Language desk
< September 1	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 3 >

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.

September 2[edit]

Auxiliary verbs[edit]

We often say in response to questions like "Do you work on weekends?" or "Will you come to the party?" with constructions like "I do" or "I will". How do the French do this (or do they just say oui?) The French don't have the modal verb "will" and don't use "do" like that, so any response to the equivalent questions "Travaillez-vous les week-ends?" or "Viendrez-vous à la soirée?" would be very long. As an aside, I forget the difference between le samedi and samedi, as in Le samedi, je ne vais pas au travail; can someone refresh my memory? 76.199.146.176 (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Le samedi" means "every Saturday", doesn't it? For the first question, they tend to repeat the verb, often with an object pronoun (so the answer to "Do you work weekends" could be "I work them"/"je les travaille"). Of course, that is really just an unusual feature of English. Can any language use auxiliaries like English does? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Adam here: yeah, the usual response (as far as I know) would be with a "yes" and repeating the verb. As in "tu viens a la soiree demain?"//"si, je viens".

As for other languages, well, Chinese doesn't have a system of "auxiliaries" comparable to English, but there are limited cases that are similar. For example, the verbs 要 yào and 会 huì are used for events someone intends to do, like English "will", and you can repeat them to answer a question, just like in English (although in Chinese you drop the subject in such a case). For instance, ni yihou hui bu hui zai lai zhongguo ya? ("will you come back to China in the future"?), hui a! ("I will!"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do the respective parties say their equivalent of "I do" at non-English weddings? (I should have some idea about this, being married in a Russian Orthodox Church, but the details are lost in the mists of time). -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They simply say "yes" (or "I agree", or stuff like that). Eliko (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples: Spanish usually Sí, quiero ("Yes, I want (to).") or Sí, acepto ("Yes, I accept."); French usually Oui (je le veux) ("Yes (I want it)."); Italian similarly Sì (lo voglio) ("Yes (I want it)."). Sorry for the lack of non-Romance examples; I'm sure verbs of volition and the word "yes" are also commonly used elsewhere (though I haven't seen "I agree"). I don't doubt that 202's response was something more complex than да though (maybe involving хотеть "to want"). -- the Great Gavini 09:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a possibly interesting aside, German has the noun Jawort ("yes-word", wiktionary translates it as "word of consent"), which is often used in the nuptial sense. dict.cc translates "das Jawort geben" as "to say 'I do'" and "das Jawort hauchen" as "to breath 'I will'". ---Sluzzelin talk 09:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

je dois, -rai = I shall

je veux = I will

je nécesse = I mot

je fais bien = I do

je sais = I can

je peux = I may

je dois = I owe

-lysdexia 15:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I alone in wanting to question almost the entire bullet point list above?86.135.25.224 (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No; lysdexia is a banned troll. It's just nonsense. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bishop is a libeller and malapropist, abusive of users and things he doesn't understand. See how he doesn't back up anything he says? My edits are as earnest as anyone's.

An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other (electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect, but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or the act of sending such a message. Trolling aims to elicit an emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply key. A really subtle troll makes some people lose their minds. (1994-10-17)

The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © Denis Howe 2010 http://foldoc.org

an internet user who sends inflammatory or provocative messages designed to elicit negative responses or start a flame-war. (As a fisherman trolls for an unsuspecting fish.) : Don't answer those silly messages. Some troll is just looking for an argument.

There is no bullet list; it's a list, with a indent. Nothing's wrong with it. If you can tell me/us of any flaws, then do so; otherwise, 86, you'd be as bad as these crooked admins. sais is the best thruwend for can for want of a scis (of Latin scire). scire means cunnan, and therefore scientia cunninghead. Writers are often not lingvists, are clueleas of English roots, and thus will often tell ye malliterate paradighms for English. I know in Francish would be je gnais.

lysdexia isn't wholly banned but indefinitely blocked. -lysdexia 21:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.79.3 (talk)

I'm almost sure that most (if not all) of the human languages have both: "Yes" and "Yes I was", as legitimate responses to "Were you there?", and the like. What still interests me is whether there's any human language, other than English, that has the following stuff: Question: "<word> you see?" (i.e "Do you see?") Answer: "Yes I <word>" (i.e. "Yes I do"), while the <word> is the same word in the question and in the answer (anyway, the <word> doesn't need to have anything to do with the verb to do, however I don't care if it does have). Eliko (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you won't allow <word> to be an auxiliary verb in the conditional mood (e.g.: <word> = "would" in English). Am I correct? ---Sluzzelin talk 08:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what the <word> means (so it may mean "would"), however, as I have already pointed out, the meaning of the whole conversation should be: Question: "do you see?" Answer: "Yes I do", and the whole conversation should go like this: Question: "<word> you see?" Answer: "Yes I <word>", the <word> being the same word in the question and in the answer.

