Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• 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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 8

Development of German Sibilants

I'm wondering about the development of German /s/, /z/ and /ʃ/. My understanding is that PGr *s voiced in certain positions and palatalized in others. Looking through etymologies, it seems to me like the most likely order is that /z/ formed first, word-initially and intervocally, followed or simultaneous with a change in other positions to a palatalized sound (I'll use /ʃ/). When this second change happened, original *sk merged to /ʃ/ entirely. Then, later, /ʃ/ depalatalized in non-initials before another consonant positions (/kastən/ in Standard German versus /kaʃtən/ in Swiss German), probably with the introduction of the new /s/ formed via the consonant shift. I guessed it was a depalatalization in most dialects, rather than a further development of Swiss German, because of words like Fisch and loeschen (which demands that *s palatalized at least before *k in these positions, and it seemed likely that it was in all positions rather than word-initially-plus-before-*k).

Well, I thought this explained it well enough for my purposes, until I ran into schoen/sollen, which were skoni/skulan; two sk- clusters where one become /z/ and the other /ʃ/. So I'm wondering what I missed, or if this is just one of those weird anomalies. Also, it'd be nice to know how right or wrong I was in my overall analysis. Lsfreak (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but to me the most likely explanation would be that, in the Germanic dialects that became standard German and Dutch, skulan must have undergone a simplification to sulan or sullan before the other processes you describe took place. It's not so surprising that this word would have gone through this unique change if it was already in very frequent use as a modal auxiliary verb. The most frequently used words often undergo greater simplification than other words. Marco polo (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Linguistic memory"?

Hello. I have noticed that languages seem to have a "memory", of sounds that formerly existed but no longer exist in the modern language. Native speakers of that language can usually reproduce a limitted number of such sounds fairly well even though they no longer exist in their language; for example, I taught French for several years and I found that certain sounds, such as nasalisation or the [œ] vowel, native English speakers produce quite well overall, but speakers of languages such as, say, Russian, struggle with; could this be because English is descended from French? Another example: English speakers can produce [x] much better than Italian speakers, presumably due to Germanic influence. What could be causing this? I am not a linguist, just a foreign language teacher! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"English is descended from French"? Hardly. I'd think a good place to start investigating this is, as you probably realise, in articles on linguistics, and in particular on phonemes. Not really my subject though - perhaps someone else can expand on this (or tell me I'm entirely wrong). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that such a "memory" (or influence of the ghosts of vanished sounds) exists. However, one thing that does sometimes happen is that a foreign sound can be more readily accepted if it fills a symmetric "gap" in the pattern of the native repertoire. So early modern English had the sounds [tʃ], [dʒ], and [ʃ], which might have made it more receptive to loanwords from modern French with [ʒ]... AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, very few French vowels are found in English and visca-versa. Many English vowel sounds are diphthongs, while nearly all of the basic French vowels are monophthongs without an English equivalent. I am not sure of historical English and French, but in modern terms it is actually quite difficult for native English speakers to get French "right" because of the difficulty in pronouncing the correct vowels. Many English speakers tend to substitute the approximate English vowel for the French vowel when first learning the language. --Jayron32 04:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflicts) Although English is not, as AndyTheGrump has already said, descended from French (it is a West Germanic language), it has over the last millennium adopted a sizeable fraction of its vocabulary from French, in part because of the Norman Conquest. Moreover, during at least the last couple of centuries French (due in part to France's proximity and in part to her cultural and diplomatic prominence) has been the most usual living foreign language taught in Britain, a significant proportion of British people were/are therefore taught how to pronounce it, and many of them would (or do) use the occasional French phrase even in English conversation; consequently, even British-English speakers who had/have not been formally taught French will have likely heard and perhaps imitated some French spoken approximately correctly.

'X' is a less common but nevertheless well-employed letter in English: it's not clear what actual sound you refer to here - if you mean the gutteral "ch", note that although this doesn't figure in "English English", it's used in Scottish-English (notably in the common word 'loch') and also in Yiddish, so many UK English speakers beyond those categories are familiar with it.

Your notion that languages may have a "memory" of no-longer-extant sounds is right to an extent, though I think not in the sense you mean, in that before those sounds disappeared they may have caused changes to adjacent sounds, and those changes may have persisted - see in particular Laryngeal theory that supposes the former existence of some sounds in Proto-Indo-European (which itself evolved into daughter languages before the invention of writing and is therefore completely unrecorded) that have not themselves persisted into any of PIE's living descendents, but which have left clues in the form of some otherwise-unexplainable vowel pronunciations. When previously unknown written records of Hittite were discovered (some 3 millennia after that PIE-descended language had itself died out), it became evident that those 'larygeal' sounds had survived in Hittite and had therefore really existed as the theory proposed. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's quite common for educated people in Britain – from whatever background – to acquire the sound [x] (voiceless velar fricative) at some point, so they can use it in foreign names such as Bach. I don't know that it's a "memory" of German; it just seems to be one of those things that people tend to pick up. Lfh (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

[x] is, of course, an extremely common sound in Welsh, so English people can quite readily hear it if they want to! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In my part of England the [x] sound is common anyway. No need to visit the valleys for it :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! Marnanel (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Down in London, we wind-up the Jocks by pronouncing "Loch" as "Lock". Works every time. Alansplodge (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Litfaßsäule

Why is “Litfaßsäule” still spelled with an “ß”, even if it is pronounced with a short “a”? --84.61.148.133 (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Is “Litfaßsäule” the last German word with an “ß” after a short vowel? --84.61.148.133 (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Litfaß is the name of the inventor of those columns; as names are not affected by the german spelling reform in 1996, the spelling of "Litfaßsäule" hasn't changed. So there will be many other names with a short vowel before a ß. -- Bgfx (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Without the ß it would be Litfasssäule -- I don't think I've ever seen a word with three s's in a row. Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There are words with 3 s's in a row in German since the spelling reform was implemented. An example would be Nussschale. Another would be Fitnessstudio (although the fitness part is borrowed). Rimush (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, German allows triple consonants, as long as one of them belongs to another word component than the other two. For example Bussstation or Sauerstoffflasche (oxygen bottle). Swedish, however, does not allow this. If a triple consonant would occur in Swedish, it is shortened into a double one. In Finnish this isn't even an issue, because Finnish words, or word components, can't end in a double consonant without a terminating vowel after it. JIP | Talk 20:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Bussstation isn't a word in German, because Bus as well as Station are spelled with only one s (the far more common term is Bushaltestelle, anyway). Oddly, the first two results for Bussstation on Google mention Umeå and Piteå, which I know to be Swedish cities - maybe they are misspellings (even though Buss is spelled with two s in Swedish, but you mentioned a rule and you're the Swedish expert so there :P). Another example with three f's from German is Schifffahrt Rimush (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Triple consonants are more common in the Swiss variant of German orthography, which always replaces ß by ss.

ser:Hans Adler|Hans]] Adler 13:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Is “Litfaßsäule” the most common German word still spelled with an “ß” after a short vowel? --84.61.182.248 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but only if your question is interpreted in a specific way:

• There are plenty of words with ß after two short vowels. (The spelling reform did not change the spelling for these words.)
• There is a number of words which are pronounced either with a long vowel or with a short one, with different defaults depending on the region: short in the north, long in the south. Examples: Spaß (fun), Ruß (grime, soot). Since the south is linguistically dominant (more speakers, and the dialects are closer to the standard language), the spelling with ß is the "correct" one. Since the new spelling presumably can't invalidate the northern pronunciation, the answer to your question, when evaluated in Hamburg, would be: No, Spaß and Ruß are more common.

By the way, while the name Litfaß was not changed in the reform, and therefore the spelling Litfaßsäule was not changed, another name was changed: Narziß (Narcissus) became Narziss. Therefore Narzißmus (narcissism) is now spelled Narzissmus. Hans Adler 13:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: There is also a case in which the short pronunciation won (in Germany): Erdgeschoss (ground floor). I am from southern Germany and pronounce this with a long o. Apparently this is not an idiosyncrasy: Austrian orthography has not followed the switch, so the word is still spelled Erdgeschoß in Austria. Hans Adler 13:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The only effect the word Liftfaßsäule has on me, even all these years after not learning German actively has been to refer to those things when I see them around campus with that very German word, as opposed to the English word for them. The Russian Christopher Lilly 04:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

How long is a moment?

People always tell me to "wait a moment". --Aspie aspie (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not rigidly defined any more, though according to our article it was once defined as "1.5 minutes or 1/40 of an hour". That seems too long for me these days; I'd use "moment" for lengths of time of no more than a couple of seconds. Matt Deres (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Although it's in common usage meaning 'a short period of time' I think that it can be more accurately defined as 'a period of experience that is indivisible for the person experiencing it'.

People commonly talk of 'living in the moment' or 'the present moment'.

Although we have increasingly accurate mechanisms for the measurement of time the rate at which we experience it passing varies by individual and activity. We've all had the experience of time either dragging or flying and meditators or sports people 'in the zone' can pack a huge amount of experience into a short time. The root of the word is the latin momentum which in this context can be translated as 'movement', i.e. a sort of personal quantum of time. Try reading a book like Making Time by Steve Taylor for a much more eloquent analysis. Blakk and ekka 15:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not the same usage, though. "Living in the moment" is just another way of saying "living in the present" or even "being engaged"; the OP is specifically asking about the phrase "waiting a moment". The closest analogue would be "waiting a minute", which, although minute can be described with as much precision as required, means "waiting a few moments" (i.e. anywhere from 30 seconds to (about) three minutes). Matt Deres (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The emphasis is on brevity but I think it is nonspecific. I've seen "moment" to equate to 30 minutes! Generally I'm told I could "wait" if I want—it will just take a moment. Fifteen minutes later I find myself reflecting on the range of time implied by the word moment. Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A moment is probably a smidgen over a tick. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't imply that moment was being used to mean the length of time you were left waiting. It can be that in the speaker's mind moment means nothing more than 150 seconds (just to pick a number), but that he was exaggerating when he said "it will just take a moment".—msh210℠ 18:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

When someone references a "moment" they are probably understating or underestimating the time required. Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A moment is a short amount of time. What you consider short might differ from what another person does, and what counts as short might be different depending on the activity (e.g., if your roommate asks you to wait a moment while he runs across the street to grab his laundry, a moment might be several minutes; if he asks you to hold a heavy box for a moment while he gets his keys out of his pocket, several minutes would definitely exceed a moment). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it most commonly means "please wait a length of time which I'm not specifying in advance but I'm estimating will not be long enough to annoy you unless you're unreasonably impatient"? That would certainly be the usual British usage. Blakk and ekka 19:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A "moment" or a "minute" in colloquial usage implies a "reasonable" short wait rather than something literal. An older expression is "2 seconds". In a similar vein, there's this one:

Q: What is the longest word in the English language?

A: The word that follows the statement, "Now for a word from our sponsor."

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(c'mon Bugs, everybody who's anybody knows that the longest word in the English language is smiles!) rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(it has a mile between the first and last letters) rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yipe! I fell right into that one. It's been too long since elementary school. :) That's a cousin to, "Which state is round on both ends and high in the middle?" and "Why does it take so long to run from second base to third base?" :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• This question is the subject of the Sorites paradox, also known as the paradox of the heap, which examines the linguistic problems arising from vague predicates. In short, the answer is, if the definition of "moment" bothers you, avoid using the word. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the many things about time that has made me curious, is why the SI people refer to the second as the Metric unit of time, when anyone knows there is very littl metric about time in the way the other base ten type units are. It appears they could fiddle with the good old pound and mile, but something that always affects everyday life would be too much, and rather than cause chaos by trying to get people to change to some ridiculous base ten type time system, time itself bet them, and soundly I hope, giving us at least one vestige of our glorious Imperial system which should never have been touched in the first place. As for the idea of a moment, to me mostly, it is say a few seconds, and most uses of the word moment would to me refer to those lengths of time well under a minute - but again, there are many different meanings to it, and just as the word era could refer to the Canterbury Rugby teams Ranfurly shield era of the 1980's, lasting three years, it could also refer to the glorious era of the 63 year reign of Queen Victoria, or even longer, the thousand year era of Rome from its founding around 753 BC to its fall in 410AD. So some of these time terms are given as less definite to be used at the person's own discretion - although even my use of a thousand years to describe what is more like 1162 years - I believe - ( my understanding is you don't add the BC years to the AD years , but go one year less because there was no year zero ) - somethings we round up or down - even when using a more definite term. The Russian Christopher Lilly 04:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

use of commas

I have a simple editing question about something that keeps coming up as I wander around.

