Language desk
< July 8	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 10 >

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 9[edit]

Dual meaning[edit]

What is the technical name of the device where a word has another meaning apart from that wehich is obvious? Thanks in advsnce.

you may mean pun, double entendre or connotation. Cheers--K.C. Tang 01:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or you may mean metaphor or allegory. --Anonymous, July 9, 2007, 02:52 (UTC).

Do you mean obvious in the context of use, or obvious per se? Also, is the ambiguity intentional, or accidental (like in the requirement that "Hard hats must be worn on this site at all times"[1])? Could you give a few examples of what you mean? --Lambiam ^Talk 06:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being a bit slow here? What is the ambiguity in the Hard Hat sentence?Cyta 07:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be taken as forbidding hard hats to be worn anywhere else; there may be yet other readings. —Tamfang 08:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's something to do with the "Hard hats must be worn" part making the "at all times" unnecessary- X201 11:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose hard hats must be worn (as in worn down/ not new)? I suspect double entendre is the right answer, although that is normally used when the alternative meaning is obscene. Cyta 11:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the specific second meaning of "worn" I had in mind: damaged by wear or use; "a worn screw thread"; "worn elbows on a jacket". So the worker trying to enter the site with a brand-new hard hat is not admitted. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reading could be that the site must not be left unattended - at all times, including nights, weekends and holidays, there must be someone on the site wearing a hard hat. How did we ever manage to make sense of such an ambiguous phrase? 84.239.133.38 11:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's called common sense and context. Most sentences can probably have dual meanings (or more) if you look hard enough, but somehow we all manage to communicate. Cyta 13:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another reading is that you must wear a hat which is hard, as opposed to a hardhat. Bowlers are permissible; berets are not. --TotoBaggins 14:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to beat a dead horse, but another possible meaning is that if someone has a hard hat on the premises, they must wear it. This is something like the meaning of "Dogs must be kept on a leash on this site at all times", which isn't generally seen as a requirement to have a dog, but rather as a requirement to keep the dog on a leash if you have one. Mike Dillon 02:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of Idiom? For instance "Bull's eye" has nothing to do with the eye of a bull. Bunthorne 02:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

translation from spanish[edit]

Can anybody please tell me what this means? "El Roi des Belges, modelo para el barco de vapor de El Corazón de las tinieblas, al breve mando de Conrad". It is a picture description that I need here. --Lamme Goedzak 07:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The King of the Belgians, model for the steamboat of The Heart of the darkness, under(?) the brief command of Conrad." No surprises there, I imagine. —Tamfang 08:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fast reply! This means that Conrad has never been on this ship but on a similar one? --Lamme Goedzak 09:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it means the Roi des Belges was briefly under the command of Conrad, and the steamboat in Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness was based on the real-life Roi des Belges. —Angr 09:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then my description is correct. Thanks! --Lamme Goedzak 14:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad was on the Roi des Belges, as far as I know (though I don't know anything about who was in command). Tesseran 16:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this [2] Conrad was second-in-command of the Roi des Belges, tho' the Captain fell ill, which would have given Conrad temporary command. DuncanHill 23:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lack/a lack? response/responses?[edit]

should it be...

due to a lack of response
due to a lack of responses
due to lack of response
due to lack of responses

I would say "due to the lack of response", or possibly "due to a lack of response". DuncanHill 09:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd probably say "because of" instead of "due to", but that may just be my idiolect. DuncanHill 09:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're all grammatical and all valid for some meaning; the question is which one you want. You need to confront two issues: the choice of "the" vs. "a" vs. no article, and the choice between "response" and "responses". (They operate independently here.) The first is perhaps trickier, but for the second one, "lack of response" is a general thing, focusing on "the response" as an undivided whole; "lack of responses" focuses on the individual responses that did not arrive. It also implies (to some degree) that the actual number of responses is important. If you mean "no one seemed very excited about the idea", use "response"; if you mean "no one even sent back a letter", use "responses". Tesseran 17:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you can also say: "due to the lack of responses", which (to me) sounds slightly more idiomatic than "due to (a) lack of responses". If you have somehow mentioned earlier that the amount of response was underwhelming, then in a later reference "the" should be used. For example: "For question 3 we only received three responses, two of which were illegible. Due to the lack of responses, the decision was referred to a later stage." --Lambiam ^Talk 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or "for lack of response(s)" —Tamfang 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Another good question for the English Language Reference Desk.) The Jade Knight 03:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which has been superseded by ell.stackexchange.com and english.stackexchange.com —Tamfang (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Romantic poets[edit]

