Language desk
< August 29	<< Jul \| Aug \| Sep >>	August 31 >

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.

August 30

Inflection of English verbs formed from acronyms.

Hello, again!

For as long as I've studied English grammar, the OED has always inflected verbs formed from acronyms by using apostrophes followed by the shortest, possible, suffixes.

e.g.

	Present Indicative /Present Subjunctive /Imperative	Present Indicative (3rd Person singular)	Past Indicative /Past Subjunctive /Past Participle	Present Participle
to KO	KO	KO's	KO'd	KO'ing

Recently, though, it has begun inflecting social-networking acronyms (e.g. "SMS," "PM") as regular verbs.

e.g.

	Present Indicative /Present Subjunctive /Imperative	Present Indicative (3rd Person singular)	Past Indicative /Past Subjunctive /Past Participle	Present Participle
to PM	PM	PMs	PMed	PMing

Is this lexically specified to computing/text-messaging verbs, or what, exactly?

(Up until now, I ♥'d conjugating acronyms.) Pine (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The big OED doesn't seem to have KO as a verb, so there are no conjugations, but the Third Edition (updated March 2004) entry for OK allows OK'd, OK-d and OKd. I think the OED investigates and reports good usage rather than prescribes it. Personally, I've never liked or used an apostrophe to conjugate. Dbfirs 06:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Dbfirs. I suppose that prescribing grammatical forms for acronym-based verbs would seem pedantic—even by Mr. Oxford's standards! And since few people know (or care) how to key an apostrophe on a cell phone, those particular acronyms must inflect regularly under a lexical "defense of necessity." Pine (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I prefer to reserve the use of the apostrophe for possessives and genuinely omitted letters. I dislike its use for plurals and conjugations because I find these "mis-uses" confusing. I always use it appropriately when writing texts on a cellphone. Dbfirs 08:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twinpinesmall -- Not sure why you included subjunctive in charts above, since for all verbs in the language other than the very special case of "to be", the only non-archaic inflectional manifestation of the subjunctive is omission of the third singular present ending in sentences such as "I insist that he go away" (and even this is now a little archaic in British English)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for your question, AnonMoos, I included "subjunctive" largely for reasons of thoroughness. I'd like to add, however, that to be is not quite unique in the sense you mentioned: Several modal-verb constructions (in American English, anyway) also noticeably inflect for mood.

e.g.

Indicative	All parties must fulfill said conditions in order to enact the accord.
Subjunctive	It remains imperative that all parties have to fulfill said conditions in order to enact the accord.

Although—I concur—the latter, on the right-hand side of the Atlantic, does indeed sound John-Waynish.

Pine (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's really not what "subjunctive" means in ordinary linguistic usage -- it means separately inflected verb forms, not variations in modal auxiliaries. In modern English, the only non-archaic inflectionally distinct forms which go back to a historic subjunctive are the "if I were / if he were" construction, "be" in sentences such as "I insist that you be silent", and the lack of third person singular present ending in sentences such as "I insist that he go away" -- and the first is generally optional, while the second and third now sound rather stiff in contemporary British. "To be" is strongly divergent from all other verbs in the language because it has eight inflectionally-distinct forms, while all other verbs have a maximum of five inflectionally-distinct forms (regular verbs have only four), which explains why two out of three of the subjunctive constructions only affect "to be"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't "imperative" include the notion of "have to", and wouldn't that make any mention of "have to" redundant? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right, Jack, I'll admit: That wasn't a very good example.

Here are some better ones.

Indicative	The typical, 4-year-old child can speak in complete sentences.
Subjunctive	It is vital that a child be able to speak in complete sentences by age 6.

Indicative	It may very well happen.
Subjunctive	I so would that it be likely to happen.

Indicative	Restaurants must comply with the new, indoor-smoking ban.
Subjunctive	Restaurants may lose business as soon as they have to comply with the new, indoor-smoking ban.

Indicative	The Israeli Air Force may fly through Jordanian airspace when they bomb ISIS.
Subjunctive	The Israeli Air Force can easily decimate ISIS, with bombing sorties, provided that they be permitted to fly through Jordanian airspace.

Indicative	A godly man ought to provide for a woman and her children.
Subjunctive	My son will become far godlier when he be compelled to provide for a woman and her children.

Alas, throughout the Commonwealth, the subjunctive forms have all become either obsolete or moribund. In the States, however, you'll still find a large number of apologists for them.

Pine (talk) 06:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "...when he be compelled to..." example doesn't conform to the usage of any form of modern standard English, as far as I'm aware. Unfortunately, your personal definition of the term subjunctive is highly idiosyncratic, and simply does not align with traditional or technical linguistic usage. Either you're wrong or everybody else is wrong, but either way most of your examples do not involve the subjunctive as we know it, Jim... AnonMoos (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, I cannot recall: Is it 1,072,409,238 angels that can dance simultaneously on the head of a pin, or 1,072,409,237?

If one wishes to be "traditional or technical" about it, only the present indicative and past indicative forms actually exist for all of the English, modal auxiliaries. For all other forms, an English speaker simply has no recourse apart from substituting some sort of periphrase. Surely, you wouldn't consider it an idiosyncrasy when someone refers to "shall/will be able to" as the future indicative of "can."

Pine (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make the observation that inflecting acronyms with apostrophes is now widely seen as old-fashioned or even incorrect. This more often comes up with nouns. The New York Times stylebook from 1976, which I found in Google Books, says that the plural of G.I. is to be written G.I.'s (and they advise avoiding possessive plural, as it would have to be G.I.'s' with two apostrophes). Today people are more likely to write GI instead of G.I. and many people insist that GI's is only the possessive singular, with GIs as the plural. Business English: Being a First Unit of a Course in Business English is one source I found in Google Books that supports this (their example is FAQs).

The OED, of course, still includes large amounts of content that has not been updated since the late 19th or early 20th century, so it's not surprising if some of the details you find in it are out of date. --65.94.51.64 (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I question the OP's premise about the OED's conjugation. I cited the March 2004 update, and I can't find entries like those claimed (though there are some older cites that use the apostrophe). I wonder if some other Oxford publication was being cited. Dbfirs 08:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, Dbfirs, I mostly cull my data from either the Oxford American Dictionary, Third Edition or the Concise Oxford American Dictionary, Third Edition. Very rarely, do I enjoy access to the OED online.

Pine (talk) 06:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wondered if you were looking at some other publication since I couldn't find your entries in the full OED. I wonder if the use of the apostrophe for inflecting acronyms is currently more common in America. I do still see it in the UK sometimes, but I would never use it myself (though perhaps that's just a personal preference). Dbfirs 08:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My objection to "KO'ing" is that, logically, it should be "K'ingO." (but I would never use that, either). Dbfirs 08:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You object to anything in the English language on logical grounds? What's the name of the planet you're from? :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

A few people have tried to apply logic to the language, but I agree that their efforts have often been ignored. Dbfirs 07:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greek text from a title page

Just wondering if I transcribed the Greek passage on the title page correctly: "Χρἠ τοὺς νομους μὲν τίθεσθαι σφοδρῶς, πραοτὲρως δὲ χολάζειν ἢ ὡς ἐχεῖνοι χελεύουσι". I followed this but could have got the letters or diacriticals wrong. From other Internet sources I ascertained that it means "It is necessary that the laws be drawn up with severity, but that punishments milder than the laws should be exacted" (in Latin, "Oportet leges quidem acriter statui, mitius autem quam ipsæ jubent pœnas sumere"). Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first word should have a grave accent rather than a smooth-breathing mark (Χρὴ), the third word needs an acute accent (νόμους), the accents in πραοτὲρως and ἐχεῖνοι should be acute (πραοτέρως, ἐχείνοι), and the last word should be κελεύουσι (kappa rather than chi). That's all I noticed in a hasty look; I'm sure others will point out what I missed. Deor (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, the chis in χολάζειν and ἐχείνοι should be kappas, too (κολάζειν and ἐκείνοι). Deor (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – I knew I was bound to have got stuff wrong. I've updated the description page of the file. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gesundheit!

Most cultures have their own way of responding to a sneeze. In English, there are basically two options: some version of "bless you" and the German "gesundheit". The German is appropriate ("health!"), but why did we adopt the German one at all? How did it come to be recognized in English ahead of, say, the French or the Italian? (Okay, Italian is a bad example because we already use a similar word while toasting, but you get the drift.) While we're at it, how widely recognized is "gesundheit" in the anglosphere? Matt Deres (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your final question, see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 June 13#Response to sneezing in English (the drift of which seems to have been that the use of gesundheit is more common in the U.S. than in the UK but is recognized in the UK). Deor (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that it came to us through Yiddish which is agreed by a website called Judaism 101; "Yiddish. Literally, health. This is the normal response when somebody sneezes. The same expression is used in German (Yiddish is largely based on German), and is quite common even among non-Jews, but I thought it was worth pointing out because some non-Jews have told me they were afraid of offending by saying "bless you" to a Jew". In London, people from the East End used to use a number of Yiddish words in everyday speech, as there was a large Ashkanazi community there until about 50 years ago, Alansplodge (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect it was due to general German-American influence. German-American culture was very strong in various local areas of the United States until the backlash of 1917-1918. Uriel Weinreich's Yiddish dictionary doesn't list any word directly corresponding to standard German gesundheit, only das gezunt דאס געזונט and gezunterheyt געזונטערהײט -- and indicates that the usual way to respond to a sneeze is tsu gezunt צו געזונט ... AnonMoos (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the Yiddish I've learned (both an American and an Israeli dialect) you can either say gezuntheit or tzu[m] gezunt אפונה (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking Walter Matthau! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

EO dates its American use to at least 1914.[1] That link also says that auf ihre Gesundheit means "to your health." In the famous Yiddish-speaking Indian schtick in Blazing Saddles, he says something that sounds a bit like auf ihre Gesund at about the 2 minute mark, maybe the Yiddish equivalent of that expression or something similar.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the link from Etymonline to Dictionary.com, it says "1905-10, Americanism", which makes a lot of sense... AnonMoos (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, "gesundheit" is essentially never used by BrE speakers, other than perhaps humorously on infrequent occasions. 109.147.185.246 (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we hear that ~~word~~ sound over here, we are likely to think that the sneeze was infectious! Dbfirs 07:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My BrE experience differs. I have heard it used regularly by relatives, friends, acquaintances and work colleagues over several decades, and use it myself as often as not in the appropriate circumstance (of somebody sneezing). Some of the time the variation (from "Bless you!") is intended at least semi-humorously, especially if someone is sneezing again shortly after a previous Anglophone blessing, but often it isn't.

This is not unrelated to my father having served in Germany with the British Army, during which period I also lived and worked there: our use of the term is something of a sign of commonality. However, since a very large proportion of British Army personnel do serve in Germany at some point, and their family and friends may consequently also adopt the term, it has (I suggest) spread quite widely in the UK population. It's regularly used in my current work office, both by ex-military personnel and people with no Teutonic associations known to me.

There is also of course, the possibility of adoption from Yiddish, mentioned above in an American context but also applicable in the UK: my family also Jewish associations (possible ancestry, some in-laws, neighbors and employers), so our use may stem from that rather than subsequent residence in Germany. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the opposite is "krankheit", which is the origin of Walter Cronkite's name. Hmm, "Walter Sickness" doesn't have quite the same ring. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of English constructions

There is a family of grammars called construction grammar that started perhaps in the 80s with the work of Fillmore & Kay among others. Examples of constructions include:

1. the time + away construction (they danced the night away)
2. the way construction (he glad handed his way into the club)
3. the incredulity construction (Bush, a humanitarian!?)

I'm wondering if there is a dictionary or list of these constructions. I'm not looking for something exhaustive, but fairly extensive would be nice. Various online searches have turned up only a Japanese dictionary The Taishukan Contemporary Dictionary of English Constructions, but judging from the Japanese title 〈最新〉英語構文事典, I would say it's unlikely to be what I'm after.--Brett (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.ats-group.net/dictionaries/dictionary-glossary-linguistics.html.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not what I'm looking for, though.--Brett (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]