Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2025 July 19

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Language
Language desk
< July 18 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 20 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


July 19

edit

Some questions mainly on linguistic evolution

edit

1: Is it possible that the Hangul letters that in modern speech are flattened to an unreleased T in syllable-final position may have originally (e.g., close in time to when Hangul was created) been pronounced with something closer to their syllable-initial values?

2: Does the presence of a soft C in “France” imply anything about whether first contact with the Franks was before or after late Latin C-palatalization started?

3: In languages with relatively fossilized spelling that has not kept up with more recent pronunciation changes, can the form of a foreign word indicate when it was borrowed?

4: Did Akkadian and/or Sumerian lose some distinctions between consonants when said consonants were at the ends of syllables? The Wikimedia Commons image for the Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform syllabary shows some VC signs being used for two or more different final consonants. Primal Groudon (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re 2: The soft C only tells us something about when the English term was borrowed from a Romance language, in this case Old French. The earlier, purely Germanic names Franc-land or Franc-rice [1] were pronounced with a /k/ (for the ⟨c⟩ in Franc; the ⟨c⟩ in rice was palatalized to /t͡ʃ/).  ​‑‑Lambiam 04:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
French also uses the soft C here. 17:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC) Primal Groudon (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re 3: The spelling of Neo-Latin is frozen to that of the times of Caesar and Cicero, also in Ecclesiastical Latin as spoken in Vatican City, the main source of new borrowings. The Neo-Latin word autocinetum (meaning "automobile") can be analyzed as being borrowed from Ancient Greek αὐτοκίνητον but with a semantic change from "living being" to "automobile", corresponding to the semantic loan seen in Katherevousa, leading to modern Greek αυτοκίνητο. Now the pronunciation of αὐτοκίνητον is with a lenited K (IPA /c/), while the Ecclesiastical pronunciation of autocinetum is with a /t͡ʃ/ (as the onset of English chip). This counterexample shows that we can deduce nothing about the time of borrowing purely from the form of a borrowed word.
The question as phrased involves pronunciation changes in the receiving language. If, on the other hand, it is the donor language that is subject to significant pronunciation changes, there may be cases where one can tell by its form whether an adapted borrowing is from before or after the pronunciation change. Our word rose comes from Latin rosa, which is thought to be derived from a variant of Ancient Greek ῥόδον (rhódon), which itself is thought to have been borrowed from some Eastern language, most likely Proto-Iranian *wardah ("flower, rose"). Now from the latter (reconstructed) Iranian form we can see this must have been an early borrowing, because its descendant in Persian became گُل (gul). The Turkish form gül shows that this was, via Ottoman Turkish, a much later borrowing from already Classical Persian.  ​‑‑Lambiam 06:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re 1: Yes, the final consonants would have been distinct in Old Korean and tended to merge over time in the Middle Korean period. In Middle Korean, a final s sound was still distinct from final t, which is not the case in modern Korean [2]. Note that even in modern Korean, these final consonants are still fully distinct when they are followed by (for example) -i, -eun, -eul, or -ida. --Amble (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. Was there a good reason not to post these unrelated questions in separate sections? —Tamfang (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys!

