Revision as of 05:25, 11 January 2018

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/L

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 4

"Gonna"

• I am going to go to the movies. Do you want to come? (way too formal and unnatural)
• I am gonna go to the movies. Wanna come? (typical colloquial English)
• We're gonna to __________ for a whole four weeks. (some kind of dialect, what dialect is this?)

SSS (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

1 would normally be "I am going to the movies. Do you want to come? Akld guy (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

"Gonna" only ever means the future tense marker, and never the geographic one. That is, you can say "I'm gonna drive to Boston tomorrow" But you would never say "When I get up I'm gonna Boston" in the second sense, it is always "going to". In colloquial English, "going to" meaning "will be" may be pronounced "gonna" but "going to" meaning "traveling to" is pronounced "go-un-ta". --Jayron32 03:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Or slurred even more than that, but still with at least the hint of a "t" sound. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's the 'eng' that gets replaced by a an 'n': going - > goin'. Per Jayron's comment, I have never heard "gonna" in the "travel to" sense. Matt Deres (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Some US southerners use "gwine", as in "Pay attention or amma gwine wap you up side of yo hed." see . Note that this is often assumed to be used mostly by poor rural black southerners, but I heard it mostly from poor Appalachian white folk, and I've heard it for both "travelling to" and "will". -Arch dude (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Replace "gwine" with "gone" (as in "goin'") and you've got another variant. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of "the" before a race or nationality

I am interested in what the grammatical differences are when a race or nationality is prefixed with the word "the". It seems to me that in general or positive statements it has little effect "Pakistanis make very nice curries" vs "The Pakistanis make very nice curries" whereas in negative statements it has an emphasising effect "Pakistanis damaged neighbourhood cars" vs "The Pakistanis damaged neighbourhood cars". Am I right in feeling that the first has more of a meaning "the people who damages the local cars happened to be Pakistani" where as the second means "the cars were damaged by people because they were Pakistanis" and looks at them more as an "out group"? -- Q Chris (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

To my ears, the extent of effect the "the" has, doesn't depend on whether the context is positive or negative, but rather on the tense: In the Present Simple Tense - the "the" has no (or little) effect, as opposed to the Past Tense. HOTmag (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The use of the definite article in such a context may indicate a distinction between the ethnic group as a whole, and a particular group of people of that ethnicity. Thus the phrase "Pakistanis make very nice curries" makes a general statement about Pakistani culture (or at least about Pakistani cooking), while "The Pakistanis make very nice curries" suggests a particular group of Pakistanis is being mentioned, perhaps in comparison to other particular groups of Indians, Bangladeshis or Nepalis. The use of the definite article suggests a finite group of people who would be a sub-set of the larger ethnic group as a whole. Wymspen (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This ambiguity raises the question, "Do cannibals think Pakistanis make very nice curries?" Or, "Do the cannibals think Pakistanis make very nice curries?" μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Q_Chris -- during the 19th century there were a whole series of of mock-grandiose (but actually condescending) euphemisms for various ethnic groups, usually preceded by "the": "Celestials" for Chinese, "Romans" for Italians, "Sons of Erin" for Irish, "Semites" for Jews etc. etc. Not sure whether there could be any connection between that and what you asked about... AnonMoos (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think you're on the right track, AnonMoos. I don't know if there's a historical link as you suggest, but the use of the definite article in both can be seen as a way of distancing "the other". Matt Deres (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• The use of "the" plus the singular (despite referring to the entire ethnic group) was another way of looking down the nose: "The American Indian is ...", "The Australian aborigine is ...", "The Chinaman is ...". -- Jack of Oz 21:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

. 2A00:23C0:7C00:B401:6D6A:7B2D:525E:9079 (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is any consistency in the implication of the use of "the" in this manner. I can think of examples that are perjorative or condescending, and examples that are not. I can think of examples that imply you are referring to the whole of the ethnicity, and some that are referring to specific individuals. Overall, I don't think you can conclude anything about using "the". A similar thing that I do think is more generally perjorative is when "the" is coupled with the singular form of the noun ("The Hun", etc), although when I asked about that before it wasn't considered to be an inevitable implication. Iapetus (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Chinese questions

First, 漢語 and 汉语 are the traditional and simplified characters for "Chinese language". I can see that 语 is a simpler version of 語, but are 汉 and 漢 really the same character? They have the same left-side element (is that a radical?) with three little lines and a vertical line, but the rest looks quite different; I wondered if one character were simply abolished and replaced with another.

Secondly, does the Chinese cultural zone (or any of its component language regions) have a tendency to indicate gender in names using phonetic elements, or is gender-based naming largely restricted to names' meanings and the doubled characters mentioned at Chinese given name? I may be using the wrong terms, so let me explain — many Spanish masculine names end with "o" and their feminine equivalents with "a" (one doesn't meet a woman named "Francisco", for example), so you can often identify a Spaniard's gender from his/her name even if you've never encountered that name before. Is the same true in some or all of the Chinese cultural-linguistic sphere? Nyttend backup (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend backup: This can get really complicated. Long story short, 汉 was introduced as the replacement of 漢 as part of the second group in Chinese Character Simplification Scheme. The official method of simplification is cited as "從俗，符號替代". The first part means to follow the popular characters (zh:俗字), and the second part refers to the replacement of the right side of the character with a symbol. This is one of the controversial methods in these simplification initiatives, as they are rather arbitrary, not based on cursive scripts like many other simplified characters. The answer to the second part of your question is, yes, gender-based naming is largely restricted to the names' meaning, as indicated in Chinese given name. Phonetic elements have little relevance here, since there's almost no way to find out the phonetics of a character based on the character alone (except on occasion, you may be able to guess by reading the radical). Alex Shih (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

A similar question would be how would Korean parents assign a hanja name to the baby. IIRC, 李 is a Korean and Chinese family name. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@140.254.70.33: Korean hanja names are quite similar to their Japanese counterparts actually. In many cases, names are chosen first, and hanja/kanji names are assigned later, usually chosen from meaningful characters with the same/close phonetic sounds. Alex Shih (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

