September 26

I'm curious about the history of the alveolar tap in American and Australian accents. The relevant articles are pretty laconic on the subject, and don't mention anything about the history of the phenomenon. In particular, I wish to know if flapping was a feature of any precolonial British dialects, or if it was a later development that occurred independently in North America and Australia. LANTZY^TALK 00:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"General American" seems to be mainly derived from a mix of 18th-century British dialects, where the London dialect did not play a particularly strong role, while Australian is much more heavily influenced by 19th-century working-class London speech, so I'm not sure how a common-origins hypothesis would really work. AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is the same. But it always struck me as odd that Australian and American dialects should have independently developed a trait which is so rare cross-linguistically. LANTZY^TALK 20:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding the reading of this sentence disagreeable:

"Passed not only to maintain the “integrity of Mexican territory” but also to create a sense of boldness in the new Bustamante government (A Glorious Defeat, p. 68), The Law of April 6, 1830 saw a somewhat surprising response in the Anglo-American Colonies of Texas."

Maybe because of the length of the sentence, or the fact that it utilizes an independent clause at the end, I don't know. Anyone have any insight in how I could possibly reword this sentence? Thanks Wikipedians! schyler (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Always difficult without knowing the context, but here's my suggestion: "The Law of April 6, 1830 was passed with the aim of maintaining the "integrity of Mexican territory", and encouraging the new Bustamante government to act boldly (A Glorious Defeat, p. 68). However, it produced an unexpected reaction in the Anglo-American colonies of Texas." Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor thing, but I believe there also should be a comma after the "1830", I think that's the usual format for dates that have commas within then. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much y'all. schyler (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such thing as Present Continuous tense, Present Perfect tense, Present Perfect Continuous tense, Past Continuous tense, Past Perfect tense, Past Perfect continuous tense, Future Continuous tense, Future Perfect tense, and Future perfect continuous tense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.198 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack is walking; has walked; has been walking; was walking; had walked; had been walking; will be walking; will have walked; will have been walking. English verbs explains it all. Looie496 (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the Wikipedia article "English verbs" seems based on the kind of grammar that was taught in grade school decades ago. If you think of grammar as a dead discipline uncritically passed on from one generation of schoolteachers to the next, then yes, you're probably right. However, if you're more interested in the language of the real world -- an interest that does not require an interest in linguistics -- then you'll want to look at the latest and best descriptive grammar of English. This, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, doesn't merely dictate that English has so many tenses, it explains how this is. It talks of present (perhaps better thought of as "non-past") and past, and perfect for both. (Or possibly perfective rather than perfect: I don't have it to hand.) It treats the progressive as a matter of aspect, and what old-fashioned books call "future tense" as a matter of modality. And there's nothing new in any of this -- if it seems revolutionary, that's simply because the school grammar books (and Wikipedia, which sadly is based on them) are so ossified. -- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the Wikipedia article for Xhosa, it lists two of the three click POAs (c and x) as "Dental/Alveolar". Seeing as Dental is not the same as Alveolar, I'm wondering which it is. Is one dental and one alveolar? Does it vary by dialect? Phonological conditions? Anything like that? Thanks. 67.158.4.158 (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Xhosa in particular, but dental and alveolar are close enough together that it's relatively common for them to be interchangeable within languages. Even in English, [d]s and [t]s may be more alveolar or more dental depending on the speaker and the region. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon listening to some audio samples and watching some youtube videos, I think I've gathered that "c" is dental and "x" is alveolar lateral. (I also kinda think that "q" is lateral as well, honestly, even though everywhere it's just described as "postalveolar","palatal", or "alveolopalatal" with no mention of laterality. But I'd still much prefer an actual source to confirm or deny this.) 67.158.4.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Just so everybody knows what the discussion is about, here's Miriam Makeba singing the click song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago I recall a comparison of the size of vocabulary a reader would need to comprehend various (British) newspapers. It was as far as I recall about two or three thousand words to read The Sun, but higher for quality newspapers like The Times or The Guardian, although the Times has dumbed down since then.

Have there been any studies of the size of vocabulary required to comprehend what is spoken on TV, and how this compares with other media such as newspapers? For example, for a long time I've suspected that mainstream evening science tv is in fact aimed at children. Thanks 92.15.16.83 (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer I don't know. Waffly bit: I think the key part of your question is where you ask for a comparison. If one study were to say that you needed a vocabulary of 3000 words to understand X and another that you needed one of 5000 words to understand Y, this would mean next to nothing, because there's an enormous range of reasonable (and not merely perverse) ways of estimating vocabulary size and conceptions of "understanding". The studies would have to apply the same standards. ¶ Incidentally (or perhaps not), I rate my English vocabulary as at least average for an adult first-language speaker of English. Yet if (unusually) I were to read articles about tennis matches, baseball matches, the financial nitty-gritty of mergers-'n'-acquisitions, those rare fashion articles that are about fashion itself rather than sleb gossip, the more technical stuff about interest rates, tips for using Facebook and the other social networking services, etc etc etc, my vocabulary wouldn't be up to the job. Am I able to understand the Guardian? I'd say that yes I am: I can understand the bits that I want to read. (I'd guess that there are very few people who don't routinely skip large sections of the newspaper.) Yet if some lethargic teen said that newspapers were boring and that he didn't want to read any page of the Guardian, I'd say that there was something wrong with him (possibly his vocabulary). Perhaps I'm just hypocritical here; but even if I'm not, where do we draw the line between lacking vocabulary because of a lack of interest, and lacking interest because of a lack of vocabulary? -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three links.

