Language desk
< June 1	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 3 >

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 2

Distinctive plain form ("infinitive") in English

The verb BE is anomalous in various ways, among them (i) distinctions among am, is, and are, and (ii) a distinction between any of those (the plain present form) on the one hand and be (the plain form) on the other. Putting aside (i), let's look at (ii). Although WP's articles on the history of English (a subject about which I am alas very ignorant) say nothing about the disappearance for other verbs of a distinction between plain present and plain forms (or in traditional terms, the disappearance of a distinctive "infinitive"), I'd guess that distinctive be is the last remnant of a thoroughgoing distinction. Amirite? And if so, were there any other remnants that long outlasted the general loss of the distinction? (Cf given, taken and other present-day remnants of the old -en form.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Be" has acted weirdly in Indoeuropean languages long, long before there was an English language, with the present tense forms based on a variety of other stems, all derived from separate synonyms of "be" in the original IE language. It's an exception because it is so very common, in fact, the most common verb in the English language. I can't think of another verb in another IE language that shows this level of disconnect. Even apparent cases like the Polish word for "to cut" (inf. ciąć, "I cut" "ja tnę") turn out to be regular sound changes based on the same root. The only other similar example in modern English is "went" for the past tense of "go", and that's a recent innovation, not a survival. By the way, in the subjuctive, "be" is totally regular: I be, you be, he/she/it be, we/you/they be. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Hoary's original question: in other English verbs, the distinction between infinitive and finite present-tense forms got lost without a trace because the inflectional affixes fell together and were then lost through regular phonological erosion during Middle English. So a distinction could only survive in those few irregular verbs where these forms had been distinguished in their stems themselves. Besides be, the only possible candidates for such an effect that come to mind would have been the ancestors of today's modal verbs (e.g. shullen vs. shall) and perhaps the preterite-present witen–wat ('know'), but in the modal verbs the infinitive got lost through other, syntactic, processes, and witen just vanished altogether. About D.V.'s comparison with other IE languages, suppletive verb paradigms with more than two distinct stems do occur in Latin (fero–tuli–latum), in quite a few Greek items (ὁράω–ὄψομαι–εἶδον; λέγω–ἐρῶ–λέξω–εἶπον etc.), and in modern Romance (e.g. French aller–vais–irai, 'go'). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though, like "went" in English, the multiple forms of French "aller" are an innovation rather than a survival. All the more interesting, because it shows a merging of two languages. "Aller" is from a Celtic word, where as "vais" and "irai" are from two different Latin words. Suspect the Latin and Greek verbs forms are innovations as well. Shullen/shall and witan/wat are based on the same deep stem, so they are not a good example. They are more like the Polish "Ciąć/tnę" that I mentioned above. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About "innovation" versus "survival", I'd say that's two sides of the same coin: all these suppletive sets were innovations at some point in time; the only question is how far back. (English be was still being reshuffled from two distinct verbal paradigms during proto-Germanic and Old English times). The shall and wat examples were not meant to be about suppletion, but more generally about the original poster's question regarding potential survivals of distinct infinitive forms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By survival, I meant survival from Proto-Indoeuropean. The umlaut in "shall" and "wat" may well be survivals of PIE umlaut, though the deep stem is the same. Other examples from Modern English that are slightly relevant to the OP's question are "has" and "says". "Has" has dropped the "v" of the root, and "says" has a vowel change (when spoken). Both have the same deep root, though. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Yes, I realize both that BE shows an unusual degree of suppletion and that suppletion isn't such a remarkably rare phenomenon. The question wasn't about suppletion -- although I realized that the answer might cite suppletion as a factor. DV, I believe that mainstream linguistics thinking has the subjunctive of today's English using the plain form (traditionally called the "bare infinitive"), so when this rather archaic phenomenon does pop up (usually in the mandative), of course it does so unaffected by person or number. (It's not really in my own idiolect, though of course I can serve it up on demand.)

Witen–wat ('know') is interesting; of course the verb wit itself lingered a long time and even now totters on within a few formulas. (Trivia point: I wonder if it's also behind the name E. L. Wisty.)

I really ought to sink my teeth into a good history of the language some time. -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first subjunctive is very much alive, though many, if not most, British English speakers have lost the feel for it, and used a variety of tricks to get around using this form. You'll hear it used a lot more in the States. It would be very wrong to call it the "bare infinitive", though it looks identical, as does the imperative. And I doubt that any linguists call it that. It's just that all the endings have been dropped from the first subjunctive, which coincidentally leaves it looking exactly like the "bare infinitive". The same with the imperative, which also used to have endings, but lost them.

