Language desk
< June 12	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 13

Free word order

How is it called in linguistics when a language has a free word order (eg the verbs and nouns in a sentence could be rearranged, unlike English), as in Russian for example: надень маску and маску одень ("put on your mask" and "your mask, put it")? Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Types of word orders are discussed in Word order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English needs to rely on word order to indicate subject/object status, etc. (this is sometimes termed being an analytic language) because during the transition from Old to Middle English it lost almost all of the case endings that are still commonplace in other European languages. If you have a case ending to indicate whether a word is a subject or object, the order of words can often be rearranged without changing the meaning. Whereas in English, “I give the man a farm” and “I give the farm a man” mean entirely different things. MapReader (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Formations such as "your mask, put it on" is not unknown in English. I'm reminded of this old Tv commercial for a muffler company. A guy with a noisy muffler pulls up at a stop light, and an attractive woman in the car next to him beckons him to roll down the window. Instead of a flirtation, the woman points and says, "Your muffler - fix it!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think free word order is usually called "free word order", but some linguists prefer the term "pragmatic word order", because often different orderings still convey nuances of meaning (such as what is theme and what is rheme). For example, in Turkish ,Can yaptı means "Can has done it" (or "did it"). If you switch the order, Yaptı, Can, "Can" is still the subject, but the meaning is more like "It was Can who did it". --Lambiam 17:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that a "muffler" is some kind of noise dampening device. In Britain, it's a thick scarf worn to counteract cold and wind. 81.170.80.140 (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, our article muffler begins:

A silencer is a device for reducing the noise emitted by the exhaust of an internal combustion engine. This noise deadening device is especially one forming part of the exhaust system of an automotive vehicle.

I've not seen that in an article lead before. 81.170.80.140 (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence is kind of weird phraseology. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think what they're getting at is that a "muffler" or "silencer" is also something attached to a gun to make it difficult to detect that is being used. Donald Trump was going to ban the supply of them. Any progress there? 81.170.80.140 (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquial English

In colloquial English is it relatively common to drop "do" or "are" in questions (e.g. "you're from China?" instead "are you from China?"). I remember Nicholas Cage's film question "you smoke?", but don't know whether frequent usages would be jarring for a native speaker even in colloquial form. Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such language is, outwith quotes, not suitable for an encyclopedia for the reason you propose, and others such as lack of precision and formality. Britmax (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what Britmax is getting at. Obviously that usage is not proper in formal writing, but the subject is certainly encyclopedic. However, yes, it is relatively common because the unstated words are understood from context. It's kind of a shortening of the language, which is very common in English. Here's another one, often heard in at least the American midwest: "I'm off to the store. Wanna come with?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Not an answer to your question, but for the sake of linking): One term for this type of question is declarative question, mentioned in our article on interrogative, subsection "Intonation and punctuation". ---Sluzzelin talk 11:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in informal speech, such formulations are commonplace. But the key point to note is that, for example, “are” isn’t being “dropped” in a phrase containing “you’re”, but simply contracted such that the “a” isn’t pronounced. Situations where a vowel sound is dropped when words are run together is common in languages across the world.MapReader (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, although such contractions are discouraged in formal writing. The OP also mentioned the line "You smoke?" instead of "Do you smoke?" It's kind of like the milk producers' ads which instead of asking "Do you have milk?" asked "Got milk?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrumph. You mean "instead of asking 'Have you got milk?'". --76.71.5.208 (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From a linguistics perspective, formulations such as “you smoke?” would be seen as a typical feature of a pidgin English, although you are right that they do occasionally crop up in the informal/slang speech of native speakers. MapReader (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the context (for example, uttered in surprise when someone from whom you don't expect it suddenly lights a fag), "You smoke?" can be understood as a declarative question, without invoking a notion of slang. See for instance the question "He does?" here in a dialogue in a register of perfectly standard English. Likewise here for "You can fix it?" --Lambiam 17:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the day when smoking was allowed in British pubs, the question was (in London at least) just "Smoke?". Alansplodge (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Fag?" DuncanHill (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These days it's more like "I'm just going outside to have a couple of fags. And then I'll probably have a cigarette or two." -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only time I have heard the expression "Come with" is when the Jewish man I worked for wanted me to accompany him. I thought it was a construction derived from either Hebrew or Yiddish but apparently not. 81.170.80.140 (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It parallels the construction in German: The verb is mitkommen, and the question is Kommst du mit?. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And of course Yiddish is derived from German. 81.170.80.140 (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although Yiddish is commonly described as derived from German, I think it is better to view it as one of several High German dialect groups. No one would describe High Franconian as German-"derived", but Yiddish is rather similar apart from its vocabulary having been influenced by (Ashkenazi) Hebrew. --Lambiam 11:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of people in the Midwest with German ancestry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would analyze "You smoke?" as simply dropping the "do". The elision of auxiliaries in questions happens a lot in colloquial speech. "You're from China?" is a totally different situation. It's just a question with the word order of a normal statement and a raised tone. The person wants to confirm something and expresses their surprise, disbelief, etc. Applying the first model it would be "(Are) you from China?"--89.246.121.46 (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Siccing dogs"

From the New York Times yesterday: "President Trump has suggested siccing dogs on protesters". [1] I've never heard of "siccing" but I can guess the meaning from the context, is there an etymology? Alansplodge (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge, Etymonline seems to trace it as a mutation from a dialectical variant of "seek". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is this an Americanism, dog-owners jargon, or just something I've failed to notice? Alansplodge (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I first encountered it in either a Garfield or a Peanuts cartoon (almost certainly the former, undoubtedly involving Garfield telling Odie to sic/sic on something), and was similarly baffled, although I also worked it out from the context. Strange how it has never made its way into British English. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It dates to at least 1845 and is a variation on "seek".[2] It used to be a very common American expression, but maybe it's not used so much anymore. As in, "Sic(k) 'em, Rover!" Keep in mind that Trump is in the Baby Boomer generation, and it may have been more common in his younger years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with this. I'm not seeing "sic" being used a lot in media these days. Ah, how I remember Saturday morning cartoons that would occasionally use "sic"... —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this isn't an actual quote from Mr Trump, just the NYT paraphrasing him. Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I had no idea the word was so rare. I am absolutely flabbergasted that y'all aren't familiar with it.--Khajidha (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised, too. The other word that is sometimes used is "sool". But never in the imperative sense. More usually like "If you don't unhand me this instant, I will sool my dogs onto you". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of that either. In Britain, I suppose you would "set" a dog on someone. [3] I'm not sure if this is related to the Irish Setter type of hunting dog, although my understanding is that those dogs merely indicate the presence of game rather than attacking it. Alansplodge (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Sic" is also used in formulations like "I'll sic the law on you" or "I'll sic the police on you". --Khajidha (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all; we live and learn. Alansplodge (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was I thinking a siccing dog was one trained as a sub-editor. A setter is called that because it sets game, that is it marks the position by stopping and pointing its muzzle at it. DuncanHill (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]