I wanted to gain some knowledge about the comparisons between the poets and poems of-P.B.Shelley,William Wordsworth and John Keats.Please help me.I need this information desperately. Thank you.````

Have a look at our articles on Percy Shelley, Wordsworth and Keats and come back to us if you have any specific questions. By the way, this question would have been better asked on the humanities reference desk. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Onomatopoeia[edit]

Moved from the misc. desk. Capuchin 13:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a duck goes quack what sound does an elephant make? --58.168.222.252 12:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elephants trumpet. DuncanHill 12:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have an onomatopoeic word for an elephant's trumpet, are there any in other languages? This would be best on the language desk. Capuchin 12:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any onomatopoeic words for the elephant in German or Czech either. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hoom-praa"? ---Sluzzelin talk 15:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sad that I don't seem to be able to open that document :( Capuchin 12:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they step on a pile of grapes, they may make a little whine.Gzuckier 15:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "trumpet" is an onomatopea. It does sound like the sound a trumpet makes. – b_jonas 13:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine languages in countries where elephants are found have a sound for elephants, like we have sounds for ducks of cows. EditorInTheRye 14:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google found this [3]. But I don't think it's in common usage (if used at all). Google doesn't find much else. And given that the urban dictionary also has [4]... Nil Einne 21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Spanish language the sound created by an elephant is called "barritar". Used in a simple phrase: "Los elefantes barritan"

Hindi language and ethnic groups[edit]

Does the Hindi language form an ethnic group? Heegoop, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Defining ethnicity is very tricky, particularly in northern India, where Hindi is mainly spoken, because of the existence, linguistically, of both a dialect continuum linking dialects very close to standard Hindi around Delhi with dialects close to other related languages, such as Bhojpuri, and because of Hindi's status as a lingua franca throughout northern India. In addition to these linguistic complications, Hindi speakers are divided along lines of caste, religion, and regional origin. Therefore, I don't think that the Hindi language alone can be seen as an ethnic marker, at least in northern India. Because ethnicity is relative, an argument might be made that Hindi is a kind of ethnic marker in southern India, because, there, native use of Hindi marks a speaker as a northern Indian, or ethnic outsider. Outside of India, the status of Hindi as an ethnic marker is somewhat murky and would depend on whether there are distinct communities of Indians organized along linguistic lines (in which case Hindi would be an ethnic marker), or whether hyphenated Indians form a single ethnic group regardless of their native language—e.g., perhaps, "Indo-Canadians"—(in which case Hindi would not be an ethnic marker). This almost certainly varies from place to place. But, in general, I do not think that Hindi speakers represent an ethnic group with a strong shared identity. Marco polo 15:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What ethnic groups in India speak Hindi? Heegoop, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that most Indians cannot be assigned to any clearly defined ethnic group. The exceptions would be the members of the so-called "scheduled tribes", or Adivasi peoples, which do form distinct ethnic groups. However, Adivasi peoples generally do not speak Hindi, except as a second language. The Indian government does not recognize the existence of ethnic groups in India apart from these scheduled tribes. While there are significant cultural differences among regions of India, there are few clear dividing lines between regions. Instead, there are subtle gradations. Often cultural differences between castes are more important than those between members of the same caste in neighboring regions. In a sense, non-tribal Indians who are not members of an alien ethnic minority (such as the Tibetans), whether they speak Hindi or some other language, form a single ethnic group like the Han Chinese of China, who also have wide regional cultural and linguistic variation. So, unfortunately, it is really impossible to answer your question. Marco polo 15:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who speaks Hindi? (general question) Heegoop, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how you define Hindi, which is really a variant of Hindustani. Speakers of standard Hindi, which is a high register of Hindustani with added Sanskrit vocabulary, tend to be educated northern Indians, particularly Hindus. (Educated Muslims in northern India may prefer Urdu, a closely related variant of Hindustani.) Native speakers of standard Hindi would tend to be educated, urban, Hindu northern Indians from the states of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand, and the territories of Chandigarh and Delhi. In addition, standard Hindi would be the native language of some educated people in Maharashtra and others in other parts of India whose families are originally from the north. Lower-reigster variants and dialects of Hindi or Hindustani are spoken natively among less educated and rural people in eastern Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, northern Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh. However, a dialect of Hindi spoken in eastern Uttar Pradesh would probably not be understood by the speaker of a dialect in eastern Haryana or northern Rajasthan. In Mumbai, many are native speakers of a lower-register Hindi variant known as Bambaiya Hindi. Marco polo 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That last paragraph focused on native speakers of Hindi. I should add that many Indians, probably a majority, have some command of Hindi as a second language. This is especially true in those parts of India where the educated elite speak Hindi and/or where it is the main language of commerce (including Mumbai). Across the north, and to a lesser degree in the south, Indians tend to be able at least to comprehend some Hindi (i.e., have some listening ability), because Hindi is taught in school and because of the popularity of Bollywood films and TV programs. Marco polo 23:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neighboring as a Gerund[edit]

