Language desk
< May 7	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 9 >

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.

May 8

Allophones

Is there a specific term for the phenomenon when native speakers don't perceive certain allophones, which are however recognized by non-native speakers because they are distinct phonemes in their own language? And even if the native speaker finally notices the subtle difference, they won't admit it so easily since it's very frustating to be told something new about the language they've been speaking since childhood. --Explosivo (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrating? When do you ever learn your native language so perfectly that no further learning is desirable? I regard the learning of new (to me) words as wins, not something negative. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of linkage: The allophone article writes "Native speakers of a given language usually perceive one phoneme in that language as a single distinctive sound, and are "both unaware of and even shocked by" the allophone variations used to pronounce single phonemes." I found various references to this phenomenon, but no specific term (and nothing about the frustration Explosivo mentioned). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there isn't a word for it, but two English examples are the voiced and unvoiced "th" sounds, and the aspirated and unaspirated stops (p, t, k). Or just try telling an English speaker that there are more than 5 vowels. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frustation probably wasn't the best word to describe it, but these examples sum it up pretty well. --Explosivo (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I disagree with some of that. I don't think a native English speaker would be shocked to hear that the two "th" sounds are different. And if "vowel" is expressed more specifically as "spoken vowel sound", so the native speaker isn't misled into thinking "vowel letters" is meant, then I think everyone has heard of "long a", "short a", "long e", etc. But I agree that aspirated vs. unaspirated stops is a good example of native English speakers not realizing they make a distinction, although I'm not sure there are any other languages that have minimal pairs distinguished by aspirated vs. unaspirated. Loraof (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number of languages that have minimal pairs distinguished by aspirated vs. unaspirated number in the hundreds. Khmer, Thai, the Indo-Aryan languages, the various Hmong languages, Iu Mien, the various Chamic languages, most of the Austroasiatic languages, just to name a few.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 18:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two /th/ sounds in English are different phonemes, not allophones, even though minimal pairs are few. "Thigh" and "thy" is one, and "mouth", "wreath" (noun) vs "mouth", "wreathe" (verb). Aspirated vs unaspirated stops are a very common example of allophones distinguished in other languages, as is the palatalisation of velars before front vowels ("kill" vs "cool"). --ColinFine (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English word for this?

Is there an English word for continually rubbing or stroking some thing up and down (not sex)? Please dont say 'wank' as that has a sexual meaning.--178.107.62.251 (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Petting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbing an inanimate object.--178.107.62.251 (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Petting" to me does not necessarily connote a living thing being petted. It may sound weird to apply that word to an inanimate object but, to be honest, the action itself sounds a little weird to me anyway. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagaine the answer is "stroking," a word used in the OP...??68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not stroking, because I want the word to include the sense of moving something up and down like a cylinder in a car engine. 'Reciprocating' is nearly right but does not include the idea of friction, whereas 'rubbing' includes friction so is near also, but doesnt include the idea of sliding. IS there a word other than 'wanking'?--178.107.62.251 (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroke_(engine)68.48.241.158 (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing some use of piston as a verb - so pistoning may describe the motion you are talking about. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks all. Im just off to give my monkey a good stroking now.--178.107.62.251 (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Columbus

If Columbus means pigeon in latin, does Columbus means soemthing like pigeon also? --Ip80.123 (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Columbus says it is the Latin form of the Italian Colombo, which means "dove" or "pigeon." Ian.thomson (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish call him Cristóbal Colón, which also means 'pigeon' in Spanish. Ditto for Cristóvão Colombo (Portugese) and Cristoforo Colombo (Italian). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And there are plenty of Anglophone people called Pidgeon. Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Coulomb is the French version.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The more usual term in Spanish is paloma. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant may be Columbidae. --Jayron 32 23:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same familial relationship is preserved: Paloma Blanca, [2]. There is a Portuguese word pombo, and a Latin word palumbes, or palumbus, meaning a pigeon or a dove. Note that Portuguese likes to drop the "l" between vowels, so this will be the derivation (cf. dor, from L. dolor, "pain"). 92.23.52.169 (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common error of leaving out the second comma in a nonrestrictive clause

As we know, this sentence has a restrictive clause:

The words that form a restrictive clause are not surrounded by commas.

As you can see, the clause "that form a restrictive clause" is restrictive, and is not surrounded by commas.

This sentence has a nonrestrictive clause:

The clause in this sentence, which is nonrestrictive, must be introduced by commas.

This sentence has a nonrestrictive clause, and you should see the commas that surround it.

However, it is a common error to leave out the latter comma in a nonrestrictive clause. Does anyone know why?? I don't think Wikipedia mentions this error anywhere in appropriate articles. Any information anyone can reveal?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking why some grammatical errors are common. Unfortunately, the only possible answer is that a lot of people are not very well versed in English grammar. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never noticed anyone making this error. If you could give us a clue as to where you've come across it, that might help to explain the cause. Henry ^Flower 20:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've noticed it countless times, Henry. They also leave out commas in such things as "He then moved to New York, where he later died". Or in "By the way, he talked about this yesterday". Leaving out the comma gives us a garden path non-sentence that leads nowhere. Or they'll start a non-restrictive clause with a comma but omit the closing comma; or vice-versa. One does what one can to fix these things, but one is only one against so many ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of your examples follow the same pattern as the OP's, where the non-defining clause is embedded in the main clause. Henry ^Flower 06:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word 'also', Henry. There's a bigger picture: a profound lack of understanding of the function of the comma, of which its omission from nonrestrictive clauses is but one symptom. If people emerging from formal education don't know how to use commas, that can only be because they're not being taught about them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. The use of the smartphone has become pervasive in the last two decades and has led to a decline in good grammar. When one has to press a button just to access the punctuation symbols and then press again to return, it's small wonder that users just can't be bothered. Bad habits induced by smartphone usage tend to stick. Laziness is a factor. Akld guy (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then what accounts for the insertion of the gratuitous apostrophe in the neuter pronoun its? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said "Not necessarily" and "Laziness is a factor." I didn't say it was the only reason, and it may well be correct that one reason is that they're not being taught, as you said. You just shouldn't have said it was the "only" reason. Akld guy (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your dressing-down. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's less about laziness and more about expedience. Texting is more awkward than typing, so you want to hit as few keys as you can and still get the message across. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where I come from, that's the definition of laziness. Akld guy (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People editing Wikipedia, or any other site, where they're dealing with significant slabs of text, are more likely to be doing so from a computer/tablet keyboard rather than an iphone. On a keyboard, punctuation is no more difficult than any letter or number. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who said we were talking about Wikipedia editing? The OP's question relates to editing in general. Are you just trying to pick a fight? Enough of this nit-picking. Akld guy (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said "People editing Wikipedia, or any other site". Is that general enough for you? Enough with the aggression. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think for us old guys, computer/tablet is more common, but there's an awful lot of mobile tagged edits these days, mostly from IP's. And they're mostly the ones making typos and leaving out the commas because a smartphone can't cursor left. By the time they realize they made an error, they can only delete back to it, and they're too lazy to do that. Who can blame them? Akld guy (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There can be confusion between a parenthetical phrase preceding a noun phrase subject and a parenthetical phrase following a noun phrase subject, when the parenthetical phrase is a noun phrase.

An expert philatelist, Mervin Jenkins correctly identified the postage stamp.

(An expert philatelist is a parenthetical phrase, and Mervin Jenkins is the subject.)

An expert philatelist, Mervin Jenkins, correctly identified the postage stamp.

(An expert philatelist is the subject, and Mervin Jenkins is a parenthetical phrase.)

Careful attention to pausing in speech is important.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]