Language desk
< March 16	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 18 >

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.

March 17

Sequence of tenses for abstract statements

What is the correct sequence of tenses in English when I need to state what generally (i.e. not in a temporal frame) happens after a previous action, expressed in a subordinate clause? I need this for technical writing, so let me explain with appropriate examples:

The client reads the new configuration after the server is restarted.
The client reads the new configuration after the server has been restarted.
The client reads the new configuration after the server had been restarted.

From the time point of the client's reading the configuration, the server must have been restarted at some time in the past... so it seems I need some kind of past or present perfect tense... But then, I'm not describing the situation from the time point of now, so present tense feels right. There are some hints in Sequence of tenses#English: Batman said that he needs a special key for the Batmobile. – This option is more likely to be used when the circumstance being expressed remains equally true now as it did when the speech act took place, as well as in English conditional sentences (but then, this is not a true conditional). I'd like to hear advice from (near-)native speakers. No such user (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The middle sequence of tenses conveys that that the server must have been started before the reading takes place. The last one would go with an account of what happened in the past: "The client read ...". Dbfirs 11:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is also good, if the meaning is "The server is restarted, and then the client reads the new configuration", with emphasis on the latter action. Loraof (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence 3 is definitely wrong. "Had been" refers to an even earlier time than the time context of the first part of the sentence. It would make sense only if it said "The client read the new configuration after the server had been restarted." Here, "read" is in the past tense and "had been" refers to an even earlier time. Americans in particular seem to have no clue how "had been" operates and seem inclined to use it for any action in the past when just the past tense is appropriate. I am a native English speaker. Akld guy (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks, everyone. No such user (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The third sentence is an example of what used to be called the pluperfect tense and is now called something else, as explained here:

How far does this revisionism extend? Have the Latin pluperfect and perfect tenses been renamed? In a phrase like "we have scotch'd the snake, not killed it" what are the "ongoing consequences"? What would be different if the speaker had said "We have scotch'd, not killed the snake"? 86.176.99.103 (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The snake sentences bear no relation whatsoever to sentence 3, and the posting of it here is probably an indication of just how little Americans in particular understand the concept. Akld guy (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly Americans who live in Richmond upon Thames. —Tamfang (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy: not only are your statements ignorant, bigoted and offensive; and your inability to geolocate an Englishman laughable; you are simply flat out wrong. The use of the pluperfect depends upon an overall context. (See sequence of tenses.) We don't know what else has been communicated. (See pragmatics) Perhaps the overall context is "First the user makes sure the computer has been powered off and on. Once the computer has been rebooted after 15 minutes, the client [then] reads the new configuration after the server had been restarted."

Unfortunately there's no profit in discussing the "right way" or the "right word" in situations like this. We need the full context, and opining, rather than quoting RS's is bootless OR. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said "it's probably" an indication, leaving open the possibility that the poster might not be an American. It's been my observation that Americans and many others have no clue how "had been" or "had-insert verb" operates. That's not bigotry, it's a simple statement of fact. The way it operates is that it follows on from a statement that is in the past tense and indicates an even earlier action. Many, many people use the simple past tense instead. Your reconstruction of the sentence actually illustrates my point! Your second sentence should read "Once the computer has been rebooted after 15 minutes, the client [then] reads the new configuration after the server has been restarted." Had been is inappropriate there. Akld guy (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll accept that qualification and withdraw the ire of my response. Basically, most non-illiterate Americans use the pluperfect just as well as Brits, if not better. Brits seem to have lost the ability to use the subjunctive (I insist he is here, versus I insist he be here) but that's tat for titting.

For geolocation, check a user's contributions, then click geolocate and it will tell you where their server is, within about 50 miles of their actual residence. I won't exactly apologize, but I think you can understand why I might find the constant "how stupid Americans are" trope worth a tantrum. And yes, I am gay, and voted for Trump.

Finally, yes, if all that is said in an entire conversation is one non-compound sentence, you cannot use the pluperfect. But the issue is like asking, is the proper word "roof" or "ceiling"? Without a much fuller context, the question is moot, as are far too many "which is correct?" questions on this desk. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For readers whose English is not good, "roof" is the upper exterior covering of a building. Rain and snow fall on it. "Ceiling" is the upper surface of a room. Lights and chandeliers hang from it. Akld guy (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically brought up that example, since "techo" means both roof and ceiling in Spanish. I could have brought up suelo, which means soil, floor and dirt in Spanish. There is also the fact that Spanish has at least three or more words "wall" that means things like indoor wall, outdoor wall, and garden or defensive wall. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take/bring home

Paul and Jane go out. After the date, he takes her home After the date, he brings her home Whose home is it in each case? Or is it ambiguous.Llaanngg (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's ambiguous. "Take" is more likely to her home and "bring" is more likely to his or their home, but you don't know for sure without context. If it was previously revealed that they lived together, then your two statements would be equivalent. --Thomprod (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Bring" is used when the perspective is from a person who is present in the home. "Take" is from the perspective of someone who is elsewhere. So, if events are happening in the home and it is the focus of this part of the situation, "brings" is appropriate. Otherwise, the action is taking place external to the home and "takes" is appropriate. A parent waiting expectantly at home would wait for the boyfriend to bring the daughter home. A barman in a pub would expect the boyfriend to take her home. The parent and barman can exchange locations without the need to change the word, so the word alone does not indicate whose house it is. It only indicates the place where the expectant person is situated. Akld guy (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me that the OP might be asking whether it's possible to tell whether it's the boyfriend's or girlfriend's house that they are going to. No, the presumption in English is that taking or bringing home refers to her home, not his, unless stated otherwise or unless already indicated by context. A different construction would be needed to indicate his home -> After the date, he takes her to his home. Once again, "take" is used because the perspective is from a person relating the story who is not present in the boyfriend's home. Akld guy (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the inference is that "takes" means her home, while "brings" implies his, but that's only an inference. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old map translation (1700s Latin/French/Spanish/Italian)

