Language desk
< December 29	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 31 >

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.

December 30[edit]

Singular or plural[edit]

I'm writing a complex sentence. One clause includes stuff in the plural, the next clause in the singular:

"The questions and issues arising from our frustrated efforts, as well as the information that was developed as far as possible in several cases, is well worth consideration and reflection...

'Questions and issues' are plural, and I should follow with 'are well worth consideration...' 'The information' is singular, and I should follow with 'is well worth consideratoin'...

When they are together here, do I write 'is well worth consideration...', or 'are well worth consideration...' ?

And why? Is there a rule to learn here that I can use in the future?

Thanks if you can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.177.59 (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would use are in this context. You are referring to two things, "questions and issues" and "information", not a single thing, so I would say that makes the word are appropriate. I'm sure someone else can give a proper grammatical reason for this, though. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

94.210.177.59 -- The only reason to place "is" there would be "attraction" to the nearest subject noun, which would not add any clarity in this case. By the way, our Attraction (grammar) article is extremely poor... AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. We have a long writeup on Subjunctive by attraction which contradicts Attraction (grammar) (and neither of them links to the other)... The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics (ISBN 0-19-280008-6) defines attraction as "Agreement of a word with an adjacent element to which it does not bear a direct syntactic relation." Not sure that's 100% accurate, but much better than what we have now... AnonMoos (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things. Firstly, when you set things off by commas, you should be able to ignore that section. (The last sentence isn't an example.) I mean, for example, this sentence. (you can ignore the middle two words :) Or: "This sentence, though it may be tempting to see it otherwise due to the presence of plural words, is singular." You can just read it ignoring the set-off middle part. ("This sentence is singular.") So the way/tip/rule for editing sentences like that is:

"The questions and issues arising from our frustrated efforts, ~~as well as the information that was developed as far as possible in several cases,~~ is well worth consideration and reflection" which is obviously wrong. It sounds wrong as well. You need to use 'are'.

There is another issue though!

I know you didn't ask, but your sentence is terrible. Don't write this way.

"The questions and issues arising from our frustrated efforts, as well as the information that was developed as far as possible in several cases, is well worth consideration and reflection..."

this is the worst kind of writing that exists. There is literally no worse kind of writing. All you're saying is, "Although we didn't succeed, our research could prove useful." But you're not willing to say that. You're just saying, the questions and issues, are worth consideration and reflection (two synonyms.)

You need to not make complicated sentences. Say simple things. Say what you really mean. If you're even THINKING about tweaking the grammar of a complicated sentence, throw out the whole thing and say it in 3 words. Or say it in two sentences. Break it down into short, simple sentences. Build up paragraphs that build up to your conclusions. Rather than long sentences that build up to your conclusion. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sentence is awkwardly and needlessly complex, but as it stands, the subject of the sentence is "questions and issues". As such, it requires the plural verb form are. Marco polo (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're in agreement (so to speak :)). Can you amend my text wherever it is unclear so that it's obvious that's what I'm saying? 91.120.14.30 (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is my "so is" correctly put in this sentence, thanks? "The questions and issues arising from our frustrated efforts are well worth consideration and reflection, so is the information that was developed as far as possible in several cases." Akseli9 (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, "is" is incorrect. The only subject in this sentence is the plural "the questions and issues". The clause beginning "as well as the information" is actually, "as well as from the information" but the second from has been left out by grammatical ellipsis. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, I'm not sure how carefully you read Akseli9's new would-be sentence. In this new statement, there are actually two independent clauses, separated by a comma. This is a no-no in prescriptive terms. Although this kind of structure occurs in the spoken language, it is not Standard Written English (SWE). However, in the second clause, "the information" is the subject of the clause. So, in this case, is is correct. To qualify as SWE, just change so to as. It's still awkwardly wordy, but no worse than lots of other academic writing. Marco polo (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. "The questions and issues arising from our frustrated efforts are well worth consideration and reflection, as is the information that was developed as far as possible in several cases." Akseli9 (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is free of grammatical errors. Marco polo (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still strongly recommend rewriting it to say something. 'questions' and 'issues' are synonyms to me, but vague ones that don't say anything, as are 'consideration' and 'reflection'. if you're using words and sentences this long, shouldn't it say something? 'issues' is incredibly vague. Why can't you just say: "Although we didn't succeed, our study raises important questions (which ones? regarding what?), and our data could prove useful for analysis in other contexts." (if this is what you mean.) you have a very long sentence and it says nothing. it's like you're actively hiding the meaning. I say this because the version I just suggested takes a much stronger position than your version, i.e. that the questions are important, or that the data could be useful. Whereas you stood behind the much weaker claims that they're "well worth consideration and reflection" (what isn't), and made only the same claim about your data. It's like you're implying my version, but are unwilling to state it. you're hiding. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statement's ambiguous, Marco. I won't claim to read the OP's mind, but the confusion is typical when people use ellipsis that leads to confusion. If he meant something else the sentences should be broken up, not the verb worried over. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The new sentence is terrible, but totally unambiguous because there is only one verb (are), repeated as 'is'. what are the two readings you see in there, Medeis? "These things are x, as is y" is totally unambiguous and matches the syntax of the above structure. I only see one way to read it. (we're talking about what Marco just replied to, right, at the same indent level as your comment?) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is a "Casal"?[edit]

