Language desk
< March 7	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 9 >

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.

March 8

Apple vs. potato in French

In a French-language restaurant menu, how would fried potatoes and fried apples be differentiated? "Pommes frites" would usually refer to fried potatoes, even though "pomme" is the French word for apple. 69.62.243.126 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Translate: "Fried potatoes" would be pommes de terre sautées. "Fried apples" would be pommes frites. "French fries" would be pommes de terre frites, or just plain frites. However, going from French to English, pommes frites is also labeled "French fries". A French reader might be able to tell us the real story. The thing is, pomme is "apple", and pomme de terre is "apple of the earth", i.e. "potato". Raw potatoes and raw apples have a pretty similar texture, of course. Where the term "pomme" itself comes from, its Latin form is pomum,[1] and has something to do with roundness or "knobiness", hence it's cognate with the "pommel" of a saddle. In Spanish, that word's descendant pomo is used to mean a "knob", while manzana is the word for "apple", also based on some Latin term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Pommes frites" refers to "French fries". On a French menu to refer to "fried apples", depending on how they are cooked, one could say "Pommes (fruits) frites" (difficult to pronounce), "Frites de pommes (fruits)" or "Pommes (fruits) sautées". I think we can omit the parenthesis and we can also use an hyphen: "pommes-fruits". — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen "pommes-fruits" written anywhere. First of all, we don't usually fry apples, we may bake them, but we won't fry them, so you can usually assume that "pommes-frites" is short for "pommes de terre frites". On a menu, you know if it is about potatoes or apples simply because apples would be in the dessert sections. If it is still ambiguous, then the brackets "(fruit)" could be used, but I have never actually seen this on any menu, I guess I was never in a situation where it was ambiguous. --Lgriot (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it on several menus (and on the Web: try to google "pomme-fruit"). Nonetheless, a usual way to avoid ambiguity is to use the name of the apple variety: Pommes Golden sautées au beurre, for example. — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a French recipe for Pommes sautées au beurre (apples fried in butter), which obviously refers to the fruit. Google will show there are many similar recipes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there are many recipes for apples cooked in a frying pan, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we do this a lot in France (maybe more in Canada than France? This recipe is Canadian). I agree that if I had to write a menu where there are fried apples, and there is a risk of ambiguity, I would myself probably use the variety name to disambiguate. --Lgriot (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"had have"

