Language desk
< March 27	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 29 >

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.

March 28[edit]

Use of phrase "General elections"[edit]

Can an opinion be given on the following discussion Use of phrase "General elections". This revolves around what is grammatically correct. Many thanks WTKitty (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the examples which the other editor there linked to, the plural form appears to be an Indian subcontinental/African variant. Suitable for those contexts, but it would be very unusual in e.g. UK usage. Henry ^Flower 17:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So this most likely is a case of WP:ENGVAR, right? –H T D 17:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a case of ENGVAR. Use of "general elections" can be found everywhere – the examples that come up in the Google News example are there primarily because those countries are holding elections at the moment. Number 5 7 17:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected numerous articles about Australian elections that had things like "~~General elections were~~ A general election was held throughout Australia on Saturday 9 December 2193". There was only 1 general election on such a day. Our media is full of people who just can't seem to get these sorts of details right, and that feeds into our national consciousness of not really caring about such trifles. We reserve our passion for really important things, like cricket. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HTD this looks like it falls in WP:ENGVAR. Reliable sources will though be required to back up the uses and variants. WTKitty (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I hope you set an example by changing that article to read "A general election was held throughout Australia on Saturday 7 December 2193." 2.29.29.198 (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not one for setting examples; I just do my own thing and the consequences be damned. All I know is, millions of people around the world seem to follow and worship me. I never asked for this adulation. One grows so weary of fame. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Basque - verbs receiving a case suffix?[edit]

Hi,

For a machine learning project I have to work with Basque text. Unfortunately, I don't read or speak Basque. I am trying to understand the basics of the case suffixes system. As far as I understand, these suffixes mark the grammatical role of nouns. However, I have seen several sentences, in which verbs, rather than nouns, seem to be marked by suffixes. For example: "Hitz-ak [words, abs. pl3] Telesforo Monzon-ek [Telesforo Monzon, erg. sg3] idatzi-ak [the verb write, with abs. pl3 suffix] dira [they are]” (the words are written by Telesforo Monzon). Why does the verb idatziak appears with the -ak suffix?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.101.131 (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not a case but a number suffix. I don't know Basque but I found that this ist probably a so called "passive" form, where "the untensed verbal element takes a determiner marker agreeing in number with the absolutive phrase", so "written" must be plural because "words" is plural : http://basdisyn.net/pdf/9259-34917-1-PB.pdf (page 1).

Remark that this remembers me to the equivalent Italian construction: "idatzia/idatziak" would be a past participle taking a singular or plural (and m/f) ending depending on the number (and genus) of the subject. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]

We have an article on Basque verbs. No such user (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the following remark from that very article answers the question asked by the IP: "Finite verbs that have an argument in the dative case also index the dative argument using the following set of dative suffixes (which are identical in form to the ergative suffixes except in the third person)." Marrakech (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the explanation above as a "passive" construction is not answering the question? But I cannot see any ending -ak in your table of dative suffixes, beside that the three elements in our phrase have explicitly absolutive (ak), ergative (ek) and again absolutive (ak) endings, no sign of "arguments in the dative case" in it. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]