: It is grammatically correct. Interestingly enough, it happens to be semantically equivalent to "I couldn't care less". [[Special:Contributions/124.214.131.55|124.214.131.55]] ([[User talk:124.214.131.55|talk]])
: It is grammatically correct. Interestingly enough, it happens to be semantically equivalent to "I couldn't care less". [[Special:Contributions/124.214.131.55|124.214.131.55]] ([[User talk:124.214.131.55|talk]])
:: This comes up regularly on here (and elsewhere). See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=could+care+less&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReference+desk%2FArchives&fulltext=Search+reference+desk+archives&fulltext=Search this archive search]. [[User:AndrewWTaylor|AndrewWTaylor]] ([[User talk:AndrewWTaylor|talk]]) 13:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
:: This comes up regularly on here (and elsewhere). See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=could+care+less&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReference+desk%2FArchives&fulltext=Search+reference+desk+archives&fulltext=Search this archive search]. [[User:AndrewWTaylor|AndrewWTaylor]] ([[User talk:AndrewWTaylor|talk]]) 13:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
:Note that there is a difference between [[grammar]] and [[semantics]]. The classic example of the distinction is "[[colorless green ideas sleep furiously]]" which is grammatically sound, but semantic nonsense. The complaint about "I could care less" is not that it is grammatically wrong, but that its literal meaning is opposite of what the speaker intend to convey. It's "wrong" in that sense, but the phenomenon of a phrase as a whole having a meaning different from the literal interpretation of the parts is so common in English and other languages that there is a word for it: "[[idiom]]". -- [[Special:Contributions/174.21.224.109|174.21.224.109]] ([[User talk:174.21.224.109|talk]]) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
== Angel hierarchy words ==
== Angel hierarchy words ==
Revision as of 18:25, 31 January 2010
Welcome to the language section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
There appear to be a small number of names in English which begin with "Ff" or "ff". (For example, novelist Jasper Fforde). What is the origin of this? My only guess would be that it's from Welsh, but that's hardly an educated guess. (And regardless of origin, why is the first F sometimes not capitalised? Something to do with the ff ligature not having an appropriate version?) -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The first one does indeed sound better, being easier to enunciate. But as for correctness, only the second one ticks the boxes. If it were "There ... two boys in the garden", there'd be no doubt as to what word would fit - "are", because it's a plural subject. Same for the plural subject "a boy and a girl".
But both of these alternatives could and almost certainly would be replaced by "There's a boy and a girl in the garden" in colloquial speech. There's has virtually become the default norm, regardless of the number of the subject.
It's almost the same reason you say "it is raining cats and dogs". Cats and dogs are actually the object in that sentence so it's not exactly the same, but in "there is a boy and a girl", the boy and the girl are appositive to the impersonal construction "there is". The main subject is "there". As you said, the only time this doesn't work is if the following word is a number. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Baseball Bugs: That seems rather ... synthetic to me.
"A boy and a girl ... in the garden" - is it 'is' or 'are? Only 'are', obviously. Turn it around to the "There is/are" form, and nothing changes, syntactically speaking.
@ Adam Bishop: It's one thing to say "It's raining cats and dogs" (although I disagree that "cats and dogs" is the subject: that is the object, the subject being "it"), but would you ever say "Look, there is cats and dogs running all over the garden"? I hope not. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Bishop: "There" is almost certainly not the subject here. In generative syntax (at least the versions that I'm aware of), boy and girl are considered to be the subjects and "there" is an expletive. And even in high school style prescriptive grammar, they teach that boy and girl are the subjects (although I believe they call it "empty subject" or something). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs08:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My construct assumes the first sentence is correct, which I'm not so sure of. If you change it to "there is 2 children", it doesn't sound right at all. If you switch it around and say "in the garden there is a boy and girl", that doesn't sound right either. So maybe "there are" is correct. I wonder if there is an actual English major and/or someone with an English grammar textbook reading this page? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 08:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't exactly answer the question, but it might provide some insight on pinning it down. My old Webster's doesn't have a grammar section as such, but under "there" it has some usage notes which includes this: "There is sometimes used with some intransitive verbs, frequently to be, as an anticipatory subject, as in once upon a time there lived a king who had three sons." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 08:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One style book on my desk says, "After introductory here and there a singular verb is usually preferred when the logical subject consists of substantives joined by and, with the first one singular in number" (Words into Type, p. 355). Deor (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about "the king and the queen"? I think that "Here are the king and the queen" - is grammatically correct, and this is also the case when "here" is replaced by "there", right? However, "there are a king and a queen" - doesn't sound correct, probably becuase of the "a" following the "are". HOOTmag (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a different sentence structure, and a different "there". It's not existential, it's "pointy" (i.e., you say it as if you're pointing to them). There's the king and queen! doesn't mean "the king and queen exist", it means "hey, i see the king and queen right there!" (If you don't believe me, many other languages express these two concepts in entirely different ways. For example, French has il y avait un roi et une reine for the existential, and Voilà le roi et le reine! for the pointy.) Incidentally, the other thing that makes this sentence different is definiteness: sentences with "the" are more likely to have the pointy reading, sentences with "a" more likely to have the existential. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That said, for me, There is has become almost like Spanish hay as an indeclinable form for number in colloquial speech. I still use it correctly in writing. Steewi (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that different people have different absolute ideas of what is appropriate. There is no central regulating authority in the English language, so is it possible that there is no single standard for this case? Also, perhaps it could be different in US English, UK English, Australia English, etc? Just a thought... Falconusptc22:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what context? A base hit that goes over second base is "up the middle", past the middle infielders. The "middle of the road" politically is "moderate", metaphorically, as opposed to stripe that runs down the middle of a road. We refer to our stomach as our "middle". It's a rather diverse word. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most obvious synonym for "middle" is "center". In fact, I often use "middle" rather than "center" in contexts where I don't want to commit myself to British or American spelling. +Angr15:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word "enough" is often used with mass nouns, as in "enough water", "enough money", or "enough participation". This sounds fine to my ear. However, I am now trying to write a sentence in which "enough" is used with a count noun: "If the paper is folded enough times to make 63 creases, the 41st crease will be an 'in' crease." This sounds awkward and clumsy to me. Is my unease justifiable here? I could say "sufficiently many times", but I am wondering if that sounds too mathematically formal for a casual audience. Suggestions? —Bkell (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. Thanks for the suggestion. I'm still curious whether there is something wrong with "enough times" or if I'm just hypercorrecting based on the distinction between "less" and "fewer". —Bkell (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "inward" is better than "in", but the book I am referencing contrasts "in" and "out" creases, so I am using those terms. The connection between 63 and 41 is that folding a strip of paper in half repeatedly always results in a number of creases that is one less than a power of 2, and 63 is the least power-of-2-minus-1 that is at least 41. In fact the number of folds is irrelevant, as long as there are enough of them so that it makes sense to speak of the 41st one. It turns out that the idea I was trying to explain was wrong, so I ended up removing this sentence anyway. Oh well. —Bkell (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When all else fails, try it. :) I assume what they mean by a "crease" is each portion of a fold that helps delineate a smaller square or rectangle. Fold a paper once, you get one crease, which is inward. Fold it again, the opposite direction, and you get 2 "long" creases, except the "long" creases forms the edges of 4 squares, hence 4 "short" creases (3 of them inward, 1 outward). Fold it crosswise a third time and you have 8 squares bordered by 10 short creases. Fold it crosswise a fourth time and you have 16 squares bordered by 24 short creases, of which 10 are outward and 14 are inward, if I counted correctly and if I'm understanding the concept correctly. And so on. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41 is just a number I picked out of the air to use as an example. In my sentence I am saying that we can determine whether the 41st crease (or any other particular crease) is "in" or "out" without needing to know how many folds were used to produce the creases, except for the silly requirement that we have to have at least 41 creases so that we can talk about the 41st one. The folding process is done on a long strip of paper, and consists of repeatedly bringing the right-hand side of the strip to lay on top of the left-hand side and pressing it flat. The folds go the same way each time, so the creases do not cross each other. Folding a strip of paper in half five times will produce 31 creases—not enough to have a 41st crease to speak about. But fold it in half a sixth time and you'll get 63 creases, and the 41st crease from the left will be an "in" crease. This remains true if you fold it seven times to get 127 creases, or eight times to get 255 creases, or whatever—the 41st crease will always be an "in" crease. Anyway, this has become quite a tangential discussion from my original question. —Bkell (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very curious to learn what the lyrics to Pata Pata, by Miriam Makeba, mean. The song is easily found on YouTube, Google, what have you, and so are the lyrics, but I can't find a translation anywhere. (Well, there's one for a cover of the song by someone called El General, but these seem unlikely to be the original ones.) --Trovatore (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the first five or so, every one of them looked fine to me. I have nothing further to say on this conversation, as your lack of gratitude for a volunteer's attempting at assisting you is telling. Woogee (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just so anyone observing can judge for him/herself, this is the first hit for the exact string "pata pata" lyrics english, with the double-quotes as marked: http://www.lyricsdownload.com/miriam-makeba-pata-pata-lyrics.html. It has no English translation at all. There are a few English words; they are present in the easiest-to-find performance by Makeba herself, and are not a translation. --Trovatore (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a translation into English, but this purports to be the lyrics in Spanish. It doesn't quite map to the Xhosa version, so it might be in error, but I suspect it is probably a Spanish version sung by Makeba. Warofdreamstalk23:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I appreciate the effort (and even Woogee's effort, as far as that goes; I just didn't appreciate the implication that I was incompetent to do a simple search). But I don't think this is a translation of the original. You see that it mentions Thalia, who like El General appears to be someone who covered the song with a Latin reinterpretation.
