Language desk
< February 18	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 20 >

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.

February 19[edit]

Comparative Frequency List[edit]

I'm looking for a frequency list of phonemes across languages, besides the UPSID. So that I can see in how many languages there exists a sibilant, in how many exists a voiced sibilant, and in how many exists a voiced alveolar sibilant, and in how many languages palatalization can occur in a certain environment, etc. Can anyone help? Ideally, a breakdown of (phonemically contrastive) phones based on their frequency in the world's languages would be helpful. Deshi no Shi (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't even have a reliable list of the world's languages, so that's a tall order. But maybe we'll get lucky... kwami (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classic book that can help answer some of these questions is Ian Maddieson's Patterns of Sounds (1984). AnonMoos (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See "WALS - Features" (The World Atlas of Language Structures Online).

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaves of Grass- Semantic shift?[edit]

In Walt Whitman's poem, Leaves of Grass, there is a line in which he says, "young well-hung men..." I was wondering if the phrase "well-hung" meant the same thing then that it means now? I though perhaps it could just be a reference to virility, strength, fertility, etc. But then again Whitman was rather open about his homosexuality, so it could be a not so subtle reference to his preference for large genitalia. Any thoughts? 216.165.24.158 (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle. The Oxford English Dictionary has a main entry for "well-hung" with definition "1.a." being "Furnished with large pendent organs; spec. (of a man) having large genitals." The first citation for the genital sense is from Dryden, 1681, but I don't understand it. The next is from 1823. There is no usage note. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where in Leaves of Grass does this line occur? I can't find it. Lantzy ^talk 02:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The details don't match, but Google books has something about this being removed from an expurgated edition. Algebraist 02:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a feeling it was in the preface. DuncanHill (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thoroughbly[edit]

Is thoroughbly a word? It sounds right in the phrase "thoroughbly enjoyable" and has a lot of google hits but isn't in the dictionary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.38.138 (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not normally considered a word. It seems to be a nonstandard variant of thoroughly. Algebraist 01:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Onbly if you habe a cold. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or are a character in Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids. —Tamfang (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's with this type of punctuation[edit]

I see it in the captions for Time magazine's photos all the time. It's goes like "Sentence 1. Sentence 2. Sentence 3" There's no period for sentence 3, which is where the caption ends. It makes sense to me, since it's only a short description and less than a paragraph, so the periods just serve to separate the sentences. Is there a name for this? 67.169.118.40 (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each house has its style. The Wikipedia Manual of Style, for instance, is incomplete. It calls for no period at the end of a caption unless it's a sentence. "If a complete sentence occurs in a caption, that sentence and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period." It doesn't say what to do with two or more fragments. Time' s rationale is easy to imagine, that a fragment should not get a period at the end, and a sentence should, but a succession of fragments must be separated by periods for readability. I don't know of a name for any caption-punctuating scheme. I looked in the Associated Press Stylebook, the Chicago Manual of Style, and an old book I had lying around, The Art of Editing, for a term to no avail. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC) --Milkbreath (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Go on fire"[edit]

One increasingly hears people saying that something "went on fire" instead of "caught fire". Where (and when) did this (to my ear) bizarre usage arise? DuncanHill (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I've ever heard it, but I imagine it's a sort of semantic back-formation from "to be on fire". —An gr 09:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's but one example of a type of "made-up-as-we-go-along grammar" I often hear from people in their late teens > early 20s. Another example would be "she and I's" (instead of "her and my"), or "She goes to me" (which seems to be a rather dubious hypercorrection of the equally dubious phraseology "she goes", meaning "she said"; "she goes" has become, at least, for better or worse, more-or-less entrenched among a certain group of people, but I don't think "she goes to me" has the same degree of idiomatic currency). Lots of other examples. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the "she and I's" construction from people older than me, and I'm 40. And I imagine people have been making grammar up as they go along for the better part of the past 200,000 years. —An gr 17:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from French to English[edit]