• The article Andrew Stevens contains the sentence...

He is the only child of actress Stella Stevens and her former husband Noble Herman Stephens, both natives of Mississippi.

I think a comma is needed between husband and Noble. The result would read... ...her former husband, Noble Herman Stephans, both..... At the same time, (I'm not sure why) but I don't think a comma is needed between actress Stella Stevens. What I am searching for is a guideline for future use. The comma would signify that pause in speech one would make after reading the word husband. Thanks...Buster7 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

My take on this would be that the husband's name is not essential to the meaning of the sentence, so it can be considered parenthetical, which is indicated by commas. The name Stella Stevens, however, is essential to the meaning so no commas are required before and after her name.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless she had more than one former husband, in which case the presence of commas around his name would be misleading. But I see she's married only once, so it's OK. In this case, it would make little difference whether you parenthesised his name or not; but if he had happened to be only one of a group of ex-husbands (which he wasn't), then it would have been mandatory NOT to have commas. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 16:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To me it seems a little insulting to imply that the father's name is merely parenthetical. Since the purpose of the sentence is to name the parents of the subject of the article, I would say that "Noble Herman Stephens" is the more important half of the appositive; if I had to insert some commas to appease someone who claimed it was a non-restrictive appositive, I would rewrite the sentence to read, "… actress Stella Stevens and Noble Herman Stephens, her former husband, both …." But I suppose I wouldn't complain too loudly if it read, "… actress Stella Stevens and her former husband, Noble Herman Stephens, both …." (As a side note, I just discovered the false title article—apparently constructions of the form "actress Stella Stevens" are frowned upon by some.) —Bkell (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Very much so. And it seems to be confined to humans anyway. Do we ever say things like "Novel Gone With the Wind was written by Margaret Mitchell", or "John Lennon is famed for song Yesterday"? No, of course not. We'd naturally put the word "the" in front. But humans seem to merit a lesser treatment. It's a horrible, weird and nasty practice. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes! I think of it (the omission of "the") as being a kind of tabloidese, and make of point a correcting it in Wikipedia articles. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday (song), though credited to "Lennon/McCartney", was "written solely by McCartney," and "was the first official recording by The Beatles that relied upon a performance by a single member of the band, Paul McCartney." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Even more reason not to say "John Lennon is famed for song Yesterday".  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. It hasn't ever been brought to my attention before. (Interestingly enough, the false title article itself contains some false titles: "linguist Geoffrey Pullum" and "usage pundit William Safire".) It isn't always confined to humans per se—things like "Industry leader Microsoft announced today …" are common in newspapers, though it could be argued that they're anthropomorphizing Microsoft in that instance. —Bkell (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's a function of age. I can remember a time when the media would always have used forms such as The Hollywood actress Lola LaRue has died in her Swiss chalet, or The Prime Minister, Joe Bloggs, announced today that .... Now, whenever I hear Hollywood actress Lindsay Lohan is in hot water again ... or Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced ..., I cringe. It's not a question of resisting moving with the times or being a reactionary. Nobody would ever use these article-less forms in conversation, so how can they be justified elsewhere? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd use Prime Minister Julia Gillard in conversation (or at least Prime Minister John Howard, whom I've actually heard of). I treat that as a true, not a false, title. That's not true for Hollywood actress. I suspect mine is the common practice Stateside.—msh210℠ 19:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not much point talking about Prime Minister John Howard any more. He was beaten over 3 years ago, and we've had 2 prime ministers since then. The latest WikiLeaks revelation are putting a lot of focus on the one in the middle, Kevin Rudd, who is now our Foreign Minister. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

But the point I was actually making is that we don't use the "President (Barack) Obama" form for our prime ministers or governors-general, and it sounds kind of loopy when they're referred to in that way (even by the Australian media, which has become completely craven in its subservience to certain novomundane forms of expression, the false title thing being among the main offenders. But then, the media has its own special vocabulary that nobody else ever uses but is nevertheless expected to understand - like "slammed" for "criticised", and interest rates being "hiked up", and whole cities and even countries being "in lockdown"). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I victimise Margaret Thatcher?

See here Talk:Margaret_Thatcher#Spelling_errors

This is tricky one. It is a quote sourced from the New York Times, which has used US spelling - victimize - which looks odd in an article about a UK ex-PM. I'm almost inclined to correct it to 'victimi[s]e', though that looks messy. Should I change it to [victimise], or leave it as is? It wouldn't really be right to just alter the spelling in a quotation would it? I can't find the quote elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The OED uses -ize, anyway. Marnanel (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just claim to be using Oxford spelling... AnonMoos (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSQUOTE doesn't include engvar spelling changes in its "allowable changes", so if you do change it it would have to be bracketed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In other words, the lady's not for victimising. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don’t really see a problem. A US journalist and a UK journalist both transcribing the same speech by Thatcher would naturally spell certain words in their own national styles, for their own audiences. Neither is “right” or “wrong”. Hansard would probably have used the –ise version, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the world has to follow the official record down to the last detail of spelling and comma placement. I often see US titles such as Secretary of Defense spelt in the UK and Australian press as Defence – and vice-versa (the UK Ministry of Defence becomes the Ministry of Defense in the US). It could be argued that such spellings are quite incorrect, as these are official and formal titles, which are not amenable to being respelt just to suit a foreign audience. But words like victimise/ize are not in that category at all. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note on the talk page citing Oxford spelling. I hope this satisfies the OP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand why anyone would want to victimise the Iron Lady for real, either. Some of the things she did - especially in the area of industrial relations, were never right, but overall she was a great leader of a great country, comparable to Winston Churchill even. The Russian Christopher Lilly 04:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

December 9

Identification of Language in a Song

Does anyone know what language is being sung in this YouTube video? One of the comments says it's 'Gaelic' - it doesn't sound like either Irish or Scots Gaelic to me. I was thinking it may be Welsh. Also - and I know this part of the question belongs on the Entertainment desk but I hate cross-posting - does anyone know who the singer is? To me it sounds remarkably like Miyuki Nakajima, but why she would be singing in Welsh is beyond me. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not Welsh, I'd say it probably is Gaelic, either Scottish or Irish, I can't tell the difference. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The singer's name is Campbell, so I'm just guessing she is Scottish. Roger (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the name 'Campbell'. Ok, it is either Irish or Scots Gaelic after all.... cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean like someone named O'Higgins is Irish or someone named Fujimori is Japanese? Seriously, even if she is Scottish, there are lots of singers that sing in languages other than their native language. --Jayron32 13:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, my conclusion above was for the language (which is what the question was about), not the singer's nationality (which I didn't even ask for). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Kenna Campbell[1] is a prominent Scottish Gaelic singer. Alansplodge (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is she the lady who sang the song? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A bit more digging in the bowels of Google finds Joe Campbell[2] who composes music for the Blood Transfusion Service ads. This one[3] seems to have the same tune without the lyrics. Another advert composer, Karl Jenkins, used to make up languages for his ad tunes, so it could be anything. Alansplodge (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work, Alan. There's a contact address on Mr. Campbell's site, and I have sent him an email. Hopefully I shall be able to post the answer here and put that lovely 'Resolved' badge up top :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Nihongo translation please... ^_^

Hello! I want to know what the image in this page says: http://www.ntv.co.jp/kasoh/kanran/index.html Sorry if it seems too long for you to translate, but I don't know any other way to find out... -.-; Thanks in advance~!! --Kreachure (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The title says they are looking for members of the audience for the Great Fancy Dress Party Awards. They are filming on the the 26th of December 2010 in JCB Hall, Suidoubashi, Tokyo. It says you are to apply by putting your name, telephone number, the number of people, and how old everyone is on a postcard. The address and closing date is below that. The rest is just general rules for entry into the competition. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Doumo arigatou gozaimasu! m(_ _)m --Kreachure (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My stab at this second bit is "thank you very very much". ? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, PalaceGuard, but strictly speaking, the OP should have used the past tense 'gozaimashita', as what I did for him had already been completed :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

-l (at the end of a word) in English, Spanish and Catalan

How does the -l (at the end of a word) compare in English, Spanish and Catalan. Officially, it is transcribed the same (in the dics that I checked). But it sounds slightly different among these languages. Where is the difference? Mr.K. (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but in English, word-final <l> is pronounced as the dark L [ɫ]. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Catalan final l is also velarized/dark - spanish final l is just plain alveolar in most dialects, in some new world dialects it becoems almost like an American r.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So, if you are telling a non-Catalan, Spanish speaker to pronounce the English final -l, can you recommend safely to put the tip of the tongue on the teeth? Mr.K. (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, what distinguishes the Spanish final l from the english is that the root of the tongue is retracted in the English -ll so that the velum is engaged. Both the spanish and english l has the tongue tip in contact with the alveolar ridge behind the teeth.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You could ssafely tell him that, I suppose. My view is that the tip (or the crown) of the tongue is put a little more behind (alveolar). But, as Maunus has put it, there are many dialectical variants. You may want to check this great site (applet from this other site). Pallida  Mors 17:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

who or whom

Which would I use here?

The movie is about a colonie of ants _____ are being bullied by grasshoppers.

Accdude92 (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I would use 'who', as it is the subject of the passive construction 'are being bullied'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much!Accdude92 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You probably also want "colony", not "colonie". Lexicografía (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the distinction between who and whom is evolving. There was a time when such word pairs as who/whom and will/shall had clearly distinctive meaning. In the past century such distinction has evaporated, even within formal communication. It will probably not be long before whom goes the way of thou and ye and other archaic constructions. --Jayron32 19:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Colony is a single entity, the verb should be "is", not "are". And I would use "which" instead of "who". Corvus cornix_talk 19:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That depends on whether it is the colony that is being bullied, or it is the ants themselves that are being bullied. It could be a colony of (ants that are being bullied by grasshoppers). —Bkell (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd use "that" instead of "which" or "who". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Some people will tell you that parenthetical clauses should always begin with "which" or "who", and non-parenthetical clauses should always begin with "that". These people should be ignored, or if you prefer publicly mocked. Marnanel (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

How about....The movie is about a colony of ants being bullied by grasshoppers. Buster7 (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In traditional grammar it's definitely who, and whom is wrong. For me as a German this distinction is very easy because in German it's much more alive than in English. But as has been mentioned above, usage in English is changing, and it is no longer the case that whom is necessarily the accusative or dative (direct or indirect object case) of who. Instead, whom can now be used to mark an elevated level of speech even where it used to be ungrammatical.

There are numerous posts about the who/whom distinction on Language Log, including this one, and also this one with a beautiful quotation from James Thurber. Hans Adler 21:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There are any constructed language like math?

My question is strange one, I maybe I will not know how to explain very well it.

