| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » Etymology of "Macho" |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Joseph W. Murphy |
 Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Some of the responses to my inquiry concerning "La Chingada" got me thinking
about the equally Mexican words "macho" and "machismo". When I looked in my
Webster's Collegiate, it says the word is derived from Latin "masculinus".
That looks like quite a jump. Does anyone have any more on this to fill in
the interstices? I find it a little odd because "masculino" is still very
much alive in Mexican Spanish.
Also, is "macho" strictly a Latin-American word or does it creep into
European Spanish too?
Joe Murphy
Boy Linguist |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Miguel Carrasquer |
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:34:39 GMT, "Joseph W. Murphy"
<jwmurphy700@mindspring.com> wrote:
[quote:8d77eaf002]Some of the responses to my inquiry concerning "La Chingada" got me thinking
about the equally Mexican words "macho" and "machismo". When I looked in my
Webster's Collegiate, it says the word is derived from Latin "masculinus".
That looks like quite a jump. Does anyone have any more on this to fill in
the interstices? I find it a little odd because "masculino" is still very
much alive in Mexican Spanish.
[/quote:8d77eaf002]
macho comes from masculus "male" (itself originally the
diminutive of mas, maris "male"). masculinus is a
derivative of masculus.
masculus was reduced already in Latin to masclus (App. Probi
"masculus non masclus"). This gives It. maschio, Cat.
mascle, Fr. mâle (< masle < mascle), etc. (Romanian <mare>
"big" comes from mas, maris). In Spanish -cl- usually
develops to /z^/ > /s^/ > /x/ (oric(u)la > oreja), but when
/l/, /n/, /s/ or /k/ preceeds, the result is /c^/:
cacc(u)lu(m) > cacho
cing(u)lu(m) > cincho
conc(u)la(m) > concha
manc(u)la(m) > mancha
trunc(u)lu(m) > troncho
-ngl- generally gives ñ (ung(u)la(m) > uña).
There are some exceptions in the cases of -scl- and -ngl-:
sing(u)lu(m) > sendo
misc(u)lare > mezclar (perhaps a later learned borrowing)
musc(u)lu(m) > muslo (perhaps to avoid confusion with mucho
< multu(m)).
The word <masculino> is a recent borrowing from Latin.
[quote:8d77eaf002]Also, is "macho" strictly a Latin-American word or does it creep into
European Spanish too?
[/quote:8d77eaf002]
It was European Spanish before it was Mexican.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@wxs.nl |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Miguel Carrasquer |
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:14:34 GMT, Miguel Carrasquer
<mcv@wxs.nl> wrote:
[quote:e0441f3ec3]On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:34:39 GMT, "Joseph W. Murphy"
jwmurphy700@mindspring.com> wrote:
Some of the responses to my inquiry concerning "La Chingada" got me thinking
about the equally Mexican words "macho" and "machismo". When I looked in my
Webster's Collegiate, it says the word is derived from Latin "masculinus".
That looks like quite a jump. Does anyone have any more on this to fill in
the interstices? I find it a little odd because "masculino" is still very
much alive in Mexican Spanish.
macho comes from masculus "male" (itself originally the
diminutive of mas, maris "male"). masculinus is a
derivative of masculus.
masculus was reduced already in Latin to masclus (App. Probi
"masculus non masclus"). This gives It. maschio, Cat.
mascle, Fr. mâle (< masle < mascle), etc. (Romanian <mare
"big" comes from mas, maris). In Spanish -cl- usually
develops to /z^/ > /s^/ > /x/ (oric(u)la > oreja)
[/quote:e0441f3ec3]
To be exact kl > kl^ > l^ > z^ > s^ > x.
Italian and Romanian got as far as kl^, and then (k)ky
(orecchia). French, Catalan and Portuguese have l^ (oreille
[l^ > y], orella, orelha). The development l^ > z^ etc. all
the way to /x/ is Castilian only.
What about Sard?
