Language desk
< February 6	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 8 >

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 7

Verb tense?

Here they talk of verb tense consistency. Not verb and tense consistency but verb tense (with 'verb' serving as qualifier). I am not familiar with this collocation. Is is usual? Isn't tense alone better? Apart from verb, what else can have tense? 59.91.254.107 (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your problem, and I'd say drop the "verb" as a rule, and they should have done so after the title. Yes, there is nothing else that has tense, just verbs. It doesn't really hurt anything to say "verb", though; it's not wrong, just clumsy. They kind of had to do it in the title of the page, "Verb Tense Consistency". They could hardly have made it "Tense Consistency"—nobody would know what it was about. Only verbs have tense, but other things are tense, if you know what I mean. The word "verb" before "tense" goes away as the page progresses, so it looks like somebody less expert wrote the introductory paragraph. (By the way, the Oxford English Dictionary shows a quotation from 1875 that uses "verbal tense-making", but there is none with "verb tense".) --Milkbreath (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To make explicit what I think is Milk's point: if you write "tense consistency", tense looks like the adjective corresponding to "tension". Throwing in "verb" is redundant if you were already going to get the noun sense of "tense", but it avoids that possible misreading. --Anonymous, 03:40 UTC, February 7, 2009.

Sequence of tenses is the term of art missing from the page referred to. See especially the section of our article that deals with English tenses.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need an explaination of a Quebecois/French word

Can someone explain what "Pisseur" means? thanks, nat.utoronto 04:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't mean someone who urinates a lot. nat.utoronto 04:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the context in which it was used? DuncanHill (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the cross-acculturation between Quebec and New England, it could be a Quebecois version of pisser or "pissah", as something that is really freakin cool. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just remember my friend saying it. He would say "What a pisseur". The way he said it definitely has a different connotation something is awesomely freakishly cool. nat.utoronto 10:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In real French, it can mean bedwetter, pisser (i.e. one who pisses), or pissing. DuncanHill (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be what you were looking for Pissoir? - 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the word is more of a description than a thing. nat.utoronto 10:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is the term "pisseur de copie " which describes a writer who tends to use verbose language. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like it is a Québecois appropriation of the New England pisser. And I would object to the description of Québecois French as something other than "real" French. It is every bit as real as Parisian French, even if some Parisians have an inflated opinion of themselves. Marco polo (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly won't disagree about some Parisians :) DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every "French" is the "Real" French, but there are different dialects. It is said that Tours has the purest of them all. But back on topic, I did say that the way it was use did not have the same connotations as the New England word. I think it might be closer to the "pisseur de copie ". To think of it now, when my friend says "What a pisseur." I think he might be saying, something similar to "What a showoff". nat.utoronto 00:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be poseur? (Although the spelling/pronunciation may change in Québécois.) -- 76.201.145.29 (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The British say "what a pisser" when referring to a situation that is negative; perhaps the accent or the spelling makes it look like "pisseur" when it is actually a take-off of British slang for "what an unfortunate occurrence". I don't know if you heard him say it or if you saw it written? Maedin\^talk 13:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bezier Curve

How do people (Americans, in particular) usually pronounce "Bezier curve"? Black Carrot (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm Canadian. To me it looks as though the obvious way to pronounce it when speaking English is "BEZZ-ee-yay kurv", and that's what I say. --Anonymous, 06:21 UTC, February 7, 2009.

I work in computer graphics, and I hear BEH-zi-er and BAY-zi-er in about equal measure.

So it usually is pronounced with the R sounded? Black Carrot (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good point. I'm not entirely sure, actually. I speak with a rhotic accent myself and I'm naturally used to allowing for non-rhotic pronunciations, so maybe subconciously I still "hear" dropped Rs even when I shouldn't. It doesn't matter most of the time, but in this case you've rather stumped me. I tend to think that my initial reaction was correct and that I am hearing BEH-zi-eh, an English non-rhotic replacing of the R with a schwa, rather than BEH-zi-ey, a French pronunciation where the R is vestigal and is simply not pronounced at all, but I'm really not certain. Note that I'm talking about how I hear the word used every day rather than how it "should" be pronounced (presumably however Mssr Bezier chose to pronounce it).

