Language desk
< April 11	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 12[edit]

Can English make a distinction between two different kinds of When-questions, about the statement: "Yesterday they believed, he would die tomorrow" ?[edit]

In my native language, there are two constructions of When-questions - about the statement above, as following:

Question_1: "When did they believe, he would die tomorrow?"
Answer: "Yesterday".
Question_2: "When, they believed yesterday, would he die?" (This grammatical construction is of course impossible in English, although it's possible in my native language).
Answer: "tomorrow".

I wonder, whether English can make a distinction between those different kinds of When-questions, whereas it does make a distinction between their different answers.

The same is true for Where-questions. E.g. with regard to statements like:

"At home, I feel, that he lives in the street".

In my native language, there are two constructions of Where-questions - about the statement above, as following:

Question_1: "Where do I feel, that he lives in the street?"
Answer: "At home".
Question_2: "Where, I feel at home, does he live?" (This grammatical construction is of course impossible in English, although it's possible in my native language).
Answer: "In the street".

How about English? 5.22.134.233 (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've trouble making any sense of your example sentences, but there's something in English called tense harmony, is that what you mean? Asmrulz (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've trouble understanding how my question has anything to do with tense harmony.

You had trouble making any sense of my example sentences, just because you thought they presented something grammatical in English. However, they do not. They are artificial forms only. If you don't understand them, that's natural. Maybe you can understand my main point: There are different kinds of When-questions, and different kinds of Where-questions, and likewise. This is a fact, isn't this? For example, when I say "Yesterday they thought he would die tomorrow", I can ask about that a When-question - whose answer should be "yesterday", and I can also ask about that another When-question - whose answer should be "tomorrow". My original question is about whether the English syntax can make a distinction between those different kinds of When-questions, in order to get the different answers. Btw, in my previous post I gave examples of different kinds of Where-questions as well. 5.22.134.233 (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Yesterday they thought he would die tomorrow" is an awkward construction and what it appears to be saying, if I understand it correctly, is properly expressed in English as "Yesterday they thought he would die today", or even better, "Yesterday they thought that he would die today". The speaker shouldn't place himself back in the past to refer to another day; he stays in the present (today) and whatever day he refers to is based on it.

As to your questions:

1. "When did they think, he would die tomorrow?" is not a good construction and doesn't read well, because you are misusing 'tomorrow' as the basis for something in the past when it is actually the speaker's time reference and should be literally his tomorrow. "When did they think that he would die the next day?" is a far better construction, with the answer, "Yesterday".

2. "When, they thought yesterday, would he die?" is also not good. This is much better: "They thought yesterday, when would he die?", or even better: "They wondered yesterday, when would he die?".

The problem is not that English cannot express itself adequately or that your language (whatever that is) may be superior, it's that your lack of familiarity with English is leading you into tortuous constructions that native English speakers such as myself are having great difficulty following. Some readers are probably not responding because your sentence constructions are nearly incomprehensible. Akld guy (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you misunderstood me: The statement, about which one can ask two different kinds of "When-qestions: is: "Yesterday (i.e. on 11.4. 2016), they thought [=believed], that he would die tomorrow [i.e. on 13.4.2016]". So, if I want to ask a question whose answer is "tomorrow" (or rather: "on 13.4.2016"), then it cannot be: "They thought yesterday, when would he die?", because this was not what they thought! They didn't wonder at all, i.e. they didn't think: "When will he die?", but rather thought: "he will die on 13.4.2016". So, the question I'm looking for must be something similar to what 68.48.241.158 has suggested: "What did they believe yesterday about when he would die". However, this is not a "When-question" - which I'm seeking, but rather is a "What-question - which I'm not seeking... 5.22.134.233 (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

seems confused...the second question would just be, I suppose: "What did they believe yesterday about when he would die?" Answer: "Yesterday they believed he would die tomorrow." so that's how it would be constructed in English that translates the exact same thoughts/information.....????68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I understand the OP's question: when two different actions or states appear in the same question, does English have a way of distinguishing which of them is referred to by the question word "when" or "where"? I would say no—it must be inferred by the listener from the context. So for example "When did they think he would die?" in most contexts would mean "They thought he would die when?" (which is occasionally used with strong emphasis on "when?" but is not often used); but in some contexts it might mean "When did they think that thought?" Therefore it's possible for one meaning to be intended but the other to be inferred by the listener. Loraof (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose but both separate questions can be unambiguously stated in English if one is precise...so in that sense the distinction of course can be made in English...so ultimately I don't get the question...is this person suggesting that in his/her language the exact same string of words (and the exact same string of sounds) can be interpreted two different ways? well, that would have to involve the interpretation of context, wouldn't it? this is true in English too though...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The dream questions:

"Where do I dream, he lives in the street?" Not a good construction. Far better: "Where do I dream that he lives in the street?"