[quote:e0441f3ec3], but when
/l/, /n/, /s/ or /k/ preceeds, the result is /c^/:
cacc(u)lu(m) > cacho
cing(u)lu(m) > cincho
conc(u)la(m) > concha
manc(u)la(m) > mancha
trunc(u)lu(m) > troncho
-ngl- generally gives ñ (ung(u)la(m) > uña).
[/quote:e0441f3ec3]
But also <nch> as <cincho> above.
[quote:e0441f3ec3]There are some exceptions in the cases of -scl- and -ngl-:
sing(u)lu(m) > sendo
misc(u)lare > mezclar (perhaps a later learned borrowing)
musc(u)lu(m) > muslo (perhaps to avoid confusion with mucho
multu(m)).
[/quote:e0441f3ec3]
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@wxs.nl |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Joseph W. Murphy |
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 7:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:188c89aa45]On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:34:39 GMT, "Joseph W. Murphy"
jwmurphy700@mindspring.com> wrote:
Some of the responses to my inquiry concerning "La Chingada" got me
thinking
about the equally Mexican words "macho" and "machismo". When I looked
in my
Webster's Collegiate, it says the word is derived from Latin
"masculinus".
That looks like quite a jump. Does anyone have any more on this to fill
in
the interstices? I find it a little odd because "masculino" is still
very
much alive in Mexican Spanish.
[/quote:188c89aa45]
And "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:0r7b6119vvg9tbulq749g4u0s5kfoegs83@4ax.com...
[quote:188c89aa45]On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:14:34 GMT, Miguel Carrasquer
mcv@wxs.nl> wrote:
macho comes from masculus "male" (itself originally the
diminutive of mas, maris "male"). masculinus is a
derivative of masculus.
[/quote:188c89aa45]
You're absolutely right Miguel. I was sloppy. In looking again at my
dictionary the original Latin was "masculus" and not "masculinus". My bad.
How interesting that "macho" ultimately results from a Latin diminutive
meaning "little male"!
[quote:188c89aa45]
masculus was reduced already in Latin to masclus (App. Probi
"masculus non masclus").
[/quote:188c89aa45]
Was "App. Probi" one of the Latin texts urging writers to use "good" Latin,
with "masculus" being recommended as the "correct" word and "masclus" as a
vulgarism to be avoided?
This gives It. maschio, Cat.
[quote:188c89aa45]mascle, Fr. mâle (< masle < mascle), etc. (Romanian <mare
"big" comes from mas, maris). In Spanish -cl- usually
develops to /z^/ > /s^/ > /x/ (oric(u)la > oreja)
To be exact kl > kl^ > l^ > z^ > s^ > x.
Italian and Romanian got as far as kl^, and then (k)ky
(orecchia). French, Catalan and Portuguese have l^ (oreille
[l^ > y], orella, orelha). The development l^ > z^ etc. all
the way to /x/ is Castilian only.
, but when
/l/, /n/, /s/ or /k/ preceeds, the result is /c^/:
cacc(u)lu(m) > cacho
cing(u)lu(m) > cincho
conc(u)la(m) > concha
manc(u)la(m) > mancha
trunc(u)lu(m) > troncho
[/quote:188c89aa45]
And masc(u)lu(m) >macho!!!!
[quote:188c89aa45]-ngl- generally gives ñ (ung(u)la(m) > uña).
But also <nch> as <cincho> above.
There are some exceptions in the cases of -scl- and -ngl-:
sing(u)lu(m) > sendo
misc(u)lare > mezclar (perhaps a later learned borrowing)
musc(u)lu(m) > muslo (perhaps to avoid confusion with mucho
multu(m)).
[/quote:188c89aa45]
Wow! Thanks so much! That was all so neat! You've made it all look so
regular and the changes so (sort of) logical.
Now for a probably very dumb general question. Bear in mind I've never
studied linguistics and I don't know much about phonological change, but
were any of the above developments predictable? In other words, does
phonology always have to work from the present backward into the past to
determine what happened to a word over time, or does it also have any rules
that can be used sometimes to predict, more or less, how a word may come to
sound in the future?
Joe Murphy
Boy Linguist |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rasmus Underbjerg Pinneru |
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@wxs.nl> mælte sligt:
[quote:5f2ea299c0]To be exact kl > kl^ > l^ > z^ > s^ > x.
