Language desk
< June 24	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 26 >

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.

June 25[edit]

If 'photo' means light in some language (greek?), what is that language's word for darkness?[edit]

Hi all. I was wondering what the opposite of the word 'photo' would be in whichever language it came from. I've tried translators on the internet but to no avail. Much help appreciated ! Xhin Give Back Our Membership! 06:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo comes from photos, light, and the verb photizo, to give light or shine, and the opposite of that is skotos, darkness, and the verb skotizo, to make dark. Adam Bishop 07:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So Skotosynthesis would be making energy from darkness? Xhin Give Back Our Membership! 09:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Etymologically, maybe, but if you're making energy from the absence of something, how do you know it's the absence of light and not the absence of monkeys? απίθηκοσύνθεση (apithikosynthesis) -- "energy production from the absence of monkeys" :) --TotoBaggins 13:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the synthesis part of photosynthesis does not mean "making energy" - it means making organic molecules like this one. Gandalf61

If we're making English words (as opposed to transliterating Greek words), the combining form is scoto-, as in scotophobia (fear of the dark), scotoscope (something that lets you see in the dark, a word in use from Pepys' diary of 1664 to Applied Optics in 1964), or scotograph ("an instrument with which a blind person may write"). Wareh 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a preposition for you...[edit]

An editor changed my sentence: "...it begins to break down frequently, as if it is ashamed of what it is being used for." because of the preposition at the end. Adposition is a turgid piece of prose that needs rewriting, and it doesn't say whether this is grammatical or not. Also, should it be "is ashamed" or "were ashamed"? Clarityfiend 07:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Sir Winston Churchill (alledgedly) said, after being corrected by a pedantic civil servant for ending a sentence in a preposition. 'This is the type of arrant pedantry, up with which I will not put' Cyta 09:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't say "*as if it is ashamed of for what it is being used". We need a noun after "ashamed of", not a preposition. It's safer to use subjunctive ("were ashamed") in written English, though not really necessary in speech. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 10:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the deal with the subjunctive was that it was used for contrary to fact, but not for open statements. So if it may have actually been ashamed, then you'd say is, and if it wasn't ashamed, it was just acting like it was, then you would say were Storeye 10:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not quite right. The key word is "if", which makes it a conditional phrase. That (ie. it being a conditional phrase) is what governs the subjunctive, not the factuality or otherwise of whatever follows it the word "if". -- JackofOz 12:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there's also the slightly dated "Had I been ashamed..." instead of "If I had been ashamed", so "if" isn't literally the only thing that governs the subjunctive.--Estrellador* 18:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. The point I was making, though, is that conditional phrases govern the subjunctive. I wasn't saying that the only conditional phrases are those containing the word "if". I've clarified my previous post. -- JackofOz 22:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just say "ashamed", without "it is" or "it were". Corvus cornix 18:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you could say "If the book is on the table, please bring it to me" with a conditional clause and no subjunctive. That is because the book may be on the table or it may not. If you say "If the book were on the table, then you would have brought it to me" using the subjunctive then you imply that the book is not on the table and you have not brought it to me. Conditional clauses can be used without the subjunctive. Storeye 01:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised at JackofOz, who said That (ie. it being a conditional phrase) is what governs the subjunctive, not the factuality or otherwise of whatever follows it the word "if". Try on "Bill's acting as if he's in charge of the project -- did those spineless fuckers in management really give it to him??" In this context, the subjunctive is used with counterfactual conditionals, not all conditionals. Also: "If I was out of line, I apologize." "If he's here right now, then he's heard the whole plan and we're screwed!" Tesseran 06:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could also say "as if he were in charge" and "If I were out of line". With the last example, it's not known whether he's here right now or not, so again, you could say "If he were here right now ..." without it necessarily meaning that he's not here. I wonder if the use of "was/is", instead of "were", changes the inherent syntactic conditionality of these expressions. -- JackofOz 00:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would interpret "If he were here right now" to mean "he's not here right now". The way I understood was/is/were with conditional clauses, is that were is used with contrary to fact (if he were here right now... but he's not) and future less vivid (if we were to set off immediately, (but we probobly won't) we would reach the city by nightfall). was is exclusively used with past tense conditionals (If he was here yesterday...) and is is used with open conditionals (if he is here now... (he may or may not be)). Storeye 05:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish translation[edit]

How would one say /my father watches the TV after he comes home from work/? and /a unicorn is an animal that is better than the rest/ in Spanish? Thank you.

