Languages! Are! Weird!

I suppose any of that also applies to why most academics in relevant fields disqualify common names of real-life species from being considered as "unique groups" (and thus qualified to be treated as proper names in English)?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

I think the way we treat the names of fictional species results from the way we write said species in the first place: namely, we usually consider a given species a uniform group, typically with a single culture and so on. Essentially, that makes them the equivalent of just another country, and we rarely see depictions of various, competing cultures and nations within a given fictional species.

Let's say we're looking at a book that is about a conflict where there are a couple of nations competing for the same land (say), but there are also groups of dwarves, vogons, and elves in the area, also involved in the conflict. Typically, you might have several human nations - so you'd write "human" as you would a species, without the capitalisation, but each nation - I'll just borrow "Rhoyne" and "Klatch" from two of my favourite authors - would get a capital letter.

Usually, and I agree that this is stupid, the dwarves, goblins, and elves would only have one faction each in the story; so rather than having various countries for each species, or a country with multiple species, you typically get just one country each per species, except for humans.

Let's say that in our story, Rhoyne and Klatch, two (mostly) human countries, are competing for control of the valley of Tatooine, which is located between them. The current inhabitants of Tatooine include Dwarves, who live mostly in the mountain/mine/city/tunnel network of Moria; the Elves are divided into two factions, named AvLee and Rivendell, each with their own kingdom and castles and so on; and the Vogons govern the land of Vogosphere.

So, looking at this story, you'd expect people from Rhoyne and Klatch to be referred to as "Rhoynar" and "Klatchian" - so not "human" or "Human". Since the Dwarves and Vogons are only shown as having one country/culture, you'd probably see them both referred to with a capital letter. You might expect to see something like "a Morian" as a way to refer to a dwarf, focusing on their country, rather than species, but usually that's not the case.

With the elves, since I've given them two countries, I think you could expect your author to describe an elf whose allegiance is unknown as simply "an elf" - no capitalisation for the species. If you do hear them speak in their language, though, you'd know that that elf is actually from AvLee, so they're an AvLeeian (or however you'd want to produce that particular demonym).

With this thought experiment, I think I've arrived at what I think might be an explanation for this. The elf - no capital - is described as such because "elf" refers to their species, and not to their (more specific) culture or language; but with the others, there's only one culture per species, so you'd use "Dwarf" and "Vogon". In that case, you're referring to their country, not their species. So you'd get a joke starting with "a human, a Dwarf, a Rivendellian elf, and a Vogon walk into a bar..."

edited 5th Nov '17 5:42:00 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

The rules of a language the way they are because people using it think that in language's current state they make sense for most of them and they are sufficient for clear communication. This is true for any field the language is used in, be it academics, politics, mass media, art or everyday life. Some fields have higher standards for objectivity and consistency of rules of the language than others, but they are still secondary to clarity.

Linguists and philologists disqualify species names from being proper names because science, even soft science, like linguistics and philology are, is observational in nature. Scientists don't tell the object they're studying what it should be. Even such an intangible thing as language. And currently, the English speakers in their majority have agreed upon that cats should not be capitalized, but Turians should.

Damn, this is the point I was trying to make! Ah, the limits of vocabulary...

edited 6th Nov '17 7:10:51 AM by Millership

Spiral out, keep going.

Guys, quick question. I need a Spanish equivalent for "git gud", if it's Mexican Spanish, it's even better.

Basically, TIL that "Crucible" in Spanish is "Crisol". It sounds like a brand name of a margarine to me, so I'm planning to put a little in-joke in my next Destiny 2 PVP video, stating "Sponsored by Crisol Margarine. ("Git gud" in Spanish), cabron!"

"what the complete, unabridged, 4k ultra HD fuck with bonus features" - Mark Von Lewis

~Best Of: ... That's weird. People are weird. And I hereby refuse to humor such weirdness when I write things.

~Millership:

... And what do "proper names" have to do with that? That seems like taking the "proper" in "proper name" too literally.

---

New question, but one which requires the input of French speakers.

See, there's this manga named Ionosama Fanatics in which one character's name is, in Japanese, rendered as ヴィゼン・ベルクール (romanized as Vizen Berukuuru). I've managed to deduce that ベルクール is basically the Japanese pronunciation of an actual French surname, Bellecourt (lit. "beautiful court"). ヴィゼン, however, stumps me, as I cannot find any actual French name or even word whose pronunciation could map to said katakana.

