Language desk
< December 21	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 23 >

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.

December 22

Conjunctions

Can anyone point me in the direction of a book that would have grammatical rules that includes not starting a paragraph with a conjunction? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.148.14 (talk • contribs) 03:18, December 22, 2006 (UTC).

But why would you need such a book? To shamelessly suggest such proscriptions seems ill-advised, IMHO. --Kjoonlee 14:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what's wrong with starting a paragraph with a conjunction? :) User:Zoe|(talk) 00:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question was not: "Is it wrong?", or "Why is it wrong?", but in essence: "Who says it is wrong?". We all know that this construction is or at least has been widely condemned. But can you name even one book that actually does so? --Lambiam ^Talk 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i was at the library a few hours ago with my girlfriend, and I was looking at some english grammar books. one of them that caught my eye was called "How Not to Write", and it was by William Safire. it's a very straightforward book with catchy and funny chapter titles, such as "And never start a sentence with a conjunction." "Don't use contractions in formal writing." "You should Not randomly CAPITALIZE.", so i think it might be just what you're looking for. :)--64.0.112.1 07:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither a paragraph nor a sentence should be begun with a conjunction. A coordinating one, at least. (Heh.) As for books that list and exemplify such rules, look for any writing style guide. I recommend—assuming you're using American English, at least—A Writer's Reference by Diana Hacker or The Beacon Handbook and Desk Reference for clarity and ease of use, but there are literally hundreds of these on the market. For extended examples, look for The Deluxe Transitive Vampire by Karen Elizabeth Gordon; it's also by far the most entertaining of all possibilities, though it surrenders something in ease of reference.

And remember: all rules can be broken... but you must know how to use them before you break them.

--Vyasa Ozsvar 02:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ietnus

Is it a "cellular phone" or a "cell phone"?

Can contractions be used in these circumstance: (they just don't sound right) I've cows in my barn. (I have cows in my barn) -Codell ^{[ Talk]} 16:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries list both "cellular phone" and "cell phone". I think that both forms are correct. "Cell phone" is more widely used in spoken English.

As for "I've cows in my barn": This is not incorrect, but it sounds a bit archaic to my American ears. I'm not sure if this form is still in common use in British English. I suspect that in the British Isles this form is used only in some regions and/or by older people. I remember very old people using this form when I was a child, but I think that this form passed out of common use in the United States early in the 20th century. The prevailing usage in American English is not to contract "have" when it is the main verb of a sentence or phrase. In contemporary American English, "have" is contracted only when it is an auxiliary verb. Marco polo 16:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cows: Yes of course you can say that - helps if you have a strong rural accent and a farm though - overwise you might be a candidate for the rubber room!83.100.158.78 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, what in the world is "ietnus" supposed to mean? 惑乱分からん 22:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support that question, Wakuran. My question ties in with what Marco polo says of the US use as an auxiliary verb. We were taught at school not to use "I've" (in "auxiliarised verb" way) with "got/gotten", when "I have" would be the main verb. Example: "I've got X", where X can be almost anything, like "cows" "no money" "measles" "a good feeling". The idea was that this use was 1. wrong, and 2. not sophisticated. Yet in spite of the efforts of English teachers, I hear it used every day, almost universally by second language English speakers. Is this use common in English? Becoming acceptable through common usage?--Seejyb 23:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "I've got" to mean "I have" (and analogously in other tenses) should be avoided in formal writing, but in informal usage it's completely standard.

Note that in North American usage, "I've got" only means "I have"; if you mean "I've obtained" (i.e. if you're actually talking about getting, rather than having), then what you say is "I've gotten". In Britain, on the other hand, "gotten" is viewed as archaic and "I've got" has — or has got! — both senses. --Anonymous, December 22, 23:45 (UTC).

Many years ago, back before the fall of the Iron Curtain, I was visiting West Berlin, and a friend and I were watching East German television. The program that we were watching was an English lesson in which the expression being taught was "Have you got the time?" My friend and I, Americans both, both said, "Have I got the time to do what?" That expression struck us as decidedly British. (The propaganda in the language show was pretty obvious, too, two layabout working men getting by with minimal work while their oblivious boss thinks he's in charge of things). User:Zoe|(talk) 00:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, like Zoe, suspect this is predominantly British English usage, because "Have you got the time?" was a straight line in at least one bit of American English humor I can recall hearing told by my elders in Brooklyn, New York sometime around the late 50s to mid-60s, and possibly (by its style) dating back several decades prior to that:

(Woman at an upstairs window, calling down to a tradesman waiting on the street below with his wagon): My good man, have you got the time?
(He, replying): Sure, lady, but who'll hold my horses?

NB: I particularly remember this because I didn't "get" the joke till I was in my late teens or so, which is how I can roughly date it! -- Deborahjay 05:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I had not realised it was so universally used, nor would I have thought that the "got" has a more limited meaning in the US.. --Seejyb 03:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. "Ietnus" means nothing, I just couldn't think of a subject. Another example: "I've a joke for thee." Still, I suppose it doesn't sound too bad.--Codell ^{[ Talk]} 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole question of asking a stranger the time is sexually loaded. I'm not suggesting that every time you get asked the time you're being propositioned, but it is a very common approach, and the form of the language used is relatively unimportant to the unspoken message. On the phones question, "mobile phone" or just "mobile" is the usual usage in Australia, but I was recently asked my "cell phone number" by a car rental dude, and we all understand what the term means. JackofOz 01:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown language /meaning in school song

Hello, I'm wondering what language is this in my school song. Originally it's written in Thai language but no meaning at all in Thai. Below is the transcription of the song. Chulalongkorn is my school name.

Baka bobo, cheerka chocho, babo cheercho,
who are we, intania, can you see? Laa
Baka bobo, cheerka chocho, babo cheercho,
who are we, Chulalongkorn, can you see? Laa

Thank you --Manop - TH 23:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be Tagalog? I get several hits on Baka bobo ("stupid person"?) from pages that I think are Tagalog or Filipino, as well as for chocho ("eat!") and babo ("idiot"). --Lambiam ^Talk 17:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a common Thai school song, though, with "Chulalongkorn" replaced by lots of different school names. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]