Language desk
< November 24	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 26 >

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.

November 25

Zero is plural?

When stating how many there are of something, you say 'There are two', 'There is one'. But for zero it sounds more correct to me to say 'There are zero' or 'There are none' than 'There is zero'. Am I correct with 'There are zero'? If I am, why does it get an 'are' if there is not more than one? 70.171.229.76 (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, "there is none" over "there are none." As to why we use the plural with "zero," consider the two correct sentences on which such a usage could be modeled: (A) "There is no tomato," (B) "There are no tomatoes." (A) is appropriate in some contexts, but implies the narrow case of being interested in a single tomato; (B) is the more general expression for answering the general question "How many tomatoes?" and that's why it serves as the model for "There are zero tomatoes." Wareh (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that last point really says anything. We say "there are zero" because we say "zero tomatoes", but why do we say "zero tomatoes"? I think the answer is just that that's the way the language has developed. Zero is construed as plural and that's just the way it is.

As to "none", it can certainly be either singular or plural. In a sentence like "None of them is the murderer" it's singular because you know there's only one murderer. But if "them" refers to a large group, it's natural to say that "None of them are right-handed" because you'd expect several of them to be right-handed. With "there are none" or "there is none", the natural choice similarly depends on context, but we aren't given any, so either one could sound right.

The American Heritage Dictionary, which can be found online under bartleby.com, has a usage note on "none", which reads in part:

...the word has been used as both a singular and a plural noun from Old English onward. The plural usage appears in the King James Bible as well as the works of John Dryden and Edmund Burke and is widespread in the works of respectable writers today. Of course, the singular usage is perfectly acceptable. The choice between a singular or plural verb depends on the desired effect. Both options are acceptable in this sentence: None of the conspirators has (or have) been brought to trial. When none is modified by almost, however, it is difficult to avoid treating the word as a plural: Almost none of the officials were (not was) interviewed by the committee. None can only be plural in its use in sentences such as None but his most loyal supporters believe (not believes) his story.

--Anonymous, 04:52 UTC, November 25, 2007.

With "none", there's the extra complication that some people have in the past adopted a folk-etymology that it comes from "not one", and so have required the singular with it even though they would presumably have used the plural with "zero". Marnanel (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the AHD, "none" is etymologically singular... but of course that doesn't matter. --Anon, 18:24 UTC, Nov. 28.

Indeed. "None" coming from "not one" (or rather, "ne ān") is no folk-etymology. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalizing/italicizing "The"

Quick question: should the first two the's in the opening sentence of Treehouse of Horror (series) be italicized? And should the second one be capitalized?

In other words, which of these is correct:

The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes, also known as The Simpsons Halloween episodes...

OR

The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes, also known as the Simpsons Halloween episodes...

This seems to suggest the latter, but at least two editors seem to disagree. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 04:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we were talking about a series whose title didn't start with "The", there'd still be a "The" in the phrase: you'd write "The Star Trek treehouse episodes". This demonstrates that the word "The" goes with "episodes" and is not part of the title. So the logical construction with a title that does start with "The" would be "The The Simpsons treehouse episodes". But of course nobody says that; everyone uses a single "The".

So how should this be analyzed? Well, consider another example: people wouldn't usually say "it was a typical The Simpsons episode" or "I watched five The Simpsons episodes last night." They'd drop the "The". This how people usually speak when they use a title in this sort of construction. I suggest that the sentence in question is best seen as an another example of the same thing. The "The" that's there is the one that goes with "episodes"; the one that's part of the title has been dropped. If you accept this analysis, then it's wrong to italicize "The" here. Similarly, the other "the" that was asked about isn't part of the title and should be neither capitalized nor italicized.

However, I think there are some people who would analyze it differently.

--Anonymous, 05:09 UTC, November 25, 2007.

If you take out the bolded bit, it should still be the title of the subject. Since the title is "The Simpsons" the "The" should be bolded. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Either The Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror" episodes or The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes. --Anon, 21:57 UTC, Nov. 25.