[/quote:5f2ea299c0]
What does ^ denote here?
/Rasmus
--
"Præk evangeliet til alle tider.
Brug om nødvendigt ord."
- Sankt Frans af Assisi |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Miguel Carrasquer |
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:52:06 +0200, Rasmus Underbjerg
Pinnerup <pinnerup@*fjerndette*gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:1dcfe5b67a]Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@wxs.nl> mælte sligt:
To be exact kl > kl^ > l^ > z^ > s^ > x.
What does ^ denote here?
[/quote:1dcfe5b67a]
Palatal c.q. post-alveolar.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@wxs.nl |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels |
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Joseph W. Murphy wrote:
[quote:6b8e01e28a]Now for a probably very dumb general question. Bear in mind I've never
studied linguistics and I don't know much about phonological change, but
were any of the above developments predictable? In other words, does
phonology always have to work from the present backward into the past to
determine what happened to a word over time, or does it also have any rules
that can be used sometimes to predict, more or less, how a word may come to
sound in the future?
[/quote:6b8e01e28a]
Language change is not predictable. It's explainable, though.
Of course, some changes are common and some are even surprising.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Miguel Carrasquer |
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:27:51 GMT, "Joseph W. Murphy"
<jwmurphy700@mindspring.com> wrote:
[quote:87caf3db5a]masculus was reduced already in Latin to masclus (App. Probi
"masculus non masclus").
Was "App. Probi" one of the Latin texts urging writers to use "good" Latin,
with "masculus" being recommended as the "correct" word and "masclus" as a
vulgarism to be avoided?
[/quote:87caf3db5a]
Probus was a Latin grammarian. His Latin grammar inluded an
Appendix (the "Appendix Probi"), which is a long list of
"[say] this not that". It gives an invaluable idea of how
Latin was actually pronounced by most people.
[quote:87caf3db5a]This gives It. maschio, Cat.
mascle, Fr. mâle (< masle < mascle), etc. (Romanian <mare
"big" comes from mas, maris). In Spanish -cl- usually
develops to /z^/ > /s^/ > /x/ (oric(u)la > oreja)
To be exact kl > kl^ > l^ > z^ > s^ > x.
Italian and Romanian got as far as kl^, and then (k)ky
(orecchia). French, Catalan and Portuguese have l^ (oreille
[l^ > y], orella, orelha). The development l^ > z^ etc. all
the way to /x/ is Castilian only.
, but when
/l/, /n/, /s/ or /k/ preceeds, the result is /c^/:
cacc(u)lu(m) > cacho
cing(u)lu(m) > cincho
conc(u)la(m) > concha
manc(u)la(m) > mancha
trunc(u)lu(m) > troncho
And masc(u)lu(m) >macho!!!!
[/quote:87caf3db5a]
Yes.
[quote:87caf3db5a]
-ngl- generally gives ñ (ung(u)la(m) > uña).
But also <nch> as <cincho> above.
There are some exceptions in the cases of -scl- and -ngl-:
sing(u)lu(m) > sendo
misc(u)lare > mezclar (perhaps a later learned borrowing)
musc(u)lu(m) > muslo (perhaps to avoid confusion with mucho
multu(m)).
Wow! Thanks so much! That was all so neat! You've made it all look so
regular and the changes so (sort of) logical.
Now for a probably very dumb general question. Bear in mind I've never
studied linguistics and I don't know much about phonological change, but
were any of the above developments predictable? In other words, does
phonology always have to work from the present backward into the past to
determine what happened to a word over time, or does it also have any rules
that can be used sometimes to predict, more or less, how a word may come to
sound in the future?
[/quote:87caf3db5a]
I have nothing substantial to add to PTD's answer here.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@wxs.nl |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John A Rea |
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
No! Not up here, down there. The gods of writing excoriate us
for not following certain social rules!
