Language desk
< September 3	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 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.

September 4

Initial confusion

What does the D in Berta Dominguez D. stand for? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably her maternal surname. According to Spanish naming customs, people have two surnames, the first from their father and the second from their mother. My guess is that the D. stands for her matronymic name. --Jayron32 03:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why is one only an initial? I've encountered a fair variety of Spanish names and never come across this before. An attempt to partially conform to English standards perhaps? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was first guessing that it stood for a name, but it's odd they would use only an initial. I couldn't find a source in Google that answered the question. Then I wondered if it was a title, i.e. Doña. But I would have thought that would precede the name. We need a Spanish expert here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not being an expert in Spanish nomenclature, I second Jayron's explanation as the most plausible. I have seen the matronymic name often abbreviated in this way, especially after relatively common surnames as Domínguez. It is strange, however, the fact that no relevant web information confirms this matronymic. Pallida Mors 14:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can the verb "to be" be followed by a gerund?

The verb "to be" followed by the participle (e.g. "I'm talking"), is a well-known phenonemon. However, how about the verb "to be" followed by the gerund? e.g. "My plan is confusing you". What does it mean? Must it mean that my plan confuses you (of course, provided that we afford to semantically ignore the slight difference beween Present Simple and Present Participle), or it can also mean that I plan to confuse you? HOOTmag (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a gerund there, it's just the present progressive (aka present continuous) verb form. So it means your plan is currently, actively, causing confusion. --Pykk (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about: "My summer plan is traveling around the world"? HOOTmag (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That one's ambiguous. Either it means you plan to travel around the world in the summer, or it means that your summer plan (presumably in some kind of physical form) is in the process of actively traveling around the world. In the latter case it's a participle and I think, it's a gerund in the former. The normal thing for that meaning would really be to use a to-infinitive "is to travel". --Pykk (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So why don't you say the same, regarding: "My plan is confusing you"? HOOTmag (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, it could mean that I intend to confuse you; but if you really meant that, you'd be much more likely to say "My plan is to confuse you", or "I plan on confusing you". -- JackofOz (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        How about "What I'm trying to avoid is confusing you"? HOOTmag (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope. That would be "What I'm trying to avoid is confuse you". Cf. "What I'm trying to do is confuse you". -- JackofOz (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Wow! Sure? So the following must be grammatically wrong: "What I've been trying to avoid is sleeping after midnight". or: "What you're trying to avoid is diving straight down". Are you really sure it's grammatically wrong? HOOTmag (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, Jack didn't say that what you put was grammatically wrong. He meant that you would never say it, because there is another construction which works far better. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Note that Jack said "Nope", rather than a simple "No" :) HOOTmag (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (ec) I never said it was grammatically wrong, just ... unusual. Your latest examples are just variations on the difference between "I want to sleep" and "I want to avoid sleeping", or between "You're trying to dive straight down" and "You're trying to avoid diving straight down". The gerund in these cases follows the verb "to avoid", not the verb "to be". -- JackofOz (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, unusual. Anyways, the gerund in my examples follows the verb "to be", e.g. "what I'm trying to avoid is sleeping after midnight" (rather than: "I'm trying to avoid sleeping after midnight"). To sum up, as far as I can figure out your opinion: from a purely grammatical point of view (this being what I currently care about), when I say "My plan is confusing you" I may mean - either: "my plan confuses you", or "I plan to confuse you". Right? HOOTmag (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        No, those needn't be grammatically wrong, because L1 grammaticality judgments (which I think are what you are after, although you haven't asked anyone to say whether or not they're L1 English speakers) are made "intuitively" (according to unconscious rules, constraints or whatever) rather than by following conscious rules of grammar. (And as for conscious grammar, saying that "sleeping" and "diving" are here gerunds is myopic.) ¶ "Confusing" in "What I'm trying to avoid is confusing you" looks very participly to me; however, I can imagine that given the right context and an appropriate intonation it might work as a gerund. Even if it wouldn't work, this would be no reason to claim an incompatibility with a grammatically judgment of OK for "What I've been trying to avoid is sleeping after midnight", etc: "sleeping" is here simply a noun, as it very often is -- we have utterances like "Sleeping is good for you" but we don't have "Confusing is bad for you" or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        To sum up: the verb "to be" can be followed by a gerund. Consequently, this may cause ambiguity, at least in some rare cases, if not more often. HOOTmag (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, maybe, if you're the old-fashioned sort and like to talk in terms of "gerunds". -- Hoary (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This has been my original aim: knowing whether it may cause some ambiguity. Thank you. HOOTmag (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, ambiguity is not an issue here. As Hoary has helpfully explained, native English speakers know intuitively what to say, and they would never come out with any of your examples. Why are you so interested in making up spurious linguistic constructions and wondering what rules of grammar they may or may not obey? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        e.g. for Machine translations. One of the main tasks for programming such mechanical translations is to avoid ambiguities. This requires clear definitions for the exact situations in which ambiguities may appear. HOOTmag (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        For the benefit of the non-academics here, Hoary, what is L1? -- JackofOz (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Native speakers, Jack, I think. See First language. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, sorry about that. ¶ Anyone serious about this kind of thing should consult a good grammar book, by which I mean not the kind of grammar book beloved by "language mavens" and the like but instead one informed by recent and hard thinking. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (pp.80-83) for example, rejects the traditional distinction between "gerund" and "participle", instead using the term "gerund–participle" and explaining this decision; but also distinguishes among what are traditionally regarded as gerunds between gerund–participles and "gerundial nouns". Sorry, I'm too knackered to want to summarize this; why not just buy a copy? -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not the only grammar to do so. See what I wrote about this very subject, on the merger of gerunds and participles that began centuries ago and what can be found in even 20th century grammar texts about it, above at #Gerunds and pronouns: "his being" or "him being". Uncle G (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        This late passerby finds Jack's "What I'm trying to avoid is confuse you" both intuitively and formally impossible. —Tamfang (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not find They are summering in the South of France this year as ungrammatical. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the continuous present of the verb "summer", not "are" plus a gerund. "are" is an auxiliary verb there. Uncle G (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"to be" can be followed by a predicate noun. The whole point of gerunds is that they let verbs act as nouns, so I don't see why they can't act as a predicate noun. Besides, I've seen it done before and "Seeing is believing." -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Word for giving up of some rights upon joining the military

