Language desk
< July 11	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 13 >

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.

July 12

English "on me" construction-- two questions

What is the linguistic term for using the phrase "on me" with the meaning "and this was bad for me," as in "my computer crashed on me"? And how would I render this same meaning in Spanish? (I'm thinking "me rompio la computadora" would be close but I'm not sure.) 69.107.248.119 (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "on me" thing is a very slangy idiom. I would be surprised if there was a literal Spanish equivalent. You would simply state that the computer failed, i.e. perhaps just "rompio la computadora" without the "me", or "my" computer failed, i.e. "rompio mi computadora". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic, but I had always read the construction "[X did Y] on me" in this sense to connote that X was someone or something on which I had depended to do something, or not to do Y, and by doing Y it had failed my expectation. In that sense, I see a distinction between, on the one hand, "He bailed on me", which, at least in my particular variety of English, can mean for example "he failed to show up at a time to a place at and to which I had expected him to show", and on the other hand, "the tree fell on me". Both constructions are identical on their faces and in both situations the result is bad for me, but the sense conveyed by "on me" seems different. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's off-topic at all. The tree example is literal, and the others are metaphorical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there are other meanings, perhaps shortened from "the onus is on me":

"That's my fault" as in "sorry about the broken vase, that's on me".

"That's my responsibility" as in "I'll bring the chairs, that's on me". StuRat (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can also have 'the responsibility for paying for this lies with me': "Have a drink on me". See also "The Milkybars are on me!" - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You probably just have to say these are idiomatic usages. I'd look for meanings under the OED. They'll mention if there is any special term for the usage. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed in the OED, under sense 20f of "on" as a preposition: "To the disadvantage or detriment of (a person); so as to affect or disturb. colloq." The earliest examples listed for this in the OED are from the late 1800s. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 19:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it a dativus incommodi or dative of disadvantage. Angr (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish would be Se me rompió la computadora. Here "se" is the obligatory direct object, showing it was the computer which broke, and you (me) were the indirect object 'beneficiary' of the breaking. Me rompió la computadora would be interpreted as "he broke my computer" or even possibly "the computer broke me" if it made sense in context. μηδείς (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I thought "se" should have been in there somewhere, but that's one part of Spanish grammar I always had trouble with... 69.107.248.119 (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's technically a "reflexive verb" (though not reflexive in meaning). AnonMoos (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get really technical, it's a reflexive construction in the mediopassive voice. "It got broke", not "It broke itself." (The verb romper is not inherently reflexive, but it is inherently transitive, with the reflexive construction in this case converting it to intransitive.) This source describes the construction as the "process se" and specifically it describes it as the "se of unexpected events". (I know I have read a more classical phrase describing this construction, but having learned Spanish by ear from childhood, my formal training is minimal.) μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Olympic Games" (grammatical number)

Comments are welcome at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"Olympic Games" (grammatical number) (version of 22:35, 11 July 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verb Tense

Resolved

Hello Grammar folks!

According to my textbook, the following sentence is grammatically correct:

"Before George Eliot became the popular and respected novelist known as George Eliot, she was an anonymous translator and essayist of formidably far-ranging scholarship."

My question is why was the past simple used ("she was"); why didn't we use the past perfect tense ("she had been") instead?

Thanks Hisham1987 (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The usual explanation for this is that it's redundant. We use the past perfect tense to show that something happended before something else in the past, but it's unnecessary when we use the word "before" (or "after") in the sentence. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either form would be acceptable in terms of intelligibility. In the original format "she was" references an ongoing state of being with a terminal point which is implied by the first clause but which the syntax/morphology of the second clause does not explicitly mark (but is not in conflict with either). In the alternative form you suggest the past perfect more overtly marks the time frame, but since this is inferable from the content of the first clause, it is not necessary. Snow (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about the meaning of the word "was" itself, the English simple past technically does not say anything about when the action was finished, if at all—"I was hungry two hours ago" does not necessarily mean that I am no longer hungry, even though I would be more likely to say "I'm hungry" if I still am. "had been" is the pluperfect, or "past perfect" as some people like to call it, and does indeed specify that the action in question has already ended. As pointed out above, this is redundant when the sentence contains "before" in the way yours does. Still, I suppose one could argue that, never having explicitly said that this woman stopped being a translator, she could have continued to be one during the same period of time during which she was a novelist. (Again, the wording of the sentence with "before" strongly implies that this is not the case, but it is technically possible.) dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 03:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cases like this do well with an example or analogy. Consider:

George Elliot was able to speak French before she was 15.

George Elliot had been able to speak French before she was 15.

The implications of the second sentence are greatly different from the first. Since I don't know the facts, I can't tell whether the simple past or the pluperfect would be appropriate above. But I would use the pluperfect if I knew its implications were true. The ambiguous simple past is always safe; but always to use it is insipid. μηδείς (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Medeis points out, the difference between was and had been is usually a distinction between whether the action continued or ended prior to the event noted. For example, if I say "I got sick because I was eating spoiled meat" implies that the eating occured right up until the moment of illness. If I change it to say "I got sick because I had been eating spoiled meat" it means that the eating had stopped some time before the illness. Again, without knowing the factual basis for the statement, one needs to decide if George Elliot was still working as a translator and essayist while she wrote her novels, or if she stopped. If she continued, use "was". If she stopped, use "had been". --Jayron32 05:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

…but on the other hand, don't forget that "was" doesn't actually say anything (explicitly) about whether or not the action continued. It leaves that possibility open, which "had been" does not, but it could be that either one is appropriate. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 06:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I think it depends on the context for the use of "was". In isolation, a "was" statement always means the action ended "I was running" always implies "and I am not anymore" (if it includes the past and present, we'd say "I have been running"). However, if we are comparing the temporal relationship between past events, I usually take "was" to imply "was still" when the other event is noted. If I mean to say it stopped, I'd use "had been". --Jayron32 06:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then there is a separate class of people who will be quick to say "but you never said it stopped" when you use it the first way.

dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 06:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight everyone. The idea is now definitely clear to me. --Hisham1987 (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]