Language desk
< August 14	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 16 >

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.

August 15

Sentence Breakdown

Could someone break down the following sentence into parts? I often have difficulty explaining why a sentence is or isn't grammatically correct to someone else if I don't know what to call a certain part of it. The sentence is: "The automobile, popularized by Henry Ford, was invented around the same time as the Wright brothers developed the airplane, and is an important method of transportation" (from an SAT workbook).

First off, I know that "the automobile" is the subject, "popularized by Henry Ford" is a non-restrictive appositive, "and" is a conjunction. But what about:

"the Wright brothers"
"around the same time as" or just "same ... as"
Where does the predicate begin (would "popularized..." be part of it?)?
- Moreover, would this be a complex predicate?
And while we're at it, is the comma before the final "and" necessary? Would this be a case of the serial comma?

Sorry for all the long, overly detailed questions, but sometimes I'll try to explain these things, and I try to use the right terminology, but am never truly sure if what I'm saying is positively correctly. Can someone disambiguate? Many thanks, 141.153.215.229 (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"around the same time as" functions as a rather long compound preposition; although Merriam-Webster says as is a conjunction (sense 2 here[1]). The predicate begins with "was invented"; words or phrases describing the subject are not part of the predicate. The comma isn't a serial comma, because they only occur in lists of three or more things; omitting the comma would be entirely standard; the comma is only there to indicate the end of the preceding clause (because English has a lot of freedom in comma use you can punctuate according to where you pause, or you can punctuate for purely grammatical reasons). "the Wright brothers" is the subject of a subordinate clause. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is laughably poorly written. I would leave out the "as" as only making things worse. If it is truly from the SAT, the test creators should commit seppuku. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing others dead is not exactly in the spirit of what we do here, Medeis. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please spare me this and future such delicate lectures, O teller of иiззəɾ jokes? μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. If you'll refrain from what you said about me, that would be much appreciated too. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gramatika e gjuhes shqipe

pershendetje! po lexoja nje artikull ne wiki ne shqip dhe menyra e shkrimit dua te them gramatika,ishte per te lene per te deshiruar artikulli ishte perkthyer aq keq se nuk po kuptoja se ckuptim kishte fjalia. qe te perkthesh cfare do qofte duhet te besh pershtatje. asesi nuk mund te perkthesh fjaline shabllon. shpresoj qe ky problem do te rregullohet Pune te mbare — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.18.3 (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ju duhet të shkruaj këtë mesazh në faqen e diskutimit të artikullit. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the OP's query, he/she has came across some very badly written article at the Albanian Wikipedia, and has assumed that sq.wikipedia articles are translated form en.wikipedia by a translation service.

92.60.18.3: (sorry I can't write in Albanian and wouldn't rely on machine translators, lest some meaning gets lost) The English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) has no control over the Albanian Wikipedia (sq.wikipedia.org). They are independent of each other, and they are both being edited by volunteers; everyone, including you, is invited to improve any imperfection they notice. You can address sq:Wikipedia:Kuvendi, the general discussion forum at sq.wikipedia.org, if you have any further questions about it. You are also free to edit Wikipedia in English or in any other languages you know. --Theurgist (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This being the language desk, I'll indulge myself in pointing out that that lest requires the subjunctive: Lest some meaning get lost. --Trovatore (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Subjunctive, yeah, fair enough. I struck out the indicative verb ending, lest someone repeat my mistake :) --Theurgist (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EXPORT AND IMPORT - How freely can I use these words?

Can I use 'import' and 'export' ONLY when referring to trade going from one country to another?

Or can I use these words also when referring to trade going on between, say, two cities within the same nation or when talking about a single place, such as a barony in the old days and their trading activities that did not necessarily involve buying/selling goods abroad?

For example; a barony does all its trade in the nearest city (which is also in the same country) and the wares they sell there might be bought from fellow country-men either living in that city or in another barony or city within that same nation, meaning that the goods will not necessarily leave the country. So from the barony's point of view can it still be called export since it does leave the barony to be bought and used somewhere else, outside of the barony's borders? Same goes for import; If they buy goods in that city which might have been produced in another place in the same country, will it still be imported goods?

