Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 October 26

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.

October 26

Magazine name

hi every one! i'm gonna start a new magazine! suggest me short stylich meaningful names of any language............... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.103.140 (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, what's the magazine about? You want a name that's actually relevant to the topic, not just some random word, right? (If you do just want some random word, try hitting Special:Random or wikt:Special:Random a few times till you find a word you like.) —Angr 07:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Will the name express something of your magazine's purpose or intent? Though it's a typo, "Stylich" sounds catchy for a mag about style, say. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Especially if the intended audience is liches. Or maybe it's Style-itch? —Tamfang (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"NEW!" usually catches the eye.--89.168.224.110 (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Truck driver who likes to drive in stocking feet

Moved to misc desk here . FiggyBee (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Subject / verb agreement

I received an email, and I was typing my reply. My very first sentence was this: Your email brings two thoughts to mind. I continued on, typing the rest of the email. Then, I went back to the very first sentence and I added in the following parenthetical: (and its accompanying questions). Now, my first sentence read: Your email (and its accompanying questions) brings two thoughts to mind. Mentally, I went back and forth 100 times, wondering if the verb should stay as singular brings or should be changed to plural bring. I was taught (I think?) that a parenthetical is absolutely irrelevant to sentence structure. The sentence should be able to stand alone if the parenthetical were completely removed. This leads me to believe that the correct verb should remain singular brings. However, at the same time, introducing the parenthetical seems to make the subject of the verb change from singular to plural. And hence require plural bring. No? So, here are my questions. (Question 1) In the new and revised sentence, with the added parenthetical, what exactly is the subject? Is it merely "your email" or is it "your email (and its accompanying questions)"? And, thus, what is the subject's appropriate verb? (Question 2) Would the answer to Question 1 change in any way if I rewrote the sentence by simply deleting the parentheses symbols and doing nothing else? In other words, is there any semantic / grammatical / linguistic difference between Sentence A and Sentence B below? Certainly, their substance and what they are communicating are exactly identical ... or no?

Sentence A: Your email (and its accompanying questions) brings two thoughts to mind.

Sentence B: Your email and its accompanying questions bring two thoughts to mind.

I understand that I can change words around, etc., to fix this problem. My question, though, presumes that I do not want to do so. Help! Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

I suggest that you start by reading this thread above, so that folks don't have to repeat the responses they made there. Afterwards, if you have any remaining questions, let us know what they are. Deor (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. I had not seen that above thread from a few days ago. But, on certain levels, neither did I find it helpful. Maybe some "language ref type" can help? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

The only difference I see is that A makes the questions a bit more subordinate. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case, it sounds like it's not even necessary to refer to the accompanying questions. If you received a letter, you wouldn't respond with "Thank you for your letter and its content". Whatever your response is, "your letter" refers not to the physical object that arrived in your letter box, but to the content of the communication. Same principle with an email, where the content can include the main message plus attachments. In some cases you may, in the body of your reply, need to refer to a specific attachment to identify a particular sentence you're commenting on, but your introductory thank you is all inclusive, whether there are attachments or not. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, you MUST formulate your sentence to read correctly when read out loud (i.e. where parenthetical marks are not possible). So it MUST be Your email (and its accompanying questions) bring two thoughts to mind. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.90.101 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It would help even more if you weren't quite so categorical in your responses. Please let your words speak for themselves, without the need to emphasise them unduly. If you believe there's one and only one correct answer to a controversial question, please provide your authority. (Btw, your answer to the thread above has been questioned as well.) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And, by the way: a sentence containing a parenthesis needs to make sense with the parenthesis deleted. Keeping this rule in mind can help you not put the closing ')' in the wrong place. —Tamfang (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Having commented on the sidekick related question above, I thought I should give my view here. It's exactly that: an opinion. The problem is the word "and". It seems to make the subject "your e-mail and ... questions" not just "e-mail" so a plural verb should follow. If you want to have a single subject - the e-mail - I would definitely suggest avoiding problems by saying something like "Your e-mail, as well as the accompanying questions, brings ...". But I can't see what stands to be gained by complicating this. So "Your e-mail and the accompanying questions bring ..." works for me. With one small exception, that "accompanying" seems to imply that the questions were somehow separate from the e-mail. This seems a bit odd. If the questions were in the e-mail, why not refer to "its questions" or "the questions is contains". If the questions were separate, why not say "Your e-mail and the questions sent in an accompanying note ..." or similar. That's if, as a careful writer, you think any of this really matters in this particular case.86.139.236.224 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Laugh(ing) like a drain

Where does this expression originate?--GreenSpigot (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This [1] says: "This is a UK phrase, from around the time of WWII. It is first recorded by Eric Partridge in A dictionary of forces' slang 1939–45, 1948. He describes it as 'Ward-room and also Army officers’ slang'". The etymology / sense seems unclear. The link speculates on some implied onomatopoeic gargling gurgling pun. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Could it be refwerence to the gurgling sound as when pouring water down the drain pipe?--GreenSpigot (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, it´s them gargoyles gurgling at the dentist´s spitoon I was laughing about in my Freudian slippers. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And possibly an open mouth/throat like a drain to produce the uninhibited noise? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Good name?