A 1733 map published I beleive in France, contains the following, which I would like help with:

"America septentrionalis concinnata juxta observationes dnn. academiae regalis scientiarum et nonnullorum aliorum et juxta annotationes recentissimas per G. de L'Isle, geographum Venalis prostat Augustae Vindelicorum apud Tobiam Conr . . . Lotter geogr . . . et calgogr . . ." [1]

Also, if anyone can read anything else in the map "Annotatio"? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the text is Latin. "North America, prepared in accordance with the observations of Their Lords the Royal Academy of Sciences and many others, and in accordance with the most recent accounts. By G. de L'Isle, Geographer. Offered for sale at Augsburg by Tobias Conrad Lotter, Engraver." (I'm not entirely sure about "Their Lords" for the abbreviation "Dnñ:".) If I have time later, I'll do the "Annotatio". Deor (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the map itself seems basically the same as the first one shown in our article on Delisle. Deor (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That map has the inscription in French - and the "dnn." replaces the normal abbreviation of "messieurs" = gentlemen. Wymspen (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much - sadly the

file (right) at Commons with a large description - does not seem to translate - If you have time to do the "ann." that would be great. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Annotatio" says, "Since many things in this map, as also in others that have been published by this author, differ from things that are found in records that have hitherto appeared, it must be cautioned that this has not occurred through negligence and that he has set forth the reason for these variations in the New Introduction to Geography." Deor (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "annotations" to "accounts" in my first translation above, as more idiomatic in English. And despite the pencilled notation at the bottom of your map, the date 1733 for it seems somewhat dubious, since Lotter was then only 15 or 16 years old. Deor (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison of the Covens and Mortier edition (printed in Amsterdam, in French, 1708) and the Lotter edition (printed in Augsburg, in Latin, prob. after 1740) shows that the latter is not only an accurate copy and translation of the former, but has indeed some new features intended to bring the map a bit up-to-date. Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia are shown and in Georgia the town of Savannah (established 1733) is shown. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With "Their Lords", were you groping for "Their Lordships"? I'd make it more literally "the Lords of the Academy". —Tamfang (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the abbreviation is probably for domini or domini nostri, so "My Lords" or "Their Lordships" might be better as sort-of-literal translations. Though as Wymspen notes above "the gentlemen of the RSA" would probably be a better idiomatic equivalent for this sort of worn-down honorific. Deor (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early PIE Ergativity?

I have read two books, Desert Language and Linguistic Society Symposium Volume 14 Issue 1: Ergativity in Indo European, and also Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French.

The former concludes that Early PIE was an ergative/absolutive language, while the latter, from pages 48 to 57 works to discredit this claim. Not only that, but one disclaimer used the fact that the Etruscan language has a genitive case, which can be l or s/ś. This would not be genuine evidence that PIE and Etruscan are genetically related, but if they are, PIE couldn't have never been an ergative language, since its genitive case wouldn't have come from any original absolutive or lative case marker. As of yet I am working on an Early PIE translator, and I need help on deciding whether the translator should present the language as an ergative one.

The links to the books are here: http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=dlls

https://books.google.ca/books?id=aiEqn_WQl-8C&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=%22analysis+has+pointed+out+that+ergative+marking+affects+first+of+all+inanimates,+and+only+later+animates.%22&source=bl&ots=UULG_DjtES&sig=2L2FCUeSktbKGMfdlOP4bWP5hEM&hl=en&ei=O2bjSq_WDY7oMca-yb4B&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=onepage&q=%22analysis%20has%20pointed%20out%20that%20ergative%20marking%20affects%20first%20of%20all%20inanimates%2C%20and%20only%20later%20animates.%22&f=false

Idielive (talk) 5:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Idielive -- if you're reading works at that level, then you're kind of expected to have a basic command of relevant facts and to be able to express your own at least semi-informed opinion. I'm not sure there's much point in asking the ref. desk to arbitrate between two groups of scholars (though of course some people here might have their own reasons for favoring or disfavoring the idea of PIE ergativity)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim as the OP reports it is simply wrong. PIE is never described as ergative/absolute--rather some argue that it shows traces of such an origin at the pre-PIE stage. The -s genitive of Kartvelian and Etruscan is quite notable, but not probative. (For laymen, consider that while people, opossums and platypuses are all mammals, Dimetrodons are pre-mammals. Fangs and similar skull structures found in Dimetrodons don't make them mammals, or mammals Dimetrodons.)

This is highly technical, and assumes one knows the difference between comparative linguistics and internal reconstruction. Given the results of the last discussion on Anatolian, I'll refrain from further comment. μηδείς (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]