Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2018 February 25
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 24 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 26 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
February 25
editAnna-Padna Karina?
editI was looking for an audio pronunciation clip of the name "Anna Karenina" and File:Л.Н.Толстой. Анна Каренина. Радиоспектакль МХАТ, 1937.ogg looked promising. It seems to say the name about 4 seconds into the audio. But listening more carefully, it actually seems to say something like "Anna-Padna Karina". What's going on, i.e. what's it actually saying? Thanks. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's Анна Аркадьевна Каренина (Anna Arkadyevna Karenina), including her patronymic. --194.213.3.4 (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! I played the audio again after reading that, and I still can't make out most of the syllables. I guess it's like "skidiz" in French, where all the phonemes from a longer phrase have gotten smushed together. Oh well ;) 173.228.123.121 (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, phonetically it's more like anna-rkadina karenina, illustrating the typical reduction of unstressed syllables. --194.213.3.4 (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- it's also common to slur the first name and the patronymic when addressing someone between peers (though that's not what they're doing in the clip.) Hence, San Sanych instead of Aleksandr Aleksandrovich, Ivan Palych instead of Ivan Pavlovich etc (not talking of diminutives, this is a different phenomenon.) 78.50.151.96 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, phonetically it's more like anna-rkadina karenina, illustrating the typical reduction of unstressed syllables. --194.213.3.4 (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! I played the audio again after reading that, and I still can't make out most of the syllables. I guess it's like "skidiz" in French, where all the phonemes from a longer phrase have gotten smushed together. Oh well ;) 173.228.123.121 (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Advertising copywriter needing some coaching?
editAn advertisement in Monday's Daily Telegraph contains the following sentence:
Today, we head along the coast to Caernarfon and join the narrow-gauge Welsh Highland Railway to Porthmadog, where we coach to Portmeirion for a guided tour.
"Coach" functions as a verb when it means "educate". Is the sense in which it is used here completely novel? 86.131.187.242 (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- According to EO, "coach" as in "to convey in a coach" has been around for 400 years, whereas "coach" as in "tutor" turned up in the mid 19th century.[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the OED (from where Etymonline often gets its information) gives the first use of coach as a verb meaning to convey in a coach in 1612, whereas the first recorded use of coach meaning to instruct is by Thackeray in 1848. The OED entry has not yet been updated for the Third Edition, so it's possible that an earlier usage has been found since the Second Edition. Dbfirs 16:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- It is a rather old-fashioned usage. What really upsets me about that sentence is the use of "where" instead of "from where" or "whence". DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Would you prefer the even more archaic encoach? (Sorry, I actually agree with your analysis of the usage.) Dbfirs 16:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wouldn't "encoach" mean "to put into, or go onboard, a coach" in the way that "entrain" means "to put into, or go onboard, a train"? DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Winston Churchill, in The Second World War sometimes used the verb "to train" meaning "to convey by train". When he wrote about training troops, he sometimes meant that they were moved by train, rather than undergoing training. Alansplodge (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Alansplodge:, could you provide a quotation showing such a usage? I have been unable to find one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'll get back to you. Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Alansplodge:, could you provide a quotation showing such a usage? I have been unable to find one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Would you prefer the even more archaic encoach? (Sorry, I actually agree with your analysis of the usage.) Dbfirs 16:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- It is a rather old-fashioned usage. What really upsets me about that sentence is the use of "where" instead of "from where" or "whence". DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the OED (from where Etymonline often gets its information) gives the first use of coach as a verb meaning to convey in a coach in 1612, whereas the first recorded use of coach meaning to instruct is by Thackeray in 1848. The OED entry has not yet been updated for the Third Edition, so it's possible that an earlier usage has been found since the Second Edition. Dbfirs 16:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Misuse of etc.
editWe all know about "etc." It means "and so forth". However, I would like to know if anyone notices whether the following use of etc. is appropriate:
If the paper you lend me is white, I'll give you $10; if it is red, green, etc. I'll give you $50.
Taken literally, "etc." is a misnomer here because "and", not "or", is part of its meaning. Any thoughts about whether etc. is proper here?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- I would argue that it is proper. In Latin, "Et" can mean "and", "and so", "and then", "and indeed", "and in fact", "and moreover", "and besides", or "and also", while "cetera" can mean "the other", "the rest", "remainder", and "et cetera" itself "and so on" (Ref: Langensheidt Shorter Latin Dictionary 1966), but in any case foreign-language expressions taken into English often do not necessarily retain their exact meaning in their tongues of origin or crystallise into permanently set, narrow meanings, but can instead evolve a range of different accepted usages. In this case (I suggest) the unwritten "or" is understood to precede "green", so the "etc." is expanding a list which already contains the "or", which therefore is not inherent in the "etc." itself. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Still, I'm sure you'd agree that using it this way sounds funny in anything but a text message or informal email. It might sound fine in Latin, but I think what makes it odd in English is the fact that it's referring to what might be, since we use it to describe what *is.* Beside which, our use of it tends to mean closer to "et omnia," which would sound wrong in that sentence. 2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- [Reply delayed by Semi-protection] No, as a native BrE speaker in his 7th decade (and a former textbook editor FWIW) I agree it sounds slightly informal, but not markedly so: if I was editing a piece containing this sentence, I'd suggest changing it or not if the piece was otherwise highly formal or academic in style, but not otherwise. "Et omnia" would indeed be technically better, but it's simply not in common use in English: I'd personally be fine with it, having studied Latin, but many readers would not. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- It seems to me that it's worse in Latin than it is in English. In English, you're just continuing a list with a phrase (et cetera) that few think of literally, but simply use to continue lists. But in Latin, you're using the objectively wrong conjunction (et, where it should be vel). --Trovatore (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- So would it be vel sim.?[2] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- It seems to me that it's worse in Latin than it is in English. In English, you're just continuing a list with a phrase (et cetera) that few think of literally, but simply use to continue lists. But in Latin, you're using the objectively wrong conjunction (et, where it should be vel). --Trovatore (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- [Reply delayed by Semi-protection] No, as a native BrE speaker in his 7th decade (and a former textbook editor FWIW) I agree it sounds slightly informal, but not markedly so: if I was editing a piece containing this sentence, I'd suggest changing it or not if the piece was otherwise highly formal or academic in style, but not otherwise. "Et omnia" would indeed be technically better, but it's simply not in common use in English: I'd personally be fine with it, having studied Latin, but many readers would not. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Still, I'm sure you'd agree that using it this way sounds funny in anything but a text message or informal email. It might sound fine in Latin, but I think what makes it odd in English is the fact that it's referring to what might be, since we use it to describe what *is.* Beside which, our use of it tends to mean closer to "et omnia," which would sound wrong in that sentence. 2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)