Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of language.
Language #eee #f5f5f5 #eee #aaa #aaa #aaa #00f #36b #000 #00f language Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language Language WP:RD/L

Welcome to the language reference desk. Want a faster answer? Main page: Help searching Wikipedia How can I get my question answered? Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question. Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when. Post your question to only one desk. Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here. Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers, 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 are not a substitute for actually doing any original research required, or as a free source of ideas. Ready? Ask a new question! How do I answer a question? Main page: Wikipedia: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.

skip to bottom   Choose a topic: Computing desk Entertainment desk Humanities desk Language desk Mathematics desk Science desk Miscellaneous desk Archives   See also: Help desk Village pump Help manual

December 29

Little river cove with no flow

In this scene, the foreground water is a little cove: in the main course of the stream, the water's flowing toward the observer, but there's a small spot here in which the ground is lower than the water flow, so if you took away the water in the foreground, stream water would momentarily flow almost backward until it re-filled-up the cove. I always understood "backwater" to refer to such a place, but Backwater (river) says that the term refers only to alternate stream courses and to water that's been obstructed by higher-than-normal water levels at a stream's mouth, like the Ohio River blockage that caused File:Lickford Bridge.jpg to get a bathtub ring. So what do you call a dead-end part of a stream like this one? Apparently cove refers only to formations within lakes, oceans, etc., not streams. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I've adjusted the phrasing in the article to indicate that the examples were not intended to be exclusive. The OED has the sense "A piece of water without current, lying more or less parallel to a river, and fed from it at the lower end by a back-flow", which matches your scene, and is what I think of first when I read the term backwater. Dbfirs 08:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Languages that don't require pronunciations in their dictionaries

What languages have sufficiently phonetic spelling that (monolingual) dictionaries of those languages don't need to include pronunciations for each word? I would guess that Spanish would likely be a major example of that, but what are some others? Are there words for which Spanish dictionaries have to make exceptions and supply the pronunciation, perhaps because those words were borrowed directly from other languages using the pronunciation from the source language?--Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Two articles/keywords that might interest you (the articles do name some examples and also exceptions within those examples) are phonemic orthography and orthographic depth. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This would apply to languages that have not evolved phonetically since their writing system was developed, such as Sanskrit and Pali. Once you know how to pronounce the individual syllables, you can pronounce any word correctly.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I kid you not, but there are phonetic dictionaries even for languages such as Italian. But I believe the writing of the majority of European languages are quite phonemic (but not necessary phonetic, if this is possible at all), so no need to list them all; it is English and French which are exceptions. However, even in French writing-to-reading is a much easier task, so they rarely provide transcription, except for foreign words.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The reason for the phonetic pronunciations in Italian dictionaries, Lüboslóv, largely relates to the pronunciation of "e," and "o."

Usually at the start and middle of a word—and always at the end of a word—"e" is pronounced /e/ (about halfway between the "e" in the English word "wet," and the "i" in the English word "fish"). Sometimes, however—except at the end of a word—it is pronounced /ɛ/ (like the "e" in the English word "wet").

And, again, usually at the start and middle of a word—and always at the end of a word—"o" is pronounced /o/ (sort of like the "o" in the English word "hold," but without puckering one's lips at the end). But sometimes—except at the end of a word—it is pronounced /ɔ/ (like the "aw" in the English word "law").

There is positively no orthographic rule to this; it is purely lexically specified. For instance, pesca, with the /e/ sound, means "fish," and pesca, with the /ɛ/ sound means "peach." In fact, this is so unregulated that most reputable Italian dictionaries prescribe the sounds based on how Italian newscasters and other media personalities pronounce them.

I hope that this do clear things up for you.

