Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 November 23

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 23

Minimum requirements for a complete language

Not sure quite how to phrase my question, so I'll try twice:

I'm planning on constructing a language.

1. What are all the words or grammatical concepts necessary for the language to be able to express any idea (anything that can be expressed in any other language)?

...or maybe this is a more focused version of the question:

2. What are all the words or grammatical concepts that can't be explained with other words?

For example, I could describe words like "house," "swim," and "where" with other words; I could convey their meanings without using them. A language doesn't need those words to be a functioning human language. But I don't think I could explain words like "or", "in" and "what" without using another language, synonyms, or those words themselves.

I can make all my verbs and nouns, and decide the order is SOV and direct objects should end with -ut, etc., but the language still won't be able to express "The house that I told you about burned down yesterday." Any obscure tribal language can express this; any language could also express the concept of a computer, even if it doesn't have a word for it.

The idea is that once I put a certain set of words or grammatical features into my language, there won't be any English sentence I can come up with that the constructed language can't somehow express.

Is the answer something to do with parts of speech, or recursion, or dependent clauses...? Do I just have to invent a certain number of closed class words (but then I still wouldn't necessarily have recursion, would I)?

Thanks,
Jeff 74.105.132.151 (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Recursion and embedding are definitely one of the necessary things, especially if you want to get by without a lot of vocabulary. (For example, if you don't want the word 'house', embedding is needed to say 'place where people live'.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

One must be very careful on stating what is "necessary" for a language. I can't remember the name of the researcher or tribe, sorry, but I do recall a story about a tribe in South America, I think, where the language did not have recursion/embedding. It was mentioned that there was some controversy about that fact, as the conventional wisdom was that the capacity to embed was one of the prerequisites for language. Sorry I can't give more details, but my main point is that whenever you state "language must have this", you run the risk of some isolated tribe somewhere showing you up. -- 128.104.112.237 (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Pirahã, but as you pointed out, other linguists disagree with Daniel Everett's claim that the language doesn't have recursion, and I think it's such a rare exception that it can't really be used yet to say that a language doesn't have to have recursion.

Rjanag, thanks for your answer, I figured that would be the case. But I still don't know exactly--what specific set of concepts or structures must be included before the language becomes a fully creative language, capable of expressing anything. I don't know if that's beyond the scope of the Wikipedia Reference Desk, if it's even answerable at all.

Jeff 208.252.2.254 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"probando"

What is probando?174.3.102.6 (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[1]. Deor (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Gender

Does the phrase "circulus in probando" change when referring to feminine or masculine, or neuter, or neutral? What other cases does it change?174.3.102.6 (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Circulus is a noun (not an adjective), while probando is a neuter gerund, so the genders would never change. The case of circulus would sometimes change if it were used as part of sentence... AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Proto-computer data-bank system

In a historical text about the Nazis' information management applications in the Final Solution, I 'm editing a sentence with the description:

• "...a proto-computer data-bank system using Hollerith machine punched cards."
  

