Language desk
< November 28	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 30 >

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.

November 29[edit]

Arrant Pedantry?[edit]

Please tell me which one of these options is correct --

"Coming late is not encouraged because you may not be able to locate the classroom we're in(!)"

or --

" Coming late is not encouraged because you may not be able to locate the classroom we're in(!)."

?

The grammar pedant in me tells me that you'd have to include the extra period at the end, as in the second sentence. However, in addition to detracting from the intended comical effect of the exclamatory mark, the addition of the period also lends to the sentence a look of unseemliness. The first sentence is, of course bad in its own way; without the period at the end it looks sapped somehow, like someone circumcised it:)

I think it boils down to this -- can an exclamatory mark by itself be considered a sentence? If so, then the second sentence would be the correct choice, because punctuation in a parenthesis is independent of anything going on outside it. However, if one decrees that exclamatory marks cannot, regardless of the semantics of the context, be considered a sentence, then it seems like either option is equally viable.

(On a related note, I realized that the last sentence of the paragraph previous to the one above contains a smiley at its termination. Is *this* acceptable? Is the smiley considered to be punctuation?:) ) Brrk.3001 (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the grammar pedant in you is not to blame, since, strictly speaking, punctuation (or more generally orthography) has nothing to do with grammar. It's just a matter of house style.--K.C. Tang (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) None of this falls under the normal rules. The choice between the two sentences is one of art, not typography. You're using symbols as playthings, not as a rendering of English, so your opinion is the only one that counts. That said, if you want a disinterested opinion, I'd say that the second sentence is right only because the first one looks naked without the full stop. I'd also say that an exclamation point can constitute a sentence, even a paragraph, though I'm surprised to hear myself say that. Smileys? Ptui. They suck. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second one looks better to me. I don't write full stops after smileys because they are perceived by me to affect the mood of the sentence much in the same way exclamation and question marks do. That said, since parentheses don't have that function, I'd say the full stop is needed. --Taraborn (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both sentences look awkward to me. For a shorter, less awkward sentence, how about this:

"Tardiness is discouraged as it makes locating our classroom difficult." StuRat (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Tardiness" would not be understood by most speakers of British English. DuncanHill (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet Tardisness might ... Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it? I'm English and I had no idea this was an Americanism. I suppose having a friend called Tardy helps. Algebraist 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, who was the French writer (Victor Hugo?) who was on holiday and cabled his publisher to find out how his latest book was selling? He was a bit tight (in both senses, he didn't have much spare cash, but even if he had, he didn't like spending money anyway), so the entire text of the cable read "?". The response came back "!". I don't know whether history records whether the response was followed by a full stop or not, but full stops in cables were usually written "STOP" (or the French equivalent), so I guess the "!" was considered a sentence all of its own. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was Mark Twain. BrainyBabe 18:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it was Victor Hugo [1]. (I've still got it.). See also Les Misérables#Other, dot point 5. -- JackofOz 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It always seems better to avoid clumsy clusters:

Who asked, "What punctuation marks should I use?"?

or even worse:

Who asked, "Where do I find an answer to the question, "What punctuation marks should I use?"?"?

If (and it is a big if) an exclamation mark is a sentence in its own right, then a third variation would be preferable: "Coming late is not encouraged because you may not be able to locate the classroom we're in. (!)" As K.C. Tang rightly remarks, this is a matter of house style rather than grammar. Bessel Dekker 14:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin[edit]

Please explain to me the Latin phrase in this sentence: "... the soul transcends matter in its intellectual operations, having the principle of such operations in itself, and so cannot depend on the body secundum esse et essentiam (Copleston, vol.2, p.299). Omidinist (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be saying "the soul is not 'secondary in essence'", which seems to mean, to them, that thoughts occur independently of the body. Scientists would disagree with this, of course, since thoughts occur using neurons, axons, dendrites and synapses; all parts of the body (specifically, the brain). Supporting evidence for this is that those with brain damage often have a reduced intellectual capacity. StuRat (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secundum means "according to," not "secondary." The point is that the soul has inherent abilities that are not possible for matter, and therefore "in its being and essence" it cannot be dependent on (or inextricable from) the the material body. The difference between esse and essentia is probably explained somewhere on WP, but I don't have time to find the link just now. Deor (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For that, see Thomism. --Lambiam 18:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian dictionaries[edit]