Lets go:

There are any constructed language that was created in the same way we created math? So a language created based TOTALLY on abstraction and logical reasoning like the way math was created? 187.118.27.76 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See Philosophical language and, for the most famous such effort, An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language. Deor (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Many computer languages are so constructed. I have known several serious computer programmers who also took several courses in general linguistics, simply because of the connections between human language and computer languages at a fundemental level. --Jayron32 19:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

How about Lojban? --NYKevin @863, i.e. 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Remember that the languague NEED to be able to work as a human language. And need to be really based on abstraction.
Some constructed languages were made also trying to be minimalistic, to be very simple languagues, to be international auxiliary language, ans this is not important at all. That why, I not, simply got some language from the philosophical language article and started to read about the language.
Also, I am almost 100% sure that this language would need to be a priori language and that this would not use Latin alphabet.
Again, sorry if its too hard to understand what I am wanting. 187.118.27.76 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would it not use the Latin alphabet? Marnanel (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Because this language would be made in the same way math was created and its problably almost impossible that this would result in the end in a language that use latin alphabet. This would be a huge coincidence. Well there is roman numerals that use roman letters, but the thing is, that the language I am asking like I said before would not try use latin alphabet, to be simple, to be minimalistic or other things, it would be only focus on abstraction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.223.83 (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes here. Is this hypothetical language something which may be spoken aloud, as languages such as French or Latin or English may be spoken aloud? If so, unless its phonemic inventory is particularly large, why would you not want to use the Latin alphabet to write it down? Marnanel (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

187.118.27.76 -- LINCOS is probably close to what you have in mind... AnonMoos (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ham and eggs in old American movies

The characters would sometimes eat "ham and eggs" at diners or similar places. Would ham be another word for bacon, or did it really mean ham? Is ham and eggs still a common phrase or dish? Thanks 92.15.30.71 (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I frequently have ham and eggs for breakfast, especially when at a restaurant. My personal favorite is country ham with scrambled eggs and red-eye gravy. --Jayron32 19:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've had ham and eggs, too. It really is ham, not bacon. Bacon is much more common, though. Marco polo (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The usual choice offered in most parts of the U.S. for those who want something besides starch (toast, English muffin, pancakes, grits, potato) to accompany their fried eggs, scrambled eggs or omelette for breakfast is bacon, ham or sausage. [On the other hand, McDonald's offers a choice between Egg McMuffin (Canadian bacon or else meatless) and Sausage McMuffin. Another variation between different establishments' menus is what kind of sausage, and in what form — individual "links" or a slice of a much larger one.] If the bacon isn't Canadian-style bacon, then it's individual slices (rashers), individually fried, grilled or broiled to some degree of crispness; ham is never served this way with eggs.—— Shakescene (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not a euphemism for bacon (the only ham/bacon confusion in the US is Canadian bacon). The ham is likely to be ham steak (thick pieces of ham), and not (thin) sliced ham (as one might find on a ham sandwich), nor something like prosciutto/spanish ham, in case that's what you were thinking. It would also likely be served warm, rather than cold or room temperature. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, making it gammon and eggs, which is a known thing in the UK (although not necessarily for breakfast). Although the egg served with gammon would usually be fried. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The classic US ham and eggs has the eggs fried as well, although any decent diner would probably allow you to customize them to your liking. I'll note that the illustrations to Green Eggs and Ham show the titular items as clearly ham, and fried eggs (sunny side up). -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

... and "ham and eggs" is still served (though increasingly rarely) in northern UK, distinguished from the supplanting "gammon" by being traditionally home-cured, with thicker slices than bacon (but not steak), and much, much tastier! Dbfirs 08:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The only encounter with "gammon" a U.S. citizen is likely to have had is in a close reading of The Waste Land. Ham and eggs are far more common, both in diners and Seussology.... - Nunh-huh 09:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there an American term that corresponds to "gammon"? Or is it just regarded as undistinguished ham? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not in normal use, no. If you were talking to a butcher - maybe, but he'd have to be a real butcher and not just "that guy behind the meat counter at the grocery store who will tell you that they still haven't gotten the chicken breast in yet". Our article rather ridiculously implies that Americans wouldn't understand the term "ham" at all and that this is a British usage. Matt Deres (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't clear on what gammon is either (that is a disambig page with a link to ham). The ham article claims it is "cuts" of ham while the ham steak stub article (which term isn't mentioned in the ham article) refers to "gammon steak". Any ham experts out there? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In Britain, "ham" is cured and usually cooked (although not always, e.g. Parma ham) and is sold ready to eat, as a large joint or in slices. "Gammon" is effectively raw ham that must be cooked by the purchaser before consumption. A joint of gammon is commonly roasted or boiled; gammon steaks are usually grilled, shallow-fried or griddled. Karenjc 21:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

When in doubt about food, I turn to Alton Brown. His show about ham says:

Now by far, the largest groups of market hams are referred to as 'city' hams. Now whether they are "water-added" or "in natural juice," these hams are partially cured in a sweet brine before being lightly smoked and cooked. But these are mild-mannered, crowd-pleasing hams which make up for their lack of depth with a user-friendly versatility. Now city hams usually come in one of two different halves. Now this is a shank end and here is a rump end right here. Now this looks like it might be easier to carve and therefore a better value, but there's a lot of connective tissue in there so I skip it and stick with the shank end. Country hams are a whole other food. First, they are rubbed or packed in a dry cure composed of salt, sodium nitrate, and sometimes sugar and pepper. After that they're hung, sometimes for months, sometimes with smoke, sometimes without. Now during that time, the salt pulls moisture out of the ham leaving it a bacterial desert not to mention a whole lot wider than when it started. The resulting flavors are amazingly complex. It's almost like a small batch bourbon. And the texture has been compared to fine aged cheddar.

And then later adds:

Now unlike country hams, city hams have been cooked but not always to the same degree, okay? They've all been cooked to at least 137 degrees. Hot enough to kill the occasional microbial agent but not hot enough to be called cooked from a culinary standpoint.

So it doesn't seem to be differentiated in quite the same way Brits do it, but close. Matt Deres (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you not have "A frog he would a-wooing go" ("Roly-poly, gammon and spinach") in the US, then? Marnanel (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Used to / use to

I am intrigued by the phrasing of the question: "did people used to think the moon changes shape?" Kittybrewster ☎ 19:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The word "think" is in some ways analogous to the word "say", in some ways it implies a direct quote. If we rephrased the question "Did people use to say "The moon changes shape!"? it would make sense. The change from say to think, in the mind of the asker, does not signficantly alter the relationship between that word and the object phrase that follows it. This may not be strictly formal grammar, but it is consistent and understandable in its construction, kinda like using a word like "mouses" as a plural for "mouse". --Jayron32 19:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am unhappy about "did people use(d)". Kittybrewster ☎ 20:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I suspect Kitty is interested in the expression "used to" and what happens to it when it becomes part of a question. Is it "Did they used to" or "Did they use to"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

or "were they used to ..." Kittybrewster ☎ 20:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Used to (or use to) is a very common spoken expression in english, especially informally, and the distinction between them in spoken english is minimal. The difference in spelling them out, based on phonetics, would make it hard to make a distinction between adding the voice stop between the end of "use" and the beginning of "to", especially when the "t" at the start of the word "to" will begin to taken on some voicing as well. Since "use to" or "used to" isn't formal English anyways, I doubt one could apply the strict rules of grammar to it in an unambiguous manner. It's an idiomatic phrasing, akin to "ain't", and so resists analysis by normal means. --Jayron32 20:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the rules of grammar apply unambiguously to "use to" versus "used to". When a question begins with the helping verb did, the main verb is always in the infinitive. Therefore, it has to be "Did they use to?" Marco polo (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Would you say "did people pretended to think the moon changes shape?" or "did people appeared to think the moon changes shape?" Dbfirs 08:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say "Did people think the moon changes shape?" Kittybrewster ☎ 12:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've actually heard different people say different things about this. The "pretended/appeared" example above doesn't necessarily apply in this case, because unlike "pretend to" or "appear to", we're not just dealing with a simple verb + "to" phrase. In both "It used to" and "It didn't use(d) to", we're dealing with a single modal particle, pronounced /justu/ in formal English and /justə/ in informal English. If it were a full verb like pretend/appear, we would say /juz tu/ in the negative and /juzd tu/ in the affirmative. The fact is, the /z/ pronunciation is simply wrong, and we're not dealing with something that syntactically is a normal verb. In spoken English, then, it seems hard to deny that there is just a single unit /justu/ that is used in both affirmative and negative. In written English, however, there's a bit of an awkward dilemma, because written English preserves the original state of affairs from several hundred years ago when "used to" was no different than "appeared to", so there's naturally a bit more of a desire to treat "used to" in formal written English as though it were a normal verb. As for why people frequently write "used to" even in the negative, that's probably an influence from the spoken language, where there is no "used to"/"use to" distinction. Voikya (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That said, "use to" looks awful to me, so in formal situations I'd try to paraphrase to avoid it. Voikya (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The common construction with used to comes from a forgotten meaning of the verb use: to be in the habit. Since the meaning is forgotten and only survives in certain constructions in the past tense, used to is gradually moving towards some other grammatical category. That's why constructions like "Did people used to think" are now more common than "Did people use to think", the traditionally correct version. According to Merriam–Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, "didn't used to" is more acceptable in BE than in AE. But it really appears to be acceptable in all variants. In a recent discussion on Language Log, a comment suggests to me that the old sense of use is actually still alive in Irish English. Hans Adler 22:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why Merriam Webster's dictionary thinks that incorrect usage is more acceptable in the UK. "Didn't used to" would be marked as incorrect in all British schools, not just Irish ones! The "forgotten" meaning is still taught here (though maybe only by pedants?) [4] In formal English, where one wouldn't use "didn't", the correct construction is "used not to ...", though this sounds slightly too formal in some contexts, so I agree with Voikya that a paraphrase is preferable. Is the incorrect form really more common in modern usage? Dbfirs 09:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It virtually never appears in formal written English (but then neither does didn't use to, which is grammatically unobjectionable and not so strange-sounding as used not to). In speech, I think no one really distinguishes, and when the speech is written down, didn't used to can perhaps be thought of as almost as much an error in transcription from speech as an error in grammar. --Trovatore (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) See last link in my post above, which goes to a Language Log post by Mark Liberman that got plenty of insightful comments. In Liberman's idiolect "didn't used to" is correct, and he checked that this appears to be a majority position. (It's certainly true for me as well, although "didn't use to" is of course more logical and must be what I learned at school.)

I am not sure if anyone addressed the AE vs. BE question, though. Perhaps on this point the British sources are more descriptive and the American sources more prescriptive, and this misled the MWDEU? Hans Adler 10:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with Liberman on many of the examples he starred.

Why he used to say to his friends, he used

For getting a dowager, give me Proust --E. E. Cummings

--Trovatore (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed at the figures, and I suspect that there is something wrong with the analysis, but I'm not sure just where the error arises, so I'll not push my opinion until I can prove my point. I also note that the majority of comments seem to be in support of the "10% minority". Wiktionary does allow the "didn't used to" option. Are there other dictionaries in which this construction is permitted? I would be surprised if British sources are less prescriptive. Dbfirs 17:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I learned English as a second language and tend to err on the side of logic. These are two reasons to write "didn't use to". But I don't. To me this indicates that the statistics are correct and "didn't used to" is the majority spelling. Otherwise I would hardly have switched. Now that I am aware of the situation I may switch back.

I have the impression that prescriptivism is generally more rampant in the US than in the UK. The times of Noah Webster's reforms are long gone. The more interesting innovations seem to happen in the UK nowadays, while the US is a lot more conservative in matters of orthography. Hans Adler 19:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

... so are most learners of English as a foreign language (and those learners of English as a native language who are still taught "correct" usage) ignoring what they were taught about "correct" usage and abandoning ""didn't use to" in favour of "didn't used to"? I'll do some independent research when I have time because I really find this difficult to believe. If this trend continues, will we soon be writing "useded not to"? Dbfirs 23:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

A brief look at Google Books seems to indicate that "didn't used to" is slightly more common than "didn't use to", but many of the "usages" are criticising the usage, or reporting colloquial usage, and seem (to me) to be more American than British. Comparing this to the more formal usage, with "did not use to" getting 14,200 hits against only 1,540 for "did not used to", I conclude that the correct usage based on the dated verb "to use" meaning "to be accustomed" is still much more common except in colloquial language and reported speech. There is no evidence to support the claim that 90% use the "incorrect" form. Dbfirs 08:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Off or from

A few days ago, while reading a cricket report, I read the following photo caption (I can't remember which particular players were mentioned): "Player A takes punishment off Player B". To me this sounds like poor grammar, and "Player A takes punishment from Player B" sounds more natural. Are both acceptable? --Si1965 (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The former is colloquial but in no way ungrammatical. I know less than nothing about cricket, but to me the two prepositions convey slightly different meanings: "A takes punishment from B" suggests a somewhat active role for B, as if B were taking the initiative and A were merely allowing it to happen. "A takes punishment off B" shifts the agency entirely onto A, making it sound as if B were an indiscriminate radiator of punishment which A had come and partaken of. LANTZY^TALK 04:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that these rules are just conventions, and that "take off" is common in some dialects, but to me it conjures up an image of Player B as a table from which Player A is picking up his punishment. I would always use "from" in this cricketing context. Dbfirs 08:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is dialect and isn't formal English. In London you might hear "He stole it off me!" when "He stole it from me" would be correct but a bit less expressive. Alansplodge (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely one sells something to Z having bought it from X. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, this was from the normally very correct BBC. I love the idea of an "indiscriminate radiator of punishment" --Si1965 (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