Is the wording in italics valid? If not, how might it be rewritten or otherwise improved? -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a data tabulation system -- such system can count selected items, and tell you how many individuals with characteristic A also possess characteristic B, but it's not a full computer database in the modern sense. AnonMoos (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That's why I chose "data bank" rather than the modern term "database". Does that qualify? Also, besides the tabulation you describe, I suppose it could also sort and arrange content for easy access according to encoded parameters. (from my personal experience operating an IBM card sorter in 1974)-- Deborahjay (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Call it a tabulating machine - simpler, clearer and more accurate than "proto-computer data-bank system". Gandalf61 (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Um. The language is quite deliberate: The author is emphasizing the early computerish aspect of the Nazis' system that used Dehomag equipment with its Hollerith-IBM connection. I'm trying to formulate a wording that doesn't lose the "computer" element. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So ... the part I don't understand is why you or the author think that a tabulating machine is a "proto-computer". When IBM moved into the production of electronic computers in the 1950s it adapted its existing standardised punched cards and associated card punches and readers as a convenient way of storing data and programs off-line - and the sale of blank cards was a profitable commercial sideline - but a tabulating machine is just an electro-mechanical sorter, and is in no sense a computer. The phrase is like describing a horse-drawn cart as a "proto-automobile" because it has four wheels and two axles. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding the "tabulating" part heading in another direction, because my understanding of the "data bank" aspect has to do with information storage and retrieval: i.e. data processing, not necessarily tabulating. Is it "electronics" that defines a computer, being other than an electromechanical sorting machine? -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The generic name for the equipment manufactured by companies such as Dehomag is unit record equipment. The central piece of equipment, called a tabulating machine, could read punched cards, sort them into categories according to criteria set up by the user on a control panel, and track simple statistics such as the number of cards allocated to each category. Our computer article says "The defining feature of modern computers which distinguishes them from all other machines is that they can be programmed. That is to say that a list of instructions (the program) can be given to the computer and it will store them and carry them out at some time in the future". A tabulating machine did not store data - this was all held on the punched cards - and it did not store its instructions. Therefore it lacked key aspects of our modern definition of a computer. To describe such equipment as a "proto-computer" is at best confusing, and at worst positively misleading. The most you can accurately say is that some of the technology developed for unit record equipment was re-used in early commercial computers. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this is obvious: why don't you consider the punched cards as part of the computer? 86.140.144.63 (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Because a computer could not automatically select and load the punched cards that it needed - this had to be done by a human operator. I suppose someone could in theory build a computer that wrote data to punched cards with a card punch, stored the cards in an equivalent of a tape library and automatically selected and loaded cards when it needed the data - this would be a form of tertiary storage device. As far as I know, such a contraption was never actually built. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I say leave "proto-computer" alone. It's correct that unit record equipment was not programmable, but it did have two characteristics that we would associate with computers today. First, it took advantage of information-carrying electrical signals to perform a series of rapid, repetitive, automatic decisions. Second, it was configurable as to exactly what these decisions were (which column of the card to look at). It's not a computer, but it anticipates some capabilities of computer technology. That is exactly what "proto-computer" means. --Anonymous, 22:08 UTC, November 23, 2009.

Resolution: I'm submitting "data processing with a precursor to the computer." And thanks to you all! -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Diallelus

What is Diallelus (circular logic)? Usually I can break down latin, like in in medical terminology, but this word seems like there is no morphology in it.174.3.102.6 (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's Greek in origin - di allelon through or by means of one another.--Rallette (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy

What is the fallacy, or what is the fallacy called, when one changes the subject?

For example:

Speaker	Statement
1	Considering only color, should I buy a red or a green car?
2	The green one has a strong engine.

174.3.102.6 (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A non sequitur? --Kjoonlee 10:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the list of fallacies, it seems close to a red herring... Vimescarrot (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Or a green herring? :) Or is it simply "not paying attention to the question"? Being of a literalistic nature, if I were speaker 2, I would respond, "Why should I decide what color you like?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Is it a reference to the color in my example?174.3.102.6 (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The "green herring" statement was, yes. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the original example as asking for guessing a preference, but relating to certain objective aspects of car color, e.g. "Red cars are most often stopped by the police," "Green won't show dirt but will start looking shabby soon after the original finish wears off," etc. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be called "reading things into the question". Which I did also. What the question really is a good example of, is the kind of question that often pops up on the reference desk - where the questioner presumably has something in mind, but the question is worded too vaguely to give a straightforward answer, and requires other questions back at him in order to fully understand the original question. Which is basically what you're doing, except not wording them as questions. The simplest comeback could be, "Why do you ask?", thus impelling him to either give further information or to walk away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this qualifies as a fallacy at all. A fallacy is an incorrect pattern of reasoning in which the conclusion is not supported by the premises. There has to be some kind of inference. Usually an incorrect argument is called a fallacy only when it is at least somewhat likely to be mistaken for a valid/correct one. --173.49.12.182 (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If it weren't for the "considering only color" it would a bit of a post hoc, to take it slightly less literally than the article. Most post hocs are two things put together with the suggestion of a relationship where none actually exists, or at least something rather tenuous. That's my thought anyway. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP is right, it's not a fallacy, it's plainly and simply "not paying attention". The questioner said, "Considering only color", and the answerer considered something besides color. Never mind that there's no obvious reason a green car would have a better engine than a red car, in general. Basically there's not enough information to evaluate. A fallacy would be this joke of Woody Allen's from Love and Death: "A. All men are mortal. B. Socrates is a man. C. Therefore, all men are Socrates." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that a reply to me? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It may not be a fallacy, but it is certainly a common trick of argument (particularly, dare I say, when politicians are being interviewed). I would call it non sequitur. --ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you may dare say it, Colin. Rule # 1 of Politics: Never answer the question asked of you. Answer the question you would like to have been asked of you. Heaven help us if someone ever asks a politician a question they were hoping to be asked. But of course this, by definition, has never happened and can never happen. When they say "I'm glad you asked me that question ...", they never mean "That was the exact question I was hoping to be asked". They mean "I'm still going to say what I want to say, without regard to what I was actually asked; it's just that there happens to be a very tenuous connection between the words I'm about to deliver and the question you asked, and you might therefore like to think I'm answering your question - but I'm not". -- JackofOz (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviate

Are there any derivationally related words to obviate?174.3.102.6 (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

obviation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The "ob-" prefix refers to "facing" (as in the "obverse" side of a coin). The "viate" part is a verb form of "via", which means "by way of". The Latin verb is "obviare". Its adjective form is "obvius", which comes to English as "obvious", although its original definition, "standing in the way of", is no longer used. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, the ‘obviative marker’. In linguistics, a) it is an illeism, or b) it is of refering a third person in question who is not important in a discourse. I have not checked this in contexts, but there are few details in WP (e.g. grammatical person).-Mihkaw napéw (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There is apparently an "obviated person" (and perhaps an "obviate case") in Cheyenne language. The Latin "obvius", by the way, also meant "obvious" in the modern sense; "standing in the way of" had its own archaic fossilized form, "obviam". Of course, that, and the verb "obviare", come from "via", "way". Adam Bishop (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A trivial aside: The only time I can recall seeing "obviate" in print, other than here and in the dictionary, is in a section of the baseball rules book where it pre-defines some rules concerning what to do if the ball bounces over the fence and such stuff as that, "in order to obviate ground rules..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with it from linguistics articles, which are always claiming that their analyses obviate other more complicated analyses. +Angr 22:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford version of what we used to say, "It's clear that..." or "It follows that..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The rules book used to say, "To obviate the necessity for ground rules, the shortest distance from a fence or stand on fair territory to home base should be 250 feet." Nowadays the rules book truncates that opening phrase and says "shall" instead of "should". Left out was the underlying assumption that if the fence was closer than 250 feet, a ball hit over it would be declared a ground rule double instead of a home run. I guess the umps nowadays don't like words such as "obviate" in the rules book. They probably got it confused with "ovulate" or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

nom de morte

What is nom de morte?174.3.102.6 (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It means "name of death". I think Mark Gribben coined it to be equivalent to nom de plume, except that Bonin was famous for killing rather than writing. A better writer than Gribben would have said simply "nickname". +Angr 15:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that a better writer could have managed to spell "mort" properly. — Emil J. 17:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Morte" was commonly used in older forms of Anglo-French, like "Le Morte d'Arthur". Probably a proper mistake though. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

...and still another German question

When I last visited the World Bodypainting Festival in last July, there was a horrible rain storm on one day. I decided to seek cover at the entrance of the festival before the rain stopped. One woman who saw me seeking cover said to me: Sprich! I replied Ich warte nur, bis das Regen endet. Now I know this is supposed to mean "I'm waiting for the rain to end", and the woman understood me, but my question is, was this grammatically correct German? JIP | Talk 21:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's der Regen, not das Regen, and I think aufhören is more idiomatic than enden: Ich warte nur, bis der Regen aufhört. I'm rather surprised by the woman's single-word command of Sprich!, though. It sounds like something you'd say to a dog. Perhaps she wasn't a native German speaker either. +Angr 22:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the German for, "I'd rather watch the rain wash the paint off you!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The woman wasn't painted but fully clothed. Thanks for the replies. JIP | Talk 05:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Sprich!" is grammatically correct and although it may be uncommon to talk like that with potential clients, Germanyis know for its "pay and shut-up" client service. 80.58.205.99 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity in English Syntax

One of us chooses a number; Afterwards, another person must choose a number other than the first person's number. Note that the first person is absolutley free to choose, while the second person's number depends on the first person's number. Now look at the following sentence:

• My choice is a number depending on which your number is.

Did my choice precede yours, or vice versa?

P.S. If you think you have an absolute answer, look at the following two sentences:

1. Your wife is a person depending on who you are.
2. Your wife is a person depending on whom you are.

Who depends? your wife (on you), or you (on your wife)? The answer for the second question is simple, while it's not simple for the first question (about my choice)...

HOOTmag (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. I'd say a man's wife is a person regardless of who he is, and I'd say sentence no. 2 above is ungrammatical. +Angr 22:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of who he is? This is an open theological question, I wouldn't like to refer to. Note that I'm referring to the sentences from a linguistic point of view, rather than from a philosophical point of view.

Ungrammatical? "Your wife is a person depending on whom you are", means that "Your wife is a person on whom you are depending".