"The barony imported linen and wool, and on rare occasions a very limited amount of expensive silk from the nearby city." (say this was somewhere in europe, and the silk would be brought from the Orient, thus without any doubt it would be imported, but as for the linen and wool, it was produced within the same country and then bought by the barony in that city in a fair or something. Still the wool and linen could also be called imported goods, right?)

I'm uncertain because all wordbooks and dictionaries seem so strict in defining the meaning of the words export and import, always saying they mean trade involving going from one country to another. But as far as I can see, all trade must be import and export as long as it is produced in one place and then sold and used in another settlement. Surely one French settlement (of any kind) that are buying goods that are produced in another settlement in France are also importing goods, even if it is in the same nation? Right?

85.165.120.106 (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are just relative terms and can be used in regards to trade between any jurisdictions or places, local or national or interstellar. μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster says "to carry or send (as a commodity) to some other place (as another country)" [2]. So it doesn't have to be another country, although that's certainly the most usual usage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fellows 85.165.120.106 (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be weird to "import" from the house next door. But not from the next city, as long as that city's far enough away that it would be an actual commute (take some effort) rather than being just up the street in a metro area. — kwami (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe in most situations in the contemporary West, but not if you lived on a feudal manor or in a futuristic fortified community (Heinlein, Friday, Herbert The White Plague) and had to keep the books. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In common-day usage, the terms are usually limited to goods crossing real borders, clearing customs etc. In Europe, they are still used for intra-EU commerce despite the fact that there is no customs clearance - however, the goods still cross borders (at high speed.) If I would write, I would not "import" from another city in the same country, unless I want to be facetious, say in "the boys in Queens used sluggers imported from Boston." If you import cars from Detroit to New York, you would get strange looks - unless it's a Chrysler.

Both words sound rather modern. In a medieval context, one would usually use "trade." You were in the "silk trade" or a "silk merchant", you did not have a "silk import and export business." One of the biggest problems with using the words is that they are relative to the place. Make sure the reader knows where she or he is supposed to be. Always use "imported from" , "exported to" etc.BsBsBs (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouncing "Respiratory"

Please skip to 00:25 to listen to her say, "Respiratory." Why does she say it this way? --72.152.247.181 (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because she wanted to. --Jayron32 20:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What circumstances warrant that a speaker to say, res-PIE-re-tor-ee instead of RES-pe-re-tor-ee?--72.152.247.181 (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably an idiosyncrasy. Which means she likes to use it even though practically no one else does. Why she likes to use it is anyone's guess. There is the possibility that it was a reado. She appears to be reading, and might have interpreted the word as "respire" and started pronouncing it before she got finished reading it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, was it really necessary to be rude to an unregistered user who asked a legitimate question? --Belchman (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't rude, I answered the question succinctly and to the best of my ability. I am not a mind reader, and I don't know why the woman chose to enunciate the word in that fashion. --Jayron32 01:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, I put it to you in all friendship: if you didn't know the answer, why was it necessary for you to answer at all? I dare say many hundreds of us who sometimes answer here didn't know either, but we simply waited for someone who did know to respond.

FWIW, I in the UK hear the second syllable stressed more often (and do so myself, rhyming the '-spirat- with 'spirit'), but am also familiar with the first being stressed, and don't know whether or not there are regional preferences or layperson v. medic variations. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.70 (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have been intended that way, but "Because she wanted to" sure looks rude and sarcastic to me.... 86.179.4.189 (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normal American would be to say Respratory, and stress the preantepenult (syllable prior to the one before the second to last). Given she didn't elide the 'i' the stress fell there and ...voilà. Rather mundane and unremarkable if you ask me, just the result of a speaker clearly trying to enunciate every syllable and being forced to give a long stressed 'i' when she chose not to omit it. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New Oxford American Dictionary lists her pronunciation as an alternative, for what it's worth. —Bkell (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with a more british accentuation--here i think it was not trying to be british but was trying not to allow any unstressed vowel deletions. μηδείς (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis (μηδείς), please see http://www.onelook.com/?w=preantepenult&ls=a.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, thanks, knew that was not quite right, preciate it.