I've only recently started to notice that almost everyone seems to say "If I'd have done this...", "If he'd have done that...", and so on, rather than, as I would consider correct, "If I'd done this..." and "If he'd done that...". Am I right that these "'d have" forms are grammatically incorrect? When and how did this mistake begin, and why has it become so common? Is it more prevalent in certain regions? I'm from the UK, but I'm pretty sure I've heard it from speakers of various nationalities. 86.177.108.83 (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a mistake. It's perfectly standard English everywhere. The 'd is a contraction of "would", not "had". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The fact you're from the UK explains your surprise. When our friends in the UK say: "If I had done", the Americans may say: "If I would have done"; Whereas "I would" is shortended by "I'd". To sum up: The britishers don't accept the form: "if I would", while the Americans do. Hope this helps. 84.229.229.186 (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends. If I would have is substandard for a simple counterfactual if I had, in the US as well as (presumably) in the UK. However it may have acceptable US usages when there's a shade of meaning along the lines of if I had desired to or if I had chosen to. Whether such usages are ever considered standard in the UK, I don't know. --Trovatore (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While you are referring to the context - and are claiming that "if I would" may be substandard - or standard - in the US (in a way depending on the context), I am referring to the very grammatical form "If I would" - and am claiming that this form is never acceptable in the UK. To sum up, my own rest a wrong is still open, and would have never been similar to migrant, unless I had lived in CA. 84.229.229.186 (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What, not in any context? How about Sir, if you would please come with me...? Granted, that's "you" instead of "I", but that shouldn't affect whether it can be grammatically acceptable. --Trovatore (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could present much simpler examples, even with an I, e.g.: "I wondered if I would have arrived there by midnight". That's acceptable everywhere, including the BBC. However, we're talking about an "If" which means "on condition that", and I claimed that (as long as this is the meaning of our "if") the form: "If I / you / he would" - would never be accepted in the UK, whatever the context would be. 84.229.229.186 (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are various sentence contexts in which "if I would" is possible in BrE, including examples like "I don't know if I would like it" and (referring to oneself as if one was another person) "If I would just shut up for a moment". However, "if I would have (done something)", which is the form relevant to my question, is always wrong in BrE as far as I know. 86.177.108.83 (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if I would have as a simple counterfactual is substandard in the US as well. Acceptable uses are things like if you would have stopped for a moment and thought about it, you could have prevented.... This is not a simple counterfactual, though the distinction is subtle; it suggests that your failure to stop and think was somehow willful, not just something that might have happened but didn't. My hypothesis is that this would is (or is at least influenced by) a past subjunctive of will in the sense of "choice" or "desire". --Trovatore (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If I would have..." is nonstandard in the UK, as far as I know. Well, it certainly sounds wrong to me. However, in the case of UK speakers, I believe that they perceive they are saying "If I had have...", not "If I would have...". In fact, I'm sure some people actually do say "had" in full. 86.177.108.83 (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some people do say "If only he had have (or had've) come earlier, things would have (or would've) worked out better". It sounds like it ought to be correct, because would've is fine so why shouldn't had've be ok too - but it ain't. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this confusion - between "I would" and "I had" - stems from the fact that both phrases can be shortened by "I'd". If I'm correct, then those (Aussies?) who mix "I would (have)" with "I had (have)", may also mix "would" with "have" in other contexts, e.g. in "I would go" (that may become "I had go") and likewise. Sounds wierd, but "I had have" does not sound less wierd. Similarly, if they really confuse "would" with "had", then why not vice versa, e.g. in "I had done", which may become "I would done". However, I've never met those guys, so I can't argue with them. 84.229.229.186 (talk) 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no general confusion between "I would" and "I had" in Australia. But many people do say "had have" or "had've" in constructions like the example I gave above, simply, I suspect, for reasons of euphony. "If you had've done it" rolls off the tongue more easily than "If you had done it". "Had've" feels like it's in the same class of expressions as "could've", "would've" and "should've", so it's fair game. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This class contains also "might've" - which is quite standard. However, I still think that "had've" - beyond its being nonstandard - is very rare (if not absent) outside Australia (and UK, according to MrPedantic's testimony in this forum). 84.229.229.186 (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's something weird here. I was the OP, and, as you can see, my IP at that time was 86.177.108.83 (it's different now because I get a new one every time I log on). However, two later posts ("I think this confusion - between "I would" and "I had" - stems from the fact that both phrases can be shortened..." and "This class contains also "might've" - which is quite standard...") have the same IP signature but were not written by me and do not seem to appear in that IP's list of contributions. What's going on? 86.179.112.238 (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the IP user 77.125.77.80 originally signed their post with their IP address, but inexplicably changed it to yours (and did so again). 139.173.54.11 (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

How strange. 77.125.77.80, if you ever return here, what were your reasons for doing such a thing? 86.146.109.211 (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: I'd tried to change to my original IP, 84.229.229.186, but somehow I copied and pasted your IP instead. Anyways, I have already fixed the mistake (see above). 84.229.229.186 (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My own impression is that If I had've is very frequent in Canada, the UK and the US, at least. Although it wouldn't be considered acceptable in writing, it doesn't strike me as being particularly uneducated in speech. According to the entry on the plupluperfect in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, the construction has been around since the 15th century, and in its current use appears in "the conditional clause of a hypothetical or counterfactual statement." It therefore "may represent an attempt by the speaker to impose a subjunctive marker on the standard past perfect." In fictional dialogue, it is sometimes transcribed as hadda or had of, something which is clearly done to stigmatize the speaker. (I suppose had've or had have might too easily go unnoticed or be thought to be a mistake made by the writer.) 96.46.204.126 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from the US and "If I had've" sounds very strange to me. I think there are contexts where maybe I could imagine someone speaking in a particular dialect saying something like "If I hadda been there..." but in general "If I'd have" seems much more natural, or even "If I'd've", both being contractions of "I would have" rather than "I had have". Rckrone (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that "If I'd have" is most common, and this creates a difficulty in analyzing the 'd - is it a would or a had? Perhaps this can be resolved by comparing "if I hadn't have known" and "if I wouldn't have known" (in which I'dn't is never heard). My intuition tells me both of these are quite common in North American English, not just in Britain and Australia. While they're both unacceptable in writing, I do think the second tends to be frowned on more than the first. In the .edu web domain, which is American, Google has 550,000 results for "if he hadn't have" and 1.2 million for "if he wouldn't have." Looking at the .ca, .uk and .au domains, you have roughly the same 2:1 ratio of wouldn't to couldn't. (Granted, many of these can be expected to be the perfectly acceptable kind of "if he wouldn't have" mentioned above by others, in which if really means "whether.") 96.46.204.126 (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some Google searches in the .edu domain that I find interesting: if it hadn't been for: 303,000 results; if it hadn't have been for: 123,000 results; if it wouldn't have been for: 7,900 results. 96.46.204.126 (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Now then"

