January 19

There was a contestant on tonight's American broadcast of The Wheel of Fortune whose given name was Knar. I missed the introduction (with her last name), then got a call from a relative asking what her nationality might be. I said the contestant resembled Umm Kulthum and my guess was that the name was either Armenian or Lebanese Christian, given I had not previously heard it. Can anyone give a referrenced supposition as to the origin of the name? Pat Sajak did indeed pronounce it /knar/. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Armenian word Քնար pronounced [k'nar] is definitely an Armenian female first name. I know that for a fact because it is the name of the mother of French singer of Armenian descent Charles Aznavour. It means harp or lyre (see Armenian Lyre) and is also the name of the constellation. Now it all depends how good your hearing is as there is also a Kurdish name Kinar, etc. I think it has the same meaning. They may all go back to Hebrew kinnor or at least be related but of that I'm not sure. Contact Basemetal here 02:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am inclined to accept that, given there is an Urban Dictionary entry that gives the same info, Knar = Armenian "Harp" as a woman's name. Unless anyone else objects? Perhaps we have readers who saw tonight's episode in full? Or maybe there is a Wheel of Fortune wiki? I didn't hear her last name, unfortunately. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When watching that episode, I was curious about the name "Knar" as well, so I turned on closed-captioning and backed up the recording to see the woman's surname. I don't remember it (and I no longer have the recording, as I wasn't informed I was going to be asked about it), but the name definitely ended in -ian. As far as I know that's a common ending for Armenian names and rare elsewhere. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Armenian -ian ending is of Iranian origin. But Persian names with that ending seem to be pretty uncommon. I personally know an Iranian named "Zarnikian" though. But in the WP "category:Persian-language surnames" (how can you link to that page? the usual wiki link format doesn't seem to work) you get as only name in -ian "Nalbandian" which is in fact not Persian at all but Armenian. In any case since Knar is not an Iranian first name we can eliminate that fairly remote possibility. Why don't you guys call the nearest Armenian consulate in North America and tell them: "We'd like to ask Radio Erevan: Can an Armenian be a contestant on Wheel of Fortune?" More seriously, I can confirm the Semitic origin of that word (look up the Old Armenian Wiktionary entry). And here's what promises to be (I haven't read it yet, I've just found it) a great article about this whole family of related words in several Middle Eastern languages including Hittite: "An Ancient Name of the Lyre (Vyacheslav V. Ivanov)". I bet I'll find out that Greek κιθάρα and hence English guitar are also ultimately related to knar. And if you put Armenian and guitar together you get this or if it's too early this. (Update: turns out κιθάρα and guitar are not related to knar; κιθάρα is considered to be of pre-Greek but otherwise unknown origin) Contact Basemetal here 20:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can link to a category by putting a colon at the very beginning. Please see Category:Persian-language surnames.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 21:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the full name of the person on the show was Knar Nazlikian from Los Angeles.^<ref>    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 18:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Michael J! μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When did American English, as spoken by Americans during the War of 1812, begin to distinguish itself from British English so that the impressment of American sailors (by the Brit. navy) would be apparent by the difference in accent/intonation/pronunciation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Melvin (talk • contribs) 07:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a distinctive accent to identify American sailors. You can just ask them. In any case distinctive American English accents appeared much before 1812. For example around 1700 the pronunciation of South-East England became non-rhotic whereas American English stayed rhotic. (Later on certain regions in America, such as the Boston area developped a non-rhotic pronunciation, possibly in imitation of the English). Here's some references from the web: [1] [2]. Contact Basemetal here 09:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think asking a sailor whether he would like to be impressed into British service with worse pay and conditions would work terribly well. The problem for the Royal Navy was that deserters would sign on to a US merchantman and acquire false papers from the ship's master. This was the ostensible casus belli of the War of 1812, although some historians suspect that it was an excuse for a US land-grab in Canada while Britain was busy trying to cope with a short Corsican gentleman. Alansplodge (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a digression but Alan's observation reminded me: I think there were many in the US who thought for some time after Independence that British Canada was a piece of unfinished business and who were "looking forward to the day the Stars and Stripes will be flying over the whole of North America". IIRC some were still making in Congress speeches using these kinds of similes into the 1880s. How widespread was that sentiment? And when did it completely disappear from American discourse? Contact Basemetal here 12:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No coincidence here, I'm sure. --Askedonty (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian colonies at the time (Quebec and Acadia/Nova Scotia IIRC) were formally invited to send representatives the Continental Congress at various times, (see John Brown of