Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 August 5
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 4 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 6 > |
| 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. |
August 5
[edit]To be to be
[edit]Can someone please explain the precise meaning of "are to be" in this sentence from the WHO article: About US$930 million are to be provided by member states with a further US$3 billion to be from voluntary contributions? I guess it means "are supposed / intended to be", but I thought this meaning wouldn't really make sense with respect to the voluntary contributions (since logically speaking they can't actually be prescribed if they are voluntary) – unless in the meaning of that these voluntary aids are being assumed or expected. Might that be the answer?--Hubon (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's a slightly formal bit of legalese which just means "will be" --Jayron32 03:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. But that would then mean this is not yet status quo but instead a prognosis, right?--Hubon (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I would prefer to gloss it as "are expected to be", for one or another flavor of expectation. The online dictionaries I looked at don't cover this sense, except for the OED Online, which you can only access if you pay or belong to an organization pays (in my case, the Toronto Public Library). In the OED Online this is sense 18 of "be", defined as: "expressing an appointed or arranged future action; (hence also) expressing necessity, obligation, duty, fitness, or appropriateness." --69.159.9.219 (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- This looks like a passive infinitive. Charities rely on voluntary donations even though there is no gifting agreement, and even if there was it would not be enforceable because there is no "consideration" (i.e. act or forebearance on the part of the promissor; the consideration must move from the promisee) which is essential under the law of contract. 80.44.165.208 (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, passive infinitive. She is to be beheaded on ve king's birfday. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- @IP & Medeis: Thanks. Passive infinitive – okay, but that's only the description of the grammatical structure, right? What I actually wanted to know is: What is the exact meaning of this sentence? I must admit I didn't quite get what you, IP, mean by talking about the lack of a consideration. By the way, I'd say generally speaking the consideration would have to come from the promisee and not from the promissor since the latter is the one who promises the performance. In this respect, I found your explanations in brackets a bit confusing.--Hubon (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- What the WHO statement is saying is: About US$930 million are (agreement has been reached and is hereby declared publicly) to be (will be paid as part of the agreement) provided by member states with a further US$3 billion to be (also to be paid in the future) from voluntary contributions. This is not an unusual construction. It's kind of a legal way of saying that something has been agreed to and payment MUST take place. Akld guy (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, @Akld guy:, those are cromulent passive usages. I won't claim there are no non-passive usages, but I can't think of any. Of course, the number of things of which I cannot think is, unfortunately, infinite....
- Oops! Is "to be" to be used in the beginning of Hamlet's soliloquy, or not? Of course that only works when spoken, not written....
- In any case, this is perhaps the most beautiful thing I have ever heard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiRMGYQfXrs μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Somebody went to a great deal of trouble to translate accurately :) Akld guy (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- What the WHO statement is saying is: About US$930 million are (agreement has been reached and is hereby declared publicly) to be (will be paid as part of the agreement) provided by member states with a further US$3 billion to be (also to be paid in the future) from voluntary contributions. This is not an unusual construction. It's kind of a legal way of saying that something has been agreed to and payment MUST take place. Akld guy (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @IP & Medeis: Thanks. Passive infinitive – okay, but that's only the description of the grammatical structure, right? What I actually wanted to know is: What is the exact meaning of this sentence? I must admit I didn't quite get what you, IP, mean by talking about the lack of a consideration. By the way, I'd say generally speaking the consideration would have to come from the promisee and not from the promissor since the latter is the one who promises the performance. In this respect, I found your explanations in brackets a bit confusing.--Hubon (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, passive infinitive. She is to be beheaded on ve king's birfday. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- This looks like a passive infinitive. Charities rely on voluntary donations even though there is no gifting agreement, and even if there was it would not be enforceable because there is no "consideration" (i.e. act or forebearance on the part of the promissor; the consideration must move from the promisee) which is essential under the law of contract. 80.44.165.208 (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I would prefer to gloss it as "are expected to be", for one or another flavor of expectation. The online dictionaries I looked at don't cover this sense, except for the OED Online, which you can only access if you pay or belong to an organization pays (in my case, the Toronto Public Library). In the OED Online this is sense 18 of "be", defined as: "expressing an appointed or arranged future action; (hence also) expressing necessity, obligation, duty, fitness, or appropriateness." --69.159.9.219 (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. But that would then mean this is not yet status quo but instead a prognosis, right?--Hubon (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Can you check my English grammar on this article please!
