea that there was an etymological relationship between the English word "fruit" and the Hebrew פרי and its plural form פרות. That link has single-handedly almost managed to convince me that the similarity is a coincidence.) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English 'fruit' comes from the Latin word 'fructus' via French 'fruit'. They are all coincidences. This happens a lot in other languages, too. The Egyptian Arabic word for 'you' is 'anta', the same as the Osaka dialect Japanese word for 'you'. This does not mean those languages (or those dialects specifically) are related. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you're looking at is a particular pseudoscience called Edenics. It's certainly hooey. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Nostraticists would treat the three roots bar, gabh, and qal as possible cognates, since these roots exist in various other language families besides PIE and Afroasiatic. But bar is probably a Wanderwort as are many agricultural terms, and only qal which has cognates all across Eurasia strikes me as a real likely cognate. Almost all of the other proposed cognates (like yam and arm) are so superficial and ignorant as to be laughable, and indeed the Nostraticists and other believers in demonstrable long-distance relationships would find them risible. One plausible term out of one hundred mostly absurd suggestions is even worse than what one would expect by chance. μηδείς (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any relationship, it will be found by comparing the earliest reconstructable proto-Indo-European with the earliest reconstructable proto-Semitic / proto-Afroasiatic, and NOT by comparing modern English with Hebrew! Such a relationship is regarded by most linguists as not proven and not provable with currently-available data, and so as not a scientifically-useful hypothesis. However, there are some interesting very early "Mediterranean" loanwords (not necessarily originating in either Indo-European or Semitic) which show up in both languages, such as English "wine", Hebrew yayin יין; English "steer", Hebrew shor שור... AnonMoos (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. For the record, I am aware that fruit is derived from Latin, but I guess I was trying to ask about any possible Indo-European ancestor-word, in a roundabout and nonspecific way, since Hebrew obviously had no influence on Latin. In any case, thanks again for clarifying. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to emphasise a point already made: Hebrew is not in the Indo-European family, it is classified into the Afroasiatic family. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can clearly recognize so called "pseudo-linguistics", quite popular in the ex-USSR. I know other examples: all languages and their words came from Russian (Dragunkin); all languages and their words came from Turkic, including Russian of course (Murad Aji); all languages (and Russian in particular) came from Arabic (Vashkevich); all Russian words came from Circassian (anonymous from one internet forum); etc. etc., the list can be continued (see more in Russian). As well you can recollect Marr's theory about "proto-roots".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, some people are absolutely convinced that Vietnamese is not related to the Mon-Khmer languages but must be entirely Chinese. They accuse European scholars of racism, even though this position is derives from elitist nationalistic assumptions. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on "elitist nationalistic assumptions".

It's a matter of cultural perspective - the categorisation of tongues is just as much a cultural construct as the categorisation of people into races and ethnicities. What you see as elitist nationalistic assumptions, others will see as a justified emphasis of the cultural dimension of language, and they will see what you see as scientific rational linguistics as imposition of Western imperialist values in an attempt to divide the East Asian cultural sphere. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but in cases where sufficient evidence is available to validly apply linguistic methods, language relationships are not a matter of pure personal opinion, or a "social construct", or a matter for ultra-relativist post-modernist strong programme nonsense. We have an article Pseudoscientific language comparison. -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which contains the following weirdly-worded sentence: Even linguistically trained native speakers are not automatically experts in their own language, its dialectology and its history, and even professional linguists can impossibly be experts in large numbers of diverse languages and families, so consulting experts in the languages in question to help detect errors is urgently recommended.

