Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 November 27

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.

November 27

Word correction

What is the correct word: Non-falsifiable or unfalsifiable.

Note: The word “unfalsifiable” displays red wavy line underneath it.

(Russell.mo (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC))

unfalsifiable works for me (literally – it doesn't display a wavy red line underneath so is accepted as a correct spelling).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Both words work for me in sentences I have, since you stated "works for me", a question arose in mind, Does it depend on how the sentence comes across, to use the the two words? I found out that I can use the two words in two sentences where if I 'vice versa' than it doesn't sound nice... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC))

For me there's no difference; others may hear a subtle difference in connotation or emphasis. —Tamfang (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a relief. Thanks. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC))

Resolved

Formal word sought

I am looking for the word “rotten(ed)” [displays red wavy line underneath it]. It’s not available in the English dictionary. Can anyone suggest a ‘formal word’ I can use instead of “rottened”?

(Russell.mo (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC))

Can you give an example of what meaning you intend to convey? What's wrong with "rotted", as in "the stump had rotted away"?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

An alternative depending on your meaning, to 'become rotten' might be to be 'corrupted'.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

To answer the original question, there is no such word as rottened. You have to say that something "has become rotten" or "has rotted". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh really?. Not to mention this highly reputable source. Next I suppose you'll be telling me there are no such words as cemertary, lifeaholic, transmish or mase. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Lol. I'm low on 'Mbs' I can't check it, I'll check it later. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC))

Leaving urban English to the young, it seems that rottened and rottening appear even in 18th and 19th century English. [1] [2] --Antiquary (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

And early 17th (para 18). --Antiquary (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the OED has cites covering over 500 years of use, though it does say "Chiefly U.S. regional and Caribbean in later use", which might explain why Microsoft doesn't recognise the verb. Dbfirs 12:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Old fashioned formal words works for me and will work as long as I live... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC))

Thanks peeps -- (Russell.mo (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC))

Resolved

---

Sentences: “Never hitten him for it either.”

Can I use tormented instead? A mother use to hit her child here. She used to hit him non-stop every evening because he never use to listen to her, for a month or so. Now she doesn’t because he listened and he does what she told him more often than she expected, and she can’t stop him from it either... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC))

I don't think "hitten" is a word. "Hit" would work. "Hitting non-stop every evening" works. I don't think "tormented" is the right word, even if it's true. It's more like "abused". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The sentences is, “Never hitten him for it either.” I need to change the embolden word to something else, matching it with the word hit I used previously. What you stated I wrote it earlier indifferently - I'll see if I can improve it later on today. - (Russell.mo (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC))

Sioux in German

While idly but briefly channel surfing last night I came upon a film called "Bury my Heart in Dresden". It was in English, but there was an introductory voiceover in German, with English subtitles. Fascinating story, but I didn't have time to listen past the first few minutes. When the German speaker said the word "Sioux", it sounded like "see ox". That intrigued me, because thanks to Westerns most English speakers learn early that the spelling is (Canadian) French and the x is silent. That is certainly true in French and English. But is it the case in German and other languages? The wider question, I suppose, is: when words with French orthography are referred to by non-francophones, what governs whether the conventions of French pronunciation are either adhered to or abandoned? Does it depend on the speaker needing to be aware that the word is of foreign origin and is not necessarily pronounced the way it looks, or does each language have its own rules?

Of course, the wider question is not just about French. Does any language pronounce the Italian "ciao" as "see-ay-oh", for example? Or play an instrument they call the "sello" or "kello"? The 3-syllable word "Giovanni" is converted to the 4-syllable "JEE-OH-vah-nee" by some Englischers, but I regard that as hypercorrection. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard an English speaker say "toilet" with the original French pronunciation (/twalɛt/). In Dutch we do pronounce it like French "toilette", as we generally try do with French loanwords. We do say "sello" though. - Lindert (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

We do, however, generally pronounce it that way when using the term "eau de toilette", which, I imagine, was adopted more recently. On the other hand, we do not pronounce "eau de Cologne" as ". . . Köln". We insist on being consistent in our inconsistencies. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.185} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Besides that it is a more recent borrowing I can see other reasons why "Eau de toilette" is not pronounced [oʊdə'tɔɪlɪt]. Contact Basemetal here 21:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What you heard my be that? Click the speaker symbols to listen. The only differents to natural speech is the Sioux is more higher like the "i" in file, and the speech could be litte faster. --Hans Haase (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