December 10

Subject

I know that a clause has a subject, which is the thing doing whatever to the object. This is usually where I stop learning about grammar, because I'm unable to keep this simple fact fixed in my mind. The problem is that the word subject, outside of the context of grammar, seems to me to have the same meaning as object. If I take them apart etymologically (valid or not, this is my usual way of remembering what a word means), I get "towards-throw" for object, which is very satisfactory; but I get "under-throw" for subject, which is fairly meaningless, and what's worse, in ordinary language, a subject isn't a thing which acts; it's a thing which is acted on, or subjected to actions. You might be the subject of a debate, an autopsy, a song, a photograph, or a frenzied attack. Subjects are passive things, so how has the Subject (grammar) come to mean the thing doing the action, and what cues can help me conceptualize and remember it as such? 81.131.43.12 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

this is all correct - In English grammar a grammatical object is something that is subject(ed) to an agent's action - but it is also the object of the grammatical subject's subjection. Confusing I know.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This very confusion was why I learnt much more from Ancient Greek and Latin grammar than any attempt at English grammar, and end up thinking of things as nominative/accusative/genitive etc, even if English doesn't quite work like that any more. It's just easier (and directly transferable to learning other modern European languages, at least). 86.161.208.185 (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A cunning plan! 81.131.43.12 (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In Voice (grammar) I read: "When the subject is the agent or doer of the action, the verb is in the active voice. When the subject is the patient, target or undergoer of the action, it is said to be in the passive voice." You can read more about that in the article. -- Irene1949 (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Can there be a phrase in which the doer comes before the verb, yet is the object? That article seems to imply that a passive verbal phrase like "was eaten" is what causes the object to be promoted to subject - or is it merely that whichever one comes before the verb is the one called the subject? If I try to engineer a passive phrase that lets the doer come first: "the cat was the animal by which the mouse was eaten", does the doer (the cat) become the object? I see I've introduced another verb there (was), though, so now maybe they're both subjects. 81.131.8.249 (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

in "the man was eaten" the man is the grammatical subject, not the grammatical object, but he is also the semantic patient, because the verb is passive. In a passive clause the agent is taken out of the equation and the previous grammatical object/semantic patient is promoted to the status of grammatical subject.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the subject always on the left of the verb? 81.131.8.249 (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

English does not mark nouns with case to show which noun is the object and which is the subject, instead it marks it by position relative to the verb. Generally the subject comes before the verb and the object after. Exeptions are in subordinate clauses when you can for example say "the dog that the man kicked" - here that shows that man is the subject of the subordinate clause even though it comes after the object of that clause.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Er. So "that the man kicked" is the subordinate clause, and "dog" its the object even though it isn't inside the clause, and even though in "the dog was kicked by the man" the dog is the subject and the man is the object, in "the dog that the man kicked" the dog is the object and the man is the subject? Have I got any of that right?

How about this rule: the subject is either the agent of a verb in the active voice, or the patient of a verb in the passive voice (which voice puts the focus on the patient, making the patient a kind of pseudo-agent)?

I would very much like to know who first started calling this constituent of a clause, the subject, by the misleading name "subject". Any idea where that comes from, and why? 81.131.8.249 (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In a complex clause such as "The dog that the man kicked ate the meatballs" - the dog is subject and agent of the main clause and object and patient of the subordinate relative clause. the man is subject and agent of the subordinate clause, and meatballs is object and patient of the main clause. I don't know where the terminology comes from, but my guess would be old latin grammar.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing it has the sense of being the "foundation" (under-placed thing) of the clause (probably originally in Greek), which gives me the fundamental thing and the thrown-towards for subject and object. I can probably live with that, even if the passive voice means that the thrown-towards is sometimes the thing doing the throwing. 81.131.8.249 (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the grammatical subject follows the verb “says” or “said”, like in this sentence: "And this," said the Director opening the door, "is the Fertilizing Room.". I found it here -- Irene1949 (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha, I never noticed before how absurd that is. Apart from the comma, it looks like the phrase in quotes is saying the person, equivalent to A mouse, ate the cat. 213.122.23.184 (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Huckabee etymology

"Huckabee" is an odd name. Our article states only that it is "of English origin". Can we trace it back further? The "-bee" seems like maybe a variant of the Danish "-by". Assuming this were the case, then the "Hucka" would probably be derived from the genitive of some noun or (more likely) proper name. Any thoughts? LANTZY^TALK 05:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You do know the Danish spent some time in England right? --Jayron32 05:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course. That's precisely why I suggested that the "-bee" might be an Anglicized Danish suffix. It's the "Hucka-" that I'm really curious about. LANTZY^TALK 06:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

According to A Dictionary of English Surnames (Routledge, 1991, p 242, ISBN 041505737X), the name "Huckerby", as in "Robert de Huccerbi", "Ralph de Huckerby" (1252), and "Ranulph de Huckerbi" (1333) is derived from Uckerby. That Wikipedia article says that it is "thought to derive from the word 'Ukkr' meaning a restless Viking, the 'by' meaning home of. Uckerby is believed to be an origin of the surnames Huckaby and Huckabee although Huccaby in Devon is more likely", according to the Dictionary of American Family Names, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-508137-4. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I just banged up a surname page for it -> Huckabee (surname).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the etymology on the Uckerby article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Well done, everybody. Conjectural or not, the next time I see Mike Huckabee, I'll think of a restless viking. LANTZY^TALK 13:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Larrabee side question

That reminds me of a question I've had floating around in my head for months now and whose time has finally come.

Whenever I hear the name Larrabee, I always associate it with very well-to-do and well-established American families. Specifically American. Larrabee would never be the name of a British character, for example; always American, and always from the right side of the tracks, often with a southern connection (Kentucky is ringing loud bells here). I seem to have memories of various movie and TV characters over the years called Larrabee, and they always fitted this bill. It's almost a movie cliche, in my mind at least. Yet, when I checked it out on IMDb, I couldn't find any evidence for my belief. There were a few characters named Larrabee, but nothing like the legions of wealthy Larrabees that exist in my mind. The only one that really matched was the Larrabee family in Sabrina (1954), a film I did not finally see until last year.

Can anyone shed any light on how I might have made this association between the Larrabee name and old wealth? Or maybe there really is something to it but I've missed it in my research. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The only Larrabee I know of was a character on the old Get Smart program (not the sharpest cookie in the jar)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thornhill's attorney in North by Northwest is named Victor Larrabee (played by Edward Platt). Here is IMDb's list of productions with characters named Larrabee. In the real world, Lairmont Manor is sometimes called Larrabee House and was built for C. X. Larrabee "who wanted one of the finest homes in the northwest" (not in the south). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for those responses. Seems this is a figment of my imagination. Great things, imaginations. So true to life sometimes. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Etymological dictionary

Can someone show me where I can get software for etymological dictionary for free download?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.35.7 (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This Google search may help. As always, be wary of anything being offered for 'free download'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

EtymOnline, while not software available for download, is an excellent etymological resource. Lexicografía (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

So I cannot have a software for an Etymology??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.35.7 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The creator of etymonline has observed [5] that his site is popular as an academic resource, despite his lack of qualifications (which "makes me cringe a bit"), so that implies there aren't any free alternatives, online or offline. "I figured some academic or professional organization eventually would put up a thorough, accurate, free, searchable database of etymologies under the seal of some university or prominent publishing house. And etymonline could retire. But I haven’t seen that yet." 81.131.8.249 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope he doesn't retire any time soon. As far as I am concerned, EtymOnline is one of the best websites in existence, and we here at the LangRefDesk use it all the time. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"a ma vie de coeur entier"

I wanted to have this phrase on a ring for my boyfriend but apparently although there are loads of internet pages that use this spelling and grammar, some people are saying it is incorrect. It is an old phrase so I thought it might just be old fashioned french but even a shop website where rings with this inscription on it says "This 15th century ring is inscribed in period French with the inconsistent spelling of the time, "a ma vie de coer entier", you have my whole heart for my whole life." While my own French is very poor, that of my boyfriend is very good, so I can't afford to have something grammatically incorrect put on the ring. If somebody here tells me it is old spelling/grammar, then I will tell him so, otherwise I'd need to know the correct version, please. I'm slightly confused as to how something that is supposedly incorrect could be so widespead. Any suggestions? ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.243.97 (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The modern spelling/grammar would be "tu as ma vie de cœur entier" (where there is no pro-drop in modern French, and further slight grammatical adjustments might be preferable). If it's an accurate copy of an actual 15th-century inscription, then it would be faithful to the historical model, and the modern language would be somewhat irrelevant... AnonMoos (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this is what I'm asking in part: Is it in fact an accurate copy of an actual 15th-century inscription? If it was grammatically correct back in the day, then I'll be even more chuffed, because I find that even more romantic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.243.97 (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Joan Evans A History of Jewellery 1100-1870, "Among the jewels Joan of Navarre, wife of Henry IV, forfeited in 1423, were two, one inscribed A ma vie de coer entier, the other A vous me lie." I suppose you would have to read up on those two to decide how romantic that makes the inscription, but it is at least authentic Middle French. --Antiquary (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Killing

Killing one's brother is fratricide. What are the words for (killing one's) husband, wife, son, daughter? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well husband is Mariticide and wife is Uxoricide. I don't think there's a term for killing a son or daughter specifically, but to kill one's child is Filicide. --Cameron* 13:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I know you didn't ask, but killing one's sister is Sororicide.

--SoggyCooky (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was pesticide. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Killing ones brother is fratricide. Richard Avery (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Infanticide can also be used in such contexts. -- Irene1949 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Whilst not exactly a reliable source, I will put forward this site for a huge list of words ending in '-cide'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a handy list of -cide words. Some of them seem to be made up (like poultrycide, tickicide and lousicide). I found one spelling error: the killing of everything would be omnicide rather than onmicide [sic]. And one egregious omission: they mention mundicide (destruction of the entire world), but not novomundicide (well, isn't everyone sometimes tempted to blow up the New World but leave the rest of the world intact; I know I am). See also our Category:Homicide for articles we have on some of these words. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Goon Show: "Yes, I killed my mother and sewed her into the mattress." "Good God, man, that's matricide." Marnanel (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how he killed her. Maybe he poisoned her with a razor blade - by giving her arse a nick.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Then there was the guy who smashed a Mac over his evil roommate's head. He was an Applecider. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal pronouns used for organisations

I have an uneasy feeling about the use of "whose" in a sentence such as: "The Broccoli Society is a non-profit organisation whose goal is to promote the consumption of brocolli." I can't quite lay my finger on why it feels wrong, it just looks like something Miss Haward would have marked with a large red X. (Miss Hayward was a real battle-axe of the Dickensian variety - the terror of an entire generation of 6th-graders back in the 1970s.) Roger (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it. 86.184.27.68 (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC).

