Language desk
< December 26	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 28 >

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 27[edit]

Separable verbs[edit]

Separable verb notes that they appear in German, Dutch, Afrikaans, and (bizarrely) Hungarian. Are they present in any other languages, Germanic or otherwise? The article discusses the cognates for "undergo" versus "go under" in Dutch, which made me think of Rapaport's Our ship will not go under, which ends with untergeyn, or אונטערגיין in the original Yiddish. However, I don't have any idea how Yiddish would handle "undergo", i.e. "to be subjected to". Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As German doesn't have the word "untergehen" functioning similarly to "undergo", I don't think Yiddish would, either. (Dutch has "ondergaan", though.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was just an example; does Yiddish have separable verbs, or do any other languages? Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: Yiddish grammar#Separable verbs Crash48 (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic languages plus Hungarian suggests something of a sprachbund. The Wiktionary entry for mitgeyn indicates separability. AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One may wonder (and I do) to what extent the "separability" is not a grammar issue but an artifact of the orthographic choice to write some common combinations as one word. Compare:

Die Sonne geht auf – die Sonne wird aufgehen.

Die Sonne geht nach oben – die Sonne wird nach oben gehen.

I can't think of a compelling reason for the choice not to write:

Die Sonne geht auf – *die Sonne wird auf gehen.

A better term might be joinable verb. --Lambiam 10:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference in the possible word orders. I'm no native speaker of German, so I'll use Dutch examples. See V2 word order for the meaning of central field and right bracket. If you treat the prefix-like particle as an adverb, it would have to be put at the end of the central field. If you treat it as part of the verb, it must be in the right bracket, and not necessarily at the start of it. So, with both (op)komen and zien in the right bracket:

Ik wil de zon op zien komen. — I want the sun up(particle) see come. — I want to see the sun rise.

Ik wil de zon zien opkomen. — I want the sun see up.come.

Ik wil de zon omhoog zien komen. — I want the sun up(adverb) see come.

*Ik wil de zon zien omhoog komen. — I want the sun see up(adverb) come.

The last form is not grammatical (except, maybe, in some Brabantian dialects, where it's common that some non-verbs penetrate the right bracket). Something similar happens for some common combinations of verb + direct object, that have merged into one word (koffiezetten, stofzuigen): because the object has merged with the verb, it may penetrate the right bracket. PiusImpavidus (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's written as one word when prefixed to the verb probably partially because --

1) No other word can come between the preverb and verb (only "ge" can go in the middle, and it's not a word).

2) A sequence of a preposition followed by a verb, as two separate words, would give a different meaning (if it made sense at all).

3) German likes writing words together... AnonMoos (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are there examples of separable verbs where reason 2 applies (separation gives a different meaning)? They should result in an ambiguity when separation is obligatory. Reason 1 does not apply to Dutch. And while (the committee setting the rules for the orthography of) Dutch also likes writing words together, the Dutch don't, if the way they actually tend to spell compound words is allowed as evidence. --Lambiam 07:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Dutch example:

Ik vraag nu een vergunning aan, omdat de regeling van 16 oktober afloopt.

I request a permit now, because the arrangement of 16 October expires.

Ik vraag nu een vergunning aan, omdat de regeling van 16 oktober af loopt.

I request a permit now, because the arrangement applies from 16 October onward.

In speech, afloopt is stressed on af, af loopt is stressed on loopt.

People insert a lot of incorrect spaces in Dutch texts. I know, and it annoys me. Part of the reason is some big foreign software companies made spelling checkers for English, then prepared some word lists in other languages and distributed the software over Europe. That doesn't work. Autocorrect makes it worse. A few weeks ago I ran a spelling check on a 150,000 word Dutch text. The far majority of the signalled errors (hundreds) were false positives; the proposed corrections were mostly incorrect. I had to pay attention to find the few real errors. In professionally published material such spaced compounds are normally not found, so people reading a lot still have a feeling for the official way – and spelling corrections are still mostly a human's job. PiusImpavidus (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The person of whose son I'm afraid, VS. The person whose son I'm afraid of.[edit]

What's more considered as spoken (colloquial) English? The first description above, or the second one?

