Language desk
< February 13	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 15 >

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.

February 14

Is "us siblings" correct grammar?

In an email conversation with my brother, I typed the sentence "You'd essentially have to buy it from him, not us siblings." Him being our father. Is this correct? The construct does not sound right in my head. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct. From us > from us siblings. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Us few, us happy few, us band of brothers? [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis is correct here. "[U]s siblings" is the object of the preposition "from". Completely different from Crispian Crispain. --Trovatore (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The temptation is to interpret it as from [we siblings], where we siblings sounds correct. But from we is obviously discromulent. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we in it shall be remember'd; / We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

If the first line can legitimately be changed to But us in it shall be remember'd, then us few, us band is just fine; I won't judge your dialect. —Tamfang (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it sounds bad because we're taught that "Us siblings are going out tonight" is ungrammatical, so there's a tendency to overcompensate and avoid "us siblings" altogether, like people who overcompensate with "between you and I". It sounds better if you say "from us siblings". I suspect part of the problem is that we'd all say "us siblings are going out tonight" if we weren't taught not to in school. That seems to be the direction the language is heading, and we'd already be there if it weren't for the prescriptivist analogy with Latin that convinces people it's wrong. — kwami (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's hypercorrection. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Us siblings are going out tonight" is ungrammatical, and the correct phrase is We siblings are going out tonight. However, You'd have to buy it from us siblings is also correct. To test both cases, try saying each phrase without the word siblings. "Us are going out tonight." No. "You'd have to buy it from we." No.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom only allowed me to try a little of his food.

Can I say "Tom only allowed me to try a little of his food." to mean Tom only allowed me to eat a little of his food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.173.166 (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NO, because "try" and "eat" mean different things. Perhaps he required you to spit it out after trying it? YES, because normally this means sample, including swallowing. You have to decide what you mean. μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean Tom was a miser. Then which verb should I use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.173.166 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS BY ADDING ~~~~ TO THE END OF THEM. You should sign your posts. μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment about the location of the word "only": Currently it could mean that Tom allowed you only one thing, namely, to try/eat a little of his food. But because Tom's a miser, I suspect you're trying to say that the focus should be on "a little", rather than "allowed". That is, "Tom allowed me to try/eat only a little of his food". He did not want you to eat any more than a little; but the current wording is potentially open-ended. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your specific question: yes try is certainly possible, but it has an implication that the food in question was something unfamiliar to you, so you were trying it to see if you liked it. It doesn't preclude your going on to eat all of the little (Medeis could be right, but isn't necessaily, because "Can I try some" normally means "and eat it if I like it"). So if you don't want that implication (that the food is something new to you), then don't use "try". I think the ordinary way of saying this would be not to use a verb at all: "Tom only allowed me a little of his food". --ColinFine (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Colin, and would add you also use "try" when referring to someone who's been seek or hasn't eaten in a long time, and you only give him a small portion to see if he can handle it.

"PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS BY ADDING ~~~~ TO THE END OF THEM. You should sign your posts." -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is curious, Jack, how often you come acrost this problem in respects to me. Hopefully, I don't do it on purpose or from ignorance.

Just call me Karma's Little Helper. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I let you try my food, you get only enough of it to judge the flavor. If I let you eat my food, you get enough of it to affect your appetite. Now, how much of a miser is Tom? Does he taunt you by letting you taste the food but leaving you as hungry as before? Or does he give you (say) a quarter of his portion, when as a friend you hoped for half? —Tamfang (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To make Tom sound less than generous, how about "Tom would sometimes grant me a crumb or two of his food". StuRat (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He invited John and Mary to his party to the exclusion of Susan.

Is the use of "to the exclusion of" correct in the sentence "He invited John and Mary to his party to the exclusion of Susan."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.173.166 (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only if we already know who Susan is, and would have expected her to be invited with the other two. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS BY ADDING ~~~~ TO THE END OF THEM.

And even if we do know that it is a bit stilled. Better would be "He invited John and Mary to his party but not Susan" or "He invited John and Mary to his party but left Susan out." "to the exclusion of" is usually used when one thing keeps our or competes with another "They increased their employment of authors to the exclusion of artists." or "They learned to alloy copper with tin to the exclusion of zinc." or "He started to favor blue in his pictures to the exclusion of green." DES ^(talk) 04:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fashion icon, style icon

Greetings! I am trying to track down the first mentionings of the terms "fashion icon" and "style icon". For the first, I found it mentioned in 1977, for the latter in 1989 (p. 103).

(a) Does anyone find earlier mentionings?

(b) Does anyone have dictionaries from the mid-1980ies to the end of the 1990ies where the appearance of these terms ( under "icon" ?) can be observed and the definitions of these terms are given? I highly appreciate your input. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 09:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“the longest pole in the tent”

This phrase is new to me. In the context where I heard it, it seems to mean “the tightest constraint”; but STFW suggests that it is also used to mean “a better tool than anyone else has”.

Do you use the phrase? —Tamfang (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have guessed it meant something along the same lines as "the sharpest tool in the shed", usually used negatively ("he's not the sharpest tool in the shed" meaning "he's sort of an idiot"). But that's just hearing it out of context. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And therefore clearly more useful than either my example with context or my casual websearching. —Tamfang (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case googling is very helpful. The usual wording is actually "long pole in the tent", and it refers to the pole at the center of a circular tent (like a circus tent), which is the pole that does the main job of holding up the roof. It basically refers to the central problem that must be solved in order to make progress on some issue. William Safire has a long explanation here. Looie496 (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool; nice link. Looks like Tamfang was right all along. --Trovatore (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that happens sometimes. —Tamfang (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't make a habit of it... Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said to the monks when I sold them a few bushels of cotton the other week. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]