Language desk
< August 3	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 4[edit]

Bokmal and Nynorsk (3)[edit]

Is the Norwegian language spoken the same way regardless of using Bokmal or Nynorsk as one's written norm? Heegoop, 4 August 2007 (UTC).

There are those two quite different written standards. Then there are a lot of quite different dialects. In theory there doesn't have to be a close connection between the dialect you speak and the language form you prefer in writing. In practice, Nynorsk's stronghold is in the west of the country and the dialects there are, indeed, closer to that standard than the other dialects. Haukur 00:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might ask, why do they put up with two different standards of the same language? It just seems... a little illogical to me (Granted, I'm COMPLETELY disconnected with all of it). 68.39.174.238 02:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of gentleman[edit]

There is no Dutch article on the word, so I'll ask this here. The article makes a connection with the German word 'Adel', which also exists in Dutch. I believe that is another form of 'ijdel', which means 'vain' or 'not working'. And the article indeed mentions the 'unemployment' of gentlemen. I had always assumed that it referred to gentlemen not having to work, but now I wonder about the etymology of the words, both in Dutch (edelman, adelman, 'ijdelman'?) and in English (gentleman, nobleman). Which meaning came first, 'gentle' as we understand it now, or 'unemployed' (a word that nowadays has a rather opposite ring to it)? DirkvdM 08:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adel and ijdel are not etymologically connected. The first comes from a form with þ in Proto-Germanic (shown by Old English ǣþel, German Edel), the second from a form with d (shown by Modern English idle, German eitel. —Angr 10:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the article Gentleman: "To a degree, "gentleman" signified a man who did not need to work..." This is not a present-day notion, or not for more than a tiny number of people, but it died only in the 20th century. No one ever expected Bertie Wooster to find himself a job. There was also no reason why he shouldn't have done so and remained a gentleman. Almost certainly, when asked for his occupation (for instance, when applying for a passport) he would have put 'gentleman', meaning that he lived on his own private means.

As you say, the word 'unemployed' has a rather opposite ring and is generally used of people who need to work but are out of work. Xn4 01:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had an interesting idea in connection with this. Gentlemen don't need to work because they are born into a rich family. I'm unemployed, but I can still cope because I'm Dutch and get an 'allowance' from the Dutch government. Which is really the Dutch people. So if I regard the Dutch people as my extended family, I could consider myself to be a gentleman in that sense (if that were a correct interpretation). With the major exception that in exchange for not working I receive a minimal amount of money in stead of shitloads. Which appears much more equitable to me. :) DirkvdM 07:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that Bertie is paid for not working ... —Tamfang 17:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the word 'edel', then? Is that connected to 'adel' or 'ijdel'? Interestingly, that word is also used for noble gas, which is a translation from the German 'edelgas'. And a noble gas is an inert gas and inert (again according to the article) means 'to be in a state of doing little or nothing'. I'm probably stretching this a bit too far now, though. :) But the similarity in meanings is rather striking and suggest a common origin. DirkvdM 07:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated above by Angr, adel and edel are etymologically related, while ijdel is unrelated. --Lambiam 16:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whose?[edit]

I just was looking at the " who" article and I was a bit taken aback by the "whose" example:

He is someone whose help ended my despair. ("whose" is adjunct to help, the side clause's subject)

Though this is correct, I find the example a bit contrived. Given how easily whose and who's are confused in English, I think a more strait forward example would be better. For example, when I first read the sentence, I assumed there was a tense error with a who's confusion, when there really isn't (i.e. He is someone who has helped to end my despair, which is not what the sentence says). He is someone whose help I appreciate, feels like a more straight forward example to me, but this may just be my idiosyncrasy. Thoughts? --Cody.Pope 13:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Your example is more "straight forward" ... but the original example is nonetheless correct. (Joseph A. Spadaro 22:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I also prefer your example, but are whose and who's so easily confused? I can't, off-hand, think of a sentence in which the correct spelling and meaning aren't clear. Xn4 01:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original sounds contrived also to me. The example, by the way, has been cloned in the article on Hypercorrection. On confusing whose and who's: just like the pairs of homophones their – there, your – you're, and its – it's, they get confused all the time. If you Google "someone whose a", "someone whose the", or "someone whose not", you'll find plenty of confused uses. --Lambiam 03:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there's a difference between 'easily confused' and 'confused all the time'. When I asked "are whose and who's so easily confused?", I didn't mean "are they easily confused by people who don't know the difference?". It's easy to have a road accident if you're a careless driver, and even easier if you drive without having learned to drive. Xn4 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both sentences sound a bit contrived to me: the more natural constructions would be "His help ended my despair" and "I appreciate his help." How about something like "I apologized to the man whose hat I sat on?" --Reuben 01:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I "cloned" this discussion on the "who" talk page. Thanks for the input! --Cody.Pope 13:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]