Language desk
< December 1	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 3 >

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 2

Singular or plural?

I ran across a sentence today that caused me some confusion. Any clarification is appreciated. The sentence involved the Patriots (NFL football team). When you talk about "the Patriots", does that term act as a singular noun (a collective unit / team) ... or does it act as a plural noun (let's say 20 individual, separate men)? Thus, what would be the correct verb after the noun ... singular or plural?

If you used the word "team" ... you would say: That team is sure to win the Super Bowl this year. (Right?)
But if you used the word "Patriots" ... you would say: The Patriots are sure to win the Super Bowl this year. (Right?)

But, isn't the word "team" and "Patriots" essentially interchangeable, meaning the same exact thing? Or no?

Also ... a totally separate question ... how do you create the possessive? (And why exactly?)

The Patriots record is great this year.
The Patriots' record is great this year.
The Patriots's record is great this year.

I know that we can say "The record of the Patriots is great this year." ... but that does not answer my question. Thanks for any input. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

For the first part, it's "Patriots are", so I suppose the equivalent to "Patriots" is "the members of the team".

For the second part, it's "The Patriots' record", when viewed as a team, or "the Patriot's records", when viewed as individual team members. StuRat (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except if you were talking about the individual records of many team members, it would be "the Patriots' records". -- JackofOz (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that while in America "team" takes a singular verb, in England, "team" takes a plural verb. --Falconus^{p t c} 11:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In American English, if the group is an identifiably small group, such as a sports team or musical group, where it is generally assumed that you are speaking of a countable group of individually identifiable persons (i.e. The Patriots refers to a specific group of 45 players and a few coaches and support personel) then there is strict S-V agreement. Thus "The Patriots aren't doing as well this year" and "The Beatles were a band during the 1960s". For groups that are uncountably large, use the singular when referring to the group as a whole. "General Motors is in financial trouble". This is not always terribly consistant, and is contextual in other areas. For example, you would use "The United States is..." when referring to actions of the Federal government, but "the states are..." when referring to the actions of the many states. You would say "The committee is meeting at 3:00" but "The committee are argueing amongst themselves". One all encompassing rule does not handle all aspects of S-V agreement, like all language it is a complex melange of rules and exceptions. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think a fair amount of people would say "The committee is arguing amongst itself. Otherwise, agree entirely. The team IS sure to win = the Patriots ARE sure to win; even with equivalent subjects in mind, the subject-verb agreement is with the words themselves and not the concept. zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. This has been very helpful ... and I appreciate the input. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Spanish: Regional tú and usted

There are some countries where usted is rarely used and tú is commonly used when talking to strangers and non-acquaintances (Spain and the Caribbean come to mind). Other countries like Costa Rica, never use tú at all and most people use usted most of the time. How did this come to be? What kinds of influences encouraged people to adopt such practices? It seems weird why these specific regions of speech would suddenly divulge from the standard language in that way. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 04:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See T-V distinction. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there may be differences between countries, there are no Spanish-speaking countries where one form is always, or almost always, used. In countries like Costa Rica, the reason people don't say tú isn't that they say only usted; the reason is that the choice is between vos (familiar) and usted (formal). See Voseo. 128.32.238.145 (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

izquierda

Why did Spanish take the word for 'left' from Basque and not from Latin? Nadando (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Basque region had a heavy influence on the Spanish monarchy early on. However, this doesn't explain why siniestra (Latinate 'left') is still used today. I assume that they coexisted for a while before izquierda became overwhlemingly popular (siniestra is only rarely used today; supposedly it sounds more poetic and to some people, funny). --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 04:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site, the common origin of Spanish izquierda, Portuguese ezquerdo and Catalan esquerra, along with the aforementioned Basque term eskerra, suggest a pre-Roman derivation (with possible origin in the Pyrenees).
Hence, either the term entered Spanish vocabulary through Basque influence, as member explains, or the word was already previously in use by Iberians before romanization in the area began. Either way, izquierdo won the fight for common use. Siniestra sounds to me anyway as a typical cultism.
Apart from the poetical flavor member points out, siniestra also has the pejorative attributions the word had for the Romans. Pallida Mors 16:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious: Are there more common Spanish words of Basque origin? — Sebastian 18:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous word of possibly Basque origin I know of is bizarro (which of course is a loanword in English too, though neither bizarro nor bizarre mean the same thing in English anymore as bizarro does in Spanish). One of the etymologies is: "from French bizarre "odd, fantastic," originally "handsome, brave," from Basque bizar "a beard" (the notion being of the strange impression made in France by bearded Spanish soldiers)". There are alternative etymologies though, see etymonline or Spanish Wikcionario which says it's from Italian bizzarro. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iberian languages are a complex spectrum of related languages and dialects. Portugeuese, Galician, Castillian, Catalan, etc. etc. are all to varying degrees mutually intelligible, and also distinct in other ways. People who tended to live near Navarre probably adopted more Basque loan words; while those that lived in Moorish regions adopted more Arabic words, and those that lived in more Romanized areas adopted more latinate words. While Castilian is taken as the formalized "school" Spanish, that's largely because it is the dialect spoken in and around Madrid; however other dialects and languages on the Iberian peninsula have their own distinct lexicons and grammars. The mistake is assuming there is a monolithic "Spanish" language which is spoken in all of Spain and Latin America. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I learned Spanish I was taught that there were only two loanwords from Basque: "izquierda" and "perro". Interesting to read here about "bizarre". Itsmejudith (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never studied Spanish, but I'd find that claim pretty hard to believe. Our Spanish language article says "Spanish developed along the remote cross road strips among the Alava, Cantabria, Burgos, Soria and La Rioja provinces of Northern Spain (see Glosas Emilianenses), as a strongly innovative and differing variant from its nearest cousin, Leonese, with a higher degree of Basque influence in these regions". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See List of Spanish words of Basque/Iberian origin. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a left-handed person called "sordo" in Spanish? Or is it Catalan? I ask because of a mishap that befell Picasso once: he etched a drawing of a bullfighter on a plate, but forgot to correct for the "mirror effect" of the final print. So he just renamed the print "El Sordo". Rhinoracer (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Written forms of address in Catalan