Pine (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I know Italian enough to know there are open and closed "e" and "o" in it. However, they think they need to transcribe entire words in the dictionary. I read in another author - if I remember it right, it was Luciano Canepari - where he explained in details why Italian pronunciation is not so straightforward and obvious as it has always been thought, and how Italian educators fail to address these issues. Of course, these difficulties are nothing in comparison with English.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's also stress. For example ancora means "still, again" if you pronounce it /aŋˈkɔ.ra/, but "anchor" if you pronounce it /ˈaŋkɔra/. --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course, these difficulties are nothing in comparison with English.

No argument here!  :)

Among the major world languages, French, Portuguese, and especially Italian deviate somewhat from their respective orthographies. English, nevertheless, is truly in a class by itself!!!

I mean, just try to teach a nonnative speaker words such as choir, laughing, colonel, Mrs., victuals, Wednesday, or (in British English) lieutenant.

Pine (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Dutch is an example. The dictionary only gives pronunciation for loanwords that deviate from Dutch pronunciation rules (often of French or English origin). - Lindert (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone who has commented here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Polish is an example. I've seen many Polish monolingual dictionaries, but I've never seen (or heard of) one with phonetic transcriptions. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hungarian is another language with a practically unambiguous writing. As to the supplementary question for Spanish, there are some exception to the pronounciation, e.g. México is usually pronounced like Méjico rather than with a true x. And while reading Spanish is almost unambigous with a few exceptions like the one just mentioned, writing a word that you can pronounce is not - b and v have basically the same phonetic value, and diacritics/accents are used, among other uses, to distinguish words with different meanings but identical pronounciation. -- 149.14.152.210 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

For Italian, ⟨z⟩ is also ambiguous: mezzo has two different meanings depending on whether it's pronounced /ˈmɛddzo/ or /ˈmettso/. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 16:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Homographs and word-repetition

Hello, again!

The English language is notorious for having many more words (than other major languages) that sound alike, are spelled alike, or both, that have very different meanings. And this often annoys me when I try to write in a way that will keep my reader's attention.

For instance, to be, in the passive voice, often seems to stretch the language beyond what it can manage.

e.g.

"John will be screening the movie this afternoon." (active)

"The movie will be being screened this afternoon." (passive)

I myself tend to get around this by substituting different copulative verbs for to be.

e.g.

"The movie will end up getting screened this afternoon.

But other times, such as with the perfect-aspect forms of must, this is more difficult to avert.

e.g.

"He would have had to do it."

"I had had to do it."

In these cases, I feel compelled to substitute other periphrases.

e.g.

"He would have been obligated to do it."

"I had no choice but to have done it."

And in some cases, such as those involving pronouns and conjunctions, this gets even uglier!

e.g.

"The result that (subordinating conjunction) that (demonstrative pronoun) process achieved seemed pointless."

In these cases, my "corrections" seem almost inhuman and robot-like.

"The result achieved by said process seemed pointless."

I wonder, though, am I being too pedantic in my opinion?

Are constructions such as "the movie will be being screened," "he would have had to do it," or "The result that that process achieved seemed pointless" really bad English? In informal settings (or even formal ones) would it now be considered all right to just write homographs in a chain?

Thank you. Pine (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

All three of the sentences in your penultimate paragraph are perfectly good English.

• In colloquial speech the first "that" would commonly be dropped to give "The result that process achieved seemed pointless", with the omitted' "that" being understood. This is the case even when there is no second "that" – one would commonly say "The result the process achieved . . ." or "The result this process achieved . . ." However, strict grammar requires the first "that", so "The result that that process achieved seemed pointless" (or ". . . that the . . ." or ". . . that this . . .") would be correct and expected in formal written English.
• "[H]e would have had to do it" is correct and usual.
• "[T]he movie will be being screened [this afternoon]" is correct, but has a subtly different meaning (for this BrE native speaker) to the more usual "the movie will be screened [this afternoon]." The latter is a simple statement; the former, with its reference to a continuing process ("be being screened") rather than a singular event ("be screened") carries a hint that the screening will be going on at the same time as other (unspecified) events.

