Language desk
< May 10	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 12 >

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.

May 11

"What all" in American dialect(s)

I came across a sentence using "what all" where I might use "what things" or just "what". The sentence was "What all can I tell Ashley?" Is this a regional dialect or common American English? A google search of 'What all" -"What's all" american dialect' didn't tell me anything useful, and I couldn't find anything on Language Log either. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly widespread, meaning "What are all the things I can tell Ashley ?" as opposed to "What's one thing I can tell Ashley ?". StuRat (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this previous reference-desk thread. Deor (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Omitting the understood "else" at the end: "A and B and C and I don't know what all [else]." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already well-known in America by 1953 when Andy Griffith recorded this.[1] At :55, 1:55 and 4:25 in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is widespread and, thanks to TV, universally understood in the United States, but it sounds a little alien to me, here in New England. I don't think the expression is in wide use by natives here or in the New York area. This source identifies the construction as Scots Irish (i.e., Ulster English) in origin, via Appalachia. During the 19th century, descendants of the Appalachian Scots Irish spread across much of the South and Midwest and everywhere west of the Mississippi, and I think this is where the construction is now native. Marco polo (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Marco. Raised in New England myself, now live in North Carolina. The construction has a broadly southern feel to it. I would have never used it in New England or the Northeast in general. --Jayron 32 19:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a long delayed flight, I just spent the day in the Deep South, and when I went to a redneck bar for lunch the guy behind the counter, in the next county over from where I grew up, asked me what state I was from. At that point i should have said paranoia. In any case, while he might could of said "what all", I never would. μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the source I cited is correct, then we would not expect what all to occur in South Jersey, even the redneck parts, because it was not settled by Scots Irish from Appalachia. The same would be true for greater Philadelphia, Delaware, and Tidewater Maryland and Virginia. Central and western Pennsylvania, on the other hand, would have this construction if the source is correct. Also, Scots Irish settlement in North Carolina was very widespread and contiguous with the Appalachian settlement, so it would not be surprising to find this construction even in coastal North Carolina. There weren't many Scots Irish in coastal South Carolina or Georgia, however. Marco polo (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure these weren't Scots Irish and English, essentially what shows up as "American" in the white areas of the map at American ethnicity. These are basically people who've been there since before the Civil War (often before the Revolutionary War) and don't remember anything else. New Jersey is largely represented as plurality Irish or Italian on that map, but that is due to urban and suburban migration from Philly and New York. It's been settled since the 1600's, and by the Dutch and Swedish even before British hegemony. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I have been accused of being a Southerner by New Yorkers (to the point I developed code-switching to avoid it), this guy seemed to think I was a Northerner, if not worse. It wasn't until I ordered snapper soup, and asked how many of his 15 acres he had devoted to cannabis that he seemed to accept me as not a furriner, if not exactly local. (The answer was six.) The bottom line is, his speech idioms were distinctly Southern, not Baltimore/Philly Midland American dialects. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. Those were some interesting and helpful replies. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather or fairly difficult?

When constructing a scale between "very difficult" and "very easy", which is the preferred use of modifiers that can be used in the middle ground: 1) something can be either rather difficult or fairly easy; 2) either fairly difficult or rather easy? --Pxos (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In British English "rather easy" would be understood to mean "very easy indeed". DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Brit once cautioned me (AmEng) on the differences in connotations of "rather" in the two varieties. I had told a British scholar that his paper was "rather good" - I meant it as a compliment, but apparently it could also be construed as an insult. I don't really understand the distinctions, but it seems the answers will be rather different, depending on the WP:ENGVAR. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should have told him his paper was "not bad, not bad at all". He'd have glowed with pride. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My (unverified) feeling is that telling someone that their own work is 'rather good' might be seen as stinting one's praise; you could say 'good', or 'very good', and be better understood. 'Rather good' specifically implies 'better than expected'; of a third party's work, it can therefore mean 'amazing, rather than merely good' but if you say it about the other speaker's work, you're betraying your former low expectations. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, you would just need to assure them that "nothing you could do could possibly lower my expectations of what you are capable of". :-) StuRat (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

