(EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

What can I say? It doesn't fit above, put it here. Also the location of board rules/info.
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3758
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by qwed117 »

Tanni wrote: 09 Feb 2020 10:47
Spoiler:
shimobaatar wrote: 08 Feb 2020 21:38
Salmoneus wrote: 07 Feb 2020 01:29 I agree. Although "shows her around in the ship" is also possible. But would probably mean something like "he showed her around [his collection of belleek] in the ship", rather than showing her the parts of the ship itself. I can also maybe imagine something like someone complaining "I spend all day showing people around in the ship!", where the emphasis is strongly on the 'showing around' as a thing in itself (here, a thing he doesn't want to be doing), rather than on the result.
This isn't exactly on-topic, but the choice of preposition here is interesting to me. It's hard for me to think of a case where I'd say "in the ship" instead of "on the ship". I suppose it's a dialectal/idiolectal thing.
He shows her around on the ship -- They walk around on the deck, seeing the sails, the sea, sea gulls and other ships, being exposed to wind and weather.

He shows her around in the ship -- They walk around below, so they don't see the sails, and aren't exposed to wind and weather.
qwed117 wrote: 07 Feb 2020 10:29 If someone said something like "He showed her around in the building", to me that's like saying that "he paraded her around the building", where it would indicate that the person being "showed around" is being displayed to the other occupants of the building.
Yes, that's why I posted the question.

He showed her (a)round in/on the building/ship -- She is exposed to the other people in/on the building/ship.

He shows her round the ship -- He walks with her round the vessel laying in a dock. So they can walk round the ship, seeing the outside of the vessel. This way, she is exposed to the other people in the dock.

In German, there is "Er zeigte ihr das Schiff".
I don't think that's an accurate summation. If someone said "He showed her around in the ship" it would sound like a trafficking scheme of some sorts. Typically just "he showed her around the ship" means that she is being given a tour of the ship.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
Tanni
greek
greek
Posts: 598
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 02:05

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Tanni »

qwed117 wrote: 09 Feb 2020 11:54 I don't think that's an accurate summation. If someone said "He showed her around in the ship" it would sound like a trafficking scheme of some sorts.
That's how a non-native could interpret that sentences.
Typically just "he showed her around the ship" means that she is being given a tour of the ship.
That's what was intented.
My neurochemistry has fucked my impulse control, now I'm diagnosed OOD = oppositional opinion disorder, one of the most deadly diseases in totalitarian states, but can be cured in the free world.
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7702
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by shimobaatar »

Tanni wrote: 09 Feb 2020 10:47
shimobaatar wrote: 08 Feb 2020 21:38
Salmoneus wrote: 07 Feb 2020 01:29 I agree. Although "shows her around in the ship" is also possible. But would probably mean something like "he showed her around [his collection of belleek] in the ship", rather than showing her the parts of the ship itself. I can also maybe imagine something like someone complaining "I spend all day showing people around in the ship!", where the emphasis is strongly on the 'showing around' as a thing in itself (here, a thing he doesn't want to be doing), rather than on the result.
This isn't exactly on-topic, but the choice of preposition here is interesting to me. It's hard for me to think of a case where I'd say "in the ship" instead of "on the ship". I suppose it's a dialectal/idiolectal thing.
He shows her around on the ship -- They walk around on the deck, seeing the sails, the sea, sea gulls and other ships, being exposed to wind and weather.

He shows her around in the ship -- They walk around below, so they don't see the sails, and aren't exposed to wind and weather.
I would understand what someone meant by "in the ship", but I stand by what I said about it not quite sounding right to me, personally.
Tanni wrote: 09 Feb 2020 10:47
qwed117 wrote: 07 Feb 2020 10:29 If someone said something like "He showed her around in the building", to me that's like saying that "he paraded her around the building", where it would indicate that the person being "showed around" is being displayed to the other occupants of the building.
Yes, that's why I posted the question.

He showed her (a)round in/on the building/ship -- She is exposed to the other people in/on the building/ship.

He shows her round the ship -- He walks with her round the vessel laying in a dock. So they can walk round the ship, seeing the outside of the vessel. This way, she is exposed to the other people in the dock.

