Language desk
< November 2	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 4 >

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.

November 3

"Only" used as a contrast

Here's a sentence I read @ Miserere (Allegri), talking about a ban on copying the music on pain of excommunication (the 14-year-old Mozart heard it once and copied it down note-perfect, perhaps being unaware of the ban):

Once published, the ban was lifted; Mozart was summoned to Rome by the Pope, only instead of excommunicating the boy, the Pope showered praises on him for his feat of musical genius.

I was wondering about this use of "only" to mean "but" or "however". I know it's common colloquially, but how did it acquire this special meaning, and is it appropriate for encyclopedic text? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just poorly written English. Substituting 'however' followed by a comma makes the meaning of the sentence clear. As so often happens in English (and possibly other languages) if the meaning is unclear it is because the writer has not taken the care to construct the sentence properly and to use the the most appropriate words. It is not appropriate for an encyclopaedic article. Using the word 'only' for 'however' is used only in informal English according to the Collins Dictionary. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you want to be prescriptive, using "however" clause-initially like that is also improper. However is a postposition. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is an older, acceptable use of "only", in place of "but" or "except that". WordNet lists several uses[1] and a review of Google Books shows it is British English that was popular in the late 19th, early 20th century but has probably fallen out of favor or usage. For example, in 1899, John Stewart Mill wrote (emphasis added): "A reserved from his personal consumption a fund which he paid away directly to laborers; B does the same, only instead of paying it to them himself, he leaves it in the hands of the farmer, who pays it to them for him."[2] Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would reword it like this:

Once published, the ban was lifted; Mozart was summoned to Rome by the Pope. Instead of excommunicating the boy, the Pope showered praises on him for his feat of musical genius.

The implication of there being an exception is already included in the word instead. No further elaboration is called for. Bus stop (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still used in colloquial English English, indicating a exception condition. "You can edit this article, only don't mess it up." Bazza (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To its credit, its meaning is perfectly clear. It leaves no ambiguity as to its meaning, when used this way. In that regard it can't be faulted. Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I criticized Caesar's Daddy above. There is absolutely no lack of clarity; someone can criticize it for being informal if they like, but saying that "informal language is too unclear" belies a misunderstanding of how language works. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I learnt my English in England, and to my ears the use of "only" instead of "except that" is perfectly acceptable. To me it's a little bookish, rather than colloquial, though. --Kjoonlee 15:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, the initial critique of "only" used "just" in a similar colloquial way. Some folks will emphasize it by saying "only just", as with the song, "We've Only Just Begun". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This use of "only" is also colloquial in US English. This is a case where I don't think there's a trans-Atlantic difference. Marco polo (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the use of "only" (meaning "but") is common also in other languages. The historical background of this usage in human languages is as follows:

Historically, it all began with the word "if", which tends to disappear in many languages, including English, e.g. "Wake up early and you'll be able to see the sunrise". i.e. "If you wake up early you'll be able to see the sunrise".
The consequent step was quite natural: a sentence like: "I agree, but pay me", which of course means: "I'll agree only if you pay me", could become (the "if" being deleted): "I agree, only pay me". The process described above shows how the "but" in the original sentence could become "only".
Due to such sentences, the speakers interpreted the "only" as "but" - also in other sentences (e.g. the OP's sentence) in which the whole process indicated above couldn't take a place.

HOOTmag (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, it all began with the word "if", which tends to disappear in many languages, including English, e.g. "Wake up early and you'll be able to see the sunrise". i.e. "If you wake up early you'll be able to see the sunrise".
The consequent step was quite natural: a sentence like: "I agree, but pay me", which of course means: "I'll agree only if you pay me", could become (the "if" being deleted): "I agree, only pay me". The process described above shows how the "but" in the original sentence could become "only".
Due to such sentences, the speakers interpreted the "only" as "but" - also in other sentences (e.g. the OP's sentence) in which the whole process indicated above couldn't take a place.