So I decided to make a fanon assumption: "Vizen" is actually a nickname constructed via a contraction of two French names ^note I'm assuming the character is French, judging by her surname being French, one beginning with Vi (e.g. Vivienne) and the other beginning with Zen (e.g. Zénaïde). Does this seem plausible?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

French speaker here

The only French word I can think of that could line up phonetically would be "visant" (viz-on) which is the present participle for "to aim at" but I don't know if that would make any sense as a name

It's possible they just made up the name to sound French, as manga and anime do that a lot. Your guess is as good as any, I figure.

So contractions of the sort that I suggested are plausible in French?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Nicknames exist in French, yeah. (Granted I'm French Canadian, not French French, so I don't know much about French culture) Double names are common too, and while I've never heard of someone shortening their name like that (but again, don't know a lot of people from France) if your name's a mouthful you'd want to shorten it to something

They have nothing to do with that that specifically, I was explaining the general principle, please stop taking the lines out of their context.

~Marq FA, I said that because it seems to me that your original question was born from the fact that you're operating under the assumption that rules of the language formulated by the linguists are solid, consistent and unchanging laws like gravity, for example. Problem is, Linguistics is soft science, it doesn't work that way. It uses the scientific method, like any other science would, sure, but its subject matter is different than what physicists are studying. The inconsistencies in the rules of a language can be explained by this fact.

To elaborate, scientific method boils down to this:

1. We have an object we're studying. It could be anything.
2. We make observations on it, collecting data on its behavior.
3. Based on our data, we try to build a model that would explain how the object operates, formulating a hypothesis.
4. We're testing the hypothesis, do experiments on the object, trying to disprove some points in our model. If the hypothesis still holds after a series of experiments, the result would be a theory.
5. Repeat steps 2 to 4 ad nauseam, until everything is completely explained or our theory is completely disproved.

Now, hard sciences' (like Physics) subject matter, the object we're studying, is generally something fundamental and tangible. It doesn't change the way it operates when we're not looking (unless we're talking about Quantum Physics, but it seems to be that it's only a matter of getting the right testing equipment) and when we're executing step 5 we can usually use the solid knowledge we gained so far and build upon it a fairly consistent theory. What was true for Mechanics in Newton's times is true even now. It's hard science.

And with hard science you can actually ask the scientists a very specific question about the nature of their subject matter and actually get a coherent answer.

In Linguistics' case?

The subject matter is:

1. Intangible. The language exists only in people's heads. Hard to get experimental data on such a thing.
2. Context-dependent. There's a different set of rules for different situations in which a language is used. The English spoken in the courts and on the streets is vastly different, and valid in both cases, because it's enough for people to understand each other.
3. Constantly changing. The lives of people using the language change. The words change their meaning. New words are being invented. The language is being influenced by other languages. For example, the dialects of Arabic have evolved so much that linguists are having doubts that it is still a singular language anymore.
4. Flexible. A person can say something not by the established rules of the language and still be understood. And if enough people will keep talking the way that person did, it will become a new rule.

Now, how can you build a solid and consistent model around such an elusive entity? It's like training cats to goosestep!

So, the linguists are constantly adapting their classifications, trying to accommodate the language they're studying (the comment you've quoted alludes to this). And the model they're building is only a tiny bit more solid than their subject matter. It's a soft science.

What is called a Linguistic Theory is not the same as the ones used in Physics. And the rules of a given language are nothing more than a set of hypotheses, mere observations, obvious to anyone fluent in the language. And if you try asking a linguist a specific question about why the language operates that way and not the other, at best, you'll get a statement that starts with "Well, you see, the general idea is…" followed by an explanation that in the end of the day explains absolutely nothing.

Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source of info on scientific topics, but if you'll look into the Capitalization article, you'll encounter phrases like "The full rules of capitalization for English are complicated." and "arbitrary nature of orthographic classification", which is a Science speak for "According to our thoroughly made research, our expert opinion on the matter is that we, as scientists, unanimously, have absolutely and utterly no real fucking idea why, on what principle you weird people are writing things down the way you do."

Your loss. Such things enrich the language. Give the sense of uniqueness to the work, develop your writing style.

edited 24th Dec '17 5:45:15 AM by Millership

Spiral out, keep going.

Some languages are harder to study than others, for instance because they might have a more complicated history. In the case of English, the language is basically a hybrid of several languages that were spoken in Britain over the course of centuries (and some of them even longer).