So, it’s a lot like an English-speaking parent who gives his daughter “Anne” and looks up the big book of Hanja/Kanji/Hanzi characters for meaning and similar sound. Then he chooses the 安 character. If the parent’s name is Da Vinci, he may assign a corresponding 达 character. So, the kid's name is 达•安. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. For instance, for foreigners active in Japan or Korea, they often choose their own names in Chinese characters (such as Debito Arudou). It's very similar. Alex Shih (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

German wagen in English

Hello, how would you say "Die sollen es nur wagen!" (meant as a threat uttered towards second parties but meant for third parties) in English?--Siebi (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: Is "second parties" the right expression here?--Siebi (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

What does it mean in English? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It would mean something like "let them come if they dare"(plural) or "come if you dare"(singular). Like, as a taunt. "etwas zu wagen" translates to "to dare something" anyway 91.49.88.46 (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

In what context? Warfare? Soccer matches? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a taunt. It can work with both warfare or football(sorry won't use the bad S-word) in context of an attack for example. You could probably also say "I dare them to... (do something)". Replace (do something) with whatever the topic is. Like if you play football and tell your friend about opponents "I dare them to attack" or whatever, "Die sollen es nur wagen anzugreifen" would be the closest translation of that probably. Both should work and be correct anyway. 91.49.88.46 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Daring someone to launch a nuclear attack would fit, though it wouldn't be very smart. Your translation seems fitting in English. I'm wondering, though, in German, how you would say, "I dare them to attack my Volkswagen!" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

"Die sollen es nur wagen meinen Volkswagen anzugreifen!" would be the answer to your question. Mind that the noun "der Wagen"(car or cart) has nothing to do with "das Wagnis"(risk) to which the "wagen" in the OPs question refers to. By the way you could also dare someone to do something defensive of course. For example "Die sollen es nur wagen in ihren Löchern zu sitzen", "i dare them to keep sitting in their holes". And probably some other things as well i can't think of right now. Overall the use of the english and german phrase is probably quite similar from what i can think of. The languages are not THAT different after all, but i am no linguist so feel free to laugh at me for the last statement if i deserve it, haha 91.49.88.46 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

To expand on the similarity between 'der Wagen - etwas zu wagen'. It is very easy to keep apart in german as one is a noun and hence always starts with a capital letter, like all nouns do in german. So it is very easy to see which one is meant totally regardless of the context. It is pronounced exactly the same as well if you care about that. "der Wagen"(car/cart) originates from "bewegen"(to move) as far as i could see after a quick search. The origin of "das Wagnis"(risk), of which "etwas zu wagen"(to risk/dare sth) originates, seems more complicated and loosely connected to "die Waage"(scale) by figurativly weighing an action with an uncertain result(something that may carry a risk). Probably way more than you asked for with the Volkswagen question but i was bored and looked it up for myself and thought i would share what i found, haha. Added some refs as well, although in german and from wikiprojects. So we will have to assume good faith with those i guess. 91.49.88.46 (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, 91.49.88.46, I was interested to see you begin a sentence above with "Mind that the noun . . . ."

In standard "English English" (which is of course a West Germanic language) one would most commonly phrase that as "Remember that the noun . . . ", but could alternatively say "Keep in mind that . . ." or "Bear in mind that . . . ." However, in Scots (a close sister language to English), "Mind that the noun . . ." is entirely regular, since "to mind" means "to remember" (while "to ken" means "to know": cf. german "kennen"). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.126.200 (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Mind that this usage occurs not just in Scots, but also in Scottish English, and also in older forms of the English language in Northern England. Dbfirs 10:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Have not actually thought about that, quite curious. Although i probably have just picked it up by being around some people from Scotland as well as some from northern England. I have a very odd mix of different varieties of english due to different circumstances, mix in german and it becomes a total mess, haha. Anyway, it is an interesting point i have not thought about at all, so cheers for that. 91.49.78.21 (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Dbfirs is of course quite correct; I didn't initially want to plunge into the distinctions between Scots and Scots English, which are often spoken by the same persons depending on the register they want to employ, and between both of them and Northern England English, which form something of a Sprachraum: my Wearside grandparents occasionally used "mind" in this sense, and probably the same word was used in Yola (which did use "ken"). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.210.171 (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• It's funny that you could freely translate this as "Well, then go ahead and wage it!" to an opposing army that is threatening war. Of course this would be a false friend, as wikt:wage (English verb) and wikt:wagen (German verb) are not cognates. μηδείς (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • If the OP is looking for a less literal translation, a good one could be "Bring it on!" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for your comments so far! Or do I need to say "for their comments" here – due to the "everybody"?--Siebi (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it's "your comments" no matter how many people comment... well as long as it is more than one comment(then it would be "your comment" of course). English is pretty easy with things like that compared to german. Less formal as well, no 'siezen' for example, haha. Just don't overthink things and watch TV series/movies with subtitles and the language will get a lot easier very fast ;) 91.49.78.21 (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the term "soccer" was coined by the British. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Soccer means Association football, in contradistinction to the other kind of football: rugger. --ColinFine (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Stating the obvious there. The origin of that sort of slang was originaly the Rugby School, then was adopted by students of the Oxford University. The adding of -er after 'shortened' nouns was meant to be jocular. The rugger for rugby ColinFine mentioned is another example. Or brekker for breakfast, bonner for bonfire etc. I still find it horrible and rather not use a word some toffs thought sounded funny, haha. Where is the s-word used by the way? Australia, NZ as well as the US and i would assume Canada. Maybe a bit in Ireland... any other countries? 91.49.71.211 (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much found the answer in the football article. "...the word football is understood to refer to whichever form of football is the most popular in the regional context in which the word appears.". Which in turn means that countries with other codes being more popular than association football probably use the s-word. So South Africa and some pacific island nations as well i assume. Am i missing more? Or even, is there any non-anglophone country that uses that term? Not that i could think of any other code of football being more popular in the rest of the world. 91.49.71.211 (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

January 6

Ohium

Do speakers of contemporary Latin pronounce Ohium as 'Okium' similar to the way 'mihi' is pronounced 'miki' ? Thanks Duomillia (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The pronunciation is presumably over-compensation on the part of native speakers of languages which lack an sound (including the majority of the Romance languages); I'm not sure I'd call it a "contemporary Latin" norm.

