Language desk
< November 13	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 14

Capital letters in English

From Saab Sonett: "The average Sonett II is in Good condition; the average Sonett V4 or III is no better than Fair condition." Is there a reason to use capital letters for "Good" and "Fair" I don't know? --KnightMove (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My offhand guess is that there is some standard grading scheme for classic cars, maybe from Excellent to Very Poor or some such, and the writer wanted to indicate that this scheme was being used, rather than the ordinary-English meaning of the words good and fair. If that was the intent, I don't think the capitals really accomplish their goal; the text should really explain this explicitly. --Trovatore (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, actually, I hadn't bothered to read the sentence prior to the one you quoted, which seems to explain things reasonably well. I don't know if the solution in the article is the best possible one, but it seems to do the job, provided you read the section in order. --Trovatore (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subjunctive in Spanish

here, in the subjunctive section, where is there 2 imperfect forms? What is the difference between imperfect and imperfect 2?174.20.101.190 (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two forms of the past subjunctive in Spanish are interchangeable. I don't know why there are two versions -- most languages seem to have trouble maintaining one! -- Elphion (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two forms are treated as equivalent in meaning. See our Spanish verbs, The subjunctive But the -ra forms of the Spanish imperfect subjunctive are the direct descendants of the Latin imperfect subjunctive, while the -se forms derive from the Latin pluperfect. See http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Spanish/History/Subjunctive/Spanish-Subjunctive_Evolution-04.html. I can't swear, but if I have ever heard the -se forms in the US it was no more than a handful of times, and probably from a Spaniard. You do come across the -se form quite often in classical Spanish literature. But even listening to Almodovar it is rare. The two forms are easy to learn and switch between, but the bottom line is, practice and use the -ra forms and be able to recognize and produce the -se forms. If you don't own 501 Spanish Verbs get a used first edition copy, put it by your commode, and do a paradigm per bowl movement. μηδείς (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting — the Italian forms seem similar to the Spanish -se forms, but with a doubled s and final vowels similar to the present tense: io mangiassi, tu mangiassi, egli mangiasse, noi mangiassimo, voi mangiaste, essi mangiassero. I don't believe there's an equivalent of the -ra forms. --Trovatore (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French has an imperfect subjunctive with –ss– (except in third person singular). —Tamfang (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the grammar by Butt and Benjamin, the two forms are mostly interchangeable. Also:

In some parts of Latin America, only the -ra form is used.
The -se form is common in Argentina, alongside -ra.
The -ra form has some uses not shared with the -se form, although these are not subjunctive uses. Namely:

It can be used as an "elegant" variant (or an "affected" one, depending on whom you ask) of the indicative pluperfect within relative clauses in some cases, as in el libro que leyera instead of que había leído. Él leyera el libro is impossible, since leyera isn't in a relative clause.
It can be used with conditional meaning in haber and some other verbs, as in hubiera sido mejor instead of habría sido. Quisiera or debiera are very common for querría and debería. Pudiera is literary, but other verbs are archaic. There's also the expression Pareciera que.
It's used in some set phrases, such as acabáramos and otro gallo nos cantara. 96.46.202.24 (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the orbilat link I gave above, it explains the -se forms come from a Latin form that indeed had a double ess. Unlike Italian, Spanish has no double consonants other than ll, rr, and originally ñ, with the tilde being a second small n. I am not too familiar with the Cono Sur, but I don't think I have ever heard the -se forms from Latin Americans. But I have always been understood on the occasions I have tried using them. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parkways+driveways

