Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of language.

Welcome to the language reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
    • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.



How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
 
Choose a topic:
 
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual


September 14[edit]

Vocative of ego[edit]

Is there one? I know this is an old question, but it bends my brain. Temerarius (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

We don't have an article called "Vocative of ego" So what are you talking about? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
OP is rather obviously asking for the vocative of ego. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Wiktionary declension of ego here. DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see an example where "ego" is used as a vocative. Even when one addresses one's self, isn't that usually done in the second person? ("Sluzzelin, you really made a fool of yourself") When using "I" is one ever addressing "I"? My old dusty Latin grammar book, only featured the vocative for "tu" and "vos", but not for "ego" and "nos". Maybe a case could be made for "nos", but I'm really struggling with imagining a sentence where "I" is being addressed by the speaker. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I found this which says "Addressing Jupiter and the other Olympian deities at Martianus Capella Marriage of Philology and Mercury 3.325, the personified Grammar draws attention to many irregular word-forms, and asks why ego has only the one form, but Minerva interrupts her for fear that she may bore her audience. It may seem obvious that ego has no vocative (most people talk to themselves in the second person), but the ancient grammarians repeatedly take pains to point this out, and Virgilius Maro Grammaticus, without doubt the most eccentric of all grammarians, reports that Terrentius and the splendidly named Galbungus wrangled over the point for fourteen days and fourteen nights. (Like Virgilius, they may have been 7th-cent. Irish monks.) Bodl. Gr. Inscr. 3019 is a 3rd century AD Greek schooltext which includes declension of the pronouns “I”, “this”, “he” and “that”, all of them containing the vocative (always the same as the nominative)" which may or may not help. It comes up in The Name of the Rose too. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
First off, the Latin vocative has a very different function than the other Latin cases. The other cases indicate what the relationship is of that word to other words and phrases in the same sentence (subject of verb, object of verb or preposition, etc). However, the vocative case indicates that the word is part of a separate clause, with a lack of grammatical relationship to other words in the sentence (except adjacent words in direct apposition).
Second, in the Latin language, the vocative case is only distinct in the singular of second declension non-neuters (see Latin declension). In all other inflectional paradigms, the vocative is identical in form with the nominative. Since the first person pronoun isn't part of the second declension, there's no expectation of a distinct inflectional form... AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
As a native speaker of a language which has vocative (among a bunch of other cases) I've never asked myself whether personal pronouns have a vocative... 93.136.115.136 (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
But if you did, how would you say it? 90.202.210.107 (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
[1]. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

September 18[edit]

Translation to Latin GLBT Safe Space[edit]

I work in a classical school and we're getting a GSA going. We have signs in English that say "Safe Space" for teachers/administrators to put on their classroom doors but we would like to make up ones in Latin as well. How would you translate "Safe Space" into Latin? Many thanks I have a reference question (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"Tutum loco" ? SinisterLefty (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
or, more literally, "spatium tutum", but Sinister Lefty's translation (safe place) conveys the meaning well, and my version can also mean "safe distance" so probably wouldn't be suitable. Dbfirs 21:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
SinisterLefty's suggestion breaks concord: locus tutus would be grammatical. But I would be inclined to use camera tuta if it's a room, and vīcīnitās tuta if it's not enclosed, I have a reference question. --ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Which of the various GSA's are you referring to? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Presumably Gay–straight alliance. SinisterLefty (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
What does the sign mean? Jmar67 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Safe space: Advocates for Youth states on their website that a safe-space is "A place where anyone can relax and be fully self-expressed, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome or challenged on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, cultural background, age, or physical or mental ability; a place where the rules guard each person's self-respect, dignity and feelings and strongly encourage everyone to respect others.". As a practical matter, that means anyone who doesn't follow those rules would be asked to leave. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe a translation based on "haven" could also be considered. Jmar67 (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
"Judgment-free zone" also comes to mind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
That could be translated badly, as in "showing a lack of good judgement". SinisterLefty (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Better something like "zone where you are not judged" or "zone where you are safe from being judged". Idioms can be hard to translate literally. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe sanctuarium? Alansplodge (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
That could mean sanctuary from anything, though, like noise. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
So it matches the vagueness of the English term we were asked to translate. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
To an English speaker, it's clear. Any translation has to take the meaning into account, and could thus be wordier than the English term. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

September 19[edit]

Winston Sterzel's accent[edit]

This moderately famous vlogger is from South Africa and worked as an English teacher in China. His accent is generally what I expect from Southern Hemisphere English, but what puzzles me is that about one half of the time it's rhotic (for example the final R in 'everywhere' at 0:16 in this most recent video). I'm wondering what the reason might be. Is this a new local development in South African English (perhaps under the influence of surrounding non-native varieties of English, or of American media)? Or is it possible that he acquired this feature of his accent while living in China - say, through communicating with mostly American expats, or more or less consciously adapting his accent to make it more comprehensible for Chinese learners of English who are mostly used to American English?--87.126.23.210 (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

A person's individual speech, called their idiolect, is rarely self-consistent NOR is it slavishly exactly the same as the specific dialect represents. Indeed, a dialect should be thought of as a platonic ideal; no one speaks exactly like that, but it does give some of the trends that people of a specific population group tend to speak like. It is not surprising nor unusual that some speech pattern (such as rhoticity) may not be consistent within the same person. [This video] has a dialect expert that explains specifically this inconsistency (it's about 1/2 way through the video). --Jayron32 17:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
It's true that inconsistencies in people's speech occur, but that doesn't mean that such inconsistencies don't have or need an explanation. People don't just inexplicably speak in a way different from what is typical of their native dialect - they do it because they are influenced by another dialect or are switching to it (apart from speech impediments and the like). Or else the entire dialect may be undergoing a process of change. What I am trying to figure out is which one of these is true in this particular case.--87.126.23.210 (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Japanese learners of English too are a lot more accustomed to standard US than to standard British English. They're thus a lot more used to rhotic than to non-rhotic English. I've heard speakers of non-rhotic British English rhoticize their speech in Japan to make it more comprehensible, and perhaps also because they spend more time talking with (near) native speakers of rhotic English than with (near) native speakers of non-rhotic English. I've no reason to think that such influences are peculiar to Japan. Thus your second guess looks good. (I'm not even slightly qualified to comment on your first guess.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
See code-switching. SinisterLefty (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

September 21[edit]