Language desk
< October 5	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 7 >

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.

October 6

Dutch spellings of place names

On the List of cities, towns and villages in Drenthe the place names Zeyerveen and Zeyerveld appear thus, but in the Dutch Wikipedia are spelled on their respective pages nl:Zeijerveen and nl:Zeijerveld. Are both versions acceptable? What dictates the choice between spellings? if one is more current, should the pages indicate the older version "until [year]" or is this a sweeping change in Dutch orthography reform that needs no particular mention? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on IJ (digraph) discusses this. They are basically just variants of the same letter, although "ij" is preferred in "proper" Dutch. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article most certainly does not say that. In modern Dutch, the letter Y, which is separate from IJ (and has been so since at least the 19th century), only occurs in foreign loanwords. The above mentioned spellings are therefore archaic, and should be changed. EDIT: To more completely answer the OP, there isn't any need to indicate a change date, as there would have been a gradual change in spelling, and this is common in all such place names. Fgf10 (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, both Google Maps and Open Street Map use the spellings "Zeijerveen" and "Zeijerveld" in their labels. Deor (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of the sentence

May I know the meaning of the following sentence:

        She observed that it is getting late.

Does it have only one meaning "She noticed that she was getting late." or some other meaning also? 14.139.82.6 (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Sukhada[reply]

There are a couple problems here.

First, the sentence is grammatically wrong. It should read "She observed that it was getting late." 'Observed' and 'was' agree with each other but 'observed' and 'is' don't.

Second, the sentence you provided and the sentence you have in quotes do not necessarily mean the same thing. The first sentence, in general, means that it was getting late in the day. Possibly too late to get something done or too late to still be at work/out at a social function/etc. The second sentence, the one you have in quotes, means that she was running late for something or that she needed to be somewhere else and would arrive after some agreed upon time. Dismas|^(talk) 10:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, she may have been observing a clock with batteries on low power, resulting in the clock losing an increasing amount of time. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the syntactical problems you didn't ask about, "to observe" can also mean to state something. See meaning 3 at wikt:observe.
So she could be saying "It's getting late". Rojomoke (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so, but if it's indirect speech, as it is, the tenses still need to agree as per Dismas. If it were direct speech, then it could be She observed, "It's getting late". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by others here, "getting late" could mean late in the daylight hours or late at night or approaching some kind of deadline. And "observed" can mean either watching or commenting. Without more of the text, we can't tell. Although it reminds me of these two Yogiisms: "You can observe a lot just by watching." And in reference to the sun angle in Yankee Stadium's left field in the autumn, "It gets late early out there." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name for this phrasing structure

What's the term for phrasing FAQs (and other documentation) in a personalized way, e.g. "Q. I want to find answers to factual questions. A. Visit the reference desk".

I'm sure there's a name for it, but I got lost in dozens of tabs branching out from grammatical voice and E-Prime. >.<

Once the name is known, I can find the studies about how it's beneficial to use this writing structure in documentation (which I'm also sure I've seen somewhere, but need the keyword to find it again!). This is related to a question at Help talk:Contents#I not want "I want" about the way we're phrasing each of the headers in the Help:Contents page. Thanks! –Quiddity (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective versus objective? μηδείς (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I was thinking there was a more specific term, possibly in Educational or User-Interface-design specific terminology? The only alternative I can conjure up is "1st person call to action", but I thought there was something better. Thanks anyway. –Quiddity (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you may be right, don't assume my answer is anywhere near the best, although it fits as a starting point. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quiddity -- It's somewhat of a repurposing of the structure of old catechisms, but I don't know that there's a snappy linguistic name for it... AnonMoos (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the best films of this or any year"

There have been probably hundreds of movies that have been lauded as "one of the best films of this or any year".

One of the best of this year, that claim I can accept (in some cases). But when they add "or any", are they not claiming it's one of the best films ever made? In the entire history of cinema?

