Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 March 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Language desk
< March 23 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 25 >
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.


March 24

[edit]

The old man walked with his face upturned/ with his face upward/with his chin up in the air.

[edit]

"The old man walked with his face upturned/with his face upward/with his chin up in the air." I wonder if the three phrases share one meaning. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.171.21 (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He walked with his face held high" would b the way to say it if he had good reason to feel proud, and you approved. "He walked with his nose in the air" would be the same description physically, but it would mean he was arrogant and rude and you do not approve of it. "He kept his chin up" means he had a reason to feel bad, but he didn't want to show it, and you approve. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He walked with his face upturned" would imply that he was basking in the sun, or enjoying a light summer shower, or otherwise reveling in whatever weather was coming his direction. We seldom say "with his face held high"; Medeis' stated meaning is actually for "with his head held high". --Orange Mike | Talk 12:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Face held high and head held high get 324,000 and 328,000 ghits. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"book" in the sense of "move quickly" or "leave before it's too late"

[edit]

Any hint on the origin of this usage? I don't find it at etymonline. I admit I didn't look through all seven pages of hits, but most of them were not for the word book itself, so probably not relevant. --Trovatore (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What 7 pages of hits would that be, Trovatore? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=book&searchmode=none --Trovatore (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From boogie perhaps? —Tamfang (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not impossible. --Trovatore (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't said where you saw or heard this usage. --Viennese Waltz 08:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that we're actually looking for book it, as in "I had to swiftly move in order to catch up with his running feet as he booked it towards the road". I can't help with the origin though. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds quite likely. Wiktionary has two slang senses for the verb "to book": "to move quickly" and "to leave". I've never heard either in the UK. Are they exclusively American? Dbfirs 09:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or exclusively Californian? I don't think I've heard it outside Los Angeles. —Tamfang (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading (on Quora I think?) that it was derived from "bookity-book"—being the sound of shoes hitting the ground when running. Found a Google Books hit for this derivation—The Facts on File Dictionary of American Regionalisms by Robert Hendrickson: 'Quickly; used mainly by black speakers to imitate the sound of running feet, as in: "Here he comes, bookity-book, bookity-book."'--Canley (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As in "boogity" as well - fast-moving feet. And maybe originated with the black community, but it became mainstream over time (as often happens). For example, Ray Stevens and Darrell Waltrip. Referenced earlier by Chubby Checker, in "Pony Time".[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, all. In the absence of any actual evidence, it strikes me as plausible that let's boogie becomes let's boog and then gets misheard as let's book, and then that usage gets generalized to "move fast". If anyone has evidence, of course, I'd love to hear it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't said where you heard it. --Viennese Waltz 08:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's normal California slang. --Trovatore (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Trovatore, but I've heard it on various U.S. TV shows, though never, I think, in real life. My memory isn't what it used to be, but I seem to recall that I first heard it on Buffy the Vampire Slayer (a rather slang-heavy show). Deor (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


@Trovatore: I don't think it has anything to do with "boogie". Here's what the OED says, confirming the comments above that it is chiefly N.American, did occur on "Buffy", but has been in use since 1977, or perhaps 1974:
(sorry for lack of formatting, anyone who wants to prettify is welcome.) Of course, this doesn't disprove any connection to "boogie", but OED would probably mention such a connection if it were known... SemanticMantis (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's purely conjecture on my part, but I'd always assumed the term came from the TV series Hawaii Five-O, which frequently ended with McGarrett saying "Book 'em!" or "Book 'em, Danno!" or some such permutation (our article goes into some detail). As in, "This situation is over; it's time for me to book." The phrase came at the end of the show, when it was indeed time to go do something else. Matt Deres (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Could be.
BTW, when I mentioned "evidence" above, I hadn't noticed that User:Canley actually gave a tiny bit, though hardly conclusive, and the "bookity-book" etymology also sounds plausible. For that matter, I suppose "boogie" could have come from that usage, rather than the other direction (I haven't looked into the etymology of "boogie" so don't shoot me if that's well-known).
So we have about three different semi-plausible possibilities: from "boogie", from "bookity-book", or from "book 'em, Danno". Any others, or any reason to prefer one over another? --Trovatore (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's another discussion thread at Stack Exchange, which in turn links to a long thread on alt.usage.english. Many people claim they remember hearing it in the 1960s. Some think it originated in the U.S. military. One person found a claim in the Historical Dictionary of American Slang that it's related to "boogie", but I don't know how reliable that is. Someone mentioned that the same slang term exists in Dutch (boeken). -- BenRG (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"He asked him to ask his teacher."

[edit]

Suppose two persons are talking. Both are male. Both of them have teachers, but the teachers are not the same. Person A asks Person B to do something, and that something is to ask Person A's teacher. How do I express this? How do I express a similar sentence in which Person A asks Person B to do something, and that something is to ask Person B's teacher? We are assuming that Person A and Person B have different teachers.

  • He asked him to ask his teacher.

Personally, I find the word "his" unclear, because it does not specify whose teacher it is. Is it the requester's teacher or the requestee's teacher? 140.254.227.72 (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article has no examples in English. Please explain obviative in your own words and use an obviative in an example sentence. 140.254.227.72 (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
English uses "the former" and "the latter" when necessary. It doesn't have actual obviative pronouns as do some other languages. Alexander Hamilton and Raymond Burr fired on each other in a duel; while the latter survived and the former died. μηδείς (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hamilton fired at an actor while dying? —Tamfang (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I might have the wrong Burr. but the grammar is still correct and relevant. μηδείς (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't exactly a fair fight, with Burr being confined to a wheel chair and all. Still, Hamilton still had a great tan, which may have distracted Burr. --Jayron32 16:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Burr always won his fights. His perennially unlucky opponent was the DA, another Hamilton, this time Hamilton Burger, known as Ham Burger to his friends. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]
The sentence is simply ambiguous. In a real context, it might be clear whose teacher is meant, but without context there is no way to tell. The most common way to specify B's teacher would be "He asked him to ask his own teacher", but there's no way to specify A's teacher without adding some explanatory material such as "He asked him to ask his (that is, A's) teacher. Medeis's suggestion of "the former" and "the latter" are possible, but rather formal for this sort of context. The mention of obviative is irrelevant, because that is a grammatical construct which exists in some languages but not in English. --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are going oddly out of your way to make such weak criticisms, Colin. No one said English has obviative pronouns or verbal conjugations. That doesn't mean it doesn't have ways of making obviative distinctions, including those already mentioned, and things like "The first one said to the second one". The proper term for this is obviation. The OP has already noticed that the sentence is ambiguous or he wouldn't be here. Giving him was of making a distinction and naming it seems a lot more helpful than saying, yup, t'is ambiguous. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When pronouns become ambiguous like this, I consider it time to throw in some actual names: "Bob asked Jack to ask Bob's teacher.". Pronouns are supposed to make things easier. When they no longer do so, they have outlived their usefulness. StuRat (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spot on there, Stu. I often see the opposite problem, where pronouns are called for but the writer refuses to use them: George Smith was born in 1894. Smith grew up in New York. In 1914 Smith joined the Army. In 1918 Smith was sent to Europe ......, and on and on and on. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Yes, and I've found another problem with that approach, too. In an article, they introduce the person only once, giving their full name, title, etc., then only refer to them by their last name after that. While that's fine for a short article, it's not for a long one, where I have to spend too much time trying to track down the intro. They should reintroduce the person instead, when they bring them back into the discussion at a later point: "George Smith, the holder of the bowel movement record we discussed earlier, also...". StuRat (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've read fiction in which each character is always ‘surname’ in narration and ‘forename’ in dialogue; woe to the reader who, during the chapters since a character's introduction, has been so careless as to forget his full name. —Tamfang (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I wonder if a slightly different sentence would be exceptional.

  • Eliza asked the Blessed Virgin to pray for her mother's illness.

The word her in the sentence may denote Saint Anne, Mary's mother, but in context, in most situations, her is really referring to Eliza's mother. 140.254.227.42 (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be concerned that praying for her illness might result in God supporting the poor struggling cancer cells, viruses, bacteria, and/or parasites. Well, if you take "Thou shalt not kill" literally, I suppose they have as much right to live as we do (perhaps more, since there are far fewer of us). :-) StuRat (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Good style would be to say "He asked him to ask his teacher", but to provide sufficient context that it's clear who "his" refers to. Rewording it just makes it awkward. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time to complete accident damages

[edit]
Inappropriate Legal Advice. Hatted by 140.254.227.72 (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Reference [redacted] Policy No [redacted] Email address: [redacted] Quote +/- R3200.oo very small bumper bump

This accident happened 23-12-2013 .The claim was lodged immediately that afternoon. Later when I investigated the approval was not communicated to Auto Magic. Now 3 months later I was instructed to take my car in for repairs.24-03-2014.

And now this problem: According to Auto Magic it will take them 7 day to repair this very small damage. What can you do to expedite this repair time. do you think this is acceptable.

I am supporting Hollard Insurance for many years. My house loan was insured for as long as Standard Bank was in control of my loan.Then afterwards I saw the advertisement " pay as you drive policy " and I switch to Hollard.

I am looking forward to your reply and hope it is something positive.I am almost 72 years old and this is the first time I claimed from any insurance and for such an small amount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.78.180 (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can no longer be sure what thoughts it is that I had

[edit]

"I can no longer be sure what thoughts it is that I had" - since thoughts is plural, should it be "I can no longer be sure what thoughts they are that I had"? No, that doesn't look right either. --78.148.110.69 (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you really don't like "I can no longer be sure what I thought" or "I can no longer be sure what thoughts I had", how about "I can no longer be sure what the thoughts were that I had"?----Ehrenkater (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the middle choice. StuRat (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Ehrenkater. <3 78.148.110.69 (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about "My train of thought became derailed"?  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've gone a bit off track there, and could use a swift kick in the caboose to encourage you to get back on track again. StuRat (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2014_March_24&oldid=933825475"