Language desk
< April 3	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 5 >

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.

April 4

"In bed"

Why can we say 'I am in bed', but not use this structure for other locations? We don't say 'I am in car', 'I am in kitchen', 'I am in chair'. Why isn't there a preposition like 'I am in my bed' or 'the bed'? 70.162.25.53 (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usage, and because it's a state or an idea, not a placement as such? As in I'm driving rather than I am driving the car along the road; I'm at the table not I'm sitting in the dining chair. Why do we say I am sitting down rather than I am in chair? I like I'm on the phone, when the phone is really on me. You can be logical with language up to a point but what spoken language is completely literal when it just carries ideas? Julia Rossi (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is the UK construction in hospital. Strad (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also "in Downing Street", "in Yorkshire", "in prison". On the other hand "in theatre" would mean that theatre is your line of business, as opposed to "in the theatre" being in a particular theatre building. The same would go for "in college" (being a student) vs "in the college" being in the building .... I think that the latter is used also for faculty members of University Colleges. I don't think there is much logical constancy. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is whether or not the object is individuated, though partially it's simply lexified. There's a difference between watching TV, where TV is almost an adverb, describing the action, and watching the TV (to make sure it isn't nicked), where TV is clearly the object of the action. Same he's in bed (= asleep) vs. he's in the bed (whichever bed we're talking about) or he's in his (own) bed. Thus the difference between in theatre and in the theatre, I was in prison (incarcerated) and I was in the prison (this morning), etc. *I am in car would presumably mean something like "I am driving", but since we have a perfectly good verb for it, there's no point in ever developing the phrase *I am in car. However, we have no verb for watching TV or being in hospital, and that's where these phrases come in. kwami (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sundays mornings, I am in church. We have some lovely carved pews in the church. My nephew has gone to sea as a cabin boy. Most rivers round here go to the sea. My daughter is at school. I always have problems parking at the school. &caetera

Rhinoracer (talk) 19

00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Julia is closer than kwami. The form without article tends to get used when we're talking about a state or condition, even if it happens to correspond to a physical location: thus 'in bed' is like 'in surgery', 'in conference', and 'in prison'. In the UK, as Strad says, 'in hospital' is the normal idiom: 'in the hospital' would be marked in the same was as 'in the school'. But 'in bed' doesn't mean 'asleep' - it can equally well mean 'suffering with or recovering from an illness', and I'm not sure it would cease to apply if the person were to get up for a little while.

Of course. "Asleep" was only one example of what in bed could be used for. But the construction is not just for a state or condition, unless you consider TV to be so mindless that watching TV is a state rather than an activity. kwami (talk)

There's another US/UK distinction that crops up here, and that's 'at' vs. 'in'. In the UK we do not say 'in school', we say 'at school'. But we do say 'in prison' and 'in hospital' - 'at' there would definitely imply we were talking about a visitor. I've just thought that 'at breakfast' means simply currently eating breakfast, whereas I would only expect 'in breakfast' if 'breakfast' was a communal event taken at a particular place. --ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or he's at the breakfast, if it were not the normal morning routine but a special breakfast that some organization was holding.

Both in school and at school are used in the US. "In school" means going to school at this time, as opposed to having a career or being in the army: "Is John still in school? —Yes, he's going to college now." "At school" is current location: "Is John home? —No, dear, he's still at school." "At the school" would mean the particular school was a topic of the discussion: "The police arrived at the school within five minutes of the shooting." —kwami (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To/or

