Language desk
< November 15	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 17 >

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.

November 16

Van von addresses a person ...

does one say "Guten tag, Herr von Braun" or " ... Herr Braun"? "Where did your ear Gogh?" or " ... van Gogh"? In English and German/Dutch/etc., past and present. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In German, past and present, if von is part of a person's surname, it is always included in addressing a person. Marco polo (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English doesn't have particles like "von" or "van" in its surname system as German does, so it would depend on how the person translated their surname into English. There was an Austrian prince, Archduke Leopold of Austria, Prince of Tuscany, whose German surname was "von Habsburg-Lothringen", but when he emigrated to America, he anglicized his name to "Leopold Habsburg Lorraine", omitting the von. Other Americans of Dutch/German origin have kept the "von"/"van" in their surname when anglicizing it, c.f. Martin Van Buren, Wernher von Braun. It would thus depend on the personal choice of the person whether the surname included the von/van or not. Always default to the preferred usage of the person in question. --Jayron32 04:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The von in your first example was actually stripped off by the Austrian parliament for the entire Austrian Habsburg family. They are all officially known in Austria under the surname "Habsburg-Lothringen". Some members of the family have accepted this, while others use other forms of the name when living abroad. So this is a very special case that doesn't really tell us anything. It is true that the "von" in German is dropped occasionally, especially for brevity when a name comes up often, but I would consider it totally unsafe (in terms of etiquette) to address someone in German without the "von" if it's part of the name. Sometimes a person is generally addressed that way (in general or in a certain circle), e.g. former Green Party politician Jutta (von) Ditfurth, who even tried to remove the "von" officially in 1978 but was not allowed to according to the restrictive German laws. But in other cases you would only drop the "von" to make a political point. Hans Adler 11:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if you meet somebody and address him/her in person, they will be delighted if you pronounce Dutch /vɑn/, German /fɔn/, not the English equivalents /væn/ or /voːn/. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, you're no fɔn. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was something wrong with my edit? It is my personal experience. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong. I was just kidding. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if you ever run into Vincent van Gogh, pronouncing the Gogh part of his surname other than "go" or "goff" would no doubt please him too. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In present-day Swedish the word herr ("Mr.") is a bit old-fashioned, but it would not at all be improper to say, for example: Goddag, herr von Scheele. If you said Goddag, herr Scheele it would seem as if you were trying to make a point (similar to addressing Queen Elizabeth II as "Mrs. Windsor"). Gabbe (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very enlightening. Thanks all. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transitive Verbs

Hello all,

My father recently asked me whether 'home' in the sentence "I went home" was a direct object. I told him that it was not, as the verb 'to go' is intransitive. What is the proper grammatical term for 'home' in that sentence?

Much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Van Gulik (talk • contribs) 02:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adverb. Marco polo (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, such words originally were in particular grammatical cases with a locative or directional function... AnonMoos (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's traditionally called an adverb, although some modern grammars classify it as a preposition. See The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, p. 615. Lesgles (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not a preposition in any traditional sense of the word, or as seen in any form of theoretical linguistics that I'm familiar with (X-bar theory etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that it may be a preposition sounds like more like the usage in french (the word "chez" is an obvious preposition meaning "home", as in "J'ai va chez moi" "I'm going home".) In English, I don't see home in this fashion. A preposition should express a relationship between two things, and you would generally need two things to connect. In this case, it is clearly an adverb. Consider replacing the word home with an obvious preposition and an obvious adverb and see which captures the same sense:

I go to.
I go left.

The first sentence, with the preposition "to" begs the listener to ask "to what?" The preposition is missing the thing to be connected. The second sentence, with the adverb "left" is complete as written. If home were a preposition, it would need something additional. It doesn't, ergo it isn't. The problem is that in English some words can be both adverbs and prepositions depending on the usage. One can say "I walk around" (around as adverb) and "I walk around the block" (around as a preposition). Home has no prepositional sense, you can say "I walk home", but you cannot say "I walk home the block". That makes no sense at all. --Jayron32 04:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iago: Well; go to; very well.

Roderigo: Very well! go to! I cannot go to, man; nor 'tis not very well.

--Trovatore (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

That's why I prefaced my statement with "it's traditionally called an adverb." The page I cited in the Cambridge Grammar talks about home specifically, but you can find a more general definition of prepositions on p. 598 (there's an Amazon preview, if you want to check it out; search for "preposition"). They first give the traditional definition, "a word that governs, and normally precedes, a noun or pronoun and which expresses the latter's relation to another word." But they note that prepositions can serve as heads of phrases in similar ways to verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs, and they argue that "there is no principled basis" on which to argue that prepositions always have to have a complement. The traditional grammar is worth learning because that's still how most people are taught, but grammars like the CGEL attempt to define categories on a more logical basis. Lesgles (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but we already have a term for "prepositions that don't have a complement". They're called "adverbs". The CGEL definition of prepositions stretches it to the point where it becomes useless; it is too broadly defined when it includes things like this, especially when there is a perfectly good class of words (adverbs) that already governs this usage. Home just isn't being used as a preposition is used, unless you reclassify what prepositions are so it specifically and uniquely includes home in this usage. If I call a violet a rose, it doesn't change its odor or color, and arguably, I make it harder to distinguish between violets and roses. Same deal here... --Jayron32 05:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "adverb" category is clearly one of the major shortcomings of traditional English grammar (which I approve of in lots of other ways that aren't fashionable anymore). It seems to be just a catch-all. When I think of an adverb, I think mainly of words like slowly; if home is an adverb then it's clearly a different sort of adverb:

He slowly removed his hat

*He home removed his hat

It seems clear to me that the second sentence is not just implausible because of its meaning; it's actually wrong syntactically. So putting both slowly and home in the same "part of speech" appears to be just wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but then again, so isn't putting "home" and "to" in the same part of speech. (see my examples above). The same argument you make against home being an adverb also works against home being a preposition. So we're stuck back at the beginning again. We have three mutually exclusive grammar rules, which seem to conflict with each other.

Home as a direct object: Home can be used as a noun (This is my home, home is where the heart is, etc.) Problem: to go doesn't normally take direct objects (I go dog?)

Home as an adverb: Home modifies "go" by telling where one goes. Problem: It doesn't work as an adverb in other uses

Home as a preposition: I still have no idea how this works, but the folks at CGEL seem to have worked it out. Problem: It has no complement. Prepositions connect the verb to another word or phrase: I go to work, I speak well of him, etc. Home doesn't work in this sense.

Perhaps "go home" is a verb phrase, and it isn't necessarily possible to parse the bits out. I mean, there are lots of "go" verb phrases like this. Go crazy. Go nuts. Go native. Go commando. etc. What is "crazy" etc. in each of these usages? --Jayron32 06:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't arguing for "preposition". I was arguing "not adverb". The point is that eight parts of speech are not enough. --Trovatore (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trudat. --Jayron32 19:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a relict of Latin, as AnonMoos alludes above. "Domus" in Latin often didn't require a preposition, just like "home" in English in this example. See this and this. 68.54.4.162 (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Domus' is nicely explained by Monty Python. (I am leaving this comment in normal size lettering because it's actually quite relevent.) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Croire" and the subjunctive mood / « Croire » et le subjonctif

I'm writing an essay for my french class, and in it I wrote "je ne crois pas que la parité est juste," using the present indicative of "être," but my teacher corrected it, saying that it should be, "je ne crois pas que la parité soit juste," using the present subjunctive of "être." I, however, have not seen "croire que ..." followed by the subjunctive, and it makes more sense to me that it be followed by the indicative. Which is correct?

J'écris un essai pour ma cours de français, et dans ça j'ai écrit « je ne crois pas que la parité est juste, » utilisant l'indicatif présent de « être, » mais ma prof l'a corrigée, disant qu'elle devrait être, « je ne crois pas que la parité soit juste, » utilisant le subjonctif présent de « être. » Moi cependant, je n'ai jamais vu « croire que ... » suivi de le subjonctif, et il est plus logique, pour moi, qu'elle soit suivi de l'indicatif. Quelle est correcte ?

108.69.212.222 (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When "croire que" is in the negative, it usually takes the subjunctive. Some other verbs do this too, indicative if it's a positive statement and subjunctive if it's negative (penser que, for example). But it can also depend on how certain you are - "je ne crois pas que la parité est juste" means you are very certain, you know this is definitely true. With the subjunctive, it simply reflects your opinion or belief. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thank you very much.

108.69.212.222 (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be pedantic, but I thought you may want some other help with your French. So I have sorrected a few things in your translation. You seem to assume that a lot of words are femine. --Lgriot (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"J'écris un essai pour mon cours de français, et dedans j'ai écrit « je ne crois pas que la parité est juste, » utilisant l'indicatif présent de « être, » mais ma prof l'a corrigé, disant que ça devrait être, « je ne crois pas que la parité soit juste, » utilisant le subjonctif présent de « être. » Moi cependant, je n'ai jamais vu « croire que ... » suivi du subjonctif, et il est plus logique, pour moi, qu'il soit suivi de l'indicatif. Lequel est correcte ?

To be pedantic: Lequel est correct. May be a better translation for "essay" in this case would be: une rédaction or une dissertation. — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

quick-fire cuts

What 'quick-fire cuts' means in filmmaking? I know it is a way of film editing, but what is it exactly? What is it for in Russian? Thank you 188.35.19.44 (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful if you gave an example of where you came across this term, but I suspect it means that a part of a film is edited in such a way that the viewer sees a series of short sequences rather than a long, continuous shot. Using short sequences heightens tension and makes the scene more dramatic. See, example, the bird attack scene from Hitchcock's The Birds (1963). The cuts may be called quick-fire because they are as fast as a gun firing: bam, bam, bam. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quod non: a Dutch phrase?

