Language desk
< December 3	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 5 >

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.

December 4[edit]

is there an adjective that means 'kookaburralike'?[edit]

Kookaburric? Kookaburrical?

Ta Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with "kookaburralike"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, it might be clearer to hyphenate as "kookaburra-like"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "kookaburra-like" with the hyphen is the clearest. Roger (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to use such an adjective in a formal scientific paper or article dealing, say, with the genus Dacelo, you would be perfectly entitled to form an adjective appropriately from it, presumably 'dacelic' or 'daceloid' (I'm a little rusty) and expect scientifically educated readers to grok it. Part of the beauty of English (and doubtless some other languages) is that inventing necessary neologisms within the existing rules is entirely permissible. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kookaburresque?·Maunus·ƛ· 14:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with kookaburlesque. -- 174.31.199.95 (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

It would depend on context, tone, and the nature of the comparison: whether it's visual, behavioral, auditory, or whatever. In a scientific paper, an adjective derived from the binomial nomenclature would be fine, especially if its meaning were also suggested by context. Addressing a more general audience, you'd definitely want an adjective derived from the English name of the creature. For a visual comparison, I'd just use "kookaburra-like", hyphenated. For a more playful comparison, one might attempt a more playful adjective: "Stephen Harper nodded his kookaburrious head..." If you're making an auditory or behavioral comparison, then you might use "kookaburresque": "When Bruce chundered all over the malonga gilderchuck, a gale of kookaburresque laughter erupted from the sheilas." Of course, "kookaburra" itself could be used as an attributive: "Kookaburra laughter" would be fine. LANTZY ^TALK 16:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English adjectival suffixes sometimes differ in nuance. See wikt:childlike, wikt:childish, wikt:sheeplike, wikt:sheepish.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Adambrowne666 (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew help[edit]

I know that Adam is Man in Hebrew, and I am wondering how you would go about saying Man-like in Hebrew, would it be possible to do this while keeping the Adam part of the word intact? Failing that are there any words that could contain Adam that could be linked to something warrior-like? It's for a character name and I don't want to use just Adam. I don't really speak a word of Hebrew so answers using this alphabet and not the Hebrew one please. 82.18.201.77 (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not able to answer the question, as such, but I just put 'manlike' into Google Translate (English/Hebrew), and it gave me 'ivree', which actually means 'Hebrew'. I don't know if it also means 'manlike', but in any case, it is not using the 'adam' root. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, "adam" does not have a special connotation of maleness -- it means mankind in general, not just men, and derives from the word for soil or dirt. The most warrior-like word I can think of containing "adam" is adamant, but that derives from Latin and doesn't have anything to do with the Hebrew Adam. Looie496 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the use of "adam" to refer to a man is basically metaphoric, and is itself a derivation from a more basic root meaning "red" or perhaps "brown", which was later extended to "earth", and then to human beings. A more literal word for a man is גבר, gever, whence גברי, gavri, "manly, like a man". OP, when you say "man-like", what exactly do you mean? Do you wish to specify masculinity, or humanity? There is the term דמוי אדם, dimuy adam, which means something like "humanoid", and is used (I think) to describe androids and mannequins, among other things. LANTZY ^TALK 18:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lantzy, I misread the first letter. I'll stick to my own field from now on. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lantzy, not "dimuy" (which is another word spelled דמוי as well), but rather "dmuy". HOOTmag (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My copy of The Signet Hebrew/English English/Hebrew Dictionary, by Dov Ben-Abba, indicates the masculine grammatical gender by the abbreviation ז׳ (z.) for זָכָר (zaKHAR) (IPA: zɑˈxɑʁ), which it defines as "male; masculine". The entry זְכָרִי (zekhaRI) (IPA: zəxɑˈʁi) is defined as "male, manly".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a Hebrew speaker, who is also a linguist, I can promise that Hebrew has no word, other than Adam, which contains the root Adam. This is the most exact (though disappointing) answer the OP can achieve. HOOTmag (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP might like a neologism, if something plausible can be offered. Wareh (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no plausible neologism (i.e. plausible to Hebrew speakers' ears) can be offered, as far as the root Adam is concerned. HOOTmag (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case maybe 'Admoni' (pronounced Admonee). Ariel. (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word Admoni - which is an existent Hebrew word (See Genesis 25 25) - meaning "red", is related to the root Adom (A.D.M), and has nothing to do with the root Adam (A.D.M) about which the OP has been asking. HOOTmag (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it sounded to me like he just wanted something that sounded good/reasonable. Ariel. (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word Admoni could have sounded good/resonable for expressing the idea of Man-like (from the root Adam as the OP wants), only if this word hadn't already been assigned for expressing the idea of "red" (from the root Adom, as opposed to what the OP wants). HOOTmag (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you won't like adom'eh or admor :) But how about loch-dam (from lochem, fight)? Or Adzak (chazak, strong)? Ravdam (from either roveh, rifle; or cherev, sword - but it sounds like "lots of blood" in Hebrew)? 82.18.201.77 - are any of these helpful? How accurate do you want it to be? None of those are real words, nor do they follow proper grammar. Ariel. (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by adomeh? As for "adzak", "loch-dam", "Ravdam": they use half of the word Adam, but unfortunately, no Hebrew speaker can imagine that those semi-words, "ad" and "dam", are intended to be derived from Adam, because Hebrew never uses such semi-words, but rather uses the word dam as a whole word to mean another concept ("blood", as you correctly indicated). As far as I understand, the OP would like to have a word that either can be figured out by Hebrew speakers, or can fit the Hebrew morphology, while this is not the case with your suggestion. By the way, are you a native Hebrew speaker? HOOTmag (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Enosh"? --Dweller (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP explained they would like to have a word that contains the root Adam. HOOTmag (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)#[reply]

Ah yes. My mistake. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the op, I forgot to sign in. Would like to thank everyone for the help, even though nothing really positive came of it. One of the earlier posters suggested Adamant and we've gone with that despite the wordplay not being in a consistent language. Gunrun (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possessive for proper noun ending in "s"[edit]

I am not content with the following sentence. Context.