The name of the letter "h" was changed from in Classical Latin to in late Vulgar Latin by a similar process of trying to pronounce the sound as emphatically as possible as it was disappearing from the language... (The modern English letter name "aitch" or derives from through French by fairly regular sound changes, since before original often became in medieval French, in modern French.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This assumes that there is a single way of pronouncing contemporary Latin. I recall my former Latin teacher telling us about attending a European conference about teaching Latin. Everyone there spoke in Latin: he couldn't understand half of them because their pronunciation was so influenced by the own native languages. Latin spoken by an English speaker may be very different to that spoken by an Italian or a German. Wymspen (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Wymspen -- there have been several reforms of Latin pronunciation. There was the Carolingian "Alcuin" reform around 800 A.D., the Erasmian reform around 1500 A.D. (though Erasmus was actually more concerned with Greek pronunciation than Latin), and a late 19th century British reform to cancel out the effects of the English Great Vowel Shift since 1500. Today the main multinational traditions are Roman Catholic ecclesiastical pronunciation (used at the Vatican and in forms of traditional Catholic worship) and scholarly pronunciations which attempt to broadly use the basics of ancient Classical Latin pronunciation (but without attempting to closely imitate all the complexities and contextual variants found in "Vox Latina" etc). However, there are still national variants. If ecclesiastical pronunciation is based very closely on Italian (which sometimes happens, but probably shouldn't be considered the best form of ecclesiastical pronunciation), then would be absent. I once talked with someone who studied Latin in France, and she said that her teachers included very little or nothing in their pronunciation of Latin which wasn't also present in the phonology of the French language (so words were always pronounced stressed on their last syllable, in conformity with French habits of slightly stressing the syllable which contains the last non-schwa vowel in a word or phrase, etc.) AnonMoos (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Cheese and McMuffin Christ! If it's good enough for Russian Limbaugh, it's good enough for me. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I've never ever heard the /miki/ pronunciation. But if some people use it, I would expect them to use the same consonant in Ohium. Why on earth did whoever latinised it make it second declension? I would automatically assume Ohio, Ohionis, 3rd declension. --ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I would guess that part of the purpose of the pronunciation is to distinguish "mihi" from "mi". There would be no similar "functional" pressure for Ohium. if you look at la:Formula:Civitates Civitatum Foederatarum, you'll see that several state names where there's no reason to tack on an "-a" ending are given an "-um" ending. The weirdest Latin state name is "Cenomannica"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

/miki/ (or /mixi/) was common in medieval Latin, and was reflected in the common medieval spelling of the word, "michi". Adam Bishop (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

East Asian names

I understand that in their homelands East Asian names are usually in the order "family name" then "give name." But if they have lived in the US for some time they may place the family name last. If a Chinese person has an American name first and an Asian name in last place, like "Bob Lee" I would address him as "Mr. Lee" But if both names are specifically Chinese or Japanese, are there any clues as to what are typical given names versus typical family name? Length, number of syllables, ending with a particular vowel or consonant? Is it rude to ask "Are you Mr "first name" or Mr "last name?" or to just go ahead and call them "Mr firstname" if they are East Asian? Edison (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Anecdotally only, Chinese names often seem to have single-syllable family names and two-syllable (or more) given names. That doesn't work in Japan, where both can be multi-syllable. But if you're in America, they are likely to follow American naming conventions, publicly at least. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You may find answers in Chinese name, Japanese name and/or Korean name.--William Thweatt 07:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Those articles do contain the answer. Basically, in Western printed materials, Westerners will usually write the name in the original form - family name first, given/personal name last. In writing a list of names, Westerners would write the family name first (regardless of ethnicity) and given/personal name last, separated by a comma. In speech, the given/personal name becomes the first name, and the family name becomes the last name. SSS (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Chinese surnames are not usually used as given names since many have been historically used although common surnames like Husng would be found in given names. For the Chinese and to some extent Korean and Vietnamese, there are only a few hundred (sometime less) surnames. Also Chinese surnames can be multi-syllable (ex. Gongsun) and given name can be single syllable. Usually Chinese names are given surname first, so that is the best clue.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Edison: I think your question is more about general practice/etiquette when encountering a "East Asian" (not a good term/approach) in English-speaking countries. Everything will be highly dependent on their English ability. From personal experience, Chinese and Koreans in English-speaking countries with lower English skills may introduce themselves with their full names in the order of family name-given name. On these occasions, don't do any guess work, but just ask "how may I call you?" like you would with any other Americans. For Japanese people in English-speaking countries, regardless of English level, you can always expect them to introduce their full names in the English order (given name-family name) because it is one of the few things 6 years of required English classes in junior high/senior high have accomplished. Although it's uncommon for native Japanese speakers in America to take English names, you can almost always expect a Japanese person to ask you to call them by their given name in a English setting, so it's pretty straight forward. Alex Shih (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih -- the term "East Asian" is fine in the context of the East Asian cultural sphere. There's not much else that one could call it, except maybe the "zone of adoption and former adoption of Chinese characters"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Alex. When I did my research before asking this question, on another forum someone got all huffy when the questioner referred to "Asian" people using the family name first and the huffyperson named several "Asian" countries to the west of China where the European name order was used, and scolded the questioner for not saying "East Asian" to refer to China, Japan and several neighboring countries. Sometimes it is simply not possible to be politically correct enough to avoid the "not a good term" huffystorm. I just want to know if there are reliable sources as to how Chinese and Japanese (and nearby countries which use "Family name" "Given name") people would prefer Americans to address them when we are presented the name "Yu Wu" or some such on a document. A:" Thank you Mr Yu," B: 'Should I call you Mr. Yu or Mr Wu?" C: "Thank you Mr. Wu," D:Never use either name unless invited to, for fear of offending them. Edison (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Edison -- Lin Yutang found it strange when people in the United States in the 1930s came up to him and addressed him as "Mr. Yutang", but I seem to remember that he was more amused than offended. A European convention is to capitalize the letters of the surname, which avoids confusion with Hungarian names, maternal surnames in Spanish and Portuguese, and so on (and also works with East Asian names), but this would not be understood in the United States... AnonMoos (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Edison -- Sometimes, Westerners will address each other as "Mr. Robert E. Lee" or "Mr. Lee". In elementary school, unmarried female teachers may be addressed by "Miss", followed by her personal name. SSS (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

When in Rome. μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A common habit in Britain (not sure about the US) at which I get alternately irritated and amused is to maintain the Chinese order for names, but stress them as though they were in the Western order. So you hear "Eyeway WAY" for Ai Weiwei and "Sheejin PING" for Xi Jinping. I try to remember to stress them as "Ai WEIwei" and "Shi JINping". --ColinFine (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this has more to do with the way we tend to intuitively (mis)pronounce East Asian words with the accent on latter syllables, e.g. I would pronounce it WeiWEI and JinPING when standalone as well. Compare Japanese waTAshi, TaNAka, SoiCHIro.