In English-language correspondence addressed to a government official in Catalonia, I'd like to preserve some of the Catalan forms or use the accepted equivalents in English, so would appreciate confirmation (or correction :-) of the following:

Sr. as in Spanish (for Mr.)?
If the individual's position is Conseller [de X de la Generalitat de Catalunya], would he be addressed as "your Excellency" or otherwise?
Conseller = Minister (as in British English)?

-- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can read and write Catalan, you can try asking at the Catalan reference desk,

ca:Viquipèdia:Taulell de consultes.

-- Wavelength (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, neither, but I'll follow the link you've helpfully provided and try my best with ELF. --Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to assume that someone in Catalonia will use Spanish terms of address in official business as well as Catalan, probably without causing disrespect. Steewi (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a valid approach, Steewi, and was indeed my default choice for a backup. I wanted, however, to go a bit further: as this is English-language international correspondence between two governmental bodies (both having a "language of low distribution") in matters of cultural affairs, I'd aimed to give due regard to Catalonia's linguistic heritage in this particular context. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korean language readers needed

I was planning on updating a link in our blood type article with an Archive.org copy, but I wanted to have someone who can verify that the archived version does actually say something about the distribution of blood types in South Korea. Here is the link. Thanks!--droptone (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Widow/widower

Is this the only word pair in English where the male and female counterparts are distinguished by the suffix -er? The only other pair I can think of is goose/gander, but that's not a good comparison because the -er in that case is not a suffix. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you exclude pairs like waiter/waitress. I have read that the only other pair where the male term is derived from the female is bride/bridegroom. jnestorius^(talk) 22:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I would exclude waiter/waitress, because "waiter" is not the male counterpart of a female "wait". To be clear, I'm talking about where the female word is converted to a male word by the addition of -er. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not quite kosher: But what about butch and butcher? With apologies to Prof. Judith Halberstam. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a theory. "Widower" appears to have gained its -er ending from French influences on the word "widow", which is much older. The -er ending is traditionally a masculine ending. Perhaps the reason the widow/widower relation is so odd is because only rarely did the word describing the female come into use before the word describing the male. "-ow" is actual a suffix of the Indo-European "widh-" which meant to be without. So, in old times of war, there were a lot of "widh" women (widows), but not many men. The widow form stuck over time and the suffix lost it's separate meaning. By the time the masculine ending was added, the entire history of the word was gone, otherwise we'd probably have "wider", and no such problem. Wrad (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cow and cower. CBHA (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wider still and wider ... :) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRT Goose/gander - are you sure? c/- German gans. Steewi (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I thought, but checking Gander on Etymonline it would seem that it does not come from PIE *ghans-, as 'goose' does.--KageTora - the RefDesker formerly known as ChokinBako (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was guessing that the -er in gander was not a suffix. But even it were, it still doesn't fit the widow/widower pattern because there's no such English word as "gand". -- JackofOz (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While googling for this question yesterday, I saw a book confirming what Jnestorius said about widower and bridegroom being the only "people" words (sorry I don't know what to call them) where the masculine form is derived from the feminine form. The book also listed two animal couples, goose/gander and duck/drake, but the etymologies don't seem to be derivative of one another. I guess the point the author was trying to make was that duck and goose are examples of animals where the female is the colloquial default name for the species. In any event, I've never heard anyone say "look at that drake!" when pointing to a male duck. But you probably wouldn't say "look at that cow" when pointing to a bull (provided you recognize it's a bull). Do we have an article on something like this? ---Sluzzelin talk 12:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess "male nurse", "male model", and "male prostitute" don't count as being derived from female equivalents? I've certainly heard people say things like "My brother/boyfriend is a male nurse", where "male" should technically be redundant (since the person's maleness is already established by "brother" or "boyfriend"), but yet felt to be somehow necessary for full understanding (subconsciously fearing that "My brother/boyfriend is a nurse" will sound as contradictory as "My brother/boyfriend is an actress" or "...stewardess"). —An gr 13:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they don't count as non-compounded "words" in the same category as widower, though of course bridegroom is a compound too. Good point. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

btw lately I've seen male masseuse (for masseur). —Tamfang (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if a man murdered his wife, he'd be both a murder-er (in the sense of one who causes a murder to occur, cf. employ-er) and a widow-er (in the sense of the one who causes a widowing to occur; only, in this case he'd be widowing himself, not his wife). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're sure he had only one wife? Strawless (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_{That post makes widow sense. Matt Deres (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

If Nathan Hale had always wanted to follow in the footsteps of Brigham Young, he might have said: "I only regret that I have but one wife to lose for my country". :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These jokes are getting widower and widower. Matt Deres (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on the basis of the extraordinary amount of expertise that's been brought to bear here, I would conclude that the anser to my question is "Yes, it is the only such case". Thank you, one and all. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you really have a nat for puns. Matt Deres (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]