Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 March 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Language desk
< March 18 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 20 >
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.


March 19[edit]

Did or do[edit]

In the line "Did you know", why there is not 'do'? --Extra999 (Contact me) 10:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Did you know?" is the interrogative form of "You knew", while "Do you know?" is the interrogative form of "You know". One is past, the other present. AnonMoos (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question and I think there is more going on here than given by the above (correct) response. For example, the question "Did you know that Obama is the President?" is not asking whether someone knew that at some unspecified time in the past. It's asking whether they're aware of it in the present. --Richardrj talk email 11:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the prescriptive approach is here but I think do is more confrontational/interrogative than did. It implies that the person "should" (or is expected to) know the answer while the asker doesn't. For example Do you know what time it is? or even (with an accusatory tone) Do you know how long I've been waiting?. But did on the other hand makes it less personal - Did you know that Obama is the president?. It implies that even if the person doesn't know the answer, the asker does and will inform them anyway. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But you wouldn't say "Did you know what time it is?". Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the current time is always present tense. In contrast "Did you know such-and-such fact or event" implies "Did you know before I just now told you?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you could say is, "Did you know this meeting is supposed to end right now, at the top of the hour (or whatever)?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is in the past tense because the question itself provides the addressee with the very information under discussion; therefore the addressee's (possible) ignorance of this information is already a thing of the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you ask someone, "did you know Obama is the president," you're telling that person the fact (Obama is president) as you ask the question, so the person being asked knows the fact by the end of the question. The question therefore makes sense because it's saying "did you know [X fact] prior to my telling it to you right now?" "Did you know what time it is" doesn't work because the time is not provided. "Did you know it's 13:32 UTC?" would, because it is. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the point 194.* already made. I'm sure you're (both) right. --Richardrj talk email 13:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies; I missed 194*'s edit in my initial read. Exactly what I was trying to say, but much more succintly. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. One of Johnny Carson's frequently used comments, when he would learn a new fact from a guest, was "I did not know that" implying "until now." That's a logical followup to the type of question raised here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The linguistic term for the addition of do in questions like "Did you know?", negatives like "I did not know", and emphatics like "I did (too) know" is do-support, an article I have been waiting for years for someone to write who has access to better sources than I do. Some Celtic languages like Welsh and Manx make use of do-support too, even more than English does. +Angr 18:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 02:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Angr, this isn't a question about do-support. It's a question about the use of the past tense 'did' in a particular case. My take on the answer is a little different from other suggestions above, though it overlaps with Zain Ebrahim's and Some jerk's. For me "Do you know ... " is asking for information, "Did you know ... " is imparting information (though it may be asking a subsidiary question about the respondent's state of knowledge. That question may be purely rhetorical, however). Some Jerk's argument may well explain the origin of the phrase, but is not enough to explain the usage. --ColinFine (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to compare it with the DYK sections in other Wikipedias. For those languages were I can tell the tense, fr: and sk: use the past tense like en:, but pl:, cs: and ru: use the present tense instead. Fr: actually asks Le saviez-vous?, "Did you know this?" without the ellipsis and then gives a simple list of statements of facts. Pl: seems more creative as it doesn't only ask "do you know that..." type of questions, but also "do you know how, what, who, when, where, etc.?" (examples: Do you know which book is considered the first SF novel? Do you know why Rotterdam was bombed in 1940? Do you know whether the Chenille plant stings?), hooks that don't immediately give away the answer and possibly are better at attracting potential readers to respective articles. — Kpalion(talk) 16:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Recruitment'[edit]

Can the word 'recruitment' be used to refer to a single instance of recruitment? In other words, is it correct to say "there were X recruitments in 2009", or should it be "there were X cases of recruitment in 2009"? Of course I could say "X people were recruited in 2009" instead, but assume I want to use a noun. Many thanks, --Richardrj talk email 10:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Recruits"? —Bkell (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would refer to the people recruited, not the instances of recruitment. --Anonymous, 18:37 UTC, March 19, 2010.
Recruitment can be used as a kind of collective achievement (for lack of a better term), which might solve what you're trying to do -- e.g.: "Recruitment for the last 12 months exceeded 1,200 new hires." (By the way, "hire" can be used as an individual noun, including plural.)--达伟 (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To my ears, referring to people as "recruitments" or "hires" sounds a bit de-humanising, as though you're reducing them to units of production. Alansplodge (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The recruitments would be the instances of recruiting; the hires are the people. The latter is a pretty common usage in North America, especially in the phrase "new hire" to mean a new employee. --Anonymous, 18:37 UTC, March 19, 2010.

Now on the original question: If by "can it be used" you mean you want to find it addressed in a dictionary, well, I haven't. They generally give definitions like "the act or process of recruiting", which is ambiguous as to whether it refers to the business of setting up a recruiting office (as it clearly can) or the business of recruiting one person through that office.

However, it certainly is being used to refer to the recruiting of one individual, as can be seen by Google-searching for the phrases "100..1900 recruitments" or "2100..20000 recruitments". I skipped numbers between 1900 and 2100 to avoid hits where the number before "recruitments" was a year. And it seems a natural usage to me. I'd say go with it. --Anonymous, 18:37 UTC, March 19, 2010.

As an American English speaker I would vote not to use "recruitments" in the plural. In the US, "hires" is certainly common. Can you give us an example of a complete sentence (or even better, a short passage or brief paragraph) in which you plan to use the word--we might be able to give better advice that way.--达伟 (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Starters" is the usual term in my (well-known global) company for recruits/hires/new staff. "There were X starts in 2009" (using "starts" as the corresponding noun) sounds ambiguous though...) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 14:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storensay[edit]

What is Storensay What is it's etymology?174.3.98.20 (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this page makes clear, it's the name of an imaginary island in Scotland, confected for the book. The ay part is derived from the Old Norse for "island", as found in the names of a number of the Orkneys. The name may have been suggested by the name of the actual island Stronsay, or the Storens part may have been suggested by the place name Støren, or it may just have been chosen as vaguely Scandinavian-sounding. Deor (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss And Tell[edit]

What does this mean and what is it's etymology?174.3.98.20 (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the wiktionary entry:[1] Wiktionary is a good starting place for any etymology questions. To literally "kiss and tell" would be to have a private lovemaking encounter and than talk about it to others. Metaphorically or generally, it means betraying a confidence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss...10. To kiss and tell.1616: Jonson, Forest, V., 'Tis no sin love's fruit to steal, But the sweet theft to reveal. 1675: Cotton, Burl. upon Burlesque, 200 (1765), And if he needs must kiss and tell, I'll kick him headlong into Hell. 1695: Congreve, Love for Love, II. x., Oh fie, Miss, you must not kiss and tell. 1757: Murphy, Upholsterer, II., Why must they kiss and tell? 1816: by ron, in Letters and Journals, iii. 339 (Prothero), The old reproach against their admirers of "Kiss and tell." 1910: Shaw, Misalliance, 88 (1914), As a gentleman, I do not kiss and tell. Apperson, G. L. (1929). English Proverbs and Proverbial Phrases; A historical dictionary.

—eric 02:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. One might argue that when Bill Clinton dissembled about his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, he was just doing the gentlemanly thing and protecting the young woman's honor. PhGustaf (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Just like when Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho) said about Mrs. Teasdale (Margaret Dumont), "I'm defending her honor, which is probably more than she ever did." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Words "than" and "then"[edit]

On this page, I have seen the word "than" misspelled as "then", and I have seen the word "then" misspelled as "than". Does this reflect a current vowel shift, possibly influenced by a popular entertainer? I have always understood them to rhyme with "man" and "men" respectively, when they are pronounced correctly. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Around here, both words are pronounced the same, and in writing if you misuse then for than or vv, people would still understand what is meant, so spelling would not appear to be very critical here. Googlemeister (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that, Googlemeister ? They do rhyme with "men" and "man", here in Detroit, although some lazy speakers might say "then" for both. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does "than" rhyme with "man" when spoken in a sentence, or only in isolation? This is what I was getting to with my aside below...in my dialect at least, I always pronounce it with a schwa. I certainly don't say "I'm bigger thæn you". rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vowel shift, it's just that some people don't know the difference between the two words. Compare to lie and lay, sit and set, etc. I too pronounce "then" and "than" the same way, but pronouncespell them differently; in American English, the spelling doesn't reflect the pronunciation. For what it's worth, though, any differences in pronunciation that do come up, at least in my dialect, are attributable more to syntactic distribution than to the underlying sound. "Than" tends to show up in a non-stressed position in the sentence, and therefore is pronounced with a schwa; "then" takes stress more often, so can be pronounced with the full ɛ.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the Award for the Most Enigmatic Statement of the Year goes to .... I too pronounce "then" and "than" the same way, but pronounce them differently.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Thanks for catching that. Fixed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rjanag is right, it's not a vowel shift as such, it's just not knowing or caring that they're different. People also have that problem with "they're", "there" and "their", which are true homophones; and near-homophones like "then" and "than", or "affect" and "effect". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rjanang is also right that stress has something to do with it. Even if they're pronounced the same or very similarly, it doesn't reflect a broader "man-men" merger. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 00:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"They're" isn't a homophone of "there" or "their" in my (approximately RP) accent. Likewise with "you're" and "your", though I know people who confuse their spellings even though they pronounce them differently. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your answers. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin or Italian names??[edit]

Are these names Latin or Italian and can someone tell me what they equal in English.

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are not names, but they contain Latin names. They seem to be titles. Each begins with the word De, which in these phrases probably means "about". For example, the first one means "About Romulus, the first king of the Romans." Marco polo (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., these then seem to be De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) of the table for Liber I.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Scipio Aemilianus and Gaius Claudius Nero (of the article table) is NOT on this above list, correct?--Doug Coldwell talk 20:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did I get the correct English name above (links) for each of these Latin names in the above Latin list?--Doug Coldwell talk 21:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks right to me. Marco polo (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curru[edit]

What is the Curry incident?174.3.98.20 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a Google News Archive Search on "Adam Curry" and Wikipedia, you'll see reports from December 2005 to the effect that he was caught editing the facts in the article Podcasting in a self-serving way. I'm actually surprised that this isn't considered notable enough to be briefly mentioned in the article about him. --Anonymous, 00:15 UTC, March 20/10.

Prussiate[edit]

What is the etymology?174.3.98.20 (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what context? If you're talking about cyanide salts try the article on Prussic acid (the connection being similar to sulphate salts and sulphuric acid), and especially the link from there to Prussian blue. If you're talking about something else please could you state your question more completely? Tonywalton Talk 01:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean prussiate? ~AH1(TCU) 02:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2010_March_19&oldid=1138613903"