Also, since all three syllables are accented in both names you mention, stressing the middle one will probably be farther off from the original pronunciation than stressing the first or the last. 93.136.29.199 (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with a Chinese name living in a Western country, I'd prefer to use "family name" "given name" order but in most contexts trying to do so is just too difficult. Since my name uses the typical Malaysian system and so my given name is written as two words with space and no hypen, it's already a lot of effort trying to convince people not to call me by my generation name only, so even with that I've sometimes taken to spelling it as one word. I wouldn't say it's offensive but it does get boring. But definitely in most contexts someone who actually asks is likely to be less annoying than someone who assumes. As mentioned by others, with many Chinese names with experience you can probably tell by the name which is the surname, even if they only have a single syllable given name. BTW you shouldn't assume someone always wants to be called Mr "Family Name". Malay names for example are highly influence by Arabic custom and so the closests thing to a family name is the patronym and is what would normally be written under the family name field of any form. But even some of those who've lived in the West for a while would still prefer not to be called Mr "Patronym". Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Predicative adjective?

Hello again! In a recent edit summary of mine, I wrote "removed unnecessary illustration (also to be considered as a means against a glorification inappropriate here)". Question: Is this postpositive use of "inappropriate" correct (due to the "here", as I guess it would be wrong to write "a here inappropriate glorification"), and can it be called a predicative? (In the linked article, I didn't find any corresponding example, though I am quite sure about that in my sentence, "inappropriate" is not an attributive adjective, as they always go before the antecedent, don't they?)--Siebi (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Your reversion itself was inappropriate. It's something you should discuss on the template talk page. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Grammatically you are correct, but I think Bugs is right; there's no glorification going on. The illustration is fine. Matt Deres (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your opinions. ( Note: In case you're still interested, I've started a new thread on the talk page.) Now, as for the linguistic part, is "inappropriate" a predicative here, in fact?--Siebi (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: Probably more or less the same question: Is it "a maybe interesting aspect" or "an aspect maybe interesting"? I'm actually confused right now…!--Siebi (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Context is required to make this construction work. "An aspect maybe interesting" without context sounds like "An aspect may be interesting", which is a different concept and now involves a verb. Normally it would be "A maybe interesting aspect", but if there were a qualifying text, such as "for this event", then you can say "An aspect maybe interesting for this event" (which is understood as "An aspect that is maybe interesting for this event"), but you can also get away with "A maybe interesting aspect for this event". -- Jack of Oz 21:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@JackofOz: Thanks a lot!--Siebi (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

January 8

Japanese vs. Hungarian personal names

Both these cultures use the Surname Given name (SG) order, unlike most others, which are Given name Surname (GS). We usually have to reverse the names in English language contexts, no big deal.

Most Hungarian given names have well known cognates with other European names (Antal = Anthony; Miklos = Nicholas, Ferenc = Francis etc), and others are well known (Geza, Attila ...) so it's not hard to work out which is the given name and which the surname. Or whether the names have already been reversed for our benefit and no further adjustment is required.

Japanese is a rather tougher nut to crack. Some names are fairly well known in the West, but the majority are not. It's clear that a problem exists, since most lists of Japanese names that I've seen have some in GS order but others in SG. In Misplaced Pages, we seem to use whichever order is the most usual one for the subject, and if that happens to be SG we tend to add a note to say that the first name is the surname (Katsuragawa Hoshū, Sugita Genpaku, ). But not always (Nakajima Hiroyuki, et al.)

So, why is it that some Japanese names are known in the West in GS order but others in SG, while all Hungarian names are known to us in GS order? Is it just that it's harder for us to work out which Japanese name is which, or is it some sort of respect thing, or what? -- Jack of Oz 20:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely sure that's always 100% the case, but Hungary is a small surname-first island in the middle of surname-last common European practices, so they're presumably very used to adapting their name order for foreigners, while that's not true for Japan...

By the way, there can be a few clues for Japanese given names -- ending in vowel + o usually indicates a masculine name (Kazuo etc.), while a name which is two moras in length plus a final -ko is often feminine. AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that the ko in Japanese girls' names—literally `child`—may have started out as a diminutive suffix (akin to "princess," "Miss," or "sweet little") before eventually becoming an indivisible part of their proper names.Pine (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest (yes, OP but something to work on) that because Hungary is part of Europe, Hungarians have long known that the predominant Western custom is GS, so they have always introduced themselves to foreigners (and spoken and written their names in other languages) in that manner.

By contrast, Japan was much more isolated, particularly from significant interactions with Europeans, until the Meiji period (i.e. the mid-nineteenth century), so they have much less history of wanting/needing to accommodate themselves to the GS custom, while at the same time most Europeans who came into contact with them soon became aware of Japan's SG custom and worked with it. In modern times, therefore, Japanese people retain their own SG custom domestically, with only those who work with Westerners, particularly outside Japan, or who want to build an international following, sometimes adopting GS in those contexts, or not, according to personal preference.

Compare also the common custom of Chinese people, also SG domestically, adopting a GS name using a new Western G and their own S. An well-known example (of direct personal relevance to my own family) was the late Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who readily used the name Harry Lee not only when in England, but also in informal English-speaking company in Singapore. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Except he was known to the world at large as Lee Kuan Yew, not Kuan Yew Lee. Just as we know of a certain Mao Zedong, not Zedong Mao. -- Jack of Oz 03:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point: that particular widespread Chinese adaptive custom doesn't reverse the Chinese SG form, it creates a new GS with the Chinese S prefaced by a new Western G – that's why I said "compare". Some Japanese people also do this, or adopt a more "Western-friendly" G for use with foreigners.