In general, (British) English has no issue with "that that", "had had", "be being" and similar paired homonyms or near-homonyms, as the meaning is always clear from context. Whether or not you choose to retain or avoid them is a matter of the writing style and social register you wish to convey. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Further to the above, I wonder if you're familiar with the exercise to correctly punctate the following to create a correctly grammatical passage?

John where Frank had had had had had had had had had had had the teacher's approval.

Doubtless you or another editor can supply the answer. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting discussion here. “[T]he movie will be being screened [this afternoon].” I have never heard this in American English, and I never would have known it is correct until you said so. Most of the time, I’d just omit the “being” word. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes; one would rarely hear it (in BrE either) because it carries a shade of meaning that one would rarely need to express, but grammatically it's quite correct. It can be instructive to look at an old-style Latin primer (that is, an introductory textbook of Latin grammar), where in order to explain the meaning of Latin word inflections, unusual but entirely correct English grammatical constructions are necessarily employed. (I myself had to study Latin at school (in the late 60s to early 70s), and indeed learned much of the more "advanced" aspects of English grammar by doing so – which probably is evident from my prose style! Nowadays English grammar is generally analysed in rather different terms.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this correct: “Water will be being drunk by Michael”? (answer: "Syntactically, yes, the sentence is correct. It's the Passive Future Progressive"). Agree that this construction is rather unusual in BrE, but it wouldn't sound odd either. Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

See Had had had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.221.49 (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Anything in English can be made sensical with the right context. If water being drunk is a nightclub act, then “Water will be being drunk by Michael Friday, Saturday, and Sunday evenings and on weekend matinees” would make perfect sense. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That's possible, but there's a more mundane application, where the "being" indicates that a process is happening at the same time as something else. Drinking by Michael is a silly example. Here's a better one: "The dining room will be being renovated at the time your convention takes place and the hotel has made arrangements for your meals elsewhere." This indicates that the renovation is an ongoing process during the convention. Compare with: "The dining room will be renovated at the time your convention takes place...", which is ambiguous until the second part of the sentence follows. It might indicate that the renovation work has finished by the time the convention starts. Akld guy (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree wholeheartedly, Akld guy and Medeis; just the same, wouldn't it seem somewhat neater and less eye-glazing to write “Water will be getting drunk by Michael Friday, Saturday, and Sunday evenings and on weekend matinees” and "The dining room will end up becoming renovated at the time your convention takes place and the hotel has made arrangements for your meals elsewhere." Or am I just nit-picking, here? Pine (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• "Water will be drunk" and "the dining room will be under renovation" are normal concise unmarked constructions. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• "end up becoming renovated" is absurd. "will be under renovation" per User:Medeis is probably the preferred construction, but we weren't asked for alternatives. We were asked to pass judgement on a stated phrasing, and "will be being renovated" is entirely acceptable in Brit/Commonwealth English. Akld guy (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it could end up becoming renovated if the intentionally destructive act of tearing up the carpet has the paradoxical effect of revealing a finely finished hardwood-paneled floor. This happened to my parents who tore up a ghastly lime green rug, intending to replace it, and finding it overlay a wonderfully done oak floor, which needed only a light sanding and a coat of stain. Realtors have commented on its attractiveness and value. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Please notice that some repetitions are inevitable: "He gave her her book " (unless we insist on "He gave her book to her"), "The fishכמבוארrmen fish fish ", "His will will be respected ", "He likes likes ", and the like.
• The longest natural repetition I can think of, using no quotation marks (such as those needed in the Had had had sentence) and no proper nouns (such as those used in the Buffalo buffalo sentence), involves four successive identical words: "The house he had had had had a red roof ".
• Here is a somewhat surprising repetition I discovered some years ago, with a double which (without any quotation marks and any proper nouns), even though its (definitely grammatical) syntax is a bit awkward: "The country, the mountains of which - which are very high - are also very snowy, is Nepal ". However, we can avoid the repetition, by rephrasing it as follows: "The country, of which the mountains - which are very high - are also very snowy, is Nepal "; Or maybe even better (without any "which" and any "that"): "The country, whose mountains - being very high - are also very snowy, is Nepal ". HOTmag (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

