Language desk
< April 15	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 17 >

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.

April 16

But, wait...

..."There's more!" -- To me, "There is more" and "there are more" both sound acceptable. Is one preferable over the other, or does it depend on context, or something? -- 136.56.52.157 (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether the object is singular or plural, and remember that uncountable things like "water", "stuff", "food" are considered singular. "There is more food in the kitchen", "There is more space in this room", BUT "There are more apples in that basket", "There are more things I have to show you". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either one could be an independent sentence, right? In that case, would it depend on prior context? For example, "We moved 27 boxes. There [is/are] more." In my specific case, I listed a number of things, then added: "There's plenty more." But, changed it to: "There are plenty more." 136.56.52.157 (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't say "there's more" when the context is countable things like boxes without violating both logic and grammar. That's assuming you know, or believe, there is are more than one box. Hence, "there are more [boxes]". If you know there's only one more box, then it'd be ok to say "There's one more box", or "There's another box". But not just "there's more", because your interlocutor will certainly believe you're referring to plural boxes, despite the singular noun. For uncountable things, "there's more" is fine.

See, when it comes to abbreviated speech, there's a tendency to use "there's" for everything because "there're" is harder to say. But those of us who know better and are not so lazy will never degrade ourselves in such a crass and tawdry manner. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You remind me of my dear mother; may she rest in peace. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure she was an exceptional woman and a fine mother. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]

I'll drink to that. Cheers! [_D --136.56.52.157 (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tailor: I killed seven at one blow! Heckler: ^{Is that}
_{Are these} all? --Lambiam 07:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or Are those all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Cot" in the sense of "cottage"

Wiktionary and other dictionaries list "a cottage or small homestead (archaic)" as one of the meanings of "cot". My questions is, how obscure is it? Would an average native English speaker, in a right context, recognize this word as possibly meaning "cottage"? — Kpalion^(talk) 17:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't (British English). Bazza (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I am hardly average. DuncanHill (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also would (AmE), but I like old poetry, in which the word occasionally appears. (Since this is the reference desk, I'll throw in this ref to the word's occurrences in Wordsworth's poems.) Deor (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I (BE) would recognise it in place-names ending -cot or -cote (eg Didcot), though these have mostly grown far beyond the original homestead. If used about a single building, I would find it unusual, with an archaic feel. It also occurs in words like dovecot(e). -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 20:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would need to see the context of the sentence or paragraph (or essay, etc) where it was used. While I (American English) am aware of it in relation to a cottage, as a long time crossword puzzle addict, I am far more used to seeing it refer to a camp bed or infant bed. MarnetteD|Talk 21:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's something you might expect in a Romantic era poem, but not in any modern British context. BTW, "cot" as a bed in British English always refers to one for a baby and not a camp bed. As a 10 year-old, I was surprised by seeing Nelson's "cot" on HMS Victory, which does actually resemble an outsized baby's cot. Alansplodge (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call that a crib. (AmE) —Tamfang (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. To me it means a specific type of "camp bed" (which is not a phrase I knew outside of its natural meaning) — the kind with a canvas sheet supported by wooden poles through loops in the side, on top of an X-shaped wooden frame. --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that is called a "camp bed" over here; see British Army camp bed which is identical. "You say tomayto..." Alansplodge (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering whether "cot" would have been used for that sort of bed in the British Army a little while ago. "Danny Deever" seems to use it. --Trovatore (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OED has "Anglo-Indian A light bedstead; a charpoy". The latest citation for that usage is Hobson-Jobson, 1886, "In Northern India..Cot..is not in such prevalent European use as it formerly was, except as applied to barrack furniture, and among soldiers and their families." DuncanHill (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would recognize it because of Smilin' Through, which my barbershop chorus worked on for a bit but we really never put in our repertoire. --Trovatore (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all! As for the context, the reason I asked is because I was trying to come up with a transaltion for an old Polish proverb about traditional hospitality, Czym chata bogata, tym rada. The literal meaning is, "what the cottage abounds in, it is happy to share." My goal was to preserve the rhyme in the first part (chata – bogata) and give it a bit of an old-timey feel, so I came up with this: "What the cot has got, it's happy to share." But now I wonder how many people would get what this proverb is supposed to say. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The richer the cottage, the better the pottage.^[a]. (I would not have understood cot.) Mathglot (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Another idea: "what the hut can spare, it is happy to share." But it's a somewhat freer translation. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can have cottage there instead of hut, and it won't harm the scansion. "What the cottage can spare, it is happy to share". Card Zero (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What the cot has got a lot (of). —Tamfang (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know the word as cott with a double t, which would help some people comprehend the meaning. Card Zero (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ See 5th stanza of Goody Blake and Harry Gill, by William Wordsworth

Definite article

The issue of definite articles rears its ugly head once again. Some reliable sources say "friendship of peoples" ([1]), while others say "friendship of the peoples" ([2]) in the same context, as in prison of the peoples. Are both options acceptable or only one of them? Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The English definite article in combination with a plural noun usually means a reference to a definite group of entities, known to the listener. (Compare "I will fry potatoes" with "I will fry the potatoes".) The uses of the term do not refer to any specific definite group of peoples (nations). Rather, it suggest the aspiration to see a friendship of all peoples. Therefore I think the translation "friendship of peoples" is preferable. --Lambiam 20:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've always seen the second concept in the translation form "prison-house of nations". Of course the Russian language does not have articles... AnonMoos (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] See 5th stanza of Goody Blake and Harry Gill, by William Wordsworth

[a]