Language desk
< July 10	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 12 >

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.

July 11[edit]

Is this sentence grammatically correct?[edit]

"What is the scientific name of A lion?" I have a feeling it is, but... 67.243.7.245 (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably say, "What is the scientific name of the lion," meaning the species name we give to lions (Panthera leo), as opposed to an individual lion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, but as you can see, some people think differently. I think "a ***" is an idiom, but can't think of many examples and don't know if it applies in this case. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also "for a lion" would work. Whichever you choose, neither "the" nor "a" should be capitalised. Maedin\^talk 13:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idiom-Phrases help[edit]

Please help me to solve the questions below.(Change the underlined word with correct Idiom-Phrases choosing from brackets.)

1)The father was well-content with his child's performance.(Well pleased, Overjoyed, Throughly satisfied)

2)The orphanage is the place where the children who are uncared are admitted.(Neglect, Without take care)

3)He is most lively boy in our class.(gayest lady, bad boy, lazy boy) Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 12:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When we give help with homework, we usually expect you to tell us what you think first and then we will confirm or otherwise. Could you do this please? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have written in my test these answer:1)throughly satisfied, 2)Without taken 3)gayest lady.So,I just wanted to check if I am right or not.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 14:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are the original sentences supposed to make sense and be idiomatic? Are the new sentences with your chosen phrases supposed to carry the same meaning as the original sentences? And are you sure you've copied them here accurately? 86.164.57.20 (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the supposed replacements for 2 and 3 is correct. And I have no problem with the original version of 1. 2 should be "neglected" or "uncared for". 3 should be "the liveliest boy", "the worst boy" or "the laziest boy". You wouldn't say "He is the gayest lady" unless you were being sarcastic. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 3 could also be "the bad boy" in the idiomatic sense of "bad boy". 2 is just a mess though. All the options for 1 are okay. (except it should be "thoroughly", not "throughly") Indeterminate (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that are uncared is underlined, so you need to make sure you include a replacement for both words, not just uncared. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English, semicolons, I don't know exactly[edit]

I am reading a math history book but my question is not about the math at all. I want to make sure I understand which results are attributed to which person.

"L Euler noted (as had Leonardo) that

p^{2}\pm 5q^{2}

are both squares for p=41, q=12;

p^{2}\pm 7q^{2}

both squares for p=337, q=120. He made

p^{2}\pm aq^{2}

squares also for a=6, 14, 15, 30."

Clearly this attributes the $p^{2}\pm 5q^{2}$ to both Euler and Leonardo. And, it seems clear that $p^{2}\pm aq^{2}$ is attributed only to Euler for a = 6, 14, 15, 30. My question is, do you think this attributes $p^{2}\pm 7q^{2}$ to Euler and Leonardo or just to Euler? Thanks StatisticsMan (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost sure that the author meant the following:

"L Euler noted (as had Leonardo) that $p^{2}\pm 5q^{2}$ are both squares for p=41, q=12; [and that] $p^{2}\pm 7q^{2}$ [are] both squares for p=337, q=120. He made $p^{2}\pm aq^{2}$ squares also for a=6, 14, 15, 30."

Or rather:

"L Euler noted (as had Leonardo) that: [1]. $p^{2}\pm 5q^{2}$ are both squares for p=41, q=12; [2]. $p^{2}\pm 7q^{2}$ [are] both squares for p=337, q=120. He made $p^{2}\pm aq^{2}$ squares also for a=6, 14, 15, 30."

So this attributes

p^{2}\pm 7q^{2}

to both Euler and Leonardo.

Had the author intended to attribute

p^{2}\pm 7q^{2}

to Euler only, they'd have had to associate the middle clause (by the semicolon) with the last clause, rather than with the first clause. e.g. they could have written something like:

"L Euler noted (as had Leonardo) that $p^{2}\pm 5q^{2}$ are both squares for p=41, q=12. He also noted that $p^{2}\pm 7q^{2}$ [are] both squares for p=337, q=120; and made $p^{2}\pm aq^{2}$ squares also for a=6, 14, 15, 30."