I would be grateful if a user could please translate into English the following two extracts: (1). Un passage connu du Nouveau Testament établit que l’expression de “siège de Moїse”, laquelle s’est uniquement conservée dans la remarque d’Aha, était en usage dans les temps plus anciens. Dans Mathieu, xxiii, 2, Jésus commence son discours au peuple par ces mots: “Sur le siège de Moїse se sont assis les scribes et les pharisiens.” (2) Si cette date est exacte, la coutume des Juifs chinois – à supposer que l’expression “chaire de Moїse” n’ait pas été imaginée par le P. Gozani – représente une tradition qui remonte plus haut que l’expression de l’Evangile de Mathieu. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1.) A known passage from the New Testament establishes that the expression "seat of Moses", which is only preserved in the remark of Aha, was in use in more ancient times. In Matthew xxiii:2, Jesus begins his discourse to the people by the words: "The scribes and pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses." (2) If this date is correct, the custom of Chinese Jews -- supposing that the expression "chiar/pulpit of Moses" wasn't imagined by Fr. Gozani -- represents a tradition which goes further back than the expression in the Gospel of Matthew.Ctourneur (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a try. 1) A well-known part of the New Testament establishes that the saying "Moses' Seat", which has only been preserved in Aha's remark, was in use in older times. In Matthew xxiii, 2, Jesus begins his speech to the people with these words: "On Moses' seat, scribes and Pharisees have sat" (note that you could get a better translation of that last bit from an English version of the New Testament). 2) If this date is correct, the custom of Chinese Jews - supposing that the expression "Moses' Chair" was not simply imagined by Father Gozani - represents a tradition that dates back further than its use in Matthew's Gospel. (Note that the original writer uses two different expressions in French: siège is seat, while chaire is now mainly used in a metaphorical sense (a university chair, for example) --Xuxl (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See http://multilingualbible.com/matthew/23-2.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Seat of Moses" refers to Moses' place of authority in the eyes of the jewish people. So someone who wants to take his 'seat' (like Xuxl referred to above) would be taking it metaphorically and not literally. Also, Biblical dictation would be Matthew 23:2. Livewireo (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of 'Catch 22'[edit]

Catches 22s? --Mr.K. (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catch 22s for me I think. (I also prefer to hypenate it, which makes it seem a bit more sensible; and/or italicise: Catch-22s. I wait to be contradicted by the next editor.)

I would use "Catches-22". The 22 isn't plural, only the catch. Compare "cups of tea" vs. "cup of teas". --Aseld ^talk 13:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Whoppers Junior, of course. Lantzy ^talk 15:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't pluralise Catch, instead I'd put it in quote marks or italics and append an s to the end, but I don't think it makes much difference. I certainly wouldn't say Catches 22s. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd really do? Rephrase, rephrase, rephrase. "It was yet another example of a catch-22 [situation]", for example. Otherwise your readers are going to be going, "Catches-22? Is that right? It looks funny," and distract themselves from your main message. Which was? BrainyBabe (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to contrive a context where it'd be hard to rephrase:

"Welcome to our wonderful organisation. Your daily ritual will consist of: interruptions, interminable pointless meetings, never-ending phone calls, millions of emails, catch 22s, fire drills, morning and afternoon teas where you can pretend to be friendly to people you despise and that go on for an hour when you'd much rather be back at your desk attending to your ever-increasing pile of work, impossible demands from equally impossible people, and similar joyous events. We hope your time with us will be fruitful and enjoyable. Have a nice day". -- JackofOz (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There I would use "Welcome to our wonderful organisation. Your daily ritual will consist of: interruptions, interminable pointless meetings, never-ending phone calls, millions of emails, catch-22 situations, fire drills, morning and afternoon teas where you can pretend to be friendly to people you despise and that go on for an hour when you'd much rather be back at your desk attending to your ever increasing pile of work, impossible demands from equally impossible people, and similar joyous events. We hope your time with us will be fruitful and enjoyable. Have a nice day" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aseld (talk • contribs) 15:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly "catch-twenty-twos", rest assured; the question is how to spell it. To begin with, the dictionaries want a hyphen, and so do I: catch-22. Heller capitalized it, the dictionaries like it, and it's justifiable: Catch-22. These corrections reduce the ugliness of the plural quite a bit, I think: Catch-22s. "Catch-22 situation" rings tautological, by the way. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Catches 22', unless created for comic effect, is nonsense of the type perpetrated by people who have been taught the unfortunate lesson that they are not supposed to trust their own inner knowledge of their native language, and that somewhere 'out there' there are rules which know their language better than they do.