"Had have" above reminds me of another quirk of the English language: what does "now then" mean? At least in British English, it is a common enough construction, and obviously some sort of emphasis, as in when the local constabulary encounters one meandering back from the local, and attempts to restrain one's over-exuberant rendition of The Wild Rover which the neighbours may not appreciate,: "Now then, enough of this, or you'll be spending a night in the cells". When is the 'now', why is it also a 'then' and how does this apparent temporal oxymoron make sense? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My wildly unsourced speculation is that the 'now' is intended to mean something along the lines of 'focus on me, now'--it's an attention-getter. Hence the phrase's applicability both as a telling-off and as a prelude to any kind of discussion or speech (Jimmy Saville-style). The 'then' isn't a past then: it's a 'then' of consequences. 'Think of the consequences' if you're telling someone off, or 'let's move forwards' for Jimmy. Henry ^Flower 05:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I most often see this used in the context of a traditional British Police Constable. In fact I'm not aware I've ever heard it used outside the context of parody, such as monty python's spoof on the Cray brothers (the Piranha Brothers) where an inspector undercover as an actor spoils a play's rape scene by appearing on stage crying "now then!" and "what's all this, then?!" I would tend to think it's purely idiomantic, without any specific literal meaning. Caveat: I've only briefly been to the UK, and then only to London, and in my time there I wasn't ever stopped by the law. I watch a lot of BBC, however. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or even Blackadder. 188.117.11.111 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it what about "how about" or "how's about" as in "How about we all go for a meal?" Or "what's up" as in "What's up with that guy?". I think there are others but I can't grab them right now. Richard Avery (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try a dictionary "now then: a sentence opener indicating that a new topic is being opened or that the speaker is getting down to business."[2] "now then: said to attract attention to what you are going to ask or suggest".[3]. For "how about" see [4][5]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not so much 'what does it mean?' as 'where did they come from?' what are the etymologies of these strange, strictly speaking, ungrammatical idioms. Richard Avery (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that "now" and its equivalents have also had a non-temporal usage for as long as English has been a language (and longer). Old English had it. German's "nun" can have a non-temporal sense. Classical Latin's "nunc" can have a non-temporal sense. Classical Greek's νῦν can have a non-temporal sense. This certainly suggests the usage is very ancient indeed, but the possibility remains that the speakers of the word and its cognates have a tendency to extend the word to non-temporal usage and have done so many times. Either way, I don't think "now then" in its regular usage is an oxymoron and certainly not ungrammatical, it just features a long-standing non-temporal usage of "now", and possibly as long-standing as the branching of the Indo-European languages. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Now then" was one of the phrases I had to come to terms with when I moved to Yorkshire twenty years ago. In my experience up to then, it was a challenging phrase meaning something like "There's something I want to talk to you about, and I'm not pleased, and you're not going to be either". But people I met in Yorkshire used it for a friendly greeting. --ColinFine (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been a police constable (or a Yorkshireman), yet I think I do use "now then" in the "getting down to business" sense, for instance, when a discussion has gone off track: now (I am introducing a new topic) then (in light of what has been said). By the way, James Thurber plays on the temporal and non-temporal uses of then in his spoof guide to English usage: "You might say: 'There is, then, no hard and fast rule?' ('was then' would be better, since 'then' refers to what is past). You might better say (or have said): 'There was then (or is now) no hard and fast rule?'" Lesgles (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of being asked to translate "What about...?" and "How about....?" into Spanish. After much head-scratching, we decided it just meant "and" in the context of repeated questions or suggestions. As in "Do you like football, John?" "No, I don't" "What/how about you, Paul?" "I do, yes" (?"Y tu?") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.239.226 (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order

