Language desk
< February 20	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 22 >

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.

February 21

Why no books with sequels in English class?

Why don't English classes in high school ever use books that are or have sequels? I've yet to encounter Nineteen Eighty-Five, Brave New World Reloaded, The Handmaid Strikes Back, 2 Much 2 Nothing, The Return of the Flies or Fahrenheit 452. Neon Merlin 04:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is 1985 (Anthony Burgess novel) and Brave New World Revisited. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 05:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't read the Chronicles of Narnia in schools anymore? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, too racist. 72.215.199.66 (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the U.S., thanks to separation of church and state. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that concept exist in the U.S.? --147.83.68.220 (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New rule: No US bashing unless we know where you come from yourself. How can one retort otherwise? If you're Iranian, I'll say one thing, if British, quite another. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were helpful enough to sign with their IP, so we do know where they are right now which may well be where they come from (Barcelona). Any Barcelona comments? 130.88.140.5 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. The Catalonians are doing pretty well that way, for Roman Catholics. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disestabishmentherianism (did I spell that right?) does very well exist in the U.S., despite the fact we put "In God We Trust" on our money. Even though I am somewhat religious I would very much like it to stay that way (which is why Huckabee scared the living daylights out of me). 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask, no. It's disestablishmentarianism. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel (Fawlty Towers) -- Q Chris (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we had SOCS in 1993 when my fifth grade class read The Magician's Nephew. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In high school we read Fifth Business, which is part of the Deptford Trilogy. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We read Henry VIII, though I never read the first seven ... Neıl ☎ 13:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't missed anything—every one was just another Henery. Deor (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Willies, no Sams? --LarryMac | Talk 16:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, in a sense Henry VIII actually is a sequel. Shakespeare's earlier works included Henry VI, Parts 1, 2, and 3; Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2; Henry V; and Richard II and III — all stories of earlier kings. (That's in order of publication according to this page; I couldn't find a list in publication order in Wikipedia, but I didn't read all the articles on Shakespeare.) Note in particular the ones with part numbers, an obvious sequel indication. Now the Shakespeare plays I studied in school did not include any of these, but it seems likely that someone has studied one or more of them. --Anonymous, 00:13 UTC, February 22, 2008.

I can't resist: we read the Odyssey in high school. But, seriously, in middle school we did read The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, despite it being a public school. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is that firstly, a lot of the novels are stand-alone classics and as such can be examined in (relative) detail in a short period of time. Investigating a sequel would in some part mean the reader/class would have to be familiar with the preceding book or it's themes and this would take time. As well as this, examining the first in a series of books wouldn't give the same focus - there may be characters, plotlines and themes that would require the pupil to have read the entire canon to provide a full understanding. In my personal experience, the ritualistic ripping apart of an authors magnum opus in school put me off of reading these books again for 20-30 years - it is only recently that I've been able to read the Lord of the Flies, 1984, Brave New World, The Pearl and other English Lit set texts again without hearing the echoes of my English Literature teacher asking me to investigate the uses of simile and the authors hidden political agenda. Nanonic (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't see that the Chronicles of Narnia are racist (but then, I'm like that odd man Wordsworth knew, to whom a primrose was a yellow primrose)... but if they are, is The Lord of the Rings too pro-elf and too anti-goblin? Xn4 23:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall David Durham mentioning, when explaining his motivation for writing Acacia, that fantasy worlds often consist of different races that are basically a bunch of white people with slightly different minor physical characteristics. Don't quote me on that, though. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 11:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer precedes The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and the latter is commonly read in schools in the US. Aleta (Sing) 23:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said Narnia was racist? And yes, the first book was our first text in high school. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

72.215.199.66 did, but I have no idea why he thinks it is. When I was a kid, we read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe at Episcopal Summer Camp, and I read it at home, but it was certainly not on the public school curriculum! But then, I grew up in Austin, Texas, the city where Madalyn Murray O'Hair lived. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Chronicles of Narnia#Racism. --mglg_(talk) 17:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It's fairly important on the public school curriculum here in Sydney, New South Wales. But then, we also have Easter and Christmas pageants and scripture lessons at (public) school. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note in passing that this question would fit better on the Humanities desk. --Anon, 00:16 UTC, February 22, 2008.