HOOTmag (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His explanation was so good he posted it twice. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's a difference: The second copy doesn't contain the first sentence in the first copy:) HOOTmag (talk)

Lots of food for thought there. Thanks, all. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crusader states

What language was used by the Crusader states? I suppose Latin would have been a sort of official language, but the ordinary crusaders came from several different countries. Presumably during the time that the crusader states existed there would have been some generally used language in administrative circles? Maybe lingua franca – but would that be an anachronism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.1.77 (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no real "official language", just whatever everyone happened to speak. Latin was "official" in the sense that it was the usual language of communication for people whose native languages were different, or for educated people writing letters or chronicles, at least in the twelfth century. Correspondence with European rulers/popes was always in Latin, in both the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, as far as I am aware. Correspondence with the Muslims the Mongols was also written in Latin. Charters were always in Latin as well. But everyday speech was French - you can see this when people's names and titles are recorded in Greek or Arabic sources, obviously the crusaders had introduced themselves using their French names. The crusade cycle of chansons de geste were always in French and may have originated in the crusader states. The assizes of Jerusalem from the thirteenth century are all in French, and thirteenth-century chronicles are sometimes in French too. Presumably the ruling classes of the different states spoke their own forms of French, at least in the early years (some sort of langue d'oil, maybe Picard, in Jerusalem, Norman in Antioch, Provencal in Tripoli). On top of that there were also a very large number of Italians who used their own customs in every other matter, so they certainly used their own dialects in their own communities. The native populations who already lived there used their own languages - Arabic, Greek, Syriac, Armenian, etc. There are constant references to those people speaking their own languages, and the assizes say they were always allowed to swear oaths on their own holy books. Crusaders who were born in the east sometimes learned at least Arabic or Greek (Reginald of Sidon for example knew Arabic), and there were plenty of multilingual officials in the markets and courts. For the other states carved out of the Byzantine Empire in the thirteenth century, they also used French and Italian (depending on who had originally conquered them). Cyprus remained entirely Greek and there were Greek-speaking officials everywhere, even the assizes were translated into Greek, but the ruling class was entirely French (and later Italian when Venice took over). The Duchy of Athens was well-known as a centre of French culture. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks extremely interesting: should it perhaps be added to the article? --rossb (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the crusader states article is mostly just a disambiguation page with links to the various states. I've included some of it in the Kingdom of Jerusalem article already. Now to undertake the tedious job of collecting citations... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bishop gave a great response. I would summarize it by stating that the Europeans who went to the Middle East brought in their language (depending on the nation, or nations), including Latin, but you should also remember that there were already non-Europeans in those lands that also spoke their different languages (Which Bishop mentions, "Arabic, Greek, Syriac, Armenian, etc.").--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English Scientific Word For Language Area (Not Broca's Area)

What is the English scientific word for language area (not Broca's area) [as in, where a language is spoken]?174.3.111.148 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the Broca's area article, Broca's area refers to an approximate area in the posterior inferior frontal gyrus, more specifically consisting of the pars triangularis and pars opercularis. —Akrabbim^talk 15:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's not talking about a part of the brain, he's talking about geographical regions where people use a given language. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ 174.3.111.148: I can't think of a word for this off the top of my head, but usually we just refer to a language's "geographical distribution" or something like that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I feel like an idiot. I completely overlooked the nots, twice. —Akrabbim^talk 03:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes in linguistics (even speaking English) you can talk about a language's Sprachbund. Steewi (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article implies that Sprachbund has a different meaning, referring to something like convergent evolution of different languages. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does OP stand for?

In the way we use it at this noticeboard (i.e., to refer to the person who first asked a question), what does OP literally mean? Just curious. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Original poster." Deor (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Opie Taylor. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list of this and other commonly used "Wiki-speak" at Wikipedia:Glossary. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German: Why are umlauts not considered allophones?