[edit]I've just written The Boxer (The Chemical Brothers song), it was my first fully-finished article and I'm not quite confident about my grammar. Please help me correct it and advise me for better writing next time. Thank you so much! Beyoncetan (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Beyoncetan: I gave it a really casual round of copyediting [1]. Who are Good for Nothing – I just realized it's a dab page, it needs a word or two of context? The sentence I marked with {{unclear}} lacks a verb and I could not deduce what was meant. No such user (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- No such user: Big thanks to you for your edits! Thank you so so much for helping. Please continue to correct it if you see anything wrong. Beyoncetan (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've made some changes. Two things puzzle me and I haven't attempted to correct them. In the section, "Background and production", this appears: "When The Chemical Brothers started to write music again after finishing their last album Come with Us (2002), "The Boxer" was one of the earliest tracks being written from their then-making Push the Button." I do not understand what that means. In the section, "Music videos", I'm sure that "here the action is reserved" should be "here the action is reversed", but it seems to be a quote. Or is it a typo by you? Akld guy (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Akld guy: Thank you so much for helping! It was "reversed" in the quote, that's my fault, I'm sorry. And the original quote from "Background and production" was: "It's probably one of the earliest track that we got going when we first started writing again after Come with Us". Please help me correct it! Thank you so much! Beyoncetan (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Beyoncetan: I still don't understand what it's trying to say. How does "Push the Button" come into it if "The Boxer" was written soon after "Come with Us" was completed? I'm not a follower of this genre of music. Akld guy (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Akld guy: Well, after finishing the album Come with Us (2002), they wrote a song called "The Boxer", they then later released the album Push the Button (2005), which includes that track. The quote is trying to say that "The Boxer" is one of the first songs written for Push the Button. :) Sorry for messing the whole sentence up and causing you confusions. :(... Beyoncetan (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Beyoncetan: I had just reached that conclusion myself after reading about the development of "PtB". Here is what I think you're trying to say: "When The Chemical Brothers started to write music again after finishing the album Come with Us (2002), "The Boxer" was one of the earliest tracks that they wrote for their next album, Push the Button." Is that it? Akld guy (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Akld guy: Yes! Yes! That's correct! Thank you! Beyoncetan (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- OK, copy and paste it in if you're happy with it. Glad to help. Akld guy (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Akld guy: Yes! Yes! That's correct! Thank you! Beyoncetan (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Beyoncetan: I had just reached that conclusion myself after reading about the development of "PtB". Here is what I think you're trying to say: "When The Chemical Brothers started to write music again after finishing the album Come with Us (2002), "The Boxer" was one of the earliest tracks that they wrote for their next album, Push the Button." Is that it? Akld guy (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Akld guy: Well, after finishing the album Come with Us (2002), they wrote a song called "The Boxer", they then later released the album Push the Button (2005), which includes that track. The quote is trying to say that "The Boxer" is one of the first songs written for Push the Button. :) Sorry for messing the whole sentence up and causing you confusions. :(... Beyoncetan (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Beyoncetan: I still don't understand what it's trying to say. How does "Push the Button" come into it if "The Boxer" was written soon after "Come with Us" was completed? I'm not a follower of this genre of music. Akld guy (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Akld guy: Thank you so much for helping! It was "reversed" in the quote, that's my fault, I'm sorry. And the original quote from "Background and production" was: "It's probably one of the earliest track that we got going when we first started writing again after Come with Us". Please help me correct it! Thank you so much! Beyoncetan (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've made some changes. Two things puzzle me and I haven't attempted to correct them. In the section, "Background and production", this appears: "When The Chemical Brothers started to write music again after finishing their last album Come with Us (2002), "The Boxer" was one of the earliest tracks being written from their then-making Push the Button." I do not understand what that means. In the section, "Music videos", I'm sure that "here the action is reserved" should be "here the action is reversed", but it seems to be a quote. Or is it a typo by you? Akld guy (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- No such user: Big thanks to you for your edits! Thank you so so much for helping. Please continue to correct it if you see anything wrong. Beyoncetan (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)