User talk:Rothorpe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Eponym[edit]

What do you think of these edits to Eponym? [1] I think we talked about this just a few months ago. See the version right before this. I prefer distinguishing person for whom or thing for which something is named, rather than including person and thing with "whom", and I prefer "for which" to "after which". I don't know about the citations. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

First thoughts: 'for/after' is a BrE/AmE thing, I think. 'Refers' is ungrammatical and should be changed back. Rothorpe (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
'Many genericized' is not an improvement on 'genericized ... may', which is more elegant as well as more accurate. Rothorpe (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree. What about those dictionary references? Are they needed? If not, the whole thing can be reverted. CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Revert away! Rothorpe (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
So, you're urging me to be bold, eh? I like to be sure before I remove added material that has to do with referencing since I don't know much about it. I will revert if you're pretty sure those added references are not needed. CorinneSD (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Wise. I'll have another look. Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
There are references to Dictionary.com removed by the latest edit but I don't see any added. (Sorry, I should have checked that last time.) Rothorpe (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The references removed were three identicals, so we can get rid of two of them. Rothorpe (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll get to this tomorrow, unless you want to go ahead. Feel free to make the edits. I've just discovered a place where people can request someone to copyedit an article. I've just finished copy-editing three or four articles and I'm tired now. See the first link at the upper-right-hand corner of my talk page. If you then look for "special requests", you'll see what I was working on. CorinneSD (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I had a look, but I'm not tempted by anything. Rothorpe (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

serieses / series's / series'[edit]

Which is correct? CassiantoTalk 16:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The last, presumably (it'd help to know the context). Rothorpe (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
"Was the last of the series' to have taken place..." Also, is "serieses" correct? I only ask because the OED has it as correct: "Inflections: Plural unchanged, (rare) serieses", but my spell checker want to change it to series's? It has been called a greengrocer's apostrophe. -- CassiantoTalk 16:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, Beckenham, where I grew up! No apostrophe needed then, whether it means the last series or the last one of the series. 'Serieses' is marked as rare, a kind of euphemism for horrendous. In normal usage, the plural is the same as the singular. My computer didn't find the context, if you'd like to point me to it? Rothorpe (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I've found the relevant bit in the blue. Yes, series is singular and plural, and series' is possessive singular and plural. Rothorpe (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. I'm here currently so you never know when this'll come in handy. CassiantoTalk 17:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I saw you were working on him. I'll be watching. Rothorpe (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) In your example, above, I don't see why a possessive form is needed at all. "Was the last of the series to have taken place" should be sufficient. CorinneSD (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Too Much Too Soon (album)[edit]

Hi Rothorpe! Would you be interested in reviewing or commenting on my FAC for the article Too Much Too Soon (album)? If not, please feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, but I'm sorry, the NYDs are not my scene. Regards, Rothorpe (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wolfmother discography[edit]

At WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, under the section heading "July 2015" there is a request to copyedit just the lede of the article Wolfmother discography. Since you have an interest in music, and it's just the lede they want reviewed, I thought maybe you'd like to undertake this. I have no interest in recordings, so I don't want to do it. CorinneSD (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not interested in music per se, but I made a small change. Rothorpe (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

William C. Clayton[edit]

I have just read and copy-edited the article on William C. Clayton, responding to a request at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. I have a question. I always thought that clauses beginning "where" were always adverbial and, like other adverbial clauses, should not be preceded with a comma when they follow the independent clause. (I guess that's two different issues.) Can a clause beginning with "where" ever be adjectival? I thought it would only be adjectival if something like "in which", "at which", or "on which" were used. It's been a while since I've read the grammar books, so I'd appreciate your opinion and instruction. See the first sentence of the last paragraph in William C. Clayton. CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to ask you to define adverbial and adjectival clauses, please. I haven't discussed this kind of grammar for decades. Rothorpe (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
But I'm forgetting to answer your question. I would probably regard the 'where' clause as containing extra information, and put a comma, though I'm quite used to seeing such clauses without one. Rothorpe (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It's been a while for me, too. You mentioned "extra information", but that distinction applies only to adjective clauses, not adverbial clauses. Adverbial clauses give place, time, frequency, reasons, causes, condition, manner, and begin with words like when, where, why, because, since, while, as, although, even though, though, before, after, in spite of, etc. I think they can modify either the verb or an entire clause. Adjective clauses give either identifying (restrictive) or non-identifying (non-restrictive) information about a thing or person and begin with who, whom, which, or that. Generally, adverbial clauses that follow the independent clause are not preceded by a comma.
Here's the sentence.
  • Clayton was of Presbyterian faith and was an active member of the Winchester Presbytery where he was a ruling elder.
The question is, can "where" begin an adjective clause? If so, then I guess you're right, that it contains extra information and so can be preceded by a comma. Also, is "where" the best word here? How about re-wording it as follows:
Clayton was of a Presbyterian faith and was an active member and a ruling elder of the Winchester Presbytery. CorinneSD (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course, that's the solution. Now I'll read the rest... Rothorpe (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
By 'independent clause' you mean the main clause? New language for me. Rothorpe (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. To me, "independent clause" and "main clause" are interchangeable. It's independent because it can stand alone. CorinneSD (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Now, why can't I help seeing 'where he was a ruling elder' as an adjectival clause describing 'Winchester Presbytery'? Rothorpe (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a good question. I can't either. I've got to do some research.
Well, here is a link to a basic grammar website that mentions "relative adverbs": [2] It seems "why", "where", and "when" can introduce adjective clauses, and there are examples. However, I have yet to find an example where the clause is non-restrictive and, thus, to be preceded by a comma. CorinneSD (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
O.K. Here's a site that has more examples: [3]. It's strange that all through the years I was in graduate school and then teaching, I never even heard the phrase "relative adverbs". Maybe it's because we always learned to use a preposition with either "which" or "whom": by which, in which, at which, before which, of whom, by whom, for whom, etc. CorinneSD (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I'd never heard the term 'relative adverb' either, but it seems a perfectly reasonable description. Language evolves, even that of the grammarians. Rothorpe (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Alaunt[edit]

