Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 July 15

Language desk
< July 14	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 16 >

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.

July 15

need russian speaker

hellow everybody. I know that this is Wikipeida and not wiktionary but there doesn't seem to be a refdesk on wiktionary so I'll just ask here. look at the pages in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Russian_phrasebook Can someone give me a key on the pronounciations that are provided (by for example http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%8B_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8) Personlly I like the other way you transcribe better since I recognize it from my OED. why did you stop and can you switch them back? Thanks. --Kyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.108.68 (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you’re looking for a basic pronunciation guide I’d ignore both of the versions available in the history of that page (the transliteration given looks fine to me as a Latin letter equivalency of the Cyrillic letters, but if you don’t know the Cyrillic alphabet very well it won’t tell you more than the broadest basics of pronunciation). I would give the pronunciation as VIY gahvahrEEtye puh-anglEEski, accent on the capitals. The letter ы is not so much a simple i or ee (like in sheep or feed, as much as a diphthong whose component parts are a short-i (like slip or pit), plus the long i or ee, for a total effect something like "-iy". And in Russian, most any letter O that is not the main accented syllable of a word is pronounced more like A. I don't really have the time to hammer out a comprehensive pronunciation guide for all of those phrases, but I hope this helps. ☯ ZenSwashbuckler ☠ 15:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Purchase or buy

Hello, what's the differences between purchase and buy?

• Let me buy you a glass of beer.
• Let me purchase you a glass of beer.

thanks.--180.234.153.23 (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no real difference; they simply have different origins. Purchase descends from Anglo-Norman and buy descends from Old English. Sometimes Latinate words (such as purchase) are considered "more formal". See English language#Vocabulary and List of Germanic and Latinate equivalents in English. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the second of these would never be used in normal conversation, unless the speaker was trying to sound ironically formal and buttoned-up. Come to think of it, "a glass of" would not be used either. "Let me buy you a beer" would be said. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 09:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

...unless it's equally likely that "a beer" refers to a glass or a can or something else. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Hayden. Purchase is just a more formal version of buy - in this case the formality is not appropriate. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my observation is that purchase is rarely used with both a direct object and indirect object, while buy is. E.g., "purchase him a gift" is rare, but "buy him a gift" is more common.--达伟 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Near-synonyms quite often subcategorise differently. "Purchase" doesn't take an indirect object, while "buy" can (of course either can take a prepositional phrase such as "for him".) As another example, consider "eat", which can take a (direct) object or be used intransitively; "dine", which cannot take a direct object (though it selects a PP with "on"), and "consume", which must take a direct object (in the literal sense, at least. It is now also used intransitively in the sense of "be a consumer"). --ColinFine (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The typical company has a Purchasing Department which buys stuff for the company. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion: "purchase" = pretentious word used by people who think long words must make them sound more intelligent. "Where did you purchase the vehicle?" = "Where did you buy the car?" "buy"= exactly the same meaning, but good old Anglo-Saxon, shorter, older, better. The only excuse for using "purchase" to mean "buy" is if you're talking about the Purchasing Department and it actually has that name. Evangeline (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a not-uncommon reaction to the use of Latin/French-based words vs. Anglo/German-based words. The former tend to have several syllables, and the latter often have just one or two, and appear to be more crisp and direct than their Latin-rooted synonyms. Longer words sound more bureacratic and PC. (Then mix them with passive voice and you've got an unreadable memo.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

flat earth language

I recently did this tour http://www.astrotours.net/ASTRO_TOURS_-_the_Ultimate_Journey_to_the_Stars.html

The guy Greg Quicke told us we still talked flat earth language. We were, of course, skeptical. Then he asked us who had ever watched the sun set/rise. Of course we all had. He made the obvious observation that the sun doesn't do anything; us earth mob do. So.... we've known this for over 400 years...why hasn't language caught up. We tried making statements to reflect what truly happened...clumsily! My questions are: why hasn't language caught up with scientific knowledge; and is there any other area where language has lagged behind knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moirabroome (talk • contribs) 10:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This very example is used by the author Gene Wolfe in his 1980 novel The Shadow of the Torturer. Early in the story (so not really a spoiler!) the protagonist Severian observes a sunrise and thinks of it as the horizon dropping: this is one of several oblique clues that the story, though set on Earth, takes place so far into the future after spaceflight had become commonplace that language has caught up with the post-Copernican viewpoint. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a very interesting question! I had noticed the sunset/sunrise thing but didn't look for more. There must be dozens, or hundreds if you leave English, but I can only think of these:

Health

• Are the names of the four temperaments (“choleric”, “phlegmatic”, “melancholic”, “sanguine”) derived from body fluids, or were the body fluids named after the tempers? Either way, empiric science has abandoned that AFAIAA.
• “Common cold” and similar terms in Germanic, Slavic and Romance languages are a bit misleading; Mandarin and Japanese apparently use terms that don't have “cold” in them.
• I think “lunatic” also qualifies. 84.46.4.183 (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• And "hysteria"! Ignore her, it's just her womb playing up again... 81.131.66.254 (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Animals, plants, food

• Ziegenmelker “nightjar”, from the superstition that they milk goats. 84.46.4.183 (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Barnacles are named after the barnacle goose which they were supposedly the young of. 81.131.66.254 (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Other

• Latin lyncirium “amber”, from the speculation that it's hardened lynx urine. 84.46.4.183 (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a matter of convenience. Whether you choose a heliocentric, a geocentric or a topocentric (which puts a place on the earth's surface in the centre) or even an egocentric reference frame doesn't matter from a physical point of view: Everything can be described in any reference frame. However, the description in some frames may be simpler than in others; this is the case if the reference frame is somehow adapted to the symmetries in the process you are trying to describe. Mathematically speaking, this amounts to a choice of a coordinate systems, and coordinate systems are what's "relative" in special and general relativity. Since there are no absolute reference frames (although Quicke seems to imply wrongly that there are), there's no wrong or right here. For sunrise and sundown, a topocentric description is well suited because it holds your standpoint fixed. In other frames you would have to take your movement into account, which complicates matters. Astronomers use topocentric descriptions when they talk about the visibility of stars, e.g. in preparing observations. If the pros do it, everybody else can do it, too; no need for language to catch up. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia mentions many more misnomers. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There might be something relevant at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_idioms. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

See Sun#Motion and location within the galaxy (permanent link here). -- Wavelength (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The Bible spoke figuratively of the four corners of the earth (http://multilingualbible.com/revelation/7-1.htm; http://multilingualbible.com/revelation/20-8.htm), centuries after it revealed that the earth is round (http://multilingualbible.com/isaiah/40-22.htm).

It mentioned figuratively the foundations of the earth (http://multilingualbible.com/isaiah/40-21.htm), after revealing that the earth hangs on nothing (http://multilingualbible.com/job/26-7.htm).

It spoke of the sun being made to stand still (http://multilingualbible.com/joshua/10-13.htm) and also of a shadow being made to go backward (http://multilingualbible.com/isaiah/38-8.htm). It speaks of the sun rising (http://multilingualbible.com/matthew/5-45.htm) and it speaks of the sun setting (http://multilingualbible.com/ecclesiastes/1-5.htm).

—Wavelength (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My argument did not refer to the Bible but rather to the OP's comment about our current physical knowledge. I claimed that the common usage of language does not contradict our physical knowledge. How does the Bible have anything to do with my claim? HOOTmag (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

HOOTmag, I indented my post in reply to the original post, and not in reply to your post.—Wavelength (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

But you've put your post under my post. Now I re-ordered the posts, so that yours be under your previous posts. HOOTmag (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In the Bible it's more than figurative. In Genesis it talks about a "firmament" separating "the waters above from the waters below". That "firmament" was a fancied "dome" over the flat earth, separating it from the waters above (except when "the windows of heaven open", i.e. it rains). In general, we anthropomorphize nature even though we know it's not true - referring to a storm as having "angry" clouds, for example. And while we know that the sun doesn't really rise and set, it looks to us like it does, so it's a convenient reference. I would go a little farther and say this is all, at its root, connected with "folk" religion a.k.a. "pagan" religion, which has been displaced but has never totally died out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That which some translations call a "firmament" is called an "expanse" by other translations. (http://multilingualbible.com/genesis/1-6.htm) Contrary to the idea of Biblical teachings evolving from paganism, the Bible itself gives the credit to God. (http://multilingualbible.com/1_thessalonians/2-13.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, I try not to be a dick, I really do, but the only possible response to that is "no shit!" Why do you keep quoting the Bible anyway? It has nothing to do with anything but you bring it up like every other thread. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you using profane language? It does not help communication. I have repeatedly had to see it on these pages, and it is not pleasant, and I have often turned away because of it.

