Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 March 25

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 25

what is this study called ?

cross-posting. also posted in wikipedia / reference desk / miscellaneous, as what is this study called ?

Study about words those sound alike in different languages, how their meanings relate to each other. What is this study called ? Any reference in web ? If anything not there, please suggest me a new ?-logy. Also, what we can call if we group words based on how they sound / are pronounced / uttered. For example, we have thesaurus, for grouping words together based on their meanings. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Words that sound alike in different languages are called cognates; words that sound alike but have different meanings are called false friends.

In the same language, words that are pronounced the same (such as English "read" and "red") are called homophones. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, words (in different languages or the same language) that derive from the same earlier word are called cognates no matter how different they may be in sound (or meaning or both). -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding one more reference; consider these two words both mean the same, "Money"

• Cash (English)
• காசு (Tamil) - pronounced as kaasu

--V4vijayakumar (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two possibilities for this. One is that the Tamil word is borrowed from English (so you would call it a loanword). The other is that their similar sound is just a coincidence, and it's a false cognate.

The study of where a word comes from (which seems to be what you're asking about) is etymology. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this[1], "cash" in English is a loanword from Tamil Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the specifics of the OP's question, one might conjecture that such a study could be called "homophonics" or "homophonology". In my Webster's the closest to that is "homophony", meaning "of or pertaining to homophones". I googled both "homophonics" and "homophonology" just to see. It found nothing for "homophonics", but under "homophonology" some things turned up including this:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the word homophonology. again, homophones are sound alike words with different meanings, but I am looking for a name for this word, "same sound and related meanings". unihomophonology ?! --V4vijayakumar (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're asking. Are you wondering what to call words in different languages that have similar sound and meaning? Those are generally cognates. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

One example is how "ma" is a root word for "mother" in languages around the world, and also often "pa" or "ba" for father. That's covered in Mama and papa. Speaking of which, there's a little editorial comment in there about it being a "false etymology". Is it absolutely certain that languages did not develop until after humans were already dispersed around the world? Because that's what that editorial comment seems to be asserting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It is really interesting to group words like this together. As I know Tamil better I am planning to start with Dravidian languages; and then I will move to other languages. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Was I on an "internship" or a "placement"?

I studied in the Netherlands on biomolecular science course which included two periods of several months work in a laboratory where we worked on projects on which we ultimately wrote-up the results. We worked unpaid. Do these periods conform to the definition of "internship", "placement" or both? Is there a difference between British and American English? ----Seans Potato Business 13:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Placement" in the UK, I'm fairly certain. Alansplodge (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I'd say that, in Britain, a placement is a formal part of a course of study, and is organised by the college as well as the employer, while an internship is a stand-alone position that you apply for by yourself, and doesn't count towards any courses. So in that sense, you did a placement. The internship page looks pretty detailed though, so you should look there. Lfh (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Placement" is rarely used in American English--71.111.229.19 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like "internship" as we would say in the USA. The term "placement" is indeed used, but usually as part of a "placement service", an agency that helps you find a job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Be Prepared" in Latin

