The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Language desk
< June 13	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 15 >

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.

June 14

Subject-object-verb construction

I know that the subject-object-verb construction is a rare construction in the English language, but I want to know why the following sentence is grammatical or at least accepted as "correct".

I thee wed. (Note the objective pronoun is placed between the subjective pronoun and the verb.)

Are there more examples? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is correct because it comes from a time when such a construction was more common in English. See Early Modern English. That actual usage is not really SOV, rather it is probably a borrowing from the French enclitic form, seen in phrases such as "Je t'aime" (I love you). As you move backwards in time through English, you find that it becomes closer and closer to its Norman French. The word "thee" itself is archaic in modern English because modern English has lost the T–V distinction in its second person pronouns; though the difference still existed in Early Modern English. --Jayron32 03:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aside here: It's my understanding that the T–V sense of thou/you was operative for a rather short time, a century or so only. Before that, it was just singular/plural; no distinction of familiarity or social standing implied. Even in Shakespeare, it seems fairly randomly applied; the same person will call the same other person thou or you with no clear reason for the choice. (But the distinction of number is rigorously observed, in the sense that multiple persons are never addressed as thou.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I create a phrase in English based on modern French in the enclitic form, then does that mean that people will accept my sentence as correct nowadays? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An ordinary sentence would look weird unless it was being done for some sort of poetic reason. Jayron mentioned "Je t'aime" which would literally translate as "I thee love", which sounds weird. "I thee wed" sounds OK only because we're used to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Bugs says, while it technically isn't incorrect, it would appear/sound weird in almost every context except poetry or song lyrics like this old hymn for example. But even in modern poetry/lyrics, such a construction can appear amateurish or indicate the writer is trying too hard to make a rhyme (unless Yoda you are)..--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 05:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also "I thee wed" is understandable despite displacement of normal word order because "thee" is marked as an object pronoun. Only the personal pronouns are thus marked in English, so you can get away with violations of word order (but still sound weird). Using nouns, e.g. "Man dog bites", won't do.Djbcjk (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's more to it than that. "me" is similarly an object but "you me bore" sounds distinctly wrong/Yodaish. There's something special in "thee", as an anachronism that's still widely recognised, which in particular can still be used in marriage vows:

With this Ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow

That's almost a language lesson in itself, with repetition to get the point across. No wonder many of us recognise "I thee xxx" as a valid construction.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The real answer is that all these "I thee whatever" phrases is that they are idiomatic, which means roughly that, as phrases, they take on a meaning which cannot be analyzed grammatically using standard rules of English, as we understand it now. They used to be non-idiomatic, standard English, back in the day, but they are not currently so, which is why they are generally understood idiomatically... --Jayron32 00:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

guessing that Jayron meant "not really SOV" —Tamfang (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so corrected--Jayron32 00:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About your earlier point, that it was originally modelled on the French use of proclitics: I don't really think so; Middle English had its own native pattern, inherited from Old English, whereby several pronouns and other light elements could cluster in front of the verb irrespective of the otherwise V2 sentence order. Anthony Warner has written quite a bit about the grammatical analysis. It was never as strict as in French, although it's typologically a similar phenomenon (but developed in parallel, not borrowed). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Translation request: "reciting the Catholic scriptures" in Chinese

I was looking up "nian jing" on Yabla Chinese, and I got "recite or chant Buddhist scripture". Okay. The jing part means "scripture", and the "nian" probably means "recite". Apparently, it does not explicitly say "Buddhist". Still, can this term still be used for reciting/chanting the Catholic scriptures? Or is this term exclusively for reciting/chanting the Buddhist scriptures? I mean, I looked up other terms too, and it appears that Catholicism and Buddhism have separate and distinct terms in Chinese for monastery, monk, and nun. Before, I thought 和尚 and 尼姑 meant "monk" and nun", until I searched on Yabla, and I noticed the insertion of Buddhist. There are separate terms for Catholic monks/nuns. So, using different terms is possible. By the way, why does Yabla Chinese report that the Holy Bible and the Confucian Classics have the same set of Chinese characters (圣经 Shèng jīng)? How do modern Chinese people distinguish the two? Note: I am pretty sure that Catholics recite and chant the holy scriptures. They do so with rosaries over and over again. Each prayer in the rosary is thoroughly biblical; therefore, I'm pretty sure that I got that correct. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jing (经) is kind of a general term for a classic work or a Scripture. It's been used to refer to Confucian classics (诗经，易经，书经), Buddhist sutras (法华经), and to the Holy Bible (圣经). However, the phrase "nianjing" actually is a Buddhist term that's been used for quite a while. I don't know any Chinese Catholics, but I've never heard such a phrase being used among Chinese Protestants. As for shengjing, nowadays it almost always refers to the Holy Bible of Christianity. Historically it did refer to Confucian works, but we refer to those now as the Thirteen Classics (十三经). bibliomaniac 1 5 06:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Our Father is a Biblical prayer, isn't it? Hail Mary is not exactly Biblical, although it contains a couple of Biblical phrases. The other rosary prayers aren't from the Bible either. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord's Prayer is another one. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord's Prayer and the Our Father are the same thing. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biology

What is urea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.69.12.242 (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This question belongs on the science desk, but anyway, see urea. --69.158.92.137 (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since OP was asking for a definition, I can see how they thought it might belong here. Dismas|^(talk) 00:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing header is confusing. Biology would fit science, but the Q itself is actually chemistry. But since it has been posted here...