There are two types of the sounds represented by the umlaut symbols Ä, Ö, Ü, and ÄU: On one hand those who are undisputedly phonemes, as in "Ähre" /e:ʀɛ/ "Möhre" /mø:ʀɛ/ or "Rübe" /ʀy:bɛ/. Maybe they come from A, O, U finally, but the word they derived from doesn't exist anymore. Anyway, the umlaut sounds can also be part of loanwords. On the other hand, there are umlauts that are grammatical features and derive from A, O, U, AU: Apfel/Äpfel, Ton/Töne, Wunsch/Wünsche, Maus/Mäuse. These umlauts are pronounced like the first type, but are just changed "normal" vowels. So, "Wünsche" is [vʏnʃə], but what would it be like if you want to write down the phonemes? [vʊnʃɛ] or [vʏnʃɛ]? I've only seen the latter. But this brings me to my argument: Think of "Rat" and "Rad". Both are pronounced [ʀa:t], but the phonemes are /ʀa:t/ and /ʀa:d/, respectively. Why does one write the "sound from that it derives" phoneme in Rad /ʀa:d/ [ʀa:t], but not in Hündchen /hʏndçɛn/ [hʏntçn]? My guess is that in the former example it is a difference between "pronunciation environment" and "grammar environment". /d/ is devoiced because it is at the end of the syllable, /ʊ/ isn't fronted to [ʏ], but it is replaced by another phoneme, which is /ʏ/. This "theory" of mine (grammar vs. pron. environment) is not really perfect, because one could also say that /d/ isnt devoiced to [t], but replaced by another phoneme, which is /t/. But I think most people which deem this allophones. In a nutshell: Why are umlauts that derive from "normal" vowels not considered allophones, when devoiced consonants are? --88.74.28.197 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allophones are different pronunciations of the same phoneme in a different phonetic environment. In the case of "Rad", [t] is the allophone of /d/ at the end of a syllable. The umlauted vowels that you have mentioned in the cases of those plural nouns are different phonemes and not allophones of the singular vowels because 1) They make a semantic distinction, so they are in effect minimal pairs, which define distinct phonemes, and 2) those vowels do not occur in different phonetic environments, as allophones must. Instead, they occur in the same environment, either syllable-initial or mid-syllable between two consonants. Marco polo (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To give examples of minimal pairs:

Fugen (joints) vs fügen (to join)

dampfen (to steam) vs Dämpfen (damping)

Dosen (tins) vs dösen (to doze)

Both words in each pair are pronounced identically —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are examples of minimal pairs. However, what makes them minimal pairs is that they are not pronounced identically. Marco polo (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allomorphs are variants of a morpheme that don't necessarily depend on phonetic environment but rather differ depending on a number of grammatical aspects. For German, this happens in verb conjugation where you get ich backe ('I bake') vs du bäckst ('you bake'). I'm not too familiar with German, so I don't know all the rules or anything (forgive me if my example is bad). — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the simple answer to this question is that they are just a surface level orthography. That is, 'allophony' is a predictable deep level phonetic representation that is based on its phonetic environment.

'Allomorphy’ is however a phonetically conditioned but a variant form of the surface level orthography that represents to a deep level orthography. However, some linguists contrast these forms and rely on the approach that an ‘allomorphy’ can be of a surface level representation that arises from either morphologically (inflection) or lexically(suppletion) conditioned environment.Is this correct?--Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, Mihkaw napéw. The answer is not persise enough, of course. It confuses sometimes, so it can not be something of anu or une kinds (must be persise). Do you have any further questions?--An Oxford PhD (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even Oxford PhDs must be "precise". :) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything about German? In none of the pairs are the words pronounced identically. JIP | Talk 20:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two Loanwords With Similar Meanings

I cannot for the life of me work out the difference between 'kitschy' and 'poshlust'. Does anyone know? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Kitsch and poshlost help? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A few lines into the article on poshlost I realized the question wasn't that important. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cat > feline ; badger > meline?

