Language desk
< November 2	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 4 >

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.

November 3[edit]

Lieutenant Governor[edit]

In US American state government, why is it Lieutenant Governor and not Vice Governor? Dismas|^(talk) 04:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't it be? It appears like Lieutenant Governor is common throughout the Commonwealth as well. Is Vice Governor used somewhere that would give you the impression that it should be used in the US? Grsz¹¹ 04:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many other things are "vice", not the least of which is the presidency, but this is the only example in the US that I can think of that uses lieutenant. Dismas|^(talk) 04:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Probably by extension to the British/Commonwealth office of "Lieutenant Governor", which is unrelated to the American one, except in name, however the existance of the British/Commonwealth office may have influenced the naming of the American one; American ears may have been predisposed to the sound of that term over Vice Governor. The name of "Vice President" may have been influenced by that of viceroy, or "vice-king". --Jayron32 04:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant is a veritable combination of Lieu and Tenant, so, someone who occupies something instead of someone else. Vice- come from latin for 'in place of.' As to the practice of calling lieutenant governors what they are it is most likely a holdover from commonwealth law like Grsz and Jayron mention. schyler (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But "lieutenant" is just a French form of locum tenens, which is Latin for "place holder" ("vice" is just a pithier and more Classical Latin way of saying the same thing). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It should also be noted that, where it exists, the secondary executive after a mayor is often a deputy mayor, which would establish an interesting pattern where none of the three levels of chief executive (President-national, Governor-state, Mayor-municipality) uses the same term for the secondary position (vice-president, lieutenant governor, deputy mayor). Just another oddity along these lines. Another one is Undersecretary, which is the second to the various Cabinet Secretaries. So that's 4 different prefixes for seconds in line. --Jayron32 04:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secretary has its own logic of underlings. There are both assistant secretaries and undersecretaries, as well as deputy assistant secretaries, assistant undersecretaries, and deputy undersecretaries. Sorting all that out from outside of the affected bureaucracy seems quite daunting... ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 15:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't daunt the makers of that fine old Doris Day film April in Paris (1952), in which Ray Bolger plays S. Winthrop Putnam, the Assistant Secretary to the Assistant to the Undersecretary of State, and formerly Assistant Assistant Secretary to the Assistant to the Undersecretary of State. Got some great songs too. It's well worth a look next time it comes on TV. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In both US and Commonwealth armies, there is the rank of Lieutenant-General, which is more important than a Major-General. In the UK, we also have Lords Lieutenant, who are stand-ins for the Queen in each County. Alansplodge (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both terms, "lieutenant governor" and "vice president," date at least to the 16th century, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. A governor could be a military position, as in the governor of a fortress, which is perhaps why a governor's second-in-command was known as a lieutenant governor (like lieutenant-general). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adverbesque words[edit]

A. Some adverbs answer the question "How?". Words like beautifully, well, slowly, completely, thoroughly and many others all fit this bill.

B. Then there are adverbs that cannot answer "How?", because the adverb itself calls into question whether the action was done at all, or at least whether it was done by the subject. Words like allegedly, supposedly, reportedly and some others are like this. In the future tense, we have hopefully.

The words in group A can be safely removed from their parent sentences without losing any of the essential meaning. He slowly made his way outside and He made his way outside are both providing the same basic information, differing only in the speed of the action.

But the words in group B cannot be removed without making a large change to the meaning. He shot his wife and He allegedly shot his wife mean very different things. One is a statement about what he did. The other is a statement about what someone has claimed he did, and he may not have done it at all. In the future case, We will all be dead 150 years from now is a statement of belief, whereas We will all hopefully be dead 150 years from now is a statement of hope. Sort of related, but still quite different. These words are not modifying the verb, they’re modifying the meaning of the entire sentence.

Given this, can the words in group B truly be said to be adverbs? If not, what are they? Are they actually malformed words that shouldn't exist at all, e.g. should He allegedly shot his wife be written as It has been alleged that he shot his wife, or would that be taking the demands of pedantry too far? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that there's any requirement from either traditional grammar or modern linguistics that adverbs only be "extensional", never "intensional". In chapter 12 of Steven Pinker's Language Instinct there's a basic discussion of "verb phrase adverbs" vs. "sentence adverbs"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are still pedants who object to the use of all or most "sentence adverbs". I would use them colloquially, but would re-phrase to avoid them in formal writing. Dbfirs 10:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then they'd have to object to a number of impeccable Classical Latin words too (vere etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, sentence adverbs seem to be widely accepted, but, hopefully, they are not extensively used in Wikipedia articles. Dbfirs 13:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This online dictionary's entry for hopefully may be of interest (specifically, the usage note). Pallida Mors 11:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. Thanks, PM. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, if you're concerned that adverbs like "allegedly" change the meaning of the sentence, you should be especially concerned that "not" is an adverb. —Bkell (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's a doozy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "not" is especially odd. Jack, the adverbial article addresses some of your concerns, doesn't it? I mean, it seems like a bit of catch-all category, but it's generally used to describe things-that-act-like-adverbs-but-aren't. Indeterminate (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also wikt:category:English modal adverbs.—msh210℠ 16:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe in generative grammar, this is explained by saying the first class of adverbs you list ("quickly", "beautifully", etc.) are VP- or TP-level adverbs, whereas the second class ("allegedly", "reportedly", etc.) are CP adverbs. (Which is essentially the same thing Anonmoos noted above without resorting to jargon :P ) rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category for such adverbs is 'evidential modal adverbs'. They are indeed adverbs but a very restricted kind (cannot be used in interrogatives "#Did he allegedly shoot his wife", negatives "#He did not allegedly shoot his wife"...). Interestingly their elliptical variants are similar to raising verbs: non-finite>"He seems to have shot his wife / He is alleged to have shot his wife." expletive subject/finite complement>"It seems that he has shot his wife / It is alleged that he has shot his wife" ALTON .ıl 00:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some adverbs answer "When?": yesterday, today, tomorrow, always, never, sometimes, soon.