Writing long-hand vs. typing

I have read that the act of writing by hand connects the brain with the written word better than the process of typing. If this be true, may it explain why there are so many typing errors to be seen in e-mails and posted opinions? I find that I make more spelling errors in typing, where I'm more inclined to type phonetically, than in writing by hand, where I know the "look of the word." I recently received an e-mail from a professor of Latin that included the word "devestating." (His e-mail program has no spell-checker.) [In my Italian class, many years ago, the teacher, who was educated in Scottish and British schools, emphasized the practice of pronouncing then writing. (In groups before the class.) Blessedly, Italian is written phonetically. The method was very effective.] When I try to read posted opinions on AOL, I often can not make sense of them due to the number of spelling and grammatical errors. (Your/you're being the most common.) Additionally, does age become a factor in spelling phonetically instead of corrrectly? I am almost 60 years old, while my Latin-professor friend (devestate) is 69. I also find that final edits have to be made from hard-copies, rather than read from the screen. This may be a generational attribute. I understand that young people who play video-games can process the displayed information better than my generation. Any thoughts and experiences to share? LShecut2nd (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information: Scottish schools are British schools. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. This a common error among us Yanks.LShecut2nd (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the education systems in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom are completely different, so I suppose you could say that, since 'British' schools abroad tend to follow the English/Welsh/N.I. system. --Bearbear (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that it just takes practice to become as good at "feeling" the correct spelling typed as seeing the correct spelling handwritten. After typing innumerable long papers, which, unlike internet posts, need proper spelling (sure you spellcheck, but a long piece with a lot of errors is going to waste time in my impatient opinion), I got "fluent" in typing you could say. As in, after typing for a long time, my thoughts have switched modes into feeling fingers moving instead of hearing words, much like your thought switches language modes after you've been using another. It's really weird, but that's my experience, and I think it helps with spelling while typing. I do agree, though, that proofreading on a screen is impossible — more to do with the strain of looking at a screen than anything else in my opinion. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a lot like my theory, which is completely original research with nothing to back it up; the instant message / internet forum / etc environment is conversational, so the mind is more concerned with the sound of words. When typing in a more formal context, as Laura Scudder mentions, one is not having a "conversation", so the sound of words is not as important as the spelling. On the other hand, this does not explain the plethora of questions we get on the desks that look like they came from a SMS-ing teenager using a mobile phone. --LarryMac | Talk 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) I am a self-proclaimed good typist, and I find a connection between the keyboard and my mind with simply muscle memory. I know where all the keys are (I don't type normally either, I use only 3 fingers from each hand), and when I make a mistake I know it instantly and my fingers jump to the backspace key and correct it before I even realize anything happened. I've made at least 20 such mistakes in this post alone, and I've had to concentrate to even notice I'm correcting them at all. This is simular to hand-writing, where you can feel your hand moving the wrong direction for a letter and you know that you made a mistake. Of course, if I don't know the spelling of a word I mess it up anyway. As for the "your/you're" debacle, I am 21 and all my peers drive me to the brink with their blatent disregard for the English language. This isn't a case of spelling phonetically, but rather laziness and apathy. It is also used to type faster, at the cost of clarity. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I type most of my writing, but when I'm writing "deep and meaningful stuff" to family members, paramours, recently bereaved persons, and the like, I tend to write long-hand because it does seem to help me connect with my feelings. Sometimes, I'll then type the text and print it off; but sometimes I'll send the hand-written letter (where I've taken the trouble to write legibly), or even re-write it neatly in special cases. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise in advance for the entirely personal analysis of the question. I certainly find composition easier with a pen in hand. My Wikipedia prose (for example) is appalling: not so much for spelling or punctuation but the actual crafting of the sentences. It has little to do with sight, either, but the "feeling" of words. When writing on the computer the words are processed in my mind much more; with a pen in my hand the words are formed on the page, rather than my mind. If computer work becomes difficult I will write it out by pen first. I suspect this is not due to the virtue of using a pen (over a keyboard), but rather because that is how I learnt to compose/write. A pen is so essential to me I freqently hold one in my hand when I think. Which makes me wonder, how do computer compositors doodle in the margins? Processing information (reading) is also easier with hard copy: for proof reading, but also pleasure reading: give me a book anyday. Reading is tactile. Gwinva (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the door sprung open??

