Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 September 16
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 15 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 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. |
September 16
[edit]Happy in the UK
[edit]Is this use of happy in a formal text, exclusive of the UK? If you are happy with phone or internet accounts, you may get a higher interest rate. 88.8.79.204 (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Are you asking if "happy with" means the same as "satisfied with"? It does here in the UK. "Happy with" is widely used, but it has a slightly informal feel to it. Dbfirs 08:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think he's asking if this use of "happy" is also found in other versions of English such as AmEng. --Viennese Waltz 09:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's used that way in the USA also, although I don't get the part about higher interest rates. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's an example of the usage, and relates to opening a savings account, and means that if you're happy with one where you can only make transactions by phone or online (as opposed to in person at a bank branch) then rate of interest on the savings could be higher than for one with an "in-person" service. It's a quotation from this page. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Given the context, that usage is perfectly normal for US English and, I'm fairly certain, for every variety of English. However, the linked Web page is not a formal text, and that usage is definitely not right for a formal text. Formal texts typically don't use the second person. To recast the quote in more formal language: "If the customer is satisfied with telephone or Internet access, he or she may qualify for a higher interest rate." Marco polo (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's common in Canada, too; however, happy with to me seems to be a bit less formal that satisfied with. Still, I would accept both in formal and informal writing. Interchangeable|talk to me 14:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Satisfied" would not work in this context, it means something different. Saying "If the customer is satisfied with telephone or Internet access..." implies that the customer is satisfied with their current telephone or internet access, which is not what is meant at all. It's basically saying "if you don't mind being restricted to telephone and internet access, you might get a higher interest rate", although that is obviously too informal for an official corporate statement. --Viennese Waltz 14:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- The ambiguity exists whether you use "happy" or "satisfied". The word "satisfied" carries no more implication of "existing" than does "happy". I agree that spelling it out in detail is better. Perhaps "prepared to accept"? Dbfirs 16:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Given the context, that usage is perfectly normal for US English and, I'm fairly certain, for every variety of English. However, the linked Web page is not a formal text, and that usage is definitely not right for a formal text. Formal texts typically don't use the second person. To recast the quote in more formal language: "If the customer is satisfied with telephone or Internet access, he or she may qualify for a higher interest rate." Marco polo (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's an example of the usage, and relates to opening a savings account, and means that if you're happy with one where you can only make transactions by phone or online (as opposed to in person at a bank branch) then rate of interest on the savings could be higher than for one with an "in-person" service. It's a quotation from this page. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's used that way in the USA also, although I don't get the part about higher interest rates. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think he's asking if this use of "happy" is also found in other versions of English such as AmEng. --Viennese Waltz 09:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Learning a new language
[edit]This question may be a little too vague, if it is just let me know.
I've always been very quick at picking up technical languages (ie programming languages, scientific terminology, etc..) but very poor at learning actual spoken languages. It may be because I've always hated memorization (obviously there's a certain amount of vocabulary building required before you can meaningfully speak another language), but I'm just not very good at it. Is there a non-memorization intensive way to learn to speak a new language? I don't think immersion would work very well either, I'm a grad student and I spend a lot of time around people speaking non-english languages, yet I don't tend to pick any of those languages up. Any suggestions would be appreciated. And again, if this is too vague or open ended just let me know. Thanks. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 16:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- You're a bit vague about the "spending a lot of time around people speaking non-english languages" thing. Being in an environment where you hear other languages spoken alongside of English doesn't really qualify as immersion. Immersion would be being a non-X speaking person in an X-speaking environment, needing to speak X in order to communicate. Learning a foreign language is a lot of work, and you need a basic vocabulary in order to get started. In my experience, the key success factor is learning to understand the foreign language. A good way of learning to understand a foreign language, is listening to podcasts in the language about a subject that you know. I have successfully improved my Spanish a lot by in listening to Spanish science podcasts. I've also learned to understand quite a bit of Catalan by listening to a Catalan technology podcast. I have at the same time read some grammar, but I have not resorted to rote learning of vocabulary. --NorwegianBlue talk 16:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- If you don't like deliberately memorising, then you shouldn't try that method. You probably need a really good up-to-date course, with a book and DVDs, to get you started. Or perhaps some classes. But avoid any scheme where they don't tell you up front how much it will cost. Depending on what language, the BBC website has some excellent free materials. And then NorwegianBlue's suggestion is a good one, get yourself plenty of practice, but in a way that is interesting rather than tedious. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no way other than by memorization, study of grammar, and spoken immersion to learn a language. However, memorization need not mean rote recitation of vocabulary lists. Rather, intensely repeated passive contact with materials works fine. One favorite method is to leave reading material by the toilet. Also by the bedside. Don't strain yourself trying to memorize, just read the material over and over in a passive, relaxed state. Just before bed is ideal. You will find you have mastered it soon enough. As for immersion, that doesn't mean moving in with a family of native speakers (although that method will get you fluent within a few months) but simply making sure that a sufficient amount of time is spent on a regular basis engaging with the material. That can mean attending an intensive course in the language, watching movies and television in the language daily, and so forth. And one does have to learn grammar. Both understanding the principles of grammar and repetition of conjugations and declensions are inescapable necessities. Courses that promise easy learning the natural way without concentrating on grammar are frauds. Get an explicit grammar book and, if it is available, a 501 Linguish Verbs of the appropriate edition. Wheelock's Latin is perhaps the ideal template to work from. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Tell us what language you want to learn and we should be able to give more advice. East Asian languages, for example, have no conjugations or declensions to memorise. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your responses, I think I have a better idea how to approach this now. The podcast idea is certainly interesting, scientific vocabulary is pretty standardized so foreign language science podcasts would probably be a good starting point since I'd already recognize much of what's being said. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 02:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Of "something" v Possessive Case
[edit]I'm not sure if I'm using the correct terminology for the language desk......
