Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 July 19

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< July 18	Language desk archive	July 20 >

"Take Evasive Action"

What is the origin of the phrase "take evasive action"? I've seen it referenced in multiple contexts (many science fiction): is it an in-joke like "All your base are belong to us"?--Lkjhgfdsa 00:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's originally a term used in combat in WWII. The OED cites the first written reference in the Feb 10 1940 issue of The War Illustrated magazine. It means simply to evade something (i.e. run away! run awaaaaaay!). Ziggurat 00:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although to clarify Ziggurat's reply, 'take evasive action' should not be mistaken for another way of saying 'retreat', although they may sometimes be the same. Evasive action is more to describe how one would behave in order to avoid being hit by an incoming torpedo or rocket, for example.--Anchoress 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: Because it's so prevalent in movies and TV, and used so seriously, the parody possibilities are myriad, which may explain the joke factor; I've seen too many parodies to remember specific ones, but they run along the lines of: "Incoming fat kid at three o'clock! Take evasive action!" I think the closest to a self-parody of the phrase is probably Captain Kirk of ST:TOS.--Anchoress 02:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the lyrics or words to a song but keeping the same melody/rhythm

Please can someone help me to find the correct word for my question... thanks

Im looking for the English Word that describes the act of/or person who changing/changes the lyrics or words to a song but keeps the same melody/rhythm.

"the band sing's mostly 'cover' songs" I know 'cover' is used to describe the act of singing someone else's songs and 'translate' could be used when a song is sung in another language... but I really cant find the word to use for the above question.

I'll continue searching the net. thanks

The nearest term I can think of is a Filk, but this is a specific term used in science fiction fandom. It usually refers to a parody song (the term has gained a little bit of wider circulation due to its use to describe people like "Weird Al" Yankovic. Though usually a parody, and usually set to a well-known tune, filks can also be original in tune and/or on serious subjects. Grutness...wha? 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filk is used in other fandoms, but I agree that it's fanfic/fandom specific. Depending on the content, such songs can just be called parodies.--Anchoress 03:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard pop? MeltBanana 12:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's something else (probably should be called mashup). zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parody music seems to be the most appropriate term. --LarryMac 15:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it's actually a parody. The Star-Spangled Banner, for example, is not, yet it is an example of what the OP was asking about. (Francis Scott Key's poem was set to the melody of the drinking song "To Anacreon in Heaven.") --Tkynerd 13:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're looking for a single word meaning "to the tune of"? It seems like there is one, but I can't remember what. "Ripoff" comes to mind, but I don't think it's quite in the spirit you're looking for. Black Carrot 23:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#contrafactum (musical term). JackofOz 21:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jokes

can u recommend a site where i can read lawyer jokes as a matter of fact any kind of jokes because i need a laugh --Mightright 06:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://notendur.centrum.is/%7esnorrigb/signeng.htm has some real-life, not made-up jokes, which is always a bonus. Of course, an Englishman would see nothing wrong with riding on his own ass, so the 'jokes' don't work for everyone. :) Not exactly jokes, but I find these do qualify as good entertainment: http://www.optillusions.com/. DirkvdM 07:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes-hotclaws**==(81.134.116.29 07:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

He's not for everyone, but you might like Maddox. He writes the self-proclaimed Best Page in the Universe. Or, you could try the webcomic section of squidi.net. A Modest Destiny is always good for a giggle. Black Carrot 16:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you hear about the alcoholic law student ? No matter how hard he tried, he could never pass the bar. StuRat 23:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Miranda Warning: "You have the right to wear a silly hat with fruit on it, but, if you choose to do so, this may be used against you in a court of law." StuRat 23:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew reduced vowels

In the article Biblical Hebrew language and in other sources, I find the statement that Hebrew had, besides long and short vowels, also three different "reduced" vowels (not just a schwa, but also an a-derived and an o-derived one). Does anybody know what "reduced" is supposed to mean in this case, i.e. what these vowels are believed to have been, phonetically? Maybe centralized? --194.145.161.227 14:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our knowledge of the exact phonetic details of Biblical Hebrew is very limited (i.e. nonexistant), but I suspect that at the very least they were durationally shorter than the short vowels, and probably centralized as well. User:Angr 14:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you're right; in fact a textbook I have says exactly that: they are supposed to be extra-short. I suppose it should be added into the article. So here comes the next question:

Extra-short vowels

Can you give me an example of an extra-short vowel in some language? The article does give an example (police), but I'd appreciate more examples (Personally, I'd never noticed that the vowel in police was shorter than other schwas. Except for British English, where it often sounds simply like "pleece", IMO.)--194.145.161.227 14:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the implication is that schwa is shorter than other short vowels (the o of police is shorter than, say, the o of lot), not that the schwa in police is shorter than other schwas. User:Angr 15:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Although the transcription they give is [pə̆liˑs], which IMO suggests that there is a difference between [ə̆] and simply [ə]. In any case, it's clear that an unstressed vowel as in police is normally shorter than a stressed one as in lot. It would make more sense to compare the o of police with an unstressed non-schwa, e.g. the o of monsoon. Even then, such an example doesn't help me imagine what an extra-short vowel sounds like; I'd need to be able to compare sounds with more or less the same quality (e.g. o), but different quantity (short vs extra-short).--194.145.161.227 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a week late, but I would like to go back to the first question you asked. These vowels are the חטף (ḥāṭēf, or hurried) vowels. They generally occur with the so-called 'guttural letters (אהחע). They are reduced in the fact that, according to Masoretes, a short vowel does not stand in open, unstressed syllable. It seems that the shewa mobile was considered to slight a pronunciation with these letters. The hateph vowels are 'reduced' in the sense that the imperative of עבר (‘āvar, he passed) is ‘ăvōr, where ă represents the hateph-pathah (חטף־פתח). Thus, it is a reduced vowel used to represent, in this case, the more abrupt imperative of a 'pe guttural' verb. — Gareth Hughes 18:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

crossword help

could u help me with these clues

1 involve (c*n*e**) possibly contend --Richardrj 17:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC) or concern - Natgoo 18:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 small hard seed of corn (5) grain --Richardrj 17:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 head - tot (*o*m**) {im not very sure} noggin --Richardrj 17:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 stylus (******) needle --Richardrj 17:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 french spa town (V*C*Y) VICHY? --Ornil 21:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bug that is noted for its camoflage (5,6) stick insect --Richardrj 17:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 gross affront to decency (7) outrage --Richardrj 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 great slaughter (7) carnage --David Sneek 18:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Already got that one :) see below. --Richardrj 18:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Oh, yes. I found it independently though! --David Sneek 18:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 system (of acting) (6) method --Richardrj 17:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 first public appaerence (5) is it debut??

10group of people chosen to judge or discuss (5) forum --Richardrj 17:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Mightright 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. is probably Vichy 7. carnage? I agree that 9 is probably debut. --Grammatical error 16:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i appreciate all of you for your help now i need 2 clues

head -tot(6)(*o***n)

small hard seed of corn (5)(**a*n)--212.72.14.65 17:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) u guys are geniuses especially mr richardj--212.72.14.65 17:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could (1) be connect? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Head - tot is definitely noggin - it means both head and a measure of drink. Grutness...wha? 03:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language & Nations: A chicken and the egg question

Nations and languages are often tied very closley. My question is, are there any theories about why this is? I wonder:

did nations become nations because of the shared language?

or

did the central power of the nation cause a single language to become dominant?

or maybe it just happened that the people in a specific area all spoke the same laguage and later became a country. I would guess the best way to answer this question would be to see which came first: proto nation states or shared language, but I'm not sure where to look. Thoughts? -Quasipalm 18:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nations form because it has a strong unified culture. Most early nations shared one language, others were added due to emigrants, occupation of other groups, and geographic isolation of certain areas of the country. For example, China had a unified language (for the Han ethnic group anyway) until the end of Middle Chinese, when its dialects ceased being mutually intelligible and (arguably) became seperate languages. Other cases include Great Britian, whose main modern ethnic group is germanic; large groups of germanic immigrants arrived in the fifth century, forcing the celtic population to the fringes of the island, and combining their differing languages eventually into Old English. So the egg and the chicken change order depending on which nation you are looking at.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's mainly the second version ("the central power of the nation caused a single language to become dominant"). Before a central power intervenes and imposes a standard language (through education etc.), there are no distinct languages, just a dialect continuum (i.e. each village speaks a slightly different tongue, and it's hard to tell in which particular village the dialect ceases to be, say, "Dutch" and becomes "German"). A "separate language" actually means a standard language, i.e. the thing that is taught at schools; and, of course, it's impossible for all the people in an area to speak such a single standard language until a state imposes some standard. --194.145.161.227 18:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As they say: A language is a dialect with an army and a navy. --Kjoonlee 18:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've even got a special article about that saying (the language-dialect aphorism).