"Where, I dream at home, does he live?" You state that that's an impossible grammatical construction in English, but that's not true. It's perfectly valid, almost poetical even, but probably not what one would use in speech. You'd probably say, "I dream at home, where does he live?" Akld guy (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you misunderstood me: The statement, about which one can ask two different kinds of "Where-qestions: is: "At home, I ~~dream~~ feel that he lives in the street". So, if I want to ask a question whose answer is "in the street", then it cannot be: "I ~~dream~~ feel at home, where does he live?", because this is not what I feel! I don't feel: "Where does he live?", but rather feel that: "he lives in the street". So, the question I'm looking for must be something similar to what 68.48.241.158 has suggested: "What do I feel about where he lives". However, this is not a "Where-question" - which I'm seeking, but rather is a "What-question - which I'm not seeking... 5.22.134.233 (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For "Yesterday they believed he would die tomorrow" one can ask "They believed yesterday, he would die when?". Similarly, "At home I feel he lives where?". -Modocc (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's trivial. You could also claim that the When-question about the statement "He will die tomorrow" is "He will die when?". However, such a construction is not considered to be standard. The standard construction of a When-question about the statement "He will die tomorrow", is "When will he die?". Similarly, I've been trying to find out the standard construction of two When-questions about the statement "They believed yesterday, he would die tomorrow": One question whose answer should be "yesterday", and another question whose answer should be: "tomorrow". 5.22.134.233 (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

can anyone precisely and coherently distill what is being asked here..?? My impression is that whatever the question might be is incoherent in and of itself...so the problem is with the question and not with the attempts at answering it....68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your first response, including your interesting suggestion: "What did they believe yesterday about when he would die", shows you did understand pretty well what is being asked here. Further, I would actually have adopted your suggestion mentioned above, if it had begun with "when" rather than with "what". In other words: I'm just looking for two When-questions about the statement "They believed yesterday, he would die tomorrow": One question whose answer should be "yesterday", and another question whose answer should be: "tomorrow". 5.22.134.233 (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5.22.134.233's question is put very clearly. As a native English speaker, I would ask:

Question_1: "When did they believe that he would die tomorrow?"
Answer: "Yesterday".
Question_2: "Yesterday, when did they believe he would die?" (potentially ambiguous; could be asking at what hour yesterday)
Question_2: "Yesterday, they believed he would die when?" (somewhat informal, but less ambiguous)
Answer: "tomorrow".

catslash (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for the unambiguous Question_2: It's trivial. You could also claim that the When-question about the statement "He will die tomorrow" is "He will die when?". However, such a construction is not considered to be standard. The standard construction of a When-question about the statement "He will die tomorrow", is "When will he die?". Similarly, I've been trying to find out the standard construction of two When-questions about the statement "They believed yesterday, he would die tomorrow": One question whose answer should be "yesterday", and another question whose answer should be: "tomorrow". 5.22.134.233 (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are being seriously trolled. Akld guy (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, couple of users have not understood me yet, but most of the users - have: Loraof, Modocc, Catslash (and even 68.48.241.158, who really thought they haven't, although they have, as I can learn from their reasonable suggestion in their first response). Maybe I'm not good at explaining myself, and you're probably a better teacher than me - since English isn't my native language. However, this does not mean trolling. 5.22.134.233 (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"When did they (first) believe he would die tomorrow?" "Yesterday." "When did they think he would die (as of) yesterday? "Tomorrow."