I feel there's something not quite right with using "whose" or "who" for a subject that one would use "it" in a simple declarative statement: "It promotes the consumption of brocolli." For me there is a mismatch but I can't figure out why. BTW it might be significant to point out that I speak South African English. Roger (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Whose is a possessive pronoun not only for who, but also for which or that. Basically, whose is the all-purpose possessive relative pronoun in English. Marco polo (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Miss H expected you to spell her name and broccoli correctly. See me after class. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What Marco Polo said. There are probably still pedants (not saying that Miss Haward/Hayward was one of those; we can do with more of her type these days, however she spelt her name) who reserve personal pronouns for humans. And in their defence, I think most people would still tend to say "The dog that bit me was a blue heeler" rather than "The dog who bit me ..." (but then, they often use "that" for human subjects where I would usually use "who" - it's the The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance vs. The Man that Got Away conundrum). But "whose" is useful in all possessive contexts. Otherwise, it'd have to be "The Broccoli Society is a non-profit organisation, the goal of which is to promote the consumption of broccoli", which is a little tedious. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I just came across a usage note here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.83.77 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Most abject and groveling apologies to the ghost of Mrs. Hayward for that most egregious of typos! (We used to be the very epitome of abject grovelsomeness in her class. The word "harridan" comes to mind even thirty years later.) Stealing a bit of an idea from User:JackofOz I think I'll be happiest with "The Broccoli Society is a non-profit organisation, its goal is to promote the consumption of broccoli". I'll even consider making it two separate sentences. Thanks for your input everyone. Roger (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Consider? It's mandatory, mate!! What you have there is a comma splice, a sub-category of run-on sentence. You've connected two sentences with just a comma, which is not sufficient. You need a conjunction like "and" (which wouldn't work very well here stylistically, but still 1000% more preferable to that comma); or a semi-colon; or calling a spade a spade and making them 2 separate sentences, as you say. (Btw, I see Miss Hayward has gone and got herself married now. Congratulations to all concerned.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid if M[r]s Ha[y]ward insisted that whose only be used as a genitive of who, then she is full of it. To quote the beginning of the entry on whose in Webster's Dictionary of English Usage:

"The misinformation that passes for gospel wisdom about English usage is sometimes astounding. A correspondent in 1986 wanted us to help him choose between two sentences containing of which; he had used of which to refer to the word house, he said, and had not used whose because it is "not formal." Not formal! Look at these passages:"

This is followed by very formal counterexamples to this 'rule' from Hamlet ("I could a tale unfold whose lightest word // Would harrow up thy soul"), King James Bible, Paradise Lost, Pope and Wordsworth. After the examples, the usage dictionary remarks: "It would be hard to find passages surpassing these in formality and solemnity." Apparently, after 400 years of whose being used for things as a matter of course, the idea that this might be wrong came up in the 18th century and even made it into the OED at some point. Already in 1851 Goold Brown [6] gave an overview over the contradictory usage advice by various grammarians, pointing out that one of those who rejected generalised use of whose actually employed it himself. (This kind of thing happens quite often, because bad prescriptivists are generally quite good at writing and only suck at describing correctly what defines good style. So they just ignore their own bad advice.)

Webster's also mentions that none of the modern usage advice they surveyed advised gainst use of whose for what can't be referred to using who. The entry closes:

"The notion that whose may not properly be used of anything except persons is a superstition; it has been used by innumerable standard authors from Wycliffe to Updike, and is entirely standard as an alternative to of which [...] in all varieties of discourse."

Hans Adler 08:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Japanese: pronunciation of を and お

Hi, I've read in several places, including the Wikipedia article on hiragana, that Japanese を is pronounced the same as お. However, this page, part of a site that, while not written by a native speaker, seems largely reliable and useful, says that the sounds are very close but not the same. Which is correct? Or maybe it varies depending on the speaker? 86.184.27.68 (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC).

They are basically the same, but depending on the speaker and the sound immediately preceding the を, I have heard を pronounced with a very slight 'w' before it. I believe this is more prevalent in carefully spoken NHK Japanese. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"o" and "wo" were once distinct morae written with the corresponding kana and pronounced as you'd expect. Some distinction does seem to survive—I've often heard "kore o" pronounced such that it sounds more like "kore wo", for example. I suppose this is analogous to pronouncing "what" as "hwat" in English even though the more usual pronunciation these days is "wat". But Japanese spelling has changed in line with the pronunciation change, so that almost all of the words formerly spelled with を are now spelled with お. So it's a mistake to say that the modern characters を and お are pronounced differently—even if there are still two sounds in some contexts, they no longer match up with the spellings. -- BenRG (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that the "wo" pronunciation used by some people for the particle を is also used in other words that were previously spelled with を but are now spelled with お? Do you have any examples? 86.161.83.77 (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a list at ja:を#歴史的仮名遣いで「を」が含まれる語 of words that used to be written with を, and some person and place names are still inconsistently spelled that way, like かをる. But, admittedly, I can't remember hearing any of them pronounced with "wo", except maybe in deliberate imitation of old-fashioned speech. -- BenRG (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is the katakana ヲ no longer used? --84.61.182.248 (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It is still used, when everything is written in katakana, such as in telegrams, or on older mobile phones (which couldn't use hiragana or kanji), certain official documents, signs, notices, etc. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

How did synthetic/polysynthetic/agglutinative languages originate in the first place?

From my study of the major languages in the world, it seems to me that, virtually all of them have inevitably lost some of the inflection systems of their proto-languages and have evolved more or less in a analytic/isolating direction. The original phonological systems also tend to be greatly simplified (due to 1) laziness in speech; 2) imperfect imitation by non-native speakers or offsprings; 3) unawareness of grammar). Hence the envisaged reconstructed proto-languages appear to have far more complexity and are inherently strictly-governed by many more grammatical rules than their modern descendants. My question is, how is this possible? How did our ancestors "accidentally" create languages by babbling away sounds which are undeniably that "rich" in grammar - say nouns which automatically decline according to their case and number and verbs which conjugate according to tense, mood, person. I'm sure this is not what the hypothesis that a gene mutation initiated genesis of languages would predict. Under that hypothesis, the original state of all proto-languages would definitely be very analytic, and languages tend to become more complex inflection-wise giving rise to the now-observed polysynthetic/agglutinative etc. languages. But this is practically much more unlikely than simplification and languages like English and Chinese have almost evolved uni-directionally into more analytic languages, for example in Chinese - the lost of initial causative s- prefix from Old Chinese, loss of pronoun declension in most dialects, etc.. Old Chinese used to utilise a strict set of correspondences of initials and finals for word formation, and used ablaut for verbification of nouns, but in modern Chinese it is just (in a way, numb) morphemes combining, without any variation on syllable structure to indicate morpheme relationships. Please help. I am really confused. Adressss (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It is really quite simple, you're assumptions about how language changes and have changed are wrong. Languages change to become both more and less "complex " (although there is no good definition of what complex and simple means in a language context). Languages can change from isolating to polysynthetic or vice versa. Languages were also not created from babbling but evolved from primitive communication in a period of millions of years - and it evloved together with our brains and our capacities for symbolic thinking. I don't think any hypotheses that postulates language as being the result of a single mutation is tenable (or that anyone believes this) - læanguage is the result of millions of years of cumulative mutations and changes in human culture.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to be nit-picker, but you're obviously quite confident talking about technical linguistic matters, and I see from your user page that linguistics is the primus inter pares of your main interests - yet you write "you're assumptions" for "your assumptions". What were you thinking, man?  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

English is not my language I'm just trying to use it...·Maunus·ƛ· 18:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Doesn't this come down to the way in which a language is analyzed? Chinese is often given as the classical case of an analytical language, yet I think a case can be made that it is evolving into an agglutinative language. Its morphemes do combine according to rules to form compounds, and those compounds combine very regularly with particles and other morphemes to form grammatical phrases. Linguists make what can be somewhat arbitrary decisions on where to draw word boundaries. Why should we not consider Chinese phrases as the words of an agglutinative language? Incidentally, I don't think that you are right that synthetic languages are "richer" in grammar than analytical languages. English grammar, particularly the rules for the use of articles, word order, and verb aspect, can be dauntingly complex for non-native speakers. Marco polo (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not true that the isolating/synthetic distinction is just a matter of analysis. It is a matter of the definition of a word - under a standard definition words have syntactic freedom and are usually phonologically marked (i.e. as stress units). In a polysynthetic language morphemes are relatively more bound and their sequence is governed by morphological rules. In isolating language they are relatively more free and their sequence is governed by syntactic rules. Both have complex grammars - one has more complexity in morphology the other in syntax.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Examples of mophologically complex forms deriving from analytic ones in English are the contractions: I'm, You're, doesn't etc. if this were to become the general pattern it would turn into fairly radical synthesis. This does happen in some languages. I work with Otomi which is a language that has evolved what I would call polysynthesis (some linguists disagree) from a fairly strict analytical typology. This happens all over the place - the problem is that when you are only doing typology with the one percent of the worlds languages that have the most speakers you don't have a representative sample. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

An example that may be easier to understand for native speakers of English is used to (see also thread further up). It started with an obsolete meaning of the verb use. It was once the case that you could say: "These days, I use to wake up early". This is no longer the case (except in Irish English). Currently strange grammatical rules are developing around used to, and it's already grammatical to write: "I didn't used to wake up early" (with what looks like an odd double past construction). It seems we are witnessing the birth of a new past form. In similar processes, prepositions or postpositions (which some languages have instead of prepositions) get attached to their referents and turn into cases. (It was once popular to read "Peter's dog" as a contraction of "Peter his dog", but I am not sure how correct this explanation of the Saxon genitive was.) Later the cases gradually get lost and people rely more and more on (new) prepositions or postpositions. Hans Adler 22:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is complex morphology something that can be quite easily acquired by languages over time, without contact with already morphologically complex languages nearby? It seems to be something that tends to be lost rather than gained (cf. Indo-European languages from PIE). Adressss (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

My argument is that when languages reach extremes of isolation, they often start to develop synthetic forms. English is another case in point, as Maunus starts to point out. We write "I do not want to go" or "I don't want to go" but say something like "ʔaɪ 'doũwʌnə goʊ" in which I would argue "'doũwʌnə" is a synthetic form that has developed in modern times. Many such forms exist in English, and it is not hard to imagine a historical process in which such forms proliferated in an originally isolating language. Marco polo (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Slurring of the language in order to talk faster, which I suppose is how we get "ampersand" from "and per se and", and "folks'll" from "forecastle". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

some forecastle never eat a skunk, and then again some forecastle.

like cletus, the slack-jawed yokel! 82.234.207.120 (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice one! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Plural of paterfamilias

For latinates: I am writing about More's Utopia and I need to know what would be the correct latin plural form of "paterfamilias". ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"familias" seems to be an archaic genitive, so that part doesn't change. The plural given in all the sources I found in google books is "patresfamilias". Our article on pater familias has "patres familias" too. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks! Wikipedia really is a better source than you'd imagine!·Maunus·ƛ· 15:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I second Sluzzelin. See wikt:paterfamilias. Lexicografía (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There are two very different ways to make it plural: "patres familias", "fathers of the family"; and "patres familiae", "fathers of families", which is sometimes found in erudite English as the standard plural of "pater-familias". In a Latin text, all these terms should be written as two words. LANTZY^TALK 15:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is "familiae" an older version of the genitive plural then? I know it's the standard Latin singular genitive. In standard Latin "fathers of the families" should be patres familiarum, as far as I know (which isn't very far, admittedly). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Familias is a 1st declension genitive singular form which was archaic in Latin (cf. the Greek -ης ending), but there's no corresponding archaic genitive plural that I've ever heard of. Each individual family of Republican Rome could have only one head of household, so I would really go with patres familiarum... AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Could patres familias refer to different heads of a single family during the course of time?—Emil J. 19:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The word familias never changes its declension whereas pater, patris changes according to its function. A very good example by Cicero is given in his case Against Verres:

atque adeo nostra res publica, quoniam illa populi Romani vectigalia sunt, hunc tot patrum familias numerum desiderat et reposcit. ager Herbitensis primo anno habuit aratores CCLII, tertio CXX: hinc CXXXII patres familias extorres profugerunt. "and to that extent our republic has to regret the loss of so many heads of families, and demands them back at his hand, since they are the real revenues of the Roman people. The district of Herbita had in his first year two hundred and fifty-seven cultivators; in his third, a hundred and twenty. From this region a hundred and thirty-seven heads of families have fled like banished men." Cic. Ver. 2.3.120

In the first use by Cicero, patrum is plural genetive and I would parse that as a genetive of the whole. The second use is in plural nominative: the subject of profugerunt. This is the exact form that you seek: the plural nominative of pater familias is indeed patres familias as demonstrated by Cicero. The easiest way to perform research in Latin is to search the Perseus website[7] or Textkit[8], which is very useful for Ancient Greek as well. I could be wrong concerning pater familias as I only studied Latin for 8 semesters at University, but it may be difficult to find a doctor in the house. Gx872op (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In the general Latin construction X Y_[gen], where X and Y are two words acting as nouns and Y is in the genitive case (e.g. "magister militum", "mater lectionis" etc.), Y does not change case, since its syntax is solely dependent on "X", and is not really affected by other surrounding words in the sentence. However, in some cases "Y" can change number (to plural or singular), if this would be more suitable to the intended meaning which is desired to be expressed in a particular sentence, and this is the general principle which I was applying when I suggested "patres familiarum". The evidence you've gathered suggests that the archaic form "familias" was treated as an idiom in this construction, and so did not in fact change number; however "patres familiarum" might be considered technically be more accurate than "patres familias" in describing precisely the family law of Republican Rome... AnonMoos (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

take out procession

Is it an Indianism? --117.204.81.99 (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I am a BrE speaker and it sounds alien to me. In fact, I wouldn't even really know what it meant except by guesssing from context. 86.161.83.77 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC).