Then there's also standardisation: there have been somewhat successful attempts at standardising the language, but often those attempts have been made by people who either spoke a relatively obscure dialect that just happened to be in vogue at the time, or they didn't speak English at all. French and German monks would write about the grammar and pronunciation of English; they'd write in Latin, and their Latin would be influenced by their native languages.

If you really wanted to explain why a particular set of grammatical rules apply to English, you'd have to learn about medieval or older variants of Nordic languages, Latin, German, French, and a couple of languages that existed in Britain before.

There actually are trends that are somewhat universal that describe how languages tend to evolve in general (usually the rule is that expressions that are easier to pronounce and/or write will become more common, and the older expression might disappear or become considered regional or archaic). A language that has undergone periods of migration will absorb words and grammatical structures from the languages to which it is exposed, while simultaneously developing colloquial expressions that are easier for non-natives to understand. These may or may not become standardised eventually.

It's still definitely quite a soft science, though. Language changes constantly, and there are very many factors that contribute to these chances. It's next to impossible to track.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

There's also always a sociocultural layer in the way a language evolves and operates. Language is, after all, what carries the culture on its shoulders. Deliberate attempts at standardizing the language are not effective and are not viewed as a natural way of developing it, because there's always some sense of patriotism in the masses that use it. And before the globalization, in the earlier times, when the stage of development of most languages took place, such sentiments were very common and reached jingoistic levels. So, for such people, "cleaning up the orthography" is not "standardizing our language", it's "stripping us of our cultural identity", especially if it's done by a foreigner in times when his culture is not popular. And attempts at converting people to alien culture forcibly is rarely met with open arms. Some people would be swayed by that, sure, resulting in two equally valid dialects of the same language. "Let them speak the way they want, ours is the true way!" is the thought on both sides.

Spiral out, keep going.

I have a question of my own:

In English, when using in accusative case a name of something, which contains an article and it's in one of the Romance languages, should one of the articles be dropped? For example, which of the following is correct:

1. Real Madrid has won the La Liga.
2. Real Madrid has won the Liga.
3. Real Madrid has won La Liga.

Spiral out, keep going.

3 sounds best to me, but I also know some Spanish, so that may affect some things. 2 would probably be fine too. 1 just sounds wrong.

"life is just a series of increasingly canon-eluding ao3 tags" ~ everydunsparce "Keep your hellfruit away from me, tempter" ~ also Every

1 is wrong, 2 is sorta ok, but there is more than one Liga (e.g. the Portuguese Liga, the Champions League), so, it could confuse some people (especially given Real Madrid's recent successes in said Liga de Campeones - Champions League). 3 is the more appropriate choice.

edited 30th Dec '17 6:08:09 PM by Quag15

So, I'm six days into my French learning course following the Assimil method. Basically, you're learning a foreign language the way you've learned your mother tongue - very little explanations of the rules of the language (every seventh lesson, to be precise, tomorrow's a big day for me in that regard), first 50 lessons is the passive phase of the course, when you're just reading and listening to phrases and dialogues that demonstrate the syntax, grammar, etc, in order of increasing difficulty, making some exercises in the process and then comes the active phase when the number of the exercises goes up.

First three or four days were hard, when my brain was noticing the similarities between English and French, and I was unconsciously applying the English language syntax to French sentences, but then I got the hang of it. The lessons themselves are two-three pages long and cover some (or several) situation followed by "fill-in-the blanks" kind of exercises and sentences to memorize that are similar to those used in the dialogues but differ in some aspects. They say that the key is to study regularly, daily. So my schedule is as follows:

1. Repeating the yesterday's lesson in the morning
2. At midday repeating the lesson again and staring the today's lesson, with writing down the exercises
3. Repeating the above and seeing if the exercises were done correctly.

I have a couple of questions concerning French that the course haven't answered (yet). though:

1. The use of partial articles (I don't know if it's the right term) - du, de la and des. What kind of situations are they used in? Specifically, what's the difference between them and definite articles la, le and les?
2. When a word ends with a silent consonant but followed by a word that starts with a vowel, the consonant is pronounced. Is there a rule of thumb concerning how many words in a row there have to be and what kind of words they have to be for this to be in effect?
3. Alternatively, when a word ends with vowel and the next word start with a vowel, too, one of the vowels is omitted. Any kind of words? Just articles and conjunctions? It wasn't really clear.

Thanks in advance.

edited 25th Jan '18 11:21:40 AM by Millership

Spiral out, keep going.

Glad to help!