Additionally. the verb "see" is an example only, and can be replaced by any other verb.

Eliko (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I misunderstood. My example (German) only works in the conditional, and means "would you want it". Swiss German dialects have an unpredictable way of sometimes using "tuä" ("to do" / "to make") as an auxiliary verb in the indicative mood, and you could ask: "Tuäsch es welle?" ("Do you want it"). But to answer with "Ja, ich tuä" or even "Ja, ich tuä's" would be highly artificial if not incorrect. You'd either just say "Ja." or perhaps "Ja, ich tuä's welle", but more likely you'd avoid the auxiliary verb construction and say "Ja, ich wott's". ---Sluzzelin talk 08:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say that to answer with "Ja, ich tuä" or even "Ja, ich tuä's" would be highly artificial if not incorrect. I don't care whether it's incorrect, but can one here this (at least rarely) from native Swiss adults? Eliko (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by incorrect, I meant that it goes against a native speaker's intuition (at least against mine). There is no standard grammar taught in Swiss German. Formally, the dialects aren't taught at all to native speakers, and this makes its usage fluid even within a particular dialect. Though I can't exclude that my artificial example has been uttered, it just doesn't sound right. Sorry, that's all I got, but I'll ask around. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Eliko (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're going to find other languages that do this; English is widely accepted to be one of the only (if not the only known) language that has do-support. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm not sure about yet, because for being sure one must scan all of the human languages, and I haven't done that yet. Anyways, English is not the only known language that has do-support, because in Swiss German too, one could ask: "Tuäsch es welle?" (i.e. "Do you want it"?), although one can't answer: "Ja, ich tuä" nor "Ja, ich tuä's" (i.e. "yes I do"), as Sluzzelin has pointed out. Eliko (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I need to emphasize that "Wottsch es?" (without auxiliary verb) would be the standard way of asking "Do you want it?". It works better with verbs that, unlike "welle", can't be modal verbs in their own right. And I think it mainly depends on which sounds less awkward. Examples: Intransitive "Tuesch söile?" ("Are you making a mess?") sounds much better than "Söilsch?", while transitive "Tuesch es ässe" ("Are you going to eat it?") and "Issisch es?" are both acceptable. "Tuä" is also often used as an auxiliary in the imperative mood, particulary when the sentence is negative. I'd probably say "Tuä's nöd ässe!" (Don't eat it!) instead of "Iss es nöd!", but both are correct and commonly used. Finally, in some German dialects, not just Swiss, "tuä" is also used as an auxiliary verb in the conditional mood ("Täätsch das welle?" = "Would you want that?"). Here the usage is similar to that of "würde" in Standard German or "would" in English.---Sluzzelin talk 11:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish has no such auxiliary verbs as "do" or "will". Instead, verbs are declined in four cases: indicative (example: lähden "I leave"), conditional (example: lähtisin "I would leave"), potential (example: lähtenen "I probably leave") and imperative (example: lähde "leave!"). Responses to yes/no questions are made simply by repeating the verb in the same declination as in the question. However, Finnish does have verbs that can have other verbs as objects, similarly as in English, for example haluta "to want", uskaltaa "to dare", etc. As for weddings, the general question is tahdotko sinä M.M. ottaa tämän N.N.:n puolisoksesi? "Do you M.M. want to take this N.N. as your spouse?" and the response is tahdon "I want". JIP | Talk 08:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"tahdotko sinä..ottaa" means "will you take" and "tahdon" means "I will". -lysdexia 15:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the accepted meaning in the wedding protocol, but literally, tahdon means "I want". JIP | Talk 16:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about periphrastic tenses?[edit]

However, what would be the answer if the tense is periphrastic? For example, Avez-vous vu le chat?. Is the answer full "Si, j'ai le vu", or is perhaps "Si, j'ai" acceptable? In my native tongue, we just repeat the auxiliary, but to my very limited French, "Si, j'ai" sounds somewhat crippled. No such user (talk)