[quote:2b98d6eabc]On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:14:34 GMT, Miguel Carrasquer
mcv@wxs.nl> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:34:39 GMT, "Joseph W. Murphy"
jwmurphy700@mindspring.com> wrote:
Some of the responses to my inquiry concerning "La Chingada" got me thinking
about the equally Mexican words "macho" and "machismo". When I looked in my
Webster's Collegiate, it says the word is derived from Latin "masculinus".
That looks like quite a jump. Does anyone have any more on this to fill in
the interstices? I find it a little odd because "masculino" is still very
much alive in Mexican Spanish.
macho comes from masculus "male" (itself originally the
diminutive of mas, maris "male"). masculinus is a
derivative of masculus.
masculus was reduced already in Latin to masclus (App. Probi
"masculus non masclus"). This gives It. maschio, Cat.
mascle, Fr. mâle (< masle < mascle), etc. (Romanian <mare
"big" comes from mas, maris). In Spanish -cl- usually
develops to /z^/ > /s^/ > /x/ (oric(u)la > oreja)
To be exact kl > kl^ > l^ > z^ > s^ > x.
Italian and Romanian got as far as kl^, and then (k)ky
(orecchia). French, Catalan and Portuguese have l^ (oreille
[l^ > y], orella, orelha). The development l^ > z^ etc. all
the way to /x/ is Castilian only.
What about Sard?
[/quote:2b98d6eabc]
Yes indeed, that's always a question. Actually, there is really
nothing out of line about this bit of phonology in Sard. Thus
for Latin 'masculum' we have Sard /maskru/; for 'oriculam',
Sard /orikra/; for 'singulum' /singru/; for 'cingulam' /kingra/;
and for 'oculum' either /orka/ or /okra: actually, having spent
my formative years in the Cincinnati geosyncline area, I don't
care much for 'okra'. En passant (an expression that is not
Sard) the people of that magic island have what the outlander
might call an /r/ - /l/ problem. On the whole the word for
'more' is /prus/, and the word for 'beard' is /balba/ (although
in the northwest this is apt to be /bajba/ (using standard IPA
[j]. You could have checked all of this up with one or another
of Wagner's reference books on the shelf over there.
\
John
[quote:2b98d6eabc]
, but when
/l/, /n/, /s/ or /k/ preceeds, the result is /c^/:
cacc(u)lu(m) > cacho
cing(u)lu(m) > cincho
conc(u)la(m) > concha
manc(u)la(m) > mancha
trunc(u)lu(m) > troncho
-ngl- generally gives ñ (ung(u)la(m) > uña).
But also <nch> as <cincho> above.
There are some exceptions in the cases of -scl- and -ngl-:
sing(u)lu(m) > sendo
misc(u)lare > mezclar (perhaps a later learned borrowing)
musc(u)lu(m) > muslo (perhaps to avoid confusion with mucho
multu(m)).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@wxs.nl[/quote:2b98d6eabc] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels |
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 3:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
[quote:59f61e435c]
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:27:51 GMT, "Joseph W. Murphy"
jwmurphy700@mindspring.com> wrote:
Now for a probably very dumb general question. Bear in mind I've never
studied linguistics and I don't know much about phonological change, but
were any of the above developments predictable? In other words, does
phonology always have to work from the present backward into the past to
determine what happened to a word over time, or does it also have any rules
that can be used sometimes to predict, more or less, how a word may come to
sound in the future?
I have nothing substantial to add to PTD's answer here.
[/quote:59f61e435c]
Viz.,
[quote:59f61e435c]Language change is not predictable. It's explainable, though.
Of course, some changes are common and some are even surprising.
[/quote:59f61e435c]
But you could have given such elegant examples! (For the last, I was
thinking of the hackneyed Armenian one.)
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rasmus Underbjerg Pinneru |
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John A Rea <j.rea2@insightbb.com> mælte sligt:
[quote:e3d2b60368]Sard /orikra/; for 'singulum' /singru/; for 'cingulam' /kingra/;
and for 'oculum' either /orka/ or /okra: actually, having spent
my formative years in the Cincinnati geosyncline area, I don't
care much for 'okra'. En passant (an expression that is not
Sard) the people of that magic island have what the outlander
might call an /r/ - /l/ problem. On the whole the word for
'more' is /prus/, and the word for 'beard' is /balba/
[/quote:e3d2b60368]
So they do have both sounds? I take it they are not distinct phonemes?
