Language desk
< July 9	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 11 >

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 10

Can "all" apply to exactly two items?

After making this comparison of the Fuller projection and Strebe's Dymaxion-like conformal projection with Tissot's indicatrices at 30° intervals:

I noticed that the last radio button label was "Show all". I was taught to use "both" for exactly two items and "all" for more than two. Is it correct to use "all" for exactly two?

This question relates to this change request.

Thanks,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Both" is more precise, but "all" is not incorrect. Folly Mox (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'd deny the change request, based on "it works, it's not wrong, why change anything?". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As used in mathematical discourse, all can even be used for an empty set of items – as in "all cows that jump over the Moon are adherents of absurdism"; see Vacuous truth. --Lambiam 07:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, of course, "show all" is the standard, widely recognised "all" option used in such choice arrays, so introducing an additional "show both" would add complication and implicitly demand thousands of modifications to existing instances where the separate options happen to number two rather than three or more. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken. Thanks for your responses. I'll withdraw the request. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 20:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps prematurely. While "all" is not incorrect, it is jarring. When a multiple choice test has alternatives A, B and C (and possibly D), in which C represents the choice that each of A nd B is correct, the wording of C is invariably "both of the above (are correct)".^[1][2][3] --Lambiam 11:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could consider it to mean "all of the illustration". Card Zero (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how about in French?

French for 'both' is tou(te)s les deux, i.e. 'all two', parallel to 'all' of any other explicit number. So (I have long wondered) could one say tou(te)s alone for 'both'? —Tamfang (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[French native speaker from France] I would not say 'tou(te)s' but 'les deux'. – AldoSyrt (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, all languages have a specific word for "both", and speakers are expected to use it to signify a set of two. Thus in Portuguese, discussing the answers given by two people interviewed by a roving reporter, the newsreader might say Ambas as pessoas estão certas (Both people are right). He would not say Todas as pessoas estão certas. Note that pessoa is a feminine noun, so the construction is the same whether either or both of the interviewees are male, female or (in this modern age) something else. 2A00:23D0:637:7101:B830:AFE9:88A6:F6F8 (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shed it

What is meaning please for "shed it". As in saying "she has just totally shed it"? Where is this coming from? Is it connected to a "shed load" or something. Thank you. 86.187.167.118 (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Context, please? Initially, I would have interpreted it as a variant of "lost it", i.e. gone crazy. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry yes. This is in shop. Is in South London. It is woman who gets refused buying alcohols. She is throwing all tins down onto floor and is shouting. Shop keeper he saying "She has just totally shed it" or maybe "she just totally shed it", I am unsure. And he must pick up tins. 86.187.167.118 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's "she's just totally shedded"? That would mean she's so drunk that she couldn't make it in her own front door. If it's not that, it sounds like it's related. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shed load itself is ambiguous. In this case it could only refer to "a load that has been shed", with an implication of losing something and hence that she has lost it, and the neat secondary implication of dropping a carried load on the floor. It can't be shedload, which is a noun and means a large amount. Card Zero (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it basically means the same as "she just totally lost it", where "it" is "her mind". Whereas "to lose" can suggest the loss was out of the subject's control, "to shed" suggests agency. It is not idiom I've heard before, though; we need more examples of use. --Lambiam 11:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps bear in mind that people sometimes use expressions that they've misheard or misunderstood, especially those whose first language is not English (apologies if I am typecasting South London shopkeepers there). I have never heard it in London and Google can find me no results in this context. I should wait until you hear someone else using the phrase to confirm that it has a real meaning. Alansplodge (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without her doing it.

As far as that's about her, no question arises. But what about him? Should that be "without him doing it", or "without his doing it"? Is one expression more correct than the other one? More colloqial? More official? More of the spoken language? More of the written language? If that had been about her, I wouldn't have asked about that. 2A06:C701:7446:6900:8D52:270E:FBFE:81BA (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to https://english.stackexchange.com/a/2628

“

…gerunds (as in example 39i) can take either the genitive (his) or the accusative (him) as subject, with genitive being more formal and accusative less formal.

”

Also see Gerund#"Gerund"_clauses_with_a_specified_subject. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 21:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx. 2A06:C701:7446:6900:8D52:270E:FBFE:81BA (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a slight difference in meaning. In the given example:

The cat's licking the cream was not generally appreciated.

may mean

The action of licking the cream by the cat was not generally appreciated.

whereas

The cat licking the cream was not generally appreciated.

may mean

The cat that is licking the cream was not generally appreciated.

cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 21:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in theory there could be that difference. I think it is very unlikely in practice, because few people use the "possessive gerund" in ordinary speech, especially with nouns (I think rather more do with pronouns). So I believe nearly everybody would use and understand your second sentence with the first meaning, and would use a different construction (probably a relative clause) for your second meaning.

I further think that most people would hear your first sentence with a plural and non-possessive "cats" - i.e. with your first meaning but multiple cats. ColinFine (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]