Is this it????68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about "As of 2015 they believed that, as of 2014 - he lived in America "? Again, I need two When-questions about it: One question whose answer should be "as of 2015 ", and another question whose answer should be: "as of 2014 ". 5.22.134.233 (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"when did they (first) believe he lived in America in 2014." "In 2015."......."As of 2015 when did they believe he (first) lived in America?" "In 2014." the second one is awkward but would be understood in context....is this it??????68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to your suggestion, all depends on the exact location of the word "first": If I ask "When did I first believe he got killed? ", then I'm asking about when I believed this, but if I ask "When did I believe he first got killed? ", then I'm asking about when he got killed. Am I right? 5.22.134.233 (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"first" is in parenthesis because it could be left out and the sentences would still make sense in context (though they are quite awkward out of context)...so "first" isn't really important at all, just put it there to make sentences more understandable...."When did I believe he first got killed" simply doesn't work at all because it can only be interpreted as meaning someone can be killed more than once....68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So how should I improve the version of the question "When did you believe he'd been killed? ", in order to let you know that I'm asking about when he was killed - rather than about when you believed this? Please notice that I know in advance, neither when he was killed, nor when you believed this. 5.22.134.233 (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"When was he killed?"....for asking about when he in fact died....."When DO you believe he was killed?"....for asking for an opinion/guess about when he in fact died....."when DID you believe he died?" for asking about when you formed the belief that the person had died.....so in this example all three different questions can be asked starting the question with the word "when." Still not sure what this is all about though....if you're just noticing that syntax is different across languages then you're absolutely correct....English is an extremely complicated language syntactically (Spanish, for example, is less complicated syntactically), with perhaps no straightforward rules about two different "when questions" like might exist in another language...but certainly the content of the two different questions can be easily formulated in English....68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "When do you believe he was killed" is no doubt wrong, because the original statement (which the question is asked about) was: "You believed that he'd been killed ". 5.22.134.233 (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When was it that they believed he would die tomorrow? / When did they believe he would die tomorrow?

Yesterday, when did they believe he would die?

Where are you when you feel that he lives in the street?

Where do you feel he lives when you're at home?

124.186.122.52 (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless in Animal Farm[edit]

"It did not seem strange to learn that the pigs had bought themselves a wireless set, were arranging to install a telephone, and had taken out subscriptions to John Bull, TitBits, and the Daily Mirror."

The book was written 1943. I suppose the subscription were for John Bull, Tit-Bits, and the Daily Mirror. And that they were well known back then. But what have the pigs bought? A radio? If yes, why would Orwell, who tended to an unstilted style, use a word like 'wireless'? Was this a common word back then? --Llaanngg (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what you call a radio was called a "wireless" in England at that time. We still use that term occasionally for a radio set. See Wireless#Radio. Dbfirs 20:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've heard it used to refer to the radio before. When radio first came out it was amazing that it could pick up a signal without wires, so people continued to call it that until the novelty wore off a half century later. The term was also used for the "wireless" telegraph. I've never heard it applied to TV, but surprisingly the term came back in fashion for cell phones, where again people were amazed at phones with no wires. StuRat (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The closest corresponding term for TV that I can think of is "television set". The term "wireless telephone" has been around for about a century, as the first ones were produced at that time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "wireless set" and "television set" were the usual terms in England in 1943, though the latter were not usually found in ordinary households. Phones without wires are usually called "cordless phones" here in England. Dbfirs 21:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "cordless phone" in America is a land-line telephone with a transmitter between the base and the handset, in lieu of the usual tightly wound cord. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: do you mean cordless phones? Where from do you have the information that "wireless telephones" (in whatever sense) are that old? Llaanngg (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in Mobile phone, early wireless (i.e. radio) telephones were developed in the 1910s. Here's a contemporary song, by Billy Murray, about the wireless telephone.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that song, note the reference to "motorcar", a term seldom heard in America today. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were earlier manifestations of mobile, wireless phones, but they were less portable, had limited range, and were expensive, since they used different technology. This is why I specifically referred to cell phones, since cellular towers are the new technology that brought mobile phones into popular use. StuRat (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Books, "wireless" and "radio" were more or less equally used in British English in the 1940s (and I suspect the numbers for "radio" are inflated by the fact that it also referred to two-way radio). It was only around 1960 that "wireless" really dropped out of everyday use. Smurrayinchester 07:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the late 1960s we kids tried in vain to get the older generation to stop saying "the wireless" in favour of "the radio". These were people who had used radiocommunications technology extensively during the war. I know someone, born 1940s, who still occasionally says "turn on the wireless". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My family continued to call it 'the wireless' well into the 80s, right up to the point where our listening habits shifted away from a cabinet radio in the living room and towards mostly listening to the car radio. (Prior to that, we had no car and only a small B&W TV.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the OED comments on this usage being "somewhat archaic", though it does include a cite from 2001. My family (being somewhat archaic) still uses the term "wireless" for what more modern people call a "radio". Dbfirs 19:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found myself temporarily wrongfooted last year by a teenager complaining that "the wireless doesn't work". How odd to be using such an outdated term for a radio I thought, until the penny dropped that she meant "wireless internet connection", just before I said something stupid. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the cooks gone?[edit]