Why use for example "One TO two computers" instead of "One OR two computers" when there are clearly no numbers between 1 and 2? 58.168.128.66 (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that? It sounds awkward to me. Paul Davidson (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say it all the time. It's simply a construction: "X to Y Z's", where X and Y are the limits of the quantity. A few to many, six to eight, etc. Also, sometimes there is a number in between: one to two hours. Very little of what we say is thought out: we splice together prefabricated phrases and constructions, which leads to a lot of analogical leveling. Listen carefully to a recording of a conversation. Probably less than 10% will be original. It's just easier that way: "X to Y Z's", regardless of the actual numbers. It's the same reason as saying it's or there's for plurals, or less instead of fewer. kwami (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you say "X to Y" when Y-X=1. Nobody says "I'll be there in three to four hours", we say "...three or four hours." My answer to 58.168.128.66 is that we don't use "to" there. What made you think we do? --Milkbreath (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a somewhat different case, Milkbreath. Events don't occur exactly at hourly intervals. I may get there as early as 3 hours time, or as late as 4 hours time, or at some point in between those 2 extremes, and there are an infinite number of such points. But when there are only 2 discrete possibilities (e.g. one computer or two computers) we sometimes forget there are only 2 possibilities, use the general construction, and still end up saying "one to two". It's not inaccurate; it's just that the number of possibilities between the two extremes happens to be zero. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily imagine myself on the road to visit friends in another city, not knowing whether I will face heavy traffic along the way, and phoning to say "I will be there in three to four hours." Depending on traffic, I might get there in three hours, three hours and fifteen minutes, three hours and forty minutes, some other intermediate time, or four hours. Marco polo (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If you were taking an hourly train and not sure which one you would get on you could say "I will be there in three or four hours". The phrase "I will be there in three to four hours" implies any possible time between. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many people use "or" rather than "to" even when there are numbers in between. "I'll be there in 20 or 30 minutes" does not usually mean that I'm planning to take a train that runs every 10 minutes. And similarly with "3 or 4 hours", although "3 to 4 hours" is also perfectly normal for me. For things counted in whole numbers, I agree that "or" is preferable when the two numbers given are consecutive. --Anonymous, 21:49 UTC, April 4, 2008.

OK, maybe that wasn't such a great example. That is conceivable. But I still say nobody says "one to two computers" if their head is on straight. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds just as wrong to me when people say less for fewer, but I hear it all the time. kwami (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it sounds wrong, I'm saying nobody says it. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Boston University's ad for international language programs: "During the remaining period, in addition to the CIES language and liberal arts program, students have the possibility to take one to two courses at the University of Padova." Maybe a course is divisible? (or maybe the head wasn't on straight?) ---Sluzzelin talk 17:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. That was obviously written by someone whose grasp of English is at near-native level. "The possibility to take" is not idiomatic, so whatever comes next is suspect. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I didn't notice that... Thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk 18:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I hear it all the time from native speakers. I wouldn't have noticed anything unusual about that ad. kwami (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that in just about any case where the numbers are apparently integers, like computers or courses, you can, in fact, have something in-between. You could have 1.5 computers, effectively, if one of the computers isn't fully functional. Perhaps it lacks an Internet connection or is running outdated software, making it only useful for a few tasks. A partial course can be one which is audited or only attended part-time. Perhaps someone only interested in inorganic chemistry may only take the first half of a general chemistry class, for example. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Extra" symbols in devanagari - sanskrit

The text of various mantras on the Himalayan academy website has some symbols I have not come across before, which also appear on the Roman transliteration. For example in bhojana mantra there are underscores under some of the 'a' characters and vertical lines, for example over the last a in shankaraprana in the first line. I guess these are some type of stress marks. What do they mean? -- Q Chris (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They look like cantillation marks. This is a chant, after all, and they occur with several different vowels and consonants, showing that they aren't diacritics. The only thing I can think of is intonation or melody. But I'm just guessing. kwami (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are pitch accent marks. See Vedic accent and this document, linked from the page. Abecedare (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, so the accented syllable is not marked, and the nonaccented syllables are? kwami (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Abecedare, that document covers it though it will take me a little while to comprehend what it's saying. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the origin of "to haze" ?

Hello from a frenchie ! I saw recently on my TV Homer Simpon at a university-ex-fellows party ( so he went to some kind of U. ?), flourishing a streamer " Support the hazing" ...Of course my "Webster's 3rd New International Dic., Unabridged" gives me : "to haze : to harass a crew , or to humiliate a freshman ...". But I do not see the link between a light dusty mist and the humiliation ...May-be the glazed misty forlorn look in the eyes of zombies ? Thanks for your suggestions ... P.S. In french , no problem : "bizutage" is the treatment inflicted on the "bizuts" , the freshmen ...But BTW how students , would-be intellectual elite of a nation , happened to forge that word ?--91.168.132.189 (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The American Heritage Dictionary suggests that it may ultimately derive from Old French: [1] --Diacritic (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary hints at that, too, saying only to compare Old French haser, attested from 1450, which it defines as "irriter, piquer", etc. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I really think the French "Bizut" is a military word originally, not invented by students. --Lgriot (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether it may derive from the french harceler(to harass), as does the informal 'to hassle'? Rhinoracer (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Driving directions

"One day a driver you just passed on the right gets out of his car..." (English)