To sum up, my point is double: 1. the semicolon, which associates the middle clause with the first clause rather than with the last clause - which is separated by a full stop from the middle clause. 2. The words "He made" which are mentioned - for the first time - with regard to

p^{2}\pm aq^{2}

, while the words "L Euler noted (as had Leonardo) that" were still "active" - as long as the words "He made" hadn't been uttered yet.

HOOTmag (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well this is how I read it as well but I wanted to be sure. StatisticsMan (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suspect you can't be "sure", but rather "almost sure"...:) HOOTmag (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian language and Japanese characters[edit]

What are the Japanese characters used in the title of this movie: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_n35PfUpWyak/S3mzEf7R_fI/AAAAAAAAT0w/7qVABqG4Gxg/s400/Trop+Japan.JPG - I need them in text so I can file a translation request on the Japanese Wikipedia

And which scandinavian language is used in this film poster? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_n35PfUpWyak/S3myzGRIXYI/AAAAAAAAT0o/The__uyUKCo/s400/Trop+Poster+1.jpg

The film in question is Trop jolies pour être honnêtes.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish for the Scandinavian poster. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) - Translation request question posted at sv:Wikipedia:Bybrunnen#Translation_requests WhisperToMe (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's 女の望遠鏡 in Japanese - Onna no bōenkyō "A/The woman's telescope". Steewi (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Steewi! WhisperToMe (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Doubt" - dialect, or changed meaning?[edit]

I'm just read Silas Marner by George Eliot. Goodness it was good, although that's not really relevant to my question :)

I noticed that speakers often use the word doubt to talk about what they think is going to happen, or has happened, or is happening. The thing is, they always use it where I would use don't doubt: that is, the word appears to have the exact opposite meaning to them that it has for me.

For example, they say, "I doubt it might" where clearly they mean (as I would say) "I don't doubt it might". That is, they think it is likely to be the case.

Is this simply a dialectal usage, given that George Eliot is quite familiar with and good at portraying the local dialect? Or is this a case of a word completely flipping its meaning since the 19th century? I've not encountered this use before. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I doubt" means here: "I suspect". HOOTmag (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some *oogling implies that in the Midlands dialect to doubt is a synonym for to suspect. It seems that both Shakespeare and George Eliot (both from Warwickshire) use the verb in this meaning. Resident linguists will expand on that. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live about 5 miles from George Eliot country and I've never come across that meaning of "doubt" - though I don't doubt it could have changed over the last 200 years! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) ::The OED's meaning 5b, "To fear, be afraid (that something uncertain will take or has taken place)" is marked as "arch[aic] and dial[ect]". --ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it in other Victorian novels—for instance, telling someone inquiring after a person "I doubt he's gone to town," where we would say "I'm afraid he's gone to town" or "I think he's gone to town." (That example's in Wilkie Collins's No Name, I seem to recall.) It appears to have been in wider use than just Midlands dialect in the 19th century. Deor (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a parallel with se douter in French. Douter on its own means to doubt; douter de means to question (je doute de sa veracité, I question his truthfulness). The reflexive se douter means to suspect (je m'en doute qu'il a trouvé un autre emploi, I suspect he's found another job). --- OtherDave (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiktionary, not surprisingly, says that to doubt entered the English language from Latin via Old French and Anglo-Norman. OtherDave may be correct, assuming that the "archaic" meaning had survived in TammyMoet´s backyard. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's commonplace here in Northern Ireland. -- the Great Gavini 19:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and also common in my part of northern England, though it is probably dying out. Dbfirs 21:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember encountering this usage of "doubt" when I read Five Red Herrings, which takes place in Kirkcudbrightshire, though the author herself was English so I don't know how reliable her representation of Scots is. +An gr 12:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I first noticed this usage as an Englishman living for a time in Scotland, where it appeared to me to be standard, so I think Sayers had it right. It's sometimes difficult to judge whether a Scot is speaking English with local dialectical variations and influences from Scots, or actual Scots with English influences, and opinion is divided as to whether Scots is a dialect of English or a closely related sister language: I myself incline towards the latter position. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scots shares most of its vocabulary and grammar with northern English (where our dialect is closer to "Scots" than to "standard English"). It was a political decision that made it a separate "language". Dbfirs 16:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having Geordie maternal grandparents made me aware of the affinities! I think the difficulty is that there is, as in many other places, a 'continuous spectrum' of forms, with the Scottish-English border imposing a linguistically arbitrary division along it. However, having experienced both 'English English' and pure Scots (which I can understand aurally only to an extent and read slightly better, after exposure over several years) my feeling is that the 'ends of the spectrum' are discrete languages even though they merge imperceptibly midway. Also, everyday Scots has I understand been drifting closer to modern 'English English' somewhat since 1707, and more quickly over the last century because of the latter's preponderance in the UK media, but that they were previously rather more distinct, so the modern political support for Scots as a distinct language is merely restoring an earlier situation. Ultimately, we must remember that speech is what it is, and our definitions of 'language' and 'dialect' are artificial and probably over-simplifications. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. So, would it be accurate to say it is both dialectal and a flip in meaning over the years? Is the dialect use a last hold-out of a previously common meaning, which has been mostly lost? And does this mean that, to most contemporary readers, the use in Silas Marner would sound archaic and dialectal? 86.164.57.20 (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is "myself" an adverb in "I did it myself"?[edit]