Taking a breath is also urgently recommended. I'm assuming the bit I bolded means "even professional linguists cannot possibly be experts". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian English

On "The Big Bang Theory", Raj communicates with his parents in India via Skype, in English. Is English the everyday language of the Indian class that they belong to? Raj is an astrophysicist and his father is a gynecologist. RNealK (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of our article "Indian English" mentions "some families of full Indian ethnicity where English is the primary language spoken in the home", but doesn't seem to quantify how many, or which ones. Gabbe (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) My general impression is that most of the Indian upper class does speak English, though generally it is not their first language. I think there are only about a quarter million first-language English speakers in India. --Trovatore (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the everyday language of many Anglo-Indians, and possibly of some couples who come from different linguistic backgrounds (having English as their only common language). Otherwise, English is fairly widely known among educated people in India, but I'm not sure that it's the basic home/family language of very many. List of languages by number of native speakers in India gives the figure 226,449 in 2001... AnonMoos (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For all we know, Raj's parents might have spent their formative years studying in the UK or the US and so have gotten more used to communicating in English than their peers who did not do so. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine who grew up in an upper-class Brahmin family in Madras (her father was a doctor) said she and her siblings always spoke English with their father, though they spoke a mixture of Tamil and English with their mother. But Big Bang Theory is just a TV show; even if they showed a character from France, Russia, or Japan skyping with his parents they'd probably speak English together for the benefit of the audience! Angr (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just like in Slumdog Millionaire, when the kids get older, without having been to school nor had any education at all, they suddenly speak English. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We know from Star Trek that English is the universal language of, well, the universe. Only on Earth have beings been clever enough to invent other languages. --Trovatore (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if any unfortunate does not at first understand English, one simply needs to shout louder. 86.146.104.49 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that includes human babies. I blame later hearing loss on being regularly shouted at as babies by adults. They know the baby does not understand anything, including "kootchy koo", so they should know there's no point shouting it at them. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 40, and the youngest of three brothers, and my mother still shouts at me. She gets her education from Eastenders. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you by any chance have the same mother as Wolowitz? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

There are some similarities: I am currently staying, but not living with my mother, have no doctoral degree, and am certainly a ladies' man at times, as described in our Wikpedia article, Howard Wolowitz. I have never seen the show, so I cannot vouch, however, for the similarities between his mother and mine, if any. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the real-world rationalisations above, remember that The Big Bang Theory isn't aiming at total realism, it's a fictional entertainment show made primarily for an English speaking audience. If Raj and his relatives were shown conversing in Hindi (or some other Indian subcontinental language) the primary audience wouldn't know what they were saying (without resorting to subtitles). Having (what in this case only might be) foreign speech represented by (perhaps foreign-accented) English is a common dramatic device: see for example shows set in WW2 German POW camps, such as Hogan's Heroes - do the German characters speak in German to each other even in the absence of any Anglophones? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.100 (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen an episode in which Sheldon is worried that Raj might serve him "haggis or blood pudding" which (if I understand the joke correctly) suggests that Raj comes from the UK (?). Alansplodge (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they just needed some really over-the-top cliché of horrible food. At least for me, nothing Indian would come to mind in this context. If Sheldon had suggested bird's nests or monkey brains, it would have been racist. Haggis and blood pudding, on the other hand, are definitely not racist and create additional comical effect by their implausibility. Or maybe they had earlier knowledge of this? Hans Adler 15:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although he'd have to be in Scotland to sample the Indian haggis. If you're right, the joke makes less sense than I thought. Alansplodge (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it doesn't need to make sense, coming from Sheldon. If the joke were about D-branes, it would have to make sense. Cultural icons outside a sci-fi or gaming context, not so much. That might even be the point of the joke. --Trovatore (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hohum.... Alansplodge (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Haggis" is the answer to the question: "What is the Gross National Product of Scotland?". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be true, after the referendum. Alansplodge (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old Albanian

Hello, what time does the Old Albanian language span (over) and of what corpus is it consisting? Greetings HeliosX (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Albanian language and Fortson's Indo-European Language and Culture. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Old Albanian" (aside from a few names written down in classical texts) is not very old at all compared to the earliest attestations of most other branches of Indo-European, to the disappointment of linguists involved in reconstructing proto-Indo-European (who would be curious to know what the language was like in 500 A.D. or 500 B.C.)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advance(d) orders

In the context of home shopping, which should it be: "advanced orders" or "advance orders"? I know which one I think is right, but a major shopping channel disagrees. Multiple opinions would be welcome. 86.146.104.49 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Advance orders" are orders made in advance; "advanced orders" are orders which have been moved forward in some way... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I say "advance orders" since they are made in advance. To me, "advanced orders" would contrast with "elementary orders". Duoduoduo (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter of logic or grammar, only a matter of custom. If it was customary to say "advanced orders", the alternative would feel just as wrong to us as with the currently situation. Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic triliteral roots