In German, there is "Er zeigte ihr das Schiff".
As I noted earlier, I would say - or at least write - "around", not "round". Maybe this is the tone you're going for, but to me, "round" looks very informal, like the writer is trying to represent a spoken shortening of "around".

Although maybe this is just another dialectal issue, and for some people, this is fine in formal writing?
User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 441
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Pabappa »

"in the ship" made me think of spaceships. Maybe submarines would also use it, but for me the use of "in" implies a ship that fully encloses the adventurers like a spaceship would.
I'll take the theses, and you can have the thoses.
Tanni
greek
greek
Posts: 598
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 02:05

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Tanni »

shimobaatar wrote: 09 Feb 2020 14:24 As I noted earlier, I would say - or at least write - "around", not "round". Maybe this is the tone you're going for, but to me, "round" looks very informal, like the writer is trying to represent a spoken shortening of "around".

Although maybe this is just another dialectal issue, and for some people, this is fine in formal writing?
As I said, I've used Leo:

to pass sth. ⇔ around

but this is only applicable for things. The other possibility is just

to show so. round

Non of them is declared dialectal. This could also be a typo.
The other translations don't apply, as they use a different verb, which is not what I wanted.
Pabappa wrote: 09 Feb 2020 14:31 "in the ship" made me think of spaceships. Maybe submarines would also use it, but for me the use of "in" implies a ship that fully encloses the adventurers like a spaceship would.
A ship by definition fully encloses the people "in" it, i. e. if they're below. They also can be "on" the deck of the ship. A vessel is a ship, when it has a "deck", so you can "go below this deck" (German: unter Deck gehen). If it doesn't have this, it's just a boat. There might be different kinds of boats, and ships with more than one deck. Even a spaceship allows astronauts to be "on" it: Perry Rhodan 3034: Ancaisin. People can be even "on" a submarine, when it swims on the surface.
My neurochemistry has fucked my impulse control, now I'm diagnosed OOD = oppositional opinion disorder, one of the most deadly diseases in totalitarian states, but can be cured in the free world.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2075
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

Tanni wrote: 09 Feb 2020 14:44
shimobaatar wrote: 09 Feb 2020 14:24 As I noted earlier, I would say - or at least write - "around", not "round". Maybe this is the tone you're going for, but to me, "round" looks very informal, like the writer is trying to represent a spoken shortening of "around".

Although maybe this is just another dialectal issue, and for some people, this is fine in formal writing?
As I said, I've used Leo
I think our point is that we didn't use Leo, because we actually speak the language natively. And to me, it's definitely "show around", not "show round". In fact, saying "show round" makes it much more likely, to me, that the 'parade or exhibit' sense is meant.

On which note: yes, "show around in" can trigger that meaning too. But at least IMD, it's wrong to say it simply denotes that meaning. For instance, if I say "I showed her around in London", I probably don't mean that I'm exhibiting her (although I could mean that). Likewise if I "show him around in the new office". For me, the main difference there with the non-'in' version is that a) as I say, I'm engaging in a period of an activity, and b) I probably haven't completed the task. For instance, showing someone around in London can last as long as that someone is in London; but showing someone around London would take a very long time, because there's a lot of London! [also, 'show around in' has a more deferential connotation for me. If I show somone around in London, I'm probably, as it were, following them holding their bags and pointing out interesting things, whereas if I show them around London I'm arriving with a schedule and a route map...]

And FWIW, the exhibition sense can also occur even without 'in' - I can, for instance, show a picture of a cat around the office...

A ship by definition fully encloses the people "in" it, i. e. if they're below. They also can be "on" the deck of the ship. A vessel is a ship, when it has a "deck", so you can "go below this deck" (German: unter Deck gehen). If it doesn't have this, it's just a boat. There might be different kinds of boats, and ships with more than one deck. Even a spaceship allows astronauts to be "on" it: Perry Rhodan 3034: Ancaisin. People can be even "on" a submarine, when it swims on the surface.
That's not how English works, I'm afraid, at least IMD. If there's a boat without a deck, you're probably 'in' it. If there's a ship with a deck, you're probably 'on' it, even below decks. Likewise, you're probably on a submarine rather than in it, wherever the submarine is (and a submarine, though enclosed, is technically a boat, not a ship).

