Language desk
< December 13	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 15 >

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.

December 14

Wikipedia tutorial on spotting/eliminating redundant words

Dear ref-desk experts, I know this page is in the Wikipedia somewhere, having visited it last week, but after half an hour's search today I can't seem to find it. Link please?

Many thanks, susato 02:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises I think that is what you are asking for.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 12:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Words to avoid, Avoid weasel words, Avoid peacock terms, or Avoid trite expressions? Then again, there's Embrace weasel words too.---Sluzzelin 12:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Birgitte§β that's it exactly - Thanks Sluzzelin, those links will be helpful as well. susato 13:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of Speech

Please identify the underlined word as a noun, adjective, adverb, or etc.:

Holly's hope chest is made entirely of Oak.

My teacher says "Oak" in this sentence is an adjective, but I don't understand why. Is she right? I could have sworn it was a noun. Could someone explain to me why it is an adjective? Thanks for the help. --72.69.145.238 03:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your teacher is wrong. "Oak" is a noun in that sentence. However, I think it would be an adjective if the sentence were "Holly's hope chest is oak." Am I right? --Maxamegalon2000 03:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She briefly said that it was an adjective because it was describing the type of chest it was. "What kind of chest? An Oak chest!" This doesn't really seem right to me though, so I wanted some more opinions. Keep the responses coming! --72.69.145.238 03:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please realize that many stupid people do become teachers. Don't argue. Just know that you are right, but for the sake of your grades regurgitate back the lies she tells you. --Nelson Ricardo 05:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the other contributors, your teacher is wrong. "Oak" would have been an adjective if it had been used like this: "Holly's hope oak chest...", but in the sentence you gave us it is definitely a noun. My sentence, incidentally, fulfills the "What kind of chest? An Oak chest!" argument your teacher used. And I would respectfully disagree with Nelson Ricardo, I think you should argue with your teacher, present your case and don't give in so easily. Good luck! — QuantumEleven 11:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an adjective in either case. In "Holly's hope chest is made entirely of oak," it's definitely a noun. You couldn't replace it with an adjective - "Holly's hope chest is made entirely of woody." In "It's an oak chest!" it's a noun adjunct - a noun which modifies another noun. I don't think there are any ways you can use the word "oak" that it isn't a noun. 13:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

...unless it was an oaken chest. That would be an adjective.--Shantavira 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oaky is another - although usually only used with respect to flavor. Rmhermen 18:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, right, I meant that "oak" without any suffix can't be an adjective. FreplySpang 21:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that, while technically listed as noun adjuncts, "oak" and "chicken" in "oak chest" and "chicken soup" act adjectivally, and that noun adjuncts are a sub-set of adjectives. In this sentence, "oak" performs precisely the same function as "oaken", it's only the form that's different. JackofOz 00:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 72.69.145.238,

As a teacher I'd say argue with your teacher if you feel you can without being punished. If you judge that your teacher is open minded and secure, then just copy the comments in this page and go for it. If not, keep it on the dl.

Now, here's the problem. Even linguists can argue about where adjectives end and nouns begin. In my book, since you can't have "very oak" or "oaker" in that position, then it is acting like a noun. Furthermore, "of" does not seem to take adjective complements, at least off the top of my head, I can't think of any (although someone may just add one below). More evidence to add to the "Oaky" or "oaken" evidence above. mnewmanqc 02:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still say that while "oak" may have the form of a noun in "oak chest", it acts as an adjective. Q. What kind of chest is that? A. An oak chest. JackofOz 01:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 72.69.145.238,

One easy way to tell what part of speech a word falls into is by using a "substitution test." While these are not 100% infallible, they will work most of the time. Try substituting another known adjective and see what you get, e.g. "Holly's chest was made entirely out of red" or "Holly's chest was made entirely out of fast." Terrible, right? Now use a known noun: "Holly's chest was made entirely out of rock" or "Holly's chest was made entirely out of steel." Much better. The problem here is that there is a restricted class of nouns that can be used: "car" or "dog" won't work, for instance... it must be something that an object can be made out of. However, finding another adjective that will fit here should prove something of a challenge. Another way is to use suffixes that can apply to adjectives (as a previous response mentioned): adjectives allow for comparison, for instance, so "oaker" and "oakest" ought to be possible if this were an adjective, just as "redder/-est" or "faster/-est" are possible. Vyasa Ozsvar 08:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or

what does the French word "or" mean, not in the sense of gold.