Should this be sprang :

“

Suddenly the door to the boardroom we were using sprung open

”

(Source)

Thank you!

Yes, since it is simple past tense. Wiktionary. HYENASTE 18:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, if you ask me, and you just did. Others will say no. To me it sounds hillbilly. Our sister universe of Wiktionary gives "sprang" as the only form. The AHD gives both "sprang" and "sprung" as the simple past without comment. Bottom line, you can get away with it if you don't mind sounding a little off to a goodly chunk of your audience. But which chunk? To those who habitually use "sprung", "sprang" will sound Clampettical (I just made that word up). --Milkbreath (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a fine word it is, too. I'll have that. Gwinva (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it, Milkbreath, that you are in the US? In UK English, "sprang" is correct - you would only use swung in perfect/pluperfect and the like tenses (e.g., I spring, I sprang, I have sprung). The -i-, -a-, -u- is still common in many words in Commonwealth English ("sing" and "ring", for example), though it has become archaic in others ("swing", "swang", "swung" is distinctly only a regional variation in some parts of the UK now, and is virtually unknown outside those areas). But in the UK, NZ, and other countries that use stricter UK English* "The door sprung open" will still be looked at oddly, though "sprung" is found in some regional dialects in the UK, too. (* In countries like Australia the language is somewhere between US and UK English, so either sprang or sprung will be heard). Grutness...wha? 01:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, a Yank. A lot of similar words have gone agley. "Honey, I Shrank the Kids" rings like HHH's "tell it as it is". And most of the kids these days of whatever stature haven't drank from the well of grammar, not wanting to seem drunk. One of my favorite tongue-twisters: A skunk sat on a stump. The stump thunk the skunk stunk, and the skunk thunk the stump stunk. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unhelpfully reminded of a favorite quote: "The pitcher flang the ball at the batter. The batter swang and missed. The pitcher flang the ball again and the batter hit a high fly right to the center fielder. The center fielder was about to catch the ball but suddenly the sun blounded him and he dropped it." Pfly (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the sprung bed, the sprung couch that have springs because they've been sprung by someone I take it. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's look at all of that lot one at a time, shall we? :) "Honey I shrunk the kids" is an abomination against the English language - don't take my words for it, that was a comment by one of this country's top film reviewers. I tend to agree, though - the title makes me wince every time I hear it. And of course they "haven't drank" from anything. Read what I said - "I drink, I drank, I have drunk". So they would have drunk from it, if anything. As fot "thunk", that doesn't really apply, "I think, I thank, I have thunk"? Don't think so... but why spoil a good toungue-twister with correct grammar? :)

Fling is a different formation entirely - "I fling, I flinged, I have flung". Swang, as I mentioned, is still used in dialect in some parts of the UK, but is rare and becoming rarer. "Blounded" is just too weird to even bring up here - I can't think of a single verb that uses a "-ind/-ounded" combination ((though with the strangeness of English, who knows?)

As for the bed, yes, sprung is perfectly natural there, because the bed has been sprung (back to "spring, sprang, have sprung"...) Grutness...wha? 09:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byron:

- The Isles of Greece! The Isles of Greece!
- Where burning Sappho loved and sung

Rhinoracer (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which continues:

Where grew the arts of war and peace,
Where Delos rose and Phoebus sprung.