He returned her book. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:38, January 2, 2018 (UTC)

But that would leave ambiguity: "He returned her book [to the library]." The second "her" (or an equivalent wording) is required to make the particular scenario clear. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.253 (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

We could always rewrite it so he keeps the book, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, January 2, 2018 (UTC)

They mean, the first "her" in my original sentence provides some necessary information not provided by your sentence. HOTmag (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hulk hears him or her. It's a snippet, though; it's bound to be vague. Out in the wild, it'd have context to explain what needs explaining (who they are, what the book's about, whether she wanted it back), and this would allow avoiding the doubles. Not that doubles should be avoided, mind you. But it's always possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, January 3, 2018 (UTC)

Looking for linguistic terms

The -ow in “cow” is made with the tongue spreading out very quickly and widely in American English. If the tongue is fixed into a ball-like shape, then it no longer sounds like a “cow” in American English.

The -o in “dot” is made by opening the mouth and saying “aaahhh”, but this “ah” is shortened by the two consonants on both sides. The t is short. If you try to elongate the t, then it just sounds like wind rushing out of your mouth, no t sound.

English has no growling/roaring/purring sounds. Though, some English speakers can “purr” when they pronounce the r in purr to mimic a cat’s purr.

How would linguists describe these sounds? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Phonemes would be one such analysis. Note that you say "English" has no growling/roaring/purring sounds", but the "rolled R or Alveolar trill is normal in, for example, Scots English. I myself cannot produce this (having not learned it in childhood) so when I lived in Scotland I had to substitute an Uvular trill. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought a responder would use fancy linguistic terms like “uvular trill”. I remember a website that mentions “affricates”, which mean “no friction [against the teeth]”. Okay, so there are uvular trill, alveolar trill, affricates... anything else? Words to describe tongue movements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Does our List of consonants and Table of vowels help? See also International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects. According to Wikt:cow the IPA is /kaʊ̯/ - you can do the rest. Alansplodge (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

... and, of course, though dot is pronounced /dɑt/ in Ohio, my guess would be that when the doctor asks you to say aaaahhh, you say something more like [äːː]. Dot would be /dɒt/ in British English, whereas /dät/ (with a shortened aahh) would mean "that" in Scouse, African-American, and Low German. In addition to Alan's excellent links above, we also have IPA vowel chart with audio that might be of interest. Dbfirs 19:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The "ow" in "cow" /aʊ/ is a diphthong, a sound which by definition requires the tongue to move from one position to another within the same syllable. While "ow" is a phoneme of English, the other sounds are not. So while people may have the skill to pronounce them, they do not get used in standard words.

The only proper answer to "anything else? Words to describe tongue movements?" is read phonology and the associated links, and don't expect us to teach you an open-ended question the answer to which would be a doctorate in linguistics. I am sure the Ohio State library has tons of books, you can also check with their reference librarian. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Anybody know how to lip read?

Is someone available to lip read a few sentences from a video? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.187.192 (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Where is the video? SSS (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Somewhere near Basildon, Essex, apparently. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Drawing a Ѯ

The letter Ѯ is very difficult to draw. Any simplifications that are sometimes used?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry. You don't have to draw it. This letter has been eliminated from the Russian alphabet by the 18th century. [1] Unfortunately, I can't find any resources on actually drawing this letter. Based on the video, the font style of the letter makes it appear that the letter has 2 brushstrokes. The top u shape thing, the bottom 3-curve thing. SSS (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A man went to his doctor, and said, "Doc, when I bang my head with my fist like this it hurts. What should I do?" The doctor replied, "Stop banging your head with your fist."