There are no "translations" in the first two links. Maybe that's what threw Woogie off. Those are English words spoken to the audience in the middle of the song. --Trovatore (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am teaching myself Italian but am slightly worried that, while I know how to pronounce words, I may not be stressing the correct syllable and wondered if anyone had any advice on where I might find a program that pronounces words for me somewhere on the web that I could download or, indeed, any other suggestions anyone might have. Thanks 131.111.247.136 (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Interesting site, that Forvo, but it looks like the phrases are chosen kind of at random; I didn't get the sense that you were likely to find the pronunciation of the specific word you wanted).
A few general remarks that you may already know:
The map from Italian spelling to pronunciation is mostly deterministic; stress is one of the few things that isn't always clear.
In almost all cases, if stress is not explicitly marked by an accented vowel, it will be on either the penultimate or antepenultimate syllable (second or third to last).
Oh wait, I thought of another exception here — a word that ends in a compound vowel is stressed on the final syllable: andAI, potEI. I can't think of an exception to the exception; if anyone thinks of one please let me know. --Trovatore (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a number of adjectives indicating material which terminate with -eo/ei: acqueo argenteo aureo bronzeo...plumbeo sulfureo vitreo, and few substantives like cuneo gluteo. I can't find a counterexample to the rule you said with -ai (just Sinai), while counterexamples with -io seem more common than examples (actually I don't know if you referred to diphthongs or not). Here Latin helps, in any case. --pma20:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, these are good points, but in those cases I hear the last two vowel letters as separate syllables. I meant when they're a single syllable. I'm not sure how Italians consider syllabicity in these cases — I have heard a native speaker say come stai with stai pronounced (as I hear it, anyway) as two syllables. --Trovatore (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike English, there is no notion of "secondary stress" — one stressed syllable to a word. Not sure if this applies to ripidevolissimevolmente, but for normal words anyway.
One common systematic one to remember is the third-person-plural imperfect, like anDAvano. This is always third-to-last.
And third-person-plural past subjuctive: FOSsero, andASsero.
However second-person-plural of all of these is second-to-last: andaVAte, poTESte.
But of course that still leaves some cases where it isn't clear. Sometimes these can even affect meaning: ANcora "anchor" versus anCOra "still, again". (Sometimes the first is spelled àncora to disambguate.)
Why is it widely published that J.K. Rowling in answer to the question 'how did she INVENT the word Muggle' says she toog the MUG a in 'a mug - foolish person?' and added GLE. She DID NOT INVENT the word, I and a multitude of boys used it to signify a 'Marble' the game being 'Mugles'; and was in use in my childhood in 1935. This word has been used in this context and is to be seen in print in quite a few books.
The entry should be corrected to USED the word; she may have thought she invented it BUT SHE DID NOT and to perpetuate the myth is wrong!
You want to update the page to say that you used the same word to mean something different in 1935? Even if you could prove it enough for Wikipedia's standards, that's not in the least relevant. If I remember correctly, the Oxford English Dictionary has listed the word "emailed" from its early days, but that doesn't mean people had invented email back then. (It's a heraldic term meaning "covered with (plate) mail".) Marnanel (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to all the points other have made, W E Gibson (and please don't SHOUT at us!), even if the word had been in use in a similar sense, that doesn't mean that Rowling couldn't have invented it for herself: unless you can show that she was likely to have heard it, you have no grounds for saying she did not invent it. --ColinFine (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SOED says muggle L20. [ORIGIN Invented by J. K. Rowling, the Brit. writer of the Harry Potter books, and used by her to mean ‘a person without magical powers’.] A person who is not conversant with a particular activity or skill. (It also list a separate word muggle meaning marijuana.) Mitch Ames (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My 1960 Webster's doesn't have any version of "muggle" or "mugle", but one of the several slang meanings for "mug" says "(British) a dupe." I wonder if that relates - someone who is basically a greenhorn or a rube. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Muggles, 1928Jazz lovers were familiar with the 1928 Louis ArmstrongMuggles (recording) long before Rowling first set pen to paper, with the meaning of a joint of marijuana. Armstrong is said to have been fond of muggles. Time magazine wrote about these muggles in 1931. It was a very common term. Edison (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Name for coins and notes
Is there a one-word name for coins and notes? "Cash" would not do as that includes cash in the bank, which is more likely to be electronic than tangible. "Money" is too general a word. Thanks 89.242.94.72 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I"m not sure that anyone would confuse cash in the bank with physical cash if the context is clear, though I tend to think of "Cash" as bills only. If someone were to ask how much cash do you have, I wouldn't assume it to mean what's in my wallet plus what's in the bank. Aaronite (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to both OP and Flyguy649, I note that our Cash article says (with my bold for emphasis): "Cash refers to money in the physical form of currency, such as banknotes and coins", and our Currency article says "... currency can refer either to a particular currency, for example the US dollar, or to the coins and banknotes of a particular currency." The SOED says cash is "Ready money, actual coins, notes, etc ... coins, or coins and banknotes, as opp. to cheques and orders", but also "{colloquially) money, wealth", and currency is "The money or other commodity which is in circulation as a medium of exchange". Mitch Ames (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, the meaning seems to be changing. I often see TV ads for one-day sales, where buyers are told "cash only". But often, these are furniture stores, where individual items can cost many hundreds of dollars, sometimes into the thousands, so they're surely not expecting customers to have that much ready cash on them. In that case, it means they can still access their bank accounts using plastic cards and do not have to carry any physical banknotes or coins. But payment arrangements such as "no deposit, no interest, no payments for 20 years" or whatever outlandish gimmicks they generally have these days, are not available. And payment by cheque is out of the question (for the vanishingly small number of outlets that still generally accept cheque payment these days). You have to pay in full, on the day of purchase, but contrary to the literal meaning of "cash only", you don't have to fork over actual physical banknotes to the value of, say, $1,500 for an item selling at $1,500. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite common to see lotteries or promotions advertising "cash" prizes, often for large amounts (eg tens of thousands of dollars) that are unlikely to be paid in actual notes - more likely as cheque or bank deposit. Here's an example, which includes the following text: You will win a cash prize ..., and further down: Winnings can only be paid by cheque: we cannot pay winnings using cash, .... Here's another one (PDF) that says Cash prizes will be paid by cheque. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both "cash" and "currency" are correct answers for some people, but other people -- or maybe the same people at different times -- use the words with other meanings. It's English. You can't win. :-) --Anonymous, 04:55 UTC, January 24, 2010.
