Language desk
< March 30	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	April 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 31

Word Entymology ("color"-collar worker)

Where do these words come from? Pink Collar Occupation, White Collar Occupation, Blue Collar Occupation, and Gold Collar Occupation? Did people really have those colors around their necks?Coffsneeze 02:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The originals were "blue collar" and "white collar", and, indeed, laborers tended to wear denim shirts and such at the time, which had blue collars, while office workers wore white shirts, with white collars. The rest of the labels are just made to imitate that style, so "pink collar" was used for service jobs, even though most of them don't wear pink, for example. I'm not familiar with the term "gold collar", and apparently neither is Wikipedia. StuRat 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pink collar was a play on "blue collar" and the notion of "pink for girls, blue for boys". Blue-collar workers were traditionally men, so pink-collar meant jobs traditionally held by women. --Anonymous, April 1, 2007, 00:00 (UTC), no fooling!

Wikipedia does have gold collar, but it is spelled "gold-collar". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.218.230.103 (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK, I added a redirect. StuRat 05:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Coffsneeze, you're confusing etymology (the origin of words) with entomology (the study of insects). Looks like you're having a bet each way (perhaps the study of the names of insects ...). JackofOz 09:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that comment, I was just going to let the mistake flutter by. :-) StuRat 17:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from Chinese needed

I'm one of several editors working on various aspects of the article on the word Chinaman, and the issue of how that term, as a term (vs. "Chinese person", i.e. zhuong guo ren), is used in Chinese; and since apparently there are a different set of characters, what exactly do those characters mean? Exactly/literally I mean, not "well, these are the characters we use when we're referring to the English word Chinaman, and they're offensive" - but the person that's a paraphrase of won't continue the disucssion, even though it contains pivotal issues in the ongoing (and protracted) debate on Talk:Chinaman. The particular part of Talk:Chinaman where different versions are given is here but if it's OK, I just found a page in Chinese which appears to give and discuss definitions of the term, i.e. as opposed to "Chinese" I've quoted tthe paragraph after theh definitions; what's before seems to be a discussion of what the English is for various site names in Chinese (???) - the source is here (on people.com.cn) in case the full text is needed or relevant. If it's anti-wikiquette to bloc-post non-English languages here in search of translation I'll remove it and put it over to a sandbox; just advise, but translation help (and sanity/sanitation help at Talk:Chinaman) welcome. Of what follows, the pivotal ones I need. Oh, the connection to "bull in a chinashop" below I've never heard before, ever; I'd never heard of any connection to the word chinaman, but of course a chinaman can also be a china dealer (there's actually a store in the UK called "The Chinaman").Skookum1 03:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary (unabridged/1960).

- Chinaman, Chinamen: a Chinese; a contemptuous or patronizing term. Originally, a dealer in Chinese imports.

- 【直译】中国人：带有蔑视和需要说明的术语。来源是中国瓷器买卖人。注意：这里的买卖人用的不是merchant或businessman，而是 dealer，含有贬义，如：wheeler-dealer。这部词典是著名Webster词典系列中规模和影响最大的词典。

Dictionary of World Origins（《词源词典》，Philosophical Library）是英文国家文学、哲学和历史学等学术界颇有权威影响的的文化词典之一。该词典的说明是：

- Sinae'an: a. pertaining to the Sinae, the people of ancient China.

- 【直译】Sinae'an：支那人，古代中国人。

Chinaman's Chance: This is very indirectly related to the Chinese. Chinaman is a dealer in porcelain. Chinaware -- which came to us via Pers.Chini. The correlative expression, a bull in a chinashop, indicates the chance that a Chinaman has.

- 【直译】中国人的机会：这是非常间接地指中国人。中国人是瓷器买卖人。象瓷器店里的野牛一样，是中国人才有的机会。

古代西方有两件东西表示中国，一个是丝绸、一个是瓷器。用丝绸的时候，往往表示高贵和神奇，例如古代罗马帝国的贵族身着丝绸，表示自己跟神奇的东方文化有某种关系，借此来显示自己的高贵。这个用法至今还有影响，说到“丝绸之路”，不少西方人还是有那种通向高贵神奇的东方的感觉。可是，古代西方说到 China，却往往有贬义，例如，“瓷器店里的野牛”的意思是一头野牛闯进瓷器店、结果是野蛮地捣乱摧毁。同样说法还有 “a storm comes to the park”，暴风雨来到花园，野蛮地摧毁美丽的东西。在很长时间里，古代西方文字中的“中国人”常常是野蛮和不正直的代名词。一直到清朝末年，说到“中国人”，还常常描绘的是头戴瓜皮帽、身穿旗袍、驼背长辫子和嘴里叼着鸦片烟的人，直到现在，这种形象在美国好莱坞还有一定影响。中国取得了民族独立，走上了重新成为世界强国的道路，特别是这二十年改革开放的成就，世界瞩目，“中国人”在西方的意义才发生了根本变化，现在，基本上成了奋发图强的东方人的称呼，含义变得褒义积极，不再是“瓷器店里的野牛”了。一句话，要别的国家尊敬自己，归根结底是自己国家的自尊和强盛。