edit

When I was kid growing up in Australia in the 1950s, a guy was a rope helping hold the tent up when we went camping, and when TV arrived, because we lived a long way from the transmitters, it was a cable that did a similar job with the tall pole holding up the TV antenna. We are now thoroughly Americanised (except for small things like the s in that word), and a guy is a bloke, a male person, sometimes even a sheila, a female one. Where did Americans get "guy" from? HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OED indicated guy as in a man, dates from 1796 and comes from Guy Fawkes. Merriam-Webster indicates guy as in a man dates from 1712 and again probably comes from Guy Fawkes. Merriam-Webster also indicates guy as in a rope dates from 1623, as is from the Dutch gei - a rope used to control a sail. MLWoolley (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So how did the man version become a major part of American English, but not British (and Australian) English? HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I blame Damon Runyon, Frank Loesser and, most of all, Frank Sinatra. Doug butler (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Flying too high with some guy in the sky is my idea of nothing to do. Some versions change it to ...gal in the sky..., ruining the internal rhyme to avoid any suggestion of homosexuality I suppose, but the guy seems to be the pilot, so that would be risky in any case; I doubt Cole Porter would really have wanted to distract him. Also annoying is the change from some get a kick from cocaine to perfume from Spain, which is strained at best. --Trovatore (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Wiktionary quotes Twain in 1873 writing "some guy from Pennsylvania". Here in the Saturday Evening Post, 1915 there are many, many instances of tough guy, wise guy, old guy, big guy, thin guy, new guy, literary guy, fly guy, funny guy, fresh guy, another guy, and some guy from Hungry. The Saturday Evening Post, guys. I was searching for the phrase "some guy": here's an instance from 1894, "tell her youse had a job packing coal for some guy". I'm not seeing any early British uses, except in the context "some Guy Faux" to signify a revolutionary or bomber. Here's a good organic American use of "some guy" in 1868, about a travelling circus touring Texas: "as for stealing you never saw its equal. As soon as anything is laid down some guy standing by picks it up and walks off just as easy as if it belonged to him. If you say anything they pull a revolver and say you are a d——- Yankee."  Card Zero  (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In British English of 100 years ago and more, guy meant someone who was dressed weirdly or badly. In The Mikado, reference is made to "the lady from the provinces who dresses like a guy" meaning not that she dresses like a man, but rather that she dresses in ugly clothes. Or in Mapp and Lucia, Miss Mapp sees her friend Major Benjy dressed like a medieval king and thinks he "looked a perfect guy in his crown" meaning he looked ridiculous. So the fact that guy meant something completely different in British English probably prevented it from taking on its American meaning in the UK, until recent decades after the old meaning died out, and nowadays younger Brits use guy in American sense of "fellow, chap". —Mahāgaja · talk 13:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 
Welsh children with their guy in 1960.
To clarify, it's the custom in England and Wales before Bonfire Night on 5 November for children to make an effigy of Guy Fawkes ("a guy") out of old clothes and stuffed with newspaper, to be burned on the bonfire. So "dressed like a guy" would be similar to "dressed like a scarecrow". The tradition has been displaced somewhat by American-style Halloween only in the last couple of decades. Alansplodge (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a peculiar lyric though. I understand that Ko-Ko is simply venting his poorly thought out prejudices, which may be assumed to coincide with Gilbert's, and that Gilbert is more confessing than taking pride in them. But this particular one seems to come from an aristocratic space that I wouldn't have expected Gilbert to share. What does he dislike about suburban women who dress unfashionably but are open to new experiences? --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a mistake to assume that Gilbert is voicing his own prejudices via Ko-Ko – he was far too astute a satirist. Rather, Ko-Ko's list, which has always been modified to reflect circumstances contemporary to the performance, in part reflects petty societal prejudices that Gilbert is in part holding up for ridicule, and in part minor annoyances for which execution would be a ludicrous over-reaction (as befits the play's premise of flirting having being made a capital offense). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.5.172.125 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that does make a certain amount of sense. Though I do get the sense that the audience is expected to agree emotionally with one or two of them.
Another lovely little G&S touch is the fact that this song is so memorable, but as soon as it does happen that a victim must be found, everyone completely forgets about the list. But of course Ko-Ko is basically a sweet person and has no real desire to find a victim. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So it may have evolved from a derogatory term about being overdressed, as with dude. But I notice geezer comes from guiser (some guy in disguise), and I wonder if American guy might have that origin too. Reading Guy Fawkes Night, I'm unclear whether the early tradition involved costumes/effigies, and it sounds like it had almost died out by 1850 before being revived, so I wonder if British guy developed at around that time, independently. (My terrible OR.)  Card Zero  (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The original celebrations of Gunpowder Treason Day, which morphed into Bonfire/Guy Fawkes night and which were actually encouraged in law, usually featured the burning of an effigy of The Pope (which, given the geopolitical situation of the time, would be akin to Americans in the 1950s burning effigies of Stalin). The central emphasis shifted to Guido/Guy Fawkes over subsequent decades, but Pope Paul V (incumbent in 1605) and other modern deprecated figures are still also burnt in effigy at some current manifestations of the event, such as in Lewes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.5.172.125 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the Lewes Bonfire is unique in England in burning papal effigies and has come under considerable pressure to desist, which they have so far resisted. Alansplodge (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...flying too high with some guy in disguise.... Hmm. Have I been hearing it wrong? --Trovatore (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]
My first visit to England was in late October. I saw fireworks for sale and thought “Halloween,” though fireworks are not associated with Halloween at home! —Tamfang (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2025_July_19&oldid=1303954437"