Language desk
< May 24	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 25[edit]

French book titles again[edit]

Hello. If the second word in the book title is a noun, it has to be capitalized, such as tour in Le Tour du monde en quatre-vingts jours, right? --K.C. Tang 01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this reference [1] on Google, in About.com. The experts don't seem to agree on everything, though there are many authorities listed that you could check.Bielle 03:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bielle, that's useful. Now at least I know that there's no standard practice. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 03:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above reference (from About .com) refers to Le Bon Usage and Le Petit Robert but in a wrong way. The author tries to guess rules from how book titles are printed in them. I think that we should refer to typographical rules. French typographs seem to agree on most of the rules. See Lexique des règles typographiques en usage à l'Imprimerie nationale or here [2] and for French Canadians here [3]. (Sorry, all these references are in French). Note that contrary to the above reference (from About.com), the rules are not based on the importance of a word in a title, but on the syntax of the title. It worth reading again the above reference (from About.com) after having studied the typographical rules. AldoSyrt 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The document linked by AldoSyrt breathes a strong air of authority—I think I'll use it in the future myself. In connection with the previous discussion, it would prescribe L'Etre et le Néant because (1) Etre is the first word after the definite article (indefinite doesn't count, pace about.com), (2) Néant is "in parallel or in opposition to" Etre. But, as I suggested previously, the actual usage in well-edited French publications is inconsistent. Note that the current French edition prints L'être et le néant on the cover (as I was aware before; I sophistically left this example out because it complicated my point!). This exemplifies that Angr's original suggestion is the rule followed sometimes. But, again, that cheat sheet by Anne-Marie Mortier of the Département des lettres of the Université de Lyon is so Gallically lucid and logical that I will follow it slavishly for the rest of my days. Wareh 17:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But K.C. Tang's original interest was in an authoritative rule for referring to French titles within English writing. The Modern Language Association Handbook says,

There are two widely accepted methods of capitalizing French titles and subtitles of works. One method is to capitalize the first word...and all proper nouns [= Angr's original suggestion above]... This method is normally followed in publications of the MLA. ...[examples, e.g. La guerre de Troie n'aura pas lieu]... In the other method, when a title or subtitle begins with an article, the first noun and any preceding adjectives are also capitalized. [= vaguely stated version of system described in AldoSyrt's link; all the examples have definite article by the way]... In this system, all major words in titles of series and periodicals are sometimes capitalized: Nouvelle Revue d'Onomastique.

I'm sure the Chicago Manual of Style has something similar, perhaps more opinionated or lucid. But the basic point for K.C. Tang's original question is that English stylebooks seem to prescribe following the foreign language's capitalization standards. I am certainly a fan of this; I hate it when English publications print German nouns uncapitalized (in my opinion, unless they've entered English as fully as kindergarten, they keep their capital). Wareh 17:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 02:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Laughing Stock"[edit]

What is the origin of the term "laughing stock"?

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, laughing stock was first recorded in "1519, formed by analogy with whipping-stock "whipping post," later also "object of frequent whipping" (but not attested in writing in this sense until 1678)". Its used in Shakespeare's The Comedy of Errors, and its often erroneously claimed he coined the idiom. It probably arose from the custom of mocking and jeering those who where placed in the stocks: our article notes "public humiliation was a critical aspect of such punishment." Rockpocket 02:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar question on spelling and then writing numbers[edit]

Often in contracts one finds a spelled out number and then the number itself written. For example: twenty (20). Is there a formal name for this numerical repetition and is it grammatical? What is not clear about either the number 20 or the word "twenty" that would require both?