In UK English, it's usually only four syllables, of course (resPIRatry). Dbfirs 06:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis seems to be claiming it's also four in the US, just a different four. I don't agree, though; I have five: RES-per-a-Tor-y, with a secondary stress on the Tor. --Trovatore (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, in our English, we pronounce it exactly like the woman in the video. Rhymes with expire. It's just regional variation.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW #2: I pronounce it with only 3 syllables, to rhyme with presbytery - RES-pruh-tree, PRES-buh-tree. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 13:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what's called a citation form, Trovatore. In normal speech one of the weak vowels will be elided--and that's why her speech stands out as odd in the American context--because she has turned what is normally a weak or elided syllable into a strong one. My observation is descriptive, not prescriptive. I am not arguing in favor of some number of syllables. μηδείς (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I honestly say it with five syllables. The "per" syllable is short, but it's there.

I don't think this is unusual, though I wouldn't particularly notice if someone elided the "per" syllable in most circumstances. My sisters pronounce mirror with one syllable, and that does bug me a little. --Trovatore (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyon and Knott give [rəˈspaɪrəˌtori] as the only possible pronunciation. That work is based on pronunciations current in the 1930s in America, so maybe that was the most common pronunciation in her youth. Nowadays the most common pronunciation in America is certainly [ˈrɛsp(ə)rəˌtori]. Looks like it's changed over time, and this rather elderly lady is using the older pronunciation. Pais (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a perfect transcription of what is called a citation form which is what a speaker says when he is asked how something is pronounced. Does Kenyon and Knott (not avail at google books, unfortunately) explicitly distinguish between such isolation forms and forms found in natural, free-flowing speech? μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The five-syllable form is found in natural, free-flowing speech. If you're denying that, you're simply wrong on the facts. --Trovatore (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also hear the five-syllable form used sometimes in natural speech. The word seems to be given a great variety of pronunciations, including "res-pa-tory", ignoring the middle R. (Not to suggest this is a correct pronunciation.) Wanderer57 (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the distinction between citation forms and free speech I have been explaining is entirely unhelpful? Without being aware, I have actually denied that it is possible for people to use strong forms in free speech? And, although we apparently hear a five syllable re-spi-ra-to-ry all the time, and no one would ever find it different in any way (including the user who started this thread) from normal casual speech, we have no sound files posted to show it? Okay, my apologies. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I grasp all of the above comment but I think this point is relevant. I did not say that a five syllable re-spi-ra-to-ry is always used in normal casual speech and I don't believe Trovatore did either. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between [rəˈspaɪrəˌtori] and [ˈrɛsp(ə)rəˌtori] is not about a citation form vs. a connected-speech form, though the difference between [ˈrɛsprəˌtori] and [ˈrɛspərəˌtori] is. I was simply returning to the original question, Why does Marian Diamond say [rəˈspaɪrəˌtori]?, and answering that 70 years ago or so, [rəˈspaɪrəˌtori] was apparently considered the standard pronunciation in American English. (Addendum: K&K actually give the first syllable as [rɪ-] rather than [rə-], but that's not relevant to the discussion either.) Pais (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to answer the question, Pais, as to whether K&K distinguish or mention the difference between citation and connected speech forms? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't, but the question is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand anyway. Pais (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for asking then. In the meantime I have ordered it by interlibrary loan, since it is an interesting subject. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Church Slavonic vs Proto-Slavic

Are they the same language? If not, what are the main differences? Thanks. --Belchman (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Proto-Slavic is the language spoken before about 600 CE, before the split into the Western, Eastern and Southern branches. Old Church Slavonic was created some 250 years later, and was based primarily on a Southern Slavic dialect from Thessalonica, with some admixture of other Southern Slavic dialects as well as Western Slavic dialects from Moravia (it was a consensus language of monks from those areas). Old Church Slavonic was heavily influenced by Greek, and to a lesser extent Latin. The tense system changed, the grammar and lexicon were codified, and loads of calques were created. There were also changes in pronunciation. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Old_Church_Slavonic#Basis_and_local_influences notes some of the changes from Proto-Slavic. The two would have been mutually comprehensible. μηδείς (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! --Belchman (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]