Language desk
< September 18	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 20 >

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 19

Verbs of electoral motion

This edit caught my eye, and I wonder why it is so - for it is surely so.

And I wonder if anyone ever walks for election, or crawls, or waltzes, or minces, or flounces, or dawdles, or shuffles, or jogs. Probably not, but who knows about such things. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the scientific principle called electoralmotive force. It is kind of funny that running for re-election and standing for re-election are basically the same thing. I think it might have been Will Rogers who said, "Congressmen may not stand for much, but you can be sure of one thing: They stand for re-election." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've long wondered about this. Politicians seem to stand for election throughout the Commonwealth, and I can't remember anyone other than Americans running for election. It would be interesting to get input from English-speaking politicians from countries that don't primarily speak English, asking them how they'd describe their activities in English. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Germans simply kandidieren with no metaphorical running or standing still. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the French use the reflexive se présenter, which has the same sense as "put oneself forward for election" or "offer oneself as a candidate". History probably explains why Americans run electorally and others stand, although the standers' campaigns are just as proactive as those of the runners these days. I suspect BrEng usage harks back to the days when it was, on the face of it at least, vulgar to put yourself forward, and public office was supposed to be undertaken modestly, out of a sense of civic duty, by those fortunate enough to have the means and the leisure to allow them to undertake it. - Ka renjc 09:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's yet another transatlantic difference. Like how Americans "file" divorce papers, but Cwealth people "lodge" them. To us, filing papers means physically putting them into a folder or filing system for safe-keeping (where, ironically, there's a good chance they'll be lost forever and never actioned). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we Americans file charges, but I see from a Canadian news site that they (and presumably everyone else?) lay charges.

And in the US we table a motion in the sense of laying it on a table so it can be filed away (presumably with the filed and lost divorce papers), at least temporarily but maybe permanently. Everywhere else they table it so it can be considered right now. Different kinds of tables, I guess. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps banal, but here goes anyway. I don't think it's surprising that candidates rarely waltz or sashay for office. It's a race, after all, an old metaphor already used by Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians: "Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. [...] I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: [...]" 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 (King James Version). I don't think Paul meant "run" to be understood literally here either. The American political term "running mate" even "originally was a horse entered in a race to set the pace for another from the same stable who was intended to win (1865)" (etymonline.com) ---Sluzzelin talk 09:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well in Canada it appears that they mainly run (“I have decided to run”, "still run for a position"). On the other hand this woman has presented herself and will stand and run. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think in Britain people use stand, but run is also understood, and when talking about American elections I think many British people (particularly reporters) would say run. I may be wrong. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there may be other political words used in the UK and borrowed from horse racing terminology too such as "first-past-the-post" or "dark horse". Correct me if I'm wrong. What about "in the running"? Is this commonly used in the UK when talking about elections? ---Sluzzelin talk 16:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic that "running" is used in the land of the Front porch campaign. Nyttend (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And ironic that "first-past-the-post voting" is a complete misnomer. In racing, the post is fixed securely in one spot and the winner is the first to pass it. But in the electoral context the post is not, say, the 50% mark or anywhere else in particular. Whoever gets more votes than anyone else is declared the winner. Any candidate who gets more than 50% is obviously unbeatable, but in a large field of candidates the winner may receive only 5% of the votes, but still more than anyone else. Imagine if a horse race was won by a horse that ran only 5% of the distance. The true "first-past-the-post" voting systems are the ones that use preferences, and where there really is a winning post at the 50% mark that must be crossed before anyone can claim victory. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Healths

