Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 October 25

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.

October 25

Circumbobulate

It is my understanding that 'circumbobulate' means 'to confuse sbd. by skirting the truth and making contradictory statements', so when the author of this journal says 'Every day Buddhist pilgrims and locals circumbobulate the hill it sits on,' would this be a mistake? I have tried to find the word in Merriam-Webster in order to confirm but the page was offline. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they meant "circumambulate". That author sounds a little discombobulated him/herself. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of the word circumbobulate. The closest thing to what you describe that I can think of is circumlocutionary. —Dromioofephesus (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

'Circumambulate' fits in perfectly, but sticks out as a very obscure word amongst an otherwise everyday English-y sort of text. Why not just say 'walk around'? However, that is a question for the author, and not this desk. Cheers! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just add that circumambulate is a relatively common word in Buddhist circles. It's something more than a stroll. The journal in question is a blog, so one would expect spelling mistakes, just as one would on the reference desk. (I wish I had a penny for every time I've see the word "definately" here.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether the author is confusing "circumambulate" with "discombobulate", which is an informal word meaning "to confuse"? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The word may be correct for some hills. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Grzegorczyk (Polish)

I have added the {{IPAc-pl}} template to Grzegorczyk hierarchy to help with difficult pronunciation, but I do not speak Polish, could someone confirm that this is the correct pronunciation. Additionally, do you guys have any suggestions for ways to write this without IPA? gzhe-GOR-tchik perhaps? I wonder if people would understand the zh? Thanks, — sligocki (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the correct pronunciation. I suppose "gzhe-GOR-chik" will do as an ad-hoc pronunciation guide; I think most people familiar with American dictionaries and with the usual English transliteration of Russian (e.g. Zhivago) will now what sound "zh" refers to, though they'll still have difficulties putting it after a "g" in the same syllable. +Angr 06:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and adding the accent. I agree, I have difficulty with the pronunciation. By the way, do you know of any audio example that have the g-rz combination, the audio examples on the Polish wikibook were quite helpful in understanding the individual sounds. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find an audio sample for "Grzegorczyk", but I found one for "Grzegorz" (the Polish equivalent of Gregory), which should help you with the "grz" cluster. For a real tongue-twister, click on "Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz" (a made-up name) below. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

French nasal vowels

So skimming through our articles I've discovered that nasal vowels (like those from French) are pronounced by lowering the velum (soft palate). On the other hand, by watching myself trying to pronounce a nasal vowel in front of a mirror, I've realized that I actually block the airflow to my mouth by raising the tongue whereas my velum doesn't seem to move much. I guess I'm doing it completely wrong, isn't it? Does anyone know where I can find information to help me learn how to pronounce those vowels? Thanks. --Belchman (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You may actually be pronouncing them correctly. During the articulation of the /ɔ͂/ vowel (as in bon), the back of the tongue moving up and the velum moving down can stop the oral airflow altogether. As for the other nasal vowels, there should be oral airflow, but it is not as simple as oral vowel + lowering the velum. That is, the French nasal vowels differ slightly (but perceptually significant, I'm sure) in vowel quality (tongue position) in addition to nasalization. You can read an acoustic study on French nasal vowel that touches on this here, and a more in-depth study was published by the same author, Véronique Delvaux, in the Journal of Phonetics under the title "The aerodynamics of nasalization in French" (but you need a subscription). As for just trying to pronounce the French nasal vowels correctly without getting too deep in phonetics, you seem to be well on the right track (seeing you're aware of your tongue position, velum lowering, etc.), or may be doing it right after all. A native speaker could tell you if there are any of the nasal vowels you need to work on.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Great answer, thank you very much. --Belchman (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to lower your velum, otherwise air won't go out your nose. It's possible that you're doing both (raising your tongue and lowering your velum). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Belchman (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pluralisation of sports teams

Would it be incorrect, in American English, to refer to a sports team as "they"- as in "they play the celtics tomorrow"? Stanstaple (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the context. The following would be a perfectly correct sentence, referring to, say, the Cardinals: "It contains players of many different backgrounds; they will be playing the Bishops tomorrow". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No -- only if the antecedent of "it" was a singular excpression like "the team". "They" is standard here. --Anonymous, 20:59 UTC, October 25, 2009.

