Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 December 13

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

December 13

H1N1 Vaccine Cost

How much does the H1N1 vaccine cost to get? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.51.167 (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are you? It's free in Canada. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In the US there are a bunch of clinics offering free shots. You may want to check around your area's health department website. bibliomaniac15 04:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not a language related question. Here's one: It seems like the switch from "Swine Flu" to "H1N1" is incomplete so that some people still say "Swine flue." Does this have potential to be one of those terms that people of a particular political pursuasion pick as a sort of shibboleth (you know, kind of like how people against legal abortions call their opponents "pro-abortion" while said opponents call themselves "pro-choice")? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I say "swine flu" because I am lazy and it only has two syllables (and it's easier to type). I also know it doesn't literally come from swine, although apparently most people don't, which is why we are supposed to use "H1N1". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Swine flu" and "H1N1 flu" are both names that have referred to other viruses in the past, anyway. For discussion of the proper name of the virus, see Pandemic H1N1/09 virus#Nomenclature. --Anonymous, 07:10 UTC, December 13, 2009.

It did in fact come from swine, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. Algebraist 12:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, originally, but you won't automatically get it from standing next to a pig, or eating pork. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What about porking a pig? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

English in Bermuda

[1]

[2]

Is it just me, or does the accent spoken in Bermuda seem very similar to American English? There doesn't seem to be very much of a British English component to their speech patterns. -hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've only ever met one person from Bermuda, but I wouldn't have guessed that from the way she spoke. She sounded generally "North American" to me. I assumed they would have British accents, or something like a Caribbean accent (although I don't know why I thought that since Bermuda isn't in the Caribbean). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Bermudian English is largely descended from the accents of British seafarers, as are Caribbean and some North American English accents. It's probably fair to say (and going on the Bermudians I know, fairly accurate) that there are similarities with some varieties of North American English, and also with British English accents from places like Bristol and the Southwest of England. Overlay that with Bermudian exposure to US culture, which is pretty overwhelming, and you're very likely to get an accent that bears vestiges of some UK accents largely subsumed within a thick veneer of US accent. Grutness...wha? 21:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC) (mind you, the Bermudian I knew best was born in Scotland and still sounded like it...)

I am North American, and I agree that the Bermudians speaking in those videos sound more North American than British. However, to my ears they have a subtle but unique accent, one I haven't heard before. (I am not including the blonde white newscaster in the first video, who I suspect is a native of the United States or perhaps Canada and has a General American accent.) The accent is interesting; to me it sounds like a hybrid of a mild Caribbean accent with a Midland American accent. Grutness may be right that the accent started as a West Country dialect, with further Scottish and Irish influence (as did many varieties of North American English, probably). However, I do detect a lilt reminiscent of Caribbean English, which is probably due to some African influence. Grutness is also right that Bermuda lives in the cultural shadow of the United States, which must also have influenced its language. Marco polo (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Numismatics terminology, anyone?

I've just posted a terms query at the Glossary of numismatics Talk page, and would appreciate input from Language Ref Deskmates familiar with this lingo. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nought and naught

What is the difference in usage between nought and naught? I need to write in at least dated English for my project, and I need to know if I am using these terms incorreclty. --Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.211.192 (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My experience is that in UK English, nought is usually used as an alternative to the number zero in some contexts, whereas naught is a dated term synonymous with the quantity or concept of nothing, as in the phrase "[x] will avail you naught." (i.e. "[x] will not help you at all"), or "it matters naught" (i.e. "it doesn't matter at all").

However, the 1979 Collins English Dictionary states that in current UK English nought is also an acceptable alternative spelling of naught, and that, epecially in US English, naught is a variant spelling of nought.

Collins also says that 'naught' derives from the Old English 'näwiht', from 'nä' = no + 'wiht' = thing or person (c.f. 'wight'), and that in addition to its archaic or literary meaning of 'nothing', an obsolete meaning is 'worthless', 'ruined' or 'wicked' (whence 'naughty'): 'nought', however, derives from Old English 'nöwiht', from 'ne' = not, no + 'öwiht' = something (c.f. 'whit').

Note also that in current non-standard Northern English/British dialects, such as Yorkshire, 'nowt' is routinely used to mean nothing, as in the saw "Tha gets owt for nowt" or in (dated) Standard English "You get aught for naught", meaning "You don't get anything for nothing."

