Language desk
< October 21	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 23 >

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.

October 22

Simple Past vs. Present Perfect

For some reason, I have been having trouble deciding which tense to use between Simple Past and Present Perfect. So, I ask the good people of WP:RD/L, how does one determine which tense is used when? For example:

I completed the task you requested of me.
I have completed the task you requested of me.

What is the difference between the two sentences? Can they be used interchangeably? I will be glad to expand on my question if you need clarification. Thank you. —Such a gentleman 06:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In many contexts, they can be used interchangeably, but "I completed ..." refers to some time in the past that could be quite some time ago, whereas "I have completed ..." tends to have a more recent feel, implying "I have just completed ... ". This is not an absolute rule, so perhaps someone else can clarify further? Dbfirs 08:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not strictly about how long ago it happened, though that's correlated. It's about whether you're emphasizing the act or event (which is in the past), or the present state of the act or event having happened. That's why it's called the present perfect (Such A Gentleman, please note, present perfect, not past perfect), because it's strictly speaking in the present tense, but with the perfective aspect. --Trovatore (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I knew I wasn't quite explaining it correctly. Dbfirs 08:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, changed it to "present perfect." Such a gentleman 21:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another take on it is, when speaking about one's or another's relationship with a third party, the tense will vary depending on whether they're dead or alive. Example - "I have never met Ryan Gosling" cf. "I never met Marlon Brando". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is more a question of whether the event is still considered possible. "We were at the same Club Med at the same time but I never met Mila Kunis." Or, "I have never met Marlon Brando, but my medium is hopeful that he will attend the next séance."

Similarly, in discussing an author's or actor's oeuvre, you'll usually use the present perfect if he's alive or the past if he's dead, but not if there is something that separates his work from the present: "Arnold Schwarzenegger made several films before going into politics." --Trovatore (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your first example, it would be more common to say, "We were at the same Club Med at the same time, but I didn't meet Mila Kunis." Though it would probably be better to say, "Mila Kunis and I were at the same Club Med at the same time, but we didn't meet."--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point was not to find the most elegant possible way of expressing those thoughts, but merely to show that the simple past could be correct even for meeting a person who's still alive, or the present perfect for a decedent. --Trovatore (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but it's more helpful to the original questioner to indicate more 'elegant' phrasing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are the following sentences "good"?

Kindly comment on the acceptability of following sentences:

1. The lock opened with this old key. 2. The lock was opened with this old key. 3. The lock was opened by this old key.

Are all these sentences equally acceptable to native speakers? Thanks. 14.139.82.7 (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya[reply]

They're OK, but they're passive voice. Better to say something like, "This old key opened the lock." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to the matter of by or with, it would be preferable to say "the lock was opened with this old key [by whoever used the key]."--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it was a demoniacally possessed key with a mind of its own (and telekinetic powers). Clarityfiend (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But sentance 1 places the emphasis on the lock, not the key. Perhaps better would be "The lock opens with this old key." Meaning that the key will serve to open the lock, not that the lock was opened on any specific occasion. DES ^(talk) 17:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is not passive, it is a form sometimes called middle.

The first two would be acceptable under very specific circumstances, depending on whether these are answers to questions about how the lock was opened and with which key, ie. 1. "How was this lock regularly opened?" 2. "How did you get this lock opened?" (or variations thereof- They aren't natural, but they aren't wrong, either. The third suggests that the lock and key performed the action independently without human intervention. Mingmingla (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the first two aren't natural. I don't see any problem with either. In the right context, of course, but that goes for everything. I also don't agree that passive routinely is bad and has to be turned into active. 86.128.3.118 (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My English teacher said otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did your English teacher ever posit a theory as to why the passive existed in the first place, if it is so inherently evil? The passive is a legitimate and valid linguistic tool and it has its place. Like anything, it can be used to excess. See, there, I just used it, and I challenge anyone to recast that sentence in active voice in such a way as to convey the same information with the same (or greater) economy and nuance. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]}

US Usage of Prepositions (Revisited)

I was reading something just now, and I came across the following sentence:

"I was visiting with some friends at their bakery."

Now, this was the start of the story, so without context (yet) to my British ears this would have meant:

"I was visiting an undisclosed location within my friends' bakery, accompanied by said friends."

Reading on, it became apparent that it meant:

"I was visiting some friends at their bakery."

Q1: Why the extra 'with'?

Q2: Which dialect of the USA is this?

KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prepositions seem to be a matter of convention, rather than logic, with American English and also some dialects of British English tending to include what I would regard as redundant prepositions ("outside of", "for free" etc.) No doubt those whose local convention includes these prepositions will think that I am missing them out. I agree that, in British English, the friends that you visit with must be accompanying you in the visit. Dbfirs 12:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No particular dialect. It's only a sports article, but Manny Acta {was} visiting with Chicago Cubs. Or you can go Visiting with a Policymaker or with Darlene. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, there may be a slight distinction. The "with" makes it sound a little cozier, at least to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hear them as different actions. "visited" - I popped in and said hello. "visited with" - we sat down and had a long conversation. To visit socially rather than visit touristically.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think of "visit" as a place, but "visit with" as a person. I would say "I visited my grandmother's house" but "I visited with my grandmother." For me, that's the distinction. I was raised in New England, so have a Northeastern U.S. native dialect. --Jayron32 16:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading in an American book (one of Robert Heinlein's) a use of visit with that clearly meant chat to, as the people were already at the same place. --ColinFine (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is fascinating! It's similar also to the US usage of 'meet with', as opposed to just 'meet'. 'Meeting with' someone, implies an intention, generally with some chat, whereas simply 'meeting' someone could mean either that, or it can be purely accidental. Japanese also has this distinction ('tomodachi ni au' vs. 'tomodachi to au'). UK English, on the other hand, does not - we only say 'meet' in both circmstances. E.g.:

A(merican):"I met with my friend."

B(rit):"You met who with your friend?"

The British guy in the above conversation, if he is a linguist, will be silently shouting "'Meet' is a transitive verb!! This is an incomplete sentence!!". The same would apply to 'visit'. However, in this case, the connotation of coziness is not necessarily implied, as it may be with 'visit with', as Clariftyfiend pointed out above. Barack Obama could meet with the Pope, but could he 'visit with' the Pope? From your explanations, I am led to believe he could not. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But "met" and "met with" have two separate senses. "Met" is general and can be accidental: "I met an old friend at the shopping mall I hadn't seen for years." "Met with" in this case implies intention and duration, as in hold a meeting. "I met with my landlord for an hour about the problem of the neighbours." μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my dear Slavic friend. If you re-read the post you are replying to, you shall see that I am indeed saying exactly what you are saying. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brits would for some reason accept "he met with death", "he met with misfortune", or "he met with Nosferatu". The "with" in those cases certainly doesn't imply the meeting is deliberate. It seems to imply the meeting is portentous. Some examples from Sherlock Holmes:

it did not meet with full approval

But that work met with an annoying interruption.

He was a patentee of the Openshaw unbreakable tire, and his business met with such success that he was able to sell it and to retire upon a handsome competence.

a little time was still to elapse before the Tiger of San Pedro should meet with his deserts.

Card Zero (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the usage I am more familiar with. 'Meeting with' misfortune and 'meeting with' one's tax collector may have the same end result, but certainly the phrases do not have the same connotations. Still, in UK English, 'meet' can be used (and usually is) in both cases. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Met with death" and "met with misfortune" are metaphors mean suffered death and misfortune, not collided with them physically, or had a conference with them. That has nothing to do with proper or British versus American usage--its simply a very unremarkable difference of senses. Amazing it took Aristotle to discover words can have more than one sense. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It gets even more complicated. "He met his death while riding the horse" and "He met with death while riding the horse" also have different meanings. The former could simply mean he was riding the horse and something happened which led to his death, whilst the latter almost certainly means the simple act of riding the horse (or even the inherent evil of the horse itself) was the deciding factor in his death. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree there, if say the person was riding a horse when someone shot him, either phrase could be used. If "Death" is being used as a personification or a personified metaphore, then the second form "met with death while" would be much more likely IME. DES ^(talk) 22:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with both; for me "met his death" means he is now dead, while "met with death" is ambiguous - could be death, could have have very nearly died. If he'd been riding and a tornado went over as he hid in the ditch, and he got up shaken but completely uninjured, he still met with death while riding his horse. Lsfreak (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that reasoning. At all. Tornadoes have been known to kill people, but that doesn't make them a synonym for death. Otherwise, just about every object you could name would be a synonym for death. If a tornado kills someone, then you can say "He met with death in a tornado". But if he survived, then you can't. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the logic, but it is not something I would say, nor expect to hear. In this case, I would say 'he came face to face with death'. This phrase, to me, implies that he survived. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In these creative days when more and more people are spelling 'too' as 'to', and confusing 'off' with 'of', it's interesting to note that the expression "off of" survives in some places - The apple rolled off of the table. I await with glee the day I see The apple rolled of of the table. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mum: "Don't eat off of the table!"

Boy: "I'm not! I'm eating on of it!"

KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this badge off of me. I can't use it any more. Hey, hey, you, you get off of my cloud. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then there is the expression (in America; anywhere else?) to meet up with someone, meaning more or less to intentionally meet with someone, except that to meet with is imperfective, emphasizing the continuing nature of the meeting while it occurs, whereas to meet up with is, I would say, perfective, emphasizing the act in its entirety rather than the flow of time during the meeting. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works in the UK, usually with the nuance of intention to go somewhere else together. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have herd it used (mostly in the northeastern and to a lesser extent the mid-western US) "meet up with" is more informal, and emphasizes the getting together rather than the activity while together. "I met with my client" "The President met with the Senator" but "John and I met up with Susan and we all went to the movies" "The group is going to meet up next Thursday at the resturant". "Meet up" is usually social, not business, in my experience, and could be replaced by "encounter" or "forgather with". It is also more often used when there are more than two people involved, in my experience. DES ^(talk) 22:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Meet up with" would be close kin to "hook up with". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well in a way, although hookup more often involves exactly two people and is a euphemism, whoich "meet up with" is not. DES ^(talk) 22:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "hooking up" is often (though not always) a euphemism for a rendezvous. It's a specific case of "meeting up with". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's a euphemism. It might be more of a dysphemism, when used in that sense, being sort of geometrically literal to an extent not really considered polite. --Trovatore (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People can certainly visit with the Pope. Why not? The Jesuits in Malta and the Times of Israel say so, though UPI states that "Queen not scheduled to meet with pope". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are moving into the territory of phrasal verbs, though, many of which are 'acceptable', shall we say, no matter the dialect or which side of the pond you fish on. I am more concerned with the unnecessary (from a Brit's point of view) addition of prepositions, and in Jack's example, the addition of a preposition even when a preposition is already present. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did you bring that book I don't like to be read aloud to out of from up for? Widneymanor (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origin: Bishop (surname)

According to this source, the name Bishop means an actor that portrays a bishop in a medieval play, a person with an ecclesiastical bearing, or one who had been elected as a boy -bishop for the festival of St.Nicholas' Day. How frequent were these events (the actor, the boy, and the actual priestly title)? Were priests allowed to marry, and if not, adopt children and pass down the family name to them? 140.254.227.44 (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I also wish to know if this St.Nicholas is the same saint Nicholas on Christmas day. You know, the fat jolly old man that delivers presents to children on Christmas day? 140.254.227.44 (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the saint and his day, Saint Nicholas Day. Same person. I would not trust that site for the origin of the surname. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding priests and marriage, you may be interested in the article on Clerical celibacy. IIRC, the earliest mention of clerical celibacy comes from the Synod of Elvira in about 306 AD. However, the pronouncement was not universally held, and Christian clerics continued to marry for some centuries later, as noted in the above linked article. After the Protestant reformation, non-Catholic western strains of Christianity (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, etc. etc. and all of their descendants) removed any restrictions against their clergy being married. --Jayron32 18:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish surname MacPherson means "son of the parson", and has been attributed several centuries prior to the Protestant Reformation, so there were apparently Scottish priests who were fathers. RNealK (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know of another hypothesis that the surname arose from orphans who were adopted by the local bishop, so basically it meant any kid who was technically under the bishop's care. My source for this? Well, I am an expert :) (By the way, I recognize that crest in the page linked above, and it's remarkable how consistent these things are, but it's total bullshit - there is no such thing as a "Bishop crest". It's totally meaningless.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Piscopo says the name refers either to an actor playing a bishop, or one of a bishops' household staff, which is more likely than children. But there's an obvious third option, a bastard child abandoned to the church. Spanish names like Cruz and Iglesias and others have this origin and are very common. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A possibility is that the person' family was a tenant on a bishop's estate. As in England we have places called King's Langley and Bishop's Langley. Other surnames that could be explained in the same way: Parsons, Prior, Palmer... Itsmejudith (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that several of the above options are compatible - even with nominal celibacy, bishops would continue to have children, which might be assigned to a member of the bishops household, or a mysterious dark stranger, and adopted by the household. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search Wikipedia in English

I live in the Republic of Panama. I wish to add Wikipedia to the default search options on my Opera Browser. Sadly, all searches rudely default to Espanol regardless of my attempts to get the results in English. Is there some code that one can insert into the default Search Que in order to get results in English? 201.218.85.223 (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should be on the Computing Desk, really, but I will answer it here. Click on 'Manage Search Engines', then choose 'Wikipedia'. Then, 'Edit'. Next, click 'Details'. From there, scroll right back to the beginning, and replace the country code ('es' or whatever it may be for you - the part after 'http://') with 'en', and it will default to the English Wikipedia. Let me know if this helps. It works for me. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kage, it works perfectly. Gracias 201.218.85.223 (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]