A discussion above about word roots got me wondering. One of the sillier claims on that website is that the PR root is found in gRaPe, with letters reversed. If that's allowed, anything goes. However, in Arabic, there is an interesting example of letter reversal: K-T-B produces all sorts of words associated with writing, and more broadly, with organisation. Kuttab is a place for students, for example, and katibah is a battalion. Then if you reverse the letters, B-T-K gives bataka, or cut off. This implies separation of some sort. So there is at least some sense in which a reversal of the letters also produces the opposite meaning - organisation and combination versus disorganisation or separation. Is this just pure coincidence, or is reversal of word roots meaningful in Arabic? I don't mean to imply this would work for the sorts of examples in the link I gave (which crosses language boundaries), since I am talking about words confined to a single language. IBE (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the very few examples of root reversal (or apparent root reversal) is that the Arabic root z-w-j ز-و-ج gives jawz "couple". Otherwise, root reversal is not a meaningful derivational process in Semitic languages. In any case, there are few true biliterals in Hebrew... AnonMoos (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - your knowledge on the ref desks is impressive. I was rather suspecting it wasn't highly productive, since when you reverse the letters, the roots just sound "wrong", and I haven't found any examples when I've checked a dictionary. There seems to be a certain requirement for euphony, which counts against using letter reversals, although "euphony" in Arabic may sound like an oxymoron. IBE (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that "euphony" is a term used in modern linguistics, but there are well-known co-occurrence constraints on Semitic consonantal roots (roots having two consonants belonging to the same place of articulation are rather rare, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Future Past

I'm a bit confused and do not understand what aspect of these times: Future Past, Be going to, About to, Future Past.

Header text	past	present	future
The Simple Aspect (Indefinite Aspect)	simple past tense	simple present tense	simple future tense
The Perfect Aspect (Completed Aspect)	past perfect tense	present perfect tense	future perfect tense
The Progressive Aspect (Continuing Aspect)	past progressive tense	present progressive tense	future progressive tense
The Perfect Progressive Aspect:	past perfect progressive tense	present perfect progressive tense	future perfect progressive tense

Where their place?--82.81.168.23 (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 tenses in lines 2, 3, 4, and 5 of your message can be illustrated by these examples.

I understood, I understand, I will understand.
I had understood, I have understood, I will have understood.
I was understanding, I am understanding, I will be understanding.
I had been understanding, I have been understanding, I will have been understanding.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand what aspect of Future Past, Be going to, About to, Future Past. - it's simple aspect? etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.168.23 (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Which square I need to put the: Future Past, Be going to, About to, Future Past? like where is the future past - it's future and past....--82.81.168.23 (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "future past" do you mean referring to the future from the past (e.g. "a year later they would be married") or referring to the past from the future (e.g. "by then I will have finished it")? 86.146.104.49 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side comment in case English is not your first language. Wavelengths forms are perfect, but the verb "understand" is not used in the progressive aspect. does not mean "I am in the process of comprehending". In that sense it would simply be considered ungrammatical. See stative verb. "I am understanding" can be said, but it means I am sympathetic. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical aspect in English is actually more complicated than your table indicates. Both be going to and be about to can be seen as cases of the prospective aspect. Be going to indicates a relationship to action that is expected to start at some time in the future. Be about to suggests action that is expected to start almost immediately. So each expression indicates a slightly different aspect, though both can be classified as types of progressive aspect. Note that be about to can be formed in past, present, or future tense. For example, was about to..., is about to..., will be about to. Be going to can be formed in all three tenses, but will be going to is seldom used by native speakers, who would normally use the simple or progressive future instead. Marco polo (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wow you helped me a lot.thanks --82.81.168.23 (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also mention this: The above table has an entry "The Perfect Aspect (Completed Aspect)". This is not right -- the completed aspect is called the "perfective" aspect, not the "perfect". The perfect construction need not indicate that something is completed: for example, "I have lived here for five years" means that I still do live here. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]