One of the teams in our university is designing a T-shirt slogan for an environmental drive they are undertaking. Somebody in that team came up with a slogan 'Green Homes, Great Healths'. Is this usage of 'Healths' correct? I think there is no plural of health in this sense of the word and it seems incorrect. - DSachan (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, by intuition I would say it's wrong but after contemplating the question I think of "health" as a general term, and "healths" as a more specific one. In other words, are they referring to certain types of health (mental health, physical health), or just the general idea of health? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are referring to the general idea of 'health' and not of any particular kind of it. - DSachan (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I'd drop the S, then. StuRat (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this in USA, or Europe, or elsewhere? I ask only because e.g. "I study maths" seems wrong to native speakers of AmEng, who would say "I study math" -- but "maths" is correct in most non-USA Anglophone countries... SemanticMantis (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Healths" would be non-standard in both USA and UK. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Health is an abstract noun, and hence is neither pluralized in British or American. Maths is a difference in how we abbreviate mathematic s, which, like physics, ends in an ess in both dialects. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're talking technicalities, wouldn't that be "and hence is pluralized neither in British nor American"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on "health"(yes) vs "healths"(no), but I'd also say that, while "great" is normally better than "good", in this case "good health" is a fairly often used idiom, and might make the slogan flow a little better. MChesterMC (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of "health" and "healths" like "food" and "foods" ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some quite valid ways of using the word "healths" - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

Not to mention Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet:

Sometime she driveth o'er a soldier's neck,

And then dreams he of cutting foreign throats,

Of breaches, ambuscadoes, Spanish blades,

Of healths five-fathom deep.

Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack beat me to it but I got Twelth Night ("With drinking healths to my niece"), this, Jstor and this. I think that Ehrenkater has it correct, you can have healths but is is not standard. Also, it seems to be only used in a certain way. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And just in case you were wondering about the song link that Jack posted. The first verse is referring to King James VII, the second verse is his second wife, Mary of Modena, the third is his son, King James VIII and the fourth, in Flanders was William III of England (William of Orange). See The Three Healths. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Jacobite sympathies are apparent, CBW. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Words for "not-the-capital"

Are there slang/colloquial words in English (and other languages) for the regions and inhabitants of these regions which are outside of the state's main megalopolis-capital like London or Paris? In Russian the words for province and provincials (провинция/провинциалы) are used colloquially for everything (even quite big cities) outside of Moscow and Saint-Petersburg (though snobbish Muscovites use these for Saint-Petersburg(ers) also). There are also ЗаМКАД "out of the MKAD" and respectively замкадыши, but it sounds more slangy and a little offensive.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the U.S., our capital and largest city aren't the same - unless you consider the whole Northeast a megalopolis. On the state level, you have New York City and "upstate", Chicago, Illinois and "downstate", and Detroit, Michigan and "outstate" or "up north". In each of those the capital is outside the main city. In Illinois, some of "downstate" is slightly north of Chicago. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK people sometimes talk about "the Provinces" for places away from London - I would say this is often used in a slightly facetious way. There's also "the sticks" to describe small or remote places. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, hinterlands, which is sometimes colloquially used for the back-of-the-beyond (oh, there is another). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Provincial" is used as an adjective in English to describe things associated with non-metropolitan areas, typically in a derogatory fashion, e.g. "provincial attitudes". It's not used as a noun, though noun phrases like "the provincial population" would work. As mentioned, other more regional variations exist. One that I find amusing is the term "flyover country" in the US, implying that its only reason for existance is to extend the flight from New York to Los Angeles. Metonyms are sometimes also used. "Peoria" is often used to represent the rural or small town parts of the US. -- 71.35.96.17 (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are provincial attitudes, and then there are colonial attitudes. Both unacceptable in their own ways, and the objects of merely different degrees of upper crust xenophobia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you asked - in Finland, Kehä III, or Ring Road III, around Helsinki is often named as the outer limit of the city. (Not that Helsinki is a "megalopolis", but still.) It is seen as such both from the inside and the outside. The ring road is also commonly identified with the notion of "susiraja" or the "wolf limit", beyond which beasts roam the wilderness.--Rallette (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For purely political matters (since our national capital is not a major metropolis for cultural matters), there is "outside the Beltway". --Orange Mike | Talk 18:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is not as common a state of affairs in the US as in older countries. Capitals in the US are usually chosen more for a central location. The capitals of New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, and California and many other states are neither their biggest nor second biggest cities. In New York, Albany is considered "upstate" which has the connotation of in the countryside, away from New York. (Not that Albany is at all itself rural.) In New York City itself city hall is in Manhattan, while Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island are the "Outer Boroughs". Usage in various areas of the US will differ, and there's no single word with the sense the question is seeking. I am sure French must have a term for this, given the role of Paris. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