If neither of them, then what's the best way to describe that person in spoken (colloquial) English? 2A06:C701:7469:5D00:79A0:4F6B:4303:B768 (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second – this is normal colloquial British English. The first would never be spoken, unless for deliberate comedic effect (something I might do, as I'm notoriously "bookish" in my speech), and might seem over-formal even when written, although grammatically it's entirely correct. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.111.170 (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What about the (pseudo-grammatical) description: The mother that I'm afraid of her son? Is it common in spoken language? I'm not asking about its (bad) syntax, but rather about its normal? usage (among adults/children). 2A06:C701:7469:5D00:79A0:4F6B:4303:B768 (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native speaker, but it sounds off to me, and the parsing makes it difficult to understand. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The mother that I'm afraid of her son" is not a construction used by native speakers of English. Colloquially I'd expect that kid I'm afraid of's mother. Folly Mox (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you changed the subject "mother" into "that kid". The fact is that I'm afraid of the kid. So why wouldn't you expect (colloquially): The mother (that/who) I'm afraid of her kid? Again I'm only afraid of her kid, rather than of her... 2A06:C701:7469:5D00:79A0:4F6B:4303:B768 (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The subject isn't changed. The subject is still "mother", modified by "that kid I'm afraid of's", which is obviously ungrammatical, but is colloquial, at least in several North American topolects. Folly Mox (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If "the son" is meant to be the subject and "the mother that I'm afraid of" the determiner phrase with "her" used as some kind of his genitive, then it would be "The mother that I'm afraid of's son". As native English grammar and syntax functions differently, the sentence is a bit diffucult to parse, though. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't understood you at the first time, because I'd misinterpreted the of's as an unfamiliar abbreviation of of his. But I got it now: So of's should be interpretred as the genetive form of of. Wow! I wasn't aware of this style of colloquial speech in North American topolects, so you've taught me something about them. Thank you ever so much.

Now I wonder if this kind of speech is considered to be native in other varieties of English. 2A06:C701:7469:5D00:79A0:4F6B:4303:B768 (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't studied grammar too extensively, but generally you can't "genitivize" of. It is ("descriptively") allowed here, since "that I'm afraid of" already is a determiner phrase of "The mother", I believe. (Please correct me if I have gotten some details or terminology wrong.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that generally we can't "genitivize" of. However, we are discussing the colloquial (North American) English right now, aren't we? So we don't have to care about what we generally can do or can't do, but rather we should only care about what is meant (at least unconciously) by the colloquial (North American) English speaker: In my opinion, what really exists in their mind is the unconcious desire to genetivize "that kid (I'm afraid of)". By genetivizing of I actually mean: adding an 's (i.e. an apostrophe followed by an s) after the expression "that kid (I'm afraid of)", as we generally do when we genetivize regular nouns (including "that kid") by adding an 's after them. In our case, the 's is added after of, so it looks like we genetivize the of, and that's what I actually meant - by genetivizing of - i.e. by genetivizing "that kid (I'm afraid of)". 2A06:C701:7469:5D00:79A0:4F6B:4303:B768 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that kid I'm afraid of's mother follows a construction routinely used in casual, colloquial, spoken British English, regardless of its dubious grammatical correctness. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.111.170 (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks. What about "The mother (who/that) I'm afraid of her son", in colloquial spoken British English? 2A06:C701:7469:5D00:79A0:4F6B:4303:B768 (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you still seem to be using the his genitive, no, it's not colloquial native English. I guess that genitivizing of determiner phrases (I hope I got the terminology correct) could be used in several situations, such as creating a distinction between "the kid that's right behind you's mother" (focus on the mother) and "the kid that's right behind your mother" (focus on the kid). 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your likely conjecture. However, let me now quote two of your comments in this thread: "I'm not a native speaker, but...no, it's not colloquial native English". So, I'm waiting now for a native British English speaker (like the one I've responded to) to approve your likely hypothesis. 2A06:C701:7469:5D00:79A0:4F6B:4303:B768 (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

am an American speaker, but yes, nobody would say that. Andre🚐 15:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But, yes, I'm still waiting for a native British English speaker (like the one I've responded to) to approve your probable remark. 2A06:C701:7469:5D00:79A0:4F6B:4303:B768 (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find The mother (who/that) I'm afraid of her son to be utterly alien to my (British) English - if I encountered it I would assume that the speaker was a non-English speaker translating from another language.