Could you ask around? I'd be interested in hearing whether people intentionally drop the R because it's a french name, unintentionally drop it because that's the way they talk, or pronounce it. Black Carrot (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed three computer-oriented friends. Rendering their replies in the style I used above, the one in the US said "beez-ee-yay or maybe sometimes bezz-ee-yay" and the one in England said "bezz-ee-er or bezz-ee-ay", where "er" is as in (how he pronounces) "her" but less stressed. The one in Canada ~~has not answered.~~ said "bezz-ee-ay". --Anonymous, 05:45 and 18:51 UTC, February 10, 2009.

Verbs and prepositions

I often have a problem in using the correct verbs and prepositions. Am i correct on using the correct verbs and prepositions on the following sentences: - 1. Did you play the violin at about nine last night? 2. Did you hear? George had an accident yesterday. 3. The passenger left his bag on the 1:00 airplane before he met the immigration officer. 4. The conference has been started five minutes before she reached the conference hall. 5. If you have finished your assignment, please submit it now. 6. The students are free to go to the film if they want. 7. She was ill a lot last year. 8. I have not seen Moses recently, have you? 9. As usual, Osman phoned while i was trying to get some work done. 10. Henry always lives in Washington.

           Prepositions

1. I often suffer from a bad back. 2. What time did you arrive at bangkok? 3. They insist for knowing what happened. 4. This article refers to you. 5. How dare you interfere with my work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.102.42 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but just to comment:

Number 4 in the first list: it's more usual to say "The conference started five minutes before she reached the conference hall". The "has been" is not required.

Number 10: the word "always" is not required. "Henry lives in Washington" to refer to the present, or "Henry has always lived in Washington" to say that he has never moved from Washington.

Number 3 in Prepositions: "for" is wrong, it should be "on".

Hope this helps. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that for numbers 4 and 10, not only are the elements mentioned by TammyMoet not required, they are incorrect. Marco polo (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Marco Polo, but to elucidate a little:

As it does not say in Perfect aspect, in English the perfect (with 'have') is incompatible with an adverb or phrase of time, except for one that denotes a period (not a moment) that includes the present. So "I have seen him today" ("this week", "since I spoke to you") but not "*I have seen him yesterday" ("*at three o'clock", "*while you were talking"). So "I have not seen Moses recently" is fine.
I'm finding it difficult to explain why "He always lives in Washington" doesn't work. Generally, we use 'always' to refer to many separate occasions, not a single continuing state, but I don't think that's quite the whole story. "I will always love you" sounds like a counter-example, though that is perhaps poetic or an idiom. --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because "he lives in X" is taken to mean that that's his normal place of abode. It could mean he's always resided there, or it could mean that's now his residence but maybe he resided somewhere else previously. But regardless of history, that is now where he resides, and so where he lives. When you live somewhere, you just "live" there, you don't "always live" there, even if you've always lived there and intend to live there until you die. If you want to state that you've always lived there, it would be "I've always lived there". If a special context was comparing a homeless person Fred with a non-homeless (is there a better adjective?) person Bert, it might be "Fred never sleeps in the same place two nights running, but Bert always lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue". But normally, there's no need for "always lives". -- JackofOz (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About number two, "What time did you arrive at Bangkok?", "at" is certainly possible, but "in" is idiomatic in the usual sense where I come from. I would say "I arrived in Bangkok just before midnight", never "at", if Bangkok had been my destination. If I was talking about one leg of an itinerary, "at" would work: "I arrived at Bangkok at 8:00, and at Singapore 5:30 the next morning", but that's straining "arrive" to the limit. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test to pass

Basic test to pass for the requirement to quilify for a position in the company states as:

1. Comprehension
2. Precis writing

i have a test tommorow with about 500 odd colleagues across cities, how do i create an impact. please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 'precis' means ' summarizing, but it doesn't mean 'giving as little information as possible'. Could you clarify your question a bit more? --KageTora (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's literally "precis writing" (described by KageTora, directly above)? Or is this perhaps a typo for "precise writing"? If so, it seems the test may provide a text passage to read in which your response (to questions about it) is supposed to demonstrate your understanding (= reading "comprehension") and your skills in writing precisely. That could mean: clearly and accurately, according to the rules of grammar, and without mistakes in spelling and word usage. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if his message here is any indication, he's screwed... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, relatively speaking: it might depend on how odd those 500 colleagues are, no? (Hint: hyphenating "500-odd" would solve that particular problem.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Active & Passive forms

The following article is written using active and passive forms. If there is a mistake in using these forms please try to correct me. My mother arrived at the port of Harwich some time in February and was immediately apprehended by the British authorities for having filled up her landing form with undue accuracy. To the question: Where born? She has answered St. Petersburg. To the question: where educated? She has answered Leningrad. The immigration authorities were convinced that she made light of the questionnaire, and i feel bound to add with a certain pride that it was only my presence that saved her from further unpleasantness. This tendency to answer official questions too literally seemed to run in the family, perhaps owing to the many frontiers we all crossed since such encumbrances were invented. Once she was released by the pernickety British authorities, my mother travelled to London by train through a thick industrial murk, which was culminated in a swirling yellow fog, impenetrable choking and claustrophobic. She records that she has nevee seen or smelt such unadulterated filth in her life. Before the names of the stations were entirely obliterated towards the end of the journey, the impression of Kafkaesque horror was increased by the fact that every station was seemed to be called Bovril. It is necessary to explain the uninitiated that Bovril was, and has been, a most excellent beef-tea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.102.42 (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about active and passive forms, but you seem to have misspellings ("pernickety", "travelled"), typos ("nevee"), missing capitalization ("i"), extra words ("was culminated", "was seemed"), wrong forms of words ("impenetrable"), missing words ("explain the uninitiated"), and improper hyphenation ("beef-tea"). Some of these might be OK in British English, however. Is that what you're going for ? StuRat (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither 'pernickety' nor 'travelled' is a mis-spelling (since this is avowedly about a British experience). 'Was culminated' and 'was seemed' are in my view the only examples of what the OP is asking about: inappropriate passives. 'Culminate' and 'seem' are both intransitives, and so do not normally form passives.

There are a few oddities of tense and prepositions (I think you're the same person as was asking about these):

"She has answered St. Petersburg" - 'has' is unusual there (it is an event in the past, with no particular present relevance)
"She records that she has never seen ... " on the other hand, is right
"Bovril was, and has been ... " - a little odd. "Was" normally implies that it is no longer, while "has been" implies that is was in the past, and either still is, of there is some present relevance to the fact of its former existence. Actually, the idiom that is most appropriate here is "was, and is".
Forms are generally "filled in" or (particularly in N. America) "filled out", but not "filled up".

But apart from those, it is fine. --ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Bovril thing straight from When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit? Ka renjc 00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that as the advertising slogan "Take Courage", for the beer. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"She has answered St. Petersburg" - 'has' is unusual there (it is an event in the past, with no particular present relevance) - I agree it's unusual. And I would normally say this is plain wrong. But it's becoming increasily seen in Australia, particularly, but not exclusively, among police officers. Last week I was reading a report of a court case about a murder that happened at least 5 years ago. A police officer giving evidence was reported as saying something like "The defendant has taken an axe and has struck the victim". It read as if the event happened only this morning. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that the police officer was reading aloud the evidence that he or she recorded ("on tape" or in writing) on the day of the murder? BrainyBabe (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. He was describing what happened on the day, 5 years previously. I alluded to this in a question I raised here a while back (can't find it now). I'm hearing it more and more. It comes up when someone's relating a (usually humorous, sometimes dramatic) real-life story, such as:

"Did you hear what happened to us last week? We were backing out of a parking bay at Aldi, when this other driver's come through and has hit us. I've got out of the car and I've gone over to him. I've told him to drive more carefully, but he's told me to piss off. So we've grabbed him and taken him to the cops. etc etc".