Translation/elucidation requested.Skookum1 03:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whose, Whom

I sometimes have trouble finding out the different to use the different types of "Who"s. In what cases would you use 'Whose', 'Whom'? Also, can 'Who's' be used as possessive and not just for "Who is" ? --Agester 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try making more complex interrogative or relative sentences into simple declarative sentences with the pronouns "he", "him" or "his" (as appropriate), and where you use "his" in the declarative sentence, you would use "whose" in the corresponding interrogative or relative sentence, and where you use "him" in the declarative sentence, you would use "whom" in the corresponding interrogative or relative sentence (at least according to formal written norms).

So "The man who(m) I saw" simplifies to "I saw HIM", and therefore "whom" would be correct according to formal written norms (though "who" is often used in such cases as well).

"Whose hat is this?" corresponds to a declarative sentence "This is HIS hat", which is why the form "whose" is used... AnonMoos 14:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit confict) You can find some information about this in our article Who (pronoun) and English declension#Interrogative pronouns. Who's cannot be used as a possessive determiner (genitive), but only as a contraction of who is. Whom, which also was the subject of a recent question (see #Who/whom) is usually only used in somewhat formal or archaic language, mainly when it is immediately preceded by a preposition (To whom it may concern), and in any case only when it is in the objective case (seeking whom he may devour, but never Whom might that be?). Usually who and its derived forms are only used for people, or things imagined to have a personality, but whose has become common also for inanimate objects. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me out! that Who article is very helpful. You guys also cleared up some questions that article may have posed for me. Thanks again! --Agester 23:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The man whom I saw" is a technically correct use of "whom", but would not often be encountered, except perhaps from a pedantic grammarian who was deaf to the lack of euphony of this structure. "The man I saw" is what most people would say. JackofOz 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, for if thou art in the tub, surely it tolls for thee." StuRat 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you pry it from my cold dead hands

Does any body know from where does this quote come? "You pry it from my cold dead hands!" and its many variations. Is this from some movie or something?

If it is currently popular it is because of Charlton Heston's speech at an NRA meeting, as shown in Bowling for Columbine. Adam Bishop 19:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was used on bumperstickers and stuff before that movie came out... AnonMoos 19:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly "from my cold dead hands" as a National Rifle Association slogan predates Heston's famous use; he was using a well-known catch-cry, as the context makes clear. The slogan was parodied in Men in Black in 1997 [1]:

Bug: Place projectile weapon on the ground.

Edgar: You can have my gun, when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

Bug: Your proposal is acceptable. (kills Edgar bloodily; takes gun)

"cold dead hands" seems to be a well-established expression. It may have been popularised by The Conquered Banner by Abram Joseph Ryan:

[...]Furl it! for the hands that grasped it,

And the hearts that fondly clasped it,

Cold and dead are lying low;

And that Banner—it is trailing,

While around it sounds the wailing

Of its people in their woe.

For, though conquered, they adore it,—

Love the cold, dead hands that bore it,

Weep for those who fell before it,

Pardon those who trailed and tore it;

And oh, wildly they deplore it,

Now to furl and fold it so![...]

the banner in question being the Confederate Battle Flag. However, Google books shows earlier instances, including The Ivory Carver by George H. Boker in 1856:

Come, father, there's more of joy and good

In our merry heath and solemn wood,

Than the cold, dead hands of art can reach,

Or its man-made canons darkly teach.

and A winter in the Azores, and a summer at the baths of the Furnas, by Henry and Joseph Bullar in 1842:

The corpse, which was that of an old woman, was in the common open bier, and,—with a black veil over it, and the cold dead hands, long used to labour, clasped on the breast—was decently dressed.

and apparently there is a Sanskrit proverb meaning "All we can hold in our cold dead hands is what we have given away", although this tranlation may be influenced by the pre-existing English expression. I couldn't find any pre-NRA quotes for "out of [one's] cold dead hands". jnestorius^(talk) 18:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so far in this discussion this specific idea has only been pushed back to 1997 (MIB). I can push the American gun-owners' slogan back to 1979 (as AnonMoos said, on a bumper sticker).[2] Wareh 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most early NRA references seem to go with fingers rather than hands: a slightly more ghoulish image to my mind. A 1976 report of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency hearings into Handgun Crime Control mentions slogans "They'll get my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers" (pg 2356) and "I Will Give Up My Gun When They Peel My Cold Dead Fingers From Around It" (pg 2221). (If you've mislaid your