Anyways, you've referred to the less important sentences. Refer to the most important sentence, about my choice.

HOOTmag (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that unless you are a little green Jedi Master and we expect to hear you speak that way. In any case, we still don't know your question...if it is "can English be ambiguous" then of course the answer is "sure." Obviously the way out of your first sentence is to write it so that it makes sense; "the number I choose depends on the number that you choose" or something. You don't have to write confusing English just because it is possible. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

My question is: "Did my choice precede yours, or vice versa?"

Note that the following sentence:

• "My choice is a number depending on which your number is"

May mean - either:

• My choice is a number that is depending on which one your number is,

Or:

• My choice is a number on which your number is depending.

HOOTmag (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Your first sentence is ambiguous (and your example 2 grammatical) only by a strained interpretation of English grammar, ignoring all the pragmatics. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I ignore all the pragmatics. Here, what I care about is grammar only. HOOTmag (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) These things would not be said in this way. It would be "My choice of number depends on yours" and "Your wife is a person you depend on". The stranding isn't natural. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's unnatural; However, it's still grammatical, and that's what I care about (only), in my (unnatural) ambiguous sentence. HOOTmag (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There can technically be some ambiguity in the first sentence (now that I read it very closely), but the second reading ( a number [ADV depending on [which yours is] ] ) is very questionable, and only borderline grammatical. Particularly, "which" generally is not used that way (in this case it would usually be something like "which one", which would remove the ambiguity). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Only borderline grammatical? Can't I say: "Which is your number"? Must I say "which one is your number" for being fully grammatical?

Anyways, when I say:

• "My choice is a number depending on which your number is"

it may mean - grammatically (borderline or fully) - either:

• My choice is a number that is depending on which one your number is,

Or:

• My choice is a number on which your number is depending.

HOOTmag (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You can only say "which is your number" in a certain context: i.e., when a several numbers (of a limited number, for example "5, 10, and 13") have been presented, and you're asking "which [of the above] is yours"? Otherwise, it's not natural English. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, and my sentence should be interpreted in such a context. HOOTmag (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Then I don't see how this is a very informative topic. It seems like you're essentially saying "I've found a routine example of ambiguity, but it only works if you accept a nearly-ungrammatical sentence and only in a very specific, unrealistic context". There are plenty of other examples of ambiguity that don't have such restrictions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you still keep calling it "nearly ungrammatical" (or "borderline grammatical") sentence, and why do you think it's in an "unrealistic" context? Let's assume that both of us are given your three suggested numbers: 5,10,13, out of which one of us has to choose one number. Afterwards, the other person must choose a number other than the first person's number. Such a situation is quite realistic, isn't it? After we chose the numbers, I announce: "My choice is a number depending on which your number is". Note that in the (realistic) context described above, which involves three numbers only, my sentence is quite grammatical (though unnatural), isn't it? Now, a third person, who has heard my announcement, is trying to determine whether my choice has preceded your choice, or vice versa. So this third person must finally fail to determine that, although my announcement is quite grammatical, and would also have been sufficient - had it had only one meaning, right?

My aim is not to find ambiguities in English, since English has plenty of well-known ambiguities. My aim is to point at a new ambiguity, having been unknown before. This new ambiguity is based on a fully grammatical (though unnatural) sentence, and on some specific syntactic properties of English (not of some other languages).

HOOTmag (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And we can add another caveat: it only works in writing, not speaking. In the situation you describe above, prosody would disambiguate the sentence if it were spoken. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not only is my sentence unnatural, it also works in writing only. Yet, in writing, my grammatical sentence exemplifies a new kind of ambiguity, unique to English syntax (and maybe to other Germanic languages which permit stranding). HOOTmag (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And given the timing of your post here, I'm not entirely convinced your aim isn't to try and prove something about your reading of a sentence above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My aim has only been: to present a new kind of ambiguity emerging from English syntax. KageTora's sentence - you're now pointing at - is really rather similar to mine, yet I see no other connection between both sentences, because KageTora's sentence can have one meaning only - as we both agreed ibid., and as I myself explained ibid. HOOTmag (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read this entire section carefully, but if I understand the OP correctly, the sentence My choice is a number depending on which your number is clearly means my number depends on your number. If I wanted to say the opposite (using his syntax) I would say My choice is a number dependent on which your number is, meaning on which your number is dependent. Keyed In (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since (in your opinion):

• My choice is a number depending on which your number is

may mean:

• My choice is a number depending on which one your number is

then (in my opinion):

• My choice is a number dependent on which your number is

may mean:

• My choice is a number dependent on which one your number is.