JackofOz (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This being the same Byron who wrote:

I don't think that you used Kinnaird quite well
In Marinèt's affair - in fact, 'twas shabby;
And, like some other things, won't do to tell
Upon your tomb in Westminster's old Abbey
Upon the rest 'tis not worth while to dwell,
Such tales being for the tea-hours of some tabby;
But though your years as man tend fast to zero,
In fact your Grace is still but a young hero.

Here, he uses "won't" for "it wouldn't", implies an "our" between worth and while, uses "fast" for "quickly", and (significantly) uses "tabby" in the archaic sense of a gossip. In other words, poetic language bends grammatical rules, and in any case, language is not fixed and has changed even overt the course of the last 180 years. Grutness...wha? 23:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Won't isn't used in place of it wouldn't, it's in place of will not. The it is already present in 'twas, and I assume you missed the . after Abbey. Worth while or worthwhile is standard idiom, surely? Something is or is not worthwhile. Tabby can suggest a cat making cattish comments, but could as easily be archaic. Certainly Byron used deliberately archaic language, possibly including teh fast in place of quickly. I'm not convinced there are any bent grammatical rules beyond the use of sung in place of sang, sprung in place of sprang. But even these could simply have been the style at the time. 79.74.27.178 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, this is drifting well away from the matter at hand, which (to put it briefly) is that either "sprang" or "sprung" is correct depending on whereabouts in the world you are - "sprung" is most common in US English, "sprang" in UK English; likely as not the alternative will be recognised (though possibly frowned upon) in both cases. Grutness...wha? 07:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward wording?

"In radio, a morning broadcasting time often indicates a larger and more prosperous audience and, thus, one that is more appealing to advertisers of expensive products." Imagine Reason (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds right to me. What's your problem with it? I don't understand what you're trying to point out by italicizing indicates and prosperous. Corvus cornix_talk 18:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm just not used to those words used in that context, eg "a...time indicates a large audience..." Imagine Reason (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I think it's just a shortened form for something like, "The audience for programming during the morning broadcasting time is often larger and more prosperous ...", but the version you offered seems okay to me. But then, I'm from California, we talk funny out here. :) Corvus cornix_talk 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 'indicates' is a rather strange choice of word here. I wonder if it's an emendation for 'means', which could be used in that sense (i.e. 'has as a consequence'). --ColinFine (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic or ironical?

When do you use which one? I would normally use ironic in all situations - ironical just sounds a bit nasty to my ears - but I'm sure there is some fine difference. Thanks. 92.3.49.42 (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I can't think of many uses for the latter. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking in an ironical tone? (That is, the tone indicates that the utterance may be ironic in nature.) SaundersW (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a slightly more formalised rule? 92.3.49.42 (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never use "ironical" - suspect it's a bit like "healthful", which is incorrectly but commonly displaced by "healthy".

The OED says the following:

Ironic: 1. Pertaining to irony; uttering or given to irony; of the nature of or containing irony; = IRONICAL

Ironical: 1. Of the nature of irony or covert sarcasm; meaning the opposite of what is expressed. 2. That uses or is addicted to irony. b. transf. ? Mockingly imitative. Obs. 3. Dissembling; feigned, pretended. Obs. rare. Hence ironicalness, ironical quality.

As far as I can see, the two words can both be used to mean "that which is ironic", but "ironical" has the additional meaning of "that which uses or is addicted to irony". Have a look through the quotations in the OED if you care to explore the subtle differences in usage of the two words. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shoud refinery be capitalized in "Chevron Richmond Refinery" is that is the official name?

In this sentance:

The ridge is covered with chaparral and lies between San Pablo Bay to the west and north, and Castro Cove to the east, the Chevron Richmond Refinery is just east of the range.Boomgaylove (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. It's a matter of style. --Anon, 23:58 UTC, Feb. 21.