I'm writing something in which I need to discuss the grammar of the sentence, "I did it myself". I want to say that "myself" is an adverb there, but I'm not absolutely certain that's correct. Any English grammarians around? Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Intensive pronoun. Deor (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes. this construction is just an abbreviated form that drops the 'by' preposition ("I did it by myself"), which would make it clear that it was pronoun used as a (reflexive) indirect object. --Ludwigs2 17:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deor is clearly correct (my very sentence actually appears as an example there), and that's the info I needed -- thanks. Looie496 (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is elliptical for "by myself" then it's a prepositional phrase, not a pronoun.22:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

But it isn't. At least, not always. Depending on context, "I did it myself" can have two different meanings—either you did it by yourself without any other help, or you want to stress that you specifically did it. An example of the second case would be if someone asked you whether anyone had checked a piece of machinery to be working, to which you could reply "I did it myself". This doesn't necessarily mean you did it *by* yourself. 173.66.161.221 (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, never mind, I misread. I thought you were asserting it's always a elliptical prepositional phrase. My bad. 173.66.161.221 (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, on the other hand, am prepared to assert that Ludwigs is wrong, and it is hardly ever an elliptical prepositional phrase. In most cases the constructions are structurally and semantically different. Nor is "by myself" an indirect object, as it is an adjunct not a complement of the VP. But I do agree that neither "myself" nor "by myself" is an adverb. --ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinal notation with superscript and -d[edit]

Are ordinals that use the "d" notation (i.e. 22d or 53d) ever used with subscript (22^d or 53^d)? Samwb123^T-C-E 21:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sure, especially in the form 22^nd or 53^rd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.71.228 (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Typography says the following.

The ordinal suffix (e.g., th) is not superscripted (23rd and 496th, not 23^rd and 496^th).

—Wavelength (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinal_indicator#English - do superscript it, it makes you elegant and educated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.68.163 (talk • contribs)

The OP is also referring to the use of d instead of rd. I see this used in military designations such as 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment (United States). I don't know that we have a guideline on that use. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am talking about d instead of nd and rd. Actually, I am asking this per Template talk:Ordinal#Edit request (revised). Samwb123^T-C-E 02:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]