So, during my research into the history of Tel Kabri and more specifically, al-Kabri, I came across this word, "casal" (masc.) in Victor Guérin's account of his travels in the area. I couldn't find the definition in WordReference, and so I asked a French friend who didn't know the meaning, and nor did her mother. The same friend did some research and found it to be an Old French word for chasel, meaning "a domestic, servant, or vassal". Unfortunately, this definition doesn't quite fit with the use, with place names such as Casal Humberti, or the uses I've seen in Old French documents from the Kingdom of Jerusalem. So can anyone help nail down precisely what this word means? Thank you. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 8 Tevet 5775 16:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article you link which mentions Casal Humberti says that it was a fortress. Could this simply be a corruption of 'castle', or more likely one of its cognates from Latinate languages? [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I thought at first, but it must be something very specific. Were it simply a castle, Guérin would have said un château, but he specifically used the term un casal. I've seen elsewhere that casale had to do with an isolated house or grouping of houses, but if that's the case, why would Casal Humberti and other places named Casal be named as such? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 8 Tevet 5775 17:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word means manor or household in Spanish. Google translate gives definitions: https://translate.google.com/?hl=en#es/en/casal. It seems most likely this is a borrowing from Spanish into Arabic or, less likely, perhaps a borrowing from English "castle". Compare the French canif from English knife. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That definition makes the most sense, but remember it turns up in the name of a fortress built at Achziv 1099 and documents from the time of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (those specific documents are from the 1200s). The only Spanish spoken at that time would have been Old Spanish and Old and Middle English weren't relevant languages at this point, whereas Old French appears to have been dominant throughout Western European cultural lands. I don't see it used in Arabic at all, though I haven't checked (كسال would be the correct spelling, I think), but it appears to be a word the Crusaders brought with them. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 8 Tevet 5775 18:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The online Etymology Dictionary says that castel is Old North French. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's still a different term though. I want to be very precise about this so I can reconstruct what they're talking about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 8 Tevet 5775 23:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author the OP quotes wrote in the 1800's, so the term may be his or one adopted any time until then. There is also Ladino which was used in Palestine and is a dialect of Castilian with various modifications, but the word casal is of simple enough phonology that it could very easily date back to Latin adjectival form of casa, casalis/casale without change. (Indeed, see the Portuguese: Etimologia: lat.tar. casális,e 'relativo, pertencente a uma casa' e lat.medv. casale(s) (subst.) 'conjunto de casas; limites de uma propriedade, granja, fazenda "Etymology: Late Latin casalis/casale 'relation, pertaining to a house' and late Mediaeval casal(e) 'group of houses, limits of aproperty, farm, hacienda" The term also almost certainly existed in Mozarabic and hence could have been brought to the levant by Ladinos, by early borrowing into Arabic (which I cannot read and about which I know little). μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I, AKA, the OP, also talked about it appearing much much earlier in placenames and Old French documents. :P I didn't know about Mozarabic though, fascinating read! It's probable that Muslims coming to Palestine from al-Andalus could have put some words into the Palestinian Arabic dialect, but I don't think it would influence this term which appears to be European in origin. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tevet 5775 16:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A casal in the context of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (and Cyprus) is just a settlement, a village. It may have included a fortified spot, but not necessarily as big as a castle. I am sure it's ultimately related to Latin "castellum" though. The crusaders established lots of little settlements - colonies, some might say. A casal could also be a pre-existing native village. It had its own lord (whether a Latin crusader or a native eastern Christian), and it owed taxes and other feudal services, like any other feudal settlement in Europe. There has been a ton of work done about crusader settlements, a lot of it by Israeli historians and archaeologists, and they can tell you exactly what a casal is...except I am not in the presence of my books at the moment and I shouldn't go off the top of my head when I know there is a proper answer out there. One good source is probably Joshua Prawer, "Colonization Activities in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem" (Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 29 (1951)), although it's probably a bit outdated now. I want to say Prawer's Crusader Institutions and Jonathan Riley-Smith's The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174-1277 talk a lot about casals, but of course, they are the classic works on the subject and they aren't available online. There is more recent archaeological work by Adrian Boas, Denys Pringle, and Ronnie Ellenblum that should be informative as well, you might be able to see previews of their books on Google. When I get home in a few days I can look this up, if you can wait (and if no one else has a better answer first). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fantastic if you could. I've been in the Archaeology of Israel for six years now, and this is the first time I've run across the term, though my focus is on the Bronze and Iron Ages (mostly Bronze), and I know only one Israeli medieval archaeologist. That is all incredibly helpful. Thank you! I could use those citations in a separate article not related to Wikipedia. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tevet 5775 16:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that one of the meanings of casal is "group of houses" I am not sure why you are introducing Latin castrum, castellum as a source, Adam, with the unexplained loss of the /t/, and the fact that you say these settlements didn't necessarily have castles in any case. The meaning of the Romance casal fits the situation and requires no extra assumptions. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking out loud, and I didn't see your post that mentions "casa", which makes more sense. Sometimes with Old French words I just throw some letters back in there to see if there's a Latin match. Like how does "medicus" become "miège"?! It's a crazy language. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedic Spanish dictionary gives, most relevantly, sitio donde hubo edificios; "a location where there were (had been) buildings." μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey. Well both the manor thing and spot formerly occupied by buildings make sense.... I don't get how this is the most complicated bit of research I've ever run into on this topic. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 11 Tevet 5775 17:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unafforested[edit]

