Language desk
< June 6	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 7[edit]

Is there a context in which "check out" cannot be replaced by "check" without necessarily changing the meaning?[edit]

185.46.78.25 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A supermarket checkout is a very specific thing, which would never be called simply a supermarket check. Wymspen (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checking out a library book =/= check a library book. Going to (a supermarket) check out =/= going to check. "Check out" can only be replaced by "check" when "check out" specifically refers to the act of examining. Blue Edits (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When does "check out" ever equal "check"? The closest I can think of is "Come check out this thing", i.e. "come and examine/appreciate this thing", but even then the meaning of "Come check this thing" is different - that would be "come and critically examine this thing for errors". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are some things which can't be examined for errors, like people. So, "Check out that woman" and "Check that woman" would both mean "appreciate". StuRat (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the natural meaning of "check that woman" be "perform an [ID/security] check on that woman"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only if saying it to a security guard. StuRat (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever heard "check that woman" used instead of "check that woman out" or "check out that woman", is this a regional variation? Is it common where you are? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A less-common variation on "check out" I would say, here in Detroit. StuRat (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional methods[edit]

Which words would you choose to fill the gap in "made ___ traditional methods"?

according to
by
in
using
via
with
something else

Thanks. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Detroit) They all look good to me except for "in". And note that "with" could mean only partially, as in "made with traditional methods (and genetic engineering)". Many foods say something like "Made with real juice" when only a small portion is real juice. "Utilizing" would also work. StuRat (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be "using". StuRat's comments above probably vary in accuracy depending on your jurisdiction. Bazza (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not disagreeing, but I think some context might be helpful here. One can imagine instances where different suggestions might be preferable. Kpalion, what was (is/will be...) "made ___ traditional methods"?---Sluzzelin talk 16:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mead, in this case (it's for this DYK nomination). I'm curious as to how this can depend on what is being made. Do you have any examples? — Kpalion^(talk) 23:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on where you wish to place the emphasis. "according to" may imply that the "traditional methods" follow a defined recipe or process, while "using" doesn't have quite the same connotation and could merely be saying that the methods haven't changed. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disapprove of via here; its oldest meaning is 'by way of' (e.g., "I drove to Los Angeles via Santa Barbara"), and I don't think I've seen/heard an extension other than 'with X as intermediary' (e.g., "I sent it to John via Jessica"). —Tamfang (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I understand that "in" and "via" are to be avoided, while "according to", "by", "using", "utilizing" and "with" may all be used with some nuances in connotation. Thank you all. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"in" and "via" are not only to be avoided, they must not be used at all, since they do not form a proper English sentence. In the English-speaking world, you would only ever hear those words used in that sentence by someone whose second language is English or by a non-speaker awkwardly trying to express him/herself. The other words are all fine. Akld guy (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Detroit) Perhaps it's a regional difference, but "via" sounds proper to me. If we expand it to "made by way of traditional methods", that sounds good, too. StuRat (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the UK, I would avoid "via" and "by way of" because they sound like strange diversions from the method. Dbfirs 08:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When did the meaning of corn shift to maize in American English?[edit]

I'm trying to figure out if the corn in corn flakes really referred to maize at the time when the trademark was originally coined, which must have been some time around 1900 (but I haven't been able to find out exactly when, and there are even contradictory dates given for the original invention of corn flakes on Wikipedia). Early corn flakes were made from a variety of different cereal grains (the original corn flakes in 1894 were actually made from wheat), recalling the more general meaning "cereal grain" which corn still has in British English. Had maize already been as important in the US by 1900 as it is today? The semantic shift is clear – not only does corn typically refer to the local staple grain, which has been maize in the US for quite some time now (but since when?), maize was formerly referred to as Indian corn in the US (it has a narrower meaning now), so the shortening to corn is an obvious development. There was likely some intermediate period where the shift was ongoing so that corn, while typically or primarily referring to maize, especially in the Corn Belt since the 1850s (which term may still originally have meant "Grain Belt"), could also refer to other grains such as wheat (especially outside the Corn Belt in regions where other grains were grown more; however, Battle Creek, Michigan, the hometown of the Kellogg family, seems to have been inside the Corn Belt at the time). But when was this shift complete so that corn could not refer to any other grain anymore in American English anywhere in the US, and the ambiguity was gone? If the shift was not complete yet around 1900, it is very well possible that corn flakes were simply grain flakes or cereal flakes and not maize flakes originally. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Original meaning of "corn" in corn flakes?. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you an upper limit, since, growing up in Detroit in the 1970's, not far from Grand Rapids, "corn" exclusively meant "maize" by then. I can't say how much earlier than that the change occurred, though. One suggestions is to search for the phrase "corn on the cob", which exclusively refers to maize. So, use of this phrase, to me, implies that the shift in meaning had occurred. StuRat (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new usage must have begun as soon as English speakers arrived in the Americas, with a word "corn" referring to grain of any kind: in Europe, wheat, barley, oats and rye. It is easy to imagine that those first settlers from their first year of growing crops specified "wheat", or "barley" or "Indian corn". Generally they planted more maize than European crops, so "corn" quickly came to mean "corn". Itsmejudith (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corn meant the leading crop in a given district. Around 1600, the leading grain crop in America was Indian corn, and that meaning stuck. The modifier was soon dropped. —Stephen (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Growing and eating "corn" certainly sounds healthier than eating "staples". StuRat (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Bon Appetit says by early 1800s the Indian was dropped.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that source. Also from the patent, it does look like for Americans, certainly for the Kelloggs, the ambiguity was definitely already gone by 1895, so by the time the product was marketed as corn flakes (by 1906 at the latest), the Kelloggs must already have settled on corn. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OED gives American citations for "corn" meaning maize as far back as 1608. Definition 5a.

Orig. U.S. Maize or Indian corn, Zea Mays; applied both to the separated seeds, and to the growing or reaped crop.

Corn on the cob: green maize suitable for boiling or roasting; maize cooked and eaten on the cob.

Wheat, rye, barley, oats, etc. are in U.S. called collectively grain. Corn- in combinations, in American usage, must therefore be understood to mean maize, whereas in English usage it may mean any cereal; e.g. a cornfield in England is a field of any cereal that is grown in the country, in U.S. one of maize.

Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Florian, I'm still skeptical of your premise. As I understood the other discussion, it was established that the original flakes were made from wheat, but it was not established that flakes made from wheat were ever called "corn flakes". --Trovatore (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"He appears to be lying" - Is the infinitive phrase functioning as an adjective or adverb?[edit]

In a sentence such as "He appears to be lying," is "to be lying" functioning as an adjective or an adverb, and how do I know? I know that "appear" is often a linking verb in a sentences such as "He appears frustrated." It can also be an action verb: "He suddenly appeared." I know that infinitives and infinitive phrases can often be used as adjectives ("He is a man to watch"). On the other hand, infinitives can also function as adverbs when following verbs (e.g., "He went to the store to buy some aspirin"). I can use the verb "appear" as an action verb and follow it with an infinitive phrase: "He appeared suddenly to deliver the letter." This means "He appeared suddenly in order to deliver the letter," rather than "It appeared that he suddenly delivered the letter." In this example, "to deliver the letter" is clearly functioning as an adverb, but what happens if I write, "He appears to be frustrated"? It is not possible to insert "in order to" in this sentence, so I am tempted to say that "to be frustrated" functions as an adjective (and "appears" is a linking verb rather than an action verb in this sentence). I was also wondering about sentences with "appear" that do not contain adjectives, such as "He appears to be lying" or "The intervention appears to reduce the risk of cancer." In these sentences, do the infinitive phrases function as adjectives or adverbs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.209.132 (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it's a "non-finite subordinate clause", and not really an adverb in any usual sense (and most definitely not an adjective). AnonMoos (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the OP had confused two different meanings of "appear". One meaning is "to seem" and the other meaning is "to show up somewhere". They are not interchangable.--Jayron 32 21:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I see what you mean. If I write "It appears that he is lying," "he is lying" is a (finite) subordinate clause. It would make sense, then, to say that "to be lying" is a non-finite subordinate clause.162.40.209.132 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a clause, it's just the progressive (a.k.a. continuous) form of the infinitive. Compare "He appears to lie", where "to lie" is an ordinary infinitive, and see Infinitive#Marking for tense, aspect and voice. While an infinitive can sometimes function as a noun ("To think is a good idea"), in this sentence I think the infinitive is just an infinitive and is not functioning as anything else. --69.159.63.238 (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it can have subject, direct object, and indirect object (e.g. "I want him to give me the money") then it sure seems like a clause to me. See Accusative and infinitive for infinitive subjects expressed as objects in the main clause... AnonMoos (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it does have those elements then it's a clause, but this one doesn't. --69.159.63.238 (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that most forms of linguistic analysis really work that way (certainly not X-bar theory). If a phrase has a word with verbal force and also at least an implicit subject, then it's starting to look clause-like. The infinitives in question look more clausal than many so-called small clauses... AnonMoos (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]