Language desk
< October 19	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 21 >

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.

October 20[edit]

Book says this sentence is correct:[edit]

"There was only a bed and a dresser in the dingy room." Why "was"? Thanks. 67.243.7.240 (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense perhaps? It sounds like the sentence could be referring to a memory. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There were only a bed and a dresser in the dingy room."—Wavelength (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever heard the copula pluralised if the first object is plural: "There is a bed and a dresser", "There are beds and a dresser". Wavelength's sentence sounds somewhat literary, perhaps based on some prescriptivist "rule". I'm hesitant to ascribe it to Old English having a verb in the singular with a compound first subject (e.g. gefeaht Æþered cyning ond Ælfred... from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle); I'd ascribe it to people not going back to change the verb if another object comes to mind. -- the Great Gavini 04:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found sources. Some Merriam-Webster Guide to English Usage allegedly says: When a compound subject follows the verb and the first element is singular, the verb may be either singular or plural: "There is a lake and several small streams." "There are a dog and a few cats in the house." The singular construction is more common. Still, some writers insist on formal agreement and use a plural verb: "There were an apartment house and a parking lot at the end of the block." They're not prescriptive enough for some tastes, but it should help answer the OP's question. -- the Great Gavini 04:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fluency in a language in a year?[edit]

My friend told me today that in the 4th Grade she could speak Danish fluently, because during that year her class studied Danish (probably not at an immersive level) in preparation for an end-of-the-year trip to Denmark, but that she then lost it almost immediately when she began to learn Spanish. I found this.... doubtful, and in polite terms I thought her definition of "fluent" is not consistent with the general linguistic definition of "fluent". I might be wrong, however, so I ask the educated (and perhaps not-so-educated) linguists of the Wikipedia Reference Desk: Is it possible to become fluent in a language (by the general linguistic definition), in a non-immersive environment, in only a year? Tak. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Daniel Tammet. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not normally, no. Of course, there are always exceptions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like press release hyperbole about such-and-such celebrity who is fluent in six languages (they probably know how to say "hello" in all six). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tammet is a special case, but he's not alone. There are many adults around who have done as you say, learning a language to an advanced level (fluency has a vague definition, as you say...), usually by very dedicated study. As a reference, students in first-year European languages in my university are expected to have all in-class communication in the target language by the end of first year. The course is not particularly intensive, and the students are not fluent (particularly judging by the exams I've seen), but they're at a decent level. The dedicated students have a high level of communication skill, even though others lag behind. With one-on-one tutoring, for some hours a week (say, ten), and a decent level of out-of-class language use, a pretty good level can be achieved, particularly when you already have a couple of languages under your belt.

On the other hand, a fourth-grade class would not get anywhere near fluency. Unless, perhaps, the class was in Sweden, so the cross-linguistic similarities would be very strong. Or the school was a military encampment with slave-driver teachers. Steewi (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people become fluent by not sweating correctness :-). It's not necessarily a bad strategy. But it does work better if you're around a lot of native speakers who can slowly chip away at your most blatant errors. --Trovatore (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

where do the most beautiful women live?[edit]

I saw that headline. Does it mean where do the women who are the most beautiful live, or where do the most women who are beautiful live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.225.74 (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the first meaning. If the second meaning had been intended, it would probably have read "Where do most beautiful women live?", without the definite article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, "where do most beautiful live" means "where do a majority of beautiful women live" (and it'd be hard to find an accurate answer according to most people's opinions, except, of course, "on land" or "on Earth"), whereas "where do the most beautiful women live" (second meaning suggested by the OP) means "where do more women live than anywhere else" (not necessarily a majority).—msh210℠ 17:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Hyphen#Compound modifiers, paragraph 3 (permanent link here),

the phrase more-important reasons ("reasons that are more important") is distinguished from more important reasons ("additional important reasons"), where more is an adjective.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No-one says "more-important" in real life. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is this irony?[edit]

". Nobody should dehumanise any other and those who try to dehumanise another are not human." is it ironic that he chose to say "are not human", directly counter to his whole point? 84.153.225.74 (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question; I will be interested in the answers. I think that it would be ironic if someone condemned dehumanisation of others while unknowingly dehumanising others in the process. The sentence given appears to be a deliberate word play, which I don't think is ironic. I have heard this sort of thing before ("I abhor exaggeration above anything else in the entire universe", "a misspelled sentence is unwurthy of consideration", etc.) and I am sure that there is a term for this sort of sentence, but I don't know what it is. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satire ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is definitely an example of satire. I have a feeling there is a specific term for this sort of sentence that states a principle but in itself disobeys the principle though. Edit: I haven't found the term but here is a nice collection of sentences. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term you're looking for is Fumblerules. Bunthorne (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Q Chris (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Pretentious? Moi?" (an actual quote from my teenage years) —Angr (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Later appropriated by Miss Piggy. Alansplodge (talk)