How are they distributed?
/Rasmus
--
"Det er svært, for ikke at sige umuligt, at kritisere smukke kvinder -
de forbliver smukke kvinder og kritikken preller af."
- Winston Churchill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John A Rea |
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup wrote:
[quote:e82e9bc377]John A Rea <j.rea2@insightbb.com> mælte sligt:
Sard /orikra/; for 'singulum' /singru/; for 'cingulam' /kingra/;
and for 'oculum' either /orka/ or /okra: actually, having spent
my formative years in the Cincinnati geosyncline area, I don't
care much for 'okra'. En passant (an expression that is not
Sard) the people of that magic island have what the outlander
might call an /r/ - /l/ problem. On the whole the word for
'more' is /prus/, and the word for 'beard' is /balba/
So they do have both sounds? I take it they are not distinct phonemes?
How are they distributed?
/Rasmus
[/quote:e82e9bc377]
Doing a quick pas de deux and glissando around that strange word,
"phoneme", I can assert that a handful of data to show one bit of
data, can be insufficient for extrapolating to a larger set of data.
In the variety of Sard I was showing, /r/ and /l/ contrast on the
whole. Thust /kelu/ 'sky' and /karu/ 'dear; expensive'; and /luke/
'light' and /rosa/ 'rose'. However there are positional restrictions
that may apply. In much of the north, after a consonant, only
/r/ occurs /kraru/ 'clear', and before a consonant, only /l/,
/polta/ 'door'. Warning: Sard is a real language, and there is
considerable regional variation. In some areas of the southeast
intervocalic /l/ is replaced by glottal stop as in /sa?e/; amd
in some of the south intervocalic /n/ is lost, with accompanying
vowel nasalization /ma~u/ 'hand' sounding much like Portuguese!
Enjoy
Jack
there |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John A Rea |
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup wrote:
[quote:e2fcb1ee4f]John A Rea <j.rea2@insightbb.com> mælte sligt:
Sard /orikra/; for 'singulum' /singru/; for 'cingulam' /kingra/;
and for 'oculum' either /orka/ or /okra: actually, having spent
my formative years in the Cincinnati geosyncline area, I don't
care much for 'okra'. En passant (an expression that is not
Sard) the people of that magic island have what the outlander
might call an /r/ - /l/ problem. On the whole the word for
'more' is /prus/, and the word for 'beard' is /balba/
So they do have both sounds? I take it they are not distinct phonemes?
How are they distributed?
/Rasmus
[/quote:e2fcb1ee4f]
Doing a quick pas de deux and glissando around that strange word,
"phoneme", I can assert that a handful of data to show one bit of
data, can be insufficient for extrapolating to a larger set of data.
In the variety of Sard I was showing, /r/ and /l/ contrast on the
whole. Thust /kelu/ 'sky' and /karu/ 'dear; expensive'; and /luke/
'light' and /rosa/ 'rose'. However there are positional restrictions
that may apply. In much of the north, after a consonant, only
/r/ occurs /kraru/ 'clear', and before a consonant, only /l/,
/polta/ 'door'. Warning: Sard is a real language, and there is
considerable regional variation. In some areas of the southeast
intervocalic /l/ is replaced by glottal stop as in /sa?e/; amd
in some of the south intervocalic /n/ is lost, with accompanying
vowel nasalization /ma~u/ 'hand' sounding much like Portuguese!
Enjoy
Jack
there |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| G. Leo Sahakian |
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John A Rea" <j.rea2@insightbb.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: UDWae.13209$WI3.378@attbi_s71...
[quote:69d255e397]Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup wrote:
John A Rea <j.rea2@insightbb.com> mælte sligt:
Sard /orikra/; for 'singulum' /singru/; for 'cingulam'
/kingra/;
and for 'oculum' either /orka/ or /okra: actually, having
spent
my formative years in the Cincinnati geosyncline area, I don't
care much for 'okra'. En passant (an expression that is not
Sard) the people of that magic island have what the outlander
might call an /r/ - /l/ problem. On the whole the word for
'more' is /prus/, and the word for 'beard' is /balba/
[...]
