Language desk
< November 20	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 22 >

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.

November 21

Definition of "larger than"

No dictionary I've seen mentions "larger than" as an idiom. However, this is an interesting phrase to talk about because although it has a meaning consistent with general uses of comparative adjectives:

The dog is larger than the cat.

It is sometimes used when "as large as" is proper, as in:

The dog is 4 times larger than the cat.

In this sentence, "as large as" is the proper phrase to use, but some people use "larger than". Can anyone check Wiktionary to see if its definition of "larger than" is consistent with the latter of these 2 sentences?? Georgia guy (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary has larger than life, and this is the page reached in Wiktionary for "larger than". Bus stop (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, "four times larger than" means "five times as large as", just as "one time larger than" would mean "twice as large as" and not the same size as. Unfortunately, people seem to use it to mean "four times as large as" as often as not. Loraof (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I had ever in my life heard someone say "one time larger than", I'd take that as evidence that "n times larger than" means {n+1}-fold rather than n-fold; but I haven't. On another hand, the worry that "900% increase" may mean ninefold rather than tenfold is one reason for my hostility to percentages. — Do people still say "as large again"? —Tamfang (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An idiom is a phrase or expression where the meaning is somehow different from that implied by the individual words - which means that "larger than" is not an idiom, and is not going to appear as such in dictionaries. It is just the perfectly normal grammatical use of "than" when making comparisons. "Larger than life" is a good example of an idiom - it doesn't make literal sense (life can't really have a size) but does have a meaning as a well known expression. Wymspen (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've always understood the word "life" in "larger than life" to be used in the same sense as in "life sized". That is, it is referring to a representation, such as a painting or sculpture, as being the same size as (or larger than) the actual living thing being represented. Of course both phrases are also used metaphorically as well. CodeTalker (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is hyphenated.[1][2] Something can be "larger than life-size". But I think it would be incorrect to say that something is "larger than life size" (without the hyphen). We also have articles about a novel and a television film that use the hyphenated form. Bus stop (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interesting thing on hyphenation. Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing specific to "large" or "larger"; the general construction would be "n times more foo than" or "n times as foo as", for any gradable adjective foo. Both constructions are grammatical. As to whether "n times as foo as" corresponds to "n times more foo than" or "(n-1) times more foo than"; I sympathise with the latter view, but I suspect less mathematically-minded speakers make no such distinction. Somewhat relatedly, Language Log has discussed the problem of interpretation where foo is the binary opposite of a scaled adjective, as in "twice as small as". jnestorius^(talk) 13:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to know is ...

What I'm gonna do is ....
What he said was ...
What it is is ...
What she wants is ...
What you are is ...

What's this construction called? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A particular type of predicate nominative? Not sure if there's a very specific term. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cleft sentence (specifically, a pseudo-cleft). Henry ^Flower 07:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Pseudo-cleft. Excellent. Thanks, Henry. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Putin Quote

"I told him that we would be happy to see him (Obama) in Russia anytime if he wants, can and has desire"[3]

Is this sentence grammatical English? I'm having a hard time parsing it. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the end of the sentence. (It's also quite redundant.) The writer probably meant, "I told him ... anytime he wants to visit us." Clarityfiend (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a comma after "meant"? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here I'd call it optional. —Tamfang (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there's nothing wrong with using three verbs in such a parallel construction; but here it is jarringly unidiomatic, because can is not an ordinary verb (see modal verb) and, more importantly, because a native speaker is unlikely to say if he has desire (which is synonymous with wants anyway). —Tamfang (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad translation. Putin avoids speaking in English in public. The original (at 10:40, attention! annoying beep at the start): Я поблагодарил его за эти годы совместной работы и сказал, что в любое время, если он сочтет возможным и будет необходимость и желание, мы будем рады видеть его в России. The right literal translation: "I thanked him for the years of joint work, and said that at any time, if he considers it possible and will have the need and desire, we will be happy to see him in Russia." The middle part, though, will be more literal with "there be a need and desire".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "and has the need and desire". "Will" isn't usually used for hypotheticals like that. Equinox ◑ 05:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"there be a need and desire" is actually better English in this situation, but given the decline in use of the English subjunctive, many native users aren't going to be familiar with it. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Also it must be "he consider", must it not?.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right; I didn't catch it. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox: Initially I tried to translate it myself and right after I had finished, I suddenly found that there were already a highly circulated translation which were quite identical to mine. So I've just copy-pasted it here from some British newspaper. But my last comment is from my initial version. Frankly, I'm not quite sure why the journalists, supposedly native English speakers, used "will" after "if" in that context.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

double bar

Why can't i find the double bar of "ð̳" in the IPA chart (Voiced_alveolar_affricate#Voiced_alveolar_non-sibilant_affricate)?68.150.86.232 (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a part of the standard IPA. See here.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of contractions

There's a relatively small group of sentence constructions where more than one contraction is possible. Consider the following sentence and its possible contractions:

1) I have not been to the store.

a) I haven't been to the store.

b) I've not been to the store.

There are subtle shadings to the meanings, but they're largely equivalent sentences. Here's another:

2) You are not kidding!

a) You aren't kidding!

b) You're not kidding!

Again, basically equivalent; any shadings to the meaning could easily be overcome with word stress spoken aloud. My question is: what drives those choices? In the first one, the (a) line feels more North American and the (b) one sounds more British, but I'm hardly the expert. Contractions are often frowned upon in formal writing, but are there nevertheless different schools of thought being represented here? For example, are kids in X told to contract the negative word ("not") more often than the noun (or pronoun as here)? Matt Deres (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about when "would you not have" contracts down to something that sounds like "woodenchuv" (wouldn't you've). Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 23:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is regional in the UK: b) forms are typical of Scotland and the north of England. [4] Henry ^Flower 05:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]