My question is: after "I" passed that driver, where is my car on the road? Is it on the RIGHT ahead of the driver's (also on the right)? Am "I" driving on a road where "oncoming traffic is seen coming from the left side" and the traffic is "right-handed"? (See "Traffic directionality") This is about "English". I don't understand how "on the right" affects the action here. (The traffic in different countries is different in directions)

--Fitzwilliam (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this sentence or sentence fragment was written by a North American. In the UK and the Antipodes, one would normally pass on the right. It would be almost redundant to say "on the right" in those countries. However, in the United States and Canada, one is supposed to pass on the left. Passing on the right requires the qualifier "on the right" to indicate this nonstandard maneuver. Because passing on the right is nonstandard and somewhat dangerous ~~or (in some jurisdictions) illegal~~, one could imagine that a driver who had been passed on the right might be angry. In the United States, you almost expect that the sequel to your quote could be "and pulls out a gun." You are correct that, at least in American English, the quote above implies that the car that has done the passing is ahead and to the right. However, for the driver of the car that has been passed to get out of his car, one assumes that he has pulled over to the right edge of the road. Again, this is assuming that the passage refers to a North American context. Marco polo (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard this many times but never had a credible confirmation. Is passing on the right actually illegal? I know the general rule is "faster traffic should stay left and slower should stay right", but is this a convention or a law? People pass on the right in my experience all the time (if some bonehead is going slow in the left lane) and I've never heard of anyone getting ticketed for it. (This is in the US by the way.) Friday (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me simplify the traffic situation to just LEFT (like Britain) and RIGHT (like the US). I took this sentence from a German manual in English, and the English spelling and vocabulary are British (so, probably for British readers). According to our article, Britain is LEFT, but the US and German-speaking countries (like Germany) are all RIGHT. The context is that the driver feels somewhat strange that "I" passed him on the RIGHT and thus perhaps (sort of) blocked his way. If the British people generally think it's perfectly normal to pass a car on the right (since their country is LEFT), then a British driver learning German would very probably come across the strange response in Germany where people don't pass on the "right" - so, here it'd be a difference of driving practices.--Fitzwilliam (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Ontario, Canada, where we drive on the right, the Ministry of Transport has this [2] to say about passing. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Friday, I had thought that it was illegal to pass on the right in at least one state—Connecticut—but when I checked their driver's manual, I found that it is discouraged but not ilegal. A quick search did not reveal any states in which passing on the right is illegal. So I stand corrected. Marco polo (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of why we don't give legal advice. A quick search found British Columbia, Maine and Michigan all outlawing passing on the right - and that was just the first page of Google results. Rmhermen (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought passing on the right was illegal in at least one state, but Wikipedia's Traffic article doesn't mention any. I do remember on the old TV show The Jetsons a scene where George gets a ticket for "passing under traffic" in his flying car, and I always assumed it was based on such a law. Maybe there once was a law in some states and it has been abolished.

By the way, since British practice has been mentioned in this thread, note that the usual word there would be "overtaking", not "passing". "Passing" usually refers there to what you do to traffic going the other way. --Anonymous, 22:00 UTC, April 4, 2008.

I've had people pass me on the right on one-lane roads. I almost forced another driver into a tree to keep him from passing me one time. Corvus cornix_talk 21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that on the east coast of the US, places like Connecticut and Pennsylvania, drivers are expected to stay on the middle or outer lanes, and you overtake using the inner lanes, which are left free. People can get quite angry if you overtake them on the outside. However, on the west coast you don't keep to the outside (there's too much traffic for that to be practical), and you overtake wherever there's room. kwami (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another confusion, then! In the UK, the outside lane is the one nearest the central reservation (median, I believe). Overtaking on the inside is (usually, but not always) illegal ([3] item 268). Bazza (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's the Highway Code but it isn't the law as such. Things that are illegal are written "You must not..." and are followed with a reference to the relevant law. So you might be got for careless or dangerous driving, but it's not straightforwardly an illegal thing to do. Certainly if you crash while undertaking like that, you can generally expect to be found at fault. Also, reading the section after it, notice the distinction between passing and overtaking a vehicle. It seems relevant to this discussion :) 130.88.140.121 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Error in NYT headline?

Is it me or is the headline from this story (referred to on RD/M) terrible English? Shouldn't it be "shone"? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Wiktionary and Merriam-Webster online, they both indicate that either (shone or shined) is acceptable, with M-W suggesting that "shone" is primarily Canadian or British. --LarryMac | Talk 15:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MW does not state that shone is British / Canadian English, it differentiates between two ways of pronouncing shone, the first one - presumably - being US usage. The entry says "past & past part shined : to make bright by polishing <shined his shoes>".