So how about "The Dallas Cowboys have lost their last four games, tomorrow they face the Redskins"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanstaple (talk • contribs) 20:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just realised I prejudiced my last question by referring to "their" last four games. Would the sentence as it stands sound odd to American ears? Stanstaple (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To my American ears, that sentence sounds fine even after replacing "their" with "the." Actually, referring to a sports team with any pronoun other than "they" sounds odd to me.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 20:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd actually thought that I should have used "its" instead of "their". I was under the impression that referring to teams in plural was alien to Americans. Does it sound okay because the team name ends in an s? Off the top of my head most US sports teams' names do. Stanstaple (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess sports teams are a bit of an exception to the norm (ie, that British speakers prefer to pluralize mass nouns, like "congress", and Americans don't); like El aprendelenguas, I think "it" sounds weird in this context. That applies even to names that aren't plural themselves (for instance, when I was in high school one of our rivals was the Carlisle 'Thundering Herd', and even for that I would say "they went to X this weekend", or just "Carlisle went to X"). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be relevant that sports teams are almost always named in the plural, e.g. "the Cardinals". A few teams use the singular ("the Heat") and may take a singular verb (I've never followed any of those teams, but I just did a Google News search and found a headline where the Miami Heat "releases" a player), but I think those teams would take a plural pronoun as well. This is similar to the common informal use with corporations: "Sears is a big chain of department stores. They have locations in many cities." (Formal usage there would use "it has" in the second sentence.) --Anonymous, edited 21:08 UTC, October 25, 2009.

So why not "The Thundering herd beat the Docile Flock"- or "Ireland win the world cup? Stanstaple (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

@Anonymous: it also matters whether you're referring to the team as a group of players ("team X beat team Y") or an administrative entity ("team X signed a contract with player Y"). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. "Toronto has beaten Detroit"; "Toronto has signed Johnson". "The Leafs have beaten Detroit"; "The Leafs have signed Johnson". --Anonymous, 22:56 UTC, October 27, 2009.

I take exception to this. The Leafs could not beat Detroit. --NellieBly (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. Perhaps I was thinking of the Leafs in 1942. --Anon, 23:47 UTC, Oct. 28.

In the USA, at least, teams are generally referred to in the plural when the nickname is the main part of the subject. The announcers for the Minnesota Wild will say, "The Wild are leading the Penguins 5-0" (that last part is fictional). As for teams that are already plural, you would say, "The Yankees are playing the Angels tonight." But you would say "The Yankees club is..." and "New York is..." That last varies from the British style, which would likely say "New York are..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In 1951, Dodgers manager Charlie Dressen made the famous ill-fated statement in early August, "The Giants is dead." He was laughed at for that comment, although some grammarians tried to argue that he was (inadvertently) correct. However, regardless of pedantically correct grammar, common usage is that when the primary subject is the nickname, it's treated as a plural. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Stanstaple, I think that the difference is that "Ireland" isn't primarily (especially to Americans) the name of a sporting organisation; while "Thundering Herd" isn't necessarily such a name, it's far more likely to mean an American sports team than anything else. Aside from Marshall University, virtually nobody goes by "Thundering Herd", but "Ireland" can mean plenty of other things outside of context. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There are high school teams called the Thundering Herd. See Thundering Herd. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to note that "nickname" is the wrong word when what you're talking about is the name of the team. With older teams many of them originated as nicknames, of course, but they've been real names for a long itme. However, this does not affect the grammar. Whether you say "the (Montreal) Canadiens" or "the Habs", which is a nickname, it's still plural; and if you say "Montreal", it's still singular. --Anon, 22:58 UTC, October 27, 2009.

Maybe "brand name" would be the better term, as the team nickname is usually a registered trade mark. The British would probably say "Montreal are". It's just a usage variation between the countries, and arguably the British approach is more consistent. Now I'm wondering which way Canadians say it, but I've got a hunch they follow the American approach. Maybe a Canadian reader could weigh in on that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(Raises hand) --Anon, 12:45 UTC, October 29.

Note that to my [American] ears, "The team is playing well" sounds much more correct than "The team are playing well". So when the team is not named, I believe that that is the case where the difference is noticeable between British and American English. Falconus^{p t c} 11:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in American usage anyway, it's: The team is... The Yankees team is... The Yankees are... ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)