Language desk
< January 12	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 14 >

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.

January 13

speech [How to give a good speech?]

These are the questions i have

I want give an attractive speech on the MNC's.. 1. how can i make my speech attractive ? 2. I don't want give speech in normal words

  i want use a proffesional language in my speech ?

3. how can i get that words instead of normal words 4. any solution please or show me alink where can i get it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamshi4u (talk • contribs) 02:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What language will you be speaking in? If it's English, you'll have to improve your fluency to give a good speech. Also, which MNC are you referring to? Algebraist 02:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to guess it's Multinational Corporation, although I guess that's irrelevant. Vamshi4u, if you want to use different words than you would normally use, most people use a thesaurus. There's one here: [1]. But I should warn you: if you use professional words without knowing what they mean, people who do know will probably be able to tell. :) good luck! Indeterminate (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I use words I don't understand all the time, and people are always impressed by my effluent language skills. :-) StuRat (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the subjunctive mood required in English?

Greetings RefDesk language folks: I haven't asked a question in a few months, but the subjunctive mood popped into my head today. Is it required in English? And, if so, in what cases? Someone claiming to be a reporter said: "If I was him...". This caused me to think about the state of the subjunctive in English.

Is "If I was" acceptable? In what situations can the subjunctive be omitted? Does using the sunbjunctive imply education or "overcompensation" for lack of education (like when someone uses "whom" incorrectly)? Would a teacher/professor correct a student who failed to use the subjunctive mood? Thanks much, I was curious! Lazulilasher (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's required in the strictest sense. You apparently understood the purported reporter's sentence, despite its grammatical failings. I doubt that most native English speakers today are even consciously aware that their language contains a subjunctive mood; I hadn't heard of it until I started learning Spanish. From what I understand, the subjunctive mood in Modern English has atrophied away almost entirely, compared with its historical predecessors [2].

I'd argue that, in informal circumstances, it's entirely a matter of taste. Some people dislike grammar rules they see as vestigial; personally, I'm a conservationist. There could also be some nonstandard English dialects that have dropped the subjunctive altogether, in which the lack of subjunctive would be correct. In any case, in formal situations (like classroom assignments) it couldn't hurt to leave it in. Finally, I don't think the subjunctive mood has any serious stigmas attached to its use. As I said, I think most people really just don't notice. IMHO, Indeterminate (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If descriptive grammar is our guiding light, then the subjunctive is at least obsolescent. If prescriptive, then it has still has its rightful place. It's more and more common to hear "If I was ..". There's another way of saying sentences like this - "Were I thinking of ..., I'd do ...", which can be constructed only with the subjunctive. One cannot get away with "Was I thinking of ...", and I've never even heard anyone try to. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some variation between places on this. In North America most people have this distinction:

"It is important that the room be warm" (subjunctive) = The room must be warm, and this is important.
"It is important that the room is warm" (indicative) = The room is warm, and this is important.

Many people in Britain use the second form with the first meaning, which always looks wrong to me when I read it, even though I rarely use subjunctives after "if" myself. (I presume they would use the second form with the second meaning as well.) --Anonymous, 04:37 UTC, January 13, 2009.

That's a very good point, Anonymous. In a previous life, I worked for an organisation where many people wanted us to say, in our literature, things like "It is important that members are aware that ...". I always argued for "It is important that members be aware that ...", but the others asserted it meant the same thing so what was I going on about. It never meant the same thing to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the subjunctive is obsolescent. For the last two hundred years at least, people have been saying its disappearance was imminent, and it's still with us. Of course, the mandative subjunctive mentioned by Anonymous is common (and, in North American English, usually considered compulsory in many contexts - the indicative strikes my ears as British, Australian, etc.), and there are also a number of fossilized subjunctive forms: so be it, be that as it may, whether you be white or black, if need be, as it were, far be it from me to criticize, Heaven forbid, come what may, suffice it to say, etc.

Where people say the subjunctive mood is becoming less common, they're usually talking about the was/were opposition after verbs of wishing ("I wish I were grown up") and in conditional clauses that are contrary to fact ("If I were grown up...") In cases like these, my feeling is that "If I was" is acceptable in standard usage. It is probably more common than "If I were" in informal contexts, and competes with it in formal ones. Was is least likely to displace were in constructions like "Were I a child, ..." which begin a clause without a conjunction.

