Language desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

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 24

grammar

Is it "the existence of A and B prove X" or "the existence of A and B proves X"? I'm sure there are other examples of this phenomenon. Can anyone advise? Robinh (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Existence is singular, so "proves" is correct, but the combination of A and B is plural so if you miss out the first three words, it would be grammatically correct to say "A and B prove X". Dbfirs 09:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded question from an ESL user:

What rules apply when the subject group reads “A or B”? Is there not - in theory - a distinction to be made between an inclusive and an exclusive OR, similar to the logical disjunction? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From logical disjunction: "A or B" is true if A is true, or if B is true, or if both A and B are true.

[1] claims that " the verb agrees with the closer subject." That is, "Cash or prizes are awarded.", but "Prizes or cash is awarded." I am not sure about this rule. Hofhof (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Concord of the verb" with subjects joined by or/nor is discussed at length by Otto Jespersen in his multivolume Modern English Grammar ("Part II: Syntax. First Volume", sections 6.61-6.64): "When two subjects in the singular are connected by means of or (nor)...grammarians prefer the verb in the sg. ... But extremely often the verb is put in the plural, the idea of plurality prevailing over that of disjunction. In many sentences, or might easily be replaced by and. ... The pl is inevitable if the word nearest to the verb is in the pl". Note that simple formal logic doesn't always govern language usage. AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and since language does not always match formal logic (or, real language does not match what some believe it should logically be), it's best to express OR relationships explicitly, "either A or B (not both)", "A or B or both", "A and/or B", whenever it's important. In spoken language the exclusive OR can be expressed by emphasizing the word too.Hofhof (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I guess I would have intuitively chosen the longwinded / clumsy rephrasing (A proves… and B proves… and A and B prove…). If this turns out to be prolix and verbose, the rule of the closer subject is useful, be it fishy or not. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary, name of items under a headword

A dictionary is composed of headwords and how do you call the items listed under it? --Llaanngg (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the "Guide to the dictionary" in the American Heritage Dictionary 4th edition, there are the main "Entry words", and the "Variants" and "Inflected forms" subordinate to them. Actually, when it comes to Arabic-English dictionaries, only the low-end or quasi-touristy ones mainly use headwords or entry words -- in the serious high-end dictionaries, most non-loanwords are listed under abstract consonantal roots... AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I call the items under the headwords "definitions". Is that what you are asking about? —Stephen (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most people would call them "meanings". The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't call them anything - the examples are just numbered. 2A02:C7F:BE18:CF00:50DC:4A16:B6BA:9408 (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or "senses". —Tamfang (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see this comment:

The terminology they use is "signification, or senses." 2A02:C7F:BE2D:9E00:70ED:E91B:28C3:B28E (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally Sound?

This an exert from Atharva Veda Book 1: HYMN XXXIV, except it has been translated into a form of Early PIE, rendered in IPA. I obtained this from a linguist who apparently has a lot of interesting ideas about PIE, very different from the mainstream ones. It is supposed to sound soft. Would you say this looks like natural? The linguist interprets Early PIE as a language with only two real vowels, a and e. ɐ is an allophone of x, and ə an allophone of h.

Seɐ ālu mels anej breukʷ.

Meleh nu up-ne te áusmi.

Me mel-sweɐdus minég.

Re mels hesi gen.

Dḷku mes, meli dumbi.

Nu sweɐdusme meli wreɐdeh.

Mes ais dʱesi,

Nu mes nu mé-me eynes hestxe.

Note that he gave me no translation.

Idielive (talk) 2 10:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here has any way of answering this as long as you don't provide any information about the reconstruction principles, the intended words, the Sanskrit original, etc. You are wasting your own and our time with these kinds of postings. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And also, the spelling of excerpt is excerpt. Akld guy (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is all about honey (mels, meleh, mel-sweɐdus, etc.). Mels = from honey, meleh = with honey, mel-sweɐdus = sweet as honey. —Stephen (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god for you Stephen G. Brown! Idielive (talk) 2 4:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDA8:E90:258A:3F44:E7C7:8B4B (talk)

From honey sprang this Plant to life; with honey now we dig thee up.
 Make us as sweet as honey, for from honey hast thou been produced.
My tongue hath honey at the tip, and sweetest honey at the root: .
 Thou yieldest to my wish and will, and shalt be mine and only mine.
My coming in is honey-sweet and honey-sweet, my going forth:
 My voice and words are sweet: I fain would be like honey in my look.
Sweeter am I than honey, yet more full of sweets than licorice:
 So mayst thou love me as a branch full of all sweets, and only me.
Around thee have I girt a zone of sugar-cane to banish hate.
 That thou mayst be in love with me, my darling never to depart.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av/av01034.htm Wymspen (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]