Language desk
< August 20	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 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.

August 21

"XXX dilemna" for posts without an answer

When a forum post goes without an answer, it could be for multiple radically different reasons (e.g., the post is so stupid/trolly that none expects answering would help anyone, or the post is so well-written and complete that nothing could be added; or, in the context of the forum/thread, it is so basic that the OP did not RTFM and does not deserve help, vs. it is so complex that none can answer it).

I am pretty sure that effect is named "[name of a person who formulated it]'s dilemna" and we have an article about it, but I cannot remember the name and Google does not help since the keywords are pretty generic. Anyone remembers that? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new one on me, but apparently it's called Warnock's dilemma. --Antiquary (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved

Less vs. Fewer

I know the grammatical rule about which should be used in what situation. But is there any actual advantage to this rule? Is there any actual ambiguity or loss of information or confusion caused by saying (for example) "9 items or less"? Iapetus (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you mean the "rule" according to which "fewer" can only be used with plurals. "Nine items or fewer" is no more precise or informative than "nine items or less". I suppose that if one racked one's brains one could come up with some context in which "fewer" had an edge. For a (feeble) start: "I ate fewer fish than her" makes it unambiguous that she and I each had two or more fish, and that we weren't, say, eating chunks out of a single tuna or other monster fish. -- Hoary (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] Theoretically, yes; practically, very little (unsurprising, given that many languages do without the distinction). There is a difference in meaning between, for example, "fewer than three bottles of milk", which means one or two bottles, and "less than three bottles of milk", which means any quantity of milk less than three bottles, which could be e.g. two and a half bottles. But the main practical advantage is that it makes grammar nazis feel big. Henry ^Flower 10:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in the past, grammatical prescriptivists tried to establish a rule where one of the words was used only for countable items (natural numbers) like jugs, while the other was used only for measurable items, like volume of milk. People who actually use English on a daily basis mostly ignored those people, and use the terms mostly interchangeably. If you want to make a distinction, fewer is more common to use with countable items, but using less with countable items isn't wrong either. --Jayron 32 13:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should distinguish the register of discourse. In everyday discourse constructions like “less cars” are widely used, but I would hypothesize that in high-level contexts (like well-respected magazines, say, or books by well-respected authors) it would be rare.

In defense of “less cars” using the same word as “less coffee”, note that the opposites of these use the same word – “more cars”, “more coffee” – suggesting that confusion in meaning is probably rare. Loraof (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there could be contexts where a difference in degree could not otherwise (easily) be distinguished from a difference in quantity, though none springs to mind. —Tamfang (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

affect/effect

Wouldn't English be better off without the distinction in spelling between affect and effect? If only one spelling existed, is it conceivable that there could ever be any confusion? This source says There are five distinct words here. OK, but what is accomplished by maintaining two separate spellings? Bus stop (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You think one word with five meanings would be clearer than two words with five meanings between them? Henry ^Flower 14:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of clarity. It is a matter of simplicity. Wouldn't usage in every instance indicate meaning? Is the spelling distinction necessary? Bus stop (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are pronounced differently? We could just make every word in English pronounced the same, and then distribute all several million meanings on that one word. How would that work? Ook. --Jayron 32 14:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In slurred speech the distinction is barely there yet the meaning may be known with no ambiguity because the usage provides the cue as to the intended word. Is there any logic for the two distinct spellings between affect and effect? Or is the distinction just the remnant of the origin of the language and holding no particular justification in current usage? Bus stop (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usage does not always indicate meaning. A politician, for example, may be said to "affect change" or to "effect change". These have different meanings. If they were both spelled the same, how would the difference in meaning be discerned? --Viennese Waltz 14:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these have different meanings, but spelling is never necessary to indicate which meaning is intended. The context of any sentence reveals the intended meaning. Bus stop (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. --Viennese Waltz 15:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of an actual sentence in which it matters how the words in question are spelled? Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where such spelling indicates a distinction in pronunciation. --Jayron 32 15:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds correct. But a distinction in meaning does not seem to be a possibility. And isn't the distinction in pronunciation merely following the distinction in meaning? So we get back to the same question—why the distinction in spelling if meaning is the same no matter how it is spelled? Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "a distinction in meaning does not seem to be a possibility"? Affect and effect have distinct meanings. "She spoke with great affect" and "She spoke with great effect" mean unrelated things. The first means "She spoke in a markedly pretentious manner" and the second means "She spoke in a way that caused change to happen" --Jayron 32 15:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say confusion between different meanings. Yes, you gave an acceptable example: "She spoke with great affect" and "She spoke with great effect". Yes, they "mean unrelated things." That is correct. But that sentence may be unrealistic. I think a real test would involve the actual examination for possible ambiguity of actual sentences in use as opposed to contrived examples. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See below. I think we've agreed that it's possible, however unlikely it is to occur in practice, for the spelling to be useful in resolving ambiguity. › Mortee _talk 15:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly "her voice had a striking [a/e]ffect". Either it's affected or effective. Again, different. › Mortee _talk 14:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context tells you the difference. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. --Viennese Waltz 15:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of an actual sentence in which it matters how the words in question are spelled? Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I gave one. It's likely, as you say, that nearby sentences would resolve the ambiguity, but the spelling distinction is helpful especially if the context is only provided by later sentences ("Her voice had a striking affect. She seemed almost sarcastic." vs "Her voice had a striking effect. The room fell silent."), as it reduces the cognitive load on the reader, who would otherwise need to hold two ideas at once until they read further. › Mortee _talk 15:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great—thanks. That is an acceptable illustration of an instance in which spelling makes a difference. And thanks for the link to cognitive load. Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: 'Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo'...?