I quote the Bible because I am familiar with it, and I do so in some of the discussions where I see a relevant connection with it. Maybe you would prefer me to quote from Aesop or Shakespeare, but I am much less familiar with them.—Wavelength (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What 87.81 describes is sometimes called "phenomenological language" (our various phenomenological articles don't seem to say much about this usage directly). I don't feel competent or comfortable discussing this question philosophically, but the Scripture is full of phenomenological language and it is also a reference for modern day English. That is a relevant link for context, in my opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the Scripture quite literally includes the false mythological beliefs in question, so it's irrelevant to the OP's original question. The question was about language not catching up with knowledge. The numerous authors of the Bible didn't have any knowledge about whether the Earth was round, had four corners or anything else, so their use of expressions wasn't figurative either. The Bible is full of stuff that is scientifically wrong, and Wavelength is speaking like a Biblical near-literalist who believes that it's consistent, "reveals" scientifically correct things, and is the literal word of God. Seriously, this kind of attitude may belong in a church, but it is quite misplaced on a Reference Desk, which should inform and not dis-inform people.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking it all in a different perspective, despite our knowledge that the Earth is rotating around the sun and doing the moving part of the equation, it's still a matter of subjectivity. Although we know that the sun is not actually moving, because of the huge difference in magnitude between a person and the earth, and the earth and the sun, and the great distance involved, the perspective is still there that the sun appears to our eyes as the one that is moving relative to us. Despite reality, it's important to consider that perspective will still be the prevaling area from which we look at it and refer to it. It makes less sense to refer to the horizon falling than to the sun rising, because we cannot perceive the horizon falling. From our position, everything is stable and the sun is moving; the reality of relative movement is immaterial. Steewi (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, astronauts in space and on the moon talk of 'earthrise', just as we talk about sunrise and moonrise. Steewi (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because all astronauts have been raised in and have spent all of their lives, bar very short periods of adulthood, in the same subjectively-seeming geocentric milieu (to which you rightly refer) as the rest of humanity, and therefore retain the mental habits of the languages and viewpoints that have developed over centuries and millennia in that milieu, despite their extra experiential confirmation of our common intellectual knowledge that "E pur si muove!". Such linguistic and cultural conventions can be very entrenched - consider that English speakers still use day names commemorating Norse gods despite widespread worship of those gods having been dormant for over a thousand years. If (as postulated for example in the Wolfe book mentioned above) humanity were to achieve routine spaceflight, and large numbers of future cultures were to live much or all of their lives off-planet over centuries or longer, the underlying cultural assumptions and individuals' thinking might shift. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have studied physics, mainly Kinematics, you should have known that every movement is relative, so it's impossible to decide which object moves and which one rests. In your case, it's still possible that Earth doesn't move at all, while the sun rotates around itself (the other planets rotating around themselves and moving around the sun as well). To put it more intuitively, just imagine yourself stand in a room, and suddenly you see the room start to rotate around itself: then you won't be able to decide whether it's you - or the room - which rotates around itself: both options result in the same way... HOOTmag (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Rotating frames of reference can be distinguished by using Occam's razor. If one explanation requires fictitious forces then it is usually preferable to use the frame in which fewer forces are needed to explain motion. (However, we ignore this principle when measuring local gravity.) Dbfirs 18:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

strange habit

hey all. I was in France (Alsace) at a small, family-run lodge last week. There were only two English-speakers on the staff, and when I arrived both of them were out, luckily my party could all speak passable French. There was this other person who was clearly American, and who clearly did not speak any French. He was trying to indicate by signs to the desk clerk that he needed a room, but for some reason he was also speaking very loudly in English and emphasizing his mouth movements to the clerk as if she were hearing-impaired, even though she made it clear that she didn't speak English. I knew that this wasn't because he himself was hearing impaired because he talked in a normal voice to his wife but very loudly to the clerk. Why do people do this? I also saw this when I was in Mexico and when people interact with the Deaf (not hearing-impaired, but completely deaf). 76.229.183.71 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Thanks