Sometimes, I see adjective forms of animals used by taking a Latin Subfamily name ending in -inae and changing the ending to -ine. For example, Felinae gives us feline. Is this a creative process? For example, can a biologist or poet use a word like meline for Melinae, even though I couldn't find this word in any large dictionary. Could Homininae be hominine, even though my dictionary only lists that word as applying to humans (and not other members of Homininae)? --Sonjaaa (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has meline but says "rare": "W. H. FLOWER & R. LYDEKKER Introd. Study Mammals 567 Divided..into the Otter-like (Lutrine), Badger-like (Meline), and Weasel-like (Musteline) forms." It says "hominine" is a perfectly good word, although I don't know why you'd prefer it to human or hominid (depending on context). 82.41.11.134 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to look up OED online? Looks like a useful source for some of these obscure ones. Also "hominid" is the adjective relating to Hominidae, not Homininae. But it's useful too, because there is a lot of overlap for those two groups! --Sonjaaa (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's more common when there's an umbrella over a number of species or sub-species: canine (dogs), feline (cats), bovine (cows), ursine (bears), etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's misleading to say that the adjective is derived from the subfamily name: words like "feline" come from Latin words that go back to Ancient Rome, centuries before the present zoological nomenclature was invented. --rossb (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OED is available online, by subscription. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's cheaper to buy the CD-ROM, which you will then have forever, than to subscribe for one year. And the dead tree edition of the complete 20-volume set is cheaper than 4 years of subscribing. +An gr 12:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're on a university campus or library or somewhere like that, however, you may have access already. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyer and liar pronunciation

Are there any places in English speaking countries of the world where the local dialect is such that people pronounce the words lawyer and liar the same way? 71.161.57.157 (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a stereotype that Irish English speakers tend to pronounce 'i' as 'oy', so that may qualify. I cannot say how 'lawyer' is pronounced in that 'dialect', though. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe around Leeds? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I" and "oi" also tend to merge in the (various versions of the) British West Country accent. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadians pronounce "law" like "laa" (or: "lah"). Is any Canadian available here and able to tell us about how they pronounce "lawyer"? HOOTmag (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Canadian, and we pronounce it the proper way, with the same vowel diphthong as in "loin". Paul Davidson (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Canadian English is rhotic, so we also pronounce the 'R'. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you pronouce the 'R'. Who thought you didn't? HOOTmag (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, 'liar' has got an 'r' in it, too! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the U.S. pronunciation of "warrior", which, to my ears, always sounds like an exact rhyme of "lawyer". They may well pronounce the final "r", but they seem to omit the central "rr" altogether, and insert a "y" there, as if it were spelt "woyer". Is this just my faulty hearing? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean Jack. Similar things happen with "mirror" ("meeyor") and "forest" ("forrrst"); not too mention the tourist-terrorist merger. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice I pronounce "mirror" and "mere" the same, but I thought I was actually leaving off the end of "mirror". (I am not from the US but I am probably just a lazy speaker.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The rest of the anglosphere seems to rhyme "mirror" with the first 2 syllables of an anglicised pronunciation of "tiramisu", and "warrior" is like "worrier" apart from the first vowel. Mais, vive la différence! -- JackofOz (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To complicate things further, some (younger?) people pronounce "worry" to rhyme with "sorry", and likewise "wonder" to rhyme with "ponder", in a speak-as-you-spell way. (Though they seem not to go the whole hog and rhyme "wander" with "pander".) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps fortunately, I've never heard any of these people sing the carol I Wonder as I Wander. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I have heard someone sing "I Wonder as I Wander" who pronounced the words identically. It was very confusing. As for "worry" to rhyme with "sorry", that depends no whose pronunciation of "sorry" you mean: Americans, Canadians, and RP-Brits all pronounce it differently: /ˈsɑri/ (homophonous with "sari", i.e. to rhyme with "starry"), /ˈsɔri/ (to rhyme with "story"), and /ˈsɒri/ (to rhyme with "lorry" – though for most North Americans "lorry" rhymes with "story" anyway) respectively. +An gr 15:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My (~RP) pronunciation of "wonder" and "wander" are so similar that they are only distinguishable if I make a concious effort to enunciate clearly. --Tango (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same with me (northern British but very close to RP) --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We really could have some fun with this. Imagine the results if teachers from different parts of the Englsih-speaking world set this sentence as a dictation test to a class of international students: "There was a panda named Wanda, who wondered as she wandered wanly one day". :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful:) And also:

There was a panda named Wanda, who wondered as she wandered wanly one day, but finally won the race.

HOOTmag (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]