The two issues here are that:

- English 'in' doesn't require enclosure, and is often used not only when the item is not enclosed, but even when it protrudes from the thing it's 'in'. Thus I can sit in a boat or stand in a puddle or walk in a valley, and a plug can be in the socket, or even in the wall, and a mouse can be in my hand - and I can even specifically hold a mouse in the palm of my hand, even if the palm itself is almost flat.

- English 'on' is often used with verbs of station or appointment, and therefore is often used with vehicles, regardless of the topology. I'm usually on the train, not in it, and likewise I'm usually on a ship, not in it. Similarly on a plane or on a spaceship. In fact, I usually WOULDN'T use plain 'on' for the cases you're talking about, but rather "on top of" or "on the surface of", although plain 'on' works with certain verbs (particularly 'standing' - sitting on a plane is usually inside, standing on a plane suggests outside, though either can mean the other depending on context).

This presumption in favour of 'on' fails when the vehicle is less like a public area - that is, when it's smaller or less public. So although I travel ON the bus (train, plane, etc), I travel IN the car, even though both are equally enclosing. [if I'm the driver, however, I suspect I drive to London in the bus, rather than on it - I think only passengers are on it. But I've never asked a bus driver, so I don't really know what they'd say]. And although I go to Spain ON the cruise liner (deep in the bowels of the ship never seeing sunlight), I cross the lake IN the rowing boat (with no deck and with the gunwhales at knee level). However, if you're sufficiently obviously right on top of it, it becomes OK to say 'on' again - I complete the rally IN the car, and probably IN the dune buggy, but ON the quadbike or ON the motorbike.

With ships, trains, planes, spacecraft, etc, "in" can be used, but usually conveys something different - it suggests you're not, as it were, occupying a place on the vehicle on its normal journey. The commuter gets ON the train, but the bomb disposal expert sometimes gets IN the train (though they can also get ON it). The engineer might be working IN the ship in the dock, whereas working ON the ship might suggest they were travelling with it. [and that's a bad example because WORK ON is a phrasal verb in its own right - you can work on the ship whether you're on it, in it, or even (if you're working on the computer system) nowhere near it).


Anyway, introductory guides might say that "in" means "inside", and "on" means "on top of" or "on the surface of", but in reality the meaning of both plain prepositions is rather wider than those simplifications would suggest...
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7702
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by shimobaatar »

Salmoneus wrote: 09 Feb 2020 17:09
Tanni wrote: 09 Feb 2020 14:44
shimobaatar wrote: 09 Feb 2020 14:24 As I noted earlier, I would say - or at least write - "around", not "round". Maybe this is the tone you're going for, but to me, "round" looks very informal, like the writer is trying to represent a spoken shortening of "around".

Although maybe this is just another dialectal issue, and for some people, this is fine in formal writing?
As I said, I've used Leo
I think our point is that we didn't use Leo, because we actually speak the language natively.
[+1] If this online dictionary is going to be treated as the highest authority in the end, then I'm afraid I don't see the point in asking for input from native speakers in a thread like this.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 »

For me, "show around" means something along the lines of to lead someone, showing them various things at a location, while "show round" means something along the lines of leading someone so that they're being shown to other people, e.g. to be introduced.

As for "in a boat" vs. "on a boat", I'd say "on a boat" if your general location is "a boat", and you're free to move around within it (so, as Sal said, you're "on the boat", even if it's on an interior deck, and the same for a submarine or a plane), while "in a boat" would mean, hmmm, more some nook or cranny within the boat, some sort of baggage hold or even within a wall (physically within the "bowels of the ship"). Cars are different, though, and you sit in a car (if you're on a car you'd be on top of it, but to occupy the same position in relation to a train I'd say you were on top of a train, as Sal says). Then again, yeah, you drive in a bus, but you go on the bus (similarly, you fly in a plane if you're the pilot, but on the plane if your the passenger, so maybe there's an agency aspect to it as well).
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
Reyzadren
greek
greek
Posts: 528
Joined: 14 May 2017 10:39
Contact:

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Reyzadren »

Tanni wrote: 09 Feb 2020 10:47He shows her around on the ship -- They walk around on the deck, seeing the sails, the sea, sea gulls and other ships, being exposed to wind and weather.