Perhaps "ready money" or "readies" (UK) is the term you're looking for? "Cash" in the UK certainly can mean cash at the bank as well as actual notes and coins. An estate agent welcomes what he calls a "cash buyer", particularly in these credit-poor times, but the purchase price is transferred by CHAPS from the buyer's bank account, not handed over in a briefcase. A car dealer is less keen on a "cash buyer", since this prevents him selling the customer a car loan and earning commission on it, but he will accept card or bank draft payment for the full amount, and will refuse to accept more than a certain amount in notes - most large dealers display signs to that effect. Part of the change in meaning may be to do with the international clampdown on money laundering, which has made it harder to use large sums of physical cash money for this kind of transaction, alongside the rise of the debit card as an effective replacement for ready money. Karenjc12:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A long time later but came across this while searching for something else. In NZ you will sometimes get a better deal at stores during negotiation if you are a 'cash' buyer which would normally include EFTPOS a debit card but one where the fees, if any, are incurred by the card holder, unlike credit cards where the store will incur a fee. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I googled [same word opposite meaning] and this page[1] was one that turned up and put me on to "auto-antonym". "Fast" and "overlook" are mentioned. There's a link to detail page that has a bunch of them. FYI, I looked up "cleave", and both meanings come from the same root, which is related to "cloven", as in an animal with a naturally split hoof. The only thing I can figure the two opposite meanings have in common is that the two objects are separate but close together. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The generally accepted eymologies have the two cleaves as separate words with separate origins. The "adhere" one comes from the Old English weak verb clifian (akin to clǣg, "clay"), whereas the "separate" one comes from the Old English strong verb clëofan, a descendant of the Indo-European root *gleubh-. Deor (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly not include your example of bad, which appears to arise from sarcasm, much as "fat chance" being equivalent to "slim chance" (and thus the opposites of both also refer to the opposites of the opposites :) and the name "Tiny" being used to refer to very large people. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)13:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the late 80s in England some kids used to say "bad" with a high-low-high intonation to mean "tremendously good", with no sarcasm whatsoever. That reminds me; "wicked" can mean tremendously good and tremendously bad as well. --Kjoonlee23:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Granted -- by its use, I meant to refer to the object of my query in a punny way (the word that means not only what it means [same] but also its opposite [different]). DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)02:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And then there's that special sub-group of pairs of homophones (words that are spelled differently but pronounced the same) that have contrary meanings; e.g. "raise" and "raze". I don't know if these have a name - antohomophononym, perhaps? homonymantophone? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whirling dervish
I am not a native speaker of English, I just translate books writenin English to Hungarian. As I read my book I found the expression whirling dervish. In this case it is said to an animal. I looked up the word in Wiktionary, and I found there that it is an expression. Colud somebody descibe me its meaning? --Ksanyi (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me. Leave me to copy here the original sentence. "I actually touched the plate and and the honey badger turned into a roaring wherling dervish!" Thank you foryour help again. --Ksanyi (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, what do you call it when something "is eaten" but you don't say who ate it?
Secondly, I realised today that quiet a common verb can only be used as above, and I meant to check it up but I have forgotten what it was! Lets assume that it was sink, well you can only say that "the boat sank" and you can never ever say "John sank the boat" with this verb, it just sounds wrong. I believe it's just a noun turned into a verb, though I think it's quite common. Can anyone help me with identifying this verb? I was studying the theme of revenge in the play Hamlet in English class at the time so I think it's comething to do with vengeance. Thanks! 92.251.225.38 (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To your first question, you're talking about passive voice and active voice.
"John ate the apple" is active voice.
"The apple was eaten" is passive voice.
But note that it's still possible to state who is doing the action: "The apple was eaten by John".
This is not always done, though, depending on the context. "The election has been held and the votes have been counted" - it's not necessary to state who or what held the election (because in the context in which this sentence appears it would be blindingly obvious it was, say, a Peruvian election and not a Senegalese election), and it's not important to state who actually counted the votes (unless there's some issue about administrative procedures, corruption, miscounting etc.). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are passive verbs without active counterparts, such as "born" or "rumored." In these cases, the active form of the verb generally exists but has fallen out of use. I can't immediately think of one having to do with vengeance, but perhaps someone else can. John M Baker (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, passive voice - to be avoided if at all possible, especially in business communications. And sure you can say "John sank the boat", just as surely as you can say "the German sub sank the Lusitania". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, the OP knew the latter full well; his text "with this verb" makes it plain that he was merely using "sank" as a place-holder that does not itself exemplify what he wanted. In your customary headlong rush towards a quip, please try to slow down enough actually to read the query properly :-). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic, ain't it? :) It's natural to fall into it. But when you read a memo filled with passive voice, it's enough to make you run your fingernails down the author's dry-erase board. We had a business communication seminar some years ago in which they told us to write in active voice if at all possible. (There was an example of active voice.) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As with all such seminars, there's a risk of taking the information and applying it in an unthinking, black-and-white way. There's nothing wrong with the passive voice per se; most if not all major languages have their versions of it. It's just that, if overused, it can come across as stuffy, dry, impersonal, uninteresting and boring (the worst sin of all for a writer, much worse than mere grammatical rules). Journalists know when to use it to good effect: to hide the fact that they don't know something. You'll never read "I haven't had the energy, interest, balls, or whatever it takes to find out where the person is", but you will read "The person's current whereabouts are not known". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it has its place - a small place. The reason the instructor discouraged it is because "it sounds bureaucratic" and also often sounds like whatever action described is being done by some phantom, as opposed to someone specific taking action. It also typically reads better, crisper. Here's an example: A sign in the break room saying, "Dishes are to be rinsed before putting in dishwasher" vs. "Please rinse your dishes before putting in dishwasher." And someone told me this one recently: "I saw a sign in the restroom that said, 'Employees must wash hands.' I waited a long time, but no employees came in to wash my hands, so I had to do it myself." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That last example has nothing to do with the passive voice, though. The problem with the first example is not only the passive voice, but also the fact that in "Dishes are to be rinsed before putting in dishwasher", dishes has to be interpreted as the subject of putting, a reading which makes no sense (partially because putting then has no direct object, and partially because dishes are inanimate objects incapable of putting anything anywhere). It should at least read "Dishes are to be rinsed before being put in dishwasher", but I agree the active "Please rinse your dishes before putting them in the dishwasher" is clearer. +Angr15:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with both examples is that it doesn't say who's supposed to take action. It doesn't tell me to rinse the dishes, it only says "someone" must rinse them. That gets me off the hook, since I can assume someone else will do it. The second one is more of an unintentional ambiguity. I think I've also seen it as "hands are to be washed", etc. For some reason, those signmakers are reluctant to say, "YOU! Do this!" and it sounds weaselly. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parents often use the passive voice when giving strict instructions to their children: "This room is to be cleaned by the time I get back from the beauty parlour"; "This food is just for show, and is not to be eaten". In both cases, individual children or groups of children are in no doubt that they personally are being told what to do or what not to do, but the form of the instructions might appear to belie that. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The boat sank" isn't actually an example of passive voice, by the way. You're observing that some verbs allow multiple different argument structures (that is, structures of the nouns involved in them), and "X sank" and "Y sank X" are both allowed for "sank". The passive, though, is "X was sunk (by Y)". rspεεr (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not bothered by the passive voice when it has been used by someone else and then heard or read by me. Readers might be surprised when they are told my attitude about the passive voice, but it is hoped that no one will be bothered by my attitude. My comment is hereby signed and delivered. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The urban dictionary takes a shot at explaining its usage, if not its origin.[2] One thing I didn't know is that supposedly its primary usage was as a benign subject-changer if someone was trying to raise a political issue. It would be an odd variation on saying something like, "How about this weather!" or "How about those [insert sports team name here]!" The frequent and nonsensical usage by kids strikes me as being vaguely similar to the ubiquitous WWII graffit, "Kilroy was here", which was still commonly known into the 1960s, but you don't see it much anymore. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A wild guess: perhaps it's related to Weebl and Bob, a popular internet cartoon which frequently makes reference to liking pie. That there's nothing special about the phrase "I like pie" is the reason there isn't a Wikipedia article. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that's such a wild guess, actually. Having the article domestic sheep watchlisted means I see how many dozens of vandalising edits are made that say, "Weebl invented sheep". Presumably the cartoon's viewers have decided to share Weebl's inventiveness and his fondness for pie with our encyclopaedia. Maedin\talk11:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have the machine translation of the following paragraph. It mentions "the dome ringed dove". Is there such a dove? Is the translation correct?
The para: Schwerpunkt der Arbeit: Allgemeine Sozialfragen, Probleme der Berufsausbildung, Aufzucht und Pflege der geringelten Haubentaube in Mitteleuropa und anderswo, Untersuchung des Nord-Süd-Gefälles im Bundesgebiet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.0.135 (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia.de: Tauben lists Hauben-Fruchttauben (Lopholaimus) ;Hauben-Fruchttaube (L. antarcticus), but I suspect dome is a mistranslation of Haube (meaning cover, lamp shade and the like). 195.35.160.133 (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]
Why is it that when the plural of 'person' is grammatically correct as 'persons',it sounds much more stilted than 'people'?I only ever seem to see 'persons' in Chinese take-aways (a meal for 5 persons) or on signs (Persons under 18 will not be admitted).
I recall First Husband being used in newspapers when Hillary C. had a chance of becoming president. I don't think First Lady/Husband are official titles.195.35.160.133 (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]
Our article First Lady says the male equivalent is a "First Gentleman". However, traditionally the First Lady was not necessarily the wife of the President, but rather the hostess of the White House. Thus unmarried and widowed Presidents have had First Ladies who were not their wife (see List of First Ladies of the United States#Footnotes). In that sense, when a woman is elected President of the U.S., she will presumably also be the hostess at White House functions and will therefore serve as her own First Lady. +Angr15:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the last TV series based on this premise, Commander in Chief, the president's husband was the First Gentleman. But that's fiction. --Anonymous, 00:27 UTC, January 27, 2010.
