Language desk
< December 15	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 17 >

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.

December 16[edit]

Name of a name[edit]

What is the terminology for "Hyatt" in A. Hyatt Smith? Is this considered a given name or a middle name? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Given name, they are both given names. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, people can have multiple given names: for example, I thought Joko Widodo, the current president of Indonesia, was not mononymous like many other Indonesian people are, but it turns out he is! He just has two given names. (Or, if you like, a given name consisting of two words.) Remsense留 01:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a given middle name.^[1][2][3] --Lambiam 10:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What if someone has three or more given names, as in John James Joseph Doe? Is the second given name still referred to as a middle name? Or is it a second name? — Kpalion^(talk) 14:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've always informally heard it described as people having n middle names. Remsense留 14:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Middle implies after first name and before surname. Hence it would be multiple "middle" names. As in Charles Philip Arthur George (Mountbatten-Windsor), who has 3 of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so in my example, John is the first name, James is the first middle name and Joseph is the second middle name? — Kpalion^(talk) 08:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is the clearest way to refer to them.^[4][5] --Lambiam 21:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What the frog?[edit]

The etymology section of our frog articles says: How Old English frosc gave rise to frogga is, however, uncertain, as the development does not involve a regular sound-change. Instead, it seems that there was a trend in Old English to coin nicknames for animals ending in -g, with examples—themselves all of uncertain etymology—including dog, hog, pig, stag, and (ear)wig. Frog appears to have been adapted from frosc as part of this trend. This statement is supported by a ref to the OED which is behind a paywall. Where could I learn more about this trend? Matt Deres (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EO is free, and here's their take on it.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the OED says about the etymology of "frog":

Ultimately related to Old English frosc frosh n.1 and its cognates in other Germanic languages (see below), although the nature of the relationship is uncertain; the present word was probably originally an alteration of frosc as a result of association with docga dog n.1 and other words denoting animals which are listed at that entry, in which the geminate consonant perhaps originally had a hypocoristic motivation; however, other explanations are perhaps possible. Connection with a number of other words in fr- denoting a frog in English and other Germanic languages is much less certain (see (3) and (4) below).
The stem-final geminated consonant in Old English frogga, frocga is unusual and difficult to explain; it is probably related to the similar geminate shown by docga dog n.1 and other words denoting animals which are listed at that entry. As noted above, it is possible that frogga shows an alteration of Old English frosc (also frox, forsc: see frosh n.1) by association with this group of words, perhaps originally as a hypocoristic derivative, although it is perhaps also possible that frogga shows an isolated reflex of a Germanic base ultimately cognate with that of frosc(see further below).
Words for a frog with initial fr- in Old English and other Germanic languages can be divided into four groups:
(1) Old English frosc (also frox, forsc: see frosh n.1), cognate with Middle Dutch vorsch, versch, vorsche (Dutch vors, now chiefly in kikvors), Middle Low German vrosch, vorsch, vors, Old High German frosc (Middle High German vorsch, vors, German Frosch), Old Icelandic froskr, Swedish (regional) frosk, further etymology uncertain, perhaps ultimately a derivative < an extended form of an Indo-European verbal base with the meaning ‘to hop’, reflected by Sanskrit pru- to leap (probably further related to plu- to swim (see flow v.; perhaps compare plavaga, plavaṅga monkey, frog); the same extended form is perhaps reflected also by Russianpryt′ speed, quickness, liveliness (late 18th cent., although earlier currency is perhaps implied by the adverb adjective prytkij ‘quick, lively’ (17th cent. in Old Russian) and the adverb prytko‘quickly, nimbly, in a lively manner’ (1562 in Old Russian); now chiefly in fixed phrases, e.g. vo vsju pryt′ ‘as fast as one's legs can carry one’), and (with added velar suffix) prygat′ to leap, to jump, to hop (late 18th cent.); perhaps compare also Lithuanian sprugti ‘to escape’, which may be < the same Indo-European base with movable s-, although the evidence to support such a reconstruction is very limited.
(2) frog n.1, which, as suggested above, could show an alteration or variant within Old Englishof frosc, probably by association with the group of words denoting animals discussed at dogn.1, or which could perhaps (less probably) show the only attested reflex of a different formation < the same Germanic verbal base as frosc and its cognates.
(3) Middle English frūde froud n., which (although also beginning with fr-) is probably unrelated; this is perhaps ultimately (with operation of Verner's Law) < an ablaut variant (showing also sound-symbolic lengthening of the vowel) of the same Germanic base as Old Icelandic frauðr, Old Swedish fördh, frödher (Swedish frö), Old Danish frødh (Danish frø); perhaps ultimately < the same base as froth n., hence referring to the slimy skin of a frog. (It is also possible that Middle English frode at froud n. Forms may show another distinct word in this same group.)
(4) Old Icelandic frauke, which probably shows a derivative of the forms under (3). It is possible that froke at Forms could instead show a borrowing of this word.
Many scholars have attempted to link all four groups of forms, assuming a variety of different starting points, but none of these attempts has been wholly successful. CodeTalker (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had guessed that the -sk-ending in Proto-Germanic *fruskaz was related to the Proto-Germanic reflexive pronoun *sek, i.e. a creature that "jumps oneself", although Wiktionary seems to prefer the explanation "*prewgʰ- (“to leap”) +‎ *-ḱós (animal suffix)". 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all very kindly. A lot of the material is technical and over my head, but the answer to my question appears to be here: "The word belongs to a set of words of uncertain or phonologically problematic etymology with a stem-final geminated g in Old English which is not due to West Germanic consonant gemination and therefore does not undergo assibilation. These words form both a morphological and a semantic group, as they are usually Old English weak masculine nouns and denote animals; compare frog n.1, hog n.1, pig n.1, stag n.1, Old English sugga (see haysugge n.), Old English wicga (see earwig n.), and perhaps teg n.1 It has been suggested that these words show expressive gemination, perhaps due to their being originally hypocoristic forms." Matt Deres (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courses or books on pragmatics for enthusiasts[edit]

I looked at the references on Pragmatics and didn't really see any works presented as obvious further reading for enthusiasts. "Enthusiasts" meaning people like me, who would like to learn jargon and drill deeper into the subject, perhaps having more familiarity with other areas of linguistics and lexicography, but are nonetheless not academics. Any recommendations would be much-appreciated! Remsense留 07:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some results of a GBS on the term "Pragmatics" are:

Pragmatics. Stephen C. Levinson · 1983
An integrative and lucid analysis of central topics in the field of linguistic pragmatics deixis, implicature, presupposition, speed acts, and conversational structure.
Pragmatics. Siobhan Chapman · 2011
Comprehensive and highly readable, this is an essential text for undergraduates or postgraduates enrolled on specialist modules in pragmatics or on more general linguistics courses.
Principles of Pragmatics. Geoffrey N. Leech · 2016
This book presents a rhetorical model of pragmatics: that is, a model which studies linguistic communication in terms of communicative goals and principles of 'good communicative behaviour'.
Introduction to Pragmatics. Betty J. Birner · 2012
Throughout the book the relationship between semantics and pragmatics is continually addressed and reassessed.
Pragmatics: A slim guide. Betty J. Birner · 2021

This book offers a concise but comprehensive entry-level guide to the study of meaning in context.

The sentences in small print are probably blurbs supplied by the publishers, but should give an impression. The last book of this list also has a Kindle edition. Amazon.com may have editorial and customer reviews for some of these books. --Lambiam 09:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam, I appreciate it! I don't want to give the impression that I didn't want to search for titles, I just figured someone might have some personal recommendation, but your collation is very much appreciated! Remsense留 09:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was or were?[edit]

I'm having a conversation with User:Snowflake91 here. We can't agree on one thing - which version is correct: "division was two tournaments" or "division were two tournaments"? I claim that the first one is correct, Snowflake91 the second one. So I would like to ask someone more experienced to comment. Thanks, Maiō T. (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many tournaments? One or two? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if it's not the subject... Nardog (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number of tournaments is irrelevant, it's the number of divisions that matters. "The division was..." would be correct. That said, why not recast the sentence? "The division comprised two tournaments" or "the division consisted of two tournaments" for example. DuncanHill (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a way around it. Reminds me of the gentle argument as to do I feel "well" or do I feel "good"? One alternative is, "I feel fine!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Feel Free. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The example article (one of the many) is 2019 IIHF World U18 Championship Division II – "was/were two international under-18 tournaments" in the lead section right at the start. The "Division" here is the proper name of the competition, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is only one division – it is actually divided into "Division II A" and "Division II B", so two divisions/tournaments. Snowflake91 (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowflake91: Then the sentence needs recasting. "2019 IIHF U18 World Championship Division II" looks like a singular noun and so, unless qualified in some way, will be treated as such by readers. If it's more than one thing, then this needs to be indicated. You could append with "competitions", which would achieve your objective of The 2019 IIHF U18 World Championship Division II competitions were... Bazza (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made that change. Bazza (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is quite simple:

I is am that man who is seen in the picture.

You is are the person who is responsible for what happened.

We is are the best team which is also the only German team in the competition.

The division ~~were~~ was two tournaments, which were held in Russia.

Simple, isn't it? AFAIK, the only exception of this rule is with the subjects "here/there" (here/there is a rose, here/there are roses). The same rule applies to most languages, except for few I currently don't remember (Italian? @Trovatore: could you help please?) HOTmag (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HOTmag: Unless it's the weird surreal stuff . Bazza (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious. HOTmag (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HOTmag: Not to everyone. Bazza (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but User:Snowflake91 has already managed to change several "was" to "were" in articles. I came up with one more option: we could use the word "pair" instead of "two", so then there will definitely be "was". Maiō T. (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you are always allowed to replace "two" by "a pair", but that's unnecessary: Actually, not only what should be followed by "a pair" - but also what should be followed by "two" in your sentence - is definitely "was" rather than "were", because all depends - on what "was/were" follows - rather than on what follows "was/were", as I've shown in my previous response by several analogous examples. Just as what should be followed by "the best team" - is definitely "were" rather than "was" - in the senetnce "we were the best team", and you don't have to replace "the best team" by "members of the best team" - for justifying "were", because all depends - on what "was/were" follows - rather than on what follows "was/were". HOTmag (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The utterance "the division was two tournaments" is pretty clunky though. A division is not usually a set of tournaments. I would re-word to avoid the problem.

By the way, the verb "to be" is a bit special in that it's not generally considered to have an object, but rather a predicate nominative (in this case) or predicate adjective (in the case of a sentence like "Joe is rich"). Verbs don't agree with their objects in English, but I think the number of the predicate nominative might sometimes control. I'd have to search (my brain at least) for an example. --Trovatore (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually I called you for clarifying the Italian issue. See above the last word before I mentioned your name. HOTmag (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but as it turned out I had more to say about the English. There are interesting similar questions in Italian but I'm less confident on the answers. I do know that the copula in Italian sometimes agrees with what you might call the predicate nominative in English (for example quelle due persone siamo io e te, not *quelle due persone sono io e te).

In any case my intuition in English is that it's generally awkward to put a copula between a singular noun phrase and a plural one, with the singular coming first. That's why "a pair of tournaments" would be an improvement, making both sides singular. But a complete rewording might be even better. --Trovatore (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's akward, but it's inevitable when a brief wording is needed, as in: "The Congolese players are the best team in the competition".

Except for the subject "there" (as in "there are roses"), as well as the subject "here", I don't have in mind any other example of a copula not agreeing with the subject.

Anyway, thank you for your comments. Your Italian example is instructive and interesting. What about "we are the best team" in Italian? HOTmag (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have a choice depending on what you want to emphasize. The most "unmarked" form is probably (noi) siamo la squadra migliore (where the noi is optional, Italian being a pro-drop language). But boasting doesn't favor unmarked forms, so you'd be more likely to hear la squadra migliore siamo noi or siamo noi la squadra migliore. It's also possible to reverse the order of the adjective and the noun. All of these choices carry subtle differences in emphasis which are hard to isolate with precision. --Trovatore (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Completely impossible is *la squadra migliore è noi; I'm as confident as I can be as a non-native speaker that that's totally unacceptable.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about noi è la squadra milgiore?

What's the rule?

HOTmag (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your last suggestion is totally ungrammatical. I'm actually not sure what the rule is. --Trovatore (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW does your knowledge in Italian have anything to do with your relatives (or friends), or it's only a "casual" interest in this language? HOTmag (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in Italy for a year. --Trovatore (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I spoke Italian. Its sound is musically very pleasant. The same is true for Mandarin, as well as Vietnamese (and Burmese but a little less than Vietnamese). HOTmag (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]