Language desk
< September 21	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	Current desk >

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.

September 22

"My phone can’t spell for carp"

This site by Grammarly gives "My phone can’t spell for carp" as a fun example for ending emails (with "carp" resulting from the auto-correction of "crap"). Though what I don't get: What exactly is that "for" doing there? (Asking as a non-native speaker ...) Hildeoc (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow links from wikt:for shit, to wikt:for toffee, to wikt:for the life of one, for the etymology. "For" makes slightly more sense in "for the life of one". Mitch Ames (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the development went like for crap ~ for shit < for the love of shit < for the love of God. --Lambiam 08:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitch Ames, Lambiam: Thanks a lot to both of you. I was actually guessing something of that sort, though I was unable to find even a single pertinent entry for "for crap" as such. So is that a common term in fact? Hildeoc (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how common it is, but here are three uses found through GBS: [1], [2], [3]. --Lambiam 10:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: But "for the love of God" is always non-restrictive, whereas "for the life of one" is (without a comma) restrictive. So it would have to be "For carp, my phone can't spell" or "My phone can't spell, for carp", with a comma in either case, and it means the same same as simply "my phone can't spell" - the "carp" is an expletive only that adds no semantic value. Whereas "My phone can't spell even if my life depended on it" adds extra semantic value. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you interpose for the life of one, which does not enter into my putative development? The prepositional phrase for the love of God is frequently used in a non-restrictive sense.^[4][5][6] The prepositional phrase in my phone can't spell for <excrement> also appears to be non-restrictive. --Lambiam 10:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitch Ames: Interesting, but from where exactly do you infer that distinction? Why can't "for the life of one" be regarded as an expletive as well, provided that the meaning conveyed ("even if one's life depended on it") in fact serves nothing but the same purpose of underscoring that the phone really can't spell, [← This comma is advisable here, right?] in an ornate manner? Hildeoc (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the standalone expression "for the love of God" (expressing a negative emotion), but I've never head the standalone expression "even if my life depended on it". Mitch Ames (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why the comma? I might not be a native speaker, but to me it sounds needlessly prescriptive in the second example. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the expression "for crap", meaning you're terrible at something. It's hard to search for, but examples are out there: e.g. "You can't dance for crap.", " I’m a great graphics artist, but can’t code for crap." Clarityfiend (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In all examples, also those I linked to above, the idiom appears to be <someone> can't <perform some task> for crap. --Lambiam 10:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: Thanks again. But didn't you mix up "restrictive" and "non-restrictive" above, considering that apparently all the examples you've linked lack the comma (though invoked by you as cases of non-restrictiveness)?--Hildeoc (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambian: Did you see my above objection? Hildeoc (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The comma rule only applies to relative clauses. When God is referred to in a comma-free way as our loving Father,^[7] the intention is not to distinguish Him from our non-loving Fathers. The modifier can be removed without changing the meaning in an essential way. One cannot set off this non-restrictive modifier by commas. In speech the ambiguity can be resolved by prosodic stress, but in writing one needs the context and common knowledge. --Lambiam 07:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's the old G-rated version, "for the love of Mike" (whoever Mike might be). There's also the Minnesotan expression used by someone who makes a serious mistake: "Oh, for dumb!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike (or in other cases Pete) is simply en euphemism for God. --T*U (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a play on the "can't x for toffee" idiom. DuncanHill (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OED defines "for shit" as Chiefly U.S. In negative contexts: at all; in any way., with the first citation from 1951: We couldn't stomach your outfit for shit. It lists several other citations which don't conform to the "can't perform a task" model: The damn thang(sic) don't fit for shit. and You guys didn't know Drew for shit. The OED surprisingly does not list a similar definition under "crap" but I think "for crap" is just a variant of this use of "for shit". Under "toffee" it has the phrase not to be able (to do a thing) for toffee: to be incompetent at it., with the first citation from 1914: Their opponents cannot ‘shoot for nuts’ (or ‘for toffee’, as one Tommy more expressly put it). The "for shit/crap" phrase seems of somewhat wider applicability than "for toffee", since the former can be used in cases that don't refer to a person's incompetence. CodeTalker (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also "can't _____ worth a shit/crap".--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A similar (but dated) British phrase is "for tuppence" (i.e. "two pence"), an example is here:

...she's a lovely girl but she can't cook for tuppence.