Hi all! I am attending a Chinese three-course meal tonight (in the UK) and when looking at the menu on-line just now, I realized that it has only been posted in pinyin. I've managed to work out that the first course, Sze Chuen Tong, must be a Szechuan soup made with pork and shrimps, but I am a bit at a loss with the main course: Kung Pao xiao ji. Google is singularly unhelpful and I'm guessing chicken here with Kung Pao being just a proper noun, but I am not sure. The dessert (?) is Dàn jí shì, and for this one, too, I can't find translations. Thanks for helping! --129.67.116.59 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a weird combination of pinyin (tong, xiao ji) and Wade-Giles (Sze Chuen instead of Sichuan and Kung Pao instead of gongbao. I don't know what any of it means, though. +Angr18:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on Kung Pao chicken (the term for chicken used in the Pinyin name there is different from "xiao ji", but searches on the Web seem to indicate that the latter does refer to chicken). Googling also indicates that "dàn jí shì" may refer to custard. I'm sure that people who actually know the language will weigh in. Deor (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Dàn jí shì" seems to be pinyin for 蛋吉士, literally "egg cheese", which seems to be a regional term for "egg custard" as Deor pointed out.
Kung Pao is the "traditional" transliteration for Gong Bao, as in [[Kung Pao chicken]. My guess is that the "xiao" here is 小, "small", as in "Kung Pao spring chicken".
Sze Chuen most likely refers to Sichuan, and I'm guessing "Tong" is 汤, tang, "soup". "Sichuan soup" could mean any of a number of soups, but seems to usually indicate a hot and spicy soup base for broiling fish, meat or tofu in. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the suppositions so far are correct by my understanding. Sichuan soup (that is, a spicy soup - Sichuan cuisine is famous for being spicy), Kungpao chicken is what it's usually called in English. Xiaoji just means small chicken, or chick, which probably just means that it's a spring chicken. Danjishi is indeed egg custard (and quite tasty). Steewi (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ec:Wouldn't that make it a marinade, then, if the soup was used for broiling? Otherwise, you could say that the food is boiled in the soup, or, if you are referring to the method, that would be poaching.174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, egg custard in Chinese cuisine, is VERY different from European custard. AFAIK, I do not think they use dairy products in the custard. The custard does not turn out as creamy, and it's harder in that sense.174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... (also called egg custard in Northern England, though it can be quite hard set.) What is the recipe for the Chinese version? Dbfirs23:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just taking a guess, but there is a Chinese dish sometimes called "steam eggs," in which beaten eggs are placed, in a bowel, in a bain-marie style vessel or "steaming pot." It's not a dessert. This may be what is being described...--71.111.194.50 (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of the dictionaries I tried that are accessible online via www.onelook.com, the Compact Oxford, American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, and Random House all list it under the spelling nana and say that it's baby-talk or similar; the Compact Oxford specifically says it's a child's pronunciation of "nanny" or "gran". Encarta gives "nana" as the primary spelling and "nanna" as an alternate, and says it's derived from Spanish. --Anonymous, 05:49 UTC, January 27, 2010.
Wiktionary only gives "grandma" as a synonym, but "nanny" (as in in-house child care, a la Mary Poppins) is another synonym. Both "nanny" and "nanna" were used in that film as equivalents, in fact. But then there's the issue of a "nanny goat", a female goat. My old Webster's is of no help with that one. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OED gives nana, nanna, nan-nan, as child talk, 1st attested in Pepys' diary, c. 1844.
Nanny, nannie is different. As the name of a child's nurse, it's the pet form of Annie; this is also the source of nanny goat (cf. billy goat). kwami (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I know about anything is what I've learned from the movies and TV. In Mary Poppins, the proper Mr. Banks talked about a British nanny. Meanwhile, the hired help referred to the previous nanny as "Katie nanna" or some such. Maybe the two terms are unrelated and have kind of come together. Though why Annie would equate to a child's nurse is hard to figure. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In British English we have "nanny" meaning a paid child carer, "Nanny", a child's word for grandmother, and "Nana", also a child's word for grandmother. "Nanny" and "nana" to call grandmothers is still a recognizably working-class usage, although it's changing quickly. In working-class families traditionally "Nanny" is the father's mother and "Nana" the mother's mother but I don't think this distinction is observed very consistently these days. Middle-class families are more likely to use "grandma" or "granny" and may also use these two words to distinguish the father's and mother's mothers. My guess is that "nanny" for a child carer is an infant pronunciation of "nurse" or "nursemaid", while "nanny" and "nana" are infant pronunciations of "grandmother" (inaccurate pronunciations but then babies will be babies). Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's such a common word in American English anymore. But supposedly the first thing the somewhat-nervous Johnny Carson said to the studio audience the night he took over the Tonight Show in 1962 was, "I want my nanna!" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Itsmejudith: That's fascinating about how, traditionally, "Nanny" is the father's mother and "Nana" the mother's mother,and how the "rules" are often ignored. In Australia, young children are usually taught to call each of their grandmothers one of "Nanna", "Nanny" or "Nan", and much less often, "Granny" or "Gran". The woman chooses her preferred name. For a set of grandkids by one child she might be "Nan", but to their cousins by another of her children she might be "Nanna", for example. That may be because her preferred name for the 2nd lot was already taken by those kids' other grandmother, and it would be confusing for the kids to have both grandmothers called "Nanna", say. Whereas, grandmothers can deal with being known by different names by different grandkids better than the grandkids could deal with having 2 grandmothers being known by the same name. Having to specify "Nanna Smith" as distinct from "Nanna Jones" would be such a burden for kids. And yet, my grandmothers were just as often referred to as "Nan <surname>" and "Nanny <surname>", even though "Nan" and "Nanny" would have sufficed to identify them. So, it's a bit blurry at the edges. Grandfathers seem to have a wider range of names: Pop, Poppy, Grandad, Grandpa, maybe a couple of others. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We always called them Grandpa and Grandma [last name] when referring to them, and simply Grandpa and Grandma when addressing them. No nannies or nannas in our family. The point being it could be a regional or cultural thing. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Cornish and very Victorian, middle-class (paternal) grandmother was "Nanny" while my working-class, Glaswegian maternal grandmother was "Grandma". I'm not sure the rules were as clear-cut as some suppose. Alansplodge (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The clue is Drink with railway-man who's not single! (6,6). Known letters (all of which I am confident of) are -o-b-e -r---y. I suspect that the first word is double (ie not single, and possible qualifier for a drink, eg double whiskey), but can't find any second word that fits the clue. Can someone help please? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, Bugs. No, in the 1980s, I only watched the San Francisco 49ers, because I had a crush on Joe Montana. +Angr07:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The OED's entry suggests that it's an abbreviated form of the expression "to harp upon one string" or "to harp upon the same string", meaning "to repeat a statement or dwell on a subject to a wearisome or tedious length". That expression (as well as simple "harp on") dates back to the 16th century, when perhaps instrument choices were less extensive. (As well as less appropriate in some cases. "Flute upon one hole"?) See also Johnny One Note. Deor (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like Deor's explanation best. However, where and how did 'to harp' come to mean 'to play the harp'? We don't say that somebody is 'violining', or 'pianoing', or 'guitaring'. Nor do we ever say that a harpist is 'harping', except in the long form of this expression. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's the second reference to harpies. I don't see the connection between mythological annoying bird-creatures and the annoying repetition of something - apart from the annoyance factor. To convert "harpy" into "to harp (on)" seems etymologically abnormal and it would never have occurred to me to make such a connection. I still don't. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Revised Edition of Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable by Ivor H. Evans (Cassell, 1983, p.532) "to harp" in the sense of repeating an argument is short for "to harp forever on the same string". Eric Partridge on page 550 of Origins, A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English (Greenwich House, 1983), suggests that "Harpy" derives from a Greek cognate of root for "rapt", which leads to "to ravish", which has nothing to do with harps at all. Mr Partridge (op. cit., pages 279-280) thinks "harp" comes from the hand position of the harp player like a claw or hook, akin to Old Norse "herpask" and similar in origin to the English word "harpoon". While we don't seem to have "to violin", we do have "to fiddle" (lit. and fig.) and instead of "to flute" we have "to tootle" which apparently particularly applies to the playing of the flute (C.O.D.) Bielle (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be. The reason I connect it with a harpy is in thinking of a harpy being like a vulture, and someone who harps at you is kind of the same thing. Although the raptor pecking at Prometheus might be the better analogy. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the verb 'harp': we do have 'fiddle' and 'pipe' as reasonably familiar verbs, and the OED lists 'flute', 'lute', 'horn', and even 'guitar' in the relevant senses ('lute' is marked as obsolete, but the others aren't). --ColinFine (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with user:kwami, above. It is the nature of the sound that the harp makes that is particularly penetrating. The harmonies set up by the multitude of strings vibrating and the lingering nature of the sounds that plucked strings produce, until acted upon again by the player of the instrument, has an overall potential for evoking the feeling of "relentlessness" that other musical instruments don't equal. Bus stop (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that. Thanks, Bus stop. These days, it'd be that fast-paced electronic drumming that's used everywhere. It's become like the heart beat of the 21st century. Relentless is a good word to use for it, as well as a number of pejoratives I won't get into. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ 202.142.129.66: The OED's earliest example of guitar as a verb is from Byron's To Thomas Moore: "Guitarring and strumming, O Thomas Moore!" Another 19th-century example: "Go and see what all this guitarring and serenading is about" (all the illustrative quotations involve present participles or gerunds). A 16th-century example of lute: "I may not lute, or yet daunce or synge!" Deor (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When we're doing English exercises (especially reading comprehension), our teacher always tells us to stick to the 'formal way' of answering 'why' questions: Using the 'it is because...' sentence structure. However, Common English Mistakes in Hong Kong (or something like that) lists this as one of the mistakes. The author thinks that the 'it is' part is unecessary. In fact, he thinks that even the 'because' should be avoided. Sometimes, in books such as History or Geography, 'this is because' is used. So which usage is
a) the most natural in speech , and
b) the most formal usage? Kayau OdysseyHUCK FINNto the lighthouse BACK FROM EXAMS 14:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most natural usage in speech is probably simply "Because ...", which your teacher will tell you is not a complete sentence. But answering every "why" question with "It is because..." will get tedious for both the writer and the reader very quickly. Leaving out the "It is because" is probably good a lot of the time, but only if it's really clear that what follows is an answer to the question "Why?". For variation, you can also begin such answers with "The reason is that..." some of the time. +Angr15:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In conversation, as Angr says, the response to a why question often begins with the word because. Nearly as often, though, the word because is left out. Consider the following brief dialogue:
"Why did you cross the street?"
