Language desk
< October 16	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 18 >

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 17

might

I might not go to school everyday why do we need to use might not may? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.138.2.67 (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "may" sounds slightly more formal. Also, "may" is used when asking for permission, and for giving permission. I think "might" is harmless if you want to make a casual prediction. --Kjoonlee 04:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there's a little more ambiguity with may -- it can also be construed as "having permission". "I may not go to school today" --> "I am not allowed to go to school today". --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real problem in the present tense, with may and might being interchangeable. "We may have rain today." "We might have rain today." A past tense verb-form can normally only be followed by might. "Adrian said that he might be here." NOT "Adrian said that he may be here." May have and might have are also difficult. "We may have won." This means, 'perhaps we have won, perhaps we haven't. We don't know [yet].' "We might have won." This means, 'we have not won but our winning was possible in different circumstances.' Might have is counterfactual. May have is not. With grateful thanks to the excellent "Mind the Gaffe" by RL Trask.

Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM

I saw some (native speakers of English?) who found funny this nick. I (non-native speaker of English) personally don't see what it means, where is the pun. Can someone explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Cogito ergo sum: "I think therefore I am". Gwinva (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the faux latin misspelling "coito ergo sum"... which always gets a chuckle... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 10:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is a cockatoo, therefore he zooms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not just a cockatoo, but a cookatoo. He's a kooky cockatoo! Who zooms. :) (Or maybe a cockatoo who cooks?) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People could be appreciating a reference to the Dead Parrot sketch from Monty Python: "This bird wouldn't "[z]oom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!" -- 128.104.112.23 (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French naming negatives

Salut. I wish to express a denial that my name is x in French. Would it be "Je m'appelle pas x", "Je ne m'appelle pas x" or something else? Please advice. Merci, struggling Slav/the skomorokh 10:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Je ne m'appelle pas Jean." I've seen and heard people drop the "ne" part of the negative, but that seems to be very informal. Ici, je ne m'appelle pas Dave; je m'appelle OtherDave (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

(ec) "Je ne m'appelle pas x" is standard French; "Je m'appelle pas x" is colloquial and is prescriptively regarded as an error. It's a bit like saying "My name ain't x" in English; if you're a native speaker maybe you can get away with it, but if you're a learner, people will be liable to think you don't know any better. —An gr 10:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, thank you both for the swift response. the skomorokh now knows better 10:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriateness of "whom" in spoken English

Hi, how appropriate is "whom" in spoken English? It sounds odd in some cases: "It depends on for whom you're working". Yet, when "whom" is the end of a question, it seems fine: "For whom?" Thanks again, Lazulilasher (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's the "whom" that sounds odd in "It depends on for whom you're working", because "It depends on for who you're working" is just as bad. It's the pied piping that sounds odd there; "It depends on who(m) you're working for" sounds better. —An gr 14:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that is why it sounds odd. Is it acceptable to separate the preposition, in all cases? Lazulilasher (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Angr doesn't read Winston Churchill about split infinitives: “This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.”--ChokinBako (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you've taught me a lesson. It is hard, however, to shake what we're taught in grammar school. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Angr is completely correct and clear? Taught in grammar school to boldly go and split infinitives? And where should this beast be? Ang (see below) is right on --Radh (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Cook taught me that. For some reason, I've had a fear of leaving the preposition hanging at the end of the sentence. Split infinitive never worried me. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did split infinitives come into it? The OP's example sentence doesn't have an infinitive anywhere in it, either split or intact. —An gr 15:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I believe the Churchill quote is along the lines of "..the sort of pedantry up with which...", and that it refers to anti-preposition-at-end-ism rather than split infinitives. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Anyway, back to whom. :) How appropriate in spoken English? Lazulilasher (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use it in formal situations, but not in informal situations. It is not inappropriate in any way in spoken English, so long as that distinction is kept, as far as I am concerned.--ChokinBako (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "whom" is becoming obsolete in most contexts in spoken English: I regard myself as a careful speaker but I very rarely use it (though I would probably still write it where appropriate). Beware the hypercorrective trap of saying things like "the man whom I believe is suitable to be President". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly it. I find myself mentally correcting those who say: "He is the man who I support". Is "who" correct, in any sense? Lazulilasher (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Who" is prescriptively wrong in that sentence, but acceptable - even preferable - in informal speech, IMHO. I would probably just avoid the issue by saying "He is the man I support". Anyway, if you believe Fowler it should be "that", not "who(m)". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of "whom" is a point that always strikes a chord with me. My mothertongue has a clear paradygm for the accusative, so I can sense when use of the accusative is called for, and when it's not. For instance, the example AndrewTaylor gave above is a classic case of the accusative used in a sentence where there's no need for one. People may think using "whom" makes them sound more educated and learned, but using it in the wrong place just makes you look like you're trying too hard.