In a country such as the US, a person can join the military voluntarily, but once they do, it is my understanding that they give up certain rights, such as the right ignore basic orders, or quit the military at will. Is there a word for this giving up or taking away of rights that happens when someone is in the military? ike9898 (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You "waive" those rights, though that may not be the term you're looking for. However, don't distort things. You don't have the right to ignore orders anywhere you work. If you ignore or defy what you're told to do, that's called "insubordination". It's true you can't leave by simply resigning like you can in most other jobs. That was a major part of the controversy about the draft. If you volunteer freely, that's a somewhat different story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really true. You do have the right to ignore orders at a normal job. Your employer also has the right to stop paying you if you do. That's called getting fired. In the military, insubordination can be a punishable crime. Members of the US armed forces are subject to a different set of laws from civilians, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Rckrone (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What this comes down to, then, is that, in both situations, refusal to carry out instructions has undesirable consequences. The "rights" of the person doesn't really come into it. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is a difference, as can be seen in the history (which I won't claim to know well) of what used to be called Master and Servant Acts (now employment or labo[u]r laws) and the former Black Codes (enacted by some Southern states after the Civil War to return the freed slaves to a condition of near-serfdom or quasi-servitude). The rights of employers and those who contracted the services of others used to be enforceable at law with draconic civil and even criminal penalties, not just by simple discharge; and the balance of powers and rights used to be far more heavily weighted against the working man or woman. Trade unions were at first forbidden as unlawful combinations, and later put under fairly severe disabilities. Military service, even in the absence of conscription, is (often through simple operational necessity) far closer to the former hierarchical and paternalistic system of former centuries than is today's civil employment. Only a very few armies permit unionization, and you can be physically confined for neglect of duty, insubordination (including refusing to be inoculated), failure to mobilize, missing a movement or even simple disrespect. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but all that doesn't alter the fact that a person in an office job cannot wilfully disobey instructions unless they're prepared to be out of a job. Being sacked may not be in the same league as being incarcerated (or being court martialled and even executed in some cases), but in principle, neither the office worker nor the soldier has any more or any less "right" to say "No" than the other. -- JackofOz (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Whether on the job or in the Army, if refusing to obey orders has negative consequences, then you do not have the "right" to disobey those orders. Obviously you have the "capability" of disobeying, but that's not by any means the same thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misunderstanding of the concept of a right. Having the right to do something doesn't imply that there are no negative consequences to it, it implies that it's protected under the law. For example I have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean there would be no negative consequences to telling off my girlfriend. Similarly I have the right to tell off my boss. I may loose my job, but I can't be prosecuted for it. On the other hand in the army, I do not have the right to tell off my superior officer. I don't know if it would be prosecuted per se, but it probably could be, and more serious cases of insubordination or disobeying orders certainly are. I would recommend the page rights. Rckrone (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's you that's misunderstanding. If you disobey a superior, you will likely be disciplined. The only difference is the degree of discipline. In the Army you could be court-martialed, jailed and/or dishonorably discharged. In the business world, you could be fired. Either way, you lose. What you have the right to do is speak out against the government. That's what "Freedom of Speech" is actually about. And as long as you don't violate any other laws in the process, such as inciting a riot, then the government legally can't touch you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And ask yourself this: If you can be punished, such as having your pay docked, being suspended, or being fired, just how good is such a so-called "right"? It's pretty hollow. And if you get fired, you might be in kind of an uncomfortable position if an interviewer asks you why you left your last job. What are you going to do, lie? That's not a very good start. And if you tell the truth, they'll figure you're a malcontent and it will hurt your chances of getting hired. Yeh, a lot of good that so-called "right" does you. Because it's not a right. When you join a company, you agree to abide by the company's code of conduct. Violations of the code of conduct can get you fired. You have no "right" to violate the code of conduct. You have the "capability" to do so, certainly - and consequences to bear. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to evaluate the question of what is a right in terms of the general consequences you'd face, but that's not relevant. A right is purely a legal matter (unless you're taking about natural rights, but that's not really at issue here). The only consequences that are relevant are the legal consequences. When considering if you have the right to take some action (or to not take it) the only question that matters is this: "Is it a crime according to the law for me to do this (or for me not to do this)?"

