Language desk
< January 25	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 27 >

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.

January 26[edit]

Weird verb that can't be done but is only done[edit]

First, what do you call it when something "is eaten" but you don't say who ate it?

Secondly, I realised today that quiet a common verb can only be used as above, and I meant to check it up but I have forgotten what it was! Lets assume that it was sink, well you can only say that "the boat sank" and you can never ever say "John sank the boat" with this verb, it just sounds wrong. I believe it's just a noun turned into a verb, though I think it's quite common. Can anyone help me with identifying this verb? I was studying the theme of revenge in the play Hamlet in English class at the time so I think it's comething to do with vengeance. Thanks! 92.251.225.38 (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To your first question, you're talking about passive voice and active voice.

"John ate the apple" is active voice.
"The apple was eaten" is passive voice.
But note that it's still possible to state who is doing the action: "The apple was eaten by John".
This is not always done, though, depending on the context. "The election has been held and the votes have been counted" - it's not necessary to state who or what held the election (because in the context in which this sentence appears it would be blindingly obvious it was, say, a Peruvian election and not a Senegalese election), and it's not important to state who actually counted the votes (unless there's some issue about administrative procedures, corruption, miscounting etc.). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are passive verbs without active counterparts, such as "born" or "rumored." In these cases, the active form of the verb generally exists but has fallen out of use. I can't immediately think of one having to do with vengeance, but perhaps someone else can. John M Baker (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, passive voice - to be avoided if at all possible, especially in business communications. And sure you can say "John sank the boat", just as surely as you can say "the German sub sank the Lusitania". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, the OP knew the latter full well; his text "with this verb" makes it plain that he was merely using "sank" as a place-holder that does not itself exemplify what he wanted. In your customary headlong rush towards a quip, please try to slow down enough actually to read the query properly :-). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing a "quip" in that comment??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my customary headlong rush towards a correction, I merely assumed on past form that there was one. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be avoided if at all possible, eh? Hmm. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic, ain't it? :) It's natural to fall into it. But when you read a memo filled with passive voice, it's enough to make you run your fingernails down the author's dry-erase board. We had a business communication seminar some years ago in which they told us to write in active voice if at all possible. (There was an example of active voice.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with all such seminars, there's a risk of taking the information and applying it in an unthinking, black-and-white way. There's nothing wrong with the passive voice per se; most if not all major languages have their versions of it. It's just that, if overused, it can come across as stuffy, dry, impersonal, uninteresting and boring (the worst sin of all for a writer, much worse than mere grammatical rules). Journalists know when to use it to good effect: to hide the fact that they don't know something. You'll never read "I haven't had the energy, interest, balls, or whatever it takes to find out where the person is", but you will read "The person's current whereabouts are not known". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it has its place - a small place. The reason the instructor discouraged it is because "it sounds bureaucratic" and also often sounds like whatever action described is being done by some phantom, as opposed to someone specific taking action. It also typically reads better, crisper. Here's an example: A sign in the break room saying, "Dishes are to be rinsed before putting in dishwasher" vs. "Please rinse your dishes before putting in dishwasher." And someone told me this one recently: "I saw a sign in the restroom that said, 'Employees must wash hands.' I waited a long time, but no employees came in to wash my hands, so I had to do it myself." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That last example has nothing to do with the passive voice, though. The problem with the first example is not only the passive voice, but also the fact that in "Dishes are to be rinsed before putting in dishwasher", dishes has to be interpreted as the subject of putting, a reading which makes no sense (partially because putting then has no direct object, and partially because dishes are inanimate objects incapable of putting anything anywhere). It should at least read "Dishes are to be rinsed before being put in dishwasher", but I agree the active "Please rinse your dishes before putting them in the dishwasher" is clearer. +An gr 15:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with both examples is that it doesn't say who's supposed to take action. It doesn't tell me to rinse the dishes, it only says "someone" must rinse them. That gets me off the hook, since I can assume someone else will do it. The second one is more of an unintentional ambiguity. I think I've also seen it as "hands are to be washed", etc. For some reason, those signmakers are reluctant to say, "YOU! Do this!" and it sounds weaselly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sign said "Refuse to be placed in compactor". Well, I refuse. Marnanel (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's like the ancient joke about someone who figured it was OK to dump his trash near a sign that said "Fine for littering". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ambiguity in "Employees must wash hands" arises from the headlinese omission of their before hands. +An gr 16:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A sign more like "hands are to be washed" is passive voice, because it doesn't say who's to do the washing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parents often use the passive voice when giving strict instructions to their children: "This room is to be cleaned by the time I get back from the beauty parlour"; "This food is just for show, and is not to be eaten". In both cases, individual children or groups of children are in no doubt that they personally are being told what to do or what not to do, but the form of the instructions might appear to belie that. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The boat sank" isn't actually an example of passive voice, by the way. You're observing that some verbs allow multiple different argument structures (that is, structures of the nouns involved in them), and "X sank" and "Y sank X" are both allowed for "sank". The passive, though, is "X was sunk (by Y)". rspεεr (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on rspeer's comment: the issue in "the boat sank" is called ergativity. Specifically, the verb in "the boat sank" is an unaccusative verb. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not bothered by the passive voice when it has been used by someone else and then heard or read by me. Readers might be surprised when they are told my attitude about the passive voice, but it is hoped that no one will be bothered by my attitude. My comment is hereby signed and delivered. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Wavelength is now renamed "The Oblomov of the Passive Voice". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks a million for your help, yes apparently there are plenty of passive only verbs but I've never realised it...--92.251.251.10 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like pie?[edit]