• Fred Rogers (a person speaking English slowly, clearly, correctly, and politely)
• Mister Rogers' Neighborhood . Homepage | PBS KIDS
• Vocabulary: Concepts and Research (scroll down to the last table for statistics about Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street)

—Wavelength (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting question. Here's a PDF that might provide some answers. LANTZY^TALK 21:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might, but the URL has been mangled - could you update please? What's the equivalent of "truncated" for losing a bit in the middle? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syncope, at least when it happens to a word. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The full link appears to be http://doe.concordia.ca/copal/images/dept_of_edu/copal/4_macfadden_barret_horst.pdf 92.15.25.79 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The table linked to by Wavelength indicates that the vocabulary of TV is lower than that of children's books. I'm not surprised in the least. No wonder people are turning to the internet instead. 92.15.25.79 (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a bit unfair to compare textual and aural media - language on TV or radio has to be processed by the viewer/listener in real time, whereas a reader can linger over (or even look up) an unfamiliar word or turn of phrase in a book or newspaper. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really true, as most people read much faster than people speak. 92.15.25.79 (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

or must one say:

• "He asked who the murderer was".

?

I'm asking about both the formal speech and the informal speech.

HOOTmag (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"He asked who the murderer was" sounds much more natural to me than "He asked who was the murderer". Lexicografía (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the first one is understandable, but generally considered incorrect by native English speakers. See Wh-movement for more details on why, but basically, whenever you have a wh-clause (like "the murderer was who?"), you move the wh-word to the beginning, and leave the verb at the end. Indeterminate (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word order in indirect questions also depends somewhat on the variety of English being used. In James Joyce's story "Araby", for instance, you will find the sentence "She asked me was I going to Araby", which construction is apparently common in Ireland. And the wh-movement article cited by Indeterminate points out that "I wonder what did he buy" is acceptable in Belfast. Deor (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York English sometimes uses this kind of construction. Rimush (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/ Rimush; this construction (specifically, lack of subject-auxiliary inversion in indirect questions) is a feature of several dialects of English (I think Dublin English is another) but not Standard English. It's a common example in intro syntax books everywhere... rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can certainly be fixed with only punctuation. He asked: "Who was the murderer"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a "fix", it's a different sentence, a direct quotation rather than a paraphrase. Anyway, I see nothing wrong with the original and am surprised by people calling it nonstandard. It's similar to "He asked who did it", where no other word order is possible. I see the choice of moving "was" to the end as a matter of preference. --Anonymous, 19:03 UTC, September 26, 2010.

They're different types of sentences, with different types of verbs. In theory, the base word order for the sentence in question is "the murderer was [someone]", where "who" (the wh realization of that noun phrase [someone]) obligatorily moves to the edge of the clause and "was" optionally moves up. In your sentence, the base order is "[someone] did it", with the noun phrase already up there; that's the reason you can't derive a different order. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains a lot: you are simply forgetting that the base sentence could just as well be "[someone] was the murderer". --Anonymous, 04:28 UTC, September 28, 2010.

The well known British auther, H. Rider Haggard, wrote in the beginning of the 37th chapter of his celebrated novel Montezuma's Daughter: " he asked me what was my quarrel ". Eliko (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case be, "he asked me what was wrong" and "he asked me what wrong was" mean two different things. Lexicografía (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A similar sentence appeared in Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility...somewhere in the middle of the novel...Faizaguo 01:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who does your translating into Welsh? I have attempted to read several pages in translation and have had to refer back to the English in order to make sense of the piece! This is TOTALLY unacceptable and I would like your comments please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.212.78 (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, and can you provide a link to the page(s) in question? Lexicografía (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may also be a misunderstanding. The Welsh Wikipedia is not a translation of the English Wikipedia, but an independently developed Wiki. Some articles may originate as translations from another language articles, but that is neither the default nor is the relationship likely to remain stable over time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Welsh Wikipedia, like all Wikipedias, is written by many different editors, some of whom may be fluent in the language and some with very limited command of it. (I have written a little in the Welsh Wikipedia, but I know my Welsh is limited). If you can improve the text, please do so. --ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner may also not realise that all WP editors are volunteers, who do it out of the goodness of our hearts.  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zina (الزناء) is the Arabic word for fornication. It is also, in various non-Arab cultures, a given name with no such connotations. But what are we to make of Zina Zaflow, an Arab-American actress? And born in Baghdad, no less. I don't know how her name is written or pronounced in Arabic. Maybe that makes all the difference. Surely to God her loving parents didn't name her in honor of extramarital sex. And even in the unlikely event that her parents are the Arab equivalent of iconoclastic flower children, isn't it incredible that such a name was countenanced by the Iraqi authorities? Don't Arab countries have regulations like the ones in Sweden that prohibit names like "Superman" and "Hitlerzombie"? LANTZY^TALK 22:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

زناء zināʔ comes from root z-n-y "to fornicate", but there is also a root z-y-n which means "to make beautiful". However, for all I know her name could have a ظ... AnonMoos (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is her name pronounced in English? That would presumably be the same as the Arabic pronunciation. If it's "zeena" then it's probably from the second root AnonMoos gave. (This reminds me of the story of Akbar Zeb...) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English would not necessarily distinguish Arabic زناء and زينة (among others). AnonMoos (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Z" has more than one sounds in Nastaliq languages. Even the name of leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah is not pronounced with absolute "J" as people are accustomed to in west, where we simply differentiate between J and Z and stop it there. Certainly the proper name you mention above has nothing to do with sex but rather with excellence etc. And btw, you sure "superman" is banned as name in Sweden ? 124.253.135.137 (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "Nastaliq" is a script style (more often used for Persian and Urdu than for Arabic in modern times), not a linguistic classification... AnonMoos (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]