There's a thing I forgot to mention: besides standard languages, aka Ausbausprachen ("built-up languages"), you can also define a language as Abstandsprache ("distance language") - two languages (in the sense of Abstandsprache are separate when they aren't mutually inteligible. However, that definition doesn't help you determine where the borders between two such languages are, since there is no place where the inhabitants of one village suddenly cease to understand the language of the next village. Now, when you've already got two separate standard languages (Ausbausprachen), you can determine whether they are mutually unintelligible (i.e. whether they constitute Abstandsprachen) or not. --194.145.161.227 19:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, lot's of interesting thoughts. Thanks all! -Quasipalm 21:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other side of the coin is minority languages which survive and flourish even when they are closely related to the main langauge of the country. Catalan would be a good example. It is related to Spanish and French and it would probably be possible to create a dialect-continuum map. But it has always had sufficient status amongst its own speakers (for example they prefer to conduct business and write literature in Catalan) to survive as a language not a dialect even though Catalonia is not an independent country. Lowland Scots (related to English not Gaelic) could have been a similar case but prosperous Scots dropped it in favour of English, leaving Lallands as a low-status dialect not a recognised language. Jameswilson 23:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Diamond's book "Guns Germs and Steel" would probably interest you a lot. It examines culture and nationhood (including language I think) taking China as one of its examples. Its a damn good read in its own right too. As I recall, he shows evidence supporting the 2nd version (a dominant nation imposing its own culture) in several contexts not limited to language. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interresting case is the Dutch language, which is spoken in both the Netherlands and Flanders. Originally this was one region, under Spanish rule (effectively). After they became independent, the original idea was to make it one country, but religion got in the way and they split up. Now, the official language is still the same, but there is a rather clear difference between the way people speak (accent and choice of words). I suppose an important factor here is tv (and radio). One tends to watch the tv stations of ones own country, and that must have been the most unifying factor in the history of languages. Confusingly, Belgium has two languages (Dutch and French) but I don't know the details of that.

Another example is America. The major languages (apart from Portuguese) are English in the North and Spanish in the South. England has strong ties with North America and Spain has strong ties with Latin America. Of course the fact that many Latin Americans are of Spanish descent is a factor here, but the same is not true (to the same extent) for North America. The fact that you can easily communicate makes cooperation more logical. I wonder if France has any special ties with Quebec and New Orleans.

Btw, a variety of the Dutch is also spoken in South Africa (Afrikaans), but that has diverged so much from the original language that the two are barely mutually intelligible. How the chicken-egg thing worked here, I don't know.

Off-topic: the egg came before the chicken. DirkvdM 11:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But who laid it? JackofOz 11:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A protochicken. --Ptcamn 12:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be more a bit more explicit, during evolution, some animal became what we now know as the chicken. That ancestor to the chicken could indeed be called a proto-chicken. Which of course laid eggs. Also, there were probably loads of other animals that also laid eggs, and the question doesn't specify it should be a chicken-egg. But that's a bit lame. DirkvdM 12:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is because an egg is genetically identical to the animal which it produces, while not genetically identical to the animal that laid it (under sexual reproduction). So, whatever species the egg is, so is what comes from it. However, it is possible for it to have been laid by a different species. StuRat 23:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many European countries: France, Britain, Spain, Germany, and Italy have had or still have (e.g., France) specific policies of supressing linguistic heterogeneity. T A specific language was imposed on what were many different languages. here was a time when relatively few French people spoke what could be called French. This has also happened in the US, where Native American children were discouraged from speaking their tribal languages, and German was banned. mnewmanqc

While Amerind languages were often officially supressed, European languages, particularly Germanic ones, were never treated as harshly. German, in particular, was most definitely not banned. Both sets of my paternal great-grandparents, from Aargau and Hamburg respectively, settled in the coal country of Pennsylvania in an immigrant enclave. Everyone spoke German and passed it on to their children. My grandfather's mother even forced him to speak German in the house. The children were forced to speak English at school, but there was never any active ban on the language in daily life. German just lost prestige and was abandoned. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. German wasn't precisely banned, but bilingualism was discouraged harshly in a number of states with high German populaions such as Iowa with the equivalent of current English only laws and eliminating what would today be called bilingual education. It was a kind of histeria associated with WWI. The point is that it didn't just lose prestige; there was an active effort to remove the prestige. mnewmanqc