"To see my friend."
"Why did you want to see your friend?"
"I wanted to play."
Using more academic vocabulary, you could answer a question like "Why is the sky blue?" with "The oxygen in the atmosphere absorbs light with blue wavelengths and scatters light in those wavelengths, making the sky look blue." You really don't need the preface "It is because". Starting the sentence with those words is not incorrect, but it sounds a bit stilted, especially if it is done repeatedly. Marco polo (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think people start an answer with "Because" for at least two reasons. One is because they are kind of taught to do that. The other is that it's a momentary "stall" to let your brain formulate an answer in a formal setting like a classroom. In the example about crossing the street, it's not needed, because you don't have to "think about it"... unless you don't want to answer truthfully for some reason. A lot of times a stall will start with, "Well...", but that's usually frowned upon in class and/or will draw a smarty comment about it being a "deep subject". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which, the "deep subject"? That's what the teachers used to say, making fun of the student for starting a sentence with a stall-word. Ronald Reagan became famous for answering questions with "Well..." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be that way, but "cold" is the more likely negative term now. "Cool" meaning "hip" or "calm" was current in the early 60s at least. It turns up a lot in Bill Cosby's records, for example. It kind of went mostly-dormant for awhile and then became (and still is) way-overused. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, in two books written by two American authors, I noticed that the pronoun “she” was used in cases in which there wasn’t any reason to think that “she” referred to female persons.
Is that standard English? Or is it a use of “she” which may be common in America, but not elsewhere or not so much elsewhere? Is it a new way of using “she”? Maybe because of the influence of feminists who maybe have pleaded for this use? Thanks in advance -- Irene1949 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the author is referring to the trend in some (academic?) circles to use "she" as the generic non-gendered third person pronoun - much as in the past we might have used "he". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's used as a way of challenging the assumption that the subject is likely to be male, e.g. "If the doctor suspects meningitis then she should perform the following tests".Frumpo (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above comments that it was probably being used as a generic pronoun (same as "he" or "they"), but Irene, please be sure to actually give examples when you raise questions like this. The Reference Deskers are not mind-readers. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In both cases the authors referred to persons, not to ships or something like that.
Sorry that I didn’t realize the importance of giving examples. I found one of the sentences so that I can quote it. In his book “The New Atheism”, Victor J. Stenger wrote: “If an airline pilot flying over Yellowstone National Park reports seeing a forest fire, we have no reason to doubt her. But if she reports seeing a flying saucer whose pilot waved a green tentacle at her, I would demand more evidence.” The author doesn’t write anything else about that pilot, and obviously it doesn’t matter whether the pilot is male or female.
In the other case I cannot find the sentence without re-reading the whole book. I can only tell you what I remember. I remember that Bart D. Ehrman wrote something about a father and his child, and he referred to the child as “she” (somewhere in the book “God’s Problem. How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer”). In such a case, the reason for using “she” might be that, if the author had used “he”, it would have been less clear whether he referred to the father or to the child. -- Irene1949 (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is considered politically correct to avoid using "he" exclusively when referring to people of unknown sex. The point is pilots can be male or female, so if you're writing a book about aviation, using "he" alone when referring to generic pilots may be considered sexist. Other options are saying "he or she" (but why not "she or he," some feminists ask) or the controversial singular they. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the political correctness. So it is considered politically correct to use “she” when referring to a doctor of unknown sex. Then I wonder what is considered politically correct when referring to a doctor’s cleaner. Then the use of “he” might be “a way of challenging the assumption that the subject is likely to be“ female. ;-) -- Irene1949 (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In today's State of the Union Address, President Obama said, ""...companies that begin when an entrepreneur -- when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss." DOR (HK) (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't find a reference for this, but one of the universities I used to teach at specifically advised the use of "she" when referring to a child of whatever gender. (It might have been University of Warwick) --TammyMoet (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is deplorable. That sort of bias contributes to problems like this. I'm not in favor of the generic he, but a generic she is no better, particularly in education, where boys are suffering. I prefer some kind of balance. (The neutral they is one way to achieve that, but not my favorite.) Marco polo (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of what is says in the [Gender article] I learned in 13 years of schooling that in French, the default gender is always the feminine if the actual gender is unknown. Maybe this is what the author is trying to do in English? Aaronite (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One might address a group of women as "Hey, guys". But one would never refer to a single woman as a "guy", as that would be misleading. One can only speculate why the plural version isn't. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I once read the advice of alternating between using 'he' and 'she' for generic references (obviously not in the same example!). Made sense to me. I also like the singular "they", but understand that some people find it ungrammatical. Pfly (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which seem to be called a "body drawer" or "cadaver drawer" (although I've not found a sufficiently reliable source for either). As to this, our morgue article is silent as the grave. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk02:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This site [redacted link] would indicate that it's a synonym. Also, the OP asked where he could find one. That link, which I got by googling ["body chamber" morgue], apparently has them for sale. I'm not sure we need to know what the OP wants it for. Storing various pigeons, turkeys and sitting ducks, perhaps. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Now I'm probably infected. I wonder why it isn't blacklisted, then?
I *think* you are probably good as long as you didn't submit any personal information, such as email, account numbers, etc. Falconusptc15:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your bank account should be safe. Which could come in handy for the medical bills after granny deals with you ;-) Falconusptc18:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, I am trying to find the meaning of body chamber, but as I have not seen the scene where this is described in the review, I came here to ask where would a body chamber be located.174.3.98.236 (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
English words with several "th"s
I've noticed that Google Search takes a thorn as a valid synonym for "th", even for words that obviously aren't scandic or old english ("þeocratic", for example), although it does give extra weight to real uses of þ over such manufactured ones (cf the search for "þoþ"). So I can test this further, what English words (or non-scandic-y proper names) have several "th"s? Þanks for your help :) -- Finlay McWalter • Talk22:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some words with th occurring twice in each are: thirteenth, thirtieth, thirty-fourth, thirty-fifth, thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, thirty-eighth, and thirty-ninth.
In older texts, you'll see lots of -th- verbs in the present tense, such as thinketh, enthralleth, enthuseth, frotheth, etc. I can't actually claim to have actually seen examples of these words actually used, except thinketh, but they exist in theory (or so he theoriseth.) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Ormulum has quite a few three thorn words as one of its innovations was the doubling of consonants so there is forrwurrþeþþ for forworth-eth meaning "come to nothing" or þurþsicheþ which I think is supposed to be purchaseth or þeþenforþ which means thenceforth. If you want something a little more current you could try diethylsulphonemethylethylmethane, I understand it is a sedative so it might help. meltBanana02:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I should have thought of chemistry. dieÞylsulphonemeÞyleÞylmeÞane does indeed work (although it turns off Google Search's "did you mean" feature, which seeks to parse diethylsulphonemethylethylmethane into bitesized groups). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk02:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any "User Essays" in Wikipedia about what makes for well written Hebrew? If not, are there any websites outside Wikipedia that offer guidance?