France profonde ("deep France"), and isn't provincial taken from Latin through French. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English speakers in Johannesburg, biggest city in South Africa but not the capital, used to refer to the rest of the country as the bush, the veld or “the bundu".--Hors-la-loi (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling "Citation needed" on this claim - in 45 years of living in South Africa including extensive travel I have never come accros that meaning for "veld" or "bundu". Capetonians (Cape Town being the Mother City and parliamentary capital) on the other hand, use the phrase "beyond the wine curtain". The area around Cape Town is where most South African wine is produced and people living ouside that area are sometimes jokingy disparaged as "beer-swilling barbarians" - roughly comparable to American "rednecks" or a patrician/plebian division. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Quebec, the term for areas outside the Montreal metropolitan area is "les régions" (the regions) or "en région" (in the regions). I don't think that there is a term for people from the régions though - they are generally referred to as "les habitants des régions" (the regions' inhabitants). People in the capital (Quebec city) are generally considered part of les régions in this sense. I don't think the term is official and where exactly the régions start is not exactly clear to me, but it is used extensively by politicians and the media (particularly the populist Journal de Montréal - sadly the articles themselves are behind a paywall). To my surprise I could not find such blatant usage of the word in La Presse or Radio-Canada - perhaps the term has fallen out of favour with them Effovex (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In American English, you'll often here (depending on the part of the country) terms like "the sticks" or "the country" to describe the more rural areas. One popular term is Podunk, which is a sort of generic name for a small town, usually used pejoratively. A less flattering term for such places is "East Buttfuck" (or variations on that, depending on the dialect). --Jayron32 02:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Australian English, "regional cities" or "regional towns" does the trick. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't/Can

How can you know when a person is saying can't or can? Is there any intonation? It is very tricky for me. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 15:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 January 5#How does the American accent make a distinction between "can't take" and "can take" (the stress being on "can")? in the Archives.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my speech, in a stressed context before a consonant, "Can you?" would be pronounced [kæn juː] (where the [æ] has a kind of semi-breathy phonation), while "Can't you?" would be [kæ̃ʔ juː], (where the nasalized [æ̃] has a kind of creaky phonation). Also, in unstressed contexts, "can" can be greatly reduced (sometimes to a consonant plus syllabic [n] or syllabic [ŋ]), while "can't" has much more limited possibilities of undergoing reduction... AnonMoos (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in a given context, it's often clear which one they mean even if they're kind of slurring it. Can you provide some specific examples of what you're running into? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I watch almost every film without the subtitles, to practise my understanding of spoken English, and sometimes I get stuck when some character says: I can't/can take this, I can't/can live without you, I can't/can find anything on that... and that sort of things you often hear in a movie. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 16:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Bugs says, it's often the context that clarifies things, rather than any details of pronunciation. (That's actually a more general property of language. I vaugely remember studies which took the same set of sounds and put them in different contexts, and had native speakers *convinced* that two different words were being said and that the sounds were actually different.) It helps, too, that the phrases you reference are somewhat idomatic. "I can't take this" is a stock phrase, and a native English speaker would rarely say "I can take this", unless manifestly with enthusiasm in their voice which makes clear their intent. Likewise with the others, although with those there's also typically an extra phoneme in there to represent the "'t", even if it's not a clear "t" sound. -- 71.35.96.17 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to consider is that it varies greatly from dialect to dialect. Every dialect of English will be able to distinguish between Can and Can't, but how each dialect makes the distinction will vary somewhat. This may be one of those things that's hard to explain to someone verbally, but which native speakers, having been raised with the language since birth, know intuitively. But it is important to note that the explanations given above, regarding the vowel or consonant or stress differences between the words may not be universal across all English speakers; its going to depend somewhat on which variety of English one speaks. --Jayron32 16:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with Miss Bono on this, and I don't think it's clear from the context very often. As a native speaker of American English encountering people from all over the US and elsewhere, I long ago got frustrated with misunderstanding about whether I, or someone else, said can or can't; so I banished can't from my spoken vocabulary except for stock phrases and questions like Can't you...?. I pronounce Can't you... either with a glottal stop for the n't or with can't you sounding like can chew with both syllables stressed (which I assume that only Americans and maybe Canadians do with a <t y> combination across a word boundary). But usually in declarative sentences I say cannot rather than can't.

Having said that, I would also say that sometimes intonation does indeed help. In I can go Friday, the a in can is likely to be degraded to a schwa and the syllable is likely to be unstressed and therefore spoken fast; but in I can't go Friday, the a in can't is fully pronounced and hence the syllable can't is pronounced with full length and stress. Also, people from the American southeast sometimes pronounce can't as if it were spelled cain't -- as IPA /keint/ or /keɪnt/. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no ambiguity in the Delaware Valley accent. The t is reduced to a glottal stop or a failure of the n to release as mentioned above. But the vowel is quite distinct, with a never-reduced tense /æ/ in can't and a lax /ɛ/ or even reduction to a syllabic /n/ in can, e.g., "You c'n do it" has an unstressed syllabic enn. The verb can't also contrasts with the lax vowel in the name of Immanuel Kant in some speaker's idiolects. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In southern British English, the two vowels are different: /kɑːnt/ and /kæn/. Bazza (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the exact same contrast as in my South Jersey dialect, simply fronted a bit to /kæːnt/ and /kɛn/. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also in northern British English, but the vowels are more like /käːnt/ and /kan/ (or /kən/ when unstressed).Dbfirs 22:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Bugs says, it's often the context that clarifies things, rather than any details of pronunciation. (That's actually a more general property of language. I vaugely remember studies which took the same set of sounds and put them in different contexts, and had native speakers *convinced* that two different words were being said and that the sounds were actually different.) It helps, too, that the phrases you reference are somewhat idomatic. "I can't take this" is a stock phrase, and a native English speaker would rarely say "I can take this", unless manifestly with enthusiasm in their voice which makes clear their intent. Likewise with the others, although with those there's also typically an extra phoneme in there to represent the "'t", even if it's not a clear "t" sound. -- 71.35.96.17 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to consider is that it varies greatly from dialect to dialect. Every dialect of English will be able to distinguish between Can and Can't, but how each dialect makes the distinction will vary somewhat. This may be one of those things that's hard to explain to someone verbally, but which native speakers, having been raised with the language since birth, know intuitively. But it is important to note that the explanations given above, regarding the vowel or consonant or stress differences between the words may not be universal across all English speakers; its going to depend somewhat on which variety of English one speaks. --Jayron32 16:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish is my favourite: [aːkʰãtʰekʰəʔ] vs. [aːkʰãnətʰekʰəʔ].--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diction coach Phoebe Dinsmore is still worth taking notice of. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei

How is English "Recognised" in Brunei as stated on the Info-box? Is it because English has some particular purposes on the Constitution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.69.220.217 (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same way the English are recognized in the rest of the world: pallid complexion and bad teeth. --Jayron32 17:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're such a card, Jayron. Alansplodge (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the little 'b' next to that line in the infobox? Clicking on it takes you to the second end-note, which explains that "English is mentioned for use for some purposes under the Constitution on Article 82" and points you to reference no. 9. Following that will get you a link to the constitution itself, where you can read the relevant section on page 141. Rojomoke (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also reference no 1, Ethnologue: Languages of the World - Brunei says "English: 10,000 (speakers) in Brunei (Crystal 2003). Status: 1 (National). Statutory national working language (1984, Constitution, Article 82(2))". Note that Brunei was a British Protectorate until 1984, so a linguistic legacy is not too surprising. Alansplodge (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see, I've also found the Definition for "Recognised language": "There is a law that names this language and recognizes its right to be used and developed for some purposes" I assume the editor used this "Recognised language" or "Recognised" to describe English on the info-box, but is it suitable with the reference #9 used? 41.69.174.93 (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't someone ask basically this same question, maybe a year ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was less than 2 months ago. (It's OK, Bugs, time plays weird tricks when you're as old as you are. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one good thing is that I'm now too old to die young. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know, but I'm still wondering if "Recognized" or "Recognized language" with its Definition from Ethnologue - Language status which is "There is a law that names this language and recognizes its right to be used and developed for some purposes", is suitable to describe English on the info-box with the reference #9 being used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.69.89.243 (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please answer. :( 41.69.89.243 (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not unless there really is a Brunei law that names English and recognizes its right to be used and developed for some purposes. You'd need to find a citation for that specific law. Using the definition of Recognised Language in isolation would be meaningless and achieve nothing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so in conclusion, "Recognised" is suitable enough to describe "English" on the info-box in regards to reference #9 on footnote [b] after all? yes/no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.69.89.243 (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say YES, because it is directly (by two clicks) linked to Article 82 of the Constitution of Brunei. Article 82 (2) says that "the English language may be used for all official purposes" although in Article 82 (1) there is a clear intention to use Malay as the official language in the long term. English can continue to be used "until otherwise by law provided". So by having that written in the country's constitution, it seems quite clear to me that it is a "recognized" language, although this status may not continue indefinitely. I'm not a lawyer however. Alansplodge (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost/Phantom

Is there any difference between the meaning of these two words? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 20:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine line, in fact there's conceptually some crossover.[6][7] The term "phantom" is typically used to mean something that isn't really there. The term "ghost" is typically used to refer specifically to the supposed wandering soul of a deceased human. It's important to keep in mind that when these terms were invented, spirits were widely assumed or understood to be real. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hay la misma diferencia entre ghost y phantom que entre espiritu (de un muerto) y (quizas falsa) aparición. La mejor parte de la gente usa las dos palabras como no fuera diferencia. Ghost es mas comun, la palabra Phantom es mas literaria. Eso es que la gente dice ghost y los escritores de las historias de terror escriben phantom. "Phantom" no habria sido buen titulo para la excelente pelicula Ghost. Ve ghost que tiene que ver con respirar y phantom que tiene que ver con aparecer. Tambien sabe que "holy ghost" quiere decir "espiritu santo" entre los Catolicos anglohablantes y otros cristianos. μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you can't read the links I gave and I will copy the texts. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, μηδείς I couldn't read the links :( Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 13:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the entries from Etymology On Line:

[Insert by other User: Copyrighted material removed - quote fair use limited portions if needed - Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC) end insert][reply]

Another thing to keep in mind is that a ghost is a person (the term ghost ship is also used, see Flying Dutchman, while something like the vision of the knife in Macbeth would be a phantasm. μηδείς (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"After going to the store, I came home"

In the above sentence, what is the phrase "After going to the store" called? It works semantically like the adverbial dependent clause "After I went to the store,....", but with a gerund instead of subject/finite verb. I think I've seen this in a late section of a Wikipedia article, but I ~~can't~~ cannot recall where. I think that article said it is a variant form of an adverbial dependent clause, with "after" being an adverbial conjunction.

What brings this to mind is that our article Gerund#Examples of use gives this example:

On being elected president, he moved with his family to the capital. (gerund clause as complement of a preposition).

Here I believe "on" means "immediately after", so I think it's the same type of construction as in my title example. Am I right that this passage's explanation is incorrect in calling "on" a preposition here? Duoduoduo (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a PP (prepositional phrase), with the preposition "after" governing the NP "going to the store". Structurally it is quite different from "after I went to the store", since, as you point out, that has a VP in it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me the "on" of "On being elected" is an indication of causality, rather than simply chronology. Being elected president is the reason/motive for moving, whereas going to the store is not the reason for going home. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some would call them "adjunct clauses"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quirk et al. (§14.5 and so forth) calls this a nonfinite (therefore, also subordinate) -ing clause. It does not consider it a gerundive (see. §15.12). For classifying "after" here, see the note for §14.18: Although classified as a subordinator, it has some differences such that it may be "better classed with prepositions such as on and through". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]