Pittsfield#Mission to Canada and Intelligence operations in the American Revolutionary War#Canada) though the failed invasion of Canada harmed relations in that direction between the nascent republic and the Canadians. See also Invasion of Canada (1775)#Aftermath which mentions that the Americans specifically sought to annex Canadian provinces. --Jayron32 13:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also War Plan Red and apologies for leading you all astray. Alansplodge (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basemetal's second link provides the best researched answer, or basis for an answer to the original question. In fact, the English spoken by Americans, even as late as 1812, would not have been radically different from various accents in Britain. The accents of eastern New England were similar to those of East Anglia at the time. (Not surprising, since the region was settled mainly by migrants from East Anglia.) There is some evidence that non-rhotacism originated in North Sea ports, then spread through East Anglia to London during the 17th century. The accents of Tidewater Virginia and South Carolina were also close to accents around London during the 18th and early 19th centuries. Meanwhile the accents of the Middle Atlantic states and the interior were similar to the rhotic varieties of English spoken in parts of Ireland, the West Country of England and the North of England. So it would not have been immediately obvious from an American's speech that he was not British. Marco polo (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic that American speech was not readily distinguishable from British speech on the basis that Middle Atlantic and interior dialects were similar to Irish, West Country and Northern varieties because they are all rhotic seems to be faulty insofar as Irish, West Country and those Northern accents which are rhotic are readily distinguishable from each other and have been for centuries (as we know from writers as far back as Chaucer attempting to represent the sounds of these dialects on the page). A mere coincidence of rhotacism is not enough to make two accents sound similar; all the other sounds in the phonology need to be considered. (Indeed, even with regard to their rhoticism, the pronunciation of the R-sound in, for example, Northumbrian accents - the uvular "Northumbrian burr" which our page suggests had developed at least as early as the 18th Century - would have differed from that in West Country or Irish accents). Valiantis (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I wasn't arguing that those accents are indistinguishable. What I am arguing is that American accents from the Middle Atlantic states and the interior North and South would have been indistinguishable for a generation or two after immigration from the accents of the regions where they originated. So, South Jersey and Pennsylvania were mainly settled by people from the West Country (north and east of Philadelphia) and Wales (west of Philadelphia) and would have had vaguely Western and Welsh-sounding accents. Those from the interior were mainly Protestant Ulstermen (known in America as Scotch Irish), and they would have sounded much like their Ulster kin, and so on. Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: American accents were and are still quite non-uniform, with some areas having accents similar to those held in parts of 17th century England. The difference which people would and did notice was in vocabulary as many words, for example, from natives, were adopted into common American English long before they were adopted into British English, regardless of accent. Terms such as "sachem", "powwow", "jerky" etc. would have instantly marked Americans as different. Collect (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to International_English_Language_Testing_System#Results_by_first_language_of_test_taker_.28Academic.29, if I understand it correctly, many people with English as native language also go through this test (IELTS). Do they really mean people with English as native language, or, people from countries like South Africa, Canada or India, where you could be a native speaker of English or not. --Llaanngg (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the test-takers claiming English as their first language spoke it when very young, but then ended up learning and primarily using another language during the rest of their childhood. That would explain why the table says that native German speakers outperform native English speakers. Loraof (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe they falsely claimed English as their first language, and the official in charge of deciding who takes the test was (rightly) skeptical. Loraof (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see a problem with the term "native speaker", which is assumed to mean they are proficient in that language. However, there are functionally illiterate people and those who speak nonstandard English, making them potentially not at all proficient in standard English. There's also American English vs British English and other variants. So, I find it quite plausible that somebody who technically is a native speaker might want to take classes and obtain certification to prove that their English is now up to par. I also find it quite plausible that somebody not speaking English at all might do better than somebody who has learned many bad habits and introduces themself by saying "I's wants y'all ta learn me ta twak gooder." StuRat (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are also plenty of people in the US who would wrongly claim that they are native speakers of English, when indeed they live mainly in a Spanish-speaking environment. Such tests won't let them get away with it. Denidi (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

1. The terms "native language" and "native speaker" do not have firm definitions worldwide; they are used colloquially. IELTS is administered in over 140 countries [3], so people's understanding of those terms will vary.