but Sashafklein 05:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's English, they wanted to know about the French word. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you should check out wordreference.com for single word translations. Sashafklein 05:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also in Google, define: WORD -- Deborahjay 06:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or even Wiktionary. --Diderot 07:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or the French wiktionary, which actually gives the answer to the original question. The examples there suggest that it would be translated 'so' or 'since'. ==ColinFine 21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

off of

Is "off of" considered correct English in the US? For example Their name comes from a track off of Syd Barrett's album "Barrett." --Auximines 11:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I consider it correct. Certainly it's something native speakers say all the time. I'd have used "on" in place of "off of" in this sentence though, but that is probably mostly a matter of personal style. --Diderot 12:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We native speakers may say it all the time, but constructions accepted in informal spoken language aren't necessarily appropriate for use on paper. "Off of" may have originated as a parallel construction to the correct "out of". IMHO "off of" is not acceptable in a wikipedia article. In Auxmines' example above, "on" is a fine substitute. When "off of" is used to indicate removal of a physical object or information, as in "They broke branches off of a dead tree for firewood" or "You can copy the problems off of the blackboard", a good substitute would be "from".susato 13:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you ban "off of", will you also ban "into", "out of", "out from under" (e.g "The cat came out from under the sofa.") etc. etc.? AnonMoos 13:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on context, but those are considered acceptable standard words/constructions. English prescriptive grammar doesn't have to be consistant. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 13:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not; those examples are fine. The main reason I don't like "off of" is because "off" stands on its own. The "of" adds nothing. susato 18:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I really don't like are opposing juxtapositions, such as "she rode off on her bike" or "he went out in the rain", but these are perfectly correct grammatically speaking.--Shantavira 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They don't oppose. In that sentence, "off" is an adverb, equivalent to "away". If you remove it, you're left with "She rode on her bike", which has a completely different meaning. Bhumiya (said/done) 10:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Off of" is technically okay, but is very ugly. Almost as bad as "should of" (which is both technically and aesthetically wrong) and "had had", which fills me with rage. Proto::► 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's acceptable English yes, but it's a bit awkward to say it, and thus to read it. If you can rephrase to avoid use of 'off off', then do so. :) Vranak 18:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I asked because off of is never used in the UK. --Auximines 23:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It crops up the lyrics in Andy Williams's version of Can't Take My Eyes Off You, but not in the title. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proto, you may need anger management classes because "had had" is not only perfectly legitimate but in some contexts is absolutely necessary. JackofOz 00:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Had had' is technically legitimate, but it's never, ever necessary, and it's very ugly. Give an example where it's necessary. Proto::► 10:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"He had had no luck at the slots, so he moved on to the blackjack tables." --Diderot 14:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"He had no luck at the slots, so he moved on to the blackjack tables",

"Due to his lack of luck at the slots, he moved on to the blackjack tables",

"He moved on to the blackjack tables as there had been no luck for him at the slots",

"With no luck at the slots, he moved on to the blackjack tables", all of which have the same meaning and avoid the ugly repeated 'had'. The last one is lazy, and the third is ungainly, but 'had had' is my pet irrational (I know it's irrational) hate and by God if I can stretch a sentence to exclude it, I will.Proto::► 22:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first two and the last don't mean the same thing as the "had had" construction. In a narrative, "he had no luck at the slots" might mean that he never has any luck at them. A "lack of luck" is equally atemporal. I want to indicate an immediate causal order to events within the narrative: he had, right then, been having no luck at the slots, and as an immediate consequence moved to another game.

The third sounds fishy and euphemistic to me. You've reordered the arguments of the phrase to produce an awkward sentence when simply using "had had" would have gotten the point right across. "There had been no luck for him at slots" is indirect, almost a passive sentence. Anglophone readers almost always prefer direct narrative where agents appear as subjects. This is the key fact about English that makes texts written in English by Dutch-speakers and Swedes such crap.