Had I been relating the same story, it would have been:

"... this other driver came through and hit us. I got out of the car and went over to him. I told him to drive more carefully, but he told me to piss off. So we grabbed him ...".

The police are well-known for their propensity to avoid plain speech at all possible times and to use what they think are "appropriate" words. (I heard one recently referring to a jailed mass-murderer as "I had a discussion with the gentleman to see if he was prepared to admit to any of the other outstanding cases". When describing an incident on TV, they will use this odd (in this context) form of the past tense (maybe because it seems less blunt and direct than the simple past) not just for things that happened today, but at any time in the past. And sections of the general community seem to have picked up on it. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard this, but it immediately makes me think of the historic present. I wonder if it is used in the same way, to make the events more immediate and vivid? --ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wāli = viceroy, governor, or ?

In the page on Muhammad Ali of Egypt, his title of "Wāli" is translated as "Governor;" on the Muhammad Ali (disambiguation) page it's "viceroy." Is this is Arabic or Turkish, and which (or yet another translation) would be correct? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers Dictionary has wali same as vali, which is a governor, especially of a vilayet, and it is Turkish in origin. DuncanHill (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks convincing! I'll resolve the discrepancy on that dab page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And we have an article Wāli. DuncanHill (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...which is lacking some crucial content, but certainly a relevant place to start! -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, he is more famous as the Khedive of Egypt (see [1]). In a period of his life, he was wali of Egypt; and this word was translated as 'viceroy' in European sources, because he was actually the viceroy of the Ottoman Sultan. And, by the way, wali is an Arabic loan word in Turkish. --Omidinist (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bewildered, then, that the title Khedive doesn't occur on the page for Muhammad Ali of Egypt. Are we talking about the same man? -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same man, Muhammad Ali of Egypt, has had different titles simultaneously or in different times. These two pages ([[2]] and [[3]]) are about one single person. --Omidinist (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original source of this word is Arabic والٍ, but linguistically this word is a little complex -- the Classical Arabic pronunciation of the basic nominative-genitive indefinite form is wālin, but the accusative indefinite is واليا wāliyan, the nominative-genitive with definite article is الوالي al-wālī, and the accusative with definite article is al-wāliya. In colloquial Arabic, or when borrowing into other languages, it's generally just simplified to wali (Qadi is the same). AnonMoos (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'governor' is more accurate. Wāli means ruler. Here's a source: administrative officer , provincial governor , governor , chief , leader , ruler. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) //Note: Retrieved from Talk:Muhammad Ali of Egypt; discussion redirected here.//[reply]

No dead horse left unflogged

Can anyone provide a Latin translation? BrainyBabe (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No horsemeat left untenderized. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nullus equus mortuus relictus non flagellatus? (Very literally...as usual there is probably a pithier way of rendering it in Latin.) Adam Bishop (talk)