He shows her around in the ship -- They walk around below, so they don't see the sails, and aren't exposed to wind and weather.

He showed her (a)round in/on the building/ship -- She is exposed to the other people in/on the building/ship.

He shows her round the ship -- He walks with her round the vessel laying in a dock. So they can walk round the ship, seeing the outside of the vessel. This way, she is exposed to the other people in the dock.
Yes, I interpreted those 4 sentences in the same way as you did, as a native speaker though bilingual.

However, your further explanations are too technical to be used irl tbh.
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5665
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore »

Anyone else think it’s unfair the pandemic has nothing to do with pandas?
User avatar
lsd
greek
greek
Posts: 476
Joined: 11 Mar 2011 21:11
Contact:

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by lsd »

any triple-S a priori language Conlanger must regret it...
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2075
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

eldin raigmore wrote: 14 Mar 2020 18:16 Anyone else think it’s unfair the pandemic has nothing to do with pandas?
No, that would make no sense. That would obviously be a pandademic. A sudden proliferation of pans, or of manifestations of the Great God Pan, would however be called 'pandemics'.
Khemehekis
runic
runic
Posts: 2474
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Khemehekis »

Could a pandemic be half-human, half-chimp -- a humanzee, perhaps?
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 66,666 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2075
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

This may be a newbie question, but...

...does anyone know where I can find approximate bore dimensions for reed instruments?

Lengths I can find, though not always easy. And I've found some clarinet diameter comparisons somewhere.

But conical bores? Almost nothing. I think I found something on saxophone conicity, but what about oboe conicity? Which is more conic: an oboe or a bassoon? Where does a heckelphone fit (I think a Heckelphone has twice the cross-sectional area of a bass oboe, but I'm not certain, and not sure how that compares to a bassoon). And as for shawms, what's going on there? Some people say that shawm bores were parabolic, but I can't find any more detailed description of that...

It's not important, it's just personal curiosity, but it's vexxing that this infomation isn't more widely available!
Khemehekis
runic
runic
Posts: 2474
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Khemehekis »

Salmoneus wrote: 14 Mar 2020 22:37 It's not important, it's just personal curiosity, but it's vexxing that this infomation isn't more widely available!
I see what you did there.
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 66,666 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5665
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore »

Thank you, Salmoneus and Khemehekis!
Khemehekis
runic
runic
Posts: 2474
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Khemehekis »

eldin raigmore wrote: 14 Mar 2020 23:34 Thank you, Salmoneus and Khemehekis!
You're welcome!
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 66,666 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
Oil In My Lamp
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 23
Joined: 09 Jul 2019 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Oil In My Lamp »

Good morning everyone, does anyone know if the Conlangio app/project is still up somewhere? The website seems to be down. There do not seem to be many mobile app options for conlanging.
Give me oil in my lamp, I pray.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5665
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Serbian “Red Rubber Ball”?

Post by eldin raigmore »

In the Serbian movie “Technotise: Edit and I”, there is a song to the tune of the Cyrkle’s* “Red Rubber Ball”.
I don’t speak the language and they didn’t provide subtitles for the song.
Does anyone know anything about it?
Is it actually a Serbian translation of the Cyrkle’s lyrics* or is it completely different?
Who is the woman singing it?

*
Edit: *The Cyrkles were the first to record it. It was actually co-written by Paul Simon, and by The Seekers’ Bruce Woodley. April 1966 according to Wikipedia.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5665
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Politically Motivated Sound-Changes?

Post by eldin raigmore »

We have a thread for Phonetically-Motivated Sound-Changes.

Is there enough data to start a thread for Politically-Motivated Sound-Changes?
Or would that be mostly speculation?
Post Reply