Language desk
< April 18	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 20 >

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.

April 19

"dɪfrn one ", instead of "different one ".

"student" is always /studənt/, but sometimes I hear myself say /dɪfrn/. Sometimes also /ɪmporʔn/. (e.g. "ɪmporʔn wʌn "), instead of /ɪmporʔnt/. I wonder if there are other words, ending with "nt", in which the final "t" is sometimes not sounded (please notice that my question is not about the first "t" of "important"). HOTmag (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's becoming increasingly common in British English to drop the final T. I don't think it makes a difference whether this is an "nt" ending or any other "t" ending. Iapetus (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The final t is not dropped by Estuary English speakers, but rather becomes a glottal stop. However, when pronouncing "different one" as "dɪfrn one ", the "t" does not become a glottal stop: It completely disappears... HOTmag (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, a final consonant is more likely to be dropped from a longer word, where there can be little confusion about meaning. Short words often require the sound for clarity - it makes a difference whether you say bad, bat or back. Wymspen (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually quite common in English. It belongs to a group of sound-changes known as elision. This specific type of elision is known as Relaxed pronunciation and even more specifically, it is called an apocope, dropping of the sounds at the end of a word. --Jayron 32 18:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"beginner" and "starter" are not interchangeable. What about "begin" and "start"?

Is there a context (besides that of starting a car), wherein "to begin" and "to start" are not interchangeable? 185.46.77.2 (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I go out for a drive I need to start my car: I do not begin it. Start can also be used as a noun - next weekend I may watch the start of the London Marathon - but I will not watch its "begin" (though I could watch it begin) Wymspen (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mentioned "starter" when I was thinking about starting a car, but is there another context (besides that of starting a car), wherein "to begin" is not the same as "to start"? 185.46.77.2 (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over wikt:start and wikt:begin, I would say that (if they were prescriptively forced to be distinguished) start (as a verb) has some form of action (even if quite subtle), while begin means that some relevant state (active or inactive) now exists. If I were to watch a movie that shows only a blank screen for the first hour, then the movie does not start until an hour after it begins. Of course, I could start the film to begin the showing. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You would watch the beginning of the London Marathon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a change to the noun form. The OP specifically asked about "to begin", the verb form. Akld guy (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When runners leave the starting line. --Jayron 32 18:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do not leave the beginning line. Akld guy (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be what you meant, but "start" as a verb has meanings not directly associated with "begin". Bazza (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family names vs. Dynasty names

What is the relationship between family names and royal/imperial dynasty names? 劉 (traditional) / 刘 (simplified) / pinyin: Liú. Wikipedia notes it's a very common surname, as it was the family name of Han Dynasty emperors. Okay, so how are dynasty names selected? How come the family name and dynasty name are different? Also, what about the Tudor and Stuart dynasty in England? Is Tudor the name of the whole family and dynasty? If the current queen of England had been Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, then she's taking the name of a place in Germany as her family name? What's with these long family names? Miguel de Cervantes y Saavedra would probably translate to "Michael of Cervantes and Saavedra". Why did people have complicated family names? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your question mentions three distinct cultures who had very different reasons for doing named the way they did. It's like asking why Arabic names and Scottish Gaelic names follow a "name son-of-name" format -- they really aren't related even if they're both Patronymic. You might want to start with Surname. In Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries, it is common for a person's surname to be a compound of both parents' surnames. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel de Cervantes adopted y Saavedra as an adult. His birth name would have been Miguel de Cervantes Cortinas. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50.4.236.254 -- In England/Britain the basic practice has been that when the succession to the crown goes through a woman, the line that starts with her child or descendant is named after her husband (the father of said child). So Matilda married Geoffrey Plantagenet, and their son Henry II is considered to start the House of Plantagenet. The monarchs between George Ist and Victoria could be said to be of the Hannover-Welf-Este dynasty. British monarchs didn't really have surnames in the ordinary sense until the 20th century... AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also tradition that, when needed, a British Royal will use their highest title as a sort-of interim surname. Prince Harry, for example, uses the surname "Wales" : [1] because he lacks a title of his own, thus derives his surname from his father's title. This is NOT His official surname, he has no official surname, his full official name is just "Henry Charles Albert David", he just uses "Wales" when convention requires him to put something down as a surname. Before he was given his own title, William also used "Wales": [2]. Currently, he'd use "Cambridge", as he now has his own title. --Jayron 32 14:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, princess Elizabeth (now the queen) joined the "Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service" during WW2 under the name "Elizabeth Windsor"... AnonMoos (talk)

Interesting. Well, when she served, her father was King of the United Kingdom; "Elizabeth United Kingdom" doesn't exactly roll of the tongue, does it? --Jayron 32 01:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See [3]. 86.168.123.128 (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In China, each regime would select a character for the name of their regime which (with the exception of one short lived dynasty) would be different from the monarch's family name. This is what is usually referred to as the dynasty name, e.g. the "Han" dynasty ruled by the Liu family, the "Tang" dynasty ruled by the Li family, etc. There are different rationales for the choice of this name. It is often geographical, taken from the new emperor's ancestral place of origin or existing feoff, or (in the case of the Ming dynasty) inspired by the name of a movement (Manichaeism) to which the new emperor belonged, or simply an auspicious character. One thing to note about Chinese dynastic names is that, prior to the Qing Dynasty, "Han", "Tang", "Ming" etc were perceived as the names of the state, rather than just the names of dynasties that ruled a continuing Chinese state - which is different to the sense in which Western dynastic names are typically used. --14:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The article on Manichaeism actually states that the religion was banned, rather than supported, by the Ming dynasty. History of the Ming dynasty says that Instead of the traditional way of naming a dynasty after the first ruler's home district, Zhu Yuanzhang's choice of 'Ming' or 'Brilliant' for his dynasty followed a Mongol precedent of an uplifting title. --31.168.171.66 (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my reading that is not the consensus. I said "inspired" because - the theory goes - some of his Manichaeist followers supported him because they believed he was the ruler foretold in one of their prophecies, so the choice of "Ming" partly sought to confirm that belief. It was not literally named after Manichaeism as such. Zhu had earlier been part of the Manichaeist movement of Han Lin'er. Wu Han was one advocate of this theory. There are other theories, but the consensus does not seem to be that "Ming" was chosen simply because it sounded "uplifting". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the Ming, also see White Lotus, Red Turban Rebellion, and Hongwu Emperor#Rise to power. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the current queen of England had been Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, then she's taking the name of a place in Germany as her family name? Yes, by descent from a member of the Saxon ducal family whose share, in the most recent partition, included Coburg and Gotha. Like many noble families of the Continent, the Wettins adopted the name of their domain as their surname. —Tamfang (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]