What the origin of the phrase "I like pie" that kids seem to use all of the time vandalizing stuff? And more importantly, why isn't there a Wikipedia article about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.247.19 (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing special about it, and it's not really any more common in vandalism than things like "PENIS" or "X is gay!". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The urban dictionary takes a shot at explaining its usage, if not its origin.[1] One thing I didn't know is that supposedly its primary usage was as a benign subject-changer if someone was trying to raise a political issue. It would be an odd variation on saying something like, "How about this weather!" or "How about those [insert sports team name here]!" The frequent and nonsensical usage by kids strikes me as being vaguely similar to the ubiquitous WWII graffit, "Kilroy was here", which was still commonly known into the 1960s, but you don't see it much anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A wild guess: perhaps it's related to Weebl and Bob, a popular internet cartoon which frequently makes reference to liking pie. That there's nothing special about the phrase "I like pie" is the reason there isn't a Wikipedia article. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that's such a wild guess, actually. Having the article domestic sheep watchlisted means I see how many dozens of vandalising edits are made that say, "Weebl invented sheep". Presumably the cartoon's viewers have decided to share Weebl's inventiveness and his fondness for pie with our encyclopaedia. Maedin\^talk 11:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I like pie" was famously used in the lyrics to the song "Leggy Blonde" by Flight of the Conchords. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like pie

I hope to die

But get a load o' this:

When you say hi

Doggone the pie

Baby (baby) — knock me a kiss

-- Trovatore (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from German[edit]

I have the machine translation of the following paragraph. It mentions "the dome ringed dove". Is there such a dove? Is the translation correct? The para: Schwerpunkt der Arbeit: Allgemeine Sozialfragen, Probleme der Berufsausbildung, Aufzucht und Pflege der geringelten Haubentaube in Mitteleuropa und anderswo, Untersuchung des Nord-Süd-Gefälles im Bundesgebiet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.0.135 (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia.de: Tauben lists Hauben-Fruchttauben (Lopholaimus) ;Hauben-Fruchttaube (L. antarcticus), but I suspect dome is a mistranslation of Haube (meaning cover, lamp shade and the like). 195.35.160.133 (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

I can only find references to the "geringelte Haubentaube" in connection with Jakob Maria Mierscheid - I guess that particular subspecies of pigeon is a fictitious as its self-proclaimed expert. (The Ringeltaube is the Common Wood Pigeon, the Haubentaucher is the Great Crested Grebe, but I don't think a "Haubentaube" exists) -- Ferkelparade π 11:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.7.4 (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at Google images brings up a number of exotic birds like this one[2]. Perhaps someone could identify it for us? Alansplodge (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that picture shows a Southern Crowned Pigeon, Goura scheepmakeri. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which, according to the photo at de:Tauben, is called not "Haubentaube" but "Rotbrust-Krontaube" in German. +An gr 19:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish blog title[edit]

"teideal glic deisbhéalach"

But what does it all mean? ("Put title here"?)

Thanks.

66.127.55.192 (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ~~think i~~t means "a clever, witty title". +An gr 15:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On people and persons[edit]

Why is it that when the plural of 'person' is grammatically correct as 'persons',it sounds much more stilted than 'people'?I only ever seem to see 'persons' in Chinese take-aways (a meal for 5 persons) or on signs (Persons under 18 will not be admitted).