See Ugly American. Matt Deres (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No I don't mean Americans in particular, I mean why do people talk loudly to people who can't understand the language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.183.71 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Can't understand the language" is not a binary distinction. Even if the clerk is not able to converse in English, she may recognize some basic words (especially since she's French, just like a sizable part of English vocabulary). Speaking clearly, slowly, and in not too many words can help to get the point across in such a situation. Speaking very loudly is pointless, but for many people all these properties come in one package.—Emil J. 16:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(OR alert) In addition, it seems to me that part of this phenomenon is nothing more than habit, as you titled this thread yourself. Most everyday life situations of not being understood (on this basic level) are caused by acoustic problems (perhaps combined with slurred lazy speech). Repeating it louder and with clearer enunciation is a common way of handling such a situation. Add the fact that not being understood can be a frustrating experience. I have observed this frustration within myself and also with others in foreign language classes taught by someone who doesn't (or pretends not to) understand any other language. It is a good teaching method, but initially it can be very frustrating when you can't get you point across, when you want to communicate, but can't. We often don't think rationally, but raise our voices, when frustrated. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking unsuccessfully for discussions of this, but "talk louder to the foreigners and they'll damn well understand you" was a British stereotype before the US acquired the confidence to take over the role. --ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In my family of origin, it was a long-held tradition that the younger you are, the louder adult members speak to you. But it's not just my family; has anyone ever done the stupid "kootchy-koo" thing to a baby in a pram at normal speaking volume or softer? No, it's completely unheard of. Always at a raised volume. Babies and young children are not, generally speaking, deaf, but you'd never know it the way some adults operate around them. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is normal and instinctive. Whenever anyone attempts verbal communication and fails, they will often (usually unconsciously) try again using various tactics to improve the communication - slower speech, better enunciation, simpler phrasing, louder volume, stronger eye-contact, physical contact or descriptive gestures. most of the time this is an effective and useful strategy, but when it falls through it looks really, really stupid. --Ludwigs2 20:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a famous Saturday Night Live skit from the 70s about this kind of thing. At the end of the fake newscast, Chevy Chase says, "And now, news for the hard of hearing." Garret Morris appears in an oval in the corner of the screen, like sign-language translators in the days before mandatory closed captioning. Then, the following:

Chevy Chase: Our top story tonight:
Garrett Morris: [cupping hands around his mouth] OUR TOP STORY TONIGHT!!!
Chevy Chase: President Ford flew to Paris for a summit conference, and boy, are his arms tired!
Garrett Morris: PRESIDENT FORD FLEW TO PARIS FOR A SUMMIT CONFERENCE, AND BOY, ARE HIS ARMS TIRED!!!
Chevy Chase: Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.
Garrett Morris: GOOD NIGHT, AND HAVE A PLEASANT TO-MOR-ROW! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of habits of speaking which are useful in many cases, but sometimes we speak in the same way when it isn't appropriate at all. An example from my experience: When my father in law had lost his voice because of laryngeal cancer, he soon learnt use an electrolarynx for speaking. But he spoke slowly. One day, when I spoke to him at the telephone, I suddenly noticed that I was speaking slowly too. I apologized, I said that I hadn't done that on purpose, and that I knew that that didn't make sense because I knew that there was nothing wrong with his hearing. He answered that I wasn't the only person who spoke to him more slowly than usual. -- Irene1949 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See "complementary schizogenesis" at http://www.scribd.com/doc/27178621/Paper-2-Lang. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Beware that link, folks. It sent my computer off in its worst tail spin in years. And not in a good way, either. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If I had known that it would adversely affect a computer, I would have refrained from providing that link, or at least I would have provided a warning.—Wavelength (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No hard feelings, Wavelength. I'm sure there was no premeditation involved. It's all OK now. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Prefix "un."

I must admit, I'm very much amused. My friend just e-mailed me the following:

I'm at starbucks and I ordered a coffee, and the Batista asked if I would like it sweetened or unsweetened. Wouldn't unsweetened imply that sweetener has been removed? The way unleaded gasoline has had the lead removed? Thoughts?

Now, first of all, what's a Batista? As for the question, I'm guessing un can be used either to mean lacking x substance (let's call it definition 1) or with x substance removed (definition 2), no? Doesn't seem to me like either one is used incorrectly, though if one is, I would assume the prefix de would be preferable for gasoline (i.e. deleaded gasoline).

