Language desk
< August 31	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 2 >

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.

September 1

Seeing the forest for the trees

Hi. Why do we have no article on this popular idiom? Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 01:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or phrasebook; if there's not encyclopedic stuff to say about a topic, there's probably not an article on it.

Likewise, this reference desk is not a place for discussion about Wikipedia policies or a place for proposing new articles. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BITE the better answer than Rjanag's is "because you didn't write it". Wikipedia is not complete, and if you have good sources on the history and etymology of the phrase, you are invited to start the article and write it. Wikipedia has many articles on words and phrases, and some of them are very good. --Jayron32 01:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:AstroHurricane001 is not a newbie. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but he didn't deserve to be told that it would be inappropriate to have an article about a phrase; that is blatantly not borne out by practice, I can find dozens of articles of various quality which are about words and phrases, such as In like Flynn, SNAFU, Foo, Let them eat cake, I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands, Opium of the people, fuck, groovy, etc. I could give hundreds of more examples. So, if the OP finds the encyclopedia lacking in this department, they should be encouraged to write a good, well referenced article about the subject, not sent scurrying away and made to feel ashamed for asking about an article which you deem "unworthy", but which existing practice clearly disagrees with. --Jayron32 01:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it's unworthy; I said if it's unworthy, then there's probably not an article about it. I never told the OP not to write an article; I was offering an explanation for why there might not be such an article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that there is potential for such articles. For example, taking the mickey has a rather comprehensive article, discussing the origins and applications of the phrase. I still don't understand the forest idiom. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 01:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If what you were asking for was an explanation of what the idiom means, you could have said that. Its more common form (as far as I know) is "can't see the forest for the trees", and it means someone is paying so much attention to the details ("the trees") that he/she is missing the big picture ("the forest"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something about this idiom seems a bit reversed. Taken literally, it appears to imply that a person cannot see the "forest"–in order to be able to see the "trees", that is, a person is not being resourceful enough to look for individual trees within the forest. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 02:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As if the motive were to look for the trees. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 02:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has to do with a weird use of "for". In this idiom, I think it's being used to the effect of "because of" (i.e., "can't see the forest because of the trees he's so busy looking at"); this seems to be a usage that no longer exists in normal English but has been preserved in the idiom. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That usage is more likely to turn up in literature or poetry, for example the old saying "for want of a nail, a horseshoe was lost, etc." or the Biblical statement that starts "For God so loved the world..." Again, using "for" to mean "because (of)". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same use of "for" occurs elsewhere in ordinary English in cases like "I can't think for all this noise". "For God so loved the world..." is different IMO. 86.176.211.109 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We ref desk respondents often need to read between the lines for the real question. Not always easy, I grant. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wiktionary has wikt:see the forest for the trees. Looie496 (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In British English I would say that "see the wood for the trees" is more common. I've never heard it said with "forest". --Viennese Waltz 07:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wood" meaning "forest" as opposed to "lumber", yes? Same idea, different word. The OP's question raises the question of whether there's enough beyond a dictionary definition to write an article about. That's presumably what Rjanag was getting at. You define the term, create a redirect from the other term, and... then what? One item that crosses my mind is where Woody Allen says something in one of his films like "I've got all the details; now if I can only come up with the main points." That's backwards from the usual. However, the opposite problem exists as well, captured by "the devil's in the details". The constant tug-of-war between the "big picture" and the "details". Few are able to excel at both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Den Wald vor lauter Bäumen nicht sehen has an article in the German WP and another one in the German wiktionary, see [1] (linked to the English phrase). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate comes back with "the forest for the trees to see". However, Wald also means "wood" or "woods" or "woodland", in the sense of "forest", as well as "timber". In short, Wald is used the same way in German as it is in English. Might it just be that Brits are more likely to use the term "wood" for a group of trees? Or does the size of the group of trees have something to do with it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The usual British word for a group of trees large enough to go for a walk in is "a wood", or if it is more extensive "some woods". "Forest" suggests epic proportions - either a huge wooded area, or something out of a story. --ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a section of an article called Liste geflügelter Worte, which Google Translate gives as "List of winged words", whatever that means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"List of winged words" means "List of winged words". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had not heard that one before. Thank you! And now we have the basis for an article the OP could start on the English wikipedia, which lacks a List of winged words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP had a list, see old version of winged words. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The joker that clobbered it has since been indef'd as a sock. Any objects to resurrecting the list? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(@Viennese Waltz) Wiktionary has that, too.—msh210℠ 23:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation parameters

Greetings. I'm participating in the Guild of Copyeditor's Backlog Elimination Drive for September, and I found an article tagged for copyediting; the specific problem that wants copyediting is "invalid citation parameters". I probably should know this, having been adding references to articles for years now, but I'm afraid I don't know what precisely citation parameters are. I'd like to fix the problem, but I need to understand this first. Thanks in advance! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Language reference desk, a place for asking factual questions about languages and linguistics. It sounds like you're looking for the Wikipedia help desk, which is back down on the ground floor to the left as you face the golden statue of Jimbo. Angr (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, understood. Thanks for the directions! :) Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big meal?

What's the meaning of "big meal" in the sentence, "Our family's big meal of the day is dinner."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.148.214 (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means: the main (daily) meal. Note that some cultures have the supper as the main (daily) meal. HOOTmag (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Dinner" can be taken either at lunchtime, or during the early evening, or later, depending on local custom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or both, as in at suppertime during the week and lunchtime on weekends (or just Sundays). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am enlightened now. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.148.214 (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase "main meal" is more common than "big meal". And "dinner" means that meal, whenever it is eaten. It usually has more than one course: e.g. soup + casserole, or pasta + dessert, as a minimum. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In some places, yes. In some places, not necessarily. It's one of the most confusing things, really, since it varies so much - lunch, dinner, supper, tea - when, how big? in what combination? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't assert that every English-speaking community refers to its main meal of the day as "dinner". But I am unaware of any such community that uses the word "dinner" to refer to a small meal. I would be happy to be corrected. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To understand the above sentence you need to realize that there is a difference between English dialects concerning the meaning of "dinner". It can mean the main meal of the day, but this would make the sentence meaningless. However in some countries it also tends to mean the evening meal, whether it is the main meal or not. But this tends to be said in areas where it normally is the main meal. In the same way "dinnertime" can mean whatever time you have your main meal, or in countries where this is assumed to normally be in the early evening, it can be understood as referring to the early evening.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NAKAMA

hi!i want to ask about the japanese word nakama..i know it means friend..but, what about the spelling?if i wright for example :nakamais this right?or it just sounds right?the right spelling is in japanese symbols? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.201.220 (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See nakama on Wiktionary. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nakama is transliterated; It is a Japanese word written using Latin characters. See Romanization of Japanese for more info. Regards, decltype (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they'll?

We all know that “they’ll” is the short form of “they will”. If we are asked, “Will they need a canoe?”, is it okay if we answer, “Yes, they’ll.”? It sounds wrong to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerkatakreem (talk • contribs) 14:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds wrong to me too. Just as if an appropriate reply might be "It is.", but we wouldn't use "It's.". - David Biddulph (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, using "they'll" by itself like that is not generally accepted (certainly not in any standard form of English, nor in my idiolect; it's possible some dialectal speech may allow it, though). Just because the pronoun+be forms like I'm, you're, he'll, they'll, etc, emerged as contractions doesn't mean that in modern English the two are interchangeable; quite often they aren't. It's this difference in usage that leads many linguists to not consider these as "contractions" in modern English; compare this with "true contractions" like "should have"/"should've", which are (as far as I can see) completely interchangeable with no change in meaning or grammaticality. Voikya (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One book describes it as "contraction is barred when the element immediately to the right of the auxiliary is null, either because of movement or deletion (see Baker 1971; Bresnan 1971a; King 1970: Lakoff 1970)" and gives the examples:

I don't know what kind of lawyer Mary's.

Tom has eaten as much pie as we've.

They'll water the plants on Tuesday, and I'll on Thursday.

If John would get some exercise, then Mary'd as well.

(Grant Goodall, Chapter 17, Contraction, in Martin Everaert, The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volume 3, Wiley-Blackwell, 2006, page 699, ISBN 9781405114851). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the contraction in the second clause of each of Sluzzelin's examples is ungrammatical. The correct way to speak or write those examples, respectively, is "Mary has", "we have", "I will", and "Mary would". Marco polo (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry for being unclear and thanks for that. I saw it had confused another editor too (who have meanwhile removed their doubts :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first one might well be "Mary is", rather than "Mary has", so another good reason for not contracting. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; Mary's a good lawyer is equally ambiguous (in dialects that permit the contraction of lexical have) but is still grammatical. Angr (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a pun - marries, married? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 21:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only if your accent doesn't distinguish between Mary and marry... 86.164.62.111 (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that "yes, they'll" is incorrect, because of sentence stress. Say "yes, they will, you thought they won't" out loud and take note of which words you say the loudest. Since you're marking "will" as one of the stressed words using sentence stress, it is impossible to pronounce it "they'll" and therefore should be impossible to write it this way. - filelake shoe 21:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, in serious poetry artistic licence overrides all such rules, as in "Some folk'll never lose a toe/But then again some folk'll/Like Cletus the slack-jawed yokel"--Rallette (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, contraction of not to n't is permissible before gaps, as in "Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't." Angr (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also works in past tense: I'd have agreed with that, but my friend wouldn't've. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about My friend would have agreed with that, but I'dn't've ... ? ---Sluzzelin talk 10:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that to do with lacking a verb? Contractions no longer function quite as independent verbs, so if you're contracting a verb you still need something there to be a verb? I'm explaining this badly. But don't still functions as a verb, perhaps because do is still uncontracted in it, and wouldn't is the same. It's only were the verb itself has been contracted, because you can only really do than when it's being (modal ?), 'assisting' another verb. "I'd've helped.", "I'd've done it", but not "I'd've": you'd need "I would've". 86.164.62.111 (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contractions like "they'll" typically do not end a sentence. A more gramatically correct usage would be yes, they'll need it. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 21:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American English

adreeses for speaking american english in houston — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.113.201 (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[I am adding the heading “American English”.—Wavelength (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)][reply]

See http://www.esl-guide.com/dir/texas/index.html.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphysics

When was the word metaphysics first used in the meaning of an occult field? Does the occult metaphysics have any connection – besides the name – to the branch of philosophy with the same name? --85.76.36.160 (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The philosophical branch could be thought of as the physics of physics - that is, the study of the nature of the way things are. The occultist practice deals with manipulating reality by supposedly metaphysical, or supernatural means. Semantically, "supernatural" means 'beyond nature', while "metaphysical" means 'beyond physics'. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 21:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Learning the Proto-Indo-European language

Is there anywhere where I can learn to speak the Proto-Indo-European language? --Belchman (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's a theoretical language with no extant texts, my guess would be no. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it has been reconstructed almost completely. --Belchman (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually kind of an illusion. Linguistic reconstruction has definitely penetrated to the 3rd millennium BC (i.e. 3000 BC to 2000 BC), but that's a period when Indo-European was actually more of a loose dialect continuum, rather than a true unified proto-language. We certainly know many specific features of early Indo-European and/or proto-Indo-European, but not really how to assemble them together into one coherent whole which could be confidently used to communicate with any particular group of people ca. 3000 BC. It's quite possible that the various linguistic features that we reconstruct for the proto-language in fact belong to widely varying time periods and widely geographically-separated dialects, so that our reconstructed proto-language is something of a hybrid or "chimaera". The fact that it's not possible to fully reconcile Hittite morphological proto-reconstructions with those based on the other language groups, but that the Indo-Hittite hypothesis has not found much favor among scholars, is itself an indication of a problem. However, you could look at Schleicher's fable and Modern Indo-European... AnonMoos (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Belchman, just let me explain this from a completely different point of view, by looking at the following (simple) hypothetical example:

Assume there is a language family, called: the ABC family, comprising three (well-documented) languages: A,B,C (being rather similar to each other, yet not identical), whose words for "white", "grey" and "black" - are as follows:

A-language: "white" = hedo; "grey" = kapi; "black" = sahe;

B-language: "white" = hedo; "grey" = dosa; "black" = pilu.

C-language: "white" = luka; "grey" = dosa; "black" = sahe;

So, we can (theoretically) "reconstruct" what we may call: "Proto-ABC language" - as follows:

Proto-ABC-language:"white" = hedo; "grey" = dosa; "black" = sahe.

However, this (theoretical) "reconstruction", doesn't mean that - what we have called "Proto-ABC" - had ever existed, but rather that - if there had ever been a proto-language from which A,B,C stemmed - then that Proto-language (which we may call "Proto-ABC"), had (probably) looked as I described above.

Why do I emphasize: " If..."? In order for you to understand this, just think about the following case:

I have three friends:

My first friend has: white skin, red hair, and black eyes.

My second friend has: white skin, grey hair, and blue eyes.

My third friend has: yellow skin, grey hair, and black eyes.

So, I can (theoretically) "reconstruct" what I may call: "my Proto-friend", who probably (if ever existed) had: white skin, grey hair, and black eyes...

However, this (theoretical) "reconstruction" doesn't mean that - what I have called "my Proto-friend" - had ever existed...

Hope this helps.

HOOTmag (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I haven't said I wanted to learn a language that existed at some point as a unique dialect. --Belchman (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This site may be of interest. [Disclaimer: no involvement by or endorsement from myself.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.179 (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't reconstructed Proto-Indo-European useful for current daily communication? Is it just because of limited vocabulary for current technology/concepts? --Belchman (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belchman -- There are many things that are somewhat unclear, or that prominent scholars disagree on, from the details of the sound inventory on up. You can't even write one single sentence without making a number of implicit or explicit assumptions about what type of reconstruction is to be preferred... AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I downloaded the grammar from http://indo-european.info/a-grammar-of-modern-indo-european-third-edition.pdf (20 meg PDF file), and the authors completely discard Anatolian or Hittite (except in a few cases where Anatolian evidence throws light on details of the reconstruction of non-Anatolian IE), take as their basis a "late Indo-European" (spoken during a period when Indo-European was actually more of a loose dialect continuum, rather than a true unified proto-language), spend a lot of time justifying what they know will be a controversial decision to posit two velar series (k vs. k^w) instead of three (k^y vs. k vs. k^w), abruptly dismiss the Glottalic theory, adopt a pronunciation in which PIE laryngeals have merged (though they freely admit that during their "late Indo-European" stage laryngeals would have remained at least partially distinct in pronunciation), and favor the Italo-Celtic-Germanic grouping over the rest of IE in certain cases of indeterminacy. All this before the first sentence of "Modern Indo-European" can be written! AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming that the Indo-European hypothesis and the Indo-Hittite hypothesis are correct, isn't it true that, while there is much agreement about the vocabulary and morphology of proto-Indo-European, there are many unresolved questions about syntax? Marco polo (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but I doubt whether it much bothers the Schleicher fable-writers and Modern Indo-European advocates -- you can draw on basics of Sanskrit and/or Greek word ordering, and it would be hard for anyone to definitively prove you wrong... AnonMoos (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the links. --Belchman (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. HOOTmag (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks not only for the links but for the info too. --Belchman (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]