I don't know about French, but in Finnish, this question uses the perfect tense of the verb, which is expressed with the auxiliary verb olla "to be". The full question (using the singular second person for clarity) is Oletko nähnyt kissan? and the answer is simply Olen. JIP | Talk 09:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, surely? -- the Great Gavini 09:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Si is used only to answer negative questions or statements. Oui is the correct answer in this case. You can also say Oui, je l'ai vu. but not Oui, j'ai since it wouldn't mean anything to me, I would think that you are trying to say yes, I own which in this context would be very surprising, I would ask Vous avez quoi?. --Lgriot (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is Leeuwenhoek pronounced?[edit]

As in Anton van Leeuwenhoek. --75.33.216.97 (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have it here. --Omidinist (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italian dentals[edit]

I am learning Italian from Pimsleur recordings. According to our articles on Italian phonology and Denti-alveolar consonant, Italian /d/ and /t/ are dental or denti-alveolar. Now, on the Pimsleur recordings, one of the speakers seems to have a mostly denti-alveolar articulation, but another seems to have an alveolar articulation. Is the latter a regional or social variant in Italian, or are my ears deceiving me? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago I got the 1st set of Pimsleur recordings for learning Russian. One of the benefits but also frustrations was that not every native speaker sounds the same—I strongly suspect simple regional variation. It was more of an issue with Russian as I would try to figure out the Cyrillic spelling from the sound, it's less obvious with Russian where you have probably five different variations on the "i" sound. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

was used to[edit]

in some books you see "I was used to [infinitive]" whereas today we say "I used to [infinitve]" or at a pinch "I was used to [participle]"> Is the first usage still correct? What is the difference? 76.229.183.8 (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the context. These can mean different things. "I was used to X" can mean "I was accustomed to X" (i.e., "Back then I was used to running every day, but not anymore"). On the other hand, "I used to X" means "I habitually did X", as in "when I was little I used to go to the beach every summer". I don't think I've ever seen "I was used to [infinitive]" in English, and I don't know what it would even mean. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I was used to [infinitive]" isn't anything a native speaker would say, except perhaps while inebriated. "I was used to [gerund]" would unambiguously mean "I was accustomed to [gerund]", not "I used to [infinitive]". But the OP is vague. S/he writes, "In some books you see..." but just what books are these? In order to assess the writer's purport, we'll have to see the phrase in context. LANTZY ^TALK 05:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I was used to shore up the number of men in the group." Matt Deres (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or "I was used to run errands". And here's where the oddities of "use" come into play. If you say "used" with a soft "s", it sounds like bad English in those sentences, becaused "used to" with a soft "s" means "accustomed to" (unless there are some regions where they say it like a "z" in those circumstances). I wonder where that expression comes from anyway. But if you say it with a "z" sound, those sentences mean "employed to" or possibly "exploited to", and are good English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymonline [1] unexpectedly lists used to under the verb form of use (that is, the "z" form). "The pronunciation is affected by the t- of to", apparently. It seems to say that, archaically, there was a present tense "I use to" construction... so I guess "I use to go running" would have meant "I go running regularly". 213.122.3.229 (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember being told when I was very young that "I used to <infinitive>" is common and vulgar, and the 'proper' way to speak is "I used <infinitive>" (e.g. I used like bananas, but I prefer strawberries now). That advice never rang true then, even in a family that prided itself on how teddibly correct it could be in an upper middle class sort of way, and it doesn't now. What this has to do with anything is marginal, but I thought I'd throw it into the mix. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they really told you that, they needed to go back to school themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's "was used to [gerund]" being the proper form of which "was used to [infinitive]" is simply bad grammar. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question about "used to"[edit]

I have read from an American comic that when used as an active verb, "used to" retains the "d" even when used with the "do" auxiliary verb, such as "didn't you used to...?" To me, this sounds wrong. Is this correct usage or not? JIP | Talk 14:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Auxiliary verbs take the imperative mood. -lysdexia 15:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not correct, as you probably know, that auxiliary verbs are always imperatives (!), but you are right that "didn't you used to..." is incorrect. It should be "didn't you use to...". (In colloquial American English, though, both forms are pronounced identically.) Marco polo (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the subordinate verb is imperative. -lysdexia 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.168.136 (talk)