Some adverbs answer "Where?": here, there, everywhere, nowhere, somewhere, inside, outside.

Some adverbs answer "To what degree?": very, slightly, quite, rather, somewhat.

Some adverbs answer "In what manner?": carefully, quickly, skillfully.

Some adverbs answer "In what respect?": linguistically, grammatically, scientifically.

There was a period of time when the suffix -mente was limited to an adverb describing the state of mind of a person performing an action denoted by the verb modified by the adverb. Eventually, the application of the suffix was widened to include adverbs modifying verbs or even adjectives or other adverbs, without reference to the state of mind of the subject of the verb, which might even be inanimate. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-mente.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that gives a more general slant to the first part of my question. Yet these words I'm talking about (and also including "not") don't answer any of those questions. They answer the questions "Did?" or "Will?". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto has the word ĉu ("whether") which introduces a "yes-no" question.

Polish has the word czy, which introduces a "yes-no" question.

Japanese uses ka at the end of a question, even if it already has a question word like Doko ("Where").

Latin has the enclitic -ne attached after the main verb in a "yes-no" sentence.

English and many European languages use subject-verb inversion (sometimes involving a pronoun, sometimes involving an auxiliary verb) to form a "yes-no" question.

If English introduced a "yes-no" question with Whether, and shortened the question to Whether?, the situation might be clearer. An approximate equivalent is Truly? or Really? or a similar expression.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[See Subject-auxiliary inversion. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)][reply]

[See Yes-no question. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)][reply]

In French, the phrase est-ce que (literally: "is it that...?") serves a similar function of introducing a yes/no question. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question is an example of a kind of question that is quite often asked here and at other sites like this one, that goes "Is <this word> a <traditional part of speech>"? The meta-answer, usually, is that the traditional classification of parts of speech is inadequate for the level of analysis that the question makes, so the question has no clear answer. "can the words in group B truly be said to be adverbs?" Yes. No. Whatever you want. Most people will answer yes in this case, but as the OP indicates, some of the traditional characterisations of "adverb" then don't fit. --ColinFine (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All my worst suspicions have been confirmed. Thanks, Colin. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French sound[edit]

Hey, me again. I was surprised that in a lot of your wiktionary entries (I know that this is Wikipedia, but still) for French words ending in -ais, -ait, -ez, -aie, etc. represent this sound [ɛ]. Is this correct? I've always been used to pronouncing it [e], or somewhere between [ɛ] and [e]. Could this be a dialectal thing? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partly explained by Broad transcription... AnonMoos (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I saw this being discussed at a Wiktionary talk page – see here. Some editors were arguing that in certain contexts the French -ait, -ais etc... really is [e], rather than [ɛ] as the dictionaries always tell you. ~~I'll have some time to try and find it later.~~ Lfh (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vocab questions.[edit]

We have a word in the English language for someone that's never had sex before, right? Virgin.

But do we have a word that means never been in a relationship before?

Also, are there words (preferrably ending in -ist like atheist/theist) that mean "believes men should pursue women," "women should pursue men," and "neither or both." Thanks. 216.45.144.150 (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I suggest "male chauvinist" ("pig" optional) for "believes men should pursue women", and "Sadie Hawkins-ist" for the reverse. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

216.45.144.15 -- The closest commonly-used phrase for the first is probably "never been kissed" (the title of a movie, and recently prominent in connection with Susan Boyle). As for pursuing, someone who pursues women could be a mulierisequax in Latin, while someone who pursues men could be a virisequax in Latin, so how about "mulierisequacist" for someone who thinks that women should be pursued and "virisequacist" for someone who thinks that men should be pursued? They're not elegant, but they have the specified meaning based on Latin... AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could have french kissed and yet not have been in a relationship before. Rimush (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

meaning of abbreviation ROC[edit]

What may abbreviation ROC mean in the name of ROC Professional Training School in Apeldoorn in Netherlands?Seaweed71 (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Regionale opleidingencentrum", apparently meaning "regional training center". The actual name of the school to which you refer seems to be ROC Aventus. Deor (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]