Hi! I was wondering, why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways? Thanks, B. Jakob T. (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a parkway usually goes through a park, or at least a scenic area. You also drive on a driveway, of course. And people with garages or carports may not park on the driveway at all. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this has been doing the rounds since the 1990s, as well as other 'inconsistencies', "Why does Hawaii have interstate highways?", etc. It's always the same list, repeated on hundreds of websites. Also, 'parkway' is a word only used in the US, so it means nothing to the rest of the world. I (UK) actually didn't know until Stu pointed it out, because I couldn't be bothered finding out in the first place. :)KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, had we not won WWII for you you'd be calling them Autobahns. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes me wonder what they are called in Korean, Vietnamese, Bosnian, Somali, Arabic, and Pashto. Also, in both WW1 and WW2, you were late joining in, like a trainee assistant teacher turning up late to a class. You just helped out in both wars. You didn't win them alone - you had the entire British Empire as an ally. Without our heavily and well defended island - which has not been successfully invaded for almost 1,000 years - as a staging point for D-Day, and without our professional soldiers fighting in North Africa alongside your conscripts, you would never have been able to even reach Europe. The soldiers of the Empire fought hard alongside you, both in the European Theatre and the Pacific Theatre, and many lost their lives in doing so. We tied the Japanese down in mainland Asia, giving you the chance to go through the islands. Please do not be disrespectful to the men who died, by saying you did it all yourselves. Also, don't forget, the Russians got to Berlin before you (or even we) did, so you didn't exactly win the European War anyway. You haven't won a major war since or before - except the American Civil War, when you were fighting yourselves, so that doesn't count. We built our empire alone, without the need for allies. In every major war you have fought since WW2, you have asked for allies to come and help, and the US military has been the chief cause of friendly fire. I wouldn't be proud of America's military might, because, quite frankly, the rest of the world isn't, including your allies. Plus, remember, without the Brits, you wouldn't exist in the first place. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the relevance of that is what, exactly? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably nothing. Just American arrogance at its best - spontaneously bringing up 'we won the war for you' in a thread about a linguistic difference. It's the US version of Godwin's law. I wouldn't worry about it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make generalizations about "American arrogance" based on what a single American says. StuRat (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, Stu, I did not wish to insult anyone here. However, I do actually hear this on an almost daily basis playing online wargames - and only from Americans, and only from teenagers. It's surprisingly common. I know that intelligent, educated Americans certainly do not think that way at all. Please accept my apologies if you felt insulted by what I said, as it was not intentional. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a rather obvious chip on your shoulder about America, KageTora, complaining about American video gamers, no less, and pointing out that "only Americans" use the term parkway, as if that were some sort of affront to and burden on the rest of the world. It's almost like we need a tag to warn non-Americans that American topics may be discussed below. If you didn't get my ironic point on American "imperialism versus real imperialism you ought to read or watch The Mouse That Roared. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Medeis, I have no chip on my shoulder about America. Comments such as that which sparked this off-topic discussion are prevalent all over the internet. Just take a look at YouTube comments for a while, and you will see. I even met a number of 'adult' 'teachers' from America saying the same things, whilst I was in Japan for ten years (many cases spring to mind, but there was one who constantly came into school drunk, taking his socks off to wipe the sweat off his face with, then going into class and shouting at the students, calling them "Yellow Monkeys", complaining that they knew nothing about American history. He was well-known in the Gaijin community, and I lost track of the number of times he was sacked for the exact same behaviour). Most Americans I have met have been decent people, and I have no problem with them. However, I am sick and tired of hearing the same juvenile comment over and over again for the past 17 years since I left the UK. You are a knowledgeable person, Medeis, and I respect that. I was just rather surprised to read such a comment from your good self. Also, in fact, only Americans do use the term 'parkway' to refer to something other than an out-of-town railway station, as referred to in the comment below, so I was merely pointing out that the irony in the question is incomprehensible to the rest of the world. I was saying that the original rhetorical question is usually presented as a joke on 'fun' websites, along with a long list of others. A joke is no longer funny if it has to be explained, and a reader of a joke does not want to take the time to research the words or phrases contained therein. I only understood the joke properly after Stu explained it. This is all I was saying. Your comment about the war was completely unwarranted, irrelevant to the topic, and followed the style of many, many American teens. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in arguing with you, KageTora. Had you simply said "for those unfamiliar with the US term parkway, it means...(insert local term)" But dismissing it in terms of being a "US" thing and unknown to the rest of the world has a totally different tone than a helpful explanation. μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, Medeis. Now, let's get back to work in our job as volunteers providing proper, relevant information for those who come here for such. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK a parkway means an out-of-town railway station; see Parkway#United Kingdom (and this thread).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 21:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the Great Satanic Imperium, places to park while you meekly submit to urban planning are called park-and-rides, which the article you linked to should have explained. The real question is, What are they called in China? μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, I think parkway is primarily an East Coast term. I'm not sure what the distinction is between a parkway and a thruway, but out West we call them both freeways. There are a few roads called parkways, but it's too small a sample size for me to have figured out what, if anything, the word specifically denotes. --Trovatore (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Don Valley Parkway in Toronto, but otherwise we don't usually call roads "parkways" in Canada, as far as I'm aware. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the generic East Coast equivalent to what is called a freeway in most of the rest of the United States, and a motorway in the UK, is expressway. (The term that I think subsumes freeways, expressways, certain thruways, and certain turnpikes throughout the United States would be superhighway, which I guess is the best single US equivalent to motorway.) The only superhighways I know named Thruway are the New York Thruway and the New England Thruway, both toll roads in New York State. East Coast parkways, which are mostly in the New York metropolitan area, are typically limited access, divided roads (dual carriageways) that fall short of true superhighways. They tend to have curves that are too sharp, lack paved shoulders, and/or have short or nonexistent acceleration and deceleration lanes. In the San Francisco Bay Area, there are a number of roads called parkways. These are just ordinary roads that happen to pass by one or more parks. Marco polo (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parkways are just another name used for road, street, lane, highway, byway, freeway, drive, avenue, expressway, route, thruway, boulevard, etc, although the ones that end in "way" in the US, often seem to be limited access roads (driveways are also limited access in a "way" but that may have nothing to do with why that term became preferred for the drive up to the house.) Also, many park on the street, but no one parks on the park. Why someone came up with "turnpike" might be interesting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A turnpike was originally a spiked road barrier used for defense; then the meaning evolving to that of a non-spiked barrier to stop passage until a toll is paid, around the 1670s; then "turnpike road" (a road with such a barrier) devolved to just "turnpike". Ain't etymology fun? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A parkway need not be a limited-access highway, but it tends to be a relatively wide street. Eastern Parkway (Brooklyn) for example. As the Parkway article indicates, it was intended to refer to a street that connected city parks with suburbs. Some guy named Olmstead apparently coined the term. As it happens, there is also an Eastern Parkway in Louisville. This designation is by no means limited to the east coast. If you google [parkway los angeles] or [parkway san francisco], some examples turn up. As for the "park on a driveway, etc." I heard that a long time ago. It sounds like something George Carlin might have asked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have the East Coast Parkway in Singapore, which is essentially an expressway (freeway) that at some point runs parallel to East Coast Park. I'm not sure if the question is entirely serious, but it relies on wordplay as it is using park in two different senses: in the noun sense, as a garden; and in the verb sense, to leave a vehicle in a stationary position. In other words, a parkway is not a road for parking on, so of course there is no inconsistency. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In some areas of the United States, parkway is used to denote something you probably shouldn't be driving on. Deor (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a sufficiently large property, you ought not to park on the drive(way). Doing so will leave you in the park, and in the way of other drivers; you should ask your chauffeur to put you down at the carriage circle or porte-cochere, and then take your vehicle to wherever it is they put them - a custom-built garage, converted stable, or just a car park. (As for myself, I live in a house that is small enough and urban enough that it has neither drive nor garage.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought the defining feature for a parkway (on the east coast at least) was the fact that there are no trucks allowed on them. The original idea of parkways was that they were made for pleasure driving. Driving on a parkway was supposed to be the equivalent to walking through a park. Hence the name and no vehicles allowed that are not meant for fun.