--CiaPan (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware that buffalo have been known to buffalo. (And the bison in northern New York State are the worst.) Just the other day I was waiting on line at the supermarket checkout when I overheard a customer saying to the clerk "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo". Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ook! --Jayron 32 15:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aus English

In a report by the SMH on political matters Down Under I read "Who voted for who?" Admittedly, I am an ESL speaker, the SMH is not a medium for semi-literates and I have left the Anglosphere almost 30 years ago. Nevertheless, I consider the 2nd "who" to be in the objective case. The sentence, in my linguistic "feeling", should read "who voted for whom". What is the proper usage? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The joys of having a language with loose rules! Use either. Pedants like me try to keep "whom" alive, although I wouldn't be so prescriptive as to correct those who prefer "who" as an object. Have a read of Whom. Bazza (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "whom" seems to be on the way out in general. I'd think "whom" in that situation but might write "who" anyway if I worried about seeming pretentious or snooty, which in most real-life circumstances I would. › Mortee _talk 14:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because grammatical function in English is marked more by word position within a sentence, there is a tendency in English to reduce morphological complexity where such distinctions are redundant or unneeded. Redundant pronouns seem to be particularly ripe for elimination in English, we used to have a full set of second person pronouns as other languages did, back when English maintained T-V distinction. That was dropped several hundred years ago in most dialects. Object/Subject forms seem to be the next ones to go. The subject form of "you" went out with the T-V distinction in most dialects (ye), and it looks like the object form of "who" (being "whom") is in the process of being dropped. --Jayron 32 15:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. At the moment we're in a grey zone where some of us feel uncomfortable collapsing the who-whom distinction but there's now a tonal distinction between the two options: marking the distinction comes off as high-falutin'. › Mortee _talk 15:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In simple terms: English, a reasonably complex tool, is being dumbed down because millions of illiterate proletarians need to understand TV? Thou must be jesting, Yorick. Oops, I forget that the obscure Bard was just a pretentious and snooty elitist wanker.
Fortunately, so am I. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has not been dumbed down. The rules have changed over time. They are different rules than we've had in the past. Different is not a synonym for "worse". --Jayron 32 15:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: "The case, as it were, is getting stronger against whom. Except in the most formal language — think courtrooms and prayers — this little word may not survive. For whom, the bell tolls". From In the court of common usage, an old pronoun is losing its case in The Economist, published in March 2018. Alansplodge (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also: "Firstly, in modern English usage it ["whom"] is considered rather formal and old-fashioned, although it does still sometimes appear in academic and official forms of writing. 'Who' is the modern equivalent that can be used either formally or informally and in spoken and written forms". A learner in England wants to know what the rules are for using 'who' and 'whom'. from the BBC World Service. Alansplodge (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense, it is valid to argue that the language has been dumbed down. These changes generally only begin because someone doesn't know what the rules are. This tends to come from having had a lower than standard of education than was had by those who use the language "correctly". So perhaps less well educated, rather than dumb. But it doesn't usually happen because of any conscious or rational thought about changing the rules. It happens because of ignorance, in the literal sense. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Economist article argues that it's part of a process of "dumbing-down" (if you will) which has been ongoing for a thousand years, as originally all English pronouns had case endings. "Whom" is the last vestige. Alansplodge (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean: I/me, we/us, he/him, she/her. and they/them still exist... AnonMoos (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but ye, thou, thy, thine, etc. don't. --Jayron 32 13:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they do. They're a bit "marked", of course. --Trovatore (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the point, right? They exist in specific, marked, dialects that are rarely the recognized, common, in-use dialect. They exist because mostly of historical memory (i.e. people still read early-modern English like the King James Bible or Hamlet) and so the English-speaking culture still retains some knowledge of those words). However, in most English dialects, those archaic terms are not part of the standard level of discourse. They're really a form of literary language. Other languages have these marked, literary, historical forms too. I think of the Passé simple in French, a verb tense that almost never appears in spoken French; it marks the speaker in the way using "thou" and ending words with "eth" does for English speakers. French speakers are aware of the passé simple, they just don't use it in speech. Similarly, English speakers are aware of words like "thou" and "ye", they just don't use them, except to mark their speech. --Jayron 32 18:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see the full complexity of the Old English language versions of "who" and "whom" which the linked Economist article was referring to, see Old English interrogative pronouns. Alansplodge (talk)

In any case, if someone uses "whom" in any systematic way at all, then he or she would use "whom" when the word directly follows a governing preposition... AnonMoos (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fellas, liberal use of whom can help you get laid. Nuff said? -- Hoary (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Whom!" is my The Who/Wham! cover band. —Tamfang (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]