Afforestation is planting trees in an area where they weren't previously. I've come across the word unafforested but haven't found a definition. Does this mean:

An area which has never been afforested?
An area which was afforested and then deforested?
something else? JMiall ₰ 17:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number one is a bit vague. I don't think an ordinary person who uses this word knows the whole history of a place to be sure that it has never been afforestated. There is always the era before humans. I assume "unafforested" describes the state of "not afforested". Whether or how many times a place has been afforested and then cleared is not important. --2.245.118.112 (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the word is used by normal people though. It seems to be used by the type of scientist who could tell from the soil profile something about the forestation history. So I suppose what I am suggesting by #1 is that it hasn't been afforested within the period they have data about rather than never. JMiall ₰ 17:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a report about pollen analysis from a site that has been described as unafforested. The report doesn't use the word but does have a reference using the word 'non-afforested' which presumably means the same thing. This site had trees up to 4 or 5000 years ago but then lost them and has had no trees for a long time. So that would imply that unafforested does mean that it hasn't been afforested. But that then leaves the question of how unafforested differs from unforested, if it does? JMiall ₰ 18:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See further down the Afforestation article: "(In the UK, afforestation may mean converting the legal status of some land to "royal forest".)" Quite possibly you are looking at this legal sense; land which is 'unafforested' is not and has never been crown property, while land which is 'disafforested' was once crown property, but was transferred to another owner or to the public. 128.146.172.252 (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Keeping in mind about production and economy the industries which are using wood or cut the trees for production should plant and cultivate the new tress in place of old trees for future needs it will make a balance the process.

Translation of the title of De legibus & consuetudinibus Angliæ[edit]

Did I translate the title of this book correctly? The original Latin title is "De legibus & consuetudinibus Angliæ libri quinq[ue]; in varios tractatus distincti, ad diuersorum et vetustissimorum codicum collationem, ingenti cura, nunc primu[m] typis vulgati: quorum quid cuiq[ue]; insit, proxima pagina demonstrabit." I have translated it into English as "The laws and customs of England in five books; divided into various treatises, collated from diverse and most ancient manuscripts, with great care, now the first of its type published: what is in each of them, the next page will show."

Also, any idea what the abbreviation "a d: f:" written after the year "1569" near the bottom of the page might mean? — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To nitpick, the first clause would more literally be "Five Books on the Laws and Customs of England"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And "ad...collationem" is not really "collated from", but more like "in order to make a collection of diverse and very ancient books", i.e. all those old diverse books are now collected into one volume. "Nunc primum typis vulgati" means "now for the first time in vulgate type"...a codicologist could probably explain that better, but I assume it means a first printing in a humanist, non-Gothic typeface. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So a more accurate translation would be Five books on the laws and customs of England; divided into various treatises, in order to make a collection of diverse and most ancient books, with great care, now for the first time in vulgate type: what is in each of them, the next page will show? Just curious – is there a difference in meaning between libri and codicum, or are they just synonyms for "books"? — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there's another Latin book title that your help with would be much appreciated! See "#Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Angliæ" below. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if there isn't already a translation of this title. Bracton is pretty important and famous and there must be thousands of works on the history of English law. Has no one ever translated the whole title? Adam Bishop (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]