I presume, by the way, that you've read our article Japanese name, which also mentions the likely relevant point that most Japanese families only adopted a surname in the 19th century? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I haven't read it, but my question relates only insofar as a Japanese person actually has both a given name and a surname, so what may have obtained in earlier times is out of scope. -- Jack of Oz 18:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Jack, do you have a source that shows the given name - surname pattern is the "norm"? Also, what about Genus species, and Latin names and Patronymics, as well as single-name societies? μηδείς (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

In Russia, it is common for people to put the surname first. It is more formal to do this, so business cards are always according to wikt:ФИО (i.e., surname–given name–patronymic). The surname usually comes first in military contexts, lists, award ceremonies, obits, documents, forms, IDs, and so on. The other order with the given name first is more informal and therefore more common, but the ФИО order is still quite common in Russia. Of course with Russian names, it is almost always obvious which name is which, just by the form. Russian surnames usually end in –ов/-ова, -ев/-ева, -ёв/-ёва, –ин/-ина, -ын/-ына, -ский/-ская, -цкий/-цкая, or -ой/-ая. Patronymics end in -вич/-вна. The other name that does not have one of these endings is the given name.

Speaking of Genus names, formal Russian practice is to switch the order and place the adjective second, as in: клён ясенелистный (literally, "maple ash-leafed" = ashleaf maple). —Stephen (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Medeis, I never said it was the norm, I said "most others". The rest of your queries are not relevant to my question, which was about how Hungarian and Japanese names are treated differently in the anglosphere. -- Jack of Oz 07:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Even Russian Misplaced Pages puts the surname first in all biography titles. — Kpalion 13:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This policy was highly controversial when it was enacted. Other than in encyclopaedias (incl. WP) and other alphabetic lists, Russian given names usually precede the family names. --194.213.3.4 (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Jack, I mentioned English because I took that as your main context, and assumed Western and Europe were just used to avoid repeating English custom. Without attributing any arguments to you I would point out Spanish naming customs in which the Mother's family name is given after the father's family name (Think 'Chelsea Clinton Rodham') and there can be confusion with English speakers thinking the father's name is the person's middle name, or even native Spanish speakers being unsure when Someone like Jose Antonio Cruz could be the son of mister Cruz (or of the unmarried Ms. Cruz) with Antonio as a middle name, or Antonio could be the father's last name, and Cruz the mother's last name. That's not half of the possible confusion due to marriage and noble stylings, so readers should refere to the article.

Then of course you know, Jack, that Russian names have both gender and case, as well as the second name being a patronymic, not a middle name. English speakers often mistake the patronymic for the last name. Again, readers should see Russian naming customs.

Then there is Latin, where Julius Caesar's family name is Julius, Caesar (one of many possible cognomina) is basically a nickname, and his first name, Gaius (Abbreviated C!) is one of only a handful of praenomina (fewer than 40, about a dozen, like Marcus and Quintus, in common use) available; while women might bare only the family name, with no praenomen or cognomen, or the cognomen "secunda" used to distinguished the first-born plain-old Julia from her younger sister. Again, see Roman naming customs.

The ancient Greeks pretty much used just one name, but often appended an "of " or a patronymic to avoid confusion. Linnaeus' binomial nomenclature paralleled the Roman system, with the Genus wikt:gens first, and only one species name, with the possibility of further names (H. sapiens sapiens v.s. H. sapiens neanderthalensis) to distinguish varieties that could (or were found to be able) to interbreed.

That's not even to go into Arabic naming conventions, where men are often named after both their father and their sons, as well as their home towns/clans. μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Medeis that "most others" is fairly questionable since it depends a lot on what you count. Considering that most East Asian cultures use the surname - given name order and they represent a fair chunk of the human population and there are a whole bunch who don't really have anything that could be called a surname so it's questionable whether "Given name Surname" is really entirely accurate even if the patronym is usually later and then there are those mononym ones, and that quite a few of the practices now taken for granted are very recent (as in 100-200 years at most). Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

There's also the American naming pattern that many here may take for granted, but is actually quite alien to, I suppose, much of the rest of the world. I mean the first name – middle initial – surname pattern, where the middle initial in theory stands for a second given name (but not always, sometimes it's really just a bare letter, as in Harry S. Truman), but the full middle name is rarely used. — Kpalion 09:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Shirley this "American naming system" off whych thou speakst comes only from the Census Bureau, which expects a middle name (initial only, whether it exist or not) and a last name of at least two letters, or at least a "vowel" and "consonant", explaining the names Sandra Oh <O and the surname Eng from the better Ng. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I've struck out the bit about "unlike most others", as it was just an aside, but one that has been way too productive in meandering far from the point of my question. -- Jack of Oz 00:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@JackofOz: again I assume total good faith, but if you have strucken sumpin' 3 days after it was done posted, and most of the followin's in response, you should also resign the strikening for clearitude's sake. (By resign I mean to WP:SIGN again, not quit.) μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

January 9

Can one use "to do" to intensify a modal verb in English?

Hello, again!

English is extremely unusual—if not unique—among the major world languages in that it has a verb, to do, that one can substitute for any other non-auxiliary verb in the language (except to be).

e.g.

But->

And->

Also, in non-auxiliary verbs (except "to be") in the active voice, simple aspect, and present and past tenses, to do also serves to intensify said verbs.

e.g.

—————So far, so good, right?—————

I can't help but wonder how (if at all) this relates to both auxiliary verbs as well as to do and to be. , I lamented the forming of homonym chains.

e.g.

Not to beat a dead horse, but this strikes me as apt to lose the reader's attention.

Also, the following strikes me as very bad English.

e.g.

And when it comes to modal verbs, I don't even know where to begin!

e.g.

I myself believe that to do has no place whatsoever, as an intensifier, in these sentences. Several English professors, however, have told me that it actually may have a place intensifying dare and need—but not can, may, or ought.