See also: wikt:urea, which includes the biochemical definition. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 12:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish acronyms

What are the Spanish acronyms seen in this picture? File:Pabellón coreano de la amistad en Cd. de México 1.JPG. I can't tell what they are supposed to mean. I annotated a transcription of the text on the Commons, but it seems like the periods/full stops are in the wrong places. Also I am not sure where the accent marks are supposed to be. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What acronyms? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, here's an attempt at translating. I think some of the periods are supposed to be commas:

Pabellón coreano - Este pabellon es copia [not copa] fiel. del pabellon historico del parque pagoda de la ciudad de Seul. En el cual fue [not due] leida la declaracion de la independencia coreana. El pueblo coreano. obsequia este simbolo del espiritu [not espirity] de su independencia. Al pueblo mexicano. como signo de la amistad que los une. 8 de marzo de 1968

Korean Pavilion - This pavilion is [a] true [i.e. faithful] copy. of the historic park pavilion pagoda of the city of Seoul. In which was read the declaration of the Korean independence. the Korean people. flatter [or "give away"] this symbol of the spirit of their independence. to the Mexican people. as [a] sign of the friendship that unites them. 8 March 1968

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make it "of the historic pavilion of the pagoda park" —Tamfang (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the following sentence acceptable to the native speakers of English?

The door has been opened sinse morning.

14.139.82.6 (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Sukhada[reply]

No, it should be "The door has been open since this morning." The meaning isn't really ambiguous, and you might hear someone say that, but you wouldn't expect to see that in written form. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. The door could have been opened by someone else. Plus, 'morning' instead of 'this morning' is perfectly fine, because it is obvious which morning we are hearing about. The only problem I have is the spelling of 'since'. This is probably an advert for a restaurant or something. Better to say 'Open from morning' and specify the times. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it could have been opened by someone else, so it's not necessarily wrong. But I must admit, I find 'Open from morning' a bit strange, unless maybe it was part of "Open from morning onwards" or "Open from morning until evening", etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I'd agree - a bit strange, at least to my BritEng ears. And 'opened' should be 'open' too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "The door has been open since this morning" (it's been standing open the whole time), or do you mean "The door has been opened since this morning" (I know it was shut this morning, and now it's evening, and someone opened it in the meantime)? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, Alex. It is ambiguous after all! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain the difference between "open" and "opened". "Open" means the door is currently in the open position, while "opened" means the door was moved into the open position at some time in the past. Now, presumably, if it was moved into the open position at some time in the past, and not subsequently closed, then "The door was opened" also means "The door is open". However, it's best to say it plainly, as "The door is open".

The really odd thing is that we don't have the same situation with "closed". There you can say either "The door was closed" or "The door is closed", but you never say "The door is close" (pronounced "klōz"), although you might say "The door is close" (pronounced "klōs"), meaning the door is nearby. StuRat (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I never thought of that. Bali88 (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curiouser and curiouser:

An open door may be close. A close door may be open. And I won´t even start on the open doors of closets... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I hear "has been opened" (verb), I think of a door that's been busy, people in and out, since morning. "Has been open" (adjective) makes me think the door was opened in the morning and stayed that way. Open is continuous, opened is continual. Here's that difference. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"When one door closes, another opens. Or you can open the closed door. That's how doors work." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Good point. In some rooms, opening one door closes another, by suction. But I've yet to see it the rhetorical way. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I have the situation where closing one door opens another. It requires that the door which is to open be unlatched. It's a common situation on a refrigerator with a freezer on top, as the air pressure from closing the large fridge door pushes open the smaller freezer door. My magnetic closure mechanism is too weak to prevent it, so I rigged my freezer door with a more powerful magnet and bungee cord combo to keep it from doing that. StuRat (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

But is an unlatched/unlocked/demagnetized door truly closed, or just parallel? Though now we're just moving into a land of both shadow and substance. In this dimension, my freezer door closes when I open my fridge hard. My condolences on yours. That bungee sounds like a hassle. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

When the magnet is strong enough, I've also seen a freezer door "burp". That is, the air pressure from closing the fridge door opens it up, then the air pressure differential is relieved, and the magnet pulls it back shut again. StuRat (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Part of this language oddity is that "open[ed]" and "close[d]" are from different language groups - Germanic and Latin respectively.[1][2] We think of them as antonyms, but they and their construction have separate origins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference in origins doesn't really explain anything; if the meaning of close (adjective) had not drifted since it was borrowed from French, it would mean the same as closed. —Tamfang (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The etymological opposite of the adjective "open" is not "close", but rather it's "shut". Those two words have consistent usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "etymological opposite", but "shut" is entirely analogous to "closed", both are the past participles of verbs, the verbs "to close" and "to shut" [3] respectively. It just happens that as "to shut" is an irregular verb "shut" doesn't look like a typical past participle. I don't think there is a (commonly-used) antonym of "open" which is - so to speak - an adjective in its own right rather than a derivative of a verb. Valiantis (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that they both come from Germanic languages, whereas "close" comes from Latin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latin caption (translation needed)