An alternative "middle ground" word is somewhat. Deor (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To return to the original question, I'm not sure that such a scale can be constructed. A lot will depend on the variety of English, and also the context - the relationship between speakers, the tone of voice, things like that. "Rather good" can be said in a way that means "superlative!" and in a way that means "well we needed something, this is something, so we'll just have to make do". DuncanHill (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fairly safe to use "fairly difficult" but rather dangerous to use "rather difficult" and quite wrong to use "quite difficult" as those expressions are too unclear. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite is another EngVar issue - "quite hard" means very hard in AmEng, but probably something more like "slightly hard" in BrEng. It's interesting to me that many words we might use to indicate degree show up on List_of_words_having_different_meanings_in_American_and_British_English:_M–Z. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.onelook.com/?w=mediocrely&ls=a and wikt:mediocrely.—Wavelength (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about simply easy and difficult? And a six-point scale could go from trivial, very easy, easy, difficult, very difficult to impossible (with perhaps a don't know option added). How many points are you looking for on the scale? Abecedare (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers but I'm afraid I may have formulated my question rather poorly. I was more interested in the style and nuances of the words. If I want to convey a meaning and the difference between: a) this is relatively easy to do and you probably can do it yourself, as a positive encouragement (i.e. Is "fairly easy" a more positive expression than "rather easy"?); AND b) this is somewhat difficult and you'll probably have to take the thingy to an expert, as the work might prove too much for you (i.e. "Is "rather difficult" a more discouraging phrase than "fairly difficult"?) Let's say I was writing a manual where I would grade the tasks. "Somewhat easy" = go ahead and try! "Somewhat difficult" = "be careful, you might break stuff". This is what I had in mind. --Pxos (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the answer (or opposite side) for "Less is more"

I mean it's not always true. Is there any opposite idiom? 149.78.38.232 (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, more or less. 82.35.216.24 (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too Much is Never Enough! ---Sluzzelin talk 16:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And while not the opposite, Rosalind definitely questioned the "less is more" dictum: "Why then, can one have too much of a good thing?" Abecedare (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger is better. [2] SemanticMantis (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by reductio ad absurdum, if less was always better, then nothing would always be ideal. In most cases, there is an ideal amount/size. So, if you have more than that (say calories per day), then less is better, while if you less than that, more is better. See ideal firm size for another example. StuRat (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calories are countable, hence "fewer calories", not "less calories". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Fustest with the mostest"? Tevildo (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a play on words, using two slightly different shades of the less/more concepts. It's really saying streamlined or efficient is better, more productive, more profitable, etc. It also reminds me of a saying attributed to Branch Rickey after he had released a mediocre player, expecting the team overall to perform better without the guy: "It was a case of addition by subtraction." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes more is more and it's a common enough phrase - but (I think) always in concious contrast to less is more. Google gives 19,600,000 hits for "more is more". --catslash (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Quantity has a quality all its own"? Often attributed to Joseph Stalin, though he probably wasn't the original source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The one I like: "If less is more, then just think how much more more is." --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do have some information at Less-is-better_effect, with some citations to academic literature. There's also Less_(Unix), which was specifically designed to be better than More_(Unix). More on that, and most, explained here [3]. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a pro wrestling context, "less is more" is a common refrain among the old-schoolers, longing for the days when crowds were gradually warmed up throughout a match, and exploded at the finish. Jake Roberts, of DDT fame, famously likened properly working the crowd to properly masturbating them, at least in a logical progression way.

The point being, in 2002, two new terms were coined to drive the final nail into the coffin of the simpler times: "Ruthless Aggression" and "Total Nonstop Action". Since then, the crowds are expected to explode before the match even starts, everyone hits ten finishers off the bat and nobody pops because they've been rubbed raw. But not in a dirty way. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sort of match you get by forgoing classic psychology in favour of constant pops is called a "spotfest". I guess it could apply to action movies with a cut every .7 seconds or tunes that pile on complexity for its own sake. But it generally doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eerie coincidence report: Stone Cold Steve Austin had Jim Ross on his podcast today, and they spent ten minutes or so on this exact same thing. But that's not that odd. What's odd is, after the interview, Austin had a Word of the Day bit. The word of the day was "DDT", and he literally read the same Wikipedia lead I'd linked the day before, to likewise rant about the shame of it "prostituted" and "abused" today. "Sell the DDT! Jiminy H. Cricket!" InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Les Moore. μηδείς (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand and Isabella also ensured that there were less Moores. :-) StuRat (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do people who develop the uncultivated lands of southwestern England create less moors? --Jayron 32 18:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'the bigger the better' [4] Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Size does matter." It apparently still does. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]