Since I am still getting used to the Hebrew alphabet, it would help a LOT if the essays (what there are of them) avoided HTML and used plain vanilla ASCII (that is, no no escape codes or digraphs beyond those which the user dreams up for himself when writing his essay).
I would like to know how my English accent sounds to a native - or almost native - speakers. Therefore, I've uploaded a 1 minute file and would like to know what can be improved, difficulties understanding it, bad diction or simply what impression it makes on you.
I have uploaded it here: [[6]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justonemorelearner (talk • contribs) 16:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your English is good and easy to understand. One hears that you are not a native English speaker. I notice a stiff TCH in TCHicago and longish vowels in ba-a-nk, unsuitab-oo-l. qu-e-stion, exp-a-a-nd, plentif-o-o-l. Expand sounds like "expund". Companies sounds "cormpunies". Coming sounds "corming". Your sentences end on a down-going tone. I guess your background is East European. The file plays ok in my Windows Media Player.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard the sound file yet, but based on Cuddlyable3's comments, you may be unaware that "Chicago" in English is pronounced as if it were spelled "Shicago" and that the "com-" of "company" as well as the word "come" are pronounced to rhyme with "strum" and "thumb". +Angr17:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I thought it was "shiCAAgo", with the vowel of the middle syllable being the vowel from cat. Has Saturday Night Live misled me? --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the first consonant is the "sh" sound, not the "ch" sound. A hefty portion of non-native speakers always get that wrong. And having now listened to the file, my guess is that the speaker is from South or Southeast Asia. +Angr21:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do have an unmistakable south asian (probably Indian) accent, but you are quite understandable. Whether you pronounce Chicago as "TCHicago", "shi-CAW-go" or "shi-CAH-go", I think most people will still understand what you mean. Variations in pronunciation are one component of an dialect. You might find some further guidance by comparing your local dialect with the one you wish to learn (see Category:English dialects and List of dialects of the English language for a list) Astronaut (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the answers. And no, I am not from South Asia, but a Spaniard who has lived many years in Germany. I suppose I got the influence of both Spanish and German into my English accent. Furthermore, as I was reading the text - and I read English more often than I hear it - I followed more the written form of the word than the real sound.
Chicago would be pronounced as "ch" in Spanish and not "sh". And in German we tend to differentiate between short and long vowels. I'll try to improve these points. Specially the vowels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justonemorelearner (talk • contribs) 16:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pronunciation of Chicago does not follow any regular rules for English pronunciation. If it did, it would be something like CHICK-a-go. This sort of thing often happens with American place names when they come from Native American languages, especially by way of other European languages in the middle, which appears to be the case for the Windy City; according to our article, the name is a French rendering of the native word shikaakwa, meaning "wild onion". --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As described in hyphen, one writes "2 ft plank", "two-foot plank", and "two-foot-long plank". Given the desire to use the unit's symbol, does one write "2-ft-long plank", "2 ft long plank", "2 ft-long plank", or what? The SI references from the article don't address the case where the adjective characterizing the measurement is given. --Tardis (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a generally accepted rule for this. generally, anytime I find myself trying to do something like that, I end up rewriting the sentence to remove the need rather than messing around with unsatisfying hyphens. --Ludwigs201:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Common misspellings (eg. than/then, you're/your)
I am not a native speaker of English and I believe I understand the difference between than and then, you're and your, etc. Thus I can't understand how an adult native speaker of English can make mistakes such as: "If you’re plants are really grimy..." [8] Isn't it obvious that you're is equal to you are? How come a person can spell photosynthesis right yet mispell your? [9] Or is it more complicated than I think it is? Surtsicna (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Native speakers (of any language) generally don't see words as following rules; they just are, and certain things merely "sound right" or "look right" due to very long practice. For instance, many many native English speakers mistakenly substitute it's (it is) for its (belonging to it) because the apostrophe indicates possession in other contexts. That no pronoun takes an apostrophe to become possessive (he → his, she → her/hers, I → my/mine, etc.) and that many pronouns take an apostrophe to join to (conjugations of) be (he → he's, I → I'm, we → we're, etc.) are true but are of no help to a native speaker, often long out of grammar school, who simply doesn't think about those sorts rules and patterns at all. I myself find trouble remembering to use There are in constructions like "There are many ways to err in language" because There's at the beginning of a sentence is so automatic as a way of expressing the existence of something.
Of course, over-reliance on spell checkers is also to blame: they catch *photosynthisis but not a misplaced you're. Given the missing question marks in the article's title and in at least one heading, I suspect that the copy editing and normal proofreading was overall somewhat lax in this case. --Tardis (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna, it's not more complicated than you think it is, some people just don't get it. Poor education system, really, and interference from other habits (as Tardis points out with the "it's/its" example). These errors irk native speakers just as much as they irk you—see, for example, Eats, Shoots & Leaves, one of hundreds of angry books that have been written on the topic. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs00:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately it comes down to caring. A lot of folks just don't think it's important, for whatever reason. Luckily they have the rest of us to keep them on track. Someone with a college degree posted a sign in our office that said, "Please keep are break room clean." I remarked on it, and at least one other college-educated colleague said I was being "picky". I pasted the word "our" over the "are", and the sign was soon taken down altogether, presumably by its anonymous (and red-faced) author. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many schools in England stopped teaching English grammar long ago, and more recently they have stopped penalising students for handing work with grammatical and spelling errors. Common errors can become "embedded" in a person's language for a long time. For example, when I did my schooling I was never taught the above mentioned rule about it's only ever being used for it is. For decades, no one corrected me and it was only quite recently that I found out I had been wrong for a very long time. Astronaut (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fairly pathetic, especially in the parent country of English as we know it. And it's also short-sighted. It gives a competitive advantage to non-English speakers such as the OP. Nothing against the OP at all. He cares and wants to get ahead. Would that more of our educators and/or students cared enough. I don't mind being corrected, nor should anyone else. I was tsk-tsked some time back because I always spell it "awhile" rather than "a while", which it is in certain cases. Must be an elementary school mistake that no one ever brought up. Trying to break that old habit isn't easy, but it's worth a try. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As another UK resident, that's not strictly true. Correct spelling and grammar is taught the first time round, it is just not enforced sufficiently well in secondary teaching, on the whole. Errors are not picked up on, or in a way such as circling them, which the student barely notices, let alone alters his way of thinking. (Teachers are not perfect either - one circled "reflexion" in my work, I pointed out this was in fact acceptable.) - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]17:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh honestly. More moral panic about technology. English speakers have been failing to properly distinguish "your / you're", "than / then" and "its / it's" since long before text messaging and spellcheckers became widespread. And often enough, neither ignorance nor apathy nor falling educational standards are to blame either. Speaking for myself, I know perfectly well when to use each spelling, and I care about getting it right, but if I'm writing or typing quickly, my fingers just get ahead of my brain and spell a word like one of its homophones sometimes. Other examples are "one / won" and "right / write" - indeed just now I very nearly wrote "I care about getting it write" in the previous sentence. +Angr07:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I make those typos also. Perhaps the measure of the degree of obsession is whether to go back and correct it or not. You don't know how often I've had to resist fixing someone else's typos. (I think I did it exactly once, and got told not to do it again.) Oddly enough, this does circle back to the OP's question a bit, in reference to what someone said, apparently not here, but in another thread, that even if the writer gets it wrong, there's a good chance the audience will understand anyway, if they speak English natively. He had another question, which is "How can they spell photosynthesis right yet mispell your?" I think its safe to say that (1) they don't always spell it right; and (2) when they do, they probably take their time about it. Many of those typos come simply from typing too fast and not proofreading sufficiently. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In articles yes, but on talk pages and other pages (like this one) where people are writing "in their own voice", so to speak, correcting other people's typos is considered rude. +Angr10:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
can't have this conversation without quoting Twain:
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
Generally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeiniing voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x"— bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez —tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivili.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
— Mark Twain, A plan for the improvement of spelling in the English language
Whoever wrote it was going the other way to the Welsh, who replaced "k" with "c" just because "the printers have not so many as the Welsh requireth" (when printing the newly translated Bible). Alansplodge (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
errr... that's consistently attributed to Twain (who was writing a good bit before 1946). you might want to check your facts. --Ludwigs216:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been written in 1971, but it was strongly inspired by the 1946 piece, as can be seen from some very striking similarities which would be hard to explain in any other way (such as the use of the letter "y" for a "sh" or [š] sound) ... AnonMoos (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think my dad had something like this in his papers, which might date from 1946, or it could be from an earlier satirist. Keep in mind that there are really not that many new jokes or ideas. For all we know there could have been something like this in ancient Rome, trying to improve on Latin satirically. Certainly it sounds like something Swift might have come up with too. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both Benjamin Franklin and the Roman emperor Claudius dabbled in spelling reforms, but neither one had a plan for successive yearly reforms, culminating in the use of the letter "y" for the [š] sound. "Meihem in ce Klasrum" was reprinted officially four times before 1971 (see http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?57114 ) and seems to have have achieved a significant underground circulation in mimeographed or photocopied format... AnonMoos (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have seen a person writing "Most people due like it but..." instead of "Most people do like it but..." The person claimed to be from the US so I assumed she was a native speaker of English and she didn't mispell any other word. I simply can't understand how a native speaker of English who went to an elementary school can mispell a common verb which consists of only two letters! Due may sound as right as do and poor education system may be responsible for mispellings such as her's but aren't children supposed to learn how to spell the most common English language verbs in elementary school? Surtsicna (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a question of spelling. What could explain sentences like "Aww, that's to bad, sorry to hear about this"? The first 'to' should be a 'too'. The word serves a completely different purpose than the 'to' of an infinitive. But would children coming out of school these days be able to tell you what an infinitive is? Or the difference between an adjective and an adverb? Or even what nouns and verbs are? Some would, but the generality of them would not. Unless they have those basic, basic, basic concepts embedded in their brains, they're always going to confuse 'your' and 'you're', and 'to' and 'too', and lots of other things - all without ever realising they're making any error at all. The educational powers that be have decided in their wisdom that the teaching of these things is not necessary, important or relevant. They're skimmed over, but not properly taught. Heaven help us. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a question of spelling. Most native speakers have a much more sophisticated understanding of spoken English than written English, because they have been exposed to and used far more spoken than written language. If you considered written English as simply a phonetic representation of spoken English (as spelling reformers tend to), then there would be no error in these examples. Most people, particularly when they are writing conversationally, and basically typing what they would say, and are in fact 'saying' in their head. The typing is just a semi-automated process that takes those basically spoken thoughts and represents them on the page.