What is the translation for the caption of this image on Commons? ("deua intrare nella Elephantina machina exui{f?}cerata") — Thanks, ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC) — P.s.: Google translate didn't help much: "God was taken off the machine, enter in your ivory wax" ~E:20:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my non-expert, Wiktionary Googling opinion, this is some sort of machine for putting female elephants into the sky and taking them out again. At least those words are (basically) in there. The grammar probably makes all the difference to clarity. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The caption is "deua ad intrare nella Elephantina machina exuiscerata", but I'm afraid I can't make sense of the Latin. I've never seen "exuiscerata" and I'm not sure what it could mean.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 20:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read that as "exuis cerata" (extracting wax?). Maybe not. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image is from a book, and the caption is part of a sentence which starts on a previous page. You can view that page here. It seems to say "Et táto habile íteruacuo se præstua, Che peralcuni slipiti di metallo al modo scalario infixi per gliquali cómodo ascenso, seconce deua intrare..."

I'm still none the wiser though... - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm afraid I can't say much about the translation, but I doubt whether the text is actually a caption. looking at the source it seems to be a page from a book. Most likely the text is to be understood as a continuation of the previous page, and it may not be directly relevant to the image at all. - Lindert (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it. From the date, it appears to be Renaissance Latin (could possibly still be Medieval Latin) in which every region (in fact, every author) had their own peculiar styles influenced by the vernacular. Unfortunately my working knowledge of Latin ends at the Classical period.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 21:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! It looks as though translating this won't help answer the question: "What is the symbolic meaning of this object?" —I'm working on the Cultural depictions of elephants article, relating to Dali's elephants (e.g.: here and here) which relates to that image (via this from here ... etc.) ... ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even Latin; it's Italian. "nella" ("in the") is the give-away here. And if you google for the phrase, you'll find out that it is indeed not a caption, but part of a longer text, with "-deva" being only part of a word after a line break. The full sentence is "commodo ascenso, se concedeva ad intrare nella Elephantina machina exviscerata" [4]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uhmmm, ... must be Latin (or an archaic Italian?) because when I Google translate the title (Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, ubi humana omnia non nisi somnium esse docet. Atque obiter plurima scitu sane quam digna commemorat) I get gibberish from Italian, but something (somewhat) meaningful from Latin: "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, where he teaches that all human there is nothing but a dream. And by the way, of course, but not worth much learning to recalls. ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on this work, Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, says "The text of the book is written in a bizarre Latinate Italian, full of words based on Latin and Greek roots without explanation. The book, however, also includes words from the Italian language, as well as illustrations including Arabic and Hebrew words..." It's a reasonably well-known Italian Renaissance mind-screw, simultaneously beautiful and baffling. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected a typo in your link, Alex, to make it operative. Deor (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The previous page and the page itself are also transcribed within the Italian wikisource project. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there male equivalent of "mumsy"?

The English word, mumsy, is a cute pet name for mother. Is there a masculine equivalent, and if so, what is it? Please don't suggest "popsy". I tried that, and I got "an attractive young woman". o_O 65.24.105.132 (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "daddy" do? Strictly speaking, seems an opposite of "mommy", but cute enough for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the equivalent for daddy is mommy, not mumsy. It does not have the -sy ending. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. No idea, then. Here in Canada (and the US, I think), we generally don't even use "mumsy". Unless it's someone playing Prince Charles in an Air Farce sketch. Just mommies and daddies here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muffy Crosswire on Arthur (TV Series) calls her mother, "Mumsy". It is definitely an American children's TV show, and Muffy lives in Elwood City, a fictional city in the United States. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muffy might count as a Canadian, too. I'd often watch that show. Didn't like it, but we didn't have many channels. But we generally don't use the word. If I did, personally, I'd go with "popsy". Doesn't seem like an attractive young woman to my ears, or likely those I'd speak to. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found this (Papsey), but it may be just isolated to that particular family as I don't see any other reference to its use.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 21:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the song "What is this Feeling?," in Wicked, Galinda calls her mother "Mumsy" and her father "Popsicle." There seem to be other people who also have this usage, but I don't know to what extent it's influenced by the musical. John M Baker (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only Mumsy were the borogroves. The men all fell victim to the Jabberwock, hence no cutesy nickname was needed. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about "pappy" ? StuRat (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's across from "mammy". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. The word "mumsy" in the UK is a colloquial adjective meaning "mother-like in appearance" (rarely a compliment). See Top 10 Tips to avoid looking Mumsy at work and Are you a trendy mum or a mumsy mum?. Alansplodge (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Urban usage in NYC is "moms" and "pops" singular with no particular affection implied, as you can hear in JUmp Around by house of pain. The Band is white, portrayed as Irish, but the "black" dialect is authentic. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]