We shouldn't forget that there are cases in which the condition is not unreal; in these cases were would be out of place, but might be used hypercorrectly. For example: "I felt as if I was being watched. I turned around and saw Jim standing in the doorway," and "If he wasn't guilty, who was?" are correct. (These are really examples which would call for am/is in the present.) The subjunctive would also be a mistake in cases like "He asked me if I was cold," in which if means "whether."

In other cases, a speaker or writer has a subjective choice between were and was depending on the degree of perceived likelihood of the condition: "If she was/were in danger, she would be justified in defending herself." "If I was/were to travel to Florida, would you be happy?" These conditions are particularly likely to contemplate future situations, in which their real or unreal character is most likely to be a subjective matter. Joeldl (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If I was rude last night, please forgive me"-- There is a possibility I was rude: indicative mood. "If I were rude, I would never keep any customers"-- a hypothetical, strongly suggesting that I am not in fact rude: subjunctive mood. I think these distinctions are important...Rhinoracer (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's notable that in the two examples you give, no was/were opposition is possible. In the first, people would only say was, and in the second, I think it's clear that the speaker considers the condition contrary to fact, so was would be interpreted as standing in for were, given that categorical use of the indicative is so common. Cases in which a meaningful distinction can be drawn are less common, and that's why there's only a relatively minor loss of communicative power in abandoning were everywhere. Joeldl (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but in Britain you could easily here "If I was rude, I would never keep any customers" ans that would be understood by context. In fact in Yorkshire you might well here "If I were rude last night, please forgive me", again understandable from context (in parts of the West Riding the word "was" is almost extinct! -- Q Chris (talk)

On p87 of the splendid Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, which is hugely more valuable than tons of books on "correct English" and leaf-shooting and worse and a copy of which you must buy immediately, Rodney Huddleston points out that analysis in terms of "subjunctive" is unsatisfactory. This old fashioned analysis treats I be and I were as two tenses of a single subjunctive, but in real life sentences they almost never appear as options distinguishable by time; on the very rare occasion when they are both options they differ by modality. Like many linguists, Huddleston prefers the term irrealis. Is irrealis necessary? That's a very strange question. Let's reconsider and rephrase it: Is the distinctive marking of irrealis ever necessary? Huddleston implies that yes it is. It's pissing down with rain right now, and I may say either I'm glad I have my umbrella with me or (irrealis marked by backshift) I wish I had my umbrella with me. Well, perhaps in your lect of English you can say I wish I have my umbrella with me, but in my lect you can't. Morenoodles (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's really no such thing as a unified "subjunctive mood" in modern English; there are a few fossilized fixed expressions and conventional phrases, there's "if I/he were", and there's the infinitive-form-in-subordinate-clause construction in American English ("I demand that he be arrested", etc.). From a strictly synchronic and descriptive standpoint, these various isolated usages don't add up to any kind of meaningful "subjunctive mood" verb conjugation as a whole. AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Latvian place name

Biķernieki - particularly the penultimate syllable. (Purpose: Hebrew transcription for an archival data base key word.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I belive "ie" spells the diphthong [iɛ] in Latvian, so [bicɛrniɛki] or so. Maybe ביקרניקי? —An gr 13:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what we've got; I'm just clarifying that the "ie" is indeed a dipthong and doesn't represent two vowels better indicated by "יי" or "יא" in Hebrew. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all I'm going on is the fact that Latvian language#Vowels and diphthongs asserts that Latvian has a diphthong [iɛ]. I don't actually know any Latvian myself. —An gr 14:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiberno-English: 'ledrum?'

Hello there:

Both of my grandparents are Irish and they brought me up. They are in their seventies, and one comes from Carlow, and the other comes from Arvagh in Cavan. They speak in an old-fashioned way, pronouncing 'ea' as though it were /ɛ:/. One of the words that they often use is 'ledrum' (perhaps 'leadrum' or 'leddrem' - pronounced /'lɛdɹʊm/) which has been puzzling me for many years. Has anyone heard this word themselves? Does anyone know how it's properly spelt and/or where it derives from?