Miss Piggy called herself moi, but I don't remember her ever saying "Pretentious? Moi?" —Angr (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I first heard it as a punchline told over and over again by Mr. Johnson in "The Psychiatrist", much to Basil Fawlty's exasperation, which is why bringing it up here made me giggle. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or as Tom Lehrer put it, "I'm sure we all believe we should love our fellow man; and I know there are some people that do not love their fellow man, and I hate people like that!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen in Dutch cabinet names[edit]

It appears Dutch government cabinet articles all have a hyphen in their name when there is a need to number them (e.g. Netherlands cabinet Balkenende-4 for the fourth Balkenende cabinet). See List of cabinets of the Netherlands. Is this hyphen correct in English? In Dutch, there is a hyphen between "cabinet" and the name (e.g. kabinet-Balkenende) and it's an often-made mistake to put the hyphen between name and number. So I'd say it a mistake carried over from Dutch, but maybe it's correct in English to put that hyphen in that place? Also, if you say the hyphen is incorrect and I'd like to remove it from the relevant articles, where should I discuss this (which village pump)? Mtcv (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That use of the hyphen is not a standard style in English. That is, it looks wrong. I think that the hyphen should be removed from the title. The place to discuss any significant change to the article is on the article's Talk (Discussion) page. Marco polo (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'd say that the use of Arabic numerals for this sort of thing is unusual. If I saw that sort of thing in English I'd expect it to be something like "Balkende Cabinet IV". But more likely is "the fourth (or 4th) Balkende cabinet". Compare the way we say "Second World War" or "World War II", but not "World War 2" (even if we do use WW2 as an abbreviation). --Anonymous, 19:21 UTC, October 20/10.

Yes, one reads of the Second Grant Administration, Pierre Trudeau's second government, Gladstone's Fourth Ministry or the historic Third Labour Government (1945-1950). After a general election is over, cabinets in the U.S., Canada, and Britain tend to reshuffle or change office by office, rather than in the distinct blocs seen in countries which negotiate their cabinets to satisfy the partners in a coalition government. So few people would be able to recognize or agree on what would have constituted Nixon's Cabinet III, or the FDR Cabinet - 7. (We'll see what happens to David Cameron's and Nick Clegg's coalition cabinet a year or two from now.) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the entire title is awkward for English. I think the most natural title would be "Fourth Balkenende government". In English, we speak of governments rather than cabinets, even though the cabinet is the key structure of the government. I don't think "Netherlands" needs to be part of the title. If there happened to be a "Fourth Balkenende government" in some country other than the Netherlands, then maybe the title should be "Fouth Balkenende government (Netherlands)". Marco polo (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Fourth Balkenende administration". --ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think the use of those numerals in the List of cabinets of the Netherlands looks all that obscure or unnatural in English; since it's a table, that's a common form of abbreviation. It wouldn't be that unusual to abbreviate the two administrations of Grover Cleveland as Cleveland I and Cleveland II or Franklin Roosevelt's third as FDR III in such a table. The real difficulty is in using that kind of abbreviation in an article title that doesn't benefit from the helpful ready comparison with other cabinets. I can't see such an article (as opposed to a table entry) entitled "Cleveland I" or "Theodore Roosevelt II" (which actually redirects to Theodore Roosevelt, Jr, ancestor of Theodore Roosevelt III and Theodore Roosevelt IV). —— Shakescene (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English to Spanish translation request[edit]

What is the following in Spanish?

"PS: In case of refusal of the above terms the author reserves the right to take legal action.

This license and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by you of the terms of this license. In this case the author reserves to demand declaration to cease and desist, and compensation (according to the MFM fee references currently in force). Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder."

While I know a little bit of Spanish, legal words are far beyond my scope. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God is getting your legal document in a different language drafted here ever a bad idea. 85.181.49.255 (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's for a Commons image template: Commons:User:Raboe001/licence, but what I meant is that legal language in Spanish is not my forte.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a bit with 85 here; however, without any legal authoritative answer given, I can give WtM my try. Take into account that I'm not a lawyer, and phrases like cease and desist surely have a more precise transcription:

PD: en caso de rechazo de los términos precedentes, el autor se reserva el derecho de tomar acciones legales.

Esta licencia y los derechos por ella garantizados se darán por terminados bajo cualquier clase de ruptura de los términos precedentes por parte de (¿usted/el usuario? [‘’you’’]). En tal caso, el autor se reserva el derecho de exigir declaración del cese y desistimiento de la conducta, y la correspondiente compensación (en acuerdo con los montos sancionatorios de referencia de la MFM actualmente en vigor). Cualquiera de las condiciones precedentes puede ser soslayada mediante el correspondiente permiso de cesión del titular del derecho de propiedad. Pallida Mors 14:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I added it to Commons:User:Raboe001/licence, using "usted." WhisperToMe (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

meaning of a word[edit]

