Language desk
< October 21	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 23 >

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.

October 22

Quote Decryption

I have a friend whose favourite quote is "If horses had trees would be single". I have absolutely no clue what this means, and neither does he. I searched it on Google and came up with [1], but I'm still unclear on the meaning. Does anyone know what this quote means or at least throw an educated guess at it?

PS. It may have something to do with baseball.

Thanks, Valens Impérial Császár 93 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a Frankenstein's monster made up of crudely sewn-together pieces of sayings: If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Can't see the forest for the trees. If men could lick themselves like dogs we'd all be single. On a side note, one of my favorites is "If you're not the lead dog the view never changes."--Milkbreath 03:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really intrigued as to why your friend's favourite quote is one whose meaning he/she has no clue about. How would he/she know where and when to use it? I keep wondering, if horses had trees, what would be single? -- JackofOz 04:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or if horses had what, trees would be single? -70.130.222.186 08:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, if horses had trees, what would be single. HYENASTE 01:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is something like, If horses could hit with trees(regarding baseball) they would get singles. It also might be something to make his, Ponchak's, players work harder. You know, saying "a horse could singles with a tree". I really have no idea. --Naruto Tron 01:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word usage question

Is it appropriate to use the word "rime" as a literary synonym for frost?

Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.168.44 (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? —Tamfang 04:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See Rime, which means a coating of frost.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion over in / at

Hi, In which context do we use 'at' and in which context do we use 'in' ? Look at this sentence: The professor was seen sitting with his students ___ the coffee shop. Is it in the coffee shop or at the coffee shop ? When it comes to a sentence like 'I am ___ work', it is always 'at' and not 'in' but in the sentence 'I am ___ the office', can either 'at' or 'in' be used ? Which is correct ? In a nutshell, when exactly is 'at' to be used and when exactly is 'in' to be used ? I have a theory that when we refer to the proximity of a place (say the post office), we can use 'at' and when we specifically want to imply 'inside', then we use 'in' (I am at the post office = I am somewhere around the post office / I am in the post office = I am INSIDE the post office). Is this theory correct ? -- WikiCheng | Talk 13:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, yes. It works perfectly for the coffee shop.

"In the office" is a special case. A person might ask whether Mr X is "in the office" and be told "yes" even though Mr. X is actually down the hall in the men's room for a minute. But if that person had asked whether Mr. X was "in his office" the answer would be "no". "In" with "office" doesn't necessarily mean in a certain room, but something more like "available for business on the premesis". A doctor can be simply "in": "The doctor is in."

"At the office" is just like "at work" or means something like "not on the road".

Every time I answer a question like this, I try to cover all the nuances, but I always fail. Luckily, others will come along to fill in the blanks. --Milkbreath 18:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of choice of prepositions is just idiom, not logic. One example: reading nineteenth-century novels, people say things like "I was at Dunstable last week" where modern speakers would say "I was in Dunstable last week". Learners of English who speak French, German, etc, will sometimes guess wrong, based on a false analogy with their closest native preposition (and vice-versa for English-speakers learning German). That may not seem helpful, but I'm just cautioning against hoping that any "nutshell" will be very reliable. check out this list. One point: "in" can be a preposition or an adverb (the doctor is in); "at" can only be a preposition. jnestorius^(talk) 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers. This site has some guidelines. Do you agree with those ? -- WikiCheng | Talk 04:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The overview is sound, and the examples are correct for British English and are worth memorizing. But Jnestorious is right; nobody could remember all the cases by rote. Facility with prepositions will come with exposure. A few of the examples on that page are wrong for American English: "At university" has no equivalent; Americans have to say something like "attending university", though that "at" is starting to leak across the Atlantic. In Britain, you can live "in" Oxford Street, but in America you would live "on" it. Americans are "in school", not "at school", if they are attending a school at that point in their lives, but they are "at school" if they are there right this minute. English is a mess, but that's what makes it so versatile. English is like those modern jet planes that are so unstable they can't be flown without computer control. --Milkbreath 10:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- WikiCheng | Talk 13:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what's been said so far. After looking at the other pages, here are my comments on more examples where the nuances are interesting:

"She's waiting for you in the garden" and "She's waiting for you at the garden" could both be valid; I would expect the first to be used in a case where, say, the two speakers are in a house and the garden is immediately outside the house. I would expect the second to be used when a known garden is at some distant location from the two speakers--which would possibly match your proximity theory, although "she's at the coffee shop, in the garden" could be far away from the present speakers.
"She's away at college" is perfectly common in American English; I don't often (if ever) hear "she's away at university"; in other words, it's not the "at" that's different between American & British English; it's the generic term for post-secondary school that's different. "I'm in college" would be a response to what grade level you're currently studying at (like "I'm in third grade" or " I'm in high school"). "She's at the university" would refer to a specific known post-secondary institution that happens to be a university rather than a college (and there is a distinction).