All the best

--134.151.33.249 (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What context did they use it in? Is it a noun, adjective, verb, other? Can you guess at an approximate meaning? —An gr 21:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few Irish regulars (user:Fribbler et al) which may have a clue. I found a "Lendrum" which is a firm producing spinning wheels, but they are in Ontario and did not exist prior to the seventies. It seems, however, that Lendrum is an occasional surname in Ireland, so it must have (or have had) some meaning. Of course, it may be the wrong word. Maybe giving the English equivalent would help. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Angr and Cookatoo - thanks a lot for your responses. Firstly, Angr, it is a noun, and they seem to use it for people who are playing the fool but who aren't being very amusing in their attempts. It's someone who is tiresome and overly extroverted. It is often used in the phrase, 'act[ing] like a ledrum.'

Secondly, Cookatoo, thanks a lot for your suggestions - it may well have come from a surname, given that often someone famed or notorious is memorialised by their surname being appropriated to express their character. It that were so, it would have to be a word used in both Ulster and Leinster, or perhaps - because my grandmother uses it more, or used, I should say - my grandfather took it from her.

Both of them come from places that were villages then and not much bigger now; so it might be derived from Irish. All the best --134.151.33.249 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Gaelic word, Lúdramán, which means fool and is now used as loodar or ludar (as per the article on Hiberno-English). Given a spot of regional variation, this sounds a bit like your "ledrum". Maybe Angr finds a suitable dictionary to check etymology / usage. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ó Dónaill's dictionary gives lúdramán as a variant of liúdramán, which is glossed as "lanky lazy person" or "loafer". Dinneen's dictionary assigns l(i)údramán to Aran but also lists a word that isn't in Ó Dónaill: leadramach or ludramach, which means "a clumsy fellow". Dinneen says that leadramach is from Omeath and ludramach from Tyrone, suggesting it's only an Ulster word. If that's true, and this is the word your grandparents are using, I bet it's the one from Cavan who introduced it to the one from Carlow. (Is it your grandmother who's from Cavan and your grandfather from Carlow?) For the forms without "m" like Hiberno-English loodar, Ó Dónaill has lúdar as a variant of lústar "(act of) fawning, obsequiousness, flattery", and ludar as a variant of lodar "soft, flabby person" (Dinneen "a slovenly person"); Dinneen also has liodar "a dawdler". So there are several words with "l-dr-(m)" that refer to a lazy/clumsy/slovenly person, but none (that I've found so far) that are glossed directly as "fool". But maybe that meaning crept in as the word was taken over into English. I don't have a dictionary of Hiberno-English, I'm afraid. —An gr 23:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leadraim (pr. [lʲɛdɹəmʲ] in Gaelic) is a verb that means to smite or beat. But I don't think that's right. Steewi (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Irish has that verb too. It's a first person singular form because of the -aim ending. Dinneen has it as leadraim, Ó Dónaill as leadraím with a long [i:] in the second syllable. I agree it's unlikely to be the word we're looking for. But there's another noun I forgot to mention, which fits in semantically with the others: leadránaí (Dinneen leadránaidhe) "dilatory person, lingerer, loiterer; tedious person, bore". That last definition comes closest to the OP's description. —An gr 00:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Angr, Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM, and Steewi for all your suggestions, effort and help – it never ceases to amaze me how wonderful this Reference Desk is. This word has been plaguing and fascinating me in equal measure ever since the age when I started noticing every word, how it was pronounced and used, and linguistics became one of my life’s leading obsessions. The feeling that there are plenty of ideas on the table is wonderful. Angr, you’re right about my grandparents’ counties of origin. There’s some great suggestions, and I am with you that it is probably one of the words that you wrote originally with a meaning that has changed over time, or leadránái – the latter is very close, especially since the way I have always understood it, a ledrum to them is someone tiresome and time-wasting, whose affectations soon grow tedious and who always overstays their welcome.

Thanks a lot – I really appreciate it. It’s been puzzling me for over a decade! Best wishes, --134.151.33.249 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is OmegaWiki included in single user login?

I have just discovered in the past few hours Wikipedia:OmegaWiki via the following series of links.

[...]

Meta:Main Page - OmegaWiki

Is OmegaWiki included in Wikipedia:Single user login?
-- Wavelength (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Algebraist 21:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 January 13

Contents