'Relictus' is surely not appropriate: 'left' does not mean 'abandoned', but 'omitted' or 'not attended to'. Somehow an ablative absolute seems to be called for: 'nullo equo mortuo inflagellato' perhaps? --ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of "relictus" as an individual word seems OK here, since the verb relinquo can mean "to leave unchanged, to allow to remain". However, the syntax of "relictus non flagellatus" does seem like it might be a little suspicious to me (though I have nothing better to offer). As for the ablative absolute, it's strongly associated with subordinate clauses... AnonMoos (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, nullo equo mortuo non flagellato would translate into English as "No dead horse being unflogged, ..." (with the expectation that something else will follow). AnonMoos (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I actually meant to say "reliquus". It doesn't help the syntax, but, at least in medieval Latin, it does mean "remains" or "stuff left behind" (especially the corporeal bits of a saint, hence "relic"). (Of course both words are ultimately from relinquo and are probably interchangeable.) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just point out that idioms like this don't really translate very well, unless there's already a comparable saying in the other language. I mean, if I were to tell you that someone is not the son of yesterday's black grouse, you're probably not going to get it, but the original is clear to a Finn. (It's the same thing as saying that somebody wasn't born yesterday, essentially.) Now, of course, Latin probably isn't anyone's first language these days, but if you're trying to communicate the actual meaning behind the idiom of flogging a dead horse, a direct translation probably isn't going to do the trick unless the reader also knows English. (I realize that you may be well aware of this already. I may just be a spoilsport here, I know! But I figure it's worth pointing out, just to be sure...) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CD. Yes, I do realise. There is a certain pleasure in literal translation, especially used as an in joke. (Now I want to find people I can use your black grouse line on.) One of the uses, I won't say advantages, of literally translated Latin is that people who have any acquaintance with that tongue, or any Romance language, can have a stab at translating what they see before them, e.g. on a coat of arms. But I would welcome an idiomatic translation as well. (Sez she greedily. ) BrainyBabe (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey BB - I'm exceedingly curious where you're going to use this! 82.124.81.87 (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 82.124, get an account and I'll tell you on your talkpage! BrainyBabe (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've had questions like this before and we've found actual Latin idioms with similar intended meanings, so maybe it's possible here as well. But first we have to decide what exactly this idiom means in plain English, since it is kind of two English idioms stuck together. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking the two together: "No stone left unturned" -- no possibility left unexplored, i.e. searching everywhere for an answer. "To flog a dead horse" -- to continue to pursue something (e.g. an argument) when any chance of success is long past. "No dead horse left unflogged" -- I would take this to mean, no lost argument left unpursued, no lost cause not chased after, with great effort and to no effect. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then how about "petere rediturum saxum", "to attack the stone that always returns", which is how Ovid refers to Sisyphus in Book 4 of the Metamorphoses? He also mentions Tantalus and Ixion in the same verse but I suppose Sisyphus is the most recognizable name today. To include Sisyphus' name we can say "Sisyphus petens rediturum saxum." Adam Bishop (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, look, we have Beating a dead horse, which references Dryden for "thrice slay the slain" and says that a similar idiom is given in Latin by Libanus. Well, unfortunately Libanus actually wrote in Greek, but there must be an equivalent Latin phrase, which I haven't found yet. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that article! Clearly the refdesk needs no flogging! A real expression used in Roman times would be amusing, but don't overstrain yourself. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Walrus"- Dutch

I have reason to believe that in Dutch, the word "Walrus" has a meaning other than the animal. I would be glad if someone could tell me if there is another meaning, and what it is Chaosandwalls (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whale horse, according to Chambers. DuncanHill (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nl Wikipedia has (apart from the obvious), an entry on "Walrusklasse", this being a class of submarines deployed by the Royal NL navy. See also Walrus class submarine. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The article Walrus explains the etymology. 'rus' doesn't mean anything in Dutch, but 'ros' as well as German ruß are archaic words for 'horse'. The article mentions "wal" - "shore" and "reus" "giant", in modern Dutch. So a Dutch-speaker could easily assume the word was originally 'shore-giant'. That's what's called a Folk Etymology, since it's actually of Norse origin. I don't think the word 'walrus' has any immediate meaning in Dutch other than the obvious though. In Icelandic though 'hval-hross' still means whale-horse. --130.237.179.182 (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Dutch walrus solely refers to the animal. I am not aware of any folk etymology, but if people would nowadays consider it as a native composition with any meaning at all the word would probably be split up in wal, shore, and Rus, Russian, which is patently nonsensical. The connection with ros (an archaic word used in medieval poetry) is not immediately obvious to most modern speakers. Iblardi (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]