I'd say the same thing. Can you give us the context? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If you Google the phrase you will find many instances in Indian news papers. Here's one from the Hindu. 117.204.82.93 (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

From the Hindu link above: "Construction workers in the district took out a massive procession and staged a demonstration here on Tuesday to press their 14-point charter of demands". I'd say it isn't standard British English, and I wouldn't think it was standard US English either? 'Procession' sounds too formal in any case, in this context. I'd just write "Construction workers in the district held a massive demonstration here on Tuesday...", or if it was a walkout, "Construction workers in the district staged a massive walkout and then held a demonstration here on Tuesday..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not American English. Despite the examples, I still don't feel certain what it's supposed to mean. Marco polo (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Some things you can take out are: a loan, which is clear enough, since you take the money out of the bank - but also a newspaper advert, a subscription, and a petition. I'm not sure what object it is that any of those are taken out of. Oh, and a contract and an injunction. The phrase seems to generally apply to papery things. 81.131.51.70 (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the mob used to 'take out' people, but I don't think that is the intended meaning. I think we need further examples to get to the bottom of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That comes from "take out a contract (killing) on", I think. Or could it be from "take out for a nice meal"? Who can say. 81.131.51.70 (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think it comes in a circuitous way from "take out a contract on" and not the more direct meaning of "take out" to mean "remove"? For example, "Take that sentence out, and your essay will be better." —Bkell (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I guess you're right. ("Take out that bridge" even involves weapons, too.) This gives a potential meaning to "Construction workers took out a massive procession" that I hadn't considered. 81.131.51.70 (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly a long line at the McDonalds Drive-thru window Buster Seven Talk 06:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Very strange that this phrase so widely used by the Indian press is so strange to native speakers! Even the OED has failed to list it. It's not a recentism either. I think this phrase should be suggested to OED. --117.204.91.108 (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Native speakers? Of what language? There are many Englishes, as this example well demonstrates. A native speaker of any of the variants can reasonably claim to be a "native speaker of English" - but a group of native speakers, one each from the Yukon in Canada, from South Africa, from the western isles of Scotland, and from the hills of Sri Lanka, would have considerable difficulty in understanding each other. Differences in vocabulary, grammar, idiom and pronunciation would all be barriers to immediate mutual comprehension. Example: When I first met my partner, who was brought up in Sri Lanka, I assumed he spoke only Sinhalese natively and came to English much later, as a second language. I thought this for quite some time, until he informed me that, not only did he speak both languages natively, but his mother was an English teacher! He was almost offended by any suggestion he was a Johnnie-come-lately to English. That doesn't alter the fact that I still often have difficulty in understanding what he says, for the 4 reasons I mentioned. But he's a native English speaker, just as I am. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to be a native speaker of Indian English, but there aren't very many. The figure that sticks in my head is a quarter of a million. Most Indians who speak English learn it in school. --Trovatore (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely Indian English, perhaps from "turned out" in procession. There are numerous common expressions which aren't quite right as compared to British or American English. A favorite one is "revert" to you for "respond" later. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Or opening the window to let the air force in. That's one I'll always remember. 00:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm always bemused by how tag questions spoken by many non-native Englishers (and even natives from certain places) are always "isn't it", no matter what the preceding context may be, or its tense. Such as, "Your wife wrote that book, isn't it" (rather than "didn't she"). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Could be short for "isn't it so?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

wikt:innit —Bkell (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

One day, I hope to write an article on this somewhere (not Wikipedia, it is OR). I'm going to entitle it Egalitarianism, innit? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The reduction of all tag questions to "isn't it?", "innit?" is a noticeable element Multicultural London English. You've been beaten to it, Andy. It's already been used in a book title "Education make you fick, innit: What's gone wrong with England's schools, colleges and universities, and how to start putting it right?" by Martin Allen and Patrick Ainley. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can only say that anyone who thinks that 'innit' is solely due to a failure of the education system has rather misunderstood the phenomenon. You'll find this, (or variations, like 'isn't it') in English from many parts of the world, and a careful study of its contextual usage suggests to me that it is often used to convert a direct statement into a question, in a situation where directness could be interpreted as asserting superior knowledge. As I suggested, there seems to me to be a linkage to an egalitarian ethos - the same one that results in 'brother' or 'bro' (or even 'blood') being used as a normal term of address in Multicultural London English. In Australia, which is another notably egalitarian society by ethos (in terms of language usage at least), the noted rising infliction inflection automatically makes the most direct statement sound like a question, rendering any 'innit' unnecessary. As I say, this is original research and not something I could definitively argue without further evidence, but this is my interpretation, innit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The things you learn here. I had always thought of the high rising terminal as a Valley girl phenomenon (broadly construed; of course not all Vals are female, or where would little Vals come from?). But apparently we have an article on Australian questioning intonation? --Trovatore (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Whoops, no we don't — it's a redirect to high rising terminal. I'm going to go mark it as a {{R with possibilities}}; someone could probably turn it into a real article. --Trovatore (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting: "...assertive speakers, leaders of the peer group are more likely to use HRT in their declaratives than the junior members of the particular peer group" (from the high rising terminal article). I think this fits in with my theory - in an egalitarian culture, 'leaders' need to stress their egalitarianism the most strongly. Thanks, Bro... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you called it an "infliction", Andy (have you been mixing with too many New Zealanders or South Africans?), because a lot of Australians cringe when they hear their compatriots speaking this way. We like to think it's confined to Queenslanders, but that's probably not strictly true. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Doh! I meant 'inflection', innit... And yes, there is a Kiwi in the vicinity. She confuses everyone... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

December 11

Nihongo translation again! (Sorry :3)

Hello! I want to know what the bunny girl is saying on this page: http://www.ntv.co.jp/kasoh/index2.html Sorry to ask again, but the page changed just today (and it does so only twice a year...) Thanks in advance! --Kreachure (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It says the date of broadcast has been decided, and that it will be broadcast at 7PM on 9th January (Sunday). In blue it says there is also another program 'right before it' and says that will be broadcast from 1:15PM. Then it asks for everyone to watch. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear on whether the 1:15 pre-performance broadcast is on Jan. 9 or on Dec. 26, the date of the actual competition. I guess the former makes more sense. I saw this show once, 14 years ago, and had completely forgotten about it. It was pretty neat. I'm surprised there isn't an English-language fan page. -- BenRG (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, BenRG - I'd forgotten what the 'official' English name was when I and Mari translated the first time. That link says 'Costume Grand Prix' - sounds better than my 'Fancy Dress Party Awards' above :) I'll remember that next time this comes up. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The 1:15 pre-performance broadcast is on Jan. 9. It's a kind of a promotional program. Kreachure, you can watch some selected videos of past winners by clicking "2009/06/15・名作動画集を公開しました！" in the paler yellow box on the left bottom. Enjoy! Oda Mari (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the official page for the Kasou Taishou event. I record the show and upload the skits on my Youtube page, but since my Japanese is very limited, I have to ask for your help every six months... :D So now I know I'll have to be ready by January 9! I'll also have to check out the video archive on the page which I had no idea of until now! Doumo arigatou gozaimashita, minna-san! ^_^ --Kreachure (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What was the Book called, and who wrote it ?

While I was at Intermediate school around 1979 or 1980 - hard to know since we had the same teacher and most of the same kids both years in a row, our teacher read us a book. I believe it was called the Eighty Acre Farm, but have found no reference to it on Wiki or Google. It was a comedy about a man with a family who bought what he believed to be a farm of 80 acres, but it turned out to be only one, and he was told that it was one acre in area, but eighty downwards. On the farm things grew faster and bigger. Can anyone tell me what the book was, which obviously was published up to or before 1980. Also, I see that the article on Jason Statham gives his birthday as 1972, as well as 1967, but which one is it ? At our age, those of us near forty can pass for mid thirites to fifty, so just by looking at him one could not know. Thanks. The Russian The Russian Christopher Lilly 07:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it could be McBroom's Wonderful One-Acre Farm by Sid Fleischman. --Onorem♠Dil 07:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, that's definitely it. There were a number of sequels, too. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Czech “ř”

Why is the sound “ř” of the Czech language very hard to pronounce? --84.61.182.248 (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's hard to pronounce or not will depend on your mother tongue. I don't find it hard to pronounce at all, but the sound may be foreign to your native language and so you may find it hard to pronounce. There's really little else that can be said in answer to your question... TomorrowTime (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Liquid consonants are actually quite a complex set of sounds. Even there are dozens of them, most languages only make use of a few of them, say one or two or maybe 3 and they are pretty much all represented orthographically in western languages by either "r" or "l". Consider "r" for a second. Phonemicly, most languages recognize only one or 2 "r" sounds, but there are lots of sounds that this covers. There are multiple types of "trill"-r's (such as uvular trills, alveolar trills, etc.), there are rhotic r's and non-rhotic r's where the r "colors" the vowel preceding it, but is not distinctly pronounced. In New England (a non-rhotic accent), there's even a peculiar labio-dental r which is used when the r needs to be pronounced. The short of it is that speakers of one language find the liquids of another language to be somewhat dificult to pronounce, such as Japanese speakers who find difficulty distinguishing the english R and L, and english speakers who have difficulty with trills. --Jayron32 15:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Liu Xiaobo ITN

I asked this on the Main Page discussion... page, but it might be a job for the Language Desk. The ITN piece sounds like this: "the first time since 1936 that neither the recipient nor any of his relatives has been able to accept the prize", and it seems wrong to me - shouldn't it be "neither the recipient nor any of his relatives have been able"? Rimush (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that a zero quantity is treated as singular - so "No one has seen him", and "None of my friends has seen him". In that sentence, "my friends" suggests (to our ears) that it should be followed by a plural form, but the subject is "None of my friends", not "my friends", which is why it is followed by the singular form.

Similarly, "any" is treated is referring to any one of the set referred to, and as such is treated as singular. So "if anyone has seen him..." and "if any of them has seen him".

In the present case, the subject of the clause is "neither the recipient nor any of his relatives". This is singular, as is "any of this relatives". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Rimush (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No: a zero quantity is plural, not singular. Consider I have zero watermelons, *I have zero watermelon. In "Neither the recipient nor any of his relatives has been able to accept the prize", I read "nor any of his relatives" as a parenthesis. The reason it appears as singular in "None of my friends has seen him" is a quite different kettle of fish: none was (at one time) considered to be derived from not one. The justification is specious[9], but it has influenced some prescriptivists. Marnanel (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a different construction. Constructions like "none" or "not any" can be singular or plural depending on what you would expect if there were any. "Which man is your leader?" — "None is; our leader is a woman". But "How many are of you are right-handed?" — "None are." The original example works the same way. Only one person would accept the prize, so the singular is correct. --Anonymous, 02:32 UTC, December 13, 2010.

Ram Khamhaeng or Ramkhamhaeng?

The first sentence of the article Ram Khamhaeng the Great reads: "Pho Khun Ram Khamhaeng (Thai: พ่อขุนรามคำแหงมหาราช; Pho Khun Ramkhamhaeng [...]". Is the name one word or two words? Both usages appear not only in the first sentence but throughout the article. It's confusing because this is done with no explanation whatsoever in the article. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 18:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing of Thai, but it's not all that unusual for an article to include alternative transcriptions, or include both a semi-"popular" rendering and a stricter transliteration... AnonMoos (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone – They

In Jean M. Redmann’s book Death of a Dying Man I read the sentence: “I think someone tried to harm him and I can’t be sure they won’t again.” My question: Is it standard English when “someone” is referred to by “they”? Or is it a way of speaking which is often used in New Orleans?

