Language desk
< November 22	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	Current desk >

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.

November 23

Why is this OK? To use a singular noun after a number greater than one

We can say (correctly, I believe) either "John is six foot tall" ... or ... "John is six feet tall". I have always heard both, and both sound fine to me. But, it does seem odd in some way. How and why are they both correct? Is there some special rule of grammar, etc., that applies? How and why does the plural number of "six" (properly) attach to the singular word "foot"? I am referring to English in the USA. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiktionary:foot#Usage notes: "The ordinary plural of the unit of measurement is feet, but in many contexts, foot itself may be used ("he is six foot two"). This is a reflex of the Anglo-Saxon (Old English) genitive plural". Alansplodge (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article says:

'When used as an adjective, we use “foot,” which is the singular form. Let’s hear some examples: The children climbed a 15-foot tree. Here, the adjective is “15-foot” and it describes the noun “tree.”

Here’s another: I have a 10-foot ladder that you can borrow. Here, the adjective “10-foot” describes the noun “ladder.” Notice that both 15-foot and 10-foot come before the noun and there is a hyphen between the words. A hyphen is needed when a unit of measurement acts as an adjective.

When used as a noun, we use the plural form: feet. Take a listen: The tree is 15 feet high. Here, the noun is “15 feet” and the adjective is “high.”'

Alansplodge (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan is correct that "feet" is the standard plural for modern formal English, but the old usage goes back to Old English and the OED comments "Often in singular when preceded by numbers." An expression such as "six foot deep" that has been in use for a thousand years might be considered dated, but not wrong. Similarly, people in the UK often give their weight as so many stone, not stones. Dbfirs 14:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The correct way to say that would be "John is 182 cm tall." 131.251.254.154 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that raises an interesting point: While we sometimes use the singular in place of the expected plural for English terms of measurement (7 stone, etc), we never do the same for French terms - e.g. it's never 4 metre or 6 kilo or 2 litre, always metres and kilos and litres. Except in compound expressions like a 4-metre-tall ladder. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some people do use false singulars that way for metric units. I've heard things like "You are 182 centimeter high" from a doctor. Possibly this is a confusion from the fact that the symbols/abbreviations in the metric system do not pluralize. ("6 inches" often used to be abbreviated to "6 ins." rather than "6 in." but under SI metric rules 182 cm is always that and never 182 cms.) --76.69.116.4 (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you can have "a 182 centimetre stick" or "a 10 metre tape-measure", so adjectival use is the exception. Alansplodge (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article that Alansplodge uncritically quotes from above shows a catastrophic confusion of category and function, and has other problems besides. No, "15-foot" is not an adjective. No, "15 feet" is not a noun. Et cetera. The page is wretched, but unfortunately it's the kind of abysmal "source" that much of Wikipedia's coverage of English grammar is based on. Joseph A. Spadaro, you clearly have a great (and healthy, and laudable) interest in English. Please do yourself a favour and buy a copy of A Student's Introduction to English Grammar. And don't just dip into it for what particularly interests you at any given time; instead, go through it systematically, doing the exercises. For many people, grammar can never be a tremendously exciting subject, but I think you'll enjoy working your way through this book, which is palatably sized and priced. Having done this, you will have a far better understanding of English grammar than do the kind of people who confidently write tripe about grammar for popular websites. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Thanks for the comments and the insight. Yes, I do enjoy learning (more) about language, etc. I will look into that book you recommended. Many thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments User:Hoary, I am guilty as charged; it seemed a reasonable explanation on a quick read through. Do you have a better answer to the original question? Alansplodge (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your responses. Again, I wasn't knocking either the question or an answer, but instead the poor quality of the page that was cited (and more generally the poor quality of the kind of grammar-related "information" that one is likely to find via duckduckgoing). ¶ Having recommended SIEG, I must concede not only that it isn't of direct help here but also that, surprisingly, the huge book on which it's based isn't particularly helpful either. (I was recommending them for their reasoned, clear approach to English grammar, as opposed to the uncritical recycling of confusions that marks most "popular" writing on the matter.) ¶ The question turns out to be surprisingly interesting. We need some data first: we can use either introspection or one or more corpora (or of course both); for now, let's (lazily!) try the former. ¶ I'll ignore the minor matter of hyphens (instead spacing everything) and I'll use the convention of "*", "?" and no marking for, respectively, what's ungrammatical (for me), what's dubious (for me) and what's fine (for me); and so for example by "*metre/metres", I mean that the version with "metre" is ungrammatical but that with "metres" is fine (for me):

a six foot/feet tall fence
It's six foot/feet tall.
a six foot/*feet fence
a two inch/?inches long nail
It's two ?inch/inches long.
a two inch/*inches nail
a five mile/miles long canal
It's five *mile/miles long.
a five mile/*miles canal
a two ?metre/metres tall fence
It's two *metre/metres tall.
a two metre/*metres fence
a five centimetre/centimetres long nail
It's five *centimetre/centimetres long.
a five centimetre/*centimetres nail
an eight kilometre/kilometres long canal
It's eight *kilometre/kilometres long.
an eight kilometre/*kilometres canal

