Language desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 25 >

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.

June 24

Term for a form of political dishonesty

Is there a term for the following ploy, frequently adopted by governments and companies for which certain cats may or may not have worked at some stages in their careers?

Announce something that's going to be very expensive and unpopular (such as identity cards).
Do some preliminary development work.
Cancel the project.
Announce that you've saved $x million - shareholders/voters are happy!

The offspring of a white elephant and a paper tiger, in other words. Tevildo (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe bait and switch, see New Coke... --Jayron32 01:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a better answer than those already given, then it might be found in the Index of public relations-related articles.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is making a generalization that may or may not be true. In the world of business, many projects get started and then are cancelled, but there is still a cost for the preliminary work that was done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like the OP to provide an example or three of this "frequent" occurrence. Identity cards is not such an example. A labour government introduced the project, a conservative government canned it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, the Blue Streak missile, the replacement of the TSR-2 with the F-111, the London Ringways, the Maplin Sands airport, the Strategic Defense Initiative, the Ares rocket, the Severn Barrage, and HS2 (and, of course, New Coke, as mentioned above). "Bait and switch" sounds good as an answer. Tevildo (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing "something that's going to be very expensive and unpopular" is exactly the opposite of how I would expect politicians to act. Surely it's more "announces popular measure", "turns out to be really expense", "becomes unpopular", "gets scrapped". But assuming it does work how you suggest, bait and switch seems to be the closest ploy. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 21:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qui-hi

In the Mapp and Lucia books, the character Major Benjy, who spent most of his adult life in India, always shouts "Qui-hi!" to call his servants, and on other occasions too. The phrase is explained as being Hindustani. In the TV series, Denis Lill pronounces it /kweɪ haɪ/, which doesn't seem to jibe with the spelling in the books. Does anyone know of a Hindi/Urdu phrase that "Qui-hi" is attempting to represent? How's it spelled, how's it pronounced? I suspect the second syllable is है hai, the word for "is", which seems to end every other sentence in Hindi, but what (if anything) is the qui/kway? —Angr (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An Anglo-Indian, esp. of the Bengal Presidency... Ex Urdu koi hai, ‘Is anyone there?’ - in India a summons to a servant Alansplodge (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! —Angr (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other day I heard a thirty-something Londoner say "jolly-jolly" meaning "hurry up!". It finally dawned on me that he meant "jildi jildi!". The last echoes of the British Raj. Alansplodge (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the _last_ echoes - "Pukka" was wrenched from the peace of its grave recently, after all... Tevildo (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if an Harvey were to be roasted, he'd be a pooka pukka. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but if he were proved to be the genuine article, he'd be a pukka pooka. —Angr (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call it when an instruction is phrased like a question? (and other questions)

I am thinking of things like "could people leaving the theatre be quiet please" or "can you please leave your rubbish in the bin". * What do you call this type of grammatical construct?

Am I correct in thinking that these sentences should be written without a question mark?
Is this sort of construct considered bad style?
I get the impression that it is somehow less imposing than "people leaving the theatre be quiet please", etc. Is this the way other people perceive it?
Also, is this construct common in other languages?

Thanks in advance for your answers. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Similar is the statement/question: "You want to hand me those folders?" I'm tempted to answer: "No, I don't want to hand you those folders." Bus stop (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utterances like "could people leaving the theatre be quiet please" or "can you please leave your rubbish in the bin" are not questions and should not have question marks. They are commands. "Can you please leave your rubbish in the bin" is just a slightly more polite version of "Leave your rubbish in the bin". They're not wanting to know whether or not you're going to do this, they're telling you to do it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always assumed it is related to the polite use of the subjunctive, and that these are both similar Politeness strategies. I would include the question mark simply because it is inflected as a question in speech, and the strategy is actually to phrase it as a question. Whether they are seen as polite or as manipulative, necessary or ridiculous, will vary by class and region. There's been some really interesting research into education, for example, which shows that one of the many disadvantages working class and immigrant children have in British schools is an inability to properly understand the teacher, who is nearly invariably middle class (remember we are talking social class, not economic class). Middle class children already know that when the teacher says "Could you put away your books and sit on the carpet?", this is a polite instruction that must be followed, but working class and immigrant children hear a question and an optional action which they can consider and reject. This is because instructions, especially to children, in working class homes are usually far more direct. And so these children get in trouble, because they don't speak the teacher's language! Most will acquire this language over the years of their schooling, but it takes extra effort and concentration, and they may have been labelled as 'naughty' by the time they acquire it. 86.164.66.52 (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would include the question mark simply because it is inflected as a question in speech ... - in whose idiolect does this occur? In yours, apparently, but certainly not in mine. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't either, but I was not 100% sure if that was correct. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To echo the anon above, it certainly seems to be part of a generic "elementary school teacher" idiolect to give instructions in that form. I certainly heard enough of it growing up here in SW Ontario. Perhaps it's a strategy to avoid confrontation or just a passing fancy that caught on for little reason, but when I consider the construction of "Could we all please...?" I assume we're in a school environment, or at least listening to someone who is speaking to an audience they consider similar to little children. Matt Deres (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I wasn't saying that "Could you put away your books and sit on the carpet?" is a generic "elementary school teacher" idiolect, although it is entirely possible that Matt's example is limited to that set in SW Ontario (particularly including the "we", which is not at all standard politeness here). Using the subjunctive or the form of a question to make a request that actually should be taken as a requirement is the normal polite way to talk to people you are showing even basic respect towards, in standard middle-class English English. "Put away your books and sit on the carpet", unless very carefully softened, is generally considered rude and disrespectful, and it is a common educational philosophy that the students should be afforded as much respect as possible without causing problems: they should be addressed as people, not inferiors. Sometimes you have to address them in a way that shows less respect, if they cannot cope with it, but it shouldn't be your normal habit. However, as I said, not everyone is raised speaking this language, with the same rules of politeness. As such, it can lead to confusion, and sometimes contribute to serious problems (see: educational attainment).