Indicative?86.135.25.224 (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's neither the imperative nor the indicative but the infinitive. In this case the form of the infinitive without "to" - in its turn it governs another infinitive, in this case with "to" --rossb (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A simple explanation for ESL learners, and a similar thing with a little more explanation. When I'm having a blank moment, I find these things 'ping' me back into the language and I wonder what I was thinking! You can substitute in another verb like like, and it becomes clear: "I liked to eat..."/"I didn't like to eat...", adding the corollary that "used to do something" is always in the past. Interestingly (to me), discussion of used to (for example, in Imperfect) seem to treat it as a phrase, whereas I thought it broke down as "(I) (used) (to eat)..." and "(I) (didn't) (use) (to eat)...", with the to forming part of the infinitive. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from banned user closed

Irregular elative cases of Semitic/Qhàŕàbijhh?: ŕàkhmàn[edit]

Elative (gradation) says the masculine singular elative case makes aCCaC; therefore for the adjectival ŕàkhim its elatend must be -àŕkhàm. ŕàkhmàn bewrays the indefinite accusative or adverbial ending, but there's a nuwn instead of a fàthàtàn. Where'd this word come from? How about the Qhibiŕiqht word ŕaxmàni? -lysdexia 15:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.168.136 (talk)

some background:

http://www.reocities.com/spenta_mainyu/Islam2.htm

Let us look into this name, Rahman, and try to find where it would lead us. Rahman is not Arabic but Syriac, and the original is Rahmono, meaning ‘the merciful’ (actual name of this supreme being was Rahman ‘the Merciful’). D. B. MacDonald in the Encyclopaedia of Islam wrote: “It is almost certain that the prophet has borrowed the sentence ‘Bism-el Rahman’ from Southern Arabia” where this monotheistic belief system had existed [in fact the expression has become “Bism’el (Lah el) Rahman,” which means ‘with the name (of the god Lah) the merciful’].

The research done on the texts shows us that this name Rahman was borrowed by the southern Arabians from Aramaic and Hebrew, then turned into Rahmanan and shortened into Rahman. Here I would like to remind you that the Sabians and other peoples of Mesopotamia used the name Rahman also as the name of god.

http://books.google.com/books?id=WBx2ejzo_v0C&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=Rahmono

The ending /an/ in the Qur'anic word "Al Rahman" represents the Eastern dialect of Syriac.

-lysdexia 17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.168.136 (talk)

Ah, lysdexia (talk · contribs), before we attempt to figure out what you are saying this time, it will be useful to remind you that you will have to wait much, much longer before people forget that you are banned. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was banned wrongly, by a liar, and the terms and talks a'leading up to then were forgotten by all other parties. Does that or the policies of Wikipedia not matter to you? I had not broken any. -lysdexia 17:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.168.136 (talk)

You're a nonsensical troll and attempting to answer your questions here will be beyond unproductive. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're a hýpocritical liar, one of the many online who takes [or flings] words he hasn't a clue the meaning of. I never troll or mess or goad. If you hadn't a constructive edit here, you're the exemplar of eirony in how not to work. -lysdexia 18:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.168.136 (talk)

Singular or plural[edit]

I want one of these certificates
I want one of this certificates

Which one is correct?--180.234.28.102 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"These". —Angr (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks Angr.--180.234.28.102 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is "these" because it's plural. "I want this certificate," would be the correct use of "this." Falconus^{p t c} 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Italian question[edit]

I know that my log-in name suggests that I am a native Italian speaker, but I am not. (I chose the name because of my interests in history, geography, and travel.) Anyway, I am learning some Italian in preparation for a trip to Italy. I will be traveling with my male partner, who speaks almost no Italian. I anticipate needing to say My friend and I... a lot. Here is my question: If I say Io e il mio amico... does this imply that he is my boyfriend/partner? I ask because if I Google this phrase, I see more instances of Io e un mio amico... ("I and a friend of mine..." or "A friend and I...") I am wondering if Italian is like German, where mein Freund usually means "my boyfriend/partner", and you have to say ein Freund or ein Freund von mir to mean "my friend". Can anyone answer? (He is in fact my partner, but I want to be conscious whether I am outing myself due to the possibility of a homophobic reaction.) Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native Italian. Don't worry, amico only means friend. You have to avoid Io e il mio ragazzo (me and my boy/guy) which almost universally means lover. Have a good trip here, Marco! --151.51.145.104 (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]