English is my first language, but I know a bit of Spanish & French
In English we can either say:
- John's office
- or
- The office of John
To my ear the second version sounds somewhat archaic or unusual - although, the phrase "the office of my husband, John" reads OK
However, there are genuine occasions when this version is required (and the possessive case would not work)
- The House of Windsor
- House of cards
Therefore my questions are:
- 1. Is there any rules concerning when "of" should be used instead of the "Possessive Case"
- 2. How do Spanish speakers, make the differential that we can in English by virtue of the two options -
Compare:
House of Windsor v Windsor's House (the house belonging to someone called Windsor)
They could only say "La casa de Windsor" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaseywasey (talk • contribs) 19:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- The more "animacy" or "agency" (in the linguistic sense) something is perceived to have, the more likely it is to be able to take the English possessive suffix. A number of languages have a morphological distinction associated with "inalienable possession" vs. alienable possession, or "partitive" vs. true genitive etc., but other languages have only one construction for expressing most genitive-related meanings, and don't appear to suffer in any significant way from not making such distinctions... P.S. Many linguists would say that the English possessive ending is more of a clitic suffix than a case inflection in the ordinary sense. AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- I can answer your first question, but not your second (I only know about ten words of Spanish, muchos gracias). The crux of the matter is that inanimate objects cannot possess things in the way that living things can. So there is a simple, general rule: if it's alive, use 's ; if not, use of the. However, as you noted, you will probably find exceptions to both, so the answer to "Is [side note: accord your subject and verb; correct is are] there any rules concerning when "of" should be used instead of the Possessive Case" is no. (And, face it, this is English. If there were a rule, there would be an exception...) Interchangeable|talk to me 23:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC) P.S.: Occasionally, the two words alone, the two words joined by a hyphen, or a single word will suffice. For example, the top of the table, the table's top, and the tabletop are all correct (though the second sounds a bit strange to me). Similarly, the cushions of the couch, the couch's cushions, and the couch cushions are all correct (note that in the third example, couch functions as an adjective). However, take caution with this: I recall reading in Michael Moore's "Dude, Where's My Country?" the following curious sentence: "The aluminum tubes discovery also turned out to be a hoax." Here, having aluminum tubes function as an adjective is awkward; better is "The aluminum tubes' discovery" or "The discovery of the aluminum tubes". Interchangeable|talk to me
- (ec) Oh, so many exceptions: Zimbabwe's national anthem; aliens have landed on the White House's front lawn; the works of Shakespeare ... -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Though the reversals of all three sound right to me. Interchangeable|talk to me 23:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) Oh, so many exceptions: Zimbabwe's national anthem; aliens have landed on the White House's front lawn; the works of Shakespeare ... -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- I can answer your first question, but not your second (I only know about ten words of Spanish, muchos gracias). The crux of the matter is that inanimate objects cannot possess things in the way that living things can. So there is a simple, general rule: if it's alive, use 's ; if not, use of the. However, as you noted, you will probably find exceptions to both, so the answer to "Is [side note: accord your subject and verb; correct is are] there any rules concerning when "of" should be used instead of the Possessive Case" is no. (And, face it, this is English. If there were a rule, there would be an exception...) Interchangeable|talk to me 23:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC) P.S.: Occasionally, the two words alone, the two words joined by a hyphen, or a single word will suffice. For example, the top of the table, the table's top, and the tabletop are all correct (though the second sounds a bit strange to me). Similarly, the cushions of the couch, the couch's cushions, and the couch cushions are all correct (note that in the third example, couch functions as an adjective). However, take caution with this: I recall reading in Michael Moore's "Dude, Where's My Country?" the following curious sentence: "The aluminum tubes discovery also turned out to be a hoax." Here, having aluminum tubes function as an adjective is awkward; better is "The aluminum tubes' discovery" or "The discovery of the aluminum tubes". Interchangeable|talk to me
- The more "animacy" or "agency" (in the linguistic sense) something is perceived to have, the more likely it is to be able to take the English possessive suffix. A number of languages have a morphological distinction associated with "inalienable possession" vs. alienable possession, or "partitive" vs. true genitive etc., but other languages have only one construction for expressing most genitive-related meanings, and don't appear to suffer in any significant way from not making such distinctions... P.S. Many linguists would say that the English possessive ending is more of a clitic suffix than a case inflection in the ordinary sense. AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
