Language desk
< July 17	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 19 >

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.

July 18

Administer

I was doing today's worLdle (not wordle) and the answer was Svalbard and Jan Mayen - (and whether they count as a separate country is a different question). So I looked them up on WP.

Para 4 has "The archipelago is administrated by the Governor of Svalbard, ..." which to me is artificial and plain wrong. I want to edit it to read "The archipelago is administered by the Governor of Svalbard, ..." which seems better/normal ENGLISH. However I wondered if administrated is correct AMERICAN or if it is used in some some specialist way.

Is it reasonable for me to edit this sentence? -- SGBailey (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You really had to give away today's answer, didn't you? --Wrongfilter (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Administered should be the right way to say it. In fact, that's how it was originally worded until it was changed about 12 years ago.[1] The editor is Norwegian, and probably does not speak English natively. So you could change it. Or I just might. :) --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fixed four occurrences of it. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, "administrate" is a neologism created from backformation via the word "administration". It's a perfectly valid word in informal speech, but many writing guides note that it is entirely redundant with the more established "administer" which is preferred in normal writing. Sources: [2], [3], [4]. There appears to be some usage changes happening very recently differentiating the meaning, where "administer" is used for inanimate objects (to administer a medicine) vs. people (to administrate a hospital), but this distinction is not universal and still has not become well-used enough to formalize in style guides. This stack exchange discussion notes some of the evolution here, but that it does happen in informal usage does not mean it's valid in the formal register of English. --Jayron 32 17:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coronate (ugh!!) is another case. I dread QE II dying, if only because we'll soon be reading about how King Charles is being "coronated" next week. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jack, when I watched the film Minions, that usage really took me aback. Could folks be afraid that the verb crown might be taken in the "hit on the head" sense? Deor (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise with "orientate". --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Administrate" is not a neologism though, according to the The Columbia Guide to Standard American English https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Columbia_Guide_to_Standard_American/l9g3BAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22administrate%22&pg=PA14&printsec=frontcover. According to this 1996 guide, it's Standard American English and was formed from administratus in the 17th century. Modocc (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also Google and the Oxford gives us:

Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · ad·min·is·trate

/ədˈminəˌstrāt/

verb

verb: administrate; 3rd person present: administrates; past tense: administrated; past participle: administrated; gerund or present participle: administrating

less common term for administer (sense 1).

"the person administrating the database system has left the company" Modocc (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of that is true and not in dispute with what I said. That a word is well known and in common usage does not mean it is appropriate to use in a formal register. There are many well-attested words that are still inappropriate to use in formal contexts, and administrate is but one of them. --Jayron 32 18:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether its use is appropriate or not, I primarily addressed your unsourced claim that "administrate" is a neologism with better references. Modocc (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be replaced by someone who will administer the database. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My personal bugbear is "commentate". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a decent enough word in British English. Do you mean when misused in place of "comment"? Bazza (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that today in a Guardian headline [5], looks okay to me. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should/would

Whereas "I would be very pleased to attend" is the usual form these days, it was once "I should be very pleased to attend". The "should" version seems to belong to olde-worlde-speake, upper crust talk, that sort of thing. The word "should" now seems reserved for a less categorical version of "must". Has "I should be pleased" completely died out, and if not, where is it still common? What explains the general transition from should to would? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion at Shall and will#Should and would is that there is an ambiguity about the use of should arising from its use to mean "ought to". DuncanHill (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This forum thread suggests a BrEng and AmEng difference in usage. The "should" example sounds more formal to me, but not markedly old-fashioned. Alansplodge (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way I think of it, "should" is the conditional mood of "shall", whereas "would" is the conditional of "will". (They can also be the simple past, but that's not important right now.) So if "shall" is in your active vocabulary as the unmarked form in the first person, then "should" is likely to be, as well. --Trovatore (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shall, or whatever the word was, had a sense of "debt or obligation" in Old English, too. This repurposing of should to indicate speaking in the first person was a trendy Middle English innovation. Goddam kids, distorting the language. Card Zero (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still a BE/AE difference. Responding to the dinner invitation:

"I should be glad to join you for dinner on Friday." (BE)
"I would be glad to join you for dinner on Friday." (AE)

Mathglot (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first one sounds like the way they would say it on Downton Abbey. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In AmEng, the first one sounds like it's being used as a way of introducing a counterfactual. If you say in AmEng "I should be glad to join you for dinner on Friday." the implication is that you actually aren't glad. "Should..." in AmEng often implies conditions not yet met. "Your room should be clean..." "You should call your mother..." etc all mean the condition after the "should" has not been met. --Jayron 32 11:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Would" as a form of past tense

The lede of Cartoon Network and LGBT representation contains the phrase The role of Cartoon Network shows in LGBTQ representation would continue in the 2020s..., where "would continue" is forming some kind of past tense. This is a construct I've seen in numerous Wikipedia articles. Does it have a name? Is my burning desire to reach for the "edit" button and replace it with "continued" righteous, or ignorant? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "future in the past"; it doesn't mean exactly the same as the past. Rather, it's an action that will happen later than the action being described. It's not to everyone's taste, but I wouldn't recommend "fixing" it except where it is genuinely getting in the way of something. --Trovatore (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say instead that it's an action that happened later than the action being described. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prospective aspect. In narrative journalism or narrative history it can keep the story anchored to a point in time that's different from the reader's present. In an encyclopedia article it could make sense when we're talking about a person's statement or belief at a particular time. In Roberto Merhi we have "On 9 March 2015, the Manor Marussia team announced that Merhi would drive in the Australian Grand Prix, alongside Britain's Will Stevens.[8] However, Marussia did not compete in Australia due to a technical problem." The "would" is anchored to the announcement, and it doesn't match what "did" happen. In some articles, Wikipedia ends up using this kind of construction because public announcements and press releases are convenient sources, even if they aren't particularly important in themselves. It might be possible to improve the writing by shifting the focus from the announcement to the event itself. --Amble (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without studying them carefully, I suggest that the articles on future in the past and prospective aspect need to be linked to each other or possibly even combined. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you all – I have learnt something! I agree that the prospective aspect makes sense in Amble's example above, more so than in the one I linked where the event is just the next in a sequence. Re 174's suggestion, I've added "See also" sections to those two articles, which I agree perhaps ought to be merged. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For EEng's take on the issue (that I happen to agree with), see WP:INTOTHEWOULDS and the discussion that preceded it. No such user (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for pointing to that. "Would" abuse drives me batty. And this one is indeed magnificent; you'll never be able to unsee it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I don't understand, this practice seems common in the articles on Australian football clubs. I just randomly picked the Western Bulldogs for a look, and found 27 instances of "would". These commence with "The 1924 premiership would be Footscray's last in the VFA." (The club has since changed its name.) We also have "...the Bulldogs would only win five more games for the season", "The Bulldogs would again feature in the finals in 1998", "Bontempelli would be supported by a leadership group which included...", and many similar instances. Simpler language options are pretty obvious in almost every case. I don't know if this practice is common in other sports. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]