In Mark Haddon's book "The curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time the word "skip" is mentioned "between the skip & a Ford Van" What does the word skip mean??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.117.72 (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skip (container). Algebraist 18:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in America it would be called a dumpster. Dumpster might be a trademark? 85.181.48.193 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Dumpster is a genericized trademark. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what the article does not say is that 'skip' is sometimes used of open oblong bins of other sizes used in particular places; for example when I first worked in a pub in the 1970's, we had a 'skip' behind the bar which we dropped empty bottles in. But out of special context, the big rubbish skip is what would be understood. --ColinFine (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the context quoted, it's going to be a big waste skip left at the roadside. Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also related to skiff? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. skip, the container, is an alteration of skep, a basket or beehive, which in turn comes ultimately from Old Norse skeppa (bushel). Skiff comes from Old Italian schifo. Lexicografía (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This means, interestingly(?), that while the English use a (proto-)Norwegian word for the skip, we Norwegians use the English word "container". In both cases, the word means something else in the language it was borrowed from (the word "skeppa" now mainly survives in the biblical passage "sette sitt lys under en skjeppe" (apparently "putting one's light under a basket" in English)). Is such cross-borrowing common? Jørgen (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hide one's light under a bushel" is the more usual form. DuncanHill (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It always amused me that the English word "man" comes from the Hindu Manu, whereas the Hindi word for man, आदमी (Aadmi), comes from the Judao-Christian Adam -- Q Chris (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The English "man" was not borrowed from Hindi, it's a native word. The two may descend from the same Proto-Indo-European root, but that's quite a different thing.—Emil J. 11:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how to remember a.m. and p.m.[edit]

hi, how do I remember a.m. and p.m.? someone explained "post" to me like "postmodern" but I still forget. do you have other nemonics? 85.181.48.193 (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"a" comes before "p" in the alphabet. Morning comes before afternoon/evening in the course of a day. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One mnemonic which I recommend is a thorough reading of the article "12-hour clock", to impress on your memory the spellings and meanings of the Latin phrases abbreviated as "a.m." and "p.m."

—Wavelength (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may also help to know that "ante" means "before", as in the amount you put in the pot before you start a poker game - in this case, "before noon". And as noted, "post" means "after", as in to "postpone" some event, meaning to "put later" - in this case, "after noon". If all else fails, go to a 24-hour clock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that articles are mnemonics now! :))

But anyway, I'm not sure if this will help, but you can divide the clock into the usual four quarters (morning, afternoon, evening, early morning) and read the time as you would using a 12-hour clock. Early morning and morning (00:00 to 11:59) would fall under a.m., while the afternoon and evening (12:00-23:59) would fall under p.m. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A.M. means "ante meridian" and P.M. means "post meridian". You can think of meridian as being the midpoint in the sun's passage across the sky (i.e. midday or noon). What can be confusing is if you think of the "M" as an English word because noon doesn't begin with M, while morning, midnight and midday all do. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they stand for "ante meridiem" and "post meridiem", which when directly translated from Latin, would give "before midday" and "after midday". --Theurgist (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British English[edit]

A story I'm writing has a British character in it, so how do I write British English (e.g. different grammar and vocabulary)? --70.250.212.44 (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You find a helper/beta/editor who speaks British English, and have them go through your work. Although, in practice, you also need to refine your idea of what exactly this character is supposed to speak, because they should have their own 'voice' rather than a generic 'British English' voice: consider that Hagrid, Dumbledore, Harry, Ron and Draco (from the Harry Potter series) all speak British English, but each uses words, phrases, and even grammar that others would not. Unless your helper/beta/editor is going to write this character completely for you (and is actually good at characterisation and dialogue), you're going to need to do some work on this. The simplest way is to model the character on an existing character (from a British work) or celebrity, and learn how that character/celebrity talks. You don't need to model your character's personality or appearance after your model, but you should be aware that their speech patterns will reflect subtle aspects of class, as well as where they grew up, how old they are, and what education they received. 86.163.212.182 (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very similar question was asked the other day here. We have articles on British English, American and British English differences, List of British words not widely used in the United States, Category:American and British English differences, and many more - which may help (even if the questioner is not from the US). Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Beta"? Anyway, you definitely want a genuine British person, preferably from approximately the same region and social class as your character, to look over what you've written to make sure it's authentic. One recurring problem when American authors write about British characters is that they exaggerate the character's Britishness to the point of being a ridiculous stereotype. (You often find the same exaggeration when British authors write about American characters, too.) Pais (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Beta" is short for "beta reader" (by analogy with "beta tester"). Marnanel (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah'd recommend tae narrae doon yir definition ae "British" the now. "British" means aw kindae gadges en weys tae spraff, ken?--Shirt58 (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. If you can't find a real Brit to help you (even a Scottish one), try watching some British-made movies. Find a character that matches the region / social class / era that you want and copy the style and phrases that he/she uses. There are some suggested movies at the question linked above (avoid Dick van Dyke or any Disney cartoon though). If you give us a brief profile of your character, I can try to point you in the right direction. Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Brand is always a good choice. Rimush (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could try to find someone to act as a "Britpicker" for you. There are various Britpicking communities that might be of help to you - use "Britpicker" as a search term to find them. You can do a certain amount yourself by reading the information in such places but ideally you need to find a British person to read the story and provide comments. It's very easy to miss the more subtle distinctions between British usage and English from elsewhere.