Template:Did you know nominations/Horror aequi

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Horror aequi

(

)

... that horror aequi causes people to avoid too many tos? Source: Rohdenburg, Günter (2003). "Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English". In Rohdenburg, Günter; Mondorf, Britta (eds.). Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Topics in English Linguistics. Vol. 43. Series editors: Bernd Kortmann, Elizabeth Closs Traugott. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 236–42. ISBN 9783110176476. ...English presumably has always shown a more or less pronounced aversion to sequences of (noncoordinated) to-infinitives [p. 236] ... The general predictions derived from the horror aequi principle are indeed confirmed by the available evidence. [p. 238]
- ALT1: ... that horror aequi causes journalists to avoid repeating the same word? Source: Sheldon, Neil (19 October 2021). "Horror aequi…". Statisticians React to the News. International Statistical Institute. Retrieved 25 July 2023. [Horror aequi…]…or fear of repeating a word is very common in the media. It's a journalistic compulsion that is detrimental to clear communication and understanding – but easy to avoid.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/5th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)
- Comment: Please provide a better hook if you can.

Created by AjaxSmack (talk). Self-nominated at 02:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Horror aequi; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

passerby comment: in response to your request, please allow me to suggest a stupid idea.
alt0q: ... that horror aequi causes people to avoid to many tos?
under the horror aequi principle, though, this hook is worse than alt0, so feel free to strike the hook if you don't like it. dying (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
What a fascinating read! I am surprised that nobody has picked this one yet. It is amazing that after 20+ years, there are still topics like these to cover. The article is new enough and long enough. The sources all check out, but the fourth paragraph is missing a reference. Also, do we have sources for the cited examples? Surtsicna (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- I added refs for the 4th para. By "sources for the cited examples", do you mean the ones like "I'll try to find a solution" in the Horror aequi in English section? If so, the answer is no per WP:OR ("Despite the need for reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research...all material added to articles must be verifiable...even if not already verified via an inline citation."). The examples I used do not appear in the sources but the key words (e.g. try, avoid repeating to, use of and instead of to) are taken from the pages cited in that section. I see it as an expansive reading of WP:CALC; it's verifiable in the sense that a reader can read the sources and note the mere substitution of words without altering the underlying grammar. I posted a scan of the one source not available online as a file (right; get it quick before it's gone). The others are accessible via The Wikipedia Library. If there's a better way to do it, let me know. — AjaxSmack 16:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

AjaxSmack, I too have considered WP:CALC and agree that it applies here. Still, should there not be a source cited for the following?

But following a to-infinitive, speakers will often use and instead of to.
However, when the first verb is in an -ing form, it is only grammatical to follow it with a to-infinitive.
Horror aequi does not influence verbs that may only be followed by an -ing verb.

These seem like substantial statements to me. Surtsicna (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I explicitly added the sources for the former two statements. (The source for the second should be viewable via the Google Books link.) The third statement is ipso facto true as e.g. "They will consider to drive" is not correct English, once again an expansive reading of WP:CALC. — AjaxSmack 21:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we have ironed out everything now. I am really looking forward to seeing this on the Main Page. Surtsicna (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that it is horrifying to people to choose to use too many tos?
I too have a too stupid hook or two :) Surtsicna (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
oh, too to stupid hooks two choose from! maaarbelous. dying (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I strongly prefer hook ALT2. — AjaxSmack 16:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Can someone go over ALT2 so we can send this one off? Just a quick ALT hook review, please. Surtsicna (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
sure. alt2 is under 200 characters, interesting, cited, and neutral. i believe it is not entirely accurate, as people are generally not literally horrified by the prospect of using too many tos. however, the hook instead relies on wordplay based on the name given to the principle, which i would consider acceptable for the quirky slot. dying (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Should it prove horrifying to say "it is horrifying", it is easy enough to change it to "it is a horror" :O Surtsicna (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
alt2 approved for the quirky slot, based on Surtsicna's review. This might make a good quirky hook.^(?) dying (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)