But, if I am conforming to my own culture's norms of politeness, I simply cannot ask for something, from a child or an adult, as a direct command. This is not because I consider my audience similar to small children: it is because it would be unspeakably rude for me to order someone else around, and disrespectful. Hence why "well-brought-up" middle class people in England will shape all requirements as requests, whether asking someone to pass the ketchup or ordering something in a shop. As Angr said: perfectly common in other cultures too. 86.164.66.52 (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syntactically, the construction is no different from "Would you please...", which certainly is not considered bad style, is indeed considered less demanding than a straightforward imperative, and is common in German and probably other languages as well. I would write such sentence with a question mark because they are questions in form, even if not in function. —Angr (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're only superficially questions in form. Various linguistic structures are identical in form but are nevertheless different things. For example, "I go" is present indicative; "If I go ..." is present subjunctive. You wouldn't parse the 2nd example as indicative, even though the form of the verb is identical. Same here. "Would you please ..." is not spoken as a question, is not heard as a question, and is not a question. It might look like a question, and in some idiolects it might even sound like a question. But it's not a question and every native speaker knows this. So, it's misleading to treat it as if it were a question, by putting a question mark at the end. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 13:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Angr - I would certainly write that with a question mark because it is a question in form. If we start caring about whether an answer is expected, where will it end. 128.232.241.211 (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has to do with illocutionary force, which is a major topic in pragmatics (the study of how we use language to interact with people). J.L. Austin's book How To Do Things With Words discusses this in detail, and lots of other stuff has been written since then; basically, he believes that when people say something, the utterance is made up of locution (the literal meaning of what is said), illocution (what the speaker intends for it to mean--i.e., a sentence's illocutionary force is "requesting", "questioning", "scolding", etc.), and perlocution (what actually happens/is done as a result of what was said). rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would side with Angr and the others who believe that a question mark is required for these commands in question form, at least in most cases. Punctuation and the written language generally tend to follow the formal structure of sentences. These sentences are questions in form, so they generally require a question mark. They are framed as questions in situations where the speaker perceives that an imperative command would be rude. Therefore, they should be punctuated with a question mark. That said, I can think of exceptions, which would mainly occur in works of fiction or narrative accounts, including perhaps journalistic accounts, where a question mark might be omitted for emphasis, or even replaced with an exclamation point. For example, a writer might write: "After CEO Dick Power told his assembled staff that their pay would be cut by 40%, a low roar of anguished conversation erupted among the staff. Power commanded, 'Could you please be quiet!' and resumed his speech." In most cases, however, particularly if the writer himself or herself is making the command-as-request, the command-as-request should be followed by a question mark. Marco polo (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is something of a tradition that signage dispenses with grammar and punctuation (apart from the exclamation mark), so I wouldn't expect to see a question mark on those signs. That is not to say it is grammatically correct. And no, I don't know what that construction is called, if indeed it has a name.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While not a language construction, perhaps this type of locution would fall under the heading of Colloquialism? Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, as a generally polite middle-class person brought up in England, I have always seen a question mark used with these type of question/requests. For me, seeing them written with no question mark makes them lose much of their politeness. I think this is an intonation thing - if there is no question mark I assume the intonation goes down rather than up at the end, making it seem much more direct. The downward intonation does exist in English English, but I associate it with someone being angry, rather than polite. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 20:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the whole point, which is that very often politeness is beside the point. I mean, a polite form may be used, but there's still a power differential at play. Take the stereotypical frazzled mother trying to deal with a troublesome child in a supermarket. When she says "Charlene, will you please stop poking holes in the fruit!", she is telling her to leave the fruit alone. She is not asking whether or not it is Charlene's intention to leave the fruit alone, and so a question mark there would be out of place. And if Charlene were to answer as if the mother had asked her a question (e.g. "No, mother, that is not what I'm going to do"), she'd have her ears boxed for impertinence, because she knows she's been given an instruction, and it's not negotiable. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An instruction/command that looks like a question is actually a request. It is conventional language in that there is an unstated expectation that the audience will comply with the request, not doing so is considered anti-social behaviour. Roger (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like some [real-world] vandalism translated