If not that, what is it we're supposed to be believing? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, that's what they're claiming. Of course you're not obliged to agree. --Trovatore (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it should be phrased "or any other year". But that's another issue. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it? Logically it's the same. --Trovatore (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistically, it's a clunker to present two alternatives, one of which is a subset of the other, at least IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's more fundamentally wrong than that. A film made in 2013 might be the best film of 2013, and it might even be the best film of all time, but it will never, never be the best film of 2012, 2011, 2010 .....1977, 1976, 1975 ..... 1946, 1945, 1944 .... because it is not a member of any of the sets of films made in any of those years. A proper claim might be "the best film of the past decade", or even "the best film, not just of this year, but of all time", but the trite formulation the parrot-like idiots trot out unthinkingly is meaningless. That's why I asked the question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Leonard Maltin annual movie guide has well over 10,000 entries, but let's suppose it's an even 10,000 and that the number of films alleged to be among the all-time best is 1,000. 10 percent is stretching the concept of "all time best" pretty far - but even that concept leaves 90 percent which aren't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The redundant use of "this or any" is just an intensifier used as a marketing device. It is similar to expressions such as "forever and ever".--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, what comfort can I find?/None this tide/Nor any tide/Except he did not shame his kind/Not even with that wind blowing, and that tide.

I suspect it's used as a way of avoiding "of all time", which is overused and hyperbolic in the extreme. It's silly to talk of the best film "of all time", because it's a medium that's only existed for a bit over a century. "All time" is a bit longer than that. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of dispute your reasoning. Our List of longest-reigning monarchs says This is the list of the longest-reigning monarchs of all time .... Obviously, we know nothing of any monarchs before recorded history, so "all time" here refers to the period during which we know there have been monarchs. Likewise, the greatest films of all time refers to the period since they first started making films, because it would be pointless to consider any period before then.

But that gets to the nub of the question. Do these people making these claims seriously expect us to believe that virtually every second movie made is greater than almost any of the hundreds of thousands of other movies ever made previously? Does anyone pay any attention to such puffery? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they necessarily mean "of all time". It could be one of the best films of this year simply because the competition happens to be particularly bad. Instead, they say it would be among the best in any year, meaning it's a good film, not just better than the rest. On the other hand, the statement does not necessarily imply that they expect the film to have the long-term effect that would make it one of the best films ever. --Wrongfilter (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I'm getting it. It's so good that, not only is it one of the best of this year, but it would have been among the leading contenders in any other year regardless of the competition, had it been made in any other year, which it wasn't. That's an extremely weird and pointless claim to make, and it's no wonder I could never see it. It is still tantamount to saying it's among the best films ever made, which is a claim I expect to hear very, very infrequently, not a dozen times a year. Thanks for the enlightenment, I think. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think you need the counterfactual, really. Saying that it's the best film in set X means that, for any film f in X, the film in question is better than f (unless it is f). The "any year" part just means that you're considering f to range over the films from all years. Makes perfect sense to me.

As far as being surprised to hear the claim a dozen times a year that a film is the best of all time — really, that surprises you? --Trovatore (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, yes it does. I know only too well how film plaudits have become an art form in their own right, and I read reviews to glean the latest developments in said art. Not that I necessarily believe all of them, or even any of them, because to do so would mean spending all your time and money at the movies, and when everything is so superlative, that means nothing is so superlative. Plaudits themselves can be entertainment enough, without ever leaving the house except to buy the paper, or pick it up from the front yard. That's all good, and it's a necessary part of the marketing process, without which they may as well never make the films in the first place. But it is a total abrogation of the (?) plaudist's/plauditor's art and skill to make such a stupid claim as comparing a film to others. At all. Even to others made just this year, let alone to all others made in the past 100-odd years. It's empty, hollow, meaningless, untestable, and incredibly lazy and boring and vacuous. It's the film equivalent of "My Dad's better than yours. - No, mine's better than yours". If they can't think of anything more substantial to say about the movie than that, they should get out of the plaudit industry and go and mow lawns or pluck chickens for a living or something. Yes, it does surprise me. If I were a film maker, I would be ashamed and embarrassed to have my quality product associated with such a jejune claim as "the best film of this or any year", and I would insist it play no part in any marketing campaigns. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"dark L"

