Language desk
< January 21	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 22[edit]

The wheat will run to waste in the fields if not harvested on time.[edit]

I'm not sure if the sentence is correct or not:"The wheat will run to waste in the fields if not harvested on time." If it is inappropriate, how can it be revised? Thank you. -- 03:40, 22 January 2014‎ 221.221.145.139

I would say "go to waste" rather than "run to waste", but other than that it is fine. Looie496 (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the meaning is that the wheat will remain unused and uneaten, then it should be "go to waste". If the meaning is that the wheat will decay and turn bad, then it should be "rot" or similar... AnonMoos (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would use in time rather than on time. Both phrases exist and are idiomatic, but have slightly different meanings. On time would mean at or before the particular scheduled or agreed time, as of a meeting or the arrival of a train. In time means early enough to avoid some undesirable outcome. So for me "if not harvested on time" means "if not harvested at the time that was agreed or scheduled", whereas "if not harvested in time" means "if the wheat is left too long unharvested". (This is my judgment, from my perspective of British English; but I don't think it is different in other varieties). --ColinFine (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If wheat isn't harvested at the right time, it goes to seed. Comment added at 13:41 on January 22nd. 2014‎ by 88.104.27.18

I don't think wheat farmers would agree with you about going to seed. They grow wheat for flour, not flowers! Dbfirs 18:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm always a little [a|be]mused when it's reported that quinoa is "not technically a grain but a seed". OK, I buy that it's not technically a grain, and that it's a seed, but do these people think that grains are not seeds? --Trovatore (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Sentence sounds fine to me - just a bit old-fashioned but the meaning is understood. See [[1]] for some uses. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Go to waste" sounds better than "run to waste", but using "go to seed" shows a misunderstanding of biology. Dbfirs 18:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "go to waste" sounds like a different idea to me. As in the farmer wasted the crop, failed to make money, etc. While run to waste gives the idea that the crop is spoiling in the field. "being wasted" versus "being spoilt" Rmhermen (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As AnonMoos said above, wheat just spoils by rotting, though some will get eaten by birds and mice, and some will become the source of next year's crop. It doesn't "run" in any way I can imagine. Dbfirs 08:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - much of it will be ruined by being blown down by wind (or hail), trampled by animals, infected by molds, etc. "Run to waste" is a known expression, if not necessarily modern [2][3]. Rmhermen (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I accept "run to waste" as a standard (though dated) expression, though less appropriate here. Wheat that is blown by wind can still be harvested (within limits) and if it is trampled it becomes a source of next year's crop. Mould causes rot. It was "go to seed" that I was objecting to. I'd suggest just missing out the "go to" or "run to" and just say "waste". Dbfirs 09:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]