Similarly, since (in your opinion):

• My choice is a number dependent on which your number is

may mean:

• My choice is a number on which your number is dependent

then (in my opinion):

• My choice is a number depending on which your number is

may mean:

• My choice is a number on which your number is depending

P.S. Today (Tuesday), it's Bava Basra 95.

HOOTmag (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your first assumption is wrong; Keyed In didn't say anything about adding "one" after "which". And if you do add it, the ambiguity is removed (only one reading is possible if it says "which one"). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

He meant to be clear, not that there should be any ambuguity in that sentence. He was just showing that my suggestion (dependent) is equally ambiguous; I agree, as indicated below. Keyed In (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Really, Keyed In said nothing about adding "one". However, he thought that my original sentence should have been interpreted as if "one" were added to it, so I told him that his sentence should also have been treated the same way. HOOTmag (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your first point (first 4 lines), but not your second. I.e. I agree that My choice is a number dependent on which your number is can mean both. I never indicated that this way can only mean one way.

However, I think that My choice is a number on which your number is depending is also not correct. It sounds like many non-native English speakers who use the present participle to indicate simple present tense, e.g. I am thinking that this is a good idea instead of I think this is a good idea. Or, if you prefer, "I am thinking that it is not being correct to be saying that my number is depending on your number." ;-)

P.S. Here in YIH"K it's already Wednesday :-)

Keyed In (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So why do you think my original sentence (My choice is a number depending on which your number is) "clearly means my number depends on your number"? In your opinion, my original sentence is simply ungrammatical, using "depending" instead of "which depends", right?

I agree with you that I had better replace my original sentence by: My choice is a number dependent on which your number is. However, it's still ambiguous, and this is my point.

I wish I was in YIH"K...

HOOTmag (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. My issue was only with the word depending. Changing to dependent maintains the ambiguity without the awkward participle.

(BTW, I'm not one to go around pointing out grammatical errors that others make, but since this is the Language desk, I think I should mention that grammatically it should be "I wish I were in YIH"K," Unless you mean "I wish I once was in YIH"K.") May it be BB"A. Keyed In (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I wasn't clear in my last post, so I would like to clarify: my issue with the word depending was only in one of the 2 meanings. If the original sentence My choice is a number depending on which your number is means My choice is a number depending on which one your number is that is fine. In that case, the present participle depending is used properly. However, if it means My choice is a number on which your number is depending that uses the awkward "is depending" which should be replaced with "is dependent" or simply "depends." I hope this is helpful. Keyed In (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In poetry I'm careful and I write "I wish I were" only; Here, let me write "I wish I was/were", as I'm used to speak and as all of my friends speak and write (prose and the like). Not grammatical? who cares?... :)

I still can't understand how you distinguish - between the grammatical validity of: My choice is a number [that is] depending on which your number is - and the grammatical validity of: My choice is a number on which your number is depending. Both sentences use the present participle depending, so - in my opinion - the first sentence is grammatical if and only if the second one is grammatical. Anyway, dependent is better in both cases.

Neither YIH"K nor BB"A.

HOOTmag (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

First, a word about the present participle (taken from the participle article):

The present participle in English is in the active voice and is used for:

• forming the progressive aspect: Jim was sleeping.
• modifying a noun as an adjective: Let sleeping dogs lie.
• modifying a verb or sentence in clauses: Broadly speaking, the project was successful.

Now, back to your example (I am using the disambiguated sentences for clarity). In the sentence My choice is a number depending on which one your number is, the word "depending" is an adjective, modifying the noun (my) number, i.e. a number depending on... That's perfectly grammatical.

However, in the second understanding, My choice is a number on which your number is depending, which can be simplified (ignoring those who say that prepositions are not words to end sentences with) as My choice is a number which your number is depending on, the participle is used as a verb; in the clause on which your number is depending the noun is (your) number and the verb is is depending. When used as a verb, the present participle can only be used if it is used to indicate the progressive aspect, i.e. an action in progress. I am thinking about your proposal (action in progress) is fine, but I am thinking that this is a good idea is not. She is depending on him to deliver the message (continuous state of depending) is fine, but My number is depending on yours is not.

Cheers, Keyed In (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the present participle can be used as an adjective. However:

Look at the following descriptions:

1. A number that is depending on yours.
2. A person that is wanting to know me.
3. A person wanting to know me.
4. A number depending on yours.

Do you agree that:

1 is grammatical if and only if 2 is grammatical.