1. You're probably aware that French has masculine and feminine words. (If not, then I'd read up on that) "Le" and "du" are masculine (technically "du" should be "de le", but it evolved to sound less awkward), "la" and "de la" are feminine, and "les" and "des" are plural. It may seem like a lot of work to always have to figure out if nouns are masculine or feminine, but with enough exposure you'll start to pick it up. Eventually try to put a feminine article on a masculine word will just sound wrong

Le, la, and les are the French versions of "the". However, unlike English, French noun always need an article. In English you can just say "book" but in French that wouldn't be correct. "Le livre" ("the book") would be the French translation. The only nouns where articles aren't needed are proper nouns

De, Du, de la, and des are the French versions of "of," but have a lot more meanings than that. They can also be used to express quantity and a bunch of other things This gets kind of complicated to explain. There are a lot of weird rules you have to pick up along the way. [https://www.lawlessfrench.com/grammar/de-preposition/ Some]] pages that explain it better than me

2. I don't quite understand the question, but I do know what you're talking about. Like how the s in "suis" is typically silent until you say "je suis en" and suddenly you hear it. I'd have to think hard about what the rules are, since it's just something I do because it sounds right, not because I've memorized some rule. It's true you would do that for most silent consonants. (The big exceptions I can think of is the -et ending (like "ballet"), -ez ending and the ils/elles -ent conjugation which is always silent. You wouldn't pronounce those.) I'd recommend a lot of listening and speaking practice. The same way "a apple" sounds weird in English, "je suis en" with a silent s sounds weird in French

3. Could you explain to me what you mean by this? Do you mean like how "le arbre" becomes "l'arbre"?

edited 25th Jan '18 12:55:32 PM by Cailleach

3. Yes, these things. Le arbre => l'arbre. Out of interest, I've read the Mon Mec a Moi song lyrics (didn't understand a thing, I'm not ready for this yet), and there were a lot of contractions. I assume if "Et moi je crois tout c'qu'il dit" is "Et moi je crois tout ce que il dit", so you can at east chain three words in this fashion?

So, to sum up, I just need more practice. Got it.

edited 25th Jan '18 7:44:08 PM by Millership

Spiral out, keep going.

Here you gotta note the difference between spoken and written French. C'qu'il is not grammatical in writing (formal writing at least). In writing it would appear ce qu'il, with only the first two combined. However in speech you may slur those together

edited 26th Jan '18 6:11:25 AM by Cailleach

Is it correct to say "This is the result of fusing ten thousands of X into a single whole" as an alternative way to say "This is the result of fusing tens of thousands of X into a single whole"?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

"Ten thousands" is not correct.

This reminds me of a common error I see in English texts written by French speakers: "ten millions". They seem to assume the "million" should be in plural. I guess it must be like that in French.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Huh. It seems a lot of people think otherwise, according to Google.

How about qualifying it with "several"? I mean, we get to say "we have thousands of X"; what's so special about prefixing "thousand" with a multiplying number that changes that?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

"Ten thousand" means 10 000. "Tens of thousands" means 10n x 1000, basically. (That is, several times 10 of the thousands.) In either case, you'd normally follow that with the thing that you're counting (in plural).

Actually, if you were to say "ten thousands", that would mean exactly 10 000, as well, because there would be ten units of one thousand (so basically you're treating the "thousand" here as a noun). It would sound pretty weird, though - there would have to be a reason why you're reading the number in chunks of 1 000, rather than just as a single number.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

In some cultures, 10 000 is simply a synonym for "innumerable amount". In Russian, the old numeral for 10 000 was "тьма" (t'ma), and the phraseologism "тьма тьмущая" (t'ma t'muschaya, lit. "ten thousand of ten thousand") is still in use, meaning "really fucking lot". I think the English's "tens of thousands" has the similar meaning. I assume that back in the old days, having ten thousand of anything was hard to imagine?

Spiral out, keep going.

So I'm reading the Translation: "Yes" article and there's a Trauma Center example there. Actually, using three words to convey "it's about a two-hour walk from here" is not that unlikely, for example in Polish it would be "Dwie godziny piechotą".

"what the complete, unabridged, 4k ultra HD fuck with bonus features" - Mark Von Lewis

This is one of the few cases where Finnish might actually make it longer: "Täältä on sinne noin kahden tunnin kävely".

Usually, Finnish gets things done very quickly. For instance, "Would you call Adam about the bus?" would be "Soittaisitko Adamille bussista?"

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.