In the variety of Sard I was showing, /r/ and /l/ contrast on
the
whole. Thust /kelu/ 'sky' and /karu/ 'dear; expensive'; and
/luke/
'light' and /rosa/ 'rose'. However there are positional
restrictions
that may apply. In much of the north, after a consonant, only
/r/ occurs /kraru/ 'clear', and before a consonant, only /l/,
/polta/ 'door'. Warning: Sard is a real language, and there is
considerable regional variation. In some areas of the southeast
intervocalic /l/ is replaced by glottal stop as in /sa?e/; amd
in some of the south intervocalic /n/ is lost, with accompanying
vowel nasalization /ma~u/ 'hand' sounding much like Portuguese!
[/quote:69d255e397]
since you have
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
why don't you write ã instead of a~ ? this is a portuguese letter
and ISO-8859-1 has everything needed for pt., es., fr., de., is.,
sv., da., no., fi., etc.
from your examples it appears that r and l are distinct phonemes
except in consonant clusters.
regards,
G. Leo Sahakian
--
Be kind to animals; they owe you nothing. Let them live in peace,
unless
your life is at risk.
http://www.pour-les-animaux.de/.
[quote:69d255e397]
Enjoy
Jack
there[/quote:69d255e397] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| G. Leo Sahakian |
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 8:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John A Rea" <j.rea2@insightbb.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 42742982.6040200@insightbb.com...
[quote:fb661f9327]G. Leo Sahakian wrote:
"John A Rea" <j.rea2@insightbb.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: UDWae.13209$WI3.378@attbi_s71...
[...]
since you have
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
why don't you write ã instead of a~ ? this is a portuguese
letter
and ISO-8859-1 has everything needed for pt., es., fr., de.,
is.,
sv., da., no., fi., etc.
I haven't the slightest idea what these preceding lines say:
[/quote:fb661f9327]
to put it as simply as possible, ISO-8859-1, also called Latin-1,
is the standard character set used for
engl. and (other) west. europ. languages; since your operating
system is windows xp, you can look up the character map (to open
it: start/run/charmap/enter, or start/programs/accessories/system
tools/char. map; these designation are perhaps not all correct
because my windows is not an english version and I don't know all
the correct names), choose an installed font (e.g. arial), then
from the "char. set" drop-down list choose "windows western
europe"; this opens for you the latin-1 set; in the chars. field
you see all the chracters you can copy and paste into your text,
including e.g. ã.
it is of course easier to type the chars. directly on the keyboard
depending on your actual keyboard; now if your ~ (tilde) key is a
dead key (type a "~": if the ~ appears and the cursor moves
forward, then it is not a dead key), nothing happens when you type
the ~, but when you type the next char., then both appear; if the
~ can combine with the next char., you get ã, õ, ñ; otherwise you
get ~ (if next char. is space), or ~q, ~e or whatever; you can
change the kbd layout (i.e. which char. is displayed when you hit
each key): en-US, en-UK, en-US international (this provides dead
keys for ~ and accents: grave, umlaut etc.), fr, pt-PT, pt-BR
etc.; to do this go to "control panel"/"regional and language
options"/languages tab/details botton: in the dialog box that
opens choose the left tab, then "add": a new dialog box opens with
2 drop- down lists; in the 1st you choose a language and if
necessary a country, e.g. en-UK, in the 2nd you choose the
keyboaed layout, e.g. en-UK extended.
for full details see e.g. Windows Keyboard Layouts at
http://www.microsoft.com/globaldev/reference/keyboards.aspx
sorry for the long delay in answering; I don't even know if you
are at all interested by all this; at any rate it's done.
regards,
G. Leo Sahakian
--
Be kind to animals; they owe you nothing. Let them live in peace,
unless your life is at risk.
http://www.pour-les-animaux.de/.
> >>Jack |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:04 am
|
|