Language desk
< August 10	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 12 >

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.

August 11

Possessive of film character name with postfixed appositive actor name

The film on TV had this one-line synopsis (for A Star is Born (1976 film)):

A boozing rock star's (Kris Kristofferson) career falls as fast as his unknown lover's (Barbra Streisand) begins to rise.

Part of me rebels at this, rather strongly. I'm thinking wise-ass retorts in my head, such as:

Oh, is that KK-parenthetical an adjective modifying career? Q: "What kind of career is it?" A: "It's a 'KK-career'! "

And, Q: "Who owns that KK-career?" A: "Why, boozing-rock-star owns that KK-career!"

And I kind of want to reword it, like this:

A boozing rock star (Kris Kristofferson)'s career falls as fast as his unknown lover (Barbra Streisand)'s begins to rise.

That sounds right to me, but I'm pretty sure that has little support in print. I started thinking about why I like the second one better, and what I came up with, is that the serial text loses the parsing path I took to get there, which I think is this:

A boozing (rock star (Kris Kristofferson))'s career falls as fast as his unknown (lover (Barbra Streisand))'s begins to rise.

Now, it makes sense: noun phrases can take possessives, and the -s is appended to noun phrase (rock star (Kris Kristofferson)) and to (lover (Barbra Streisand)). (I've left out another level of parentheses which should include boozing and unknown, for simplicity.) whereas the first one parses as... couldn't do it; it doesn't parse, for me. It just kinda "looks good", because I'm used to seeing apostrophe-s typograpically attached to a name or noun phrase like rock star (or boozing rock star), and not to a more complex one that includes an appositive.

A couple of questions here:

Is there a name for this? I know that the parenthetical term is an appositive, but I'm not sure if there are style or usage manuals which give a name to the situation here (whether or not parentheses, commas or another typographic convention is used), i.e., this:
(NOUN PHRASE (APPOSITIVE NOUN-PHRASE)) APOSTROPHE-S
Is my impression accurate that reliable sources never or rarely do it his way? Why is that?
If yes to #2, do you think they are "right", or is this purely a stylistic convention, and logic doesn't play into it?
Which one sounds better to you?
Does it look—or sound—any better to you, if the appositive delimiters are em dashes instead of parentheses?

I swear, when I started out there were only two questions... Well, this is the language board, not the math board; that's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it... Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The English possessive started out as a noun suffix (genitive case inflection). In some cases, it can now be attached to the end of noun phrases ("The king of England's hat", or even "The woman I saw yesterday's purse" informally), but I'm not sure the construction you referred to is a single phrase, rather than two separate phrases in apposition... AnonMoos (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answers to your questions, but I would avoid the problem by rewording the sentence thus: "The career of a boozing rock star (Kris Kristofferson) falls as fast as that of his unknown lover (Barbra Streisand) begins to rise." Just take out the possessives et voilà. --Viennese Waltz 07:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would run with your first rewording, just losing the parentheses and the first article:

Boozing rock star Kris Kristofferson's career falls as fast as his unknown lover Barbra Streisand's begins to rise.

I assume that the brackets are intended to indicate that the names are of actors rather than characters; in this context they seem unnecessary to me. 'Boozing rock star Kris Kristofferson' works as a noun phrase, describing an acted part, which can happily accept a possessive 's; likewise the co-star's role. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 19:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the brackets are unnecessary. Firstly, their use in this way is a well-established convention for film-plot descriptions; and secondly, omitting them results in text that, taken literally, states that the actual named individual are (or are being portrayed as) a boozing rock star and an unknown lover. This could be quoted out of context, and could even be construed as libellous. I would support Viennese Waltz's version. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.196.45.159 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In informal writing I would be happy to use 's after a parenthesized appositive. The 's ending is really a clitic, not an inflection, which is why people say things like "the man I bought my car from's wife"; this is just another example. But in the formal writing of an encyclopedia, that won't fly, and it's necessary to find another wording, such as the one Viennese suggested. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a two-dimensional set of relationships trying to fit in one-dimensional language; you have to go all round the houses to fit all the connections in a linear sentence.

Kris Kristofferson's boozing rock star with a falling career character's unknown lover with a rising career's actress is Barbra Streisand

Note: to avoid accusations of libel, I wish to make it clear that one- and two-dimensional refer only to the semantic structures, and not in any way to the acting. I have not, in fact, seen the film. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 12:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word "actress" inserted by Verbarson is not in the original, with the result that the version makes no sense. Verbarson's caveat re libel applies equally to Viennese Waltz's version. The original version steers clear of that risk. Entertainment copywriters know their job - they write the way they do for a reason. 92.23.217.220 (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phonotactics database

Is there any phonotactics database? I don't find any such database. I would like to know what are most common phonotactic restrictions in European languages. 40bus (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems no one has identified one yet (and maybe no one's looked in the right spot), simply starting such a database in an open format (say for just the Romance languages) seems like an excellent publishable MA, or even BA/BS linguistics project. If I were back in university again, and had the power to order someone else to do it for me, I would. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the origin of the term "video" as used to describe visual media?

I understand from Wiktionary that the word is derived from the Latin videō, meaning "I see", but I'm wondering when and ideally by whom this usage was coined. Thanks in advance! 69.174.144.79 (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest I've been able to find is in a US Army manual from 1944 (here), which states (talking about a radar system) "the video-detection and amplifying channels included in the system provide signals for the indicator system" - the indicator system is a cathode-ray oscilloscope. Not exactly the current usage, but related. Mikenorton (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In common use when talking about television by 1945 - see here. Mikenorton (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, by 1949 there was a television show called Captain Video and His Video Rangers. So it was certainly in wide enough usage to be digestible by the public. Or perhaps in 1949 it was still enough of a technical sounding term that it gave that show a more science fiction feel, as opposed to the hokeyness it has to my millennial ear. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly older than 1944. Taking a quick look at Newspapers.com (pay site) just for 1943, I see references to "video" as a synonym for television. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the OED Online, the earliest use of "video" as an adjective is from the Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers in 1934. The passage refers to "video frequency (picture frequency)" and "the video signal". As a noun, the earliest use is from Wireless World in 1935: the quotation attributes the coinage to "Americans" who "were beginning to take ‘audio’ away from its original use in conjunction with ‘frequency’ and... were toying with the idea of ‘video’ as its complement." The OED does not show the author of either of these passages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.81.219 (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thanks. I saw, but didn't really process, the note of formation by analogy to audio mentioned on Wiktionary. How clever people were back then. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]