One factor in the specific case of the "Sioux" in German is probably the fact that along with the names of other Native American people it was popularized in Germany in the 19th century through the immensely popular adventure novels by Karl May, at a time when authentic knowledge about their true linguistic background was probably not wide-spread among their readers at all, so people would be quite likely to use German-based reading pronunciations for things they didn't understand. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume however Germans pronounce the name of this Sioux the same as English speakers? Contact Basemetal here 23:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The Duden (http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Sioux), which is the authorative source for German spelling and pronounciation, lists "ziuks" as the German pronounciation. It seems to be slowly supplanted by Su:, but the old pronouciation is certainly still widespread. I suppose similar to native English speakers still voicing the final 's' in Paris, despite knowing that it is silent in the original. 81.154.81.151 (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The word Paris has been part of the English language since before the final "s" got lost in French. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Where we get it wrong is emphasizing the first syllable instead of the second. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Only as "wrong" as the French calling London "Londres". Or us calling Napoli by the ridiculously pseudo-plural "Naples". Or calling Roma "Rome". Or calling Lisboa "Lisbon". Languages are permitted to have their own names for other countries (Germany, not Deutschland; China, not Zhongguo ...), and that has traditionally extended to foreign cities as well. (Rant alert: If the PC brigade can have a victory about Cote d'Ivoire (which most anglophones who've ever heard of it call "Ivory Coast"), what's next? Maybe we should always use Greek, Cyrillic, Japanese, Chinese, Korean and other non-Latin alphabets and characters when referring to places or people from those countries, because our paltry renderings in Latin script can never capture the true pronunciations and the feelings of our friends might be hurt.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't get carried away. Angr's statement implied that we had it right until the French stopped pronouncing the final "s". Unless the emphasis in English somehow switched from the second syllable to the first, we never did have it right. If we had dropped the trailing "s", we would be saying it "PAIR-ee" instead of "pahr-EE". P.S. "Ivory Coast" is correct. Cote d'Ivoire is an abomination. I'm surprised they didn't demand we rename "Egypt" to "Misr" or whatever it is. Thankfully, Wikipedia is inherently not a reliable source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Why an "abomination"? Why can't the "Côte d'Ivoire" camp be tolerant of the "Ivory Coast" camp and vice versa? Is it unthinkable to have two names for a country? Some country names in English use the native name and some are translations. How about "Ecuador". Does it need to become "Equator" to satisfy you? (Does happen. E.g. in French it is translated: "Équateur"). Is it an "abomination" that it's "Ecuador"? Is it an abomination that "Bengla Desh" is called that and not "Bengal Land"? The country today known as "Belarus" was always called in English "Belorussia". It was part of the USSR, but it had a seat on the UN General Assembly. In any case that was in English the name of that place. Then when they gained independence they asked everyone to switch to "Belarus" and everyone complied. I suppose according to you that was an abomination. The countries known as Iran, Myanmar, Thailand, Benin, Burkina Faso, Moldova were known in English as Persia, Burma, Siam, Dahomey, Haute Volta (note: not High Volta), Moldavia. Again when those people asked that their country's name be changed everyone complied. I'm sure there are more examples. When RD Congo changed its name to Zaire everyone did the same and when they changed it back to Congo everyone did too. Thank God Wikipedia had not yet been created. Think how many hours would have been wasted in pointless arguments like the one about Ivory Coast/Côte d'Ivoire. Contact Basemetal here 22:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Basemetal, I've heard that the government of the country wants to be known as "Côte d'Ivoire" in every language, but such wishes don't always prevail in practice (see the Exonym article).

Medeis -- obviously "Paris" has been adapted to English phonology to give [ˈpærɪs] (according to Wikipedia "IPA for English" conventions), but the final [s] is still conservative in comparison to the modern French pronunciation. AnonMoos (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you more precisely point to a case where such a request was denied? That'll spare me having to wade through the whole article. It seems to me it is customary diplomatic courtesy to comply with such an express wish at least in diplomatic speak. Whether that eventually trickles down to common usage in a given language or country is another matter. Cases such as "Kampuchea" are easy to explain. (Very few countries recognized the Khmer Rouge which was the regime that was expressing that wish.) The country of "Macedonia" is known by that name to most countries but a country such as Greece has been refusing to use that name for its own reasons. Again, a special case. Otherwise to refuse to comply would be it seems to me like a diplomatic slap in the face. In any case it doesn't seem the U.S. State Dept has refused to start referring to the Ivory Coast as Côte d'Ivoire if I go by this. Contact Basemetal here 23:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I was referring more to practical usage rather than official diplomatic use. The government of Ukraine would prefer that its capital be known as "Kyiv" in English, but it generally isn't... AnonMoos (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the deal is with capitals. In this specific case the US and the UK (but not the French) do follow the Ukrainian wish but I'm sure there is a limit to diplomatic courtesy. I don't think it is expected that a country will try impose its will as to naming concerning absolutely every feature of its geography. But the Chinese did in general succeed in imposing the pinyin spelling of their own official model of Chinese pronunciation. For example everybody now says and writes Beijing, Nanjing even though the usual names in English used to be Peking, Nanking. But they couldn't achieve everything. Everybody still refers to Tibet as Tibet, not Xizang. Sometimes it does not work. I think Kosovars like their country to be known as Kosova rather than Kosovo because the latter is the Serbian name. I don't know if this is an official wish or if it is just what individuals I've talked to would like. If it is an official wish it is still possible that countries refuse to comply in this case to maintain a semblance of impartiality between the Serbian and Albanian community. (Right.) I've talked to some Turks who did not like that the name of their country is that of a (in their opinion) unglamorous and clumsy bird and who tried to convice me to say Türkiye. I answered I would think about it. In this case it was clear that was an individual initiative having nothing to do with official policy. And like I said the road from official jargon to practical usage can be long. However official jargon is a good start. This is often followed by news organisations. Then reference works. Then the education system. Contact Basemetal here 02:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