I'm looking for a good on-line Russian-English English-Russian dictionary that gives the stress of Russian words. Does anybody know one? --Taraborn (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any that translate with stess marks, but you can use an online translator in conjunction with this site: http://starling.rinet.ru/morph.htm to check the full morphology, includiing stress, of any Russian word. Koolbreez (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was really useful!! Thank you very much. --Taraborn (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of ENGLAND - Angle or Hengist??[edit]

I know the commonly accepted etymology for ENGLAND is the 'Land of the Angles' but I have come across what seems like a suggestion in Tom Shippey's book on Tolkien (Author of the Century) that England is possibly derived from HENGIST (from Hengist and Horsa fame, Jutes or Angles or perhaps Danes) who migrated to South East England (around Kent).

Is there any discussion or research that supports the HENGIST origin of England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpinen (talk • contribs) 10:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A thorough search of the Oxford English Dictionary shows no use in the way you're describing - it all seems to point to the definition as "a male horse". SamuelRiv (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both hengest and horsa mean horse. --Kjoonlee 21:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very unlikely as words with a root of Angle- seem to have been in use for centuries before England. Check the entry for England. TheMathemagician 12:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word heng(e)st certainly means "stallion" (or "gelding"). SOED adds: "also a proper name, and in various place names". The only place name I can find is Hengistbury Head in Dorset.
One might speculate that there is a connection with Hampshire: an Old Frisian variation of hengst was hanxt. A development *hanxt/hengst + shire > hampshire does not seem impossible. I have no proof.
On the other hand, a putative origin *hanxt/hengst + lond > engelond > england looks suspiciously like popular etymology: attractive but unlikely. Bessel Dekker 14:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't sound like the sort of suggestion I would expect from Tom Shippey. Are you sure you're not misreading it?

To Bessel Dekker: Hampshire is recorded as 'Hamtunscire', ie. (South)Hampton-shire. --ColinFine 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the Old English word for England was Englalond, with the 'A' of 'Angla' umlauted, which was common in Old English in certain proximity to 'i' or 'e' vowels, but by the time the word appeared in writing, no trace whatsoever of an 'i' or 'e' remains in the word, if there ever was one. However, Shetland may also have undergone this similar change, due to its striking resemblance to Scotland.--ChokinBako 04:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read Shippey's book; I think I would have noticed him saying anything so original. I do recall a claim to the effect that Hengest was (in a sense) founder of England, the country, which is of course defensible; are you sure you are not confusing the two? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The splits"[edit]

Why, when people are referring to someone doing a split, do some people call them "the splits"? "Can you do a split?" becomes "Can you do the splits?" for instance. That makes no sense at all to me. Recury (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but even the article you linked to uses the plural version. And seems to be the target of recent vandalism, although I've reverted that. --LarryMac | Talk 21:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe among gymnasts it's "a split", but in the wider community I've only ever heard "the splits". I must say it never occurred to me to question the plurality of this expression (I must be losing the plot). -- JackofOz (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit like math and maths. In the UK we always say maths, meaning mathematics, but in the US it is always math. ?Short for mathematic. I have yet to hear a plausible reason for the difference. Richard Avery 15:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of that too. I don't know if it's the same thing, but they both look like plurals but aren't. A difference is the way people use "splits" grammatically. Why is it always "the splits" and never "some splits"? Recury 17:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because some implies countability, probably, and this may clash with the notion implied in this sort of abstract plurale tantum. You cannot be in "some doldrums", nor can you experience "some jitters" — you have to go the whole hog, more's the pity. Bessel Dekker 14:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, you can be in "a funk" (which suggests there's more than one of them). :) ---- JackofOz 05:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what does 'P’Tang, Yang, Kipperbang mean?[edit]

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everyone knows someone called Dave (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing as far as I know, although it is used in a song by Australian band Spiderbait. Steewi (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nonsense phrase created by Jack Rosenthal for the play of the same name (later the movie), it's derived from the 'secret' password greeting between Alan and his friends, in which one party starts by saying with 'P'tang Yang Kipperbang', and the other responds with 'Uuungh'. Foxhill (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]