Why don't non-native speakers make the same mistakes? Because they typically learn written English at the same time as spoken English, and generally see everything that is spoken written down, at about the same time. So they don't spend a few formative years speaking a language that gives them no clues that 'to' and 'too' are different words, only to have this bafflingly revealed to them as they learn to read and write. A non-native speaker has these words presented to them as separate words from the beginning. 86.180.52.43 (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not deny it was a spelling issue, because of course it is a spelling issue. What I wrote was, "It's not just a question of spelling". In many languages, if a word sounds like X, you spell it X and there's no problem. It ain't that simple in English. It's replete with homophones, probably a lot more proportionately than any other language. The key to homophones is knowing what grammatical or syntactic function each different word has, not just how each is spelt. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I like them tall girls" grammar
Am I correct in saying that the lyrics to Calvin Harris' The Girls are littered with grammatical errors along the lines of "I like them tall girls" and that it should instead either be "I like those tall girls" or just "I like tall girls" depending on the exact meaning he wishes to convey? I'm afraid my knowledge of grammar is quite poor and so I apologise if I've just made a fool of myself. --80.229.152.246 (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the lyric is "bad grammar" according to the prescriptive Standard English grammar (i.e., according to high school grammar textbooks). Although technically, from a descriptive linguistic standpoint, it's really just a dialectical variation (i.e., he's speaking a version of English that is slightly different than Standard English and allows constructions like that). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs00:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a subtlety of English, in that it's a way of conveying something about the singer's roots, or "where he's coming from". In short, it's deliberately "incorrect". Plus, it's a song, and songs and poems often don't follow the conventions of prose. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't [think that], whatever the article may say. There is no error or wrongness here. The song is written in a (probably entirely appropriate) variety of English that is different from formal varieties of English. No licence required. --ColinFine (talk) 08:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; Bugs is correct; the phrase is known by the listener to be deliberately incorrect. Unless you're being hypertechnically linguisticky and claiming that anything that anybody says is correct because there's no such thing as incorrect. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's such a thing as incorrect, but this isn't an example of it. It's correct non-standard English. It may be deliberately non-standard in this song, intended to provoke a certain response from the listener, but it's not incorrect in its own context. +Angr18:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not proper English grammar if you're writing formal prose, but it's fine for slangy purposes like in a song. It's kind of a "country" way to say it, for a particular emphasis. It's kind of like saying "ain't", which you wouldn't put in a corporate annual report, for example, but it can be useful in everyday speech. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Call it 'slangy' if you like, but it conforms to the grammar of several everyday varieties of English spoken by millions in various parts of the world. Calling it "incorrect" is exactly parallel to calling jeans and a t-shirt "incorrect dress". In some contexts, yes, (socially) incorrect. In an appropriate context, appropriate. Can I get off my soapbox now? --ColinFine (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Them" is an object pronoun. The sentence already has an object. So it's not proper usage. It's a hick expression that's also used by the educated just to be funny. You could say, "There's gold in those hills!", but it's much more colorful and interesting to say, "There's gold in them thar hills!" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's only in Standard English, and only if you assume that the features "them" has in Standard English have to carry over to every other variety. A syntactician's way of describing this, though, would probably be to say that in Standard English it has an object feature (some attribute on the lexical entry stating that it can only be used as the object of a verb), but in some varieties of English it has an additional demonstrative feature (or, more specifically, a feature saying it can be a determiner instead of an object NP). (or a slight variation of that would be to claim that those varieties of English simply have an extra, homophonous lexical entry, them2, with those specifications. Either way the end result is the same. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs01:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I wrote a sentence like that in my elementary English class, I would have been marked down for it. You can say "I like tall girls", you can say "I like them" if the object is known. "I like them tall girls" automatically labels the speaker as poorly educated, unless he's just doing it for effect, like the late WGN radio host Bob Collins, who sometimes used to call rock and roll groups, "Them Rolling Stones", et al., just to be funny. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To quickly sum up...in response to Bugs and 80.229.152.246, yes the sentence is considered incorrect in prescriptive, Standard English. (And if someone is asking about if a sentence is "littered with grammatical errors", then what they're probably interested in is the prescriptive kind anyway.) But there's nothing wrong with it from a linguistic/descriptive point of view. So, in short, everyone is right. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs01:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But then, there's nothing wrong with anything from a descriptive point of view - well, anything that has at least a core group of users. The descriptive viewpoint passively records whatever it comes across and does not make judgments. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is still "wrong", but the meaning of wrong is different...instead of being "you shouldn't say this", it's "the grammar of this ideolect does not produce this". For example, He put the book. is wrong (except in some very specific context) because of an unfilled subcategorization frame; colorless green ideas sleep furiously is more or less semantically wrong; Max's of the pizza has an impossible phrase structure, etc. Of course, if some dialect appears where these constructions are possible, that would be different; but for now, no English grammar I know of generates these. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs15:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant by "anything that has at least a core group of users". There is no core group of people who regularly say "Max's of the pizza" to each other, so any single person who does inadvertently say this is using words in a way that would be both descriptively and prescriptively wrong. Should such a group be discovered, then that expression would cease to be descriptively wrong, but it would still be prescriptively wrong, as it does not conform to any of the standards of prescriptive usage. I think we agree. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As in lard, except that it is an adjective. It could also be translated "Fatty Tuesday" or "Greasy Tuesday", but those don't sound as charming as "Fat Tuesday". +Angr12:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This site lists it as a variant of the name Sholicar, which seems plausible. Click, in order, on the links under "Origins of the name" in the menu at the right-hand side of the page for a number of possibilities suggested by research into the name. This map is interesting; the name (at least in the form Sherliker) certainly seems to have its origin somewhere in the Lancashire-Merseyside-Manchester region. Deor (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The standard rule gives "He wept, and she comforted him.", but for such short clauses it is permissible to omit the comma: "He wept and she comforted him.". (Right?)
When there is just one clause, the standard rule omits the comma: "She served as the judge and ruled in his favor.", "She served as the judge and the jury.", or "The boys and their fathers attended the tennis match.". Is it at all permissible to add the comma in those cases, at least when the phrases are long and it would assist in interpreting the sentence?
"She served as the judge for all of the cases submitted after the tribunal departed, and dismissed all but two of them." Omitting the comma here would suggest that the tribunal departed and dismissed. (Of course, it's trivial to add "she" after "and" here.)
"He had knowledge of bridge design and several other fields he was sure he remembered were mentioned by the recruiter, and police academy experience from his days in San Diego." Omitting the comma here would temporarily suggest that the recruiter and a police academy had mentioned the fields. It would be unpleasantly repetitive to make a new clause: "He had… recruiter, and he had police academy…".