Seriously, what's so hard about a tailed 3 with a haček, and in what context is this the most annoying of your problems? Are you not either being paid or graded for this? μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The OP may be concerned about brushstroke order. Maybe he's wondering whether he should write the haček first and tailed 3 last, or vice versa. When I was a child, cursive writing was taught by the Palmer method, which greatly influenced my handwriting and other people's handwritings today. I often have to go through the motions of the brushstrokes when I want to figure out what someone has written in cursive. In East Asian cultures, brushstroke order is very important. SSS (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The letter has had two forms. The early one was written in a zigzag way like ž over ʒ, the middle line being merged. You draw a line from left to right, then right to left 45 degrees, then again left to right, then again right to left 45 degrees, then draw the final small ɔ-like tail. In other words, you draw two 7, one under another, then make a half-ring. Finally you make a check mark v over the letter.

The second and modern rounded form has been developed later. You draw number 3, but make a small left-to-right tail, then make a check mark v over the letter. Or another way: draw ∩, then 2 under, then v over. In speedwriting they could really draw a long zigzag with one stroke. See more variants here[2][3].--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

December 31

You are worth the struggle.

What does "you are worth the struggle" mean here? Thank you. The context is "One year is enough to prove to yourself that you are worth the struggle that you undertake just to reap a momentary fruit of that labour." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.208.40 (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the opposite of being told that you are wasting your time - a proverb familiar in many languages (the Portuguese version is Não vale a pena!) 2A00:23C0:79B9:9100:C902:53EB:7D93:D534 (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

1) Someone asked the same question on the wordreference.com forum a couple of days ago, then disappeared when asked for further details. 2) The phrase is nonsense; it can be worth the struggle to do something, but someone is not worth the struggle. 3) The phrase comes from one Adhish Mazumder, who self-publishes on Amazon. Apparently not a native speaker of English. Henry^Flower 13:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The phrase is not nonsense, and the meaning is perfectly clear (certainly a lot clearer than the covfefe that comes out of a certain person's demented head). Life, college and even "cute sports bras are worth the struggle, so why not you? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The phrase that the OP gives for context is nonsense. It should be "One year is enough to prove to yourself that it is worth the struggle that you undertake just to reap a momentary fruit of that labour." Akld guy (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the poster does geolocate to Beijing and self-identify as a native Chinese speaker on the other forum where they asked this question. But it only shows up here, at that forum, and at a dead link. As for the soon to be one-year struggle over making America great again, I would point Clarityfiend to Eminem's lyrics: "A wise man told me that holdin' a grudge is like lettin' somebody just live inside of your head rent-free." μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Am I missing something? To me the sentence is grammatical and makes sense. Also, hopefully the Orange One will soon have other free accommodations. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the topic is not the only thing you are off of. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I take the meaning of "you are worth the struggle" as referring to one's self-worth or self-esteem and how one's particular struggle affect's that... as opposed to referring to the worth of the struggle itself or its reward (as I think is being misinterpreted with the straw-man). --Modocc (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

See what User:Henry Flower said. I agree with him. Akld guy (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes you both believe the statement should mean something that it doesn't which is that it should state that the struggle is worth something when it does not mean that at all. It is the person who is to convince themselves (as in "prove to yourself") that they are worth undertaking a struggle or burden or whatever. With respect to reading comprehension, I'm not sure what grade level this is though. --Modocc (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The version that you are insisting is correct would mean literally that the person's life is worth the struggle. Clearly not what is meant, and in sentences in which it does mean that, it would be explicitly spelled out, as in "you would give your life..." Akld guy (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This could all be cleared up if the OP were to come back and tell us where that quote came from. Since that's the OP's only edit, I wouldn't bet on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It does not mean one's life necessarily, although that is possible, but one's self-worth which is self esteem a much studied human trait to which I linked to an article about and it's an opinion of oneself that can vary over time and situations. It can be the difference between an experienced and confident player of a game who is recognized as such and who knows that they are capable of playing well and someone that is not for various reasons. Traits such as arrogance and narcissism can arise from an exaggerated sense of self regard. According to the quote, a year suffices to assess one's worth regarding some struggle. The quote most certainly says that and that might be true, nor does it state what it applies to, but proverbs tend to be abstract and nonspecific that way. Is the person talented at the task they struggle with? Or are they an incompetent failure? Perhaps another year is needed or will help resolve any doubts. --Modocc (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