Elf | Talk 18:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suffixes in Proper Names

Are you supposed to use a comma or not when adding a suffix to a proper name?

John Smith, Jr. --- or --- John Smith Jr. --- (comma or no comma?)
Michael Jones, III --- or --- Michael Jones III --- (comma or no comma?)

I have usually seen suffixes like "Junior" or "Senior" or "Jr." or "Sr." with a comma before it. But with Roman numerals (I, II, III, etc.), I have never seen a preceding comma. Are there any rules about this? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I wouldn't use a comma on either of those, but those nutty Americans do use one on Jr. and Sr. The book I have that features William Thurston III doesn't have a comma. If you are still in doubt, try Strunk's manual of Style or whatever it should be called. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 15th Edition of The Chicago Manual of Style (an American work, my friend) says that commas around "Jr." are optional and that "III" and the like never did take them. It's a style thing, no big deal, no rules to observe or defy. --Milkbreath 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense that Michael Jones III would have no comma, given that Elizabeth II, Henry XIII and the like don't. SaundersW 19:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that if you're writing a "Jr." or "Sr." name at the beginning or in the middle of a sentence and you decide to use a comma before the Jr. or Sr., you need to use a comma after it as well. Deor 20:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deor, can you give an example? Are you saying that a comma after "Jr." is required when one writes the following sentence?: "I saw John Smith, Jr., at the party last night." That does not seem right? How about this one? "John F. Kennedy, Jr., was born in 1932." Are you saying that the comma is required after the "Jr." ... or am I misunderstanding your prior post? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 07:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Nope, you're not misunderstanding. According to the style manuals available to me, just as one encloses a year number with commas in giving a full date (as in "December 7, 1941, was a date which will live in infamy") or encloses a state name in a sentence like "We traveled to Hermann, Missouri, for the wine festival," one encloses Jr. or Sr. Of course, as has been pointed out above, the use of any commas at all with Jr. and Sr. is falling out of fashion; but older manuals that advocate the use of commas, such as Words into Type, are quite explicit about this. Deor 12:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I never knew that. I guess you learn something new every day. Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Old style manuals used to insist on "Sir Quentin Dinsdale, G.C.M.G, K.C.V.O, M.B.E., D.S.O.", but now the much cleaner, comma- and period-free, version "Sir Quentin Dinsdale GCMG KCVO MBE DSO" prevails. Why not adopt the same philosophy with Jr. -- JackofOz 02:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In British English, the abbreviations for Senior and Junior are already without a full-stop — Snr or Sr and Jr Jnr. A full-stop is only required when the last letter of the abbreviation is not the same as the last letter of the full word. So Mr Mrs Dr Prof. Cllr Capt. etc. Bazza 13:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the helpful input. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Online Resources for learning Arabic

Is anyone aware of any good online sites for learning standard Arabic? I have a basic idea of the language—I know its phonemes, writing system, its "template" inflection scheme and the basic word order but no real words or specifics. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try the links under the article in Arabic language. Duh. 130.126.67.144 01:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite the newcomers. I apologize on behalf of Wikipedia for the unfriendly answer above. If you look at the article on Arabic language, you'll find some links to online courses. --Milkbreath 13:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, Ikiroid isn't even new! Anyway, I haven't really found online sites to be very useful for learning any kind of Arabic. I would just buy a dictionary and start flipping through it, or some text books, or start reading Arabic newspapers or simple literature. Adam Bishop 13:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across a couple of Arabic podcasts, but I think they might be defunct now. Try thearabicpodclass.blogspot.com and www.arabicpod.net. If you already know a bit, they might not be so useful, but at least you can hear some Arabic in use. Steewi 05:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this site. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 23:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese question

I created the article The Amazing Race: A Corrida Milionária, and translated the Portuguese portion of the title as "The Millionaire Race", which is a literal translation of it. However, I have a feeling it might actually mean "The Million Dollar Race" because it makes more sense and sounds better. So, could the phrase be correctly translated as that? --Crazy Legs KC 22:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so. Millionaire presumably originated as a general-purpose adjective from million, and got more specialized in English; I suspect the Portuguese use here shows the broader sense – "the race characterized (in some way) by a million". Is the prize a million dollars? or a million reais? Or do the contestants have to be millionaires? —Tamfang 19:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, none of the above. The prize is 500,000 (half a million) reais, and the contestants certainly don't have to be millionaires (which is why I questioned the literal translation). However, the show is based on the American version of TAR, in which the prize is a million dollars, which is where the sense of "million" comes in. A quick check on Dictionary.com showed that you're probably right about the original sense of the word: the "-aire" part is equivalent to "-ary", which makes the word mean "connected with" or "pertaining to", such as in "elementary," "honorary," and "stationary." The only justification I can think of for the literal translation would be that the winners become millionaires (but they only do so in the American version, not this version), so the other translation is probably better. Thanks for your help! --Crazy Legs KC 20:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]