So I was walking on Rehov Dizengoff in Tel Aviv back to my hotel from Merkaz Dizengoff and spotted this bit of vandalism in Kikar Dizengoff. What does the vandalism say exactly (I know the original is related to Israel's independence day)? Judging by the fact that the Magen David is ripped off, Hitler moustaches are spraypainted and the other bits, it couldn't be good. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Hebrew is somewhat limited, but it appears to be about the banks. Though the poster says "Happy Independence Day", I think it is actually an ad for בוק הפעלים Bank Hapoalim. I think it says "הבוקים יראגו לחג העצמאות שמח" "Will the banks (something) to/for Happy Independence Day?", but I can't find the root of verb יראגו in my dictionary. Perhaps I'm misreading it, or it's misspelt. Google doesn't do any better than me. --ColinFine (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might've got it: I think "יראגו" might be a part of the root "הרג", meaning "kill" or "finish". It's clearly third person plural future ("they will") but I'm not sure which binyan it is, so I can't be sure whether it's active or passive. I've a suspicion that it's the nif'al, in which case it probably means "will the banks be finished by ", but that may be wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it says "חינוך מוח!", which I think means "Brainwashing!", then "הבנקים ידאגו", literally, "the banks will be concerned" (more literally: "the banks will worry"), in context: "the banks will take care of it/see to it". Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a Hebrew speaker, here is my translation:

4...7

חינוך מיוחד = Special education

הבנקים ידאגו = Will the banks take care

לחג עצמאות שמח? = of a happy Independence Day?

Note that the original text contained the words "Happy Independence Day" only, but it was vandalized by adding the rest of the text, as indicated above.

HOOTmag (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claim in Antidisestablishmentarianism

The article on Antidisestablishmentarianism claims that it is all form except "st" which directs to an entry for sto in Latin. The source for this claim is not online and there is a question about it on the talk page. I see that I can remove anti- and dis- from the beginning and -ian and -ism from the end, -ish and -ment from the middle but that leaves "establ...ar". What are all the other components? Rmhermen (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what that means, but "establish" comes from "stabilo", a verb made from "stabilis", which means basically "able to stand", from the verb "sto". The "e-" is the result of French (like Spanish) tending not to start a word with a combination like "st". The "-ari-" is from "-arium", another Latin suffix (usually meaning "pertaining to" or some such). Adam Bishop (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=antidisestablishmentarianism&searchmode=none and http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=establish&searchmode=none. The Latin verb stabiliō, stabilīre, stabilīvī, stabilītum is of the fourth conjugation. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stabilio.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antidisestablishmentarianism.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The exact sentence in the article is: "J.E. Littlewood pointed out that the word is all "form" apart from the Latin stem st." So what do we think that means? Should it at least say the Latin stem sto? Not sure how you get from sto to stabilio and whether that is substantive. Rmhermen (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stabilis means "able to stand", using the suffix -abilis, cognate with our -able. Ucucha 02:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want to go deeper than that, it's "st(o)" + "(h)abilis", which itself comes from "habeo" and an "-ilis" suffix (also seen in "utilis", "agilis", etc). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wagon Pars - speak 'iranian' ?

Hello. I was wondering if someone could help me with the article Wagon Pars - the issue is the reporting of strikes and protests at the factory in 2009-10 . I have found some reports of this but the sources are not ones I would naturally choose or want to rely on . The name for the factory appears to be واگن پارس - if someone can find usuable sources for exactly what is going on that would be great - I just need the url links .. basically I have no way of knowing which sources should be relied upon or not since I have no knowledge of Iranian politics etc. It seems likely to me that claims of "1700 workers are on hunger strike" [1] are exaggerated, but there clearly is/was something happening, possibly related to the article 44 privatisation. Thank you in advanc for any clues you can give.Imgaril (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]