I'm currently reviewing a paper for grammar, and have come across extensive use of "neighboring" as a gerund. For example, "much neighboring goes on among them." I would be inclined to dismiss this as wrong (the writer is not a native English speaker), if not for that it is actually quoted from other sources as well, especially William Dobriner. The topic deals with social aspects of suburban life. My question is, would that really be considered proper use, or would she be better served by using other constructs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranand (talk • contribs)

To me, that is not an example of a gerund. A gerund is a verb used as a noun, for example "the bringing up of the child". In your example, I think "neighboring" is being used as the present participle of the verb "to neighbor". The more relevant question is, is there really a verb to neighbor? I don't think there is. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since "neighboring" is the subject of the verb goes on, it is certainly a gerund and not a participle. Just as certainly, it is unidiomatic to the point of being meaningless & should be rewritten for clarity. Wareh 15:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is being used both as a gerund and as an adjective, but based on the premise that there are two uses of the verb "to neighbor." This does exist as a verb, as in "Germany neighbors France," but here is being used almost in the sense of being a neighbor. For example, she writes "the high degree of neighboring," meaning a great deal of activities among neighbors. Could this be an acceptable use of the word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranand (talk • contribs)

In the quotation you provided, it is not being used as an adjective. She should write, "As neighbors, they are involved in many interactions," or some such. "The high degree of neighboring" is not an improvement; nothing you say suggests it is correct for the intended meaning. Wareh 16:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wareh that in the quoted passage, "neighboring" is a gerund. I also agree that this gerund is nonstandard English and without a clear meaning. I'm not sure of the intended meaning, but perhaps a better way to state it would be "They engage in much neighborly behavior" or, better still, "They have a strong relationship as neighbors". Marco polo 16:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with that usage of the word, but it does find some hits: [5], [6], [7], [8]. It seems to be a neologism, and it may also be a technical term in sociology. In any case, "much neighboring goes on among them" is an awkward construction. You could preserve the word "neighboring" and reword to "they are strongly engaged in neighboring," or to use a different phrase, "they frequently participate in neighborly activities." --Reuben 16:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OED gives us 'Neighbouring | neighboring':

2. Chiefly Brit. regional. The activity of visiting one's neighbours, neighbourly association; spec. (Sc. and Irish English (north.)) cooperation in farm work.

3. Relations between neighbours in a community; esp. (chiefly Sociol.) when those relations are based on (mutual) help and support.

[9] Ithink the 'chiefly Sociol.' is what you're looking at. — Gareth Hughes 17:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you can point to a supreme authority to prove that it is unidiomatic English, it's still an awkward sentence. I've reworded a lot of awkward sentences, and almost every one of them was grammatically valid -- a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion in writing. Tesseran 17:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of the question: What do you call someone whose idiom differs from your idiom? It looks like 'neighbouring', used in this way, is a piece of sociological jargon, which makes it idiomatic for sociologists. As a non-sociologist, I think it's ugly and unnecessary, but OED cites a handful of clever-looking sociologists using it. — Gareth Hughes 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not the gerund but the use of to neighbor as a verb. No verb, no gerund. If you accept the verb, then you get the gerund thrown in for free. It is a standard dictionary meaning: "to associate with or as if with one's neighbors; be neighborly or friendly (often fol. by with)".[10] --Lambiam ^Talk 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

toward vs towards[edit]

which is correct?

Both are correct — they are valid English words. The difference between them was given here recently — Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 June 25#Toward vs towards. — Gareth Hughes 16:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UniPers transliteration[edit]

Can anyone give me the UniPers transliteration of دانشگاه, 'university'? Would 'dânšagâh' be far off? — Gareth Hughes 17:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, ~~you can leave off the final h~~ it's "dâneshgâ". —Angr 20:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only difference. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I wasn't aware that Wiktionary had got that good! — Gareth Hughes 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually only expecting to find the Persian word and its transliteration at wikt:university; I was quite surprised to see it was even a blue link! —Angr 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STATUS POST[edit]

Status post or status-post ?

I have no idea what you're talking about, but my natural loathing of unnecessary hyphens says, "status post". —Angr 20:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In medical jargon, as in "patient is status post alimentation" (= has eaten), no hyphen is customary. But while I'm up, I may as well point out that this is a barbarism, as status is a noun used here as a predicate adjective; (in) statu post would be better Latin. —Tamfang 23:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A singular plural question[edit]

In an article, it refers to "...portraits of both Kings Charles..." Is this correct? Clarityfiend 20:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a good, concise way of saying "...portraits of both King Charles I and King Charles II. Sort of like referring to Emily, Anne, and Charlotte as "the Misses Brontë". —Angr 20:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just sounds so goofy to me (goofé for the French among us). Clarityfiend 22:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In everyday informal usage, phrases can inflect like single words (as seen in the movie title Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure), and "Both King Charleses" is what people would say. In formal writing I'd avoid the expression altogether. "Both Kings Charles" can't be right. --Anonymous, July 9, 2007, 22:40 (UTC).

Maybe the acceptability depends on where you're from. Here we find: "both Queens Elizabeth" – not the Queens Elizabeth you may think, but Elizabeth Woodville and Elizabeth of York). I'm not sure I'd say "both Kings Charles" (although I would say, e.g, "they are the numbers one in their respective fields"), but I'm quite sure I'd never say "both King Charleses". --Lambiam ^Talk 00:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't it be right? It's short for "both Kings who were named Charles". —Tamfang 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds right to me - tho' I suspect it may be a little old-fashioned. DuncanHill 00:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam, "the numbers one in their respective fields" sounds hypercorrect to me. I take the expression "number one" to be a compound noun. It's not the number-s that there are more than one of, but the number one-s. I'd pluralise it as "number ones". -- JackofOz 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the Kings Charles - I'd say it's correct in speech, but when written, the word "Kings" should be in lower case. No different from writing "Both presidents Bush were <whatever>". -- JackofOz 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's no different: that's equally wrong, in my opinion. --Anon, July 10, 03:23 (UTC).

"The numbers one" goes against all my instincts, for spoken as well as written English. There is no problem with "the numbers two and three are prime", but this situation is different. If "Bill's the number one when it comes to optics", it is false to say that "Bill is a number". The phrase is short for "number one scientist", or something like that (and "Bill is a scientist" is true). Contrast this with "RFK is the Attorney General" (he was an attorney), "John is a Sergeant Major" (John is a sergeant), "Mary is my mother-in-law" (Mary is a mother). [While some of these may not be exactly true, this is an error of specification rather than an error of type.] Tesseran 05:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might try this question over at the English Language Reference Desk and see what response you get there. The Jade Knight 03:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of Sergeant Major has an example of a similar construction. When referring to more than one soldier, each ranked Sergeant Major, the correct term is "Sergeants Major." If we accept title-and-name as a compound construction then the most significant word takes the plural form. "Kings Charles" is correct. 152.16.59.190 06:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same reason that the plural of "cupful" is "cupsful". -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also "attorneys general", if there's more than one in the room, and "passersby", just to name two more of many. +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concise OED, 6th ed (1976)/11th impression (1980): Edwardian: Of the time of any of the Kings Edward. (Capitalisation as printed.) But the 3rd edition of the Shorter Oxford avoids this construction, likewise for Georgian and Elizabethan. The 3rd ed. was 1944, reprinted with corrections up to my edition, 1972, so they could have added in Elizabeth II for the entry on Elizabethan if they'd wanted to, and referred to the "Queens Elizabeth", but they only mention EI. I'd say the acceptability of the form, "Kings Edward", must have increased as standards relaxed, but my Concise OED is quite picky, and strikes me as still authoritative, so the pluralisation as given by the OP is presumably OK. Nice question. 203.221.127.6 21:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narrative grammars[edit]

I'm interested in generating simple stories or plots by using something like a narrative grammar, preferably embodied in some software. Does anyone know where I can find out implementations of this kind of thing please?

Secondly, I've been watching several Laurel and Hardy short films. I note that they often have common narrative elements, for example escalation, or repetition. Has anyone ever studied them from a narrative grammar point of view please? Thanks 80.2.207.15 21:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]