Language desk
< August 2	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 4 >

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.

August 3[edit]

Hoofed biped[edit]

I am almost positive there is a word meaning "bipedal, but having hooves", as in a satyr or various depictions of demons, but I don't recall that word. Any help would be appreciated. - Glass Star (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capripede - It's a noun with the definition given as simply satyr (capri - goat-like + pede)

Satyrical - having satyr-like characteristics, but more often used to describe lascivious behavior

unguligrade - Walking on hooves, but not necessarily bipedal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.4.75 (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sentence construction[edit]

what comes under sentence construction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.164.159 (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whaddya mean? -- 84.160.19.40 (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence (linguistics) comes under that topic. Was there something specific you wanted to know about grammar?87.102.5.5 (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phrase construction? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your question, if by "sentence construction" you refer to the title saying just that. – b_jonas 12:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does "broheem" come from?[edit]

I just rewatched the fantastic movie A History of Violence, and I had a language related question about it (stop reading if you don't want to get spoiled)

In the end, Joey/Tom Stall (played by Viggo Mortensen) show up in Philadelphia to meet his brother, Richie (played by William Hurt), to have a final confrontation. Richie refers to Joey as "broheem" (or maybe "brohim"), which obviously means "brother". Where does this word come from? Is it Yiddish or Polish or something? 83.188.196.191 (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without benefit of having seen the film or knowing the plot or characters, I can say this about the word if it's used in greeting and not isolated but as part of a phrase: "BRU-kheem ha-BO-eem" (Yiddish, from the Hebrew ברוכים הבאים pronounced "bru-KHEEM ha-ba-EEM"), is a standard phrase of salutation upon receiving guests (i.e. not said by the new arrival), literally meaning "~~blessings upon those [m.pl.] who come~~ those [m.pl.] who come are blessed." Does that fit? -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC) (corrected translation 06:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No, it doesn't fit with the use in the movie, where it is clearly used as a term of "endearment" towards the brother character. Waronmugs (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always assumed it started out as brougham, as in Cadillac Brougham. This made it a rather fancy way to say "bro". StuRat (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you assume that? I don't see the relevance in this movie at all. Waronmugs (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "to be"[edit]

Which is the proper form:

"There are only one or two apples"
"There is only one or two apples"

The first sounds most correct to me. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first one. One and two are merely adjectives, and have no effect on the conjugation of the verb. The bottom line is the subject is apples, which is a plural noun that requires are.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a growing tendency to use there's in all situations, even those that there are would be grammatically consistent (even correct in some circles) and certainly more acceptable to prescriptivists. It's similar to Spanish, which has a rich verbal morphology but hay is used for "there is/are" no matter the number. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 09:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Spanish, that's because the noun that follows hay is strictly speaking its direct object (as in German with the es gibt construction). In English, I suspect phonotactics is playing a role in the use of there's with a plural noun. The desire to use a contraction is strong, but there're doesn't really have a convenient monosyllabic pronunciation that is distinct from there in either rhotic or non-rhotic accents. —An gr 16:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking the same thing about there're but I'm not sure I understand what you mean about hay and direct objects.

Hay dos manzanas ('there are two apples')
Hay una manzana ('there is an apple')

How does manzana being a direct object lead to hay being undeclined/undifferentiated for number? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since when do verbs agree with their direct objects in Indo-European languages? There's no difference in the verb between ~~Voy~~ Veo dos manzanas ("I see two apples") and ~~Voy~~ Veo una manzana ("I see one apple") either. —An gr 05:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small correction: Angr meant to write Veo ("see") instead of Voy ("go")--El aprendelenguas (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course he did. Oops. —An gr 19:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get what you're saying. Hay is equivalent to "there is/are" only because the usage and general meaning is the same but it's more like "there is the presence of..." so that what follows is actually a direct object. I guess that means that, in "there's an apple", apple is the subject. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there's is more often being attached to both singular and plural objects, the same phenomenon hasn't happened with the unabbreviated versions. "There is" and "there are" both still have their place, and their objects are singular and plural respectively. But I suppose a person who has no issue with "there's thousands of books on sale here today" wouldn't bat an eyelid at "There is only one or two apples". Some forms of logic would suggest that because the first part of the object is "one", a singular verb must apply. Grammarians have their own special logic and they'd argue for the plural because the object is not the singular "one", but the plural "one or two apples". -- JackofOz (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of Spanish hay, it's simply the form of haber used in the present indicative to express existence (rather than the auxiliary verb for the present perfect). Other tenses do not have a special form: compare Había una manzana en su mano (There was an apple in her hand) and María había comido una manzana (Maria had eaten an apple). Haber when used to indicate existence has no explicit subject (Spanish being pro-drop) and is probably more like a weather verb than anything else (cf. llovía fuego (it rained fire) and llovía piedras (it rained stones)--the verb doesn't change number depending on the complement). Actual linguists feel free to correct me. --Atemperman (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now I forget what I needed this for... − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]