One word where the germanized pronunciation has mostly, but not entirely, been supplanted by the original language's (or "the correct") pronunciation is "Jazz". (There still are a few people who pronounce it [jaʦ], the way "yuts" would be pronounced in some English dialects).

It's the other way around for another borrowed four-letter word starting with "J", "Jute", borrowed from English jute (which got it from Bengali etc.). Nowadays, everyone pronounces it [ˈjuːtə], rhyming with "Rute", the way it would be pronounced if it were a Germanic word, but older German dictionaries give the English pronunciation [ʤuːt], according to German Wikipedia's article on Anglizismus (unreferenced), which lists it as an example of borrowed words eventually getting germanized in pronunciation when they've entered German primarily in written form, similar to what Future Perfect at Sunrise pointed out. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I was amused to hear in the 1980s that Germans pronounced the name of Joan Baez the same as "Bates" in English... AnonMoos (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sioux is of contested etymology, but it is not an autonym, and is assumed to come from an Algonquian language and to mean "snake" or "foreign speaker". (The latter is more likely given the etymology of Welsh and Nimitz.) The quasi-French x plural is just an artifact of historical accident. See EO. The people themselves mostly call themselves Dakota, Lakota or Nakota, as well as other unrelated terms. μηδείς (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• The current trend in German is pronouncing words from other languages similarly to the original language. Older conservative people might be strictly against it as they are proud of German pronunciation, which younger people make fun of. Another point is it just sounds more educated if you pronounce a word with the native pronunciation. Then there are people who are not of aware of it and mispronounce it. And others know how it's pronounced, but they prefer not to because sometimes it sounds rather snobbish than educated. --2.245.173.139 (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, native English-speakers pronounce sauna with a long /o/ sound on the first syllable, instead of the /au/ diphthong formed from two separate vowel sounds it is supposed to be pronounced with. JIP | Talk 19:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

In the States, I hear it as SAW-na, to rhyme with fauna; never heard it with a long 'o' in my life. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The open-mid back rounded vowel is sometimes called "open-o", and it's long, while "sow-na" ("sow" as in female pig) would be closer to the Finnish pronunciation. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

In many current American English dialects, the "aw" vowel is not actually pronounced as a phonetic open-mid back rounded vowel... AnonMoos (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

See, this is why everyone must learn the IPA. And so, do the Germans call the Sioux the "Zoo"? or the "Zooks"? μηδείς (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

They never said "Zooks": if the 'x' gets pronounced, so does the 'i'. In my experience you'll hear "Zee-ooks", "See-ooks", "Zoo", "Soo" and occasionally "Zyoo" and "Syoo" (how's that for approximation). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Gad!I was curious to know if pronouncing initial ess as /s/ was commenin Foreign names in German. If you ever get the chance, try asking for a book von der amerikanische Autorin, Ayn Rand (by the American authoress, "an edge") in a German bookstore. It's as bad as the Tobacconist's sketch. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone who helped out with this question. I like 2.245.173.139's post best.
• Just one final anecdote about x: I remember exactly the moment when I first heard someone refer to Don "Kee-hoe-tay". I was aged 15 or 16, we were in school studying some text, and each student was asked to read a para or two out loud. When it came to that kid's turn and he made those sounds, I really wondered whether we were on the same page. The penny later dropped, and I remember being entranced by the fact that letters that so clearly spelt out "kwiks-oat" could also be used to represent a very different set of sounds. (That may have been the start of my linguistic disquisitions. No, wait, I had already taught myself the Russian and Greek alphabets by then, but I knew nothing of Spanish pronunciation.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair to say the very original Don Qui[ʃ]ote wouldn't recognise his name either.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Resolved