I was reading Edsger W. Dijkstra, and there's a quote from him that ends like this:

... and it was firmly implanted in people's minds that computing science is about machines and their peripheral equipment. Quod non.

I didn't know what "quod non" means. (I translated it as "what not", which didn't help.) The English wikipedia has no page for quod non, and wiktionary has no page for quod non but when I searched the web for it, I found nl:quod non. It's apparently used to signify the end of a reductio ad absurdum argument ... but can I add that information to the reductio ad absurdum article and link Dijkstra's "quod non" to it for the edification of future readers, or is it a Latin phrase that can only be used if you're Dutch? Card Zero (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means "which is not [true]" (or "but this is not true"). It's not specific to Dutch...I don't know why there is a Dutch article about it but none in other languages. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just explain it in brackets in the Dijkstra article (= which is not true). In Latin you cannot express easily the equivalents of yes or no. "Quod non" is a kind of ellipsis like "what (was said before is) not (true)". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While Latin phrases show up in learned writing in all European languages, this particular phrase may show up more often in Dutch, since someone saw fit to create an article about it in the Dutch Wiki. Marco polo (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. (Dijkstra is Dutch, of course, as well as it being only the Dutch Wikipedia that has a quod non article, so that's a whole two data points, which made me wonder if I was seeing a trend.) Card Zero (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some learned people use it. I found no definition and hardly any examples. For some examples in English and German texts of the European Union see [1]. The Dutch WP stub is not too reliable. The two alleged misspellings that somebody added later to that Dutch stub cannot be verified at all. It is frustrating. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OED reference for "kilo"

Could someone provide the full OED definitions for "kilo" - in particular the first and second noun listings? Many thanks.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The print second edition has only two "kilo" entries in all. The definitions are, in their entirety, for kilo¹ "Abbrev. of KILOGRAM" and for kilo² "Abbrev. of KILOMETRE, -METER". Deor (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Does it not give dates at all? No other dictionary I know of gives Kilo as meaning kilometre in modern English.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you wanted the citations as well. The three citations it provides for the "kilometre" meaning are from 1888 (a letter of Ernest Dowson: "I hope . . . that you are now . . . laying in a stock of hygiene many kilos from this foggy, pestilent metrop"), from 1948 (the novel Death Takes Small Bites by George Johnston: "They drove five kilos in silence"), and from 1973 (an article in the Evening Standard: "After bogging down in the sand by a wrecked tank, we dug ourselves out and hastily retreated a few kilos until we reached a tank laager"). Deor (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. military abbreviates "Kilometers" as "klicks"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As do Australian cricketers, apparently. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a really large cricket pitch to be measured in kilometers! --Jayron32 19:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada kilometres are also sometimes called "clicks", either for speed (where of course it means kilometres per hour), or for distance. I've never heard "kilo" though, that's only for kilograms. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although, of course, klick is not an abbreviation, but rather slang. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Zooterkins"

I was doing research on swear words today for an essay I'm writing in my Principles of English Composition class, and Bill Bryson's The Mother Tongue mentions a word that used to be a swear word in the 1500s in England, "zooterkins".[2] What is the meaning of this word? I can't seem to find a definition for it any of the likely places. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but note that The Mother Tongue, while entertaining, is far from scholarly, reliable, or even accurate in many of its claims about English. While it's possible that zooterkins really was a swear word in 16th-century English, it's equally possible that Bryson simply made it up, or got it from some other unreliable source that simply made it up. Angr (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I think it's reliable enough for my purposes with this essay; it was assigned reading for one of my English classes and excerpts from it have been included in at least two of my English textbooks, including the one for this class, which gives me enough of a case of reliability if my professor questions it. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy of Google: [3], [4], [5]. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for meaning, all swearwords mean pretty much the same thing; presumably it means gosh! blimey! holy shit! etc...--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The grammatical term for such a word is "expletive", or at wikipedia Expletive attributive (to differentiate it from other uses). An expletive is a word or phrase that has no other grammatical meaning than to indicate the emotion of the speaker. --Jayron32 18:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the only appearance of "zooterkin(s)" in Google Books before 1967 is in a play by John Webster, The Weakest Goeth to the Wall[6], spoken by a character who speaks in a mixture of Dutch and English (and also in a 1902 book discussing that play). In the play it is understood by another character to be how the Dutchman says "sooterkin."--Cam (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case the OP has not been able to reference 'sooterkin', the OED defines this (in summary) as a Dutch or Dutch-origin word meaning either (1) sweetheart or mistress; (2) [I kid you not!] an imaginary kind of afterbirth formerly attributed to Dutch women; (3) a Dutch person in general; or (4) an imperfect or supplementary literary publication (presumably deriving from (2)). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.145 (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]