Here are the last two sentences of the lead in Alaunt:

  • The Alans bred their dogs for work and had developed different strains within the breed for specific duties. The breed was further developed in Spain, France, Germany, England, and in Italy.

Regarding the first sentence, do you see any reason why the second verb should be in past perfect tense? I suppose one could argue that it happened before that dog developed into modern dogs, but in that case "bred" should also be in past perfect tense. I think it could just be past tense "developed". What you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It's been there since the article was created in 2005, would you believe! I'm a great fan of the past perfect, but I agree its usefulness is doubtful there. Rothorpe (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hermes[edit]

I'm looking at a few edits to Hermes. Is this edit correct, adding a space after text and before the ref? [4] Also, what do you think of the sentence about God and messenger two edits after this by the same editor? CorinneSD (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Another space added here: [5] CorinneSD (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The chief office of the God was as messenger.

Strange. CorinneSD (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right, there should be no space before the reference. As for the office, perhaps Hermes the messenger was into bureaucratspeak. But these days something less pompous would be in order. Rothorpe (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I wonder whether there is something in MOS that we can point to regarding the spacing. If not, would you mind reverting, or re-adding the space, and just write that "There should be no space before a ref."?

Regarding the sentence, how about:

Hermes' main role was as the messenger god.
I'm a little surprised that this kind of sentence needs to be added to the article at this point. I'm too tired to read the article now, but I should think something like this is already there. CorinneSD (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the MOS is quite specific, so I'll deal with that now. 'The messenger of the Gods' is the phrase I'm used to, so I'd just say 'Hermes was...' if it's necessary to say anything. Rothorpe (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Looking again, I agree, 'main role' is very good. Rothorpe (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Myotis escalerai[edit]

Hello, Rothorpe! - I just glanced at the beginning of today's featured article, Myotis escalerai. I intend to read it later, but I wondered about something in the first sentence:

  • Myotis escalerai is a European bat, found in Spain (including the Balearic Islands), Portugal, and far southern France.

What do you think of "far southern France"? I haven't heard that before. Perhaps it would be better as just "southern France" or "in the far south of France". CorinneSD (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's OK, and shorter than the alternative. Rothorpe (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
O.K. I was thinking it would be more accurate to say either on the Mediterranean coast of France or in the foothills of the Pyrenees (or French Alps), unless it's both, but I'm not going to pursue it further. Bats are not my favorite subject. CorinneSD (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
'Far southern France', it has a poetic ring. Rothorpe (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, or northerners describing how far away it is. ;) CorinneSD (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
And how lovely and warm compared with chilly Rouen. Rothorpe (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

John Muir[edit]

What do you think of this edit to John Muir [6], as well as the two subsequent edits by the same editor? CorinneSD (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Getting further into hot water! The original is much neater, yes; I'd revert the lot. Rothorpe (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
How did you know I've been editing Bath, Somerset? ;) CorinneSD (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Did I know that? What makes you ask? I've probably followed you somewhere, I don't remember. I had my last job in Bath, but that's presumably a coincidence as it was long ago. Rothorpe (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
When I read "getting further into hot water!", I knew (or thought I knew) you meant that with each subsequent edit, that editor was making things worse, but since I had just finished reading the article on Bath, and the hot baths there, I decided to tease you. CorinneSD (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the power of coincidence! Rothorpe (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate[edit]

It's not a big deal, but what do you think of this edit to Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate? [7] I'm not sure the "and" is needed. CorinneSD (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it is for people like me, who had never heard of blonde wood. Rothorpe (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I had. It's very light-colored wood. CorinneSD (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC) If you look at the sampler of wood at the beginning of the article on Wood, you'll see three that you could call blonde: Spruce, Aspen and Linden, or at least Aspen and Linden, but sometimes maple can be blonde, too. CorinneSD (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I was aware of the fact, but I don't think I'd ever heard the phrase. I think I'd have called it 'pale'. (Sips non-blonde tea, as the milk is off; interesting that the default spelling is the feminine. [Pace the article on the word, Blond, where one can find the expression "blond women", which looks incorrect to me.]) Rothorpe (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, "blond" is the adjective and "blonde" is the noun when referring to a person: She's a blond woman, but She's a blonde. When referring to wood, "blonde" is an adjective. A little confusing. CorinneSD (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Well, I'm not sure about that. Perhaps it should be "blond wood". I got confused by your initial comment, above. I'd have to look into the use for wood, but I'm too tired now. CorinneSD (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, I'd never come across that distinction. Awaiting your researches. Rothorpe (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)