The 's ending in modern English is not a suffix but a clitic, which is appended to a phrase, not to a word. In English (as opposed to the language made up by influencers a couple of centuries ago) phrases can perfectly well end with a preposition, so the clitic can be appended to a preposition. ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting construction: "that kid I'm afraid of's mother" in spoken English, is unique in that it's surprisingly quite similar to the Turkish standard construction: "Oğlundan korktuğum anne": In both languages, the mother ("anne" in Turkish) is the subject being the final word which actually follows a whole sub-clause. The more interesting point is that this construction is typical of agglutinative languages, but English - contrary to Turkish - is not an agglutinative language...

Besides agglutinative languages (like the Turkic ones), and colloquial English, are there other languages having that interesting property? HOTmag (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the similarity may partly be illusory. The English possessive is a definite determiner; "A's B" means "the B of A". The relative clauses formed in Turkish with -dik or -ecek + possessive suffix are not definite, just like adjectives are not definite. For example, the full sentence "oğlundan korktuğum bir anne yokmuş" means, "there is no mother whose son I fear". Even in a variety or register of English in which "the kid I'm afraid of's mother" is fine, you cannot say, *"there is no a kid I'm afraid of's mother". What is similar is that the suffix applies to a multiword phrase:

[that kid I'm afraid of] + 's

[oğlundan korktuk] + -im

The nature of these suffixes is completely different different though; "[that kid] + 's [mother]", when expressed in Turkish, becomes "[bu çocuk] + -in [anne] + i" = "bu çocuğun annesi", in which "bu çocuğun" is a definite determiner. --Lambiam 10:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But the similarity I've pointed at, which is still a true fact, is the ability to build a sentence whose subject is the final word, which can actually follow a whole sub-clause. Besides agglutinative languages, and colloquial English, do you know of any other language having that property? HOTmag (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In German you can say something like "nur mit großer Schwierigkeit gegen den Sturmwind aufkreuzende Segelboote" ("sailing boats only tacking against the storm wind with great difficulty"). I suspect you can do something similar in most Germanic languages. --Lambiam 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the sub-clause? Is it "nur mit großer Schwierigkeit gegen den Sturmwind aufkreuzende"? Note that every sub-clause can function as a separate sentence. In English, the expression "the kid I fear's mother", contains both the sub-clause "I fear" and the subject "mother" at the end. The same is true for Turkish: the expression "Oğlundan korktuğum anne" contains both the sub-clause "korktuğum" and the subject "anne" at the end. But where do you find any sub-clause in "nur mit großer Schwierigkeit gegen den Sturmwind aufkreuzende Segelboote"? HOTmag (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; in traditional grammar analysis this predicate cannot be categorized as a clause with a null anaphoric predicand. Relative clauses precede the noun phrase they qualify in languages with strong head-finality, which includes Japanese. For example, in 私が恐れている息子を持つ母親 (watashi ga osorete iru musuko o motsu hahaoya) the clause watashi ga osorete iru musuko o motsu ("having a son that I am afraid of") precedes the head hahaoya ("mother"). Now Japanese is agglutinative, but there are many inflected head-final languages, e.g. Hindustani, so I am fairly sure there are some non-agglutinative languages in which a modifying clause can precede the head. --Lambiam 10:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Hidustani, it's वह माँ जिसके बेटे से मैं डरता हूँ, the mother being the second word, rather than the final one. HOTmag (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This might need some clarification for the minority on Wikipedia unable to read Hindustani... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've only translated "That kid I'm afraid of's mother" into Hindustani. In Colloquial English, the mother is the last word. In Hindustani, the mother (/ma:n/) is the second word. The whole Hindustani sentence should be interpreted as "The mother whose son I fear". HOTmag (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I always was taught to NESWAP in English. Never end a sentence with a preposition. In formal writing, to follow that, you would say, "The person's son of whom I am afraid." However, in spoken language, others are correct that "the person's son I am afraid of" is much more common, to the extent that the formalized construction sounds a bit odd to the ear. Andre🚐 10:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of those with a less formal education (like what I had): NESWAP = "Never end a sentence with a preposition". Alansplodge (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer: "Never end sentences with a preposition", because the indefinte article is counted (e.g. in "a preposition"). HOTmag (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I have understood, the NESWAP rule is mostly based on flawed prescriptivist reasoning from people who wanted to apply Latin grammar to English. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that too, and Winston Churchill said "up with this rule, I will not put!" John Dryden is supposedly where it came from. Andre🚐 14:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we could also say "The mother of the child I fear". Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have an article on preposition stranding. --142.112.220.136 (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of linguistic prescription in English may be informative here. Folly Mox (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]