AlmostCrimes 12:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Mi padre mira* el televisión después de trabajar" (lit. "my father watches television after work", but for some reason the verb "mirar" doesn't feel right) and "el unicornio es un animal mejor que los demás" (lit. "the unicorn is an animal better than the rest"). Eran of Arcadia 16:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be "mira al televisión"? Corvus cornix 18:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Mira la televisión" Skarioffszky 20:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or "el TV", since Spanglish is alive and well . . . Eran of Arcadia 02:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviation "TV" is used in Spanish as well, as far as I know, and I'm pretty sure they say "la TV" when it stands in place of "la televisión". They may use "el TV" in place of "el televisor" (i.e. the television as a device, not what you watch on it). Mike Dillon 16:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't "mira" take "a" for the object of the verb? Corvus cornix 15:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does if the direct object is a specific person or personified object. That usage is often called the "personal a". Mike Dillon 16:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Mi padre mira la televisión al llegar a casa después de trabajar? That's "My father watches television upon arriving home after work(ing). -- Mwalcoff 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The verb that goes with TV (at least where I come from, Spain) is ver, not mirar. "Mi padre mira la televisión" sounds more like "my father looks at the TV". So it would be, "Mi padre ve la televisión cuando vuelve a casa después de trabajar". As to the second, "Un unicornio es un animal que es mejor que el resto", at least literally. --RiseRover|^talk 19:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple s in geographical names[edit]

The possessive apostrophe is commonly dropped in geographical names, eg. Wilsons Promontory, Pikes Peak, etc. These usages are usually governed by statute. In the USA it's the US Board on Geographic Names. In Australia, each state has its own arrangements, such as Victoria's Geographic Place Names Act 1998. We have a highway in Australia called the Princes Highway, named after a former Prince of Wales (later King Edward VIII). My question is a speculative one, dealing with a theoretical similar highway named after a princess. My guess is that it would be "Princesss Highway". The only problem is that has 3 s's in a row. Would that mitigate against such a naming, or are there precedents for such a sibilant monstrosity? -- JackofOz 12:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's common practice to just stick an apostrophe on the end of a word ending in s, with no additional s after that, so presumably they'd take that route (for that route). --TotoBaggins 13:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bass's Dock, near Ipswich in England, seems to be spelt with the apostrophe everywhere on the Internet... except here:

http://www.photographersdirect.com/buyers/stockphoto.asp?imageid=1284089

Just to confuse things, a landmark in Toronto -- the original main entrance to the CNE grounds -- is the Princes' Gate, which is correctly spelled with one S and an apostrophe because it is named after two princes.

Another sort of triple-S situation occurs with the historic Scottish counties of Inverness-shire and Ross-shire. These are usually spelled with a hyphen like that, but the unhyphenated style with a true triple S is not completely unknown.

--Anonymous, June 25, 2007, 20:23 (UTC).

Thanks. I think this will forever remain a theoretical possibility, if only because many people already mispronounce and/or misspell the Princes Highway as the "Princess Highway", so having a separate correctly spelled "Princess' Highway" would cause endless confusion. Besides, there are no princesses of whom Australians are so fond as to warrant such an honour in these republican times. -- JackofOz 04:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not even Princess Di? Even fierce antiroyalists like Sinéad O'Connor like her. —Angr 05:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much loved, but I suspect the time for memorials to her is now past. She's been somewhat overshadowed of recent years by Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, who probably wouldn't qualify anymore because she had to give up her Australian citizenship to marry Freddy boy. (Despite that, she's regularly referred to in the media as "Australia's Princess Mary" or similar, which I'm sure is very confusing to young Australians). -- JackofOz 06:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although a freak set of a bit over 200 sudden deaths/abdications/marriages to inappropriate people/religious conversions would result in her being Queen of England (or Queen Consort, or whatever the King's wife is normally called), assuming the sudden lack of faith in the monarchy causes an upswelling of support for a republic. Confusing Manifestation 05:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. However, that's about on the same scale of likelihood as ... why, Australia having a "Princesss Highway". :)- JackofOz 05:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toward vs towards[edit]

When is it correst to use toward vs towards?

Basically, either is correct, and they are interchangeable. The only rule is that you should be consistent, at least within a document, and use only one or the other. As I understand it, "toward" is preferred in written American English, while "towards" is preferred in written British English. I think that "towards" may be more common in spoken English on both sides of the Atlantic. Marco polo 14:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly ever see it used now, but toward is the only acceptable spelling when used as an adjective. The -s in towards is an Old English adverbial-genitive ending. — Gareth Hughes 14:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That "toward" is preferred in American is news to me, an American. I hardly ever use "toward", and can't come up with an example where I would use it. Corvus cornix 18:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not even in "Come toward me."? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Though I would say "untoward". Corvus cornix 18:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untoward is an adjective (except in rare circumstances where it's a preposition), and thus shouldn't take the -s ending. In the sentence Come toward me, toward is a proposition. Traditionally, it would receive the adverbial-genitive ending, and Come towards me is still more common in British English. However, the form toward was an important regional variant, especially in the Westcountry, which seems to have been influential on the formation of American English. — Gareth Hughes 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm quite aware that untoward is an adjective. Corvus cornix 15:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OED gives a very good synopsis of this:

In English the history of -wards as an advb. suffix is identical with that of -ward (see -WARD 3 and 4); beside every adv. in -ward there has always existed (at least potentially) a parallel formation in -wards, and vice versa. The two forms are so nearly synonymous (the general sense of the advs. being ‘in the direction indicated by the first element of the compound’) that the choice between them is mostly determined by some notion of euphony in the particular context; some persons, apparently, have a fixed preference for the one or the other form. Sometimes, however, the difference in the form of the suffix corresponds to a difference in the shade of meaning conveyed, though it would not be possible to give any general rule that would be universally accepted. Where the meaning to be expressed includes the notion of manner as well as direction of movement, -wards is required, as in ‘to walk backwards’, ‘to write backwards’. In other instances the distinction seems to be that -wards is used when the adv. is meant to express a definite direction in contrast with other directions: thus we say ‘it is moving forwards if it is moving at all’, but ‘to come forward’, not ‘forwards’ (see further the note on FORWARD adv.); so ‘to travel eastward’ expresses generally the notion of travelling in the direction of an eastern goal, ‘to travel eastwards’ implies that the direction is thought of as contrasted with other possible directions. Hence -wards seems to have an air of precision which has caused it to be avoided in poetical use. There appears to be no appreciable difference in meaning between the prepositions TOWARD and TOWARDS; the latter is now, at least in British use, more common colloquially. The now obsolete prepositions FROMWARD and FROMWARDS appear to have been perfectly synonymous.[1]

Maybe I'm a grammar geek, but I find this fascinating. — Gareth Hughes 14:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The American preference for "toward" in writing was news to me when I began my career as an editor, but if you look at most (all?) American dictionaries, you will find that "toward" is the first form listed. Therefore, it is considered the "preferred" form by editors, who in turn enforce it in published material. I am American, and, as I said, I think that in spoken American English, "towards" is certainly more common. Marco polo 14:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like an odd thing to enforce. Sure, there are some sentences in which one or other variant sounds wrong, but, as the OED points out, most people have a subconscious feel for the 'right' variety. Some editors' style manuals are too prescriptive on this kind of issue. — Gareth Hughes 15:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise for being a grammar geek, Gareth. The world would be lost without us. -- JackofOz 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a/an FAQ[edit]

Should FAQ, when speaking of the document itself, be preceded by "a" or "an"? I've always used "an" since the first syllable of "FAQ" is pronounced "eff" but then I've recently seen it preceded by an "a". I'm guessing that's because it actually stands for Frequently which obviously doesn't start with a vowel sound. Dismas|^(talk) 18:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether you pronounce it like "fack" or like "f. a. q.". Corvus cornix 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most people I know that I've heard seem to pronounce it out as "fack", thus a FAQ makes sense. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to our FAQ article: "Since the acronym originated in textual media, its pronunciation varies; both "fak" and "F.A.Q." are commonly heard." Looking this up on dictionary.com gives two pronunciations: /fæk, ˈɛfˈeɪˈkyu/.[2] --Lambiam ^Talk 19:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pronouce it "fack" so I hadn't thought of that. Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 02:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the harder question is what do you put if writing it, 'a' or 'an'? Personally I would go for 'an', since I've always pronounced it "eff ay queue" rather than "fack". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Never heard "fack" till this question (but I do lead a very secluded life). Tangentially, and I know some would disagree, but I'd only call it an acronym when it's pronounced "fack". When it's "eff ay queue", it's an initialism. -- JackofOz 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it pronounced anything but "fack", and certainly never "eff eh cue". I didn't even know anyone pronounced it that way. To me, it's an acronym. --Charlene 08:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French etymological dictionary[edit]

Can anyone recommend a good French etymological dictionary? I have lots of French-English dictionaries that I used when I was younger but now I am more interested in a real French dictionary. Ideally it would trace etymologies through Latin and Old French. And it would be affordable, and not too enormous! I was trying to search Google and Amazon but I wouldn't even know where to begin. Adam Bishop 21:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a good one; it's the Larousse Nouveau dictionnaire étymologique et historique, ISBN 2-03-710006-X, by Albert Dauzat, Jean Dubois, and Henri Mitterand. It traces words back through Old French to Latin and has a good summary of the sound changes that took place between Latin and French. It's compact and paperback, and presumably affordable or I wouldn't have bought it, though to be honest at this point I have absolutely no idea where or when I bought it or how much it cost. —Angr 21:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Adam Bishop 07:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tones in Mandarin Songs[edit]

When a person sings in Mandarin, do the tones get more relaxed to fit the music? --Duomillia 23:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do, so sometimes it's not easy to decipher what the singer sings. The "musical license" is not so lax in Cantonese, or some other Chinese spoken variants, though. You can take a look at this article, whose bibliography is useful. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article, although a bit poorly written. The link above is to an HTML conversion. Here is the original PDF. --Tugbug 23:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]