Hope this helps. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The two homonyms have not always been used with any distinction in meaning. There is, however, another useful conventional distinction for some contexts, "using 'naught' where there is an implication of evil or naughtiness, 'nought' where the implication is nothingness" (David Norton, A textual history of the King James Bible, p. 93). This convention was adopted by the 1638 editors of the 1611 Bible ("the water is naught, and the ground is barren"). If you follow it, you'll write "will avail you nought" and "it matters nought." Wareh (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Does this sentence make sense?

How could it be stylistically improved?

While the line between good and evil often appears to be clear, evil's existence is reliant on human interpretation, and morality can change merely as the result of perspective. Thanks in advance, PerfectProposal 19:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good sentence. It is perfectly clear what is being said, and I think the wording is individualistic, and I like the way the sentence barrels along headlong, saying a lot in a little bit of space. I like sentences that appear to be dashed off without a great deal of thinking — even though the reality is that sometimes a lot of care has to be put into making it appear that way. Perhaps someone else can offer pointers for improvement, but I think it's OK as is. Bus stop (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a definition of "situation ethics". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm writing an essay on Animal Farm. Specifically, I'm talking about how evil is changed by perspective, with some focus on Moral Relativism. Any other help would be appreciated. I'd post the essay here, but it's not complete, and a bit longish :) PerfectProposal 20:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Cliff Notes version. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather old-fashioned, but I prefer "Although . . ." to "While . . ." in cases like this, reserving while for cases in which there is a significant temporal aspect. There's nothing wrong with your sentence, though. Deor (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Objective studies of Grammatical case for use in Artificial Intelligence etc

According to what I've seen in the articles Grammatical case and List of grammatical cases, different languages have somewhat similar case structures, but they are not entirely equivalent. I'm wondering what would be the ideal case structure to use to classify knowledge for use in artificial intelligence, disregarding having to communicate with humans. Has anyone ever decided what such an ideal universal case structure ought to be? 78.147.45.132 (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Cases are nothing to do with classifying knowledge: they are solely to do with how a given language expresses relations between different words in a sentence. If communication is not the issue, then neither is language, and cases don't enter into the matter. Even if language is involved, there is no requirement that case (in the sense described by grammatical case) be present at all, though what some linguists call 'abstract case' probably will.--ColinFine (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a classification scheme. Unfortunately you have siezed apon the one word "classify" in the above and are shaking it to death. Forget about a classification scheme - that is not what the question is about. 89.242.91.127 (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is way above my pay-grade or competence, but I think there's a vague analogy between the use of some grammatical cases, and the different levels of formal mathematical logic (which can branch out into mathematics and cybernetics on one side, and into linguistic analysis on the other; see, for example, Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Alan Turing). You start out with atomic propositions (e.g. p and q) and then learn about predicate logic, where you apply qualifiers to the simple atomic propostions (e.g. A(p) and B(q)); there's a rough analogy with simple nouns (nominative case) and adjectives or possessives (possessive or genitive case). But whether you would be able to make use of other cases such as dative, locative or accusative in constructing a formal logic for artificial intelligence (perhaps for association, conjunction or implication), I don't know. I never completed upper-division Mathematical Logic and my knowledge of formal linguistics, cognitive psychology or artificial intelligence is close to zero. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As examples of what I meant, Indo-european languages have subject, object, cause, possession, location, instrument. Sanskrit has agent, patient, means, recipient, source, goal. Other less formal ways of categorising (edit - changed word from classifying) things could be who, what, where, when, why and how; or ends, ways, and means. These categories are similar but not identical. When you have a memory and intelligence and are interacting symbolically with the world and trying to achieve things with it, whether human, robot, intelligent agent, or space-alien, then you need some kind of grammatical case as a means of labelling or categorising your symbols and giving meaning to them. I'm asking if anyone has proposed or discovered an ideal universal case for doing this? Ideal rather than being something that has come from tradition (of human languages). 92.24.140.90 (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If your hypothetical AI language had just one "ideal universal case", it would be the same thing as having no case at all. It's the fact of having multiple cases that play different roles that makes case-marking useful. +Angr 13:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That is stylish but makes no sense. Perhaps you are mistaking cases for case or vice versa. 78.144.207.126 (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The articles knowledge representation and Ontology (information science) seem relevant. 78.145.22.247 (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But those are not ways of classifying things. They are ways of talking about relationships between them - some of which may be fundamental and permanent, but most of which are temporary, accidental, and indeed depend on what you want to say about them. There is nothing you can do with grammatical case - or with any particular inventory of cases - which other languages cannot do in other ways. There have been attempts at classifying things in the world at least since Aristotle, but they have nothing to do with grammatical case. --ColinFine (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, I'm not asking about classification schemes! Forget about classification schemes, that is not what the question is about. (You also make a lot of non-sequitor assertions which for the sake of brevity and sanity I shall pass by). I apologise if I caused confusion if I should have used "categorise" instead of "classify". 78.144.207.126 (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Translation: German - English