British grammar writers have basically given up trying to explain the subjunctive. British books for teaching English to foreigners don't even mention it, mainly because many Britons who end up teaching English as a foreign language don't quite understand it and use it themselves, unless they speak German. Why German? The subjunctive in German works a lot like the subjunctive in English, except that the endings are still there and the forms can easily be recognized for what they are. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Brits mainly use either of two obvious alternatives: (i) should plus plain form (also OK in US English, I believe), and (ii) the indicative (odd for US speakers). I see no reason to regard either as a "trick". Huddleston and Pullum's (H&P's) Student's Introduction is one grammar book that explains the subjunctive well; as for British-produced English grammar books primarily intended for L2 English speakers and their teachers, I'd imagine that the writers are fully competent to write about it but consider it considerably less important than other aspects of English that are likely to be far less salient to the L1 English speaker. As an example of the latter, here's a problem set by H&P:

We have seen in this chapter that subordinate clauses functioning as complement of before, if and hope can have a future time interpretation. For example, if it rains in We'll postpone the match if it rains doesn't mean "if it is raining now", it means "if rain falls at some future time". For each of the following five prepositions and five verbs, construct an example to show whether or not it permits a future time interpretation of a present tense in its complement. [...] (You should avoid examples with a futurate interpretation like I know that we leave for Berlin next Tuesday. For these, subordination is irrelevant: the interpretation is the same as for the main clause We leave for Berlin next Tuesday. Thus futurate examples don't provide relevant evidence.)

Incidentally, I'm fully familiar with the subjunctive construction myself and for all I know may have used it (and in all seriousness, rather than as an Americanism or in order to send up pompous writing). I'd guess that a lot of Brits have little trouble with it. As for identifying it as "subjunctive", if this is difficult then I'd tend to blame the predilection of ho-hum grammar books for labeling a variety of apparent oddities as "subjunctive"; one of the merits of CGEL (with its derivative, the Student's Introduction) is that it cuts through this obfuscation. -- Hoary (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples of these "apparent oddities" that are not actually subjunctives? 86.128.1.38 (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving ... until ...

The girl I'm tutoring sent me this message: "Do you mind leaving tutoring until 2:45 pm?" What does this mean? The tutoring session was scheduled at 1 pm. Does she want to postpone it to 2:45 or have a 105 min session? Thanks. 60.240.101.246 (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would read it as her wanting to postpone the start of the session until 2:45. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jack. If she wanted to cut the session short she would have said "leaving at," not "until." Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"final say" or "the final say"

As at Led Zeppelin:

Under the terms of their contract, the band had autonomy in deciding when they would release albums and tour, and had final say over the contents and design of each album.

or

Under the terms of their contract, the band had autonomy in deciding when they would release albums and tour, and had the final say over the contents and design of each album.

Which would be correct in British English? In my experience, I've much more often heard "final say" used without the definite article, but I wonder if there is an actual rule that covers this. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is a "rule". Per Google search on UK sites, "the final say" returns about a million hits [1], whereas "final say" gives only about 27,000 hits [2]. Of course, Google hits are always to be taken with a huge grain of salt, but with a difference this large, it does appear as if "the final say" is much more common in British English. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, "final say" sounds more British to me, vs. "the final say". Like saying "in hospital" instead of "in the hospital" as Americans say. But either way works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "in hospital" is analogous to "at home" or "at school" or "in class". Apart from these standard expressions that have transatlantic subscription, the Brits and their non-American cousins don't have a habit of dropping their "the"s. I think a lot of them would be happy to hear that "The British soccer player David Beckham has announced his retirement", rather than "British soccer player David Beckham has announced his retirement", but they're probably resigned to never hearing such a sentence ever again, unless from the likes of one such as I. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem.... you mean "such as me". Object of the preposition "of". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it understood as "... one such as I am"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's a faulty analysis. Ą very common mistake, though. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Fowler (I have the original revised edition to hand, but not the new version, which may differ), under the article on as (discussing whether he or him is to be used in similar situations): "...to insist on writing he always ... seems pedantic, though he is always admissible ..." (this conclusion is supported by reasoning). So in the above case, this would imply that me is more normal, but I is also OK (which also accords with my own intuition). Victor Yus (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the Brits and their non-American cousins don't have a habit of dropping their "the"s. I think a lot of them would be happy to hear that "The British soccer player David Beckham has announced his retirement", rather than "British soccer player David Beckham has announced his retirement", but they're probably resigned to never hearing such a sentence ever again, unless from the likes of one such as I. -- So (A) they don't have a habit of saying such-and-such themselves, but (B) they're so accustomed to having it said to them that they're probaby resigned to its ubiquity? An odd situation indeed. On this construction, see "Renowned author Dan Brown staggered through his formulaic opening sentence" (not least for the laughs). My own impression is that it has spread very quickly. It was an affectation of Time and some other magazines before spreading across US journalism, but it's now so British that it's routine in the Guardian. Just from a minuscule article there that I happened to be reading just now: "After 20 years of journeying around the world, travel writer Sylvain Tesson decided he wanted to stay put and fulfil his dream of 'living as a hermit.'" -- Hoary (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's a feature of written English (particularly journalese) that you wouldn't normally expect to hear in speech (though you might hear it in spoken news reports, sports commentary, etc.) Victor Yus (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dominus! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am from the UK and "the final say" sounds much more usual to me. "final say" sounds borderline wrong. 86.148.152.136 (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. Victor Yus (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "the final say" is more common here in the UK, and the meaning of "in hospital" differs from the meaning of "in the hospital". Many of us prefer not to use the American word "hospitalized", though it is gaining in acceptability here. The British equivalent is "in hospital". Dbfirs 16:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clean and jerk

Where does the "clean" portion of clean and jerk come from? Does it relate to washing or tidying? Dismas|^(talk) 23:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell this is a mystery. No source seems to have even a guess. Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some digging, but I had always assumed it referred to a "clean" as in unblemished lift; that part of the lift is supposed to occur in one fluid motion, with no stops or intermediate pauses, lifting in one "clean" motion from the floor to the chest. But I'll look and see what I can find. --Jayron32 00:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've given it my best effort that five minutes and google can give, and I must admit, I'm lost. I cannot backup my above supposition with any references. Even good online dictionaries like Oxford and such don't indicate the origin of the phrase or why the first part of the lift is called the "clean". All the sources I can find indicate that the "clean and jerk" come from the two phases of the lift, but none of them indicates why that first phase came to be called the "clean". --Jayron32 00:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Macquarie Dictionary tells me that the rules for the lift demand that the barbell must not touch the body at any stage. This may well be the "clean" aspect. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, I find it interesting that the first relates to the quality of the motion while the second half of the term relates to the method. For instance, with something like "ready, aim, fire" they are all actions.

Thanks all for the input thus far! Dismas|^(talk) 09:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Macquarie is clean out of its mind. "During this continuous movement, the barbell may slide along the thighs and the lap. The barbell must not touch the chest before the final position."[3] Plus, at the end, the lifter rests the weight on his or her clavicles or thereabouts before trying the jerk portion. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the phrase just mean clear and jerk? The mutation from r > n would be a not unexpected dissimilation. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking for confirmation of your armchair supposition. Jayron's already established that the origin of the term doesn't seem to be recorded anywhere, so you seem to be out of luck, and your rumination remains in the realm of the unreferenced. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, Jayron has proven a negative, and questions require references? μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he hasn't proven a negative, but he has done a search and even the OED does not have the answer he was looking for. That strongly suggests that the origin of the expression has been lost to history. At least until someone unearths some new evidence. You've presented a(n) hypothesis, and I'm sure it's a reasonable hypothesis. Your question was phrased as if this is the common understanding of the origin. It may well be what many people think, but (a) nobody has come here to confirm it, and (b) the sources that Jayron found do not support it. If you have evidence that it is as you say, you're welcome to come up with a reference for this, the Wikipedia Reference Desk. If you can't do that, it must remain an armchair supposition or an example of false etymology. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I certainly did mean it only as a question, not a rhetorical claim to be the correct answer. μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. You'd be aware that questions of the form "Isn't it the case that ...?" are not neutral enquiries like "Who was the inventor of the mousetrap?". They say "I believe/understand/assume that X is the case. Please either confirm or refute this". That is, you're adopting a certain position, not just eliciting information. If that position is verified, all well and good. But that hasn't happened here. The very act of mentioning your belief, understanding or assumption, without offering any evidence for it - particularly after our colleague Jayron has just reported lack of success in finding a source - is the definition of an unreferenced assertion. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you're essentially speculating. This might be of interest. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]