Language desk
< March 13	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 15 >

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.

March 14

r̝̊

I thought diacritic marks are only below the letter unless there is a descender. How come r̝̊ violates this rule? Maybe the chart should be amended?174.3.107.176 (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you have said is certainly wrong for diacritics in general. Our article says "Sub-diacritics (markings normally placed below a letter or symbol) may be placed above a symbol having a descender" (my emphasis) This is subtly different from what you have said, but I haven't a copy of the IPA Handbook to check the authoratitive text. Unless the original has the prescriptive language you use, then it seems to me entirely reasonable to treat "r̝" like a symbol with a descender - though I guess it would not be wrong to put the "raising" diacritic on top instead of the "voiceless" one. And I don't know why you are suggesting on Wikipedia that somebody else's chart be amended! --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The raising diacritic can also be written to the right of the character it modifies. I would have transcribed the sound in question as r̥˔ instead of r̝̊, but nobody asked me. +An gr 17:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general statement that diacritical marks are only below the letter may apply to IPA (I don't know IPA) but it is not true as a statement about diacritics in general. For Indic languages see Devanagari or IAST. If the number of phonemes in a writing system exceeds the number used in English, language-specific diacritics (not IPA) will be needed. Buddhipriya (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true in IPA either, and sometimes it makes a difference whether an IPA diacritic is above or below. The diacritic for nasalization and the diacritic for creaky voice are identical except that the former goes over the letter and the latter goes under it. If you want to mark a letter with a descender as being creaky voice, you have to keep it under the letter, otherwise you're marking it as nasalized. [ỹ] is definitely not the same sound as [y̰]. +An gr 10:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what are the synonyms for "encasement"?

What are the synonyms of "encasement"?174.3.107.176 (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary gives emboîtment.166.216.130.80 (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the context of genetics, which isn't the most common usage of the world. --Tango (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wnd

What is "wendo-croat"?174.3.107.176 (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I found this article: Wends. It refers to a type of Slav, so it stands to reason that Wendo-Croat is the version of Croat spoken by some Wends. Hopefully someone else will give a more conclusive answer! --Tango (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I also find this odd, because as far as I knew "Wend" was another name for the Sorbs. The article Tango links explains that its use was much more varied than that - but there is no reference anywhere in it to the word's having been used for any group of South slavs. Since the writer talks about Slovak "forming the transition from Czech to Wendo-Croat" I find myself wondering whether he might mean Slovenian, which is at least geographically intermediate between West-Slavonic (sometimes ~~formally~~formerly collectively called "Wends", according to the Wends article) and South Slavonic languages such as Croat. But I admit that this is mere speculation. --ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Wends" is also used on page 4 of the same book where is appears to be synonymous with "Slovenes". It's one of the meanings disussed at Wends #Other uses. I suppose the author uses "Wendo-Croat" to mean either Slovenian and Croatian treated as a single language or some transitional dialect between Slovenian and Croatian. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Kpalion is right, then I think the author means Slovenian-Serbian. These south slavic languages are similar, and in many language books, they treat languages in a group.174.3.107.176 (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you interpret the "Croat" part of "Wendo-Croat" as "Serbian"? It doesn't make any sense to me if this is what you mean. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Serbian is more or less identical to Croatian.174.3.98.20 (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The linked text is from a work titled Racial Problems in Hungary. The author describes Slovak as transitional from Czech to "Wendo-Croat". Slovak is mutually intelligible with Czech but not with Slovene. It is even further removed from Croat. So I think we should look for a language more closely related to Slovak than Slovene or Croat. I suspect that the author may be referring to the Slavic language spoken in what is now Hungary before the arrival of the Magyars in the 9th century. Samo, who ruled territory during this period extending from the present-day countries of Slovakia and western Hungary into what is now Slovenia, was known as "king of the Wends". The language spoken in this region is supposed to have been transitional between proto-Slovak and proto-Slovene. Marco polo (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a primary source that says that slovak is NOT mutually intelligible with czech.174.3.107.176 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However see Mutually_intelligible#Written_and_spoken_forms--达伟 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to very strongly doubt that, considering the descriptions of Czech and Slovak contained in chapter 17 of The World's Major Languages (ISBN 0-19-506511-5). -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be Pannonian Rusyn? Or maybe Rusyn? I don't know if it has something to do with Wends, but Slovak could be considere a language somewhat between Czech and Rusyn. Or even the Prekmurian dialect, which is strongly linked to the term "Wend". Just an educated guess...--151.51.62.111 (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note. The term "Veneti" is used plentifully by protochronistic nationalists here in Slovenia, and it is a term that is claimed by them to be the name of the "great, tremendously advanced and now sadly gone without a trace" precursor to the Wend people. It survives today in the somewhat pejorative Austrian word Windischer. I'd bet some of the, ekhm, patriots here in Slovenia would get red spots just being confronted with the unholy word formation "wendo-croat" :) TomorrowTime (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wends/Veneds/Veneti are so obscure that they probably have been claimed as possible ancestors by most modern Slavic nations. Polish Romanticist poet Juliusz Słowacki, for example, wrote Lilla Weneda, a play loosely based on both legends and historical theories of his time, about the peaceful tribe of Veneds – living in what is now Greater Poland – conquered by the aggressive Lechites. The play may be interpreted as an explanation of Poland's social structure, with serfs descending from the Veneds, and nobles – from the Lechites. See also Vistula Veneti. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"KN RBL YMB" in summary