I'm a speaker of more or less standard English as a first language, but standard English may be your first language too and yet you and I may disagree. Do we? (Please follow your intuition about what does and doesn't sound right, not your ideas about what should or should not sound right.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I am a speaker of standard English, as a first language. Generally, yes, I'd say that we agree on these. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catalepsie de la reine de Huahine

I am trying to find the exact meaning of the "Catalepsie de la reine de Huahine" section in Chapter VII of the Cuzent book below. What is that about? Can someone help translate?

Cuzent, Gilbert (1872). "Catalepsie de la reine de Huahine". Voyage aux îles Gambier (Archipel de Mangarèva). Paris: V. Masson et Fils. pp. 136–138. OCLC 41189850.

Presumably it refers to the catalepsy of Tehaapapa III, "the last sovereign monarch of the Kingdom of Huahine".

"An old queen of the island of Huahine had an attack of what was thought to be catalepsy, during which she believed that she had visited the other world..." From Religious and Cosmic Beliefs of Central Polynesia, Volume 1 by Robert W. Williamson (1933) p. 373. Alansplodge (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to Teriitaria II. KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait but it also refers to how she woke up with worms on her back like she was prematurely buried alive as well. KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pending something better, below is a machine-aided translation, please feel free to edit this if you can do better (which won't be too difficult)...

"Here is the only case of catalepsy which the Tahitians remembered, and whose details they have told me: the old queen of Huahine having passed for dead, she was put her in a coffin, and after having been kept there for three days according to custom, she was placed in the vault reserved for the burial of the members of her family. There she was said to have been for nearly a month, until one day when the guardian of the tombs, hearing a noise in the vault found the queen, resuscitated and thrashing about (?) in her bier, in a deplorable state, her face and back showing ulcerated parts filled with worms. The queen's cure was long, and she retained deep scars. Asked about the life of the other world, she replied:

"I was mortal... I saw you crying near me; I heard your songs of mourning, the regrets of my fétis (parents). I considered in my heart and then went to a place that I can't describe, because I know of no such thing on the earth. I lived in a space surrounded by cool air, [I was] calm and light. I came and I went unceasingly, sliding like the wind, in the company of numerous people amongst which I saw my past acquaintances. They had become mute spirits, like I had become myself; I met them without ever being able to touch them. We understood each other without us talking; we crossed by each other in a thousand ways without ever bumping into each other. I was happy and I rejoiced that I was no longer in this world. When I conceived the desire to go to Tahiti, or to go to Huahine, or to Raiatea, I was there at once, and there I saw those who were dear to me. But that day, a powerful Genie appeared, who ordered my soul to return to its body. He told me that it was necessary for me to come back again to earth. I then sadly showed him my corpse, gnawed by worms, begging him to give me another body. In spite of my repugnance, in spite of my prayers, the Genie was inflexible, and I cannot say how I went back to my old person".

Alansplodge (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of mistakes of meaning, but mostly just stiff and awkward. This should be more understandable.

Retranslated.

Here is the only case of catalepsy that the Tahitians can remember, and of which they told me the details.

The old queen of Huahine having passed on, they placed her in a coffin, and after having remained there three days as was the custom, they placed her in a cave reserved for the tombs of family members. They said she was there for close to a month, when one day the guardian of the tombs heard a noise coming from the cave, and found the queen resuscitated and knocking on the coffin. She was in a deplorable state; her face and her back were ulcerated and full of worms. The queen's recovery was long, and deep scars remained.

Questioned about the netherworld, she responded: "I was dead! I saw you all crying over me; I heard your cries of grief, the sorrow of my Fétis (parents). I recognized that I was in my coffin, but then I went to some location that I am unable to describe, because I've never seen anything similar on Earth."

"I dwelled in this space, enveloped by calm, light, warm air. I came and went continuously, gliding like the wind, in the middle of lots of other people, among which were my acquaintances from before."

"They were silent spirits, as I was, myself. I met them, without ever being able to touch them. We understood each other without speaking; we crossed paths over and over without ever colliding. I was happy, and rejoiced the fact that I was no longer of this world."

"When I would have a wish to go to Tahiti, or Hauhine or Raiatea, then there I was instantly; and I saw my loved ones there."

"But during this sojourn, there was a powerful genie. After ordering my soul to rejoin my body, he told me it was necessary for me to go back to Earth again. I sadly showed him my cadaver devoured by worms, begging him to give me another body. Despite my revulsion, despite my prayers, the genie was adamant, and I just have no idea how I came back into my old body..."

Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take "stiff and awkward" as a compliment; better than "unintelligible"! Alansplodge (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]