It's descriptively grammatical, in the sense that it's a commonly used device in such contexts. I can't see anything prescriptively ungrammatical about it. From my own involvement in formal writing, I believe it's to make the quantity absolutely clear so that nobody can argue about it later. It may stem from the days when contracts were typed on a typewriter, each document had to be separately typed, and no errors or whiteouts were allowed. If a typo did slip through unnoticed (say, rendering the 20 as 200), the word "twenty" would let the reader know there was an inconsistency that they ought to check out before signing it. It may also be a hangover from the olden days when everything in a contract was spelled out in words (Signed on the Twenty-seventh day of February in the year of Our Lord Seventeen Hundred and Sixty Four, etc). JackofOz 04:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as a side note, there is no legal requirement that numbers be so spelled out, just as there's no requirement that a contract be written at all (though it's a damn good idea, as verbal ones are not easily enforced). At this point in human history, both writing the number and spelling it out is basically legalese overkill, which some folks may think makes a document "more legal": it doesn't. (Keep in mind, of course, that IANAL.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC). Link added -- Anonymous, May 25, 05:07 (UTC).[reply]

Of course you mean oral contracts are not easily enforced. All writing (other than mathematical notation) is verbal, i.e., in words. (I assume giggles about one use of the word oral are why verbal tends to displace it.) —Tamfang 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it's a good idea is that numbers written in digits are more legible but lack redundancy: any typo is likely to produce a different number with no hint that it was wrong. If a typo turns the number 348 into 384 or 349, there's no way to tell. If it's written out as "three hundred and forty-eigth" or "three hundred and forty-eighy", it's more trouble to read, but you can see the error. (Whether there's an "and" in there depends on what national version of English you speak.) Note that it's not just contracts where the amount is written twice; it's also customary on checks if they are not printed by a computer.

As to grammar, I think "twenty (20)" may be considered a form of apposition. Specifically, it is a parenthesis — the term does not refer to the punctuation mark here, but the construct.

--Anonymous, May 25, 2007, 05:04 (UTC).

A few years ago I noticed, while doing some data entry, that of the 45 pairs of digits there are damn few that can't be confused in sloppy writing. If a number is expressed in two different ways it's harder to get it wrong in the same way twice. —Tamfang 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal language is littered with redundancies, so I'd have been surprised if the lawyers had not taken advantage of such an opportunity to pad their billable hours. To wit: "cease and desist", last "will and testament", "on or about", "null and void", "give, devise, and bequeath", "remise, release, and forever discharge", "aid and abet", "fit and proper", "unless and until", and so on. --TotoBaggins 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it has rhyme and reason (hah!) because judicial systems used to use both Anglo and French terms. --Kjoonlee 19:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some of those examples, the terms yoked have subtly or not so subtly different meanings. Cease means stop; desist means don't start again. Fit means suitable for the purpose, without respect to ethics; proper means (roughly) ethical, without respect to fitness. Unless and until emphasizes that if you do X before Y happens, Y doesn't retroactively let you off the hook (as it might without until). —whups, forgot to sign it. Tamfang 21:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

default[edit]

It seems to me that using the word "default", as we do in computer science, is wrongly used. Can anyone enlighten me as to how we came to use this word as we do? Thanks wsc

In connection with computer interfaces, "default" is shorthand for "default value", which is the value taken "by default". In this fuller form, the use is quite standard. The shorthand form is not – or, at least, not (yet?) outside the context of computer programs for which some parameter may be specified but may also be omitted. By itself, however, such shortenings are a normal language mechanism, like how "Turkey fowl" (because the bird was traded via Turkey) was shortened to "turkey". Other computer jargon is "to default to", as in: "This option defaults to not selected" ( = "The value taken by default for this option is not selected").

I don't think it's really wrongly used at all. Default is like what happens if no actions have been acted upon it. So default settings, factory default, winning by default, etc, all seem to fit fine. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard people use the word "delivery" as short for "delivery address" (as in: "The delivery turned out to be an empty warehouse"). Maybe this is not "wrongly used", but it is definitely not common usage. Whether "default", when used as a noun with the meaning "default value" or "default setting" instead of as a modifier, is wrong or not, it is not commonly used as a noun with this meaning outside the context of computer programs - or at least not until recently; perhaps it is escaping from that context as this jargon works its way into user manuals and such. The usual and conventional meaning of the word "default" as a noun is "failure to fulfill an obligation" (such as to appear in court or at a match, or to pay an installment), as in: "Reimbursement of the incurred damages as a result of this default will be levied". --Lambiam ^Talk 06:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the propriety of the term is not addressed in our article, you may want to read default (computer science) anyway, as it was written, in large part, by a rather brilliant editor. :-) StuRat 00:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]