Redis data model is in its outer layer.

I think Redis should be possessive, perhaps

Redis' data model is in its outer layer.

Or perhaps used as an adjective (but would that change the meaning?),

The Redis data model is in its outer layer.

What should it be?

--Mortense (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not "Redis's data model ..."? You would pronounce 3 syllables before you get to "data", so why not write it accordingly? Some style guides say that singular words ending in -s should be possessivised as -s', not -s's, but that works only where the result would be a super-sibilant monstrosity like "Jesus's sisters". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original is definitely wrong. To avoid the slightly awkward possessive (whether it be Redis' or Redis's), I prefer "The Redis data model...". 86.135.25.44 (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

That's a valid solution, but you don't have to justify it by saying the possessive option is in any way "awkward". "Morris's forces were outnumbered by Harris's. Redis's data model is preferred to Optus's". And so on. All perfectly easy to say. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Redis isn't a person, I favor "the Redis data model". Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verb tense[edit]

Consider the following sentence: The new dorm will be built in 2020. The verb in that sentence is future tense. What is the tense of the verb if we change the sentence to the following? The new dorm is being built in 2020. This sentence refers to a future event, yet is seems to do so with a present tense verb. What is the tense of this verb? Is there a special type of name for this type of situation? If the verb is indeed present tense, how can a present tense verb refer to a future event? Thank you for any insights. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No doubt people are going to explain this at some length, but, in brief: English only has two tenses; the present and the past.

I play.

I played.

Everything else is, um, something else. Which means we have pretty much infinite ways of combining modal verbs and context to express different ideas. The new dorm is being built in 2020 is the continuous present, with a time cue letting you know it is really happening in the future. It's the passive continuous present, with a time cue. You can nest these things endlessly in English. The new dorm will have been being built for 5 years in 2020. The new dorm will have used to have been better before the building works in 2015. Try telling me what tense that is :) 86.164.31.131 (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I've never really got to grips with tenses (or much else concerning grammar - it probably shows), but personally, I'd not write The new dorm is being built in 2020 at all. It just doesn't look right. On the other hand The new dorm is being opened on Friday does, which seems to me to imply that there is a problem with the word is being applied to something that does not yet exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have a problem with I'm going to Venezuela next year? Or even I'm going to Venezuela in 2020? I probably wouldn't say the latter, because in the next 10 years a hell of a lot could go wrong with my current plans/intentions. I'd probably say I'm planning to visit Venezuela in 2020. But grammatically the I'm going version is unexceptionable. As for the next year thing, if my arrangements were pretty much advanced by now, I'm going fits the bill nicely. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the flaw in the parallel, I suspect, is that the building of the dorm is an event of considerable duration, unlike the opening. —Tamfang (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela exists now, so I'd have no problem saying what I intend to do in relation to it. The dorm will only exist once it is built, which is why stating that it is being built in the future seems clunky to me. The 'it' doesn't exist yet. Possibly this actually has nothing to do with grammar at all, but instead with differing perceptions of time, as '81.131.59.67' suggests?

English, German, and I think maybe other Germanic languages, have only two simple tenses, i.e. tenses expressed by only a single word. But I think I'd call some more complcated forms tenses as well. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of an article I was coincidentally reading earlier: A-series and B-series. 81.131.59.67 (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is traditional to talk about "I will go" as the future tense in English; but in practice it is not always required for future meaning. (Nor does it always convey future meaning, but that's another topic). Syntactically it is questionable whether it should be called a tense at all, since there are no syntactic tests which distinguish "I will go" from "I may go", which is never described as a tense.

I agree that "The new dorm is being built in 2020" is less likely than "The new dorm is being opened next Friday", but I think this is simply a matter of how far in the future it is. "The new dorm is being built next year" is fine, for me. Whether or not they have started it now (i.e. whether it exists) is irrelevant. --ColinFine (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the replies ... they were very helpful. Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I believe I can throw some light on this.

First, it is of only limited value trying to make a coherent taxonomy of English verbs. Some of our idioms have characteristics that remind us of tense-like, mood-like, or aspect-like features in other languages, but we're better off sometimes forgetting all of that, keeping it simple, and noting the more exotic expressions along with a commentary about their role in natural language.

What is wrong with "The new dorm is being built next year" compared with "The new dorm is being opened next Friday"? I would suggest the following. This type of structure is used when we describe a future event that arises from a process that has some origins in or relationship with the present. The first of the two example sentences sounds slightly dubious because its structure puts us in mind of an ongoing process with its roots in place now — but its realisation is too remote, involves too many contingencies along the way, and is a whole process in itself rather than a completion or closure — for that impression to be taken seriously. On the other hand, the second sentence suggests to the English ear a process which is in place now, and which will proceed in a linear way towards a destination in the future. The opening of the dorm is the consummation, presumably, of things which are already happening now.

A (slight) analogy is in British English sentences like "I've fallen over!" This structure carries the understanding that while the accident happened before the present moment, indeed before the speaker uttered his lament, that accident has exerted its influence up to the present time. "I've fallen over" always suggests something like "and that's why I'm lying here on the floor" or "get me an ambulance!" On the other hand, in British English, "I fell over" can be said with a grin as part of an anecdote or an insurance claim by a person who currently stands erect. Phil Karasinsky (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]