To answer the question: my gut feeling (as a non-native speaker of English with a good instinct for languages) is that "whom" is nigh obsolete in spoken English, and is applicable mostly in formal written English. You should, however, be familiar with the rules for the accusative before using it - "whom" is freely interchangable with "who" in modern English, and if you don't have a firm grasp of accusative placement, it might be a better idea to just play it safe and go with "who". IMO. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feeling (as a native speaker of English) is that "whom" is best treated as obsolete, even there are those who disagree. The only instance where "who" seems wrong to me in the objective (accusative) case is in constructs like "To who(m) were you speaking?", and these are easily corrected by moving "to" to the end, whereupon "who" sounds fine to me. (In short, I'm applying Safire's Rule on "who" and "whom": if "whom" sounds correct, recast the sentence.) --Anonymous, 21:20 UTC, October 17, 2008.

Yes, you can get by without it in most situations, and most people prefer to, so it is certainly obsolescent. But some cases really do require it, such as "To whom it may concern". And the saw that goes: Some people say it's not what you know, but who you know, that matters. I believe whom you know is more important still - would not be able to exist without whom. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That line depends on both usages existing; it's a joking reference to the issue, expressing a preference for one version, just as with the Churchill quote seen above. It does not deserve to be called a "saw". --Anonymous, 07:01 UTC, October 18, 2008.

Oh, ok. I've heard it or its variants so often that I thought it must have become one. So it seems I suppose I'm sorely mistaken about the saw, and I'm sorry for saying so. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TomorrowTime's observation about the availability of the accusative case as a category to him/her, as a native speaker of a different language, is highly pertinent. Joseph Emonds argued in his 1985 paper "A grammatically deviant prestige construction" that the accusative no longer exists as a morphosyntactic category in English, because there are too few examples left from which an English learner could deduce the category, and so we substitute a different distinction (such as using the so-called nominative when the pronoun immediately precedes the verb it governs, in the same clase). The paper is about constructions like 'John and I' vs. 'John and me', not about 'whom', but the argument is relevant here, though not the whole story. --ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is related to the above discussion, but in written form rather than spoken. I have just changed:

"He was dismissed from his government post by Churchill, who stated that he found Reith difficult with whom to work."

TO

"He was dismissed from his government post by Churchill, who stated that he found Reith difficult to work with."

I think that years ago I would have seen nothing amiss in the former wording but it now seems to me extremely pedantic. Comments please. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But a formulation of the Churchill/Reith sentence that avoids the problem completely would be: "He was dismissed from his government post by Churchill, who stated that he found it difficult to work with Reith."

That is one way, but there are many others:

Reith and Churchill had a difficult relationship, so Churchill dismissed him.
Churchill found it difficult to work with Reith, so he dismissed him.
Churchill found it difficult to work with Reith, which led to Reith being dismissed.
Reith was dismissed because Churchill stated he found it difficult to work with him.
etc. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New example. I've just made the following edit @ List of Australian Leaders of the Opposition:

To date there have been thirty-one Opposition Leaders, sixteen of ~~which~~ whom have served terms as Prime Minister.

Would anyone consider that to be pedantic? If not, would anyone confidently argue for "who" vs. "whom" in this case? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "... of whom ..." construction is one place where "whom" is definitely still needed and non-pedantic. ".. sixteen of who .." sounds completely wrong to me. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Italian word vergognosco

What does vergognosco (or possibly vercognosco) mean? Google Translate doesn’t know. Is it some kind of slang or regional term? --Cinematical (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be shameful, via google —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radh (talk • contribs) 17:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the correct spelling is vergognoso. Deor (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Cinematical (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a quatre pas d'ici

Okay, saddest question on here for a while, I suspect. The Bucks Fizz song "Land of Make Believe" has been recorded by Celine Dion as "A quatre pas d'ici"...But as I doubt the translation "four isn't here" makes sense...just what does it mean? An obscure idiom I assume...but what's the translation? doktorb _words^deeds 18:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pas here is not a negation, but "step", so the title means "four steps from here". — Kpalion^(talk) 19:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the first word must be "À", so a more literal translation is "at four steps from here". Sometimes accents are omitted from capital letters in printed French, so you may have seen it written as "A". --Anon, 21:23 UTC, October 17, 2008.