A concern here is whether one year is a sufficient amount of time to figure out if you are wasting your time pursuing something or if you would be better off using your time differently. While there are incremental rewards, presumably paychecks, the question is whether the overall pursuit is a good one or a waste of time in the bigger picture. This is comparable to a dead-end job versus a job that serves as a springboard to advantageous job possibilities, given one's opportunities at the outset. This is only a comparable analogy. One can envision the quoted phrase being used in other senses as well. Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2

"Outside is snowing"

I just searched this on Google.

• "Outside is snowing" - This gets 68,800 results.
• "It's snowing" - This gets 593,000 results.
• "It's snowing outside" - This gets 347,000 results.
• "The outside is snowing" - This gets 4 results.
• "The outside weather is snowing" - This gets 0 results. But at least Google gives me the weather forecast.

Based on these results, the most popular expression is "it's snowing". The last two is likely grammatically incorrect. The 2nd and 3rd are definitely grammatically correct. But the first one gets a whopping 68,800. I am aware that there are a lot of bilinguals in the world (myself included), and bilinguals tend to think differently than monolinguals and use different terms than monolinguals. I am just wondering whether this is how a monolingual English speaker would say it. I mention "monolingual" because a monolingual does not really experience linguistic interference. SSS (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"Outside is snowing" is likely a mishearing of "Outside it's snowing", which itself would be less often heard than "It's snowing outside" but could still be valid English. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm in North America and I agree that "outside is snowing" is wrong. --76.69.117.217 (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"the last two is likely grammatically correct" is not grammatically correct. Furthermore the last two examples appear grammatically correct but the first is ambiguous with regard to the meaning of outside. The second implies that there is some form of weather that is not outside. Technically possible for some pedants who might want to refer to the ambience inside a large covered stadium, arena or large construction, but generally weather is not used in these circumstances. Richard Avery (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"It's snowing" and "it's snowing outside" are frequently used. The second one is kind of redundant (we hope) but it's still popular. Maybe it carries an implied "come here and look" with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Google result counts are not very meaningful.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a reasonable guideline. The specific numbers might be suspect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Could ‘Outside is snowing’ be part of a sentence? E.g. “the weather outside is snowing heavily”, “the weather outside is snowing”, “outside is snowing heavily”. That might explain how Google found it so often--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "the weather is snowing" as a statement would be used by a native speaker, except maybe in a slangy way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. We don't say "The weather is raining", etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The point missed so far is that verbs like "to snow" and "to rain" are impersonal. The only possible subject for such verbs is "it" - not "outside" or "the weather" or even "the clouds" Wymspen (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• (e/c)I typed "outside is snowing" (with quotes) into Google Canada and got 58,500 hits. It's maybe instructive to note that many of the hits on the first page are either translations (the number one hit was to a Spanish translation page here, non-native speakers (on Reddit), or song lyrics, which frequently bend grammar to fit the music. In other words, it's being used in special cases, not everyday speech. Now, if I switch to look for the phrase in books, I get only 144 hits. The first one is a truncated quote from some frankly horrible doggerel and the second one is to The Foot Book, which does not include that phrase in it at all (and many of the other hits don't appear to actually have the phrase either, which hopefully proves instructive to those trying to use Google counts to mean much of anything when it comes to specifics) :-). Matt Deres (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps something with poetic licence, 'outside, tis snowing'. But other than that, I agree with Jack and others - don't say it (not to be proscriptive :)). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"tis" - which should correctly be written "'tis" (with the apostrophe) - is simply a rather old fashioned shortening of "it is" which we now usually shorten to "it's" You really do always need an "it" as the subject of the verb "to snow" Wymspen (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes that is what tis is but that rather misses the point, if I were writing poetry, I could choose tis or is - it's poetry, lyrics, licence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Words containing the same number of letters as their numerical value

Happy New Year to the world.