Nowadays everyone seems to be a chef in the kitchen. Is it really so that the word "chef" has all but replaced the word "cook"? For example, Micky Flanagan left school at 15, and with no qualifications, worked in New York as a dishwasher and as chef. I certainly would not want to eat at a restaurant where the dishwasher is promoted chef-de-cuisine just like that. I can usually prepare some food for my family so that they won't starve to death. Perhaps I am a great chef, too, although I am not much of a cook? --Pxos (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me the word "chef" means "person who cooks in an institution or a food-serving business": it does not have a connotation of being in charge of other cooks. Dictionary.com has two definitions for "chef", the first being a chief cook and the second any cook. The OED only has the "chief cook" meaning, but that entry has not been updated since 1889. GloWbE (the Global corpus of web-based Engliah) has 11301 citations for "cook" as a noun, and 25421 for "chef". --ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old joke: "What's the difference between a chef and a cook? About $50 000." More factually and sociologically, the difference is, or manifests in, gender. Bloomburg article: "Women Everywhere in Food Empires But No Head Chefs". A reasonable blog-level explanation of the terms [2]. Chowhound quotes Jacques Pepin: "He was asked what’s the difference between a chef and a cook? He had a very simple explanation. Pepin said a cook is someone who does the cooking. A chef is a manager. He oversees the cooks. After all, chef just means the chief – the boss." [3] Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a position of executive chef, which refers to someone who doesn't do the everyday cooking personally, but might oversee others who do and develop recipes, as well as working with suppliers. StuRat (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me chef means chief cook (including sole cook), but job-title inflation is probably at work (as with computer programmer → analyst → software developer → software engineer). --catslash (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Cook" tends to be used for less expensive restaurants, as in the phrase short-order cook. StuRat (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just some background: The organization of professional kitchens in high-end restaurants is based on a system developed by Auguste Escoffier for his Brigade de cuisine system. The term of "chef" meaning "cook" comes from that system. The system is basically based on military-type organization. Just as in the military you have the system of "soldiers-officers-generals" in the kitchen; you have a system which ranks the kitchen staff from those who do the actual work of preparing the food (cooks), to those that supervise different divisions of the kitchen (sous chefs) to the "general" in charge of the whole operation (executive chef or "chef de cuisine"). In high end restaurants, they can charge enough money to support such a huge back-of-the-house staff. In small corner shops selling "meat and two veg" or "innabun", you've maybe got 2-3 people working in the kitchen, and they're all cooking. In haute cuisine restaurants, you can have several score of cooks, being supervised by a dozen sous chefs, and an executive chef that manages the whole crew. It would not be out of the ordinary for a restaurant such as that to have a 3:1 or 2:1 or even less staff-to-customer ratio. That's why they charge $100 for a steak and $20 for a glass of wine; to pay all of that staff. Now, the terminology over time has gotten passed down, perhaps through title inflation, the same way that the guy making your meatball sub is now a "Sandwich Artist", and the guy burning your eggs at the neighborhood diner is a "chef". --Jayron 32 18:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hallelujah, etc.[edit]

Is there any practical difference between "hallelujah" and "alleluia"? According to EO, they come from the same root,[4] and they mean the same thing. So why do we need two articles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Hallelujah#Proposed merger with Alleluia. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. A debate that spans three years at least. Not worth getting involved in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason we get the two spellings is because there is a letter equivalent to H in the Hebrew alphabet, but there isn't one in the Greek alphabet. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The problem is solely due to differences in various alphabets, and thus a problem with transliteration: How do you properly convert text from one alphabet to another. The same issues come up when translating words from EVERY non-Latin alphabet into a Latin alphabet language; i.e. why we get like a dozen different spellings for names like Muammar Gaddafi (with Q's and G's and various numbers of d's and f's) or Dmitri Mendeleev (with the addition or not of various 'i's and 'y's into the end of his name). The difference between hallelujah and alleluia is the same issue. --Jayron 32 15:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Way more than a dozen for Gaddafi, Jayron. The note in the article reads: Due to the lack of standardization of transcribing written and regionally pronounced Arabic, Gaddafi's name has been romanized in various ways. A 1986 column by The Straight Dope lists 32 spellings known from the U.S. Library of Congress, while ABC and MSNBC identified 112 possible spellings. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved