Language desk
< June 5	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 7 >

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.

June 6[edit]

Grammar, what sharp teeth you have[edit]

Is this grammatical? "The two lovers agree to meet on New Years Eve, each knowing that they cannot keep it." Each person knows that he/she can't be there, but doesn't know that the other person can't make it either.

Now that I look at it again, the problem is the meaning, not the grammar. It sounds like they know that they both can't be there. Anybody have a suggestion how to make it say what it should? Clarityfiend 06:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you assume that the lovers are a man and a woman, and if you accept (as I do) that "he" can be used to refer to both genders, one possibility would be "The two lovers agree to meet on New Year's Eve, each of them knowing that he can't make it." The alternative, "he or she...", is unforgivably clumsy. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try here for an alternative perspective. I believe that somewhere on the site, there is a post showing clearly why using he for both genders doesn't work, but I haven't found it yet. I love the title, BTW.--Estrellador* 07:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, see singular they. --Anonymous, June 6, 2007, 08:11 (UTC).

But the problem here is that the singular 'they' doesn't work, since it leads to ambiguity in the sentence. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The two lovers agree to meet on New Years Eve, BOTH knowing that they cannot keep it."

Doesn't work for me. They is still ambiguous, it could refer to each individual or to the pair of them. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

".....each knowing it won't happen"?hotclaws 10:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there is a singular/plural ambiguity, but I don't think it's important. If the man knew that the woman would be unable to go, rather than himself, he still would know that the meeting would not take place, and that's the main point of the sentence. However, as "Shantavira says below, "meet it" doesn't exactly work. --Anonymous, June 6, 2007, 17:05 (UTC).

Neither both nor each seem to be necessary. The main problem lies in the meaning of it. It cannot refer to "meet", as that is a verb. I suggest replacing "it" with "the appointment".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you say "each knowing themselves (unable to keep it)"? the reflexive can only refer to the subject, so each person can only know their personal problem. the problem with this would be that it's far more messy and ugly. Storeye 10:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the try, everyone. Seems there's no succinct way to say it (which succs). I guess I'll have to settle for "...each one knowing that the appointment cannot be kept, but hiding that fact from the other." It's for the 1932 tearjerker One Way Passage by the way. Clarityfiend 15:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought we were just being asked whether the original was correct, not to suggest alternatives. How about "The two lovers agree to meet on New ~~York's~~ Eve, neither one expecting to be able to"? --Anonymous, June 6, 2007, 17:12 (UTC).

You mean New Years eve right?

Urk and giggle! Well, I meant New Year's Eve. --Anon, June 7, 23:53 (UTC).

You could have meant they were meeting here. :) JackofOz 02:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further or farther a field or afield[edit]

A colleague has drafted a memo stating that "blah blah...our work in the past year has taken the organisation farther a field than previously..."

I think he means 'further afield'. Since 'afield', and 'a', and 'field' are proper words, I haven't been able to determine if there is something improper with 'a field' rather than 'afield', and I don't know if there is a meaningful difference between 'farther' afield or 'further' afield ...

Thanks if you can offer insight that will help us write it right. Right?

Certainly a field is incorrect - it should be afield. I'm not sure about the difference between further and farther, but I would go with further. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for further in the sense furthermore, farther and further are essentially interchangeable synonyms. It is, however, more common to use farther for a greater separation in a literal, physical sense of distance ("Marseille is farther from Paris than Amsterdam"), whereas further is used more for other senses ("His eyes are on a further goal"). The phrase "farther afield" gets about 319,000 Google hits versus "further afield" 1,230,000. A further remark on your colleague's prose: the literal meaning of afield is "away from home", but it is commonly used in the sense of "off the mark", "off the desired track".[1] Unless you are held captive in the Dilbert universe, I don't think that this is an intended possible meaning, and so maybe rephrasing the business-speak is in order. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could well mean "farther from home"; perhaps a once-local company has undertaken projects in Paris and La Paz. 66.215.49.182 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that "farther" is the comparative of "far", while "further" is that of "fore" (as in "fore and aft"). The metaphors aren't quite the same. "Further"= "more forward". Rhinoracer 12:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Products becoming common names.[edit]

Is there a word for a product which is so successful that it becomes the common name for the item? Two examples that I can think of are hoover for vacuum cleaner, and recently, iPod is becoming a common name for any mp3 player. If there isn't really a word for it, i'd still love to see other examples. 213.48.15.234 08:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genericized trademark. Dr_Dima

Examples: walkman, kleenex, tampax, polaroid. Anchoress 08:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and: List of generic and genericized trademarks. Anchoress 08:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you lady Anchor. 213.48.15.234 09:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is iPod really becoming genericized? Must be some poor schlubs who can't afford the real and true McCoy. --Nricardo 10:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

er. I think you've totally missed the reason why brand names move into generic usage. It's not because of a desire to be seen as part of the crowd with a different brand, in fact it's nothing to do with the quality of the product. It usually happens because a product becomes popular, dominant in it's market or as is the case with i-Pod arrives at the same time as a whole range of other identical devices and is the major one within that group. - X201 11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm pretty sure I said the latter...~~ Exactly. In fact I feel there are many mp3 players out there far superior to the iPod, especially in terms of audio fidelity. The question was triggered by a workmate of mine talking about another workmate walking down the street "listening to his iPod", I think that in this case he used iPod to mean mp3 player, rather than an iPod. 213.48.15.234 12:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples would be elastoplast (plaster), xerox (in some countries this means 'photocopy') or 99 which is ice-cream with a flake (in the uk at least). Many trademarks become so popular they are used across the board to describe items of that type. I'm not sure whether the brand-specialists believe this to be a positive or negative image for the business who 'created' that name. For instance walkman was a very strong Sony brand in the 90s, yet now with the emergeence of iPod they have not really done a lot to promote what was an already popular brand prior to the iPod. Lest we forget the iPod is not even close to being the first Mp3 player and when first released was only available to work on the Apple platform. It wasn't untl the launch of a windows-enabled version and the iTunes Music Store that the device succeeded into become a global icon. ny156uk 22:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ice cream with a flake"? What's that? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See 99 Flake. (I didn't know either.) —Tamfang 06:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add info for people who are finding out about a 99 for the first time in their lives. To 99%(no pun intended) of the UK population a 99 means an Ice Cream cornet with a flake in it obtained from an Ice cream van and not the ready made cornet pictured on the article page. Important facts these!.- X201 08:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, in translation for us Americans, a "cornet" is a ice cream cone, not an instrument, a Flake is a brand name candy bar of a type we don't have and a 99 is not a female secret agent but a ice cream confection. Rmhermen 14:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a 99 is pretty much half a flake (i'm not sure but maybe the chocolate is not quite as crumbly?) 213.48.15.234 08:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One unusual example is thermos, which had been a trademark but (at least in the U.S.) became a generic word, even though the trademark is still in existence. Thus, you can have a Thermos® brand thermos, or an Aladdin® brand thermos. — Michael J 20:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the humble thermos. What ever happened to families going on weekend picnics, taking all their home-made food with them, including the parents' coffee or tea in a thermos, and costing next to nothing because there was no need to rely on Maccas or KFC? :) JackofOz 00:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

with a red and white blanket and a hamper? And ants.

My father was a lawyer, employed by a large company who made, among many other things, vacuum flasks; and I recall him ringing up the BBC to complain that they had been illicitly advertising a rival's products during a show by using the word 'thermos'. This must have been in the 1970's; but 'thermos' had become generic for most people long before that. In one of Dornford Yates's books, written I guess in the 1930's, his narrator (Boy Pleydell) refers to lugging 'thermoi' to a picnic. --ColinFine 23:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, is 'Macca(s)' oz for Macdonalds? --ColinFine 23:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. They obviously advertise as "MacDonalds", but people usually say "I'm going to Maccas" because "Macca" is the generic Australian nickname for anyone whose surname starts with Mc or Mac. -- JackofOz 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was this edit meant to say?[edit]

I'm having trouble making any sense of the text added in this edit to George Bass. What language is it, and what does it mean? The edit was from a school IP address so it may not be of earth-shattering importance but I'm curious about it. A Google search for "idot ville" returned only 5 results, 4 of which were in Norwegian. It may just be nonsense ... Graham87 12:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the number 75845 in the contribution, it seems to be rather nonsense to me. What would such a number refer to? Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 16:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably leet for something. —An gr 16:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that translate from leet to English as "tsbas"? And "Hoogenbosch" is Dutch, if that helps. The IP is from Australia. It looks like simple nonsense to me. Adam Bishop 18:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I didn't think of it being leet. It's probably nonsense then. Graham87 00:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word that means......[edit]

What is the word used to describe a certificate, note or other proof of an objects history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.150.28 (talk • contribs)

Provenance ? Gandalf61 14:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authentication? --LarryMac | Talk 14:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pedigree?

If the object in question is a fairly recent work of art (say a Picasso), the most commonly used term for this is "certificate of provenance", followed by "document of provenance". --Lambiam ^Talk 22:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There is also "certificate of authenticity", which however does not have quite the same meaning, as it basically certifies that the work is not a forgery, but does not necessarily supply its full history. 23:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)