The previous question about "Camberwell" brought up again this notion of "dark L", which I've never really understood. The dark l article suggests (a little unclearly) that American /l/ is always "dark", which might explain why I wouldn't get the distinction. What does a "clear" /l/ sound like? --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American ells are dark at the end of syllable with back vowels, like gold and fool. The ell of well might be dark in some dialects, but it isn't in mine. μηδείς (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that doesn't help much. I can't tell whether my "well" has a "dark l" or not, based on the descriptions given and even the sound files in the articles. --Trovatore (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the article is saying. This much I know from observations: Most Americans pronounce "well" with the trailing L enunciated. Some, especially in certain east coast areas, pronounce it the way Elmer Fudd would, with a trailing L that sounds more like a W. Some Brits say it that way too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dark ell, or the velarized ell is pronounced without the tip of the tongue touching the front of the roof of the mouth. The ells in lick and hell are dental (or apical, or whatever term you like) and in them the tongue touches behind the upper teeth. The Fudd ell (and arr) is velarized, often to the point of becoming a semivowel (w). Amewicans don't do that. μηδείς (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, but I think I do touch the roof of my mouth with my tongue when saying "gold" and "fool" (at least, carefully), and you say those are dark. --Trovatore (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may, but with the middle of the tongue to the roof of the mouth, not with the tip of the tongue to the back of the teeth. (Gold's not the best example, in fact it's a bad example, since the dee sound itself requires the tongue touching behind the teeth, itself being a dental.) You can say fool without the tongue even touching the roof of the mouth at all. Try conrasting "lick" and "fool" for a good example. μηδείς (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's some help I guess. I can't manage to render "fool" without touching the tongue, though. --Trovatore (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could if you pronounced it more like "foo". As with "goad" for "gold". That's not at all unusual for some east coasters and southerners. Not so in the Midwest. If someone talks like Elmer Fudd in the Midwest, it's probably an actual speech impediment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A much better example is milk for the dark ell. Be aware also that in English these sounds are allophones, and it is often possible to pronounce a light ell where in normal speech you would find a dark ell without noticing the difference. In Russian, however, they are separate consonants. I once pronounced the name of the city L'viv to a Russian speaker with a dark ell, and she had no idea what I was speaking about. The apostrophe in the spelling indicates it is a palatalized light ell. You will also find you can say the ool in "fool" clearly with the tip of your finger on the cusp of your tongue, but you cannot say lick properly this way. μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every now and then someone mentions to me that "Don" did or said this or that, and I can't figure out who is being named, until it occurs to me that it's actually Dawn. --Trovatore (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's called the caught-cot merger, and it's typical of the West and some areas of the North and Midwest. The merger occurs in Boston, where the caught vowel is generalized. (My Nephews get yelled at when they call my sister "mawm", as in Somerset. In the west the "Don" vowel is generalized. This is a little different from an allophone, since allophones differ without causing a distinction of meaning. (Saying "milk" with a light ell may sound odd or accented, but it won't be mistaken for another word.) In the caught-cot merger, the words are distinct phonemes for speakers without the change, and there is confusion if someone says Dawn, caught and bought for Don, cot and bot. I once worked as a receptionist for about a year, and got in trouble when I told potential advertising callers who wanted Don that we had no one named "Dawn" in the sales department. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose they did not understand also because the city is named in Russian as L’vov.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually it was in a American business setting. As her account manager I asked for her last address, which she said was Ukraine. I said, "Oh, I have an uncle in Lviv." She said, "Where?" I repeated, "Lviv" (I had never had occasion to say the name before--and grew up knowing it as Lvov in English) and she said, "OH, you mean L'viv!" and I said yes, "L'viv," once I heard her. I am sure nglish speakers find this impossible to follow. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those with the surname Ng would have no problem. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]