Alansplodge (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But can she cook for Tommy?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha What's the term for rhyming slang without the rhyming? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Non-]restrictive relative clause

In Leonine verse, it says: This "history" is composed in Latin verses, all of which rhyme in the center. But is this really a non-restrictive clause, thus demanding a comma? If you left out "all of", wouldn't you get a genuinely restrictive clause defining a specific kind of "Latin verses"? I'm somewhat confused at present. Hildeoc (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One can divide the information over two sentences without essential change of meaning: This "history" is composed in Latin verses. All of these verses rhyme in the center. This shows that the meaning of the noun phrase Latin verses in this context is not restricted to verses which rhyme in the center; it is additional information. In my opinion, however, the distinction is somewhat artificial. One could likewise split the first part into: This "history" is composed in verses. All of these verses are in Latin. Yet grammarians consider the modifier Latin in Latin verses restrictive. And when it comes to relative clauses, many writers do not strictly adhere to the comma rule. As a way of disambiguation it only works for relative clauses and not for other modifiers, but in practice there rarely is a true ambiguity that is not cleared up by the context. It is one of the many somewhat arbitrary rules that have been invented to make the life of writers more difficult. --Lambiam 22:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: Thank you. But, once again, what if you leave out the "all of" here – wouldn't that actually be a typical example of a restrictive clause? Hildeoc (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Do all Latin verses rhyme in the centre, or is it just the ones referred to in this quote? I have no idea of the answer to that.

If all do, then a comma is required regardless of the "all of". However, I'd recommend removing the "all of", as it introduces an ambiguity. With it, it's not certain whether you're referring to all Latin verses, or just the ones under consideration here. Without it, the meaning is clear.
If only these particular ones do, then you have a choice between:

(a) This "history" is composed in Latin verses that* rhyme in the center. (* you may prefer "which" here), and
(b) This "history" is composed in Latin verses, all of which rhyme in the center. (Comment: Once you choose this version, it can only be "which", not "that"; and it has to have a preceding comma regardless. Yet, as above, the words "all of" introduce an ambiguity, so, again, I'd cut them out and choose (a) instead.)

What this question does is bring to light a tension between two rules that, depending on the truth of the statement and the meaning you're trying to convey, ~~can't~~ may not be able to be satisfied simultaneously. One (the "all of which" version) requires a comma after "verses" in all cases, while the other mandates an absence of comma in certain cases. If those two things meet, it's like matter meeting anti-matter, or an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: Thanks a lot for those profound deliberations on that issue. Are you really sure though that "all of which" always has to go with a comma? Hildeoc (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be pleased to see an example where it's not required. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: This? Hildeoc (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first "all of which" in that sentence needs a comma and the second has one. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To say nothing of the fact that the sentence is otherwise awkward in several ways. Deor (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next try. Hildeoc (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My initial impression is that even native English speakers might write sentences which are dang near incomprehensible... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly awkwardly formulated. The parallel noun phrase all the existing entities shows that the intention is, all entities that have being. It is the only interpretation in which the argument makes any sense; otherwise the sets D and E could coincide and everything collapses. --Lambiam 23:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, troublesome at best. As I see it, you could generally replace the "which" in "all of which" with "them", and hey presto! we have a run-on sentence (= not ok, despite billions of online texts). Same for "some of which", "many of which", "none of which" etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: Am I wrong assuming that your interpretation (which to me differs from Lambiam's restricitve understanding "all entities that have being") is reliant on the fact that the term "entities" already implies existence, thus making the phrase all of which have being tautological (i.e. non-restrictive)? (Otherwise I'm admittedly somewhat at a loss here ...)--Hildeoc (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Medieval Latin philosophical term enti-tas literally means being-hood, it is possible that the author of the text takes the position – and assumes their readers follow them in this respect – that entities by definition have being. In that case the clause is presumably not meant to be restrictive. --Lambiam 14:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hildeoc, we're getting into abstruse territory. I stand by what I said, but perhaps an example would help.

* Electrons, all of which are elementary particles, have interesting properties.

The fact that there's no such thing as an electron that isn't an elementary particle doesn't alter the requirement to precede "all of which" with a comma. In my opinion. And that's nothing to do with restrictive/non-restrictive considerations. It's an inherent requirement of the construction "all of which". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 16:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Limericks

Are limericks an exclusively English form of poetry? I've never come across one in any other language. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. They might be more common in English, but they're not exclusively English. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right; for example, although most of the German limericks quoted in de:Limerick (Gedicht) are translations, it mentions several authors (Georg Bungter, Günter Frorath, Ulrich Roski, Dieter Höss, ...) who wrote original German limericks. -sche (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch article nl:Limerick (dichtvorm) has some original Dutch examples. --Lambiam 22:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And given their name, are they also composed in Gaelic? -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 10:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Reddit thread may give you some leads. --Jayron 32 11:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Limericks are quite popular in Norwegian, partly thanks to competitions frequently arranged by newspapers and not least the national broadcaster company. --T*U (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But there are some people (e.g. Gershon Legman, I think), who stated that only dirty limericks are true ls.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, foreign language limericks might or might not be dirty by themselves, so the point is moot. Anyway, I could mention that limericks also exist in Swedish, both translated and original. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All published German limericks I know off, are clean as f... and about as dreary.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish aren't... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]