Language desk
< January 4	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 5[edit]

synonymous Japanese sentences[edit]

more trolling

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is この昇る鶏はビートの笑いを十字架につけました。 synonymous to この昇る鶏の磔にされたビーツは笑う。 or is there a slight difference? Thank you Thomas Frenzon-Glind (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both are quite nonsensical, but in a fictional universe with ascending chickens that can crucify smiles there is a huge difference in meaning. In the first the smile of a beet is crucified by the ascending chicken, in the second the beet is (or the beats are) crucified by the ascending chicken, but nevertheless manages to laugh. Or is it becoming undone? Hard to tell without further context. If this is part of a recipe in which the beet serves as stuffing of the chicken, I strongly advice to tie the chicken down to keep it from ascending further, which is awkward when you want to cook it. --Lambiam 10:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is again the same troll who posted the "Chinese proverbs" and "Arabic sura" above. Let's not feed them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam Great answer, though! David10244 (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Letter combination "quu"[edit]

Why none of Romance languages have letter combination ⟨quu⟩ like they have ⟨qua⟩, ⟨que⟩, ⟨qui⟩ and ⟨quo⟩? It would be pronounced [kwu]. And in Spanish, why it does not have combination ⟨cuu⟩, which would be pronounced same as ⟨quu⟩. It exists in Latin (like equus), but I know no Romance language which has it, at least in native words. -- 09:57, 5 January 2023 40bus

In Latin antiquus etc, [kw] was probably de-labialized before a "u", then restored by analogy with the case and number forms which have an "o". For the non-analogical development, see cuius, and the conjunction sometimes written quum (to keep it apart from the preposition) but pronounced non-archaically as cum. And in a language like French, which uses "qu" as a device to indicate a [k] before the letters "e" and "i", it's not needed before "u". AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not just forms with "o", but also antiqua, antique, antiqui. --Lambiam 13:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diaeresis in Spanish[edit]

Spanish puts diaeresis over u (ü) to indicate that u is pronounced in combination ⟨gu⟩. This makes ⟨güe⟩ and ⟨güi⟩, pronounced [gwe] and [gwi]. But why Spanish, unlike Catalan, does not do same in combination ⟨qu⟩ (⟨qüe⟩ and ⟨qüi⟩)? These combinations would be pronounced [kwe] and [kwi], as ⟨que⟩ and ⟨qui⟩ are pronounced [ke] and [ki]. --40bus (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Spanish, [kwe] and [kwi] are spelled cue and cui, e.g. frecuencia "frequency". What annoys me is that Portuguese used to use the diaeresis in qüe, qüi, güe, güi to indicate /kw/ and /gw/, but a recent spelling reform abolished it, so now que, qui, gue, gui are ambiguous between /k g/ and /kw gw/. I feel like this was not an improvement. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the reason that Spanish does not have combinations qua, quo, qüe and qüi? --40bus (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has cua, cuo, cue and cui, which is simpler and more consistent. --Theurgist (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it started with cases where the c is etymological, such as cuesta from Latin costa and cuidar from cogito. Once cases like that established cue cui as the spelling of /kwe kwi/, it could be extended to learned words like frecuencia from frequentia. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since Latin never had a /q/ phoneme, the c is etymological in all these cases, including frecuencia --2A02:5080:1301:7E00:F407:7EC2:7DC7:3493 (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The /kʷ/ may have been phonemic, though. --Theurgist (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]