I understand the word "four" is the only word in English that has the same number of letters as its numerical value 4. Also, a sextet contains 6 people and 6 letters, and a decahedron has 10 sides and 10 letters.

There must be more of these curiosities. Over. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The word "1" is written down with one sign only. Additionally, if you count decahedron (even though it's not a number), then what about: fifth, seventh... HOTmag (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

...or eighthly. --Antiquary (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Or "tri-" --Jayron32 20:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Try: "bi-". HOTmag (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Also "di-", "quint-" and "penta-". --Antiquary (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by the word "1", HOTmag. 1 is a number, not a word. The word representing that number is "one", which has 3 letters. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Same thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, January 3, 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why you think "1" is not a word. Is "a" a word? If "I" (pronounced "eye") is a word, then why can't "1" (pronounced "one") be a word?

If I had been a Chinese being asked how many hearts I had got, I wouldn't have noticed the difference between - what you call the "word" answering that question - and the "number" answering that question, because the Chinese language has only one character (i.e. "-", pronounced "yee") that answers that question.

Indeed, there is a difference between a "word" and a "number", but that difference is not what you think it is. Actually, any word, whether representing a concrete object (e.g. a person), or an abstract concept (e.g. the answer to the question how many hearts I have got), is a set of signs, whether of some signs (e.g. the three signs "eye"), or of one sign only (e.g. the single sign "I". Please notice that any set may be a singleton, i.e. it may contain one object only); Whereas any number, is not a set of signs, but rather is an abstract concept - being an answer to the question "how many". Therefore, the answer to the question how many hearts I have got, must be a number, whereas the set of signs: "one", is an (English) word (that represents a number being the answer to that question), and the same is true for the set of signs "1": It's a (western) word (that represents a number being the answer to that question), and the same is true for the set of signs "-": It's a (Chinese) word (that represents a number being the answer to that question). HOTmag (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

What is the difference between one and 1? My 2c: We have a range of symbols we can draw on to represent and communicate concepts. Some - not all - of these symbols are called letters (a, b, c ... but not 7, $, #, +, %, & etc). Letters can be combined in all manner of ways. Some - not all - of these ways are called words (cat, dog, air ... but not xtdehqzsdwefsy). The expressions "There is one god" and "There is 1 god" mean the same thing, just expressed using different symbols. The first one uses words exclusively. The second one does not, since it contains the non-word "1". This is a distinction confined to written language, obviously, because if one spoke either of these sentences, the listener could not tell which of them had been chosen. But that's no different from the distinction between "2 + 2 = 4" and "two plus two equals four". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The term "word" depends on context. In modern English, also email addresses, like [email protected], may be regarded as words, even though they contain some symbols not contained in Latin alphabet. The same is true for [email protected]. Indeed, in the 20th century, no word contained the symbol of a dot, however words could contain numerals. HOTmag (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a bit of ambiguity in the problem, because some numbers can be written in a variety of ways in English (eg. "one thousand one hundred five", "one thousand one hundred and five", "one thousand, one hundred five", etc., the latter case raising the issue of whether commas should be counted). However I don't think any quibbling like this would produce a second result other than "four". You may be interested in reading about autograms. CodeTalker (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, it's sometimes stated that "one thousand" is the first number (counting upwards) to include an "a" in it, to which I usually reply "What about one hundred and one?", which they usually do not accept as valid for some reason. Matt Deres (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll accept a fiver? If not I'll give you a bunch of fives. --Antiquary (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The indefinite article "a" has one letter and is usually associated with a singleton (many languages use the same word for "a/an" and "one"). --KnightMove (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@JackofOz: Do calculations like 'sum of ten and five' (15 letters) count, of just words...? --CiaPan (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

11+2 = 12+1 and Eleven plus two is an anagram of Twelve plus one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.221.49 (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