I don't believe there is any syntactic test which will distinguish 'catch 22' from a count noun, however we write it, and whatever its origin; (even tmesis does not counteract that, since it is possible inside words). --ColinFine (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I think I prefer the spelling "Catch-22's". The old rule that nonstandard word forms like numbers and acronyms took an apostrophe when an inflectional suffix was attached is no longer much used, but it is still used when needed to avoid ambiguity, like when pluralizing single letters, or in things like "model 22's" where "22s" would be a different model. Well, I think "Catch-22s" has the same problem -- it ooks to me like it's one of a sequence including "Catch-22r", "Catch-22t", and "Catch-22u". But I would not call anyone wrong for using it. --Anonymous, 07:52 UTC, February 20/09.

Punctuation[edit]

He asked: "What am I doing here?". or He asked: "What am I doing here?." or He asked: "What am I doing here?" --Mr.K. (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The third one (although a comma rather than a colon would be more usual introducing a short direct quotation such as this). Deor (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Question marks are used in place of full stops, so it's the last one. Various style guidelines state whether the marks should be inside or outside of the quotation marks – see Quotation marks#Punctuation. "My Grammar and I (or should that be 'Me'?)" (an interesting book made pacifically for pedants) implies that it is British English standard to put the question mark within the quote. Cycle~ (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what style is being used, the question mark must be inside the quotes here, since it is part of the quotation. Algebraist 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it goes outside the quotation marks only if the whole sentence is a question (and the direct quotation isn't): Did she really say, "I wouldn't date him if he were the last man on earth"? If both the sentence and the quotation are questions, the usual practice is to place the question mark inside the quotes. Double punctuation is almost never used in English prose these days. Deor (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think double (or even triple) punctuation has it's place, as in: "One of my High School students today asked 'Who is the President ?' !". StuRat (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double v single quotes[edit]

The answer to a previous question brought up another point for me. Is there a change in the pattern of usage of single and double quotes? If you think there has been, is this based on research and databases, or anecdote and instinct? What are your sources for this perception, i.e., where do you get the data or what do you mostly read? (Newspapers, books, internal reports, erudite blogs, and so on.) One change I can identify is linked to the ubiquity of word processing, as opposed to typing. I used to see, not in published work, but in internal documents and good student essays:

One of the weaknesses of "Dorian Pink" is the Salome-thinness of the veil which purports to cover the criticism of Oscar Milde.

So let us leave titles, now all italicised, out of the equation. Nor is it clear misuse by the ignorant that I am interested in, but the shifting patterns of educated use. Let's focus on scare quotes and embedded quotes. So, to give some examples, which of the following has more authorities supporting it, and which way is the wind blowing?

1. Both red and blue politicians now support "green" ventures.

2. Both red and blue politicians now support 'green' issues.

3. "I heard you say 'Darwin isn't sapient' but I am not persuaded!" said Tom knowingly.

4. 'I heard you say "Darwin isn't sapient" but I am not persuaded!' said Tom knowingly.