And furthermore, when it comes to must, I have become completely bewildered! As I've , that verb is quite possibly the most difficult one, in 21st-Century English, to properly conjugate.

e.g.

What you do think, out of curiosity? Except for to be (or a modal-verb tense that uses to be) would it seem proper to use to do to intensify not only simple verbs, but also auxiliary verbs?

Thank you. Pine (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

So first of all, "need" is not ordinarily considered a modal verb in English, with the possible exception of a few non-productive fixed phrases like "if need be" (and I'm not actually sure it's a modal there). *We need pour a solider foundation is ungrammatical.

Most of your examples with "do have to" and so on actually sound fine. But again, "have" is not a modal.

With the genuine modal verbs, like "can", "could", "will", "would", "may", "might", "must", I really don't think do-support is possible. All the examples I can think of are obviously ungrammatical, like *he does can drive fast. --Trovatore (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

With the genuine modal verbs, like "can", "could", "will", "would", "may", "might", "must", I really don't think do-support is possible. All the examples I can think of are obviously ungrammatical, like *he does can drive fast.

No argument here, Trov, considering that can is a finite tense, a more appropriate—if admittedly makeshift—infinitive being to be able to. My question relates, though, to whether one may use do-support on such a jury-rigged periphrase.

e.g.

Yes	He can drive fast.
No	He does can drive fast.
No	He does be able to drive fast.
Maybe?	He does remain able to drive fast.

If one "swats the bes," (with apology to usage commentator Edward Good) then is do-support possible? For what it's worth, I believe in only using it in simple tenses, lest it cause the reader's eyes to glaze over. Some English professors, though, have told me otherwise.

Pine (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You probably need to listen to your English professors more as some of the sentences you have written are invalid.

• They do be happy to be here. - invalid; should be "They are happy...".
• She does be permitted to sleep in his room while he is away on vacation. - invalid; should be "She is permitted..."
• We do need pour a solider foundation before we attempt to build so tall a structure. - invalid in several respects: "We do need to pour a more solid foundation..." is what it should be.
• All cars in that lane do have to exit the motorway. - valid, but strange; "...lane must exit.." would be more usual.
• He does remain able to drive fast. - invalid; "He remains able...".

The rest are fine, normal, everyday English. Bazza (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think that last one is possible. For example: "After his accident, he is no longer able to walk very well, but he does remain able to drive fast." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.23.915} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Same with #4, e.g. "All cars in that lane do have to exit the motorway, but they can get back on at the next interchange." 93.139.63.123 (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The rule is quite simple: You can use "do " as an intensifier, if and only if you can use "don't ". HOTmag (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Some of the proposed uses of "do" above, for example "they do be happy to be here" are perfectly proper in some dialects of English. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, even in my dialect, they sound possible, though forced. On the other hand, *we need pour a solider foundation is completely ungrammatical. --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be "need to". However, in the negative it can be either "we don't need to" or simply "we need not". -- Jack of Oz 20:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. I've never figured out what's going on there. Is it a one-off, or is there some larger explanation? You can kind of do the same thing with "dare", though it sounds old-fashioned. --Trovatore (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I kid you not. -- Jack of Oz 21:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

:-). But that's not the same thing. You can't say *he kid you not. But you can say he dare not venture further, if you don't mind sounding a bit Victorian. --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

But also "need" and "dare" are not the same thing, the difference between them being even bigger than the difference between "kid" and "dare", because the difference between "need" and "dare" is not only with "He" (as in your example of kid/dare) but also with "I": You can't say *I need say, But you can say I dare say. HOTmag (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

One more question that I'd like to ask as long as we're on the subject: Was do-support always required in order to form the interrogative mood before the advent of Modern English?

Viz., once upon a time, might one have formed simple-tense questions simply by inverting the order of verb and pronoun, without using to do as an auxiliary?

I apologize if this is a stupid question, but it's one that's been gnawing at me for quite some time. Pine (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Went the Day Well?. DuncanHill (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Vo imja Otsa i Suna i Switaho Ducha, @Twinpinesmall: (User:Twinpinesmall), what have you been doing at the English wikipedia for the last DECADE if you don't speak English? μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Twinpinesmall -- it would be "Loves she me?" ... AnonMoos (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

St. Thomas and Prince

How much use does "São Tomé and Príncipe" get? I can't immediately remember seeing much of anything that uses this name, aside from our article. I've occasionally encountered "St. Thomas and Prince", but aside from that, pretty much everything I remember reading is either "Sao Tome and Principe" or "São Tomé e Príncipe"; having diacritics and "and" is unusual in my experience. The CIA World Factbook, the BBC, an international-relations center at the University of Denver, and the UN (member states directory and permanent mission pages) all use "and" and no diacritics, while the English-language pages on the Republic's governmental websites are nonexistent, so I can't see how they represent themselves in English. Neither the US nor the UK has an embassy there, nor vice versa, so there aren't relevant websites there either.

So...can someone find me some significant sources that use diacritics and "and"? I'm looking for authoritative sources, not popular and inexpert stuff like newspapers. Or must I conclude that virtually all authoritative sources use "e" and diacritics, or "and" and no diacritics? Nyttend backup (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the old diacritic wars. Good luck with that. --Jayron32 20:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

While you left this note, I was modifying my question, although I presume that you'd have said the same thing if you'd seen the revised version. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

At first I thought it was an early collaboration album we had all missed. I had never even heard of these islands... but it seems they have some lovely stamps, all with diacritics, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

All schoolboy philatelists know of this place, from spending uncountable hours of delight perusing Stanley Gibbons' Stamps of the World, which incidentally is a first hand way of learning one's history and geography. If you weren't of this ilk, you had an exceptionally severely deprived childhood. -- Jack of Oz 20:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I did my best in our relatively modest coastal home, but I enjoyed philatelic nerdism closer to home. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

From the movie Duck Soup, when Groucho and Margaret are getting romantic:

Mrs. Teasdale: Rufus, what are you thinking of?

Rufus T. Firefly: Oh, I was just thinking of all the years I wasted collecting stamps.