Cheers and thanks in advance. 65.13.61.125 (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Batista usually refers to Fulgencio Batista, the dictator of Cuba overthrown in the Marxist revolution there. though (as I'm sure you know) your friend means a barista. and 'un' can legitimately be used to mean 'removed' or 'not', so unsweetened coffee is not 'de'-sweetened but simply 'not' sweetened.. --Ludwigs2 19:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) A barista is a person that serves coffee in a coffee shop. I agree that 'de-' is preferable when something has been removed. 'un-' just means it doesn't have it. Also, I don't think unleaded petrol has the lead removes. Leaded petrol has lead specifically added. --Tango (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why the coffee may be un-sweetened and de-caffeinated, but not the other way around. Matt Deres (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)::I think your original assumption is wrong. Both cases have the "lacking" meaning. Unleaded petrol is petrol which has not has tetra-ethyl lead added (it has other things instead). I can't think of any examples where "un-" refers to taking something out. --ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

See wikt:un-, which mentions "undress".—Wavelength (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Also "unscrew" a light bulb. It does seem much less common for a chemical process than "de-" but it does have some uses in this sense. The American Heritage Dictionary 4th Edition (hardcopy) also has "uncurl," "uncover," "uncross" (as legs), "unglue," and "unhand," and I've definitely seen "unmanned" as a horrific euphemism for "castrated"... ☯ ZenSwashbuckler ☠ 21:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for all the answers. I guess it's another "use as you see fit" word in the English language. Cheers, 65.13.61.125 (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The two meanings of the prefix "un-" are actually etymologically distinct, and so they are sometimes considered different prefixes that happen to be spelled the same. See [1], for example. —Bkell (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Un" generally means "not". If you feel like getting into a hopeless quagmire, you could stop by the talk page at the Circumcision article and weigh in as to the proper usage of "uncircumcised", among other related issues, which has been schlepping along for 2 or 3 weeks now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Giggity giggity goo Rimush (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, that's one reason circumcision is done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Lee Whorf wrote an essay on 'cryptotypes', (his neologism - I'm pretty sure it's in Language, Thought, and Reality) for groups of words that share some grammatical property which all native speakers are aware of without consciously knowing. One of his examples was verbs which can take the prefix 'un-' - nearly all the words are about closing, wrapping, sealing, rolling up.

Some Klingon wrote an essay, big deal. Rimush (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, some fire inspector for an insurance company wrote an essay, big deal. +Angr 16:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What, we've gone back to grammar school now? anyone for a rousing chorus of 'neener neener neener'? --Ludwigs2 16:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

@Angr: So observations by non-professionals are of no value and only fit for mockery? Most of us had better stop editing Wikipedia then. --ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians don't engage in original research, publishing silly and insulting hypotheses about the way Hopis perceive time. At least, if they do, they don't do it on Wikipedia. +Angr 14:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ommitted pronouns?

Hi everyone. I know that in Latin, the subject (if a pronoun) is often omitted. This persists in its major descendants of Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese (not sure if Romanian does this ornot). So why is it that French always uses pronouns? For example if I were in Portugal I could say "Vou para a loja" but in France I would probably draw confused looks saying "Vais au magasin". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.221.98 (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(We have an article Pro-drop language.) One important reason is that the French verb forms in any particular tense cannot be relied on to be to be unique in pronunciation (as opposed to spelling), except for the 1st plural and the 2nd. plural. E.g. in the paradigm "je parle, tu parles, il parle, vous parlez, nous parlons, ils parlent", the forms parle, parles, and parlent are all pronounced exactly the same... AnonMoos (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, adding "il" or "ils" to "parle" or "parlent" won't disambiguate the grammatical person in speech either. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Romanian omits pronouns too, but this isn't very obvious with the verb "to go" because it's reflexive: "Mă duc la piaţă" ([I] am going to the market) instead of "Eu mă duc la piaţă" (I am going to the market) - the phrase still has a pronoun, the first person singular reflexive pronoun "mă". The lack of the pronoun-as-subject is more obvious with non-reflexive verbs: "Mănânc fasole" ([I] am eating beans) instead of "Eu mănânc fasole". Here there is no pronoun left. Rimush (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

French could omit pronouns when it was still pronounced like it is spelled (many hundreds of years ago), so presumably it does have something to do with the ambiguous pronuncation as AnonMoos said. Also, some verb forms now mean different things without the pronoun. "Nouns allons au magasin" means "we are going to the store", but "allons au magasin" means "let's go to the store" (i.e. without the pronoun it becomes imperative). Adam Bishop (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be "nous", not "nouns". --Магьосник (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, is there a word for dropping "I" or even "we" in English, as it is sometimes done on postcards or in letters. Is this also considered telegram style? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't know. Good question. Have wondered the same myself. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nat King Cole sings "Don't Get Around Much Anymore" at YouTube - NAT KING COLE - DON'T GET AROUND MUCH ANYMORE.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)