Heh, brilliant. So I can put that child-hood query to bed. Thanks all doktorb _words^deeds 08:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. or I.E. ?

If I start a sentence fragment with i.e., the i should be upper case. What about the e?

In other words, should I use I.e., or I.E.,?

P.S. I realize I am likely to be told that I should not begin a sentence or a sentence fragment with i.e. regardless of the case. I'm not thinking of formal writing.

P.P.S. I realize that in light of my P.S., I am now likely to be told that in informal writing it does not matter whether the e is upper or lower case. I'm thinking of writing at an intermediate level of informality in which a sentence fragment beginning with i.e. is acceptable but some standards are still to be maintained.

P.P.P.S. Perhaps I have now muddied my original question sufficiently as to make it unanswerable. If so, please construe the question as being in an alternate universe in which it does make sense.

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The principle of capitalisation requires that the first letter of a sentence is a capital. Just as the opening "The" in the previous sentence uses lower case for the remaining letters, the remaining elements of an abbreviation would also use lower case. I.e., do what I just did at the start of this sentence. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All it means is 'that is', so I don't think it's a problem. That is, if you are writing informally ':> --ChokinBako (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.P.P.S. However, if you were to compose an informal article on the Freudian concept of the Id in Latin, as in "I.e. (i.e. 'Id est') lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.", you may as well spell it out for obfuscation´s sake.

The Id can, indeed, be described as "labore et dolore magna aliquis" in the alternative universe of our Ego. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your replies.

Unfortunately, due to a defective education, Latin is Greek to me. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalising the 'i' seems weird to me, considering that it should of course never be used at the start of a sentence - 'id est' meaning 'that is'. Grammar rules say you should, though, and I wouldn't punish you for doing so. I wouldn't worry about the Latin in here, it's only lorem ipsum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwarzes Nacht (talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could certainly start a sentence with "That is, ...", referring to the previous sentence, and in informal writing you could abbreviate it to "I.e., ...". Here, we seem to have a clash between "rules": A. All sentences start with a capital letter vs. B. Abbreviations of the i.e., etc. and e.g. variety are never capitalised, which is why they never start a sentence. In informal writing, I reckon you can decide for yourself which one wins. Maybe there's a hierarchy of rules somewhere, but that seems like a lot of trouble. In this case, I wouldn't even accord B the status of a rule in the first place (mainly because I just made it up in order to immediately shoot it down in flames). I can imagine starting an informal sentence with "E.g., ...", although I cannot imagine "Etc. ...". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, imagine this conversation:

A: What we have to bear in mind is that this is a complex issue. There are various factors at play here - <(then he starts to list them all in mind-numbing detail)> ... when B breaks in:

B: Et cetera, et cetera. Yes, we all know it's complex, but we can't waste time just talking about it, we have to act!

In informal writing, you could write B's part as:

B: "Etc., etc. Yes, we all know ....". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could start a sentence with "That is...", but the i.e. formation is almost always used within parentheses, or otherwise set off from the text. If I was worried about how to capitalize the i.e., I would realize I wasn't using it in the standard manner and rewrite it with "That is...". Matt Deres (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're starting any sentence with i.e. then you do not understand how i.e. is used and should just write in English. TheMathemagician (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pear shaped

Where does the phrase "Everything went pear shaped", meaning that things went badly, come from? Also, what shape were things supposedly in in the first place? Dismas|^(talk) 22:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As in so many such cases, the answer is that nobody's really sure; see Michael Quinion's remarks. (World Wide Words is a good first stop for investigating all such questions.) Deor (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what shape it was before, but going pear shaped is often accompanied by the wheels coming off, so... FiggyBee (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been under impression that "pear-shaped" is an euphemism for an arse, or at least for the shape thereof. Hence the expression "everything went pear-shaped", apparently. Hope this helps ;) --Dr Dima (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The look of a pear shape suggests things go downwards, like the phrase "bottomed out" – but the other suggestions actually answer your query. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]