Language desk
< December 12	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 14 >

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 13

You had better/best read this question

Consider:

You'd better leave now or you'll miss the boat and
You'd best leave now or you'll miss the boat.

We seem to use these idioms virtually interchangeably, despite one word being comparative, the other superlative.

Yet we never say You'd good leave now or you'll miss the boat.

That could be better expressed as It'd be good if you left now, otherwise you'll miss the boat, or It'd be a good thing if you left now .... Similarly, It'd be better/best if you left now ... or It'd be better/best for you to leave now ... are all OK. All three forms of the adjective are available in these alternative formulations.

So, why not You'd good leave now ...? Or are these words functioning as adverbs, in which case the missing option is You'd well leave now ...?

We do say You'd be well-advised to do X, but that seems to be fundamentally different grammatically (if not in practical meaning), being something that's being passively done to you, as opposed to something you are being encouraged to actively do.

You'd better give me the benefit of your opinions on this question, or .... :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me, you had best is mostly confined to Western movies. --Trovatore (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deal is, that "good" does not set up an implicit comparison to something else. Both better and best are comparitive words (superlative basically means the extreme comparitive, but it still implies a comparison to something else). So it depends, perhaps on whether you want to say "You had better do this than do something else." or "You had best do this than anything else." Since there's not muct actual distinction between those two phrases, there's probably not much distiction between using better and best in this application. --Jayron32 04:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I said, we use them interchangeably. True, "good" does not set up an implicit comparison. Neither does "I advise you to leave now or you'll miss the boat". If you're talking to a person who's oblivious of the time, any advice to the effect that they should become aware of the time and leave now is good advice. Whether it's better than some other advice, or the best of all possible advice, is not really the point, is it - unless, maybe, the person has multiple competing demands on their attention right now, and they need to be advised that everything else is secondary to them leaving right now, or they risk missing the boat. That's where I could see better or best coming from. But that's a very specific type of scenario. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is similar to the "use to/used to" question we had above. Such usage isn't really formal English, so it resists formal analysis by the established rules of English grammar. It's a purely idiomatic statement, so it doesn't obey the rules of grammar strictly. --Jayron32 05:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what about "better this way" or "best this way"? Which is the correct usage in this case?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There, you're looking at a range of specific options and as a group coming up with the one that's generally agreed to be the best. Along the way, one option might be identified as better than some other one, but a third one may be considered best of all. So, you might use both of your phrases, depending on which one you're talking about right now. In my question, there's no range of options, just something I think you should be doing, rather than whatever it is you're doing now. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Better" is the usual in English, i.e. two choices, stay or go, and the "better" choice is to go. "Best" grammatically implies 3 or more choices. "Best" also puts more emphasis on it and is a tad more aggressive, which might be why it would turn up in westerns. Except the options wouldn't have something to do with missing a boat (or a train) but more likely having to do with missing a gunfight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Best" is used colloquially in a number of British local dialects. --Dweller (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Best" did not imply three or more choices to Shakespeare, or to Dickens. I think the rule is one of the inventions of the "My-grammar-book's-better-than-yours-because-it's-got-even-more-rules-in-it" crowd in the eighteenth century. --ColinFine (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we talk of "besting" an opponent, even when there's only the one opponent.

"Good Better Best / Never let it rest / Till the good is better / And the better is best."

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for for all your interesting answers to this question, people. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the party, agree with "better" (choice of 2) versus "best" (choice of 3+). That said, I've often heard and used "best" versus better to emphasize the (superlative aspect of making the) recommended choice. In my experience, this also seems to be the case regardless of language. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation

Should the following sentence have one period or two periods at the end? She appeared on TV shows such as Fantasy Island, The Love Boat, and Magnum, P.I.. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'd say one. The rule is that a sentence end with a period (or full stop in my lingo) - the rule doesn't say it necessarily has to be an additional period if there's already one preceding it. So, the presence of a period does not necessarily spell the end of a sentence, but a period ending an abbreviation can also serve as an end-of-sentence marker. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't have two, it will look wrong to a lot of readers. Typesetters handle this by reducing the space between the two periods. The same thing arises when you end a sentence with etc.. Looie496 (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it does have two, it will look wrong to a lot of other readers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jack of Oz.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the single period is certainly standard. --Anon, 09:11 UTC, December 13, 2010.