2. There is no absolute need to take classes before registering for the exam, although I suspect the vast majority of candidates do.

3. IELTS is not a pass-fail exam, but a scalar one, evaluating each skill separately. So an individual who has grown up with English "in the street", but who was not academically proficient, might achieve 7.0 in speaking and in listening, but only 4.5 in reading and 4.0 in writing, for example. This might be equally true of a carpenter in Liverpool, a child who immigrated to Australia aged 10, or a shopkeeper in Montreal. Any of those might choose the self-description "native speaker" or have it attributed to them, in certain circumstances.

4. An IELTS result is one of the most straight-forward ways to demonstrate language competence when applying for an immigration visa to countries such as the UK (where the exam is based).

5. IELTS can be contacted here.

Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you connected to the IELTS?Scicurious (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IELTS is used for many different purposes, but a common one is for UK immigration purposes. For that purpose, there is an exemption based on nationality, but this covers only a small number of "majority English speaking" countries: Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US (as you might expect), together with a small number of other, mostly Caribbean, countries. A lot of (more or less) "English speaking" countries are not there, for example South Africa, Ireland, Malta, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia or India. There is a second exemption based on whether you hold a degree from a tertiary institution that teaches in English, this includes institutions in Ireland, but still does not cover many of the other countries.

Based on that alone, you could be a native English speaker from say South Africa who speak no other language, and you may well still need to do an English language test.

Other Commonwealth countries often have similar language policies for immigration purposes and use IELTS (at least as one of the options), so someone applying for a New Zealand or Australian immigration visa might well sit for an IELTS test even though they are a native speaker. --165.225.80.101 (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Ireland is not in the list of IELTS-exempt countries for immigration purposes because Irish people don't have to apply for a visa. Non-English speaking Irish people are a tiny minority.Scicurious (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another common use of IELTS is applying to an English-speaking university, in which case the test is mandatory for all candidates whose previous education wasn't conducted in English -- regardless of whether it's their native language or not. From speaking to an IELTS teacher at a conference, the majority of IELTS takers with L1 English are children of English-speaking expats, who speak English at home and another language at school. Naturally, an English-speaking university needs to make sure that their students' control of English is adequate for a school environment, which in their case isn't self-evident. --My another account (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd point out, User:Llaanngg that in the US, university students often have to pass the Oral Proficiency Interview in order to continue studies in a foreign language (such as Spanish) if they wish to continue towards a major with the intention of teaching it. (I took a few upper-level classes and the OPI myself, but was given a waiver to take 400-level classes before I took the OPI after talking for an hour or so in Spanish with the department head.)

As a graduate student who already spoke Spanish quasi-natively (learnt from nannies and off the street might be the best way of putting it) I can assure you that the half-hour test was quite challenging, and that many fully-native speakers born in Latin America did not get a qualifying grade the first time they took it, usually due to the fact that they would elicit items such as "Had I known you were coming, I would havbe baked you a cake" with the expectation that you could express that properly in formal Spanish. I had the benefit of having studied French, Latin and Greek as an undergrad, but even most English speakers would have trouble with that construction in native American or British. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In English, Thomas becomes Tommy; James becomes Jimmy; David becomes Davey; Daniel becomes Danny; Mary stays as Mary; Elizabeth becomes Lizzy; Pamela becomes Pammy; Sophia becomes Sophie (even though the last e can be sounded out like an a).

Similarly, in Spanish, Spanish speakers love to add the -ito or -ita to names. Juan becomes Juanito. Miguel becomes Miguelito. Francesco becomes Paco or Paquito.