"He cast aside all the doubts his opponents had so insidiously engendered in his mind, and with them his private fears that no one could succeed in the game." This would risk misinterpretation without the "with them", since it would look like another independent clause whose subject was "his private fears". But striking the comma and the "with them" would be little better, since then the engendering would seem to have happened in his mind and in his private fears.
"The dragons wearing the dwarven battle armor given to them at the suggestion of the royal strategists, and the bravest or most foolish among those that had not received such gifts, launched their attack immediately." Here the and cannot introduce an independent clause since the first clause hasn't even had its verb yet, and omitting the comma would seem to suggest that the bravest or most foolish had suggested the allocation of the armor. Meanwhile, I feel compelled to place a comma after the second part of the subject—as if it were an appositive or an "along with" construction or so—even though a comma separating subject and predicate is usually quite in error.
I'm not asking if these are the best ways to punctuate these sentences (or to express the same ideas), although general suggestions of how to avoid the problem are welcome; I'm more interested in knowing if, with their commas, these sentences have any merit whatsoever. --Tardis (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
there's no hard and fast rule on this, you really have to think if it in terms of the vocal usage. generally, a comma reflects a slight vocal pause (one which signifies to the hearer that what came before and what comes after are separate semantic groupings). sometimes it's required in text to clarify groupings that might otherwise be ambiguous; beyond that it's just a matter of personal style, or how the sentence sounds to you. --Ludwigs217:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are generally accepted loose rules or guidelines on comma placement. In some cases, for example the serial comma, there are competing rules on comma placement. Publishers and individual writers may adopt a set of preferences, or a style, on which of these rules to apply under different circumstances. However, the main goal should always be clarity, and there are times when these rules should be bent or broken in the interest of clarity. Your examples are cases where your punctuation departs from the usual rules for punctuation, but in these cases your departure is justified in that it improves clarity. In the case of your second example, though, you could avoid the unusual comma placement by recasting the sentence: "He had police academy experience from his days in San Diego and knowledge of bridge design and several other fields he was sure he remembered were mentioned by the recruiter." Better still would be to break up the sentence: "He had knowledge of bridge design and several other fields he was sure he remembered were mentioned by the recruiter. He also had police academy experience from his days in San Diego." I would be inclined to try breaking up the other example sentences as well. Marco polo (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, no-one seems to know. The OED simply states that it comes from the name "Billy" + goat, and the earliest example of usage that they can find is in 1861 (103 years later than the first use of "nanny goat"). Perhaps someone can find a better explanation? Dbfirs09:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are several bird and animal names where what are apparently forenames were appended to the original word, but I don't know whether that was in the 19th century or earlier, or whether there is any particular relationship between them. "Billy goat" and "nanny goat" are two, but there are also, for example, "tom tit", "robin redbreast", "jenny wren", "mag_pie", and no doubt others. The best source of information might be here, if anyone has access to it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of using a personal name to distinguish between the sexes of animals is "tomcat". I don't know about "jenny wren", but I think "tom tit", "robin redbreast", and "magpie" can refer to animals of either sex. I think "jackass" started out like "tomcat" (male personal name + animal name to indicate a male animal), but since the term nowadays almost never refers to the animal, it's hard to say whether that's still true. +Angr11:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is my best guess, and from it you might be able to find references, but it might come from the Norman Conquest, where the French imported their own names for English animals: Reynard the Fox, and Broc the Badger come to mind: at the same time, the dual names for the animal and their meat came in, so we have deer/venison, pig/pork, cow/beef, sheep/mutton (i.e. English/French). Sorry don't have time to find references at the moment - may try later, unless someone else can look this up. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found an 1814 edition of Lessons for Children that contains the following passage, clearly referring to goats: "There was once a little boy, who was a sad coward. He was afraid of two little kids, Nanny and Billy, when they came and put their noses through the pales of the court; and he would not pluck Billy by the beard."--Cam (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent find! I wonder if this is the original source of "billy-goat". The "Nanny" goes back further to 1758 at least. Dbfirs23:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an interesting writeup from a UK source[11] that suggests the "Billy" part was a euphemism for Satan, and that depictions of Satan having a goat-like head with a beard are connected with the term. What's unclear is which derived from which. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depictions of Satan as a goat appear to derive mainly from mid-19th century occultist writer Eliphas Levi (see Baphomet), and from what I can tell such depictions would have been rather obscure (outside of small occultist circles) until the 1960s... AnonMoos (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So 1814 is the earliest referenced usage (and might just be an original coinage to match "Nanny" which already existed). That gives just enough time for child readers in 1814 to coin the term "billy-goat", to use it in conversation, and for it to reach print in 1861. Dbfirs17:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Game to make as many words as possible from a larger word
Is there a name or term for the game or practice of constructing smaller words from the letters of a larger word? e.g. RETINAS, you could make EAT, TEAR, TEARS, SAINT, etc. The anagram article refers to these as an imperfect anagram, but I wondered if there was another, more specific, term. Thank you for your help! --Rajah (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or a term/name for just the practice of making a smaller word out of another word? (I guess that is imperfect anagram, but I was wondering if there's some neologism I don't know about, like SUBANAGRAM, SUBGRAM, SUBAGRAM, etc. --Rajah (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok, google seems to show a lot of results for "subanagram". I guess this was confessional debugging in a way. Thanks! --Rajah (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Italian, which has a very developed nomenclature for word-games, we call it logogrifo[12]. My Italian-English dictionary gives logogrifo-logogriph, but I don't know if logogriph has the exact meaning or just means any kind of riddles.--151.51.16.47 (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you understand this sentence from J.S.Mill's Autobiography? Does it mean that he learned fear instead of love, or that he went to school by force of fear not love?
Thanks for comments. --Omidinist (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not clear; he could mean either, both, or neither (but how many kids go to school by force of love?). I would have expected him to illustrate what he meant with examples.--Shantavira|feed me08:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me as if he endured a particularly hard schooling, where implements of punishment were used daily and transgressions were punished by what we would now call torture. Such an education was commonplace two hundred years ago. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
just from that line, I'd say it means something like "I was driven to learn by fear, not by a love of learning". but that's just a guess; I'd need to read more to be sure. --Ludwigs210:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
usually is. most of the brightest people I know (and I know some damned bright people), are neurotic - they are bright mostly because they've put in a ton of time (over-)analyzing things that other people take for granted. if you're happy, there's just not a lot of incentive to think about things. it's the emotional equivalent of being a body-builder, I suppose, except you put an excessive amount of your resources into overcoming your mental insecurities rather than your physical insecurities.
I'll add that it's particularly true of political/social theorists (like Mill). P/S theorists have basically two experiences in life - being ignored and being despised - neither of which is conducive to to a healthy, positive emotional life. --Ludwigs211:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill..." Apparently his own father was the culprit. But victims of that kind of treatment get their revenge on society. Some become sociopaths. Others write books. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Guinness Book of Records in 1973 claimed that Mill's IQ was 210, and that at the age of 3 he was reading fluently in Greek. I note that he was educated privately by his father, who was not a trained teacher. I believe his learning was sparked by innate ability, but that the prevailing educational ethos at the time instilled fear into him. This from our article on him: "At the age of twenty[4] he suffered a nervous breakdown. As explained in chapter V of his Autobiography, this was caused by the great physical and mental arduousness of his studies which had suppressed any feelings he might have developed normally in childhood." Certainly reading the Biography section of our article bears my assertion out. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shroff
I know I'm silly, asking about my own dialect, but here it is anyway: What does 'shroff' really mean? EVU defines it as the car park payment office, Merriam-Webster online dictionary and Yahoo dictionary define it as a kind of banker, and the Wikipedia article defines it as a cashier in a hospital or something. These are completely different meanings. Which one is correct? Kayau OdysseyHUCK FINNto the lighthouse BACK FROM EXAMS 11:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is a difference between grammar and semantics. The classic example of the distinction is "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" which is grammatically sound, but semantic nonsense. The complaint about "I could care less" is not that it is grammatically wrong, but that its literal meaning is opposite of what the speaker intend to convey. It's "wrong" in that sense, but the phenomenon of a phrase as a whole having a meaning different from the literal interpretation of the parts is so common in English and other languages that there is a word for it: "idiom". -- 174.21.224.109 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angel hierarchy words
I don't know if I'm baaarking up the wrong tree here, but I have been reading the pages on angelic hierarchies and I've noticed that the majority of angelic choirs have a Hebrew-derived name with the plural suffix -im. Cherubim, Seraphim, and some of the others which have other names also have these words (Erelim, Ophanim). Now I like this but I don't know the first thing about transliterating stuff in and out of Hebrew because I don't understand if I'm doing it right. If it's possible I'd like to see if I can have a translation of this nature for the choirs of Virtues, Archangels and Principalities, and Watchers/Grigori. If you can do it I'll love you forever!! :D Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Ludwigs2 17:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Resolved