Agreed. Two full stops ("periods" sounds like a rude joke to my English ears) looks as though there's more to come.... Alansplodge (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to write "two" above? Bus stop (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Alansplodge (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One for me too. (An Australian who reads a lot of American and British stuff.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We American school students were taught that it was one ".". We Americans also compartmentalize the term "period", such that the end of a sentence has no connotation, whereas "she's on her [menstrual] period" does. Meanwhile, "full stop" sounds like something many drivers fail to do at a stop sign, but when used in reference to a sentence or an abbreviation immediately identifies the speaker or writer as a Brit. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if you're old enough to remember telegrams (maybe you've see them mentioned in old movies), but I thought the whole English speaking world used "Stop" to indicate an end of sentence in that context. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and hence the usual jokes due to the oddity of that word "STOP". For example, the telegram says, "I love you stop", and the recipient says, "Don't stop!" And so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms are increasingly, it seems to me, signified purely by capitalisation and are dropping the intervening periods, sidestepping the issue highlighted by Magnum, PI. Blakk and ekka 15:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works in many contexts, but Magnum, P.I. is a title, and you can't just change the punctuation to suit your preferences. --Anon, 13:29 UTC, December 14, 2010.

In general, abbreviations that couldn't be standalone words had the periods, while abbreviations that were pronouncable (such as RADAR, NASA) omitted the periods. The trend of which you speak probably is connected with the tendency to shorten things over the course of the evolution of English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been known simplay as "FBI", apparently without any periods. This note from their seal's history page[1] indicates that in 1935 it was at first being called "F B I", with spaces between the letters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original question is answered at Full stop#Abbreviations. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another fly in the ointment

OK, this is rather "nit picky". But, in the above example, let's say that we agree to use only one period. Is that period italicized as a component of the TV show title (and Wikipedia "blue" link)? Or is that period non-italicized, as the end-of-sentence period? I was correcting this very sentence in the Pamela Bryant article. And, quite frankly, using two periods "looks" wrong, as does using only one. And, when using only one period, italicizing it "looks" wrong, as does not italicizing it. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I realize that we can change the order of the listing of TV show titles to side-step this problem ... but I am nonetheless curious about the correct punctuation rules here. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, my feeling is that the period should be included in italicization. I think this should be done to make all the components slant harmoniously. I think that for the sake of appearance one should include all contiguous letters and punctuation marks in any italicization. But I am basing this on gut feeling. I will be interested to see what others say. The only exception to this I know of is when one wants to emphasize a prefix in a word, such as "unimportant". Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No question it should be italicized; it's part of the title. However, I don't agree that just because a period might be contiguous with an italicization, it should join the party. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no additional full stop immediately following the full stop that ends the abbreviation" (quoting from full stop), so no, the final period is not an end-of-sentence period. 213.122.62.108 (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The final period performs a double function as both an end-of-abbreviation period and an end-of-sentence period.

—Wavelength (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength ... yes, exactly. And, therefore, the final dual-role period is or is not in italics? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Unfortunately, I do not know the answer to that question. As well as I can remember, I have not had to make that decision in my own compositions, and I have not seen an answer in any style guide. How easy is it to distinguish periods in italic type from periods in roman type in a series in which both kinds are randomly ~~interspersed~~ alternated?

...................................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................................

..........................................................
............................................................

........................................
................................................
.............................................

—Wavelength (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[In my comment of 21:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC), I am changing interspersed to alternated.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)][reply]

After further reflection, I am almost positive that I would italicize the period, because that is part of the abbreviation. However, I do not know how many people would be able to see that it is italicized.

The next sentence is an example. Some people do not know the difference between i.e. and e.g.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I agree that it is virtually impossible (to the naked eye) to distinguish an italicized period from a non-italicized one. However, in this particular case, the distinction was exacerbated by the fact that it involved a Wikipedia link (which shows up in blue). So, the sentence looked like this ---> She appeared on TV shows such as Fantasy Island, The Love Boat, and Magnum, P.I.. In that case, the two final periods are easily distinguishable since one is contained in the Wikipedia link, while the other is not (and, thus, one is blue, while the other is black; one is italics, while the other is not). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You could also simply avoid the whole issue by changing the order in which the shows are mentioned; "Magnum P.I." doesn't need to be listed last. Roger (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that exact issue was included as a part of my original question (see above): "I realize that we can change the order of the listing of TV show titles to side-step this problem ... but I am nonetheless curious about the correct punctuation rules here." Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The Chicago Manual of Style does not address this specifically, but it does give two rules that would seem to cover this: (1) "All punctuation marks should appear in the same font—roman or italic—as the main or surrounding text, except for punctuation that belongs to a title in a different font (usually italics)", and (2) "When an expression that ends in a period (e.g., an abbreviation) falls at the end of a sentence, no additional period follows". (2) implies that the period that is kept is the one that is part of the abbreviation, and according to (1), that would be in italics. Earlier versions of the CMOS had a different version of (1), that made surrounding punctuation italic for aesthetic reasons (Bus stop's style). Lesgles (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A period in italics. And in regular typeface. Pretty hard to tell the difference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can all probably agree that a period in italics or non-italics would be hard to distinguish (see comments above). But "difficulty in distinction" is not exactly a threshold for determining accuracy versus inaccuracy, either. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