But the examples are not strictly possessives. A house of cards is not the card's house. It is a house made out of cards. Like a woolen sweater or a sweater of wool is not wool's sweater. (Although woolen does actually evolve from an old genitive formation, but the genitive of substance, not possession.) Likewise, the House of Windsor is not Windsor's house, but the dynastic house of the Windsor family. One could certainly say the Windsor family's dynastic house if necessary. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- There really isn't a possessive case in English; it's the genitive case, and people are often confused by their mistaken belief that the only time it is used is to show possession. The discussion at <http://alt-usage-english.org/genitive_and_possessive.html> may be elucidative. Some of the examples on this page expressed with "of", for example, are appositive genitives - Nunh-huh 02:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think we are better off saying that there is a possessive construction which is not as broad semantically as the roles played by the classic genitive case in older Indo-European languages. I note that no one has linked to the articles genitive case and possessive case. Again, the two examples above, House of Windsor and, especially, house of cards are examples of genitive constructions which are not possessive constructions. μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- I would just say that English doesn't have cases (apart from nominative and accusative pronouns). Surely adding 's just makes a noun a possessive adjective. I've never heard anyone claim that "my" is a pronoun declined in the genitive... - filelakeshoe 12:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think we are better off saying that there is a possessive construction which is not as broad semantically as the roles played by the classic genitive case in older Indo-European languages. I note that no one has linked to the articles genitive case and possessive case. Again, the two examples above, House of Windsor and, especially, house of cards are examples of genitive constructions which are not possessive constructions. μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- There is actually a technical vocabulary available if one wants to make more than vague statements. English most certainly does have case syntactically and case declension in pronouns. A sentence like He showed her it on his computer has pronouns acting as subject, indirect object, direct object, and possessor roles. Although the dative and accusative pronoun forms have fallen together in English as the object pronoun form, the roles are still differentiated because, as in sentences like the example, "he showed her it" can only mean he showed it to her, and not he showed her to it. The fact that nouns do not decline for case beyond marking the possessive does not mean that English lacks case. Moreover, possessives are not adjectives. If John's were an adjective we could say "The big red John's book is lying on the table." We cannot. (The evolution of possessive 's towards being a clitic also provides problems for this analysis. Would we describe the first five words in "The man I saw yesterday's house burnt down" as an adjective?). This is a fruitful field of study with plenty of scholarly writing available. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- However, no one denies that my, your, his, her etc. are possessive adjectives, yet we still cannot say "The big red my book is lying on the table". I believe the rule has to do with English adjectival order: the proper order is possessive adjectives (but no article can be used if a possessive adjective is), origin, size, shape, age, colour, nationality, religion, material, and finally nouns used as adjectives. Interchangeable|talk to me 20:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- I deny it, and I don't think I'm the only one. My, your, his, her etc. are determiners, not adjectives. Angr (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, you aren't. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- I deny it, and I don't think I'm the only one. My, your, his, her etc. are determiners, not adjectives. Angr (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- However, no one denies that my, your, his, her etc. are possessive adjectives, yet we still cannot say "The big red my book is lying on the table". I believe the rule has to do with English adjectival order: the proper order is possessive adjectives (but no article can be used if a possessive adjective is), origin, size, shape, age, colour, nationality, religion, material, and finally nouns used as adjectives. Interchangeable|talk to me 20:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- There is actually a technical vocabulary available if one wants to make more than vague statements. English most certainly does have case syntactically and case declension in pronouns. A sentence like He showed her it on his computer has pronouns acting as subject, indirect object, direct object, and possessor roles. Although the dative and accusative pronoun forms have fallen together in English as the object pronoun form, the roles are still differentiated because, as in sentences like the example, "he showed her it" can only mean he showed it to her, and not he showed her to it. The fact that nouns do not decline for case beyond marking the possessive does not mean that English lacks case. Moreover, possessives are not adjectives. If John's were an adjective we could say "The big red John's book is lying on the table." We cannot. (The evolution of possessive 's towards being a clitic also provides problems for this analysis. Would we describe the first five words in "The man I saw yesterday's house burnt down" as an adjective?). This is a fruitful field of study with plenty of scholarly writing available. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)