Everything in English can be said some other way, but I don't see a clearer, stylistically better way to say that sentence without losing some of the meaning. --Diderot 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Having had no luck at the slots, so he moved on to the blackjack tables." Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that would be "Having had no luck at the slots, he moved on ..." "So" is not proper.--Shuttlebug 18:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: read what you copy and paste before pressing "submit". Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"John, where Bill had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had the teacher's approval." , from List of homophonous phrases. Nohat 18:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To argue that "had had" is never necessary is to argue that "had eaten" or "had gone" or "had <anything else>" is never necessary. JackofOz 05:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Off of" is primarily regional; it enjoys widespread usage in the middle of the United States. I'm not sure where its common usage ends, but I can't imagine a native English speaker being confused by it. (As far as "ugly" goes, it's nowhere near as unaesthetic as other common double prepositions from my region, such as "up under," meaning simply "under": "Get up under that table and see what's stuck on it.") In the example sentence, though, it could easily be replaced by the single preposition "from" (as previously mentioned)... so I'd advise doing that instead, and in all formal discourse. Vyasa Ozsvar 08:21 27 December 2006 (UTC)

tow, row

Hiya. We're trying to translate The British Grenadiers into German, and the question came up what With a tow, row, row, row, row, row, to the British Grenadiers might actually mean (since afaik Grenadieers hardly ever row). Is it purely nonsensical or is there some semantic value to it? --Janneman 15:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onomatopeic drums or collective danse stumping feet ? -- DLL ^{.. T} 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret this as musical filler. Sorry I know little of german, certainly not enough to make words up, but you really need something like a teutonic tra-la-la but with a vaguely nautical theme. meltBanana 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a "tra-la-la." I wouldn't try to find anything with a "nautical" theme: grenadiers weren't in the business of using oars. Vyasa Ozsvar 08:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Adum (Kumasi, Ghana)

I need to know how to prononunce Adum, an area (?) located in the city of Kumasi, Ghana. It would help to have this in IPA notation. Thanks! -- Deborahjay 16:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most widely spoken language in Kumasi is Twi, and in that language the word adum would be pronounced simply [adum]. Of course, since Twi is a tonal language, what you really want to know is what tonal pattern this word has; I don't know that.

Adum is, by the way, a district of Kumasi and one of the older parts of the town. — mark ✎ 19:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if I'm interpreting the two vowels correctly (according to their internal links on the IPA page), the "a" is pronounced as in the English word "cart" and the "u" as in "boot"? The other question remains, if the syllable break simply comes between the first two letters, are the two syllables equally stressed, or does the accent fall upon the second? Sorry that I'm still not quite getting it...! -- Thanks, Deborahjay 04:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right about the vowels. You're also right about the syllable boundary. Stress is a more difficult issue. Stress may have some correlate in Twi, but the tonal pattern of the word is far more salient to non-Twi hearers. Twi is a tonal language with two level tones (High and Low) and a downstep effect. Theoretically, the tonal pattern of our word could be any of the possible combination of High and Low (HH, HL, LL, LH). A High-Low word sounds to English ears as a word with the accent on the first syllable, and Low-High word (IPA [àdúm]) as a word with the accent on the second. Only a native speaker (or a good dictionary which marks tone) can answer the question which tonal pattern adum has in Twi. You could try asking at http://kasahorow.org/ , there are some Twi/Akan specialists there. — mark ✎ 08:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brother's Wife

What is a brother's wife called in English

Sister-in-law?

Yes, which is also the word used for a wife's or husband's sister. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, in Spanish

Spanish fairy tales often begin with the phrase "Érase una vez", which I assume means "Once upon a time". I'm a bit puzzled by the first word, "Érase". It's not in my dictionary, and appears to be a reflexive use of the verb "ser". Is this correct? "Lavarse", "irse" etc are in my dictionary, but not "serse". If it indeed is a reflexive use of "ser", is it used in any other context, or any other tense? --NorwegianBlue^talk 18:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Érase una vez... " o "érase que se era... ", son formas del verbo "ser", o mejor dicho serían del verbo pronominal "serse", pero este verbo de hecho no existe salvo estas 2 frases hechas, equivalentes al inglés "once upon a time". Skarioffszky 19:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias. I was wondering, could this construct be used in the future tense, "Se sera un dia, cuando ..."? Google gives some hits indicating that this indeed may be the case, but it is difficult for a non-native speaker to understand how the use of the reflexive pronoun is modifying the intended meaning of the sentence. Couldn't it just have been omitted, with no loss of meaning or clarity? --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a well-known Spanish linguist, who assures me that it is simply the reflexive in the archaic word order for that tense verb clitic. Se es is used to this day. Here's a citation from the Spanish writer, Javier Marías's, blog: [[1]] mnewmanqc 15:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --NorwegianBlue^talk 10:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indescribable