@ Baseball Bugs: Pretty hard to tell the difference - where are your principles, man? :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Hell

Is it a common idiom, understandable for all Englishmen? Thanks for comments. --Omidinist (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. (I don't understand it, and that fact alone is sufficient to prove the point.) I don't know how common this is (or I am). Seriously, though, it has no entry in Wiktionary, and no Google hits with "+idiom", so probably isn't a common idiom in the English language. Dbfirs 08:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it. Alansplodge (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll jump in early to what will doubtless be a "Never heard of it" pile-on. Supplementary question to Omidinist - why do you ask?--Shirt58 (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it come from? What does it mean? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Context may help:[2]. --Omidinist (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this dictionary of slang, silver-hell was nineteenth-century slang for "a low-class gambling den, where silver is the usual stake". Deor (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Deor. That's it. Thanks heartily. --Omidinist (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Underneath "silver-hell" in that dictionary of slang is another interesting entry: to "catch fish with a silver hook" is to "purchase a catch in order to conceal unskillful angling". Bus stop (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests other possibilities, such as "to catch fish with a noisy hook" (to chuck a stick of dynamite into a pond to avoid angling altogether). Deor (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a seasonal reference: "Silver Hell, Silver Hell, it's Christmas time in the city..." 85.178.81.116 (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense of "disposition"

When a piece of product needs to be inspected to determine if it's scrap or if it can be salvaged, we often say that it needs to be "dispositioned". It's been tossed around so much that it's part of the jargon here. From what I can see though, it's not actually a word. What would be a better way to succinctly get the same point across that uses an accepted English word? Dismas|^(talk) 12:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

salvageable. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that usage, ("to be dispositioned") it's not a past tense, but rather a passive participle. Triage means something similar in medical terminology... AnonMoos (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Evaluated"? Deor (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appraised? —Bkell (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good bit in Gowers on this issue (discussing an imaginary office memo containing the word "de-asterisked"): [3] Purists may blench at "non-grant-aidable" and "de-asterisked", and neither is suitable for general use. But purists do not know, as the official does, that in this particular context a lot turns upon whether a claim is categorised as "asterisked", "unasterisked", or "de-asterisked"; they must not even recommend "de-starred" instead, because for all they know "starred", "unstarred" and "de-starred" are already in use for some different and equally precise purpose. The full page is worth reading. Marnanel (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays the word triage is sometimes used for this purpose. In its original medical use, it means making an initial examination of patients to decide which ones to treat. Nowadays it is often used to mean making an initial quick examination of any sort of thing in order to decide how to handle it, for example the NIH triages grant proposals to decide which ones should be rejected immediately and which ones should get a full review. Looie496 (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the medical theme, when the Monica Lewinsky story first broke, her description as a "White House intern" confused me. Up till that point, I'd only ever heard the word "intern" in relation to medical students doing their practical training in a hospital. And I wondered what sort of a hospital they were running in the White House, and who the patients would be. I soon got up to speed. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably much as the term "Watergate buggers" gave the Brits a chuckle in the early 1970s. The term "intern" was largely associated with medical students,[4] but has become generalized, at least in American English, for any kind of on-the-job training program connected with college education. In Monica's case, the internship came with previously unstated fringe benefits. (For example, indulging her fondness for cigars.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I had a friend who asked why such a fuss was being made about oral sex. After all it is only kissing. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

from French / Check-language

Please translate "Photographie ancienne, du et depuis le pont d'un voilier, avec une forte gîte. Na palubě lodi". Kittybrewster ☎ 14:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French bit is "Old photograph, of the bridge of a sailing ship, and taken from the bridge of the ship, heeling considerably". The second sentence isn't French. Is it perhaps the name of the ship? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Don't think so. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google says it's Czech for "on board". Marnanel (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"On board of a ship", to be exact.—Emil J. 15:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And to be exact, the French says "of and from the bridge"; that is, it was taken on the bridge and it shows the bridge. Lesgles (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]