I await your combined erudition with baited and unabated breath. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that variations between national varieties of English will be a larger issue. The explanation at Quotation mark#Usage seems to sum it up. Rmhermen (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that inside Wikipedia there is a technical reason to prefer double quotes over single—from the MoS: "If a word or phrase appears in an article in single quotes, such as 'abcd', Wikipedia's search facility will find that word or phrase only if the search string is also within single quotes. This difficulty does not arise for double quotes, and this is one of the reasons the latter are recommended." If you want erudition, you'll have to wait for Noetica to get over the bug, but I say use double quotes so that when you have to nest, you'll be starting off on the right foot. It seems better to me to reduce the number of ticks to indicate nesting. I always change single to double when copyditing for these two reasons. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and other media have their own style guides based on convention, technological requirements and so forth. But to look at main stream publishing, usage is fairly split between US and UK. US-published novels will generally use double quotation marks for dialogue ("Put him down!" he said.), whereas UK-published novels would typically use single quotation marks. ('Why should I?' she replied.) If quotation marks were required within the dialogue, then the other would be used. US: "And then he said to me, 'Put him down!'" UK: 'And then he said to me, "Put him down!"' Gwinva (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this UK usage is mainly in recent publishing (to save ink?). The standard rule (at least when I learnt it fifty years ago) was as for US novels, and older UK publications seem to have the double quotes first. When did this so-called "British" style begin? Dbfirs 22:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtues ending with letters 'ce'[edit]

I need a list of virtues that ends with the letter 'ce'. Like patience, conscience.... Something like that.

And also words that ends with 'ella'. Like umbrella, nutella.....

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.111.184 (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagella, Cinderella. Prudence. That's all I can manage while at work! Maedin\^talk 15:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/*ce and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/*ella. —An gr 15:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "star search" (*ella) at OneLook will get you a lot more hits, which may be good or bad for you. And two searches, "*ance" and "*ence", will narrow the other result. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salmonella and avarice (a negative virtue upon which capitalism depends). StuRat (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised no-one has included 'vice', without which 'virtue' would not be recognized as such. For '-ella', we could also add 'paella'.--KageTora (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OneLook didn't seem to know about "pipistrella". I know of a family with 3 daughters, named Prudence, Patience and Providence. -- JackofOz (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what they would have done if they had had more daughters. Penitence? Percipience? Permanence? Persistence? Prescience? —An gr 16:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are so many of them, then probably Pestilence. — Emil J. 17:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can be sure Dad's name wasn't Continence. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More like Concupiscence. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victorella, a really exciting bryozoan. DuncanHill (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarantella! Ole! BrainyBabe (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head "patella" and "mozarella" came to mind. You can find 155 of them here [1]. Most of those will however be rather obscure. It will probably also help to know that -ella is used to describe something small. Our suffix pages are in a rather sorry state. (The fact that the page on ancient Greek grammar is written in Greek letters isn't helping any, either.) Since this smells very much like homework see if your textbook has something on suffixes and how they change with word type (-ant, -ent > -ance, -ence). Independence, self-confidence, compliance would make my list. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstinence in Marbella. Strawless ^(talk) 00:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary[edit]

There's a set of standard expressions: "That word is/isn't in the dictionary". It suggests there's only 1 dictionary in the world, and words are either in it or not in it. But everyone (well, most everyone) knows there are almost as many dictionaries as there are words (ok, that was a slight exaggeration), and their content may overlap but they contain different sets of words. I've often wondered why we say "the dictionary". I've often been guilty of it myself, so it seems to be a well accepted idiom, even among those who normally prefer more precise formulations. Any ideas? -- JackofOz (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Q. Public rarely thinks of dictionaries, more rarely still of how they're made, and when he does, his Homer Simpson–like imagining is of one man in a tweed suit with elbow patches, at his desk, surrounded by stacks of papers, fiendishly scribbling, working day and night to make John Q. be wrong. Wrong in his spelling, wrong in his pronunciation, wrong in his diction, wrong, wrong, wrong. All dictionaries are written by that one wicked little pedant, didn't you know? --Milkbreath (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you randomly picked words you use, very few would be in some English dictionaries but not others, for these reasons:

1) Most of the words would be in every dictionary, even highly abridged ones.