What do the abbreviations in the summary mean?174.3.107.176 (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Norton Royal British Legion Youth Marching Band? Ka renjc 16:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[I am revising the section heading for informativeness. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments (permanent link here),

sub-subsection "Others' comments", point 12 of 18. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Not?

Adam says ""Procuratorate" could have meant "O procuratorship!", but alas it does not.". Why not?174.3.107.176 (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Latin root of "Procuratorate" is a fourth declension noun. In second declension Latin nouns, "-e" signifies the vocative case (which translates in English as "O {noun}"). So if the root (meaning procuratorship) had been of the second declension, Procuratorate "O procuratorship" Adam Bishop was probably just making an in-joke (amongst Latin-speakers!). 68.76.147.34 (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, just a dumb joke. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil அராலி (Araly?) and Tamil யாழ்ப்பாண நகரம் (Jaffna)

The Tamil article http://ta.wiki.x.io/wiki/அராலி (Araly?) has no interwiki links to other languages. The Tamil article http://ta.wiki.x.io/wiki/யாழ்ப்பாண_நகரம் is linked to the English article Jaffna. I used the article Tamil script to transliterate the first name. What is the relationship between Araly and Jaffna? -- Wavelength (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To judge from the map at ta:அராலி, Arali seems to be a neighborhood or suburb of Jaffna. +An gr 19:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was guessing the same thing, but I am hoping that someone who reads Tamil can answer from the first article. That is why I posted my question on the Language Reference Desk and not on a different one. Thank you, anyway. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the only

Resolved

When I see the words "one of the only" in a sentence, I expect them to be followed by a number, e.g., "One the only three", which I would interpret to be synonymous with "one of the three", with the additional connotation of "three" being a small number in the context. However, over the past couple of days, I have come across the following:

"... it is one of the only provinces where ..." in Washington Post
"... he was one of the only hospital officials ..." in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks (pg 274)

Is this use (strictly) grammatical and/or idiomatic? What does it mean exactly, "one of the few" or "the only", or ...? Abecedare (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I had already googled for the answer, but apparently not: this column addresses my question. Abecedare (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of the only editors here who could answer such a question so promptly. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the only three" sounds horrendous to my British English ear, whereas without a number sounds like a noble member of the group of things I'd categorise as "correct usage that mysteriously seems to be incorrect, when one thinks about it." --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'd agree with that, Dweller. There have been 43 U.S. presidents, but only 2 of them - Truman and Kennedy - were born in the month of May. They were "the only two" with this distinction. Therefore, JFK was one of the only two U.S. presidents born in the month of May. No? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would much prefer JFK was one of only two U.S. presidents born in the month of May. Not sure why, though. Algebraist 07:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's because any or all of them could easily have been born in May, but only 2 happened to be. It's "so what?" material; it's mundane (not to mention novomundane in this particular case). It's not remotely the first thing you'd mention about either of them. The "the" is certainly optional there. But try a different tack: one where the distinction is much less likely and consequently more noteworthy. Let me contrive an example. Of all the millions of notable people there have ever been, only 3 have been monarchs who've had a sex change. Which do you prefer now:

X was one of only 3 people in history to have been a monarch who had a sex change
X was one of the only 3 people in history to have been a monarch who had a sex change.

I'd go for the "the" version in this case. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jack, I'd go for the first again. "One of the only..." sounds completely wrong to my ears. And while I'm on, in formal writing I would never write 3 as a figure as in your example, I would always spell it out as a word "three". Just sayin', like. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, me too (or should that be "I, also"?). But we're among friends here and not being overly formal, are we? :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

This blog is interesting reading. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2 cents worth, the "the" sounds really bad to my bastardised English too. And I'd don't think it sounds like it needs a number after it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]