←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

My sincere apologies in railroading this entire thread. We can expect a hat soon, I fear. But in answer to Nyttend backup, that looks to me like an inter-langage amalgam. Martinevans123 (talk)

Hats usually have some sort of grounds. Is boringdom the ground on which you want this thread hatted, @Martinevans123:? Or is it something else? See WP:ANI. But do NOT ping me. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

January 10

Chinese/Manchu word ’ha’hachutsze

From the article whipping boy:

• In 1876, the North-China Herald commented on the announcement in the Peking Gazette of the start of the education of the Guangxu Emperor (1871–1908):

  The next appointment to be made (though not gazetted) will probably be that of the child who, according to the Manchu Imperial custom, shares his Majesty's studies under the name of Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), in the capacity of a Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) or "whipping-boy." Whenever the Son of Heaven is naughty or inattentive, the Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) is beaten or disgraced

ref —— Translations of the "Peking Gazette" 1876, reprinted from the "North China Herald". April 1877. p. 4.

There are no google hits for ’ha’hachutsze. Can anyone interpret it? Maybe "chutsze" is 竹子 zhúzi "bamboo"? Were pupils beaten with bamboo rods? jnestorius 00:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jnestorius: Not sure if you read Chinese, but here's the explanation on Baidu (哈哈珠子): . Apparently it's the Manchu plural for "boy" in other searches. Alex Shih (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't read Chinese, but this is in English: Some Explanations of the 'Haha Juse' in the Qing Dynasty. I guess Manchu plural became singular in Mandarin the same way Italian plural panini has become singular in English. jnestorius 18:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

An interesting use of "gazetted". Is the implication that the Manchu Dynasty has an equivalent form of publishing imperial appointments, or that the British authorities usually re-announced Chinese announcements? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems a bog-standard instance of "gazette" sense 1 as opposed to or even subsense 1.1. Peking Gazette is linked above. jnestorius 18:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

International Phonetic Alphabet - English Approximations are really American English Approximations

Hi, I am confused by the article on IPA and its use of "English approximations" in other language-related articles. For example, the article on Korean language will link to https://en.wikipedia.org/Help:IPA/Korean

Why do the IPA references give "English Approximations" instead of correctly stating that these are "American English Approximations"?

The approximations given are never standard, proper English. This obviously will affect vowels rather than consonants; consonants are generally similar regardless what English dialect or accent one has. However the approximations for vowels are incorrect if they are meant to represent/approximate Standard English (or even Australian/NZ which are similar to Standard English). Using the example of the Korean IPA above. It gives the English approximation to Korean "a" and "a:" sound as bot/box/spa. These words only sound the same in American English.

In standard English, bot and box sound the same or nearly the same, but nothing like spa. And the same can be said for nearly any IPA reference link which gives an "English approximation". This makes it quite confusing for a standard English speaker...example: is that Korean vowel meant to be the sound of bot/box or is it the sound of spa?

So the final question: how did this all come about and has this ever been clarified or acknowledged by the IPA or by IPA reference users such as wikipedia? 203.43.150.40 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

First off, the IPA symbols are what is in the first column. What is not in the first column is not IPA. Second, you have a slightly strange and narrow view of the Anglosphere if you think that any form of English with Cot-caught merger is "non-standard". However, I don't think that's what the chart was intended to refer to; there were actually some technical problems with the table formatting which I couldn't figure out 100%, but I did a quick-and-dirty fix; look at it now... AnonMoos (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry AnonMoos if my use of the word Standard confused you. I meant Standard English as in high-level/educated English from England, the origin of the language. Others would know this as Received Pronunciation. To this end, neither the cot-caught merger nor the father-bother merger have occurred in RP English. 203.43.150.40 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little confused — which of "cot" or "caught" would correspond to which of "bot", "box", "spa"? I have trouble imagining any of those three pronounced with the "caught" vowel /ɔ/.

I distinguish "cot" from "caught" myself, at least when speaking carefully, but I think I use pretty much the same vowel in "bot", "box", and "spa". Maybe it's one of those /ɒ/versus /ɑ/ versus /a/ things that I never have quite figured out what the distinction is? --Trovatore (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess it's technically actually "father-bother merger", but that would often be loosely grouped with "cot-caught merger" by many... AnonMoos (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Cot-caught merger has nothing to do with the OP's question. This is father-bother merger that the OP is (unconsciously) asking about. Actually, standard American English doesn't distinguish between the vowel of "bot" and of "spa" and of "bother" and of "father". However, standard British English does distinguish between the same vowel of "bot/bother" and the same vowel of "spa/father". So, Back to the OP's question, the answer is YES: It should have been: "American English Approximations". Please notice, however, that also American English is "standard" and "proper" not less than British English, as opposed to what one can conclude from what the OP has claimed. HOTmag (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I would be very confused if I were trying to learn Korean pronunciation. Here in the north of England, it's the vowel in cat and spat, but we would confuse others if we suggested that. Dbfirs 08:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As a Brit, I always find it strange that the American pronunciation of Las Vegas is Los Vegas. Widneymanor (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Las" in Las Vegas approximates the Spanish pronunciation, which I would say is close to the way a Brit would say "France", for example. As in "ah". I don't recall ever hearing anyone say "Los" Vegas in the Spanish way, as in "oh". Unless you mean to rhyme with "loss", which is possible. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

See the "father-bother merger" in the discussion above. The vowel for many English speakers on both sides of the atlantic in "father" and "bother" has merged into the same sound, the difference being that the merger has happened closer to the "ah" end of the spectrum in the UK and the "aw" end of the spectrum in the US, which is why to a british speaker it sounds more like "loss vegas". Americans, of course, don't notice this. --Jayron32 13:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That could be regional. In my part of America, the "fa" of "father" sounds like "fah", not "faw". And the "bo" of "bother" sounds like "bah", not "baw". There's also "water", which in the Midwest is pronounced like "wah", while a typical New Yorker might say it like "waw". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That's because they never have , , , , but rather: , , , , (e.g. in loss, cough, froth, song), so Las Vegas is not an exception. So what's strange? BTW, some British accents have something analogous: They never have , , , but rather: , , (e.g. in last, laugh, path). It seems like you mean they pronounce VEGAS as if it were spelled VAGAS (check: vague). Was that what you meant? HOTmag (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Pronouncing "Vegas" as in "vague" likewise approximates Spanish pronunciation. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure it's the first "a" they're referring to. There's a bit of a spectrum from LASS to LOSS. I prefer the cheeky "Lost Wages", which seems more accurate in other ways. Matt Deres (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, this "discussion" (scare quotes because some editors are inadvertantly talking past each other) just goes to show a general knowledge of the IPA is really necessary for meaningful cross-dialect communication. I have heard Americans and Brits pronounce Las Vegas as if the first vowel were anything from (cat) to (father) to (Gott in Himmel, "caught") or in between. I say for bot Los Angeles and Los Vegas when speaking my English dialect (NYC or Delaware Valley accent) even though it's not even close to the Spanish /o/ and /a/ respectively.