2 is grammatical if and only if 3 is grammatical.

3 is grammatical if and only if 4 is grammatical.

4 is grammatical if and only if 1 is grammatical.

?

HOOTmag (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

They're both equally questionable. Stative progressives in English are usually awkward or unacceptable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Both"? Notice that I've presented four!

Keyed In thinks that the original sentence:

• "My choice is a number depending on which your number is".

is grammatical if and only if it means:

• My choice is a number depending on which one your number is.

while it's ungrammatical if it means:

• My choice is a number on which your number is depending.

However, I think that the original sentence with its first meaning is grammatical if and only if the original sentence with its second meaning is grammatical, because both cases involve the word "depending" used as a stative progressive.

Anyways, when looking for a grammatically valid example of ambiguity of "my" type, the word "depending" should be replaced by "dependent".

HOOTmag (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As Rjanag pointed out, all four of those phrases are ungrammatical. The confusion here seems to lie with two uses of the word is. Consider the following two sentences:

• The ball is big.
• The ball is rolling.

Both are perfectly valid sentences. The subject in both is (the) ball. But there end the similarities. In the first, the verb is is, followed by the predicate adjective big. In the second, the verb is the present participle is rolling, indicating progressive action. If it wasn't progressive, it would be ungrammatical.

Now let's consider our two meanings:

• My choice is a number depending on which one your number is.
• My choice is a number on which your number is depending.

In the first, the phrase a number depending contains no verbs. Depending is an adjective. If it were a verb in the present participle, it would have to be prefaced with is. The word is at the end of the sentance is unrelated, but serves as the verb for the noun number in the second clause of the setence. In the second sentence, the verb for the noun number in the second clause is the present participle verb is depending, which is not progressive and thus ungrammatical.

Obviously, even if we reambiguate the sentence to its original My choice is a number depending on which your number is, the distinction remains, i.e. in the first meaning, the last word of the sentence, is, will be a simple verb of the second number and depending will be an adjective modifying the first number, while in the second meaning, is is part of the participle is depending. Keyed In (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag has said nothing about the "four" (but rather about "both").

Try to be consistent:

1. On one hand, you said: "all four of those phrases are ungrammatical", so you were referring also to the fourth phrase: "a number depending on yours"; So, in your opinion, it's ungrammatical to say "a number depending on yours", although the word "depending" is used there as an adjective.
2. On the other hand, you said: "the phrase a number depending contains no verbs. Depending is an adjective", thus explaining why (in your opinion) the sentence:

• My choice is a number depending on which one your number is

is grammatical...

HOOTmag (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. I misread the last two phrases. Only the first two are problematic. The rest of what I wrote, I maintain, and I believe is consistent. I apologize again for the confusion. Keyed In (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the rest of what you wrote is consistent. you wrote: "since this is the Language desk, I think I should mention that grammatically it should be "I wish I were"; But 36 hours later - you wrote: "If it wasn't progressive, it would be ungrammatical"...

Don't take this seriously... :)

Your position is clear: "a person that is wanting to..." is ungrammatical, while "a person wanting to..." is grammatical; However, in my opinion, the first sentence is grammatical if and only if the second one is grammatical. Anyways, I think we should present this as a question at the Language desk.

Gut Shabbes.

HOOTmag (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL :) Actually I believe there might be considered the conditional mood and not the subjunctive mood, and thus warrant was, but I'm not positive, and I'm in too much of a rush to research it now.

Good idea to ask this question there. Good Shabbos! Keyed In (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Now we've got another inconsistency:

On one hand, you wrote: "If it wasn't progressive, it would be ungrammatical"; Later, you wrote: "If it were a verb in the present participle, it would have to be prefaced with is". Now you write: "there might be considered the conditional mood...and thus warrant 'was'..."

Gut shabbes or Good shabbos? or Good Sabbath? As to me, it's always: Shabbat Shalom...

Neither YIH"K, nor BB"A, it's Israel oh man, Israel... :)

HOOTmag (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

:) SS"U. Keyed In (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

SS"U (and BB"A in YIH"K). HOOTmag (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Shabbos is over in YIH"K, right? HOOTmag (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. Where are you? I assumed in the US but it's not over yet there...and until you start your userpage I know nothing about you... :) Keyed In (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Why US? Why not UK, or Australia, or Zew Zealand (or Israel), or (if I'm irreligious) South Africa, or Ireland, or Canada? Anyways, I've started my userpage (don't forget that it's not a forum here). HOOTmag (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)