Page 36 of 38

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

Posted: 09 Feb 2020 11:54
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.

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

Posted: 09 Feb 2020 12:35
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.

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

Posted: 09 Feb 2020 14:24
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?

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

Posted: 09 Feb 2020 14:31
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.

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

Posted: 09 Feb 2020 14:44
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.

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

Posted: 09 Feb 2020 17:09
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...

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

Posted: 09 Feb 2020 17:19
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.

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

Posted: 09 Feb 2020 17:39
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).

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

Posted: 09 Feb 2020 22:35
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.

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

Posted: 14 Mar 2020 18:16
by eldin raigmore
Anyone else think it’s unfair the pandemic has nothing to do with pandas?

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

Posted: 14 Mar 2020 18:45
by lsd
any triple-S a priori language Conlanger must regret it...

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

Posted: 14 Mar 2020 22:10
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'.

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

Posted: 14 Mar 2020 22:27
by Khemehekis
Could a pandemic be half-human, half-chimp -- a humanzee, perhaps?

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

Posted: 14 Mar 2020 22:37
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!

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

Posted: 14 Mar 2020 23:17
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.

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

Posted: 14 Mar 2020 23:34
by eldin raigmore
Thank you, Salmoneus and Khemehekis!

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

Posted: 14 Mar 2020 23:53
by Khemehekis
eldin raigmore wrote: 14 Mar 2020 23:34 Thank you, Salmoneus and Khemehekis!
You're welcome!

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

Posted: 14 Aug 2020 18:22
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.

Serbian “Red Rubber Ball”?

Posted: 11 Sep 2020 20:45
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.

Politically Motivated Sound-Changes?

Posted: 22 Sep 2020 18:45
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?