Language desk
< May 27	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 29 >

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.

May 28[edit]

Indefinite article w/o definite?[edit]

Are there any languages with indefinite articles but without definite ones? Mo-Al (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish (and other Turkic languages) fit the bill: elma = the apple; bir elma = an apple. There is a case ending for definite objects (-i, -ı, -ü, -u) however. I believe Kurdish also has a similar property in that there is an indefinite suffix -(y)ek but no definite one. Take the last bit of info under caution though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.107.102 (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Norwegian, there are three indefinite articles (en, ei, et), but no definite articles. Instead, a suffix is appended to the word. "a boat" = en båt, "the boat" = båten. decltype (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suffixed definite articles are moderately common (Scandinavian languages, Romanian, Bulgarian), and they still count as definite articles. +An gr 06:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. decltype (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish bir looks like "one", not really an article?--09:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bir is "one" in Turkish, but it also functions as an indefinite article (and there are usage differences: bir büyük elma vs. büyük bir elma). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.63.6 (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to "one" in Chinese - there are no articles per se in Chinese, but "one" often functions like one. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The south Indian language Malayalam has no definite article. Instead of the definite article, it uses 'ee' (this) or 'aa' (that) when it has to specify a particular person or thing. It uses the indefinite article 'oru'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.4.198 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the questioner mind whether the article is embedded in the morphology of the nouns (as in the English plural for "a", which some people call "article blank")? And is it a question of whether the grammatical choices conveyed by "the" and "a" are mandatory for every noun, or are merely possible if the speaker/writer wants to highlight those meanings, such as "one of many" or "you know which one I mean". Aside from that, it's my suspicion that Germanic and Romance languages, and Greek, are the ones that do have the mandatory articles, and most other branches around the world don't. It's a big issue for second-language speakers from those languages. Tony (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

En Dashes[edit]

I have told someone at work to replace the hyphens in her ranges (1-17 5th-17h etc) with en-rules. She agrees the hyphens are wrong, but maintains that the symbol should in fact be 'a dash' and not an 'en-dash' and she seems sure there is a difference between them, whereas I am just as sure a 'dash' is just a catch-all term for rules longer than a hyphen. Any takers on this? FreeMorpheme (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. A dash is a common name for en-dashes, em-dashes, and several other similar characters. There is no character called just "dash" in Unicode. Ranges are normally written with an en-dash. — Emil J. 13:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Hyphen, Dash#Ranges of values, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes,

and User:Tony1/Know your Manual of Style. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See A List Apart: Articles: The Trouble With EM ’n EN (and Other Shady Characters). - Wavelength (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology depends somewhat on whether you're talking about form or function. In a sentence like this one -- where dashes are used like parentheses -- where I have written "--", American publishers will typically use an em dash (usually without spaces around it) while British ones will often use an en dash (always with spaces around it). It is convenient to speak of the thing in terms of function as a "dash", but reserve "en dash" and "em dash" for the two alternative printed forms.

For example, in the back of my Random House Unabridged Dictionary from 1979, there is a guide to English punctuation that describes the comma, the period, etc., and one of the punctuation marks it describes is the dash. It's printed as an em dash, but the term "em dash" is not mentioned.

In typewritten text where the only dash-like character available is the hyphen ("-"), it's usual to write two of them ("--") for a dash, while a single hyphen is used both as a minus sign and for numerical ranges ("1-5"). In typesetting, the en dash is normal for ranges, but it really isn't a dash. --Anonymous, 21:21 UTC, May 28, 2009.

Phrases and places[edit]

Chicago typewriter means sub-machinegun. Where can I find a collection of such phrases with place names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.4.198 (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See List of words derived from toponyms. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which strangly enough, does not include Chicago Typewriter. Livewireo (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does now. Deor (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See List of cheeses, List of cat breeds, List of dog breeds, and List of horse breeds. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you're really after a list which includes Glasgow kiss (headbutt), Birmingham hammer (spanner) - in other words, descriptive names for items which include the name of a place but which are slightly derogatory to the inhabitants of those places? --88.108.222.231 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am looking for all shades of meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.39.21 (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A modern member of the club might be a "Massachusetts marriage," meaning a gay marriage. I heard this from a Vermonter about a year ago. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional expression was Boston marriage... AnonMoos (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different connotations of exclamations[edit]

Please think about the different connotations of these exclamations.
1. "Lord!"
2. "Honestly!"
3. "God!"/"My god!"

--Which sounds most "provincial" or "slang-ish", and which the most "classy"/"old-fashioned"/"snobby"?
--Also, is there any difference in the level of religiosity between "Lord!" & "God!" when used as exclamations? Which is "stronger"? 71.174.30.43 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC) LadyCatherine[reply]

If we're talking about Christian religiosity, "(Good) Lord!", "(Good) God!", "Jesus!", "Jesus (H.) Christ!" et al are all anti-religious. There's a commandment that goes "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the Christian god's name is God. So I think that "God!" is stronger than "Lord!" because "God!" is more blasphemous. My very traditionally religious grandmother shuddered at any use of the Lord's name in vain, but the name to be avoided was "God". My grandmother had no problem saying "Lord!". That said, few people (in the United States) below about 50 years old use the exclamations "Lord!" or "Honestly!" any more. They are both a bit old-fashioned. "God!" is alive and well (in speech at least!). I don't think any of these is slang. I think that they are all standard English exclamations. Marco polo (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Double-you Tee Eff" is an example of the modern parlance. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Exodus 20:7 at http://mlbible.com/exodus/20-7.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that "Honestly!" is more limited in its applications. —Tamfang (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Efficiency" of different languages[edit]

I've been wondering about different languages' "efficiency", meaning how long it takes to say an arbitrary thought, or how much space or time it takes to write. Are there any good studies on this someone could direct me to? (I feel like I remember seeing something once about how many syllables per second speakers of different languages have on average.) Mo-Al (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 September 13#Efficiency of languages.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]