EnormousThrobbingPusFilledBoils (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's another one for our list of frequently asked RefDesk questions. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 September 16#Any other persons, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 November 28#Persons vs People, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 January 5#Correct wording, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 October 7#People, Persons, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 August 23#Irregular nouns and apostrophes, and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 November 11#Irregular plurals for previous discussions of this issue. +An gr 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On First Ladies[edit]

If a female were ever to become president of the USA,what would her husband's title be? 'First Man' sounds rather odd EnormousThrobbingPusFilledBoils (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall First Husband being used in newspapers when Hillary C. had a chance of becoming president. I don't think First Lady/Husband are official titles.195.35.160.133 (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

Our article First Lady says the male equivalent is a "First Gentleman". However, traditionally the First Lady was not necessarily the wife of the President, but rather the hostess of the White House. Thus unmarried and widowed Presidents have had First Ladies who were not their wife (see List of First Ladies of the United States#Footnotes). In that sense, when a woman is elected President of the U.S., she will presumably also be the hostess at White House functions and will therefore serve as her own First Lady. +An gr 15:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the last TV series based on this premise, Commander in Chief, the president's husband was the First Gentleman. But that's fiction. --Anonymous, 00:27 UTC, January 27, 2010.

First Dude? (Sorry it had to be said) Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about “First Sir”? -- Irene1949 (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe only if the conventional term were "First Ma'am". Hard telling what titles (wanted or not) that Bill Clinton might have accrued if he were the husband of the President. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Chinese three-course meal[edit]

Hi all! I am attending a Chinese three-course meal tonight (in the UK) and when looking at the menu on-line just now, I realized that it has only been posted in pinyin. I've managed to work out that the first course, Sze Chuen Tong, must be a Szechuan soup made with pork and shrimps, but I am a bit at a loss with the main course: Kung Pao xiao ji. Google is singularly unhelpful and I'm guessing chicken here with Kung Pao being just a proper noun, but I am not sure. The dessert (?) is Dàn jí shì, and for this one, too, I can't find translations. Thanks for helping! --129.67.116.59 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a weird combination of pinyin (tong, xiao ji) and Wade-Giles (Sze Chuen instead of Sichuan and Kung Pao instead of gongbao. I don't know what any of it means, though. +An gr 18:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Kung Pao chicken (the term for chicken used in the Pinyin name there is different from "xiao ji", but searches on the Web seem to indicate that the latter does refer to chicken). Googling also indicates that "dàn jí shì" may refer to custard. I'm sure that people who actually know the language will weigh in. Deor (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dàn jí shì" seems to be pinyin for 蛋吉士, literally "egg cheese", which seems to be a regional term for "egg custard" as Deor pointed out.

Kung Pao is the "traditional" transliteration for Gong Bao, as in [[Kung Pao chicken]. My guess is that the "xiao" here is 小, "small", as in "Kung Pao spring chicken".

Sze Chuen most likely refers to Sichuan, and I'm guessing "Tong" is 汤, tang, "soup". "Sichuan soup" could mean any of a number of soups, but seems to usually indicate a hot and spicy soup base for broiling fish, meat or tofu in. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the suppositions so far are correct by my understanding. Sichuan soup (that is, a spicy soup - Sichuan cuisine is famous for being spicy), Kungpao chicken is what it's usually called in English. Xiaoji just means small chicken, or chick, which probably just means that it's a spring chicken. Danjishi is indeed egg custard (and quite tasty). Steewi (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ec:Wouldn't that make it a marinade, then, if the soup was used for broiling? Otherwise, you could say that the food is boiled in the soup, or, if you are referring to the method, that would be poaching.174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right - that was some careless writing. Poaching was what I meant. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, egg custard in Chinese cuisine, is VERY different from European custard. AFAIK, I do not think they use dairy products in the custard. The custard does not turn out as creamy, and it's harder in that sense.174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egg custard might be Egg tart. Oda Mari (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... (also called egg custard in Northern England, though it can be quite hard set.) What is the recipe for the Chinese version? Dbfirs 23:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just taking a guess, but there is a Chinese dish sometimes called "steam eggs," in which beaten eggs are placed, in a bowel, in a bain-marie style vessel or "steaming pot." It's not a dessert. This may be what is being described...--71.111.194.50 (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope you meant "bowl", 71.111 :) TomorrowTime (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not. Maybe this is the Chinese equivalent of haggis. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Quite a humorous piece of speculation, but no, it's a bowl, not a digestive organ. Normally that's not how a bain-marie works.--152.3.128.132 (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)(I'm the same as User:71.111.194.50)[reply]

If you add salt you get scrambled egg, but if you add sugar you get egg custard? Dbfirs 23:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]