As a side note, freedom of speech is much broader than speaking out against the government. That's why for instance obscenity laws are a freedom of speech concern. Rckrone (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can be punished by the party to whom you direct your so-called "right", then it's not a "right" at all. In the military, you won't necessarily be court-martialed, either. You can be disciplined in various non-judicial ways. But that doesn't mean that you somehow had the "right" to disobey in that circumstance, just because you didn't end up going to jail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only concern is whether an action is a crime under the law. Disobeying an order in the military is a crime under the law. Here it is in the UCMJ [1]. There's no such law for a civilian disobeying his or her employer. Rckrone (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violating the terms of your employment might be breach of contract which has legal implications but breach of contract isn't a criminal offense. Rckrone (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To get back to User:Ike9898's query, I presume he's asking if there's a name for the temporary surrender of certain legal rights upon enlistment. Once upon a time, a master could use physical coercion and the criminal law to enforce attendance, diligence and obedience, corresponding to legal rights that his servant did not then hold. While this is no longer true (even in theory) for civilian employment (for example, your employer can't employ local sheriffs to bring you back to your job by force), it's still true (certainly in theory) for military law and discipline. So a recruit surrenders certain rights upon enlistment or commissioning in the armed services, and the question was whether a name existed for this kind of surrender upon taking the Queen's shilling.

Discussions of whether it's worse in substance to be sacked with a bad reference, sued, denied unemployment benefits, dishonorably discharged, confined to barracks, put on bread and water or put in the stockade are besides the point. So are discussions of purely moral rights to free speech, freedom of movement, etc. Aung San Suu Kyi, in my opinion, has a right to run in the next Burmese elections, but she doesn't yet have the practical right. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the US, freedom of speech is a legal right (First Amendment to the United States Constitution), which is the context I meant. I guess I should've clarified. Rckrone (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My aside about moral rights was probably tilting at a straw man, anyway, since looking more closely at the exchange above, no one was arguing that a soldier's moral right to free speech still exists even if it contradicts military discipline. I was just trying to make the same distinction as you, about legal rights that differ between military and civilian employment. Anyway we've taken up a lot of space without getting any closer to answering the original question. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]