Is it in most cases the formal name (i.e. Alexandra) would be written on the birth or baptismal certificate while the nickname would be written elsewhere (i.e. Lexy)? 140.254.77.184 (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's on the birth certificate is the formal name. What you're describing are nicknames, the specific examples being known as diminutives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do the -y endings make the names cuter, sweeter, or shorter? When did this practice arise? Was it always present in the English language? 140.254.77.184 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily shorter, but "smaller" in the sense of familiarity, as with a child. EO says it is recorded in English at least 500 years ago.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific, "y" or sometimes "ie" is a Germanic diminutive suffix and diminutives indeed denote familiarity. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW in Britain it has become common to use diminutives as formal Christian names. For example you would not be surprised to find Harry, Alfie and Sophie in a British school class and for those to be the names found on those children's birth certificates (as opposed to Henry, Alfred and Sophia). If "Alfie" is on your birth certificate, then obviously your name is Alfie and not Alfred. Kahastok talk 20:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's common in America as well. I can think of any number of relatives in my family tree who were given diminutive names at birth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small children might find it easier to pronounce simplified names, with fewer suffixes. StuRat (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except John becomes Johnny, Mark becomes Marky, Paul becomes Pauly, and so on. -- Jacky of Ozzy ^{[pleasantries]} 21:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, Anthony should become Anthonyey. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it becomes Tony. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 23:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That's English for ya. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• English -y, and German -ig, users User:KageTora, User:JackofOz, User:Baseball Bugs. et al., come from a PIE root cognate with Greek -ικός and Latin -icus as well as with various other forms including from Slavic (ič, -ek) and even the extended English -ish (-skiy) from PIE -is-kos. Seee evene French -esque. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Example: An ad for potatoes states that they are healthy, and includes nutritional info to argue the point. However, that's for a dry, baked potato. The same ad then states that they are delicious, and shows chili cheese fries ("chips" in British English) with bacon on top, which does, indeed, look delicious to most people. Of course, if they gave you the nutrition info for the bacon chili-cheese fries, that would show how unhealthy they are, and if they showed a plain baked potato, it wouldn't look good at all. So, is wikt:juxtaposition the only term for this, or is there any other term to describe this deceptive advertising method ? (Def 2.2 seems to apply, but it lacks the element that it's the same thing being compared in the two cases, but in an altered form, such that the comparison is no longer valid.) The phrase "comparing apples and oranges" comes to mind, but is there a more formal way to say that ? False analogy, perhaps ? So, putting this all together, would I describe that ad as a "apples and oranges juxtaposition, in order to conflate the two in the minds of potential customers to convince them to make a false analogy" ? I suppose that works, but I would hope there was a shorter term for this. StuRat (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the work of a food stylist, using any of the techniques of Food_photography. It's the same strategy as the Marlboro Man type of ads or any other ad actually. It's just one of many misleading messages used by media. --Denidi (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least a hint of bait and switch to it as well, though since both are desirable in different ways it's not quite a classic bait and switch. MChesterMC (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to understand what the below bold clause means. The sentence was took from the Girl No. 217 page, which talks about an anti-Nazi movie. I know what the "including as" expression means, but not inside this context.

"An anti-Nazi film, it depicted a Russian girl enslaved to an inhuman German family. She is even robbed of her name and forced to answer to "No. 217". Subplots depict abuse directed at other POWs. This reflected the use by Nazis of OST-Arbeiter as slave labour, including as family servants."

Note: OST-Arbeiter (also known as ostarbeiter) was a designation for slave workers gathered from Central and Eastern Europe to do forced labor in Germany during World War II. Faltur (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have left out the "as", but the meaning is that slave labor classification also applies to slave laborers employed in the home, not just in industry. Think of their use as "(including) (as family servants)" rather than "(including as) (family servants)". StuRat (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, thanks for the help and for your time! Faltur (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. StuRat (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word "as " - followed by the term "family servants ", is due to the previous "as " - followed by the term "slave labour ". similarly, one can say: "you can sit on any chair you like, including on my chair ". Or: "You can talk about any issues you like, including about boring ones ". Please note that the same is true for any other preposition, including for the preposition "for "... HOTmag (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put the comma after "including" rather than before. Just sayin' Manytexts (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you forgo a comma - before? As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't, but would also add a dash - after. HOTmag (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both comma or dash after 'including' would be definite errors in my book. One way of telling if a comma—or dash— is in the correct place is to read it out loud (or at least, under your breath). If you don't pause, even momentarily, at a comma, it's in the wrong place. In the sentence in question I would pause before 'including', not after it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevanP (talk • contribs) 11:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]