Wait, why? The the's in that sentence aren't functioning as parts of the titles. Could someone elaborate? Zagalejo^^^ 03:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question, another example, the band "The Beatles", who like "The Simpsons" are usually linked to a 'The' but you wouldn't listen to a CD of The Beatles songs, you would more likely listen to a CD of Beatles songs... GaryReggae (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is "Treehouse of Horror". Those are the only three words that should be in boldface. "Treehouse of horror" is a title of sorts of a lower rank than The Simpsons, so it takes quotation marks. They are episodes of the Simpsons, so "Simpsons" should have an apostrophe. "The" is always dropped in titles used like this, making our "the" belong to "episodes". I make it thus: The Simpsons' "Treehouse of Horror" episodes. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies, everyone. Is it possible to come to a consensus on this? Zagalejo^^^ 06:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Document

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_language_struggle#Background says in the 3rd paragraph: "The last example found of an original Middle Norwegian document is from 1583.".

I was wondering who is the author of the quoted document, which dialect did he speak, where did he write this document, and which dialect did he write in. Thanks.70.74.35.144 05:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We had much the same question here a few weeks ago (see Samples of Middle Norwegian, on September 23.) Haukur couldn't find any evidence for the 1583 date. Xn4 07:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it's wrong, of course, just that it isn't in the online edition of Diplomatarium Norvegicum, for whatever reason. Maybe we could be of more help to you if you told us something about what you want to use the information for. Are you writing an historical novel? Haukur 07:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find the durrent dialect of Norwegian that closest to Middle Norwegian.129.128.67.23 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! That sounds a bit unattainable to me: first, it's likely that some dialects are more conservative in some areas (say, phonology, while others are more conservative in, say, syntax or verbal inflection. Secondly, there were undoubtedly dialects of Middle Norwegian, and they may have been more different from one another than are today's dialects. --ColinFine (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some dialects are more conservative in some areas then others, but taking all things considered, which is the most conservative?70.74.35.144 (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is still for Sognamål but I'm really not an expert on Norwegian dialects. Haukur (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Norwegian Alphabet

I was wondering how the Middle Norwegian alphabet differed from the current Norwegian alphabet, thanks.70.74.35.144 (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Welsh pronounced cum-rag?

67.170.241.199 (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Welsh name for the Welsh language is pronounced [kəmˈrɑːɨɡ] (see IPA). Both vowels are different from what you've described. Algebraist 12:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help me out. I don't understand IPA. 68.164.95.43 (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPA's really the only way to do it, since the pronunciation involves some sounds that English doesn't have. Strad (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a look at Help:Pronunciation or Help:IPA. Korg (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone should upload a recording. I asked because a linguist friend claimed this was how Welsh is pronounced. So help clear things up. 67.170.241.199 (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its more like cum-ray, than cum-rag in bastardised English, but that isn't really accurate either. Rockpocket 00:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, but if you want to know whether it sounds the same as a vulgar sexual reference, then, unfortunately you're out of luck. The difference is in the second syllable which rhymes better with the first syllable of tiger. Steewi (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Welsh language article has a spoken version: Image:Welsh language.ogg (corresponding article version: [1]). Korg (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I put it there nearly 2½ years ago! -- Arwel (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always pronounced it as koom-ray-agg GaryReggae (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cymraeg - kum-rr-eye-g (2 syllables) pretty much covers it. Neil ☎ 11:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, that does, to my ears, sound very close to how a Scottish person might pronounce the vulgarism in question.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non nobis solum

Resolved

I recently came across the phrase non nobis solum: not for us alone. In what case is solum, and why? Shouldn't it agree with nobis? 203.221.127.19 (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The adjective solus in the neuter accusative singular is used as an adverb ("Hence, adv.: sōlum, alone, only, merely, barely"[2]). This "adverbial accusative" is quite common in Latin (and Greek): see Allen & Greenough's New Latin Grammar, section 390, parts c and d. Wareh (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wareh. 203.221.126.128 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "Danilia"

Several years ago I "invented" the name "Danilia" to give to a character in one of my original stories. Now I realize that it's a real (though apparently uncommon) name. A quick google brings up the name of a real person, a neighborhood on the Greek island of Corfu, and a the genus of a species of mollusk.

Can anyone help me find more information on the name, it's origins, and what it might mean? I want to keep using it, but I want to make sure it doesn't have any strange aspects to it that don't fit with the character.

Thanks, guys.

--69.207.99.230 (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betcha it's a derivative of Daniel. —Tamfang (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]