2) Of those which are left, most would be in no dictionary, because they're words you or your family made up.

So, the chances of it mattering which dictionary you use is fairly small. Therefore, referring to all dictionaries as "the dictionary" isn't far off. StuRat (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fair proportion of my vocabulary consists of highly technical terms, which are either in few dictionaries or in none. For example, groupoid is on dictionary.com but not in the OED, while pregeometry (a word I use almost every day) is not in any dictionary that I can discover. While the technical areas differ, I suspect many people have a similar portion of their vocabulary. Algebraist 21:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying, StuRat, re common words. But what about uncommon ones? I've played Scrabble games where I've had the letters for a great word, that I absolutely know exists, but it's not a word in everyday parlance. I put it down, and the relative cretins I'm playing with all cry in unison, "There's no such word as that". I protest, and scramble off for my trusty dictionary, only to discover the word's not in there. They're triumphant - "See, we told you it's not in the dictionary". I say, "But it is a word, trust me, I've seen it used on Wikipedia and other places" - to no avail; and going online to check a word out is not considered fair game (just why, I don't know; it would take mere seconds longer - if that - than looking it up in a paper dictionary). Even though I'm not permitted to do the very thing that would prove I'm right, the others are totally convinced in their cretitude that they know better. They never stop to reflect that if I happened to have the OED on my bookshelf rather than the dictionary I do have, it would (or at least might) be a different matter entirely. They act as if, so far as they're concerned, whatever dictionary we happen to have on hand is the only one in existence - but they know (being Scrabble players and all) that that's not the case, and I know they know, and they know I know they know. From now on, I think I'll only play Scrabble with people who actually live in the 21st century. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scrabble, of course, has its own word list: either SOWPODS or the Official Tournament and Club Word List, depending on location. Algebraist 22:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate that darned Scrabble Dictionary. It's quite severely abridged, resulting in people who've memorized that dictionary beating me, even though my vocabulary is superior, because using words they don't include gets you in trouble, while it should get you bonus points. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has Jack been trying to use the word terpsichographer in Scrabble games again? Deor (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That or novomundane :) DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And shouldn't that be "cretinacity"? --Milkbreath (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/. I remember reading somewhere on that website that, if one searches for a word that is not there, it will immediately be given priority to be added to the website, but I do not know where on the website I read that. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is stated in the message you get when you search for a word they haven't got. I used pregeometry again. Algebraist 22:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraist, there is a dictionary that could have the word "pregeometry" if you cared to add it. —An gr 10:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, your suggestion that it implies there is only one dictionary is suspect. Do Americans think there is only one hospital when they say somebody is 'in the hospital'? I notice that one particularly, because we don't say it in the UK; but we do say 'at the theatre'. I think the key to those expressions is that we know that a particular one is meant even though we may not be able to specify it - if I know you have gone to the theatre, I take it that you have gone to a particular one, but I may have no idea which one. It is at least possible that the same thing applies to the dictionary. --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask the same question of those expressions. If there are more than one hospital or more than one theatre, and we don't know which one applies in a given case, why don't we say "in a hospital", or "at a theatre"? "I can't talk now, I'm on the bus" (wouldn't that be a pleasant surprise) is slightly different: they're referrring to the exact bus they're on, not any old bus. Same for "I think I'll take the train today, for a change" - it may be a different set of carriages that arrives at the station every day at that time, but it's the same service, and that's what they're referring to by "the train". -- JackofOz (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.wordspy.com/ for new words. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering whether this turn of phrase is based on the fact that many (or even most) households have a dictionary, but very few have two or more? If so, then most people who have a dictionary have quite a good reason to say "the dictionary", meaning the one which is in the house. Strawless ^(talk) 00:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as dictionary is concerned, my suspicion is that with the dictionary being authoritative, it would be counterintuitive to say "a dictionary" as that might sound like it's in one and not others. The issue of which dictionary gets more important when you want to elaborate on meaning (it's a cliché for high school freshmen to start essays with a dictionary definition)