Where did the order of the alphabet come from? How was it decided that A was the first letter and Z was the last, for instance, or that alpha was first and omega was last, and so on? Smurrayinchester 14:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the song. Sorry! --LarryMac | Talk 14:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Alphabet#Alphabetic order. It doesn't cite a source, but it says that the earliest defined sequences have been found in some Ugaritic tablets (circa 1500-1300 BC). I think the best guess would be that the order was slowly adopted as a convention, which has been kept fairly stable through several thousand years. —Akrabbim^talk 15:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest version of the overall Phoenician-Greek-Latin alphabet order that we know about is that visible in the first 27 letters of the Ugaritic cuneiform alphabet (the last 3 letters of that alphabet are later additions within Ugaritic):

ʔ

b

g

ḫ

d

h

w

z

ḥ

ṭ

y

k

š

l

m

ḏ

n

ẓ

s

ʕ

p

ṣ

q

r

ṯ

ġ

t

By the way, I've been preparing a better version of the Ugaritic alphabet overview image; it will be resizable vector SVG instead of PNG, but needs more work to be ready... AnonMoos (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now at File:Ugaritic-alphabet-chart.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About Z in particular, this letter once used to be among the first few letters of the Roman alphabet, then was abolished as needless, and then was reinstated, but didn't have its original position restored but rather was placed at the end.

Note also that some languages have made certain minor revisions to their alphabetical orders.

Examples: In the alphabets of Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Faroese, Finnish and Estonian, letters like Å, Ä, Æ, Ö, Ø, Þ, Õ, Ü are placed at the end, after Z.

In addition, in the Estonian alphabet, Z and Ž come right after S and Š:

... P, R, S, Š, Z, Ž, T, U, ...

In the Lithuanian alphabet, Y comes right after I and Į:

... G, H, I, Į, Y, J, K, ...

In the Azerbaijani alphabet, X comes right after H, and Q comes right after K:

... G, Ğ, H, X, I, İ, J, K, Q, L, M, ...

In some alphabets, for example in the Hungarian one, digraphs and trigraphs are considered independent letters. Thus, the Hungarian alphabet consists of 40 letters (or 44, if you count the non-native Q, W, X and Y):

A, Á, B, C, Cs, D, Dz, Dzs, E, É, F, ...

In Hungarian dictionaries, the word cukor precedes the word csoda, because cukor begins with C, and csoda begins with Cs.

In the Tongan alphabet, Ng comes right after N, and ʻ comes right after V. --Theurgist (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having mentioned Tongan, let me not forget the Hawaiian alphabet, which, unusually, has all vowels first, then all other letters:

A, E, I, O, U, H, K, L, M, N, P, W. --Theurgist (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here's a version of the table showing which current Latin letters correspond to which letters in the first known alphabetic order:

ʔ

b

g

ḫ

d

h

w

z

ḥ

ṭ

y

k

š

l

m

ḏ

n

ẓ

s

ʕ

p

ṣ

q

r

ṯ

ġ

t

A

B

C G

D

E

F U V W Y

Z

H

I J

K

L

M

N

X

O

P

Q

R

S

T

Some things are a little more complex than can be shown in this format (particularly "s"-"X", which has a kind of structural relationship, but no actual shape correspondence with the Phoenician letter). AnonMoos (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carpentry - "fir", "furr" or "fur"

What is the correct term for adding wood studs or strips to thicken a wall

to "fir" out
to "furr" out
to "fur" out

also, does a carpernter: add wood "firring" add wood "furring"

These words and terms are widely used but inconsistantly spelled — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.118.194 (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furr, see Furring. 17:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that article does not use the related verb and so cannot answer the fur/furr question. My Merriam-Webster's Collegiate says that the verb meaning "to apply furring to" is fur. Deor (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Kn" in English

In Monty Python's Holy Grail, the French call Arthur and his knights something like "English k-nigts", pronouncing the "k" and thus making fun of the way "knights" in English is pronounced like "nights". But when did this "k-dropping" start? English surely must have pronounced the "k" at some point. As far as I am aware, in Swedish and German, which are both somewhat related to English, "kn" does have the "k" pronounced. JIP | Talk 19:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 October 16 for a recent discussion of this point. Mikenorton (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our page on the history of consonant clusters, it was likely 17th century, though it's lacing a reference. Lsfreak (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as significantly, where did the g and the h go in the pronunciation of knight? HiLo48 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the spelling "knight" originated, it was meant to indicate the pronunciation [kniçt] (or very similar), using IPA symbols... AnonMoos (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]