I've found some old (19th century) and modern German history books. I would appreciate if someone could tell me what they say about Maria of Bosnia (Maria von Bosnien). There isn't much text to translate, only a few sentences per each link (some of those links probably say the same). Here are the links:

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

I've chosen this passage at random to translate:

"In the year 1363 Count Ulrich the Elder von Helfenstein bought from Hans von Obenshausen and his wife von Orsenhausen the castle at Überkingen and the church lands there for 1218 pounds; likewise in the year 1364 Count Ulrich the Elder and his consort Maria, Duchess of Bosnia, bought from Hans von Ogenhausen (presumably the same who was called Obenhausen above) his orchard and hayfield for 215 pounds (records redacted by Prelate von Schmid).

When in the year 1396 the village of Überkingen passed into the possession of Ulm, the Countess Maria of Bosnia retained the castle of Bühringen along with its estates, which passed to Ulm only after her death in 1405, after which all of Überkingen shared the fate of the half of the Grafschaft (county) of Helfenstein that had come to Ulm in 1396."

As you can see, this passage is somewhat involved, particularly since it is a somewhat archaic form of German. I regret that I won't have time to translate all of them. Marco polo (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• [7]

Another randomly chosen passage translation attempt: This passage is about money and a castle and her daughter. The text is too short and fragmented to make more sense to me, sorry. Also I have no more time this week for further translation attempts, double sorry. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Martin.

• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]

I picked this at random to translate. The Catholic jargon is too difficult for me to comprehend fully, but I think it goes something like this: Maria, whose retirement place was nearby founded a chapel, dedicated to "Our Beloved Woman" [I think this means Mary.]. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Martin.

• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]

I would be very grateful for a translation of these short passages! Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't say you're sorry, you've helped me. Thank you! I'll put those links on my user page so you can translate those passages whenever you can. If someone else can shed some light on this woman, I'd appreciate it very much. Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Very young children and mispronunciations...

Random question - often young (English-speaking) children start out with one or a few mispronunciations like Tree (three), Bisketti (spaghetti), etc. These all clear themselves up before too long. What I'm curious about is the mechanism of correction. Does this reflect further development of the language-processing regions of the brain? (sorry, clearly out of my specialty here) Such that they're gradually able to recognize the difference and self-correct? Or is something else in play? Thank you. 61.189.63.157 (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at fis phenomenon, which would seem to be related. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a large variety of factors that contribute to this. Sometimes, as in the "fis phenomenon" example, the child recognizes the pronunciation but lacks the articulatory capacity to produce it correctly (i.e., he can't control his tongue and mouth very well yet). Sometimes the child may have acquired the wrong pronunciation originally (i.e., misheard the word and learned it wrong), and later corrects it when he's heard the right pronunciation enough to realize it. I don't think any of this is evidence specifically for neural development; these corrections are more behavioral.

If you're interested in learning more, this sort of thing is one of the primary topics in the field of first language acquisition (FLA) and there are certainly tons of articles and books about this very question. FLA isn't my field so unfortunately I don't know many specifics beyond that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mispronouncing random words is one thing. Kids who can't say their own names often acquire nicknames that can last a lifetime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There are also interesting apparent counterexamples to the fis phenomenon. I remember reading about a child who pronounced puddle as "puggle", but was capable of pronouncing "puddle" too, since that was his pronunciation of puzzle. +Angr 13:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My son says "dog" for "duck", and for "dog" he sticks his tongue out and pants. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm really hoping your son isn't 28 years old... +Angr 21:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh...no. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)