When people say 'it was indescribable' in places like books, surely saying that something is indecribable is a way of describing it? Herbynator 20:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. If I told you that I'd just had "an indescribable experience", you would know nothing about it unless I went on to tell you more about it. Which of course means that it wasn't really indescribable after all. JackofOz 00:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of like how 0 describes nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robovski (talk • contribs) 04:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

"Indescribable" is fine, as long as the author doesn't then proceed to describe it.... Generally, "indescribable" indicates a lack of sophistication or ability on the author's part. Anything can be described, even if only in the vaguest of terms, or through the use of metaphor. Vyasa Ozsvar 08:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just how much of this IS the title?

Regarding this old work, how much of that is the title? Obviously everything up to "SPIRITS", but what about the rest of it? I'm trying to cite this work in an articel, and would like to know what the exact title is. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 21:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally considered legitimate to use an abbreviated title in a citation where it just runs on and on, and where the abbreviation is long enough to constitute a unique reference to the work. I'd cite it as "Tales of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits" by Increase Mather and just stop there. --Diderot 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Our article on Increase Mather refers to it as Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits Personating Men. —Seqsea (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that there is nothing wrong with referring to this book by an abbreviated form of its title, its title most certainly is Cases of conscience concerning evil spirits personating men, witchcrafts, infallible proofs of guilt in such as are accused with that crime: All considered according to the Scriptures, history, experience, and the judgment of many learned men (I just cut and pasted that from what the Harvard library catalog entry for this edition reports as the title, with insignificant adjustments). I think it's informative & interesting to provide the full title. (Don't be misled by long s: it is Cases, not Tales.) Wareh 03:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! --Diderot 08:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to cite it in its original language (Middle English?), or at least in the orthography used at the time (1693) how would you write the 'long s' in a Wikipedia article? I know you could just link to the picture, but I was just wondering. Carcharoth 10:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here we go: Caſes of Conſcience concerning evil SPIRITS perſonating Men, Witchcrafts, infallible Proofs of Guilt in ſuch as are accuſed with that Crime: All Conſidered according to the Scriptures, Hiſtory, Experience, and the Judgment of many learned men. That suitable reproduces the emphasis and capitalisation of the original, though as reproducing the font and size is not possible, linking to the orignal picture is probably simplest. Also, I can't work out what the strange form of the capital 'C' is in the 'Caſes of Conſcience' bit. Carcharoth 11:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That 'C' – and the whole first line – is in basically the standard Textualis version of the blackletter. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx all, and, for the record Seqsea, I wrote that articel and was asking because I'm trying to cite it by its full title at least once. I've tried to do so now, while also giving the most common short title. 68.39.174.238 06:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Carcharoth, the language is called Modern English. It's a good 200 years too late for Middle English. --ColinFine 21:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation

How do you pronounce the Russian 'Yob t'voyu mat'? (Spelling is probably off.) Crisco 1492 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's ёб тьвою мать then probably ~~[jop tvoju matʲ]. Pretty much the way it's spelled~~. I'd watch out though, telling Russians that you f*cked their mother isn't the best thing to do when you're fop in Moscow. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second word is твою, not тьвою. JackofOz 00:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, all words in that sentence go back to Proto-Indo-European roots. Fun to think of some guy using that phrase thousands of years ago... ;) 惑乱分からん 02:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my transcription is for твою. I'm assuming, of course, that the first syllable in that word is stressed. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the second syllable is stressed, tva-YU. But that has nothing to do with whether a soft sign (ь) should be there or not. The transliteration Yob t'voyu mat is incorrect, having an apostrophe after t where there is no soft sign in the original Russian spelling. JackofOz 05:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stupid enough to use that phrase in a conversation. Only reason I ask is because I'm realing aloud Tom Clany's "Debt of Honour" to a friend so he understands proper English pronounciation (from the Canadian and American viewpoint.) I only want the proper pronounciation of that sentecne for the sake of being accurate. (I have no deathwish...) Thanks people. Crisco 1492 02:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if the second syllable is stressed, then it's [jop tvʌˈju matʲ]. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right. JackofOz 01:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]