Language desk
< March 29	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 31 >

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.

March 30

What modifiers modify

Is there a word meaning "the word or phrase that a modifier modifies"? I mean every preposition has its object and every pronoun its antecedent, so does an adjective or adverb get some kind of foobar?—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word is modificand. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a quick search through http://wordover.com/ for other English nouns derived from Latin gerundives, and I found the following words: analysand, confirmand, deodand, distilland, doctorand, duplicand, graduand, honorand, integrand, ligand, magistrand, multiplicand, operand, ordinand, proband, provand, radicand, summand; addend, adherend, augend, distribuend, dividend, faciend, legend, minuend, provend(er), reverend, subtrahend, unreverend; gerund; addenda, corrigenda, counterpropaganda, credenda, definienda, delenda, memoranda, mutanda, notanda, propaganda, pudenda, reddenda, referenda, videnda. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That term, however, is not particularly common. One also encountered just modified (e.g. the X modified). Personally, I find modifiee is a better as it parallels employer/employee and this -ee is fairly productive (you may not find this in print though).

In linguistics, the most general term for relations between the elements of a phrase is head and dependent. The term that covers modificand is head although the meaning of head is more general. There is the following:

within noun phrase: head = noun, dependent = modifier (adjective, relative phrase, etc)
within prep. phr.: head = preposition, dependent = object (or complement)
within verb phr.: head = verb, dependent = noun phrases (i.e. subject, objects), prep. phrases
within adjective phr.: head = adjective, dependent = modifiers (adverbs)
within adverb phr.: head = adverb, dependent = modifiers (other adverbs)
(perhaps more theoretical: complement phrase: head = complement, dependent = sentence)

The relation between a pronoun and its antecedent is a little different. (The antecedent can be outside of the sentence containing the pronoun; it may even be distanced from the pronoun by thousands of sentences or, in fact, it may never be uttered at all.) – ishwar (speak) 01:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions from above

Two questions based on topics far above:

About Will/Bill for William, and Rick/Dick for Richard, how in the world did "Rip" become a nickname for "Richard"? (See for example Rip (Richard) Hamilton, Rip Van Winkle)

I was reading over the shall/will discussion (I can't feel much of any difference between the two words, and when reading the shall and will, I can rationally find a difference (shall being more of a command and will - sometimes, at least for me - being less so). Part of the difference I think, is that I think "shall" just isn't used very much where I'm from (urban, midwest US). My question is about "should" - how is it related to "shall"? Etymologically? In strength?

zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Rip" is close to "Rick", another short form of Richard that is not a direct contraction. Similarly "Kit" is short for Christopher (e.g. Christopher Marlowe). In some dialects of English it's common to glottalise unvoiced consonants in casual speech which will mean /p/, /k/, and /t/ sound similar or identical. Also, nicknames often arise from attempts by small children to pronounce complex words, in which case you may get the first consonant and a vowel but not much else. The entry Nickname describes some other methods of formation; it says letter swapping is common. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Rip" even a nickname for Richard? Neither Rip Torn nor Rip Taylor is named Richard, and I don't think Rip Van Winkle ever says he was named Richard either. With Rip Hamilton the similarity could just be coincidence.

—An gr 11:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is Rip a "real" name (i.e., originally not a nick-name)? zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is a theory, first proposed in George Wetzel: Irving’s Rip Van Winkle, in the Explicator 10, 1954, that Rip's name stands for Rest in Peace. --Janneman (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

etymologically, "should" is the past tense (including past subjunctive) of "shall", just as "would" is the past tense (including past subjunctive) of "will". —An gr 11:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation into German

Please could someone translate the following sentence into German for me: "If I had not telephoned you, would you ever have responded to my email?" Many thanks. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 04:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions: Wenn ich dich nicht angerufen hätte, hättest du überhaupt auf meine E-Mail geantwortet? (informal) or Wenn ich Sie nicht angerufen hätte, hätten Sie überhaupt auf meine E-Mail geantwortet? (formal). —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 05:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "jemals" instead of "überhaupt" ("überhaupt" would be "at all"), otherwise I completely agree with Sebesta. -- Ferkelparade π 09:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Jemals" is a more literal translation of "ever", but I think "überhaupt" better expresses the exasperation of the original English. —An gr 09:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Just as a follow-up, could you guys parse the tenses for me? I'm a little surprised that both parts of the sentence use "hätte/hättest". Since the first one is pluperfect and the second is conditional perfect, I would have expected the auxiliary part of the verbs to differ from each other. No? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a fact of German grammar that both clauses of an irrealis conditional are in the conditional (in this case, the conditional perfect), whereas in English the "if"-clause is in the past subjunctive (which here looks identical to the pluperfect indicative since English doesn't distinguish between indicative "had" and subjunctive "had"). —An gr 09:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this would be phrased as a statement in spoken German rather than as a question: "Wenn ich Sie nicht angerufen hätte, hätten Sie wohl überhaupt nicht auf meine E-Mail reagiert." (Not sure about the puctuation. May need a questionmark, too.) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean. I asked for it to be translated as a question, not as a statement. You've translated something completely different. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a statement, it ends with a period, not a question mark, and it sounds like an accusation, especially with that wohl in there. —An gr 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

word pronunciation

what is the correct pronunciation of the work chaste? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.184.47.16 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chay-st. Exactly the same as "chased". (Although, people who are chased, romantically, may not remain chaste for long.) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps why it's called "falling" in love. Jay (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article plays on the words chase, chased, and chaste. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See (and hear) chaste and chastity; see (and hear) chaste and chastity. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhymes with baste, haste, paste, taste, waste but not caste. —Tamfang (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]