A couple of other on-line dictionaries also indicate that "shined" is used primarily in the polishing sense, as in "shined her shoes" or "... his cricket ball". Considering the locus of rubbing the latter, the word "cricket" may be redundant.

Based on this, the phrase "...shined Laser at aircraft..." is incorrect unless he polished it fist. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my usage, shone is intransitive: "the sun shone" or "the sun shined", but only "shined the laser". If you said "shone the laser", I'd hear it as "(he was) shown the laser". kwami (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English language going back to the middle ages

How far back in time would I have to go (in England) before people did not understand me and what language where they speaking apart from latin and french?

Thank you for your help

Regards

Terry Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.140.223 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the difficulty many modern speakers of English have with Shakespeare, considering that modern performances of Shakespeare seldom attempt the pronunciation of Shakespeare's day, and considering that we probably have an easier time understanding past forms of English—to which we have some exposure—than past speakers would have had understanding our (to them) future forms of English, I suspect that you would have a hard time being understood much before the late 17th century. Certainly, you would not have been understood before the 15th century, when the Great Vowel Shift began. Before the Great Vowel Shift, in the late Middle Ages, Middle English was spoken. Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese language: Semitic form vs Romance form

I am posting this here, because I don't know how frequently the talk page of the article on Maltese language is watched. I posted the same query there:

Below the following example:

"Maltese can be spoken using either the Semitic or the Romance forms. A case in point is the English sentence "The temple is situated opposite the village plaza."

Romance form: It-tempju sitwat oppost il-pjazza tal-villaġġ.
(Italian: Il tempio è situato davanti (opposto) alla piazza del villaggio.)
Semitic form: Il-maqdes jinsab biswit il-misraħ tar-raħal."

someone added:

"It would, however, be a mistake to say that both of these sentences mean the same thing. Tempju refers to a temple site such as Stonehenge, for example, whereas maqdes may more often be used to describe a church. Moreover, a Maltese speaker is more likely to translate raħal as "village" and villaġġ as "small town." In fact, neither of the above sentences is likely to be said naturally by a native speaker, as both of them involve a collision of normally separate speech registers."

and removed:

"Both sentences are in Maltese and have exactly the same meaning. Generally though, no one form is ever spoken exclusively, and sentences are usually made up of words from both influences."

All other contributions by this editor were joke edits. But can anyone comment on whether both sentences have "exactly the same meaning" or whether the jokester is making a valid point? Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Maltese, but there's no way that those are going to be "the same" in actual speech, in the sense of being used in the same contexts. Language doesn't work that way. Whether they can be argued to be semantically equivalent is another matter. People are not going to carry around separate Romance and Arabic lexicons in their heads. Just as most English speakers would have difficulty telling you which English words are Germanic and which are French, I imagine most Maltese speakers will not always be able to tell Romance from Arabic. Rather, I expect most pairs of words have either taken on differences in meaning, like pork vs. pig in English, or differences in register, such as technical vs. lay vocabulary in English. kwami (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds likely. Still, I guess I'm curious whether this was a Maltese speaking jester with constructive potential, or just a vandal. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd for vandalism, though I suppose possible. Could check w a good Maltese dictionary. There does need to be more description of the poetic vs. technical registers, which would also clear it up. kwami (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone familiar with the phonology of classical Arabic and tajwid? Please check this unreverted edit of the jester. --Lambiam 09:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears that is the pronunciation in parts of Yemen. Don't know if it's original to Arabic or an influence of Mehri, though. kwami (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bang the Drum Slowly

There is an entry for this phrase and it refers to the movie of the same name (taken from a book I believe). I suspect that this phrase comes from the military use in funerals of a slow drum beat to show respect for a fallen comrade. My guess is that it goes back to Greek and Roman times, if not early. I looked65cornell (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC) around and could not find any references on this. I suspect that a scholar in Greek and/ or Latin would know the derivation of this phrase.[reply]

It would appear that it's nowhere near that old, and is apparently from a poem/song called The Cowboy's Lament, also known as The Streets of Laredo. This is referenced in the Bang the Drum Slowly article. Also take a look at Streets of Laredo (song), and this page (WARNING, plays sound with no apparent way to stop it). --LarryMac | Talk 19:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]