We've established that only one Arabic numeral fits, but there are three Roman numerals, I, II and III. --Antiquary (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC) I forgot the Romans used IIII instead of the modern IV. --Antiquary (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

And cinco means 5 in Spanish. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]}

OK, we also have octagram, enneagram, hendecagram, dodecahedron, nonagonal, and tetradecagonal. There's a quarter of an hour I'm never going to get back. --Antiquary (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Still a few more dregs to be squeezed out of geometry: octangle, octagons and hendecagons. --Antiquary (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Quad, meaning 4 of. Akld guy (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thinking of other languages I have studied: πέντε = 5 (in greek), vier = 4 (in German), motoba = 6 (in Lingala). There are none in French, Latin, Hebrew or Kikongo. You could also play about with Google Translate to work out some other languages. As a starter, 3 is tre (in Albanian), ሶስት (in Amharic), tri (in Bosnian), три (in Bulgarian); 4 is afar (in Somali); 5 is cinco (in Portuguese) ...... Have fun: there are only 104 languages to work through. Wymspen (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I dimly remember that a sevener is a better conker than all sixers but not as good as eighters. --Antiquary (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There are none in .. Hebrew -- yes there is Hebrew: חמישה‎ (5) --82.102.169.113 (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting: Google translate confirms that חָמֵשׁ = 5 but also gives your spelling. This may be because I learnt biblical Hebrew, rather than modern Hebrew. Wymspen (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

They differ in gender: see Hebrew numerals#Cardinal Values. If you prefer feminine, then there's ארבע for four. --194.213.3.4 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The word חמישה is in Modern Hebrew only. In Biblical Hebrew it's חמשה, having four letters only. 185.46.78.29 (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

More specifically, it's Ktiv hasar niqqud#Ktiv male, which is the modern orthography, but it's not specific to the modern language: Biblical Hebrew can be (and nowadays, frequently is) written in ktiv male just as well.

If you prefer ktiv haser, then שלֹשׁ for three would be a relevant example. And ארבע for four works whichever ktiv you choose. --194.213.3.4 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• On a related note, in Slavic languages the number 100, spelled sto or сто, contains the same number of letters and digits, three. --Theurgist (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks all for your ideas. Let curiosity reign supreme in 2018. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

January 3

All of them are

I know this is right. But how do I explain this is right and the following sound wrong?

• All give to her.
• All gives to her.
• Everything gives to her.
• You everything give to her. SSS (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The first is not incorrect, See here for pronoun uses of "all"; in the first case, "All give to her" means "All (of the people) give to her". It's fine. All is a third person plural pronoun meaning "every", as a third person plural it takes the "s-less" form of the verb, which is why the second is wrong. The third is not strictly incorrect either, if an inanimate subject is doing the giving. See here for uses of everything, it can be a third person singular pronoun. It seems a bit awkward only because inanimate things don't usually "give" to people, but it's not really a grammar issue. The fourth is wrong because in English, the direct object comes after the verb, not before, and should be "You give everything to her". --Jayron32 11:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

When a word implies more than one person or thing as the subject, the verb has to be plural. "All of them" implies a group - so the subject is plural and you use "are" rather than "is". "All give to her" is grammatically correct, but sounds incomplete without an object - "all give gifts to her" sounds more normal. You can't say "all gives to her" because that is a plural subject with a singular verb. "Everything gives to her" is also grammatical, but again sounds as if it needs an object. Your final example has the word order wrong - you need to follow the subject-verb-object pattern in English, so "you give everything to her." Wymspen (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Everything takes the third person single conjugation in English, whereas All takes the third person plural. This is usually explained that "everything" is considering each individually in turn (and thus singular in sense) whereas "all" is taking the entire group together (and thus in plural), though this stikes me as a sort of post-hoc rationale. English (and ANY language) is rarely consistent, and most grammatical rules are "just because" rules, with no inherrant logic. --Jayron32 15:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 [4]. 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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)

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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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)