Resolved

A friend claims that the Scout and Guide motto, "Be Prepared", is "Exsisto Paratus" in Latin. It gets a few hits on Google in the blogs of Scouty types, but an online translator comes up with "To be prepared". Is this as good as it gets? Alansplodge (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Online translators for Latin are completely useless. "Exsisto" is "I exist" (or just "I am") so what you have there is an awkward way of saying "I am prepared". If you want to use that verb in the imperative (which is what "be prepared" is, I guess), then it is "exsiste" (singular) or "exsistite" (plural), or "exsistito" or "exsistitote" (singular and plural in the future imperative). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't use exsisto anyway, but sum. The singular present imperative of that is es, but I think the future imperative esto is more likely. I suppose you could also use the passive imperative of paro, namely parare (identical in form to the active infinitive), but I suspect that can only mean "be prepared" if you're talking to your dinner or something like that. Para teipsum would be "prepare yourself". +Angr 15:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you have to use "esto" there, "es" could be imperative if you were making a verb table or something, but it would never actually be used that way. Another option is "paremur", "let us be prepared", but that might be moving a little too far from the intended meaning. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of organizations use semper paratus. It literally means "always prepared", so it's not an exact translation, but it means the same thing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Using "always" also coincides with some of the translations used in French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Catalan, German, and other languages too. See Scout Motto in various languages (Latin, semper parata included for Brazilian Girl Scouts). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, one and all. I forgot Wikipedia has an article for everything. Semper Paratus has an elegant ring to it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Another candidate: Parare (passive imperative). —Tamfang (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for fun and the sake of formalism, can anyone come up with a Latin approximation using the initials B.P.? B_____ Paratus / B_____ Parata"? ---Sluzzelin talk 00:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Bene paratus? ("Well prepared") Adam Bishop (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple and effective. Bene done! ---Sluzzelin talk 13:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Is "If I would be rich I would buy a car." correct  ?

Hello you all English speakers, all over the world. Here are some questions from a Froggy for whom the sentence in the title sounds awful because the equivalent sentence in French is "Si je serais riche j'achèterais une voiture." and this French sentence, though it can be more and more heard, is more than a mistake it is an error of thought. I must specify that we already met such sentences written by English speakers. So could you tell me which ones of the following sentences are correct or nearly correct and which ones are uncorrect.

S1) If I would be rich I would buy a car.

S2) If I was rich I would buy a car.

S3) If I were rich I would buy a car.

Personnally, the S2) is closer to a French sentence so sounds more logical to my ears but a friend of mine who teaches English told me that the only correct one is the S3). If two or more of these sentences are correct, we are also interested in knowing the differences of meaning. I thank you very much for your kind attentiveness. Jojodesbatignoles-Rheims-France---82.216.68.31 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

S3 is correct as this sentence requires the subjunctive form of the verb. However, you will likely hear S2 colloquially, and I doubt you'd hear S1 from a native speaker. (That's my Canadian perspective). -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Flyguy. Unlike French, English often uses the subjunctive for these, but in informal speech it doesn't have to (i.e., S2, which is roughly the same as French si j'étais riche j'acheterais une voiture). S3 is prescriptively correct, but S2 is also quite common. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I too agree with the above. S1 sounds like something I'd hear from a non-native speaker. S3 sounds normal to me; S2 sounds either uneducated or British. (American English is more likely to use the subjunctive were than British English is.) +Angr 16:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I say - "uneducated or British" is not terribly flattering is it? In the UK too, S3 is correct and S2 can be heard colloquially. I would also put a comma after "rich". Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends on if there's the same emphasis on prescriptive grammar on this point in the UK as in the US. But S2 is so common in the US (though I don't use it) that it might pass unnoticed. kwami (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

S2 is very common in the UK too. Most people probably only learnt it was incorrect by watching Doctor Who (the Doctor corrects someone that uses the equivalent of S2 in The Sontaran Stratagem). --Tango (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree about the relative rarity of S1. I hear it, and see it here and elsewhere, all the time; typically from young people, typically Americans but not exclusively, and generally native speakers. And here's proof. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example from today - [3], last sentence. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not every anomalous use of 'would' is parallel to S1. —Tamfang (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The couple of sources I looked at online (such as here and here with a cute cartoon at the bottom) make it clear to me that you say "If I was..." when you are trying to make a conditional statement about concrete things, and you use "if I were..." when you are trying to make a conditional statement about hypothetical things, though I suppose people are often casual about that distinction. for instance, you'd say "If I was rude to you (when I did that), I apologize" to talk about some actual thing which is being interpreted the wrong way, but you'd say "If I were rude to you (hypothetically speaking), I would apologize" to talk about some thing which (in your mind) never really happened, but could. There's a lot of gray area there, though. --Ludwigs2 17:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a parallel to Ludwigs2's comment in the way French is often taught in the U.S., though it has more to to with likelihood than with whether something's concrete or hypothetical:

Je t'aiderais si je pouvais. = "I would help you if I could" (with the implication "but I can't, so I won't").

