Language desk
< September 27	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 28

"Bed smart"

Is there a common way in English to express that a person is highly competent in sexual matters in a similar way to the term "street smart" - and like that one, used unisex and with rather positive connotations? --KnightMove (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the simple "good in bed". --174.88.134.156 (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"sheet smart"? -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could also consider "good between the sheets". JezGrove (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commented literature

What options do we have regarding series of literary analysis of classical works? Is there such a thing as Penguin Books with notes, academic analysis, and a thorough introduction? Something that's more serious that Cliff's notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaanngg (talk • contribs) 09:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A previous (short) thread on this topic is at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 May 23#Commented editions of English literature. The Norton Critical Editions are still, as far as I know, the closest thing to what you're talking about (at least in terms of a fairly extensive series rather than one-shot annotated editions). Deor (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might also check out Bloom's Guides, found in many libraries. Lesgles (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Shakespeare you want Harbage, for Greco-Roman philosophy you want Reale. For Tolkien you want Shippey. It's really not possible to give a great series of in-depth analyses. You should ask more specifically about what interests you. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... attributed with a little odd sense of humor".

Is the sentence "He is attributed with a little odd sense of humor." grammatically and semantically correct? How could it be improved? --KnightMove (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Little" is the problem word in the above. If you want to say he has an odd sense of humour; "He has an odd sense of humor.". If you're trying to say not all of his humour is odd, "He has an occasionally odd sense of humor." would be clearer. - X201 (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Would "... somewhat odd sense of humor" also work? --KnightMove (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is being made of the person referred to, which is exactly "he". --KnightMove (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I parse that as trying to use the phrase a little odd attributively, which doesn't work. So, yes, somewhat odd is a way of saying what I guess was intended. --ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To specifically answer the posed question, the sentence is not semantically correct English. One does not say, "He is attributed with..." The correct usage is that the attributes come first and the individual is the object of the attribution. Here is the correct usage: A little odd sense of humor is attributed to him. Akld guy (talk)

No, that still fails the test adduced by ColinFine. "A little odd sense of humor" suggests his odd sense of humor is little, whereas, what it's trying to say is that his sense of humor is a little odd. I think I'd write "His sense of humor is said to be a little odd", or even just "His sense of humor is a little odd", but that's getting away from the original sentence structure perhaps too much. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My answer only addressed the question of whether 'attributed with' was correctly structured, and my correct usage rephrasing was intended to answer that. The 'little odd' was adequately answered by Colin Fine. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should have inserted my answer directly under the OP's question, then what I was driving at would have been clearer. Akld guy (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes are attributed to the people who said them, so the verb choice or its usage is simply wrong. You could say he is credited with an odd sense of humour, or an odd sense of humour is one off his attributes. If you want to say "little" in this context then use the adverb slightly instead. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of parallel

I still struggle to remember how the word "parallel" is spelled. I know there's a double L and a single L but can never remember which goes first. Both "parallel" and "paralell" look right to me when I write them down (as any fule no, the latter is wrong). I usually end up Googling the word every time I want to use it, which is annoying.

Does anyone have some kind of mnemonic way to remember that the double L goes first? An 'I before E except after C' (except when it doesn't) sort of thing? --87.224.68.42 (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with the word used to be misspelling it "parralel", obviated by remembering that the "ll" was an illustration of the word's meaning. Decades of practice using it has impressed the correct spelling in my grey matter, but I don't know of any "rule" (in English? Ha!) to reinforce it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "parallel" and "allele" come from the same root.[1][2] And remember that "parallel" has two parallel lines running through it, but not on the end. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually struggled with the same thing as a kid (in German), and made up my own mnemonic (though not a generalizable rule). In German I used "alle Leute" schreiben es falsch" (everyone spells it incorrectly). In English, I guess, you could use "if all else fails", for example. (Or "all-electronic", "all elves help Santa", ...) ---Sluzzelin talk 17:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Alle Leute" is inspired. And I speak German so it works for me. Thanks! (And to everyone else for their suggestions.) --87.224.68.42 (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first two ells in parallel are parallel. i figured that one out in 6th grade, not that I expect everyone to be so cllever. μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also figured out how to capitalize the letter I around about the same age, not that I expect everyone to be so clever.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

07:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Llate develloper, eh? μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, 6th Grade would be around the age of 9, which is when WE STARTED SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE SESAME STREET TAUGHT US TO, WITH THEIR ABC SONG. 'ah-buh-cuh-duh-eh-fuh-guh' would have been better, considering uncials are more common.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

10:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Cllever American kids eschewed Sesame Street for The Ellectric Company. μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So they were all subject to ECT. How sad.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

22:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would there be 36 in (910 mm) in parallel? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, 'ell.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

13:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]