I've heard people refer to their local Wal-Mart as "the Wal-Mart", something a former roommate of mine found aggravating despite doing it herself from time to time. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The counter-intuitive thing might have legs. I know there are some people who don't know how dictionaries work - they don't realise they're always behind the 8-ball of actual usage (sometimes decades or even centuries behind), they don't know that the lexicographers are not the people who create words, and they don't realise that dictionaries differ from one another even in matters of definition, let alone scope. But the majority of people know better. If it's a matter of finding a word that's related to a word we already know, we might think of looking it up in "a thesaurus", not "the thesaurus" (apart from the fact that "the thesaurus" is quite a tongeful). Some people have never even heard of thesauruses, let alone know what they're used for. But those who have know that Roget is not alone. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People who've never heard of a "thesaurus" probably just know it under another name. :-) StuRat (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

That's perfectly cromulent. Lanfear's Bane | t 15:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I am playing a word game at a table with other players, who have designated as official a chosen paper dictionary, which has been placed nearby, to be consulted only after a player has played a word and another player has challenged it, then I will probably be looking at the exterior of the dictionary, considering its size and apparent age, and trying to guess whether a word which I might want to play is in that dictionary. Players who are residents of the dwelling where the game is played and the dictionary is kept, have a home advantage.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[I changed the ambiguous word guessing to trying to guess (which, I hope, is less ambiguous).

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Returning to the original question, this type of usage is pretty common. Here's a quote from a fellow RefDesker: "Extraterrestrials do not probe the human anus." Another example: "The shield is a means of defense." No particular organ or shield is referred to, yet "the" is still used. In the second example, "the" paradoxically implies generality--especially today, not every shield is used for defense, but in general shields are means of defense. The same applies to "the dictionary"--it refers to dictionaries in general and doesn't imply only one dictionary exists. --Bowlhover (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pretty close, Bowlhover. I've been reflecting on this, and can remember outdated usages of "the" such as rather patronising (and in this case utterly incorrect) statements like The aborigine is not interested in the white man's ways. There's more than one of either, but we understand what's meant (even if we disagree with it). Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of speech[edit]

In the sentence "It does not matter what you think", what part of speech is "think"? Thanks

It's a verb. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional grammatical analysis would be a finite 2nd. person plural present indicative verb. AnonMoos (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without more context, there's no knowing if it's plural or singular, actually. —An gr 10:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you mean really traditional, as in before "you" began to be used in the singular... -Elmer Clark (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, back then the nominative was "ye" and do-support wasn't used. "It mattereth not what ye think" is most likely 2nd person plural, but that's not the sentence the OP asked about. Why don't we have an article on do-support yet? I thought Wikipedia had an article on everything. —An gr 11:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you haven't written it. There's a little that seems to be relevant in auxilliary verb. Algebraist 12:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences#Linguistics.

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Think" is definitely a verb, although it is a part of a clause that itself serves as a different part of speech. "Think" is in the second person (It might be singular or plural: consider "what you all think"), present tense, active voice, and indicative mood. Identifying the part of speech may be more difficult because the sentence consists of two clauses. In fact, the sentence contains three verbs: "does," "matter," and "think." In a simple sentence (such as "You think about grammar"), it becomes more obvious that "think" is a verb.151.213.161.26 (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Gone, but not forgotten"[edit]

"Gone, but not forgotten" is a stock phrase, but is it actually a quotation from somewhere? DuncanHill (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, I have not been able to trace it. Searching that phrase on Google books, the oldest instances seem to be gravestone inscriptions in the US dating from the late 19th century. Strawless ^(talk) 00:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first thought. It is an undistinguished phrase that I would expect to find on tombstones from the beginnings of writing or ceremonial burial, whichever came second. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]