S'il parlait espagnol, il s'habituerait à la vie mexicaine. = "If he spoke Spanish, he would get used to Mexican life" (but he doesn't speak it, so he isn't getting used to it).

The explanation in the text I consulted is that when the outcome is unlikely, French uses an imperfect/conditional pairing for the if/then structure. When the outcome is likely, the "if" uses the present and the outcome is present, imperative, or future:

Quand il pleut, nous restons chez nous. = When it rains, we stay home.

Si tu as le temps, viens me voir. = If you have the time, come see me.

Si Charles s'en va, les LeBlanc se fâcheront. == If Charles leaves, the LeBlancs will get angry.

I'd like to hear the OP's correct version for the original example; my assumption is that it should be Si j'étais [imperfect] riche, j'achêterais une voiture. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello dear "OtherDave", I'm the OP (I've just learnt what means OP!). Your proposal for the French correct sentence is for the most part all correct except the "achêterais" that must be written "achèterais". In case of trouble for French spelling + pronounciation + accents especially for conjugation I recommend this on line dictionary CNRTL that contains many other dictionaries. Thank you for all your answers and explainations. The OP-Jojodesbatignoles-Rheims-France---82.216.68.31 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some resources about English for speakers of French.

• Apprendre l'anglais en ligne gratuitement, cours anglais, British Council France (for French speakers)
• Anglais en ligne - ABA English
• e-Anglais.com: cours d'anglais, exercices, tests, ressources, grammaire

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Merci, Jojodesbatignoles. Sorry about the error; it wasn't misspelling so much as presbyopia. --- OtherDave (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

S3 is correct. S1 doesn't really work. S2 is colloquial; proper phrasing would be, "If I was rich, I would have bought a car. There's a song from Fiddler on the Roof that matches the hypothesis. I got this by googling for the song lyrics, which obviously contains some [nonsense words]. "I'd" is short for "I would", hence this matches S3:

If I were a rich man,

[Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.]

All day long I'd [biddy biddy bum.]

If I were a wealthy man.

I wouldn't have to work hard.

[Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.]

If I were a [biddy biddy] rich,

[Yidle-diddle-didle-didle] man.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Another example...

"If I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath,

I’d live with scarlet Majors at the Base.

And speed glum heroes up the line to death.

You’d see me with my puffy petulant face,

Guzzling and gulping in the best hotel,

Reading the Roll of Honour. ‘Poor young chap,’

I’d say—‘I used to know his father well;

Yes, we’ve lost heavily in this last scrap.’

And when the war is done and youth stone dead,

I’d toddle safely home and die — in bed. (Siegfried Sassoon (1886–1967)[4]. Alansplodge (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

bugs, if we now get a question about the etymology of "Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum", I'm going to shoot you. --Ludwigs2 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone has already dealt with this meaning above, then I apologize: the "if I would be rich" does have a use, I think. "If I would be rich, then I would not buy a car, but rather an appreciating asset. If I would be poor, then I would buy a car." I believe that is all both correct and meaningful. Bielle (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but I've never heard anyone say it. Alansplodge (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The conditional present section of the article on English verbs says with apparent approbation that "the traditional rule" is not to put "would" in the "if" clause. Apparently Benjamin Franklin was unaware of this tradition, or discarded it as he did many others, when he wrote sentences like these:

• If you would keep your secret from an enemy, tell it not to a friend.
• If you would be reveng'd of your enemy, govern yourself.
• If you would reap praise you must sow the seeds, gentle words and useful deeds.

This is a common pattern in Poor Richard's Almanac: if you would (want to) do/have/become X, do Y. I read Bielle's examples in a similar way: "If I want to be rich, I will not buy a car." I'd guess this form in contemporary writing is archaic, or at least very dustily didactic. In speech, other than in a period play, it's a harmless trip back to before the war--of 1812. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)