I find all too often that the Phonetic renderings of words are inconsistent between articles and a subject of ownership by the author within certain articles. The British IPA pronunciations tend toward a narrow RP phonetic transcription (with a terrible treatment of long vowels, diphthongs, and arr-colored vowels) that are totally foreign to Americans using a traditional phonemic Americanist IPA standard, while the American "sound-spellings" are just laughable.

Editors who care about such things should (1) learn the IPA, (2) realise that the British dominated IPA transcriptions are far too narrow and often idiosyncratic, and (3) that the version you see depends on the idiolect of the author who has claimed ownership of the article and his familiarity or lack thereof of local or native pronunciations of words spoken by people who don't speak his own dialect. Caveat lector. μηδείς (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Mideis. In my unclear (and always subtly trolling) way of discussion, this is what I was asking and the point I was trying to make. In wikipedia there are too many unclear IPA pronunciation references. This comes about because there are editors from a wide range of English speaking backgrounds.

The mistake all people make when trying to convert a verbal pronunciation into writing is that we only think of how we pronounce something...then we incorrectly assume this is how everyone else pronounces English. Hence, for the purposes of explaining a pronunciation, people who edit really need to recognise, learn and importantly denote whether they are pronouncing in RP English or more likely, GA (General American) English when using "English Approximations".

>>Side note: I agree that GA English is much more useful for approximating the pronunciation of foreign words because, as you said correctly, we seldom use long vowels in RP English.<<

The reason for doing all of this is that the general readership will most likely be inexperienced with/not be able to decipher IPA symbols, and so the English approximation is required to guide them to the correct pronunciation. Clarity and correct use of this English approximation is required to make the effort worthwhile. 203.43.150.40 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You say , but that's because you never have , , , , but rather: , , , , (e.g. in boss, cough, froth, song), so Las Vegas is not an exception. BTW, some British accents have something analogous: They never have , , , but rather: , , (e.g. in last, laugh, path). HOTmag (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

But Brits pronounce Las Vegas and Los Angeles differently (Lass and Loss resp.), whereas to our ears, Americans pronounce them both as Loss. Widneymanor (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct, but as I've already explained, that's because General American English never has the first vowel of FATHER - before /s/ (nor before /f/,/θ/,/ŋ/ ), so whenever the Brits pronounce the first vowel of FATHER before /s/ - e.g. in PAST or in LAS Vegas - General American speakers must replace that vowel by the vowel of either AT or DOG. In most of the cases - e.g. in the word PAST - General American speakers choose the vowel of AT, but in LAS VEGAS - they don't choose the vowel of AT - because this vowel doesn't exist in Spanish (being the origin of Las Vegas), so General American speakers must choose the vowel of DOG - thus having the pronunciation of LAS Vegas like that of LOS Angeles. HOTmag (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree, Widneymanor. I was born and raised in Detroit but have lived in California for over 45 years. Most Californians pronounce "Las" as in Las Vegas as "lahss", and pronounce "Los" as in Los Angeles something like "lawss", only softer. There is definitely a difference in pronunciation. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Not never. In New England English, the father-bother distinction is preserved. --Jayron32 18:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I meant General American English never has the first vowel of FATHER - before /s/. HOTmag (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No, HOTmag, I think you're wrong here. I speak GA, more or less, and I do use the first vowel of "father" in the Las of Las Vegas, at least when speaking carefully. --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you think you ever have the first vowel of FATHER - before /s/ (or before /f/,/θ/,/ŋ/ ), except for loanwords, e.g. proper nouns borrowed from Spanish (like Las Vegas)? HOTmag (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Took me a while to think of an example, but yes: "fossile", /fas.l/. --Trovatore (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC) Or could be /fɑs.l/ or /fɒs.l/, I guess — as I mentioned, I've never really figured out what the distinction is supposed to be. It's definitely not /fɔs.l/. --Trovatore (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

But Spanish people pronounce la casa (the house) differently to la cosa (the thing), so I disagree that the vowel of At doesn’t exist in Spanish.Widneymanor (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur. Definitely Spanish casa sounds different from Spanish cosa, but neither one uses the vowel in English "at". --Trovatore (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• @HOTmag: you are simply wrong. I do not have the cot-caught merger and I could easily pronounce the vowel of Las Vegas with the /a/ or or of "father" (or better, the of Castilian]. But I don't as a lexical issue do so in my primary dialect, where los and las in American place names are both as a given. I also say /hat dɔg/ and /flarɪdɘ arɪdʒɪnz/, except when in NY. Please keep in mind that I speak Spanish well enough to be mistaken for a native (on occasion I have been asked whether I am Oaxacan, Dominican, or Venezuelan); both Delaware Valley and NYC English at a native, code-switching level; have had my Russian vowels described as "beautiful"; am fluent in French and rusty in German; and won a Fulbright Scholarship to study Zulu. I do admit I find tonal languages difficult, since I usually have to parrot back a sentence three or four times to get it right.

Did the Flahrida ahringes make anyone else think of Johnny Cash singing Orange Blossom Special? --Trovatore (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

But I fear most editors who insist on various respellings and phonemic transcriptions are actually monodialectal, as well as totally ignorant of the difference between phonetics and phonemes. I don't intend to repeat myself, so ping me if you (vos) have a question. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

January 11

• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk