Language desk
< December 13	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 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.

December 14

Your man

Christopher Hitchens quoth that Sir Kingsley Amis was ′what the Irish call “your man” when it came to the subject of drink′ here. Nothing strikes me as particularly Irish about the phrase your man, but I might be wrong. Any thoughts from the rest of the Anglosphere? --Edith Wahr (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase sounds particularly Irish if it's being used in the sense of "that guy". They would say "your man" or "your woman" (or "yer", actually) to refer to someone who is causing trouble and they don't want to refer to them by name/be associated with them. This is in contrast to "our man/woman", or "our [name]", when referring more positively to someone. However, my only source for this is my wife's Northern Irish relatives, so it's possible that I've misunderstood them... Adam Bishop (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like "The dude" à la "The Big Lebowski", given the different meanings in Spanish and the same difference in "My Man's Gone Now" as best performed here by] the greatest, Nina Simone. See also Sinead O'Connor. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Englishman living in Dublin here. The Irish refer to any specific adult male as "yer man", meaning "that fellow over there" or "the chap we were just referring to". Women can be "yer woman" or "yer wan" (your one). For example, "Come her till I tell ya. Sure, I was only in town yesterday, and didn't I see yer man O'Malley with some woman. He's only after breaking up with yer wan too. Sure, it's a terrible thing, you know yerself" (Listen, I've got some great gossip. I was in town yesterday and I saw Mr O'Malley with a woman. And he's only just broken up with his ex. Isn't it terrible?)

The quote above is written by an Englishman about an Englishman, so it doesn't really fit the Irish usage exactly, but I think Hitchens is suggesting that Amis is 'that guy'. Other Anglophones might use 'your man' differently - something like "If you want to know about how to skin a cat, Charlie's your man", and I think Hithens is getting the two usages confused. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...And your man / Mick McCann / From the banks of the Bann / Was the skipper of the Irish Rover." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase seems to have a peculiarly Irish meaning, as Adam Bishop says above. I've met a similar usage in the phrase "A pint of plain is your only man" which is the title of a poem by Flann O'Brien. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Irish English as Represented in Film by Shane Walshe (pp. 144-145); "One of the most common colloquial expressions in Irish English is the use of your together with man. woman or one to make reference to a specific individual, often someone who has already been thematised in the exchange". There is also a reference to this in A Dictionary of Hiberno-English: The Irish Use of English by Terence Patrick Dolan (p. 258) but Google Books won't show it to me. Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wiktionary page your man. Smurrayinchester 13:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many native speakers of English would consider "am become" ungrammatical?

How many native speakers would balk at the structure "am become" used in sentences like: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.", or, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." --Ashortquestion (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically all contemporary speakers would (in standard speech, at least – the examples you give are poetical), because it's an archaic construction that fell out of use not long after Shakespeare's time. Up to early modern English, verbs that indicated movement or a change of state used be instead of have to mark the perfect aspect ("I am arrived", not "I have arrived"), which is now obsolete in standard and formal registers. German has a similar construction ("Ich bin geworden", not *"Ich habe geworden"), which still survives. Smurrayinchester 15:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Most, I think. It's explicitly an archaism. English used to use the verb 'to be' as an auxiliary to form a past tense in this way (as is still the case for certain verbs in French and German), but these have all been replaced by 'to have' in the modern form of the language. (There may be dialects where this has not happened, but I'm not aware of any off-hand.) AlexTiefling (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But would most, or a big share of them, recognize it as something archaic, that could be found in some Bible translation?Ashortquestion (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the answer to that is: People who are educated and have some non-trivial experience with older texts (Shakespeare, KJV, and the like) will recognize this as a valid, but archaic, construction. Others won't, and why would they? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that many people would recognize the "I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal" bit as a biblical quotation, from having watched Scrooge (1951 film) on TV every blessed Yuletide for their entire lives. The passage is being read to the sick to whom Scrooge's former fiancee is tending in one of the "Christmas Present" scenes. Deor (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was wondering if it is a similar case to other archaisms. I have the impression that most would rightly label 'doth' as archaic English and not some typo.Ashortquestion (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the "to be" (rather than "to have") sense of the above quote is in the original Sanskrit of the Bhagavad Gita. See here, footnote #2, which states that Oppenheimer's quote I am become Death... is his own translation from the original Sanskrit, other translations from more professional translators may use different phrasing. --Jayron 32 15:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and the same applies to the Bible quote. It's just one version (exactly, King James'). Other translators would translate into more modern English, as we can see in [1].Ashortquestion (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out that the specific formulation "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds" is idiosyncratic to J. Robert Oppenheimer, who used it in several interviews related to his reflections on his role in the Manhattan Project; the idiosyncrasies are not due to the particular translation he was using (i.e. that he was using an early modern English translation) because he wasn't. He had read the book in its original Sanskrit, and his quote "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." is his own translation from the original Sanskrit; Oppenheimer spoke a perfectly cromulent version of 20th century American English. The quote does NOT come from something like "the King James version" issue, because Oppenheimer didn't live in the 1600s. --Jayron 32 16:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, King James was a bad reference, since he is archaic himself. But wouldn't more modern translations of the Bible still use the "am become" for the same reason Oppenheimer decided to use it? After all, modern translation of the Bible could opt for archaic English, and there is also the problem of squeezing a language into the structures of another linguistic family.Ashortquestion (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can look up about 50 different translations of that passage at Biblegateway.com. It seems that decedents of the two main 17th century English bibles (the protestant King James version and the catholic Douay–Rheims Bible) preserve the "I am become" version of 1 Corinthians 13:1, including later versions based directly on or updates of those two translations, even if such translations were published later (such as the 21st Century King James Version). However, looking at 20th century and later translations which started with the source text (rather then tweaks to 17th century translations) such as the New International Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible and the English Standard Version, which do not depend on using the King James or Douay-Rheims, do not contain the phrasing "I am become". --Jayron 32 16:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm speculating, but up until the middle of the 20th century, "Prayer Book English" was considered standard for many religious writings, such as any number of Victorian prayers and hymns, even those meant for children. It's plausible that Oppenheimer considered that an archaic construction was appropriate for a religious text. It certainly works well in my view. Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible; though Oppenheimer was not Christian and may or may not have had much exposure to 17th century Biblical English. He was of Jewish ancestry, but raised in the non-religious Ethical movement of which his father was a major adherent. He may have been exposed to such formulations, and using it in the context of a religious translation may have been a form of hypercorrection. That would all be speculation; all that can be said on the matter is that the specific formulation of the B-G quote is documented as his own one, not based on a specific English translation. --Jayron 32 16:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some kind of that form of "be + Verb3" (as a Past participle rather than as a Passive voice), has survived also in Modern English, in phrases like "he is gone": Here, "gone" cannot be interpreted as the Passive voice of "go", because the verb "go" is intransitive with respect to human objects (i.e. nobody can "go somebody", i.e. nobody can be "gone by" somebody, unless "go" is interpreted in a slangy meaning - which is not the case of "he is gone"), so the word "gone" - in the phrase "he is gone" - must be interpreted as the Past participle of "go"; Hence, "is gone" must have meant (in Old English?) "has gone" (as it means in French and German). Really, Modern English has made a little distinction between - the meaning of "has gone" (= has moved/proceeded/travelled) - and the meaning of "is gone" (= has disappeared), but I suspect that little distinction was absent in Old English, am I right? Note also that some languages, e.g. Arabic, have one word for "go" and for "disappear", so maybe that was the case also in Old English... HOOTmag (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All things are possible in 21st Century English. No exceptions.

If one can say "He goes Blah" (meaning "He said Blah"), then the passive form corresponding to "Blah was said by him" must surely be "Blah is gone by him".
Or, "I'm like Wow" becomes "Wow's like by me".

Also, I fear the word "does" (3rd person present singular indicative of "do") is fast joining "doth" and "dost" in the ranks of the archaic, judging from the prevalence of "dose" (here are but the first 61,300 examples). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack, "he goes Blah" has nothing to do with "he is gone", because Blah is not a human object. Let me quote myself:

"...in phrases like "he is gone": Here, "gone" cannot be interpreted as the Passive voice of "go", because the verb "go" is intransitive with respect to human objects (i.e. nobody can "go somebody", i.e. nobody can be "gone by" somebody, unless "go" is interpreted in a slangy meaning - which is not the case of "he is gone")...".

HOOTmag (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're better off analysing the gone in "he is gone" as an adjective. The plate is broken, the road is finished, they are disappointed and we are interested. All are past participles used exactly as you would an adjective and in exactly the same way as gone in "he is gone". French and I think German also allow similar constructions with être and sein, even with verbs that would (when used as verbs) would take avoir and haben. La route est finie but On a fini la route.

Clearly this does not work with the archaic I am become. Kahastok talk 20:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Kahastok, and find myself saying things like the day is come and the moon is risen without being looked at cross-eyed. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kahastok, your examples ("The plate is broken, the road is finished, they are disappointed and we are interested") have nothing to do with "he is gone":

As for the verbs in your last examples ("disappoint, interest"): they are transitive verbs with respect to human objects, whereas "go" is not. Let me quote myself:

"...in phrases like "he is gone": Here, "gone" cannot be interpreted as the Passive voice of "go", because the verb "go" is intransitive with respect to human objects (i.e. nobody can "go somebody", i.e. nobody can be "gone by" somebody, unless "go" is interpreted in a slangy meaning - which is not the case of "he is gone")...".

As for the verbs in your first examples ("break, finish"): their subjests ("plates, road") are not human, whereas the subject of "he is gone" is. Let me quote myself again:

"...in phrases like "he is gone": Here, "gone" cannot be interpreted as the Passive voice of "go", because the verb "go" is intransitive with respect to human objects (i.e. nobody can "go somebody", i.e. nobody can be "gone by" somebody, unless "go" is interpreted in a slangy meaning - which is not the case of "he is gone")...".

HOOTmag (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're overcomplicating this.

You appear to be analysing constructions such as "he is gone", "they are disappointed" as passives, in which "gone" and "disappointed" are being used as verbs. My analysis is, I think, fundamentally different. I analyse them as adjectives (formed from verbs, yes, but adjectives nonetheless) used in the same way as tall in "the tree is tall". Take the sentence he is gone. Under my analysis, the word "gone" is an adjective describing his current state of gone-ness, as opposed to a verb describing an action of his or anyone else's.

In the case of "the plate is broken", I allow two different analyses:

You might be saying somebody breaks the plate in the passive. This is describing an actual event, the breaking of the plate, using the passive form of the English simple present.
You might simply be using broken as an adjective without commenting on how the plate came to be broken or even that any event breaking the plate ever actually happened (it might have been designed as a broken plate).

As you correctly point out, the first analysis does not work with "he is gone", because you cannot go somebody. But the second analysis is valid: I see no need to analyse a "to be" past tense to cover it, and I find it awkward to do so because you aren't actually using "gone" (or "broken") as a verb. Kahastok talk 15:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You ALL are overanalyzing it. Present perfect verbs in English used to be able to be formed with "to be", and have come to me formed with "to have". That is, the phrase "I am become" in more archaic forms of English is exactly equivalent to the modern form "I have become". It's a simple case of linguistic change, and doesn't need more analysis than that. --Jayron 32 15:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, but I felt this was well covered in the above and was discussing the more general point made in the later comment of 18:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC). Kahastok talk 15:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32, my main point is that, structures of the form "he is become" - which basically means "he has become" in Old English - have survived in Modern English, in phrases like "he is gone". HOOTmag (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kahastok, the very fact that a given word is an adjective, doesn't mean it's not the passive form of a verb. So, really, "tall" is an adjective and is not a passive form, but "interested" - in the sentence "we are interested" - is both an adjective and a passive form. Just as "car" - in the sentence "this car is red" - is both a noun and a subject.

Anyways, the adjective "interested" - in the sentence "we are interested" - is a passive form of the verb "interest", because that sentence basically means that: something (or somebody) interests me. Just as the adjective "disappointed" - in the sentence "they are disappointed" - is a passive form of the verb "disappoint", because that sentence basically means that: something (or somebody) disappoints me. Just as the word "finished" - in the sentence "the road is finished" - is a passive form of the verb "finish", because that sentence basically means that: something (or somebody) finished the road.

As to the adjective "broken" - in the sentence "the plate is broken", you suggest that "it might have been designed as a broken plate": Please note that, in that hypothetical case, the plate is not really a broken plate, but rather looks like a broken plate, i.e. it looks as if something (or somebody) broke it.

As to "he is gone", "he is become", and the like: the very structure of those sentences (with a copula rather than with "has"), makes the words "gone" "become" - passive forms, although they are intended to mean the present perfect. Note that, other languages as well - e.g. German and French - use the passive form (following a copula) to mean the present perfect. I've suggested, that also Old English has used "he is gone" - to mean "he has gone" (and I have also noted that some languages - e.g. Arabic - have one word for both "go" and "disappear"), just as Old English has done the same - in the phrase "he is become" - to mean "he has become".

To sum up: My main point is that, structures of the form "he is become" - which basically means "he has become" in Old English - have survived in Modern English, in phrases like "he is gone".

HOOTmag (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"And I only am escaped alone to tell thee." See Moby-Dick and the KJV Bible.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian street name question

After spending half a week in Ljubljana, Slovenia, I couldn't help but notice that some streets were named "cesta" and some "ulica". They are supposed to have some sort of accent marks over the letters, but I don't remember which marks or where. What is the difference between "cesta" and "ulica"? JIP | Talk 22:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wiktionary entries on ulica and césta, as well as the corresponding articles sl:ulica and sl:cesta on the Slovene wikipedia, would appear to indicate the difference is largely analogous to that between English "street" and "road". A street map of Ljubljana indicates "césta" are typically larger thoroughfares. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the articles wikt:césta and sl:césta linked above seem to exist. Where did you get this information from? JIP | Talk 08:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake, the pages are actually under the spellings without diacritics. Now fixed in the links above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]