On a not entirely unrelated note: when did they start calling the act of abandoning a vehicle in order to do the shopping "parking"?--Zoppp (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the OED, the use of park to mean leaving a vehicle in a designated location originates from the US, and the earliest quotation listed is from 1846 (involving wagons). The verb was derived from the noun, and by the 15th century it had the meaning "to establish oneself in a strategic position" and "to set up camp", which I suppose is not very different from plonking a vehicle in a particular location. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "No trucks on the Parkways" distinction is purely a New York City-area thing: The naming distinction is used in the greater New York City area to give drivers a quick mnemonic way to know which of the many limited-access roads trucks are, and are not, allowed to drive on; I've seen signs in New York City which state as such: this page officially documents the naming policy in NYC, Parkways in New York also explains this. However, most (but not all) of the Garden State Parkway allows trucks, as do many others. AFAIK, trucks are allowed on the Natchez Trace Parkway, as well as Kentucky's parkway system. Other roads which were intended as scenic roads as described above, like the Blue Ridge Parkway, don't allow trucks; though I am not sure that Trucks would want to use that road when the parallel I-81 is built to standards to allow them. So, there are some parkways that allow trucks, some that do not, excepting in NYC area where there seems to be an official naming policy to draw the distinction. --Jayron32 14:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I only know the northern part of the Garden State, where trucks are not allowed. Thanks Jayron, I stand corrected. And thanks to SMUconlaw for the explanation.--Zoppp (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The situation in New York developed because it has one of the oldest freeway systems in the U.S., built by Robert Moses in the 1940s, well before the Interstate system. They just weren't designed to handle 18 wheelers. When modern Freeways got to New York in the 1960s, Trucks had better designed roads to use, and so since then they are kept off of the narrow, windy, old "parkways". Other places have built modern freeways and named them "Parkways" and so, have no need to keep trucks off of them. --Jayron32 20:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I didn't know this would become such a large and (sometimes) heated discussion. My thanks to everyone who answered :D. --B. Jakob T. (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]