Or is there more to it? Can I conclude that the speaker thinks that there was one person who tried to harm “him”, but that there are several persons who might try to harm “him” once more? Or would such a conclusion be too far-fetched? -- Irene1949 (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"They" works for both singular and plural, and it's more flowing syntax than "that someone" or "that person." I don't see Redmann meaning more than one person. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

See singular they. Whether it's standard or not is a controversial point, and has political connotations. --Trovatore (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

A police spokesman might be tempted to say something like: It appears that a person or persons unknown attempted to occasion the gentleman grievous bodily harm, and it is possible that a person or persons unknown may make further such attempts, but whether the same person or persons unknown who may have already attempted to cause the gentleman harm or a different person or different persons unknown or one or more of the original persons unknown and one or more new persons unknown is unknown.

But real humans are not so tempted. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be correct if the speaker had said: “I think someone tried to harm him and I can’t be sure he or she won’t again”? -- Irene1949 (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be "correct", but not necessarily any more so than using 'they'. Lexicografía (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Grammatically fine, but do we know the agent of this harm was a single individual? In a situation where there's evidence an attempt to harm someone has been made, it's sometimes possible to know how many people were involved even if their identities are not known, but generally speaking we don't know that. Even though the "I think someone tried him" appears to assume there was a sole perpetrator, the speaker would not exclude the possibility it was more than one person. It's just a figure of speech. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The context: The speaker has reasons to think that “someone tried to harm him“ by slipping him some cocaine – and that cocaine was dangerous for “him”, because he was very ill and his medication increased the effect of the cocaine. In such a case, I’d assume that it was probably one person who did the crucial act of slipping the cocaine to the victim, but this person may have had an accomplice who provided the cocaine.

When I looked up these details, I noticed that they are not in the book Water Mark but in the book Death of a Dying Man. I apologize for mixing them up. Now there is the correct title in the first sentence of this section.-- Irene1949 (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting answers. -- Irene1949 (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This question points up the single most obnoxious feature of the English language, the inability to refer to an individual person without specifying gender. "They" is wrong in a strict grammatical sense, but is used because the alternatives are "he" or "she", either of which would make an unjustified assumption, or else "he or she", which sounds too formal and stilted. Anybody who does a substantial amount of writing finds themself (see?) confronted with this problem over and over again; it is very annoying. Looie496 (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The unmarked he, with no implication as to sex, worked fine until the idea arose that it ignored women. I have never been convinced that that was ever factual. --Trovatore (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is he does imply gender, and the third-person singular non-gender pronoun "it" specifically EXCLUDES humans as an antecedant. Other languages, like French, have a "non-gender-specific, non-number-specific third person pronoun". In French, this is the pronoun "On", which implies nothing about the gender or number of the subject. English lacks this. --Jayron32 06:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

He implies gender, in the sense of grammatical gender. There isn't much left of grammatical gender in English, but there are some remnants. It need not, however, imply sex. --Trovatore (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you refer to a woman as "he" directly, you get some serious flack from said woman. --Jayron32 06:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As we're on the language desk, I should point out that it's flak, not flack AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

True, but that's a different context. --Trovatore (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Speakers of English, when they hear "He..." expect testicles to be in the picture somewhere. That you wish they wouldn't doesn't reflect the reality of the language as it is used. You are falling into the trap of expecting grammatical rules to be proscriptive rather than descriptive. It may be possible (and I have yet to have see this proven), that people at some point in history may have used "He" in a non-testicular-related application, but that it used to be the case doesn't mean that today, in 2010, it is the case anymore. There are lots of words and grammatical rules which aren't in force today. This is not a good thing, this is not a bad thing. This just is what it is. No one uses "ye" as an article or uses "thou" as a second person pronoun anymore either. --Jayron32 07:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It may be that the "unmarked he" is genuinely no longer heard, but if so, I think that came about for political reasons founded on the claim that it wasn't there in the first place. It's that claim that I have never been convinced was ever factual. --Trovatore (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that its terribly useful to lament the loss of the "unmarked he" for whatever reasons, if it really doesn't exist anymore. That it doesn't exist in 21st century English is all that is really relevent, the reasons why it doesn't exist may be a useful discussion elsewhere, but it sidetracks this issue. In modern English, the "unmarked he" is not used anymore. Whatever reasons caused it not to be used anymore are largely irrelevent. --Jayron32 07:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's true that it doesn't exist anymore. It is less common, and risks misunderstanding, but it is not gone. --Trovatore (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It is still widely found in traditional literature, and occasionally in modern writing and speech. Many of us feel compelled by "political correctness" to add an apologetic "or she", but sometimes we resist the compulsion. Dbfirs 09:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been hearing the same complaint for 40 years - we really need a new gender-neutral pronoun. So, I'm wondering why we as a society are being like the people Mark Twain talked about. You know, the ones who complain long and loud about the weather but never do anything about it. The article (@ Invented pronouns) talks about the various attempts that have been made going back to the 1850s - all so far unsuccessful. If it's the case that nothing anyone can come up with is going to be acceptable, then why do we continue to complain? Maybe one of these new pronouns needs a high-profile champion, someone universally admired and respected, who's seen as a role model for young and old, black and white, men and women, straight and gay, conservatives and liberals. (Sorry, but my schedule is full.  :) ) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not a linguist nor a big fan of 'political correctness', but I would agree that gender-neutral 'he' has largely died out in common parlance and is easily taken as sexist. Honestly I don't see what's wrong with "they" as a singular – it's been around for several hundred years (unlike new coinages) and despite grammarians' best efforts, is pretty well established and accepted. Lexicografía (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the singular "they" is fully accepted in colloquial discourse, but not so fully accepted in writing of a certain degree of formality. The more formal, official, legalistic or "proper" the writing context is, the more stringent and pedantic the rules seem to be. Who makes these rules anyway? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

Can a Britisher understand a sentence like "There is a tree is in front of it."? If we make a composition like this，we can get 40%-60% of full mark only.--铁铁的火大了 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

As a Briton (not 'Britisher'), "There is a tree in front of it" makes sense - if you've already established what 'it' refers to. Or even "There, a tree is in front of it", but what you have written makes no sense. What are you trying to say? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We study English, Grammar is more important than spoken. Your essay (composition) use sentences like "What I want to say is that…", that is a great composition. I want to know, in daily life, you always chat use complicated subordinate clause? --铁铁的火大了 (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

In reading your sentence, I hadn't seen the second occurrence of the word is (so I had trouble understanding Andy's response). Now that I see it, I have to ask, is that what you intended to write? Maybe the second is was just a typo? --Trovatore (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, a clerical error in a test.--铁铁的火大了 (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Grammar is more important than spoken — please be aware that all languages use grammar in their spoken forms. Marnanel (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence can be corrected by the removal of the second is, or by the insertion of the relative pronoun which. The second option produces: There is a tree which is in front of it.

̀—Wavelength (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems the question, though, is whether a native speaker can understand it. Yes, we can understand it very easily, and the mistake is difficult to spot. In fact you make typos like a native, but it is quite plainly incorrect. 81.131.28.145 (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Wangxuan, all English-speakers use dependent clauses in informal speech. There's nothing formal about embedding. I am puzzled by your remark, "Grammar is more important than spoken". Perhaps you understand "grammar" to mean formal written language. But in English it doesn't have that meaning. We don't make much of a distinction between spoken and written language, in stark contrast to Chinese. In English, what is grammatical in writing is grammatical in speech as well. LANTZY^TALK 01:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact. About "Grammar", what I want to say is that we spend too much class hours to learn it but not spoken. And "There is a tree is in front of it." ,You can understand what I'll say, but teacher may be think this is a C-Level essay. A essay use complicated syntax, but when he speak, you only can say "Pardon?"…… May be you know, Chinese don't use tense and plural, so we hardly to learn grammar. --铁铁的火大了 (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wangxuan, I'm not sure you've understood everyone here. We don't understand what you wrote. "There is a tree is in front of it" makes no sense - we can only guess at what you are trying to say.

But if I understand what you are really trying to say correctly, this is just a diatribe against what you perceive as a weakness of English education in China, is that right? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You know that everyone starts off by thinking their native language doesn't have much in the way of grammar? Chinese has a reasonably complicated grammatical system of its own; it's just not very similar to the one used in English. (We have an article about it at Chinese grammar, in fact.) For example, serial verb construction is not terribly easy for English speakers to get their heads around. It may seem like a trivial matter for you, but that's because it's your native language. Marnanel (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

December 12

Plural of zero

What is the plural of "zero"? Is it zeroes, zeros, or zero's? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC))

"Zeros" and "zeroes" are both acceptable, but not "zero's". [10] Marnanel (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I prefer zeroes myself. Zeros looks like it should rhyme with BIOS or possibly CMOS. But my spell-checker disagrees for some strange reason. --Trovatore (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"zero's" is another example of the dreaded greengrocers' apostrophe. "Zeroes" seems to keep my British English spellchecker happy, but it accepts "zeros" too, so that doesn't help much. I'd go with the 'e', per "tomatoes", "potatoes" etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand I think 0's is fine. Very hard to interpret 0s. This is an example of a legitimate pluralizing apostrophe, along the line of mind your p's and q's or The Oakland A's. --Trovatore (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The apostrophe is only used for plurals of words that are not normally pluralized, or would look odd with just a simple 's' tacked on the end. Lexicografía (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear, 0's is an example of a legitimate pluralizing apostrophe, not zero's. --Trovatore (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Referring to an actual dictionary (Merriam Webster Collegiate) we find "plural: zeros also zeroes", indicating "zeros" is preferred. This is an American dictionary; your kilometerage may differ. - Nunh-huh 03:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Zero's acceptable, just not as a plural. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)}}

In British English only zeroes is given by the OED, though The Guardian seems to use both zeroes and zeros, with slightly more Google hits for zeros. [11] [12] --Antiquary (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

...remembering that The Guardian is strongly Americanised, and tends to include more American spellings, words and phrases than most other UK papers. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point, but the same can't be said of The Times, except in so far as we're all tending to move slowly towards American usage. Their style guide favours zeros. --Antiquary (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Chambers 20th Century Dictionary has only zeros for the plural. DuncanHill (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, OED, while only giving zeroes as a plural does have citations in which zeros is used. DuncanHill (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

How to pronounce...

..."amartolon onton emon Chiristoz uper emon apethanen" transliterated from Greek. Thanks Wikipedians! schyler (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)...edit: 04:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It'll be kinda hard without the original Greek, unless you just want an English approximation... 24.92.70.160 (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(To 24.92:) "ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν". It's part of Romans 5:8. Marnanel (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's from Romans then it'd take Koine pronunciation (which is different from Attic Greek, which is what is usually meant by "ancient Greek"). In International Phonetic Alphabet:

hamarto'lon 'ɔnton he'mon χris'tɔs hy'pɛr he'mon a'pɛθanɛn

In pseudo-English style pronunciation:

hah-mar-toh-LOAN AWN-tone hay-MOAN chriss-TAWS hü-PEHR hay-MOAN ah-PEH-thah-nen

...where "ch" and "ü" are said as in German. (Some of the word-initial aitch sounds weren't represented in the transliteration because of the way that sound is written in Greek. As a result sometimes transliterations just ignore it, which is lazy in my opinion, but *shrug*.) Cevlakohn (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be [hamarto'lon], then?—Emil J. 15:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Akh, yes. Bloody hell, I didn't see that. Cevlakohn (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You can see the Greek text transliterated at http://www.multilingualbible.com/romans/5-8.htm (in the second half of the center column) and you can hear it read (possibly in Attic Greek) at http://foreignlanguageexpertise.com/museum1.html. The word-initial aitch sounds are explained in the article Rough breathing.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

'Inside of'

"This user knows what a darkroom is and has processed photographs inside of one": from {{User:Sgt. R.K. Blue/Userboxes/Darkroom}}. As a Brit, I'd never write 'inside of' in this context, but I've seen this in US English often enough. Is it accepted usage that side of the pond? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds clumsy to me; I would probably just say "in." This usage of "inside of" is similar to, but I think not as common as, the usage of "off of" to mean "off": "The book fell off of the shelf." —Bkell (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a false belief that obfuscating ones language makes it sound "better" or "more intelligent". Most style guides tend to disagree with this. It is usually recommended that one's writing should be concise and clear as much as possible. We find this sort of "pseudoformalizing" language when we find people who use words like "utilize" for "use", or "medication" for "medicine", or other such substitutions. If a shorter, more direct word or phrase conveys the exact same meaning, use the more consise language whenever possible. There are times when clarification is needed, but often the tendency is to overelaborate. --Jayron32 06:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend

Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read --Groucho

--Trovatore (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Now THAT is funny. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Variety-speak

I finally figured out what "s.a." probably means (sex appeal) in Variety's review of Gilda. Since other readers will likely be just as confused by the quote in the article, any suggestions on what to do? I can't add [sex appeal] to it, as that would be WP:OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be tempted (well, with Rita Hayworth around, who wouldn't?) to add [sex appeal?], with a '?'. From the context it certainly makes sense, and I'm sure I've seen the abbreviation elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You could cite abbreviations.com:

• <ref name="abrev">{{cite web|url=http://www.abbreviations.com/b1.aspx?KEY=69205|title=S.A.|publisher=[http://www.abbreviations.com Abbreviations.com] STANDS4 LLC|accessdate=12 December 2010}}</ref>

WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There's actually an official Variety glossary at http://www.variety.com/static-pages/slanguage-dictionary/ , but "s.a." doesn't seem to be listed (though the paper does claim to have invented the term "sex appeal")... AnonMoos (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• The Oxford English Dictionary has "S.A. n. (also s.a.) sex appeal", first citation from the American Mercury, 1926. So clarifying s.a. to sex appeal isn't OR, it's just helping people who don't have access to a proper dictionary. DuncanHill (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Even though I'm 95% certain it means va-va-va-va-voom, that remaining 5% means it's still a guess -> OR. I think AndyTheGrump's suggestion is the best solution. Thanks, everyone. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hah. It got reverted as OR. I've started a discussion on the talk page. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

December 13

You had better/best read this question

Consider:

• You'd better leave now or you'll miss the boat and
• You'd best leave now or you'll miss the boat.

We seem to use these idioms virtually interchangeably, despite one word being comparative, the other superlative.

Yet we never say You'd good leave now or you'll miss the boat.

That could be better expressed as It'd be good if you left now, otherwise you'll miss the boat, or It'd be a good thing if you left now .... Similarly, It'd be better/best if you left now ... or It'd be better/best for you to leave now ... are all OK. All three forms of the adjective are available in these alternative formulations.

So, why not You'd good leave now ...? Or are these words functioning as adverbs, in which case the missing option is You'd well leave now ...?

We do say You'd be well-advised to do X, but that seems to be fundamentally different grammatically (if not in practical meaning), being something that's being passively done to you, as opposed to something you are being encouraged to actively do.

You'd better give me the benefit of your opinions on this question, or ....  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For me, you had best is mostly confined to Western movies. --Trovatore (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The deal is, that "good" does not set up an implicit comparison to something else. Both better and best are comparitive words (superlative basically means the extreme comparitive, but it still implies a comparison to something else). So it depends, perhaps on whether you want to say "You had better do this than do something else." or "You had best do this than anything else." Since there's not muct actual distinction between those two phrases, there's probably not much distiction between using better and best in this application. --Jayron32 04:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, we use them interchangeably. True, "good" does not set up an implicit comparison. Neither does "I advise you to leave now or you'll miss the boat". If you're talking to a person who's oblivious of the time, any advice to the effect that they should become aware of the time and leave now is good advice. Whether it's better than some other advice, or the best of all possible advice, is not really the point, is it - unless, maybe, the person has multiple competing demands on their attention right now, and they need to be advised that everything else is secondary to them leaving right now, or they risk missing the boat. That's where I could see better or best coming from. But that's a very specific type of scenario. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is similar to the "use to/used to" question we had above. Such usage isn't really formal English, so it resists formal analysis by the established rules of English grammar. It's a purely idiomatic statement, so it doesn't obey the rules of grammar strictly. --Jayron32 05:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But what about "better this way" or "best this way"? Which is the correct usage in this case?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There, you're looking at a range of specific options and as a group coming up with the one that's generally agreed to be the best. Along the way, one option might be identified as better than some other one, but a third one may be considered best of all. So, you might use both of your phrases, depending on which one you're talking about right now. In my question, there's no range of options, just something I think you should be doing, rather than whatever it is you're doing now. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Better" is the usual in English, i.e. two choices, stay or go, and the "better" choice is to go. "Best" grammatically implies 3 or more choices. "Best" also puts more emphasis on it and is a tad more aggressive, which might be why it would turn up in westerns. Except the options wouldn't have something to do with missing a boat (or a train) but more likely having to do with missing a gunfight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Best" is used colloquially in a number of British local dialects. --Dweller (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Best" did not imply three or more choices to Shakespeare, or to Dickens. I think the rule is one of the inventions of the "My-grammar-book's-better-than-yours-because-it's-got-even-more-rules-in-it" crowd in the eighteenth century. --ColinFine (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, we talk of "besting" an opponent, even when there's only the one opponent.

"Good Better Best / Never let it rest / Till the good is better / And the better is best."

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation

Should the following sentence have one period or two periods at the end? She appeared on TV shows such as Fantasy Island, The Love Boat, and Magnum, P.I.. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC))

I'd say one. The rule is that a sentence end with a period (or full stop in my lingo) - the rule doesn't say it necessarily has to be an additional period if there's already one preceding it. So, the presence of a period does not necessarily spell the end of a sentence, but a period ending an abbreviation can also serve as an end-of-sentence marker. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If it doesn't have two, it will look wrong to a lot of readers. Typesetters handle this by reducing the space between the two periods. The same thing arises when you end a sentence with etc.. Looie496 (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If it does have two, it will look wrong to a lot of other readers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jack of Oz.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the single period is certainly standard. --Anon, 09:11 UTC, December 13, 2010.

Agreed. Two full stops ("periods" sounds like a rude joke to my English ears) looks as though there's more to come.... Alansplodge (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean to write "two" above? Bus stop (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! Alansplodge (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

One for me too. (An Australian who reads a lot of American and British stuff.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We American school students were taught that it was one ".". We Americans also compartmentalize the term "period", such that the end of a sentence has no connotation, whereas "she's on her [menstrual] period" does. Meanwhile, "full stop" sounds like something many drivers fail to do at a stop sign, but when used in reference to a sentence or an abbreviation immediately identifies the speaker or writer as a Brit. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Dunno if you're old enough to remember telegrams (maybe you've see them mentioned in old movies), but I thought the whole English speaking world used "Stop" to indicate an end of sentence in that context. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and hence the usual jokes due to the oddity of that word "STOP". For example, the telegram says, "I love you stop", and the recipient says, "Don't stop!" And so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Acronyms are increasingly, it seems to me, signified purely by capitalisation and are dropping the intervening periods, sidestepping the issue highlighted by Magnum, PI. Blakk and ekka 15:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In general, abbreviations that couldn't be standalone words had the periods, while abbreviations that were pronouncable (such as RADAR, NASA) omitted the periods. The trend of which you speak probably is connected with the tendency to shorten things over the course of the evolution of English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been known simplay as "FBI", apparently without any periods. This note from their seal's history page[13] indicates that in 1935 it was at first being called "F B I", with spaces between the letters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The original question is answered at Full stop#Abbreviations. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Another fly in the ointment

OK, this is rather "nit picky". But, in the above example, let's say that we agree to use only one period. Is that period italicized as a component of the TV show title (and Wikipedia "blue" link)? Or is that period non-italicized, as the end-of-sentence period? I was correcting this very sentence in the Pamela Bryant article. And, quite frankly, using two periods "looks" wrong, as does using only one. And, when using only one period, italicizing it "looks" wrong, as does not italicizing it. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC))

I realize that we can change the order of the listing of TV show titles to side-step this problem ... but I am nonetheless curious about the correct punctuation rules here. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC))

Yes, my feeling is that the period should be included in italicization. I think this should be done to make all the components slant harmoniously. I think that for the sake of appearance one should include all contiguous letters and punctuation marks in any italicization. But I am basing this on gut feeling. I will be interested to see what others say. The only exception to this I know of is when one wants to emphasize a prefix in a word, such as "unimportant". Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No question it should be italicized; it's part of the title. However, I don't agree that just because a period might be contiguous with an italicization, it should join the party. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"There is no additional full stop immediately following the full stop that ends the abbreviation" (quoting from full stop), so no, the final period is not an end-of-sentence period. 213.122.62.108 (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The final period performs a double function as both an end-of-abbreviation period and an end-of-sentence period.

—Wavelength (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Silver Hell

Is it a common idiom, understandable for all Englishmen? Thanks for comments. --Omidinist (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No. (I don't understand it, and that fact alone is sufficient to prove the point.) I don't know how common this is (or I am). Seriously, though, it has no entry in Wiktionary, and no Google hits with "+idiom", so probably isn't a common idiom in the English language. Dbfirs 08:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Alansplodge (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll jump in early to what will doubtless be a "Never heard of it" pile-on. Supplementary question to Omidinist - why do you ask?--Shirt58 (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Where does it come from? What does it mean? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Context may help:[14]. --Omidinist (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this dictionary of slang, silver-hell was nineteenth-century slang for "a low-class gambling den, where silver is the usual stake". Deor (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Great Deor. That's it. Thanks heartily. --Omidinist (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Underneath "silver-hell" in that dictionary of slang is another interesting entry: to "catch fish with a silver hook" is to "purchase a catch in order to conceal unskillful angling". Bus stop (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That suggests other possibilities, such as "to catch fish with a noisy hook" (to chuck a stick of dynamite into a pond to avoid angling altogether). Deor (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a seasonal reference: "Silver Hell, Silver Hell, it's Christmas time in the city..." 85.178.81.116 (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Past tense of "disposition"

When a piece of product needs to be inspected to determine if it's scrap or if it can be salvaged, we often say that it needs to be "dispositioned". It's been tossed around so much that it's part of the jargon here. From what I can see though, it's not actually a word. What would be a better way to succinctly get the same point across that uses an accepted English word? Dismas|^(talk) 12:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

salvageable. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In that usage, ("to be dispositioned") it's not a past tense, but rather a passive participle. Triage means something similar in medical terminology... AnonMoos (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Evaluated"? Deor (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Appraised? —Bkell (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a good bit in Gowers on this issue (discussing an imaginary office memo containing the word "de-asterisked"): [15] Purists may blench at "non-grant-aidable" and "de-asterisked", and neither is suitable for general use. But purists do not know, as the official does, that in this particular context a lot turns upon whether a claim is categorised as "asterisked", "unasterisked", or "de-asterisked"; they must not even recommend "de-starred" instead, because for all they know "starred", "unstarred" and "de-starred" are already in use for some different and equally precise purpose. The full page is worth reading. Marnanel (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nowadays the word triage is sometimes used for this purpose. In its original medical use, it means making an initial examination of patients to decide which ones to treat. Nowadays it is often used to mean making an initial quick examination of any sort of thing in order to decide how to handle it, for example the NIH triages grant proposals to decide which ones should be rejected immediately and which ones should get a full review. Looie496 (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

On the medical theme, when the Monica Lewinsky story first broke, her description as a "White House intern" confused me. Up till that point, I'd only ever heard the word "intern" in relation to medical students doing their practical training in a hospital. And I wondered what sort of a hospital they were running in the White House, and who the patients would be. I soon got up to speed. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably much as the term "Watergate buggers" gave the Brits a chuckle in the early 1970s. The term "intern" was largely associated with medical students,[16] but has become generalized, at least in American English, for any kind of on-the-job training program connected with college education. In Monica's case, the internship came with previously unstated fringe benefits. (For example, indulging her fondness for cigars.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I had a friend who asked why such a fuss was being made about oral sex. After all it is only kissing. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

from French / Check-language

Please translate "Photographie ancienne, du et depuis le pont d'un voilier, avec une forte gîte. Na palubě lodi". Kittybrewster ☎ 14:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The French bit is "Old photograph, of the bridge of a sailing ship, and taken from the bridge of the ship, heeling considerably". The second sentence isn't French. Is it perhaps the name of the ship? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Don't think so. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Google says it's Czech for "on board". Marnanel (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"On board of a ship", to be exact.—Emil J. 15:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)