I met this guy (from India) a while ago on holiday and he asked me what my good name was, I had no understanding of what he meant until someone explained it to me, at which point I responded. When he said "good name" I thought it might be a type of name such as forename and surname.

When I went on holiday in summer, on the plane I saw a movie called Outsourced, in it, a man meets this Indian guy who asked him what his good name was, he also seemed quite confused. Why do some people ask "What is your good name?" and not just "What's your name?"?

I understand that they are complimenting your name, but that seems kind of wierd as they haven't even heard it yet - so how can you compliment it if you haven't heard it (the compliment seems almost insincere).

I live in the UK and have never heard this phrase used there, and I concider myself a well-travelled man and have only heard it the one time. I have never heard this phrase used in America either. So is this just a phrase used in India, or is it used anywhere else in the world? Thanks. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"Your good self" and "your good name" have a certain colonial/post colonial ring to them. Some things just become the uninspected bedrock drift of customary phrases, perhaps. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it like that, because I have heard "Your good self" many times before, but never thought about it like that (i.e. associated it with the oddity that is "your good name").W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In The Namesake (film) (about an Indian family in New York) the son's "good name" is mentioned several times. If I remember right, the son is given an informal name at birth, and later a "good name"; and in his teens he says he wants to change his "good name" from one of his given names to the other. —Tamfang (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So is that just the name they prefer to be called, like a nickname? W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I got the impression that it's a formal or ceremonial name. (It's best to indent by one more than whatever you're responding to.) —Tamfang (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Your good name" in the Indian context is the same as saying "your honorable name;" it is just an old way of being polite. In the other sense, your good name is your reputation, and this usage is quite common in American English. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's actually none of the above (although some replies, such as DOR's, come close). Here's the Oxford Companion to the English Language (p. 259): "When, for example, South Asian speakers of English ask, What is your good name?, they are transferring an expression from another language into English."

That expression is more like, "What is your auspicious name?" and, in the vernaculars themselves, it is considered a form of politeness. In other words, asking someone their name, matter-of-factly and unadorned, might be considered rude, especially in a society ridden with caste hierarchies where the (sur-) name itself is often a reliable clue to caste (and class) status. I should add that "good name" (in the Indian context) usually implies the full name, but it certainly includes the last name (or surname). After all, what would be the point of this verbal subterfuge on my part if my interlocutor's answer, say, in the form of only their first name, doesn't give me the ability to place them.

That is roughly how the expression got started. The people who use it in South Asia today might not be themselves translating it from another language; they might have actually learnt it in the English lessons, and for them, it is just a polite way of asking someone their name.

"What is your good name?" has been commented upon for at least the last 50 years and mocking it is the staple of Indian literary works in English. Its naive use today by someone is itself a marker of class status; the upper crust convent school educated crowd in South Asia wouldn't be caught dead using it. Even among the larger population, the expression might soon (sadly) become a casualty of the global leveling of speech ushered in by cable TV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

good doctor

On a distantly related note, how did "the good doctor" become a cliché? —Tamfang (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Dunno. Reminds me of what my father always used to call my mother, "Good my lady". —Angr 10:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

American 'save the world' films

Why is it that the 'President' on all films where America saves the world talks big but always speaks a type of English that makes him sound like he dropped out of school when he was 16? I know for a fact that educated Americans (and even American presidents!) do not talk like that. I am talking about Impact Earth and Independence Day, as well as others. Watching this stuff is like reading the Sunday Sport - full of emotive language and cliches.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I would guess that films portray American presidents as ignorant ill-educated fools is because they (usually) are! You say American presidents don't talk like that, I can't comment on Impact Earth or Independence Day as I havn't seen either, but they don't talk as if they are educated either. Generally, American presidents talk rubbish. I have never read the Sunday Sport, so I can't comment on that.

Generally fiction needs some realism - aliens, time travel and other obsurdities are within the realms of one's imagination, but an intellectual American president - now that's going too far. I suggest if you wan't something so impossible to be depicted in film, you make your own. Please don't take this paragraph too seriously!

It is believed by many people (not including me when talking about Americans in general) that Americans (especially American presidents) aren't very intelligent *understatement of the year*. Clearly the makers of the films you mention believe that playing on this cliche of a stereotype enhances their film in some way - this stereotype can be (and often is) exploited for great comic effect.

Hope that helps.W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Reference Desk is not a soapbox for diatribes about how much you despise people from some country other than your own. There are blogs for that sort of thing. Edison (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, you are making sense. Also (at the risk of this question becoming unrelated to language), why is it that the nuclear bomb is the answer to everything? Haven't the directors of these farcical films realised yet that the end of their stories are so incredibly predictable, with a President talking like a teenager and a nuke at the end? Oh, no, of course, these films are aimed at the uneducated masses (of which we have our fair share here in the UK, so this is not a dig at the US)....--ChokinBako (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

One doesn't watch a show like Independence Day for sophisticated writing. (Sophisticated visual effects, yes.) —Tamfang (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most people aren't very intelligent as you've outlined, and so the fact that most films share the same plot and are unbelievably predictable means nothing because most people are to stupid to notice. Quantum of Solace for example is coming out in 4 days and I'll probably go to see it (mainly for conversational purposes), even though I'm sure it will have a similar plot (if not the same) to every other Bond film made. It will probably also have many factual errors and continuity errors, none-the-less it will undoubtedly be a major success (just like Casino Royale).W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

One doesn't watch a movie such as Independence Day for the erudite dialogue because of the lack of erudite dialogue. Though I do wonder why one would watch a show like Independance Day at all.W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Bill Pullman's speech in Independence Day (film) is one of the greatest by any president real or fiction. Grsz^Review! 01:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In what way? I'm not saying you're wrong (as I haven't seen the film), I'm just enquiring. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Right, and the aliens' computer just happens to be able to understand DOS, or whatever other human computer language the virus was written in. Oh, and they also used a USB or some such other human interface. Total crap.--ChokinBako (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

From that statement, It does sound as if it is "total crap"! W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Independence Day does use the Hollywood OS and yes, it is rather predictable. But it's a fun movie. It's mental bubble gum and visually pretty cool for its time. It wasn't supposed to be the next Citizen Kane but it's a long way from Ishtar. As for Bill Pullman's speech, I don't remember it word for word but given that the speech was impromptu, not written by speech writers on the president's staff, and directed towards a bunch of refugees in their own country assembled on the tarmac who were portrayed as everyday Joes (I don't recall right now whether they were able to broadcast the speech at that point in the movie), I don't think that they did that bad with it. I wonder what the OP's opinion of Air Force One is... Dismas|^(talk) 05:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"full of emotive language and cliches" That's the way most politicians talk when they're making speeches for general consumption, regardless of nationality. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with the speech is that he claims July 4 will now be the world's Independence Day. Lame. There is a radio program from the British point of view that discusses that (Independence Day UK). By the way, is "Impact Earth" supposed to be Deep Impact? I would say Morgan Freeman is a better president than Bill Pullman but I don't recall his speech at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The speech is reminiscent of the President's speech in the final movie of Battlestar Galactica - very emotive and patriotic. And, it wasn't Deep Impact - although I do have the misfortune to have seen that, too. Impact Earth was a docudrama on Discovery Channel. As for Air Force One, I have not seen that, but was intending to until it came up in this thread. If there is any relevance at all to the theme of this thread, then I may give it a miss.--ChokinBako (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that this is the same Hollywood that caters to the lowest common denominator; it's not just that many are too dumb to notice, becasue if that was the case, there wouldn't be people complaining about it. However, there are people who complain a lot about how Hollywood "never makes anything original." And, the reason is because people pay for it, and that many times, studios are so afraid to make a mistake that they always try the "tried and true" formula, even if that formula is now all stale and moldy.

To keep this in language (marginally, anyway), it's so bad that someone told me once that, at the end of Bogie's speech ("If you don't go wtih...") in Casablanca, they heard a voice from behind them say, "That's so cliche." The idea of Hollywood making copies is so great that people just "presume" anything is going to be cliche, even if it's the original of something! If that's the case, where is the incentive of Hollywood writers to try any harder?Somebody or his brother (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're talking about quite a span of time since Casablanca was made. Young people who see Citizen Kane for the first time often ask what all the fuss was about and why it was considered so great. It had a huge list of innovations, most of which have become standard fare these days. But back then, it was truly a groundbreaker. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In order to be elected president, you have to be a "regular guy" that people can relate to. That's how George W. Bush beat Al Gore and why Bill Clinton was so popular. Americans like people who do "straight talk" and "cut the crap." This is true in other fields as well -- look at the popularity of people like Jack Welch and Mike Ditka. A boring intellectual like Ben Stein would not make a realistic American president. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Might have to go all the way back to the parody "Calvin Coolidge's Insane Last Speech[2]" to hear one that tops the recent fictional and actual idiotic utterances of some U.S. presidents. For a Brit example, one might consider some of the imagined utterances of Prince Phillip [3]. His actual utterances are about equal to the parody [4]. And all this mighty intellect gets passed along to future monarchs of that line. U.S. Presidents are not always the descendants of their maladroit predecessors, but unfortunately this sometimes happens. Edison (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, all the European monarchies are in-bred, aren't they? If you get one idiot saying stupid things and acting like Richard III, you'll get them all like that, after all it is hereditary. I'm surprised they haven't all got horrendous physical mutations to add to their suppressed brain capacity (Whoops! I said something naughty! I'd best beware of white FIATs next time I go driving!).--ChokinBako (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you suppose that the heir to a throne is "all ears?" Edison (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir Iain Moncreiffe observed that Europe's royal circle – the range of possible mates for kings – is about the size of a village; and through most of history very few people ever in their lives went more than a few miles from their birthplace; thus royalty is just about as inbred as most people throughout history until the railroads. —Tamfang (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

O-: Strange how noone has objected to the characterisation of Ben Stein, that evolution denier, as "intellectual". I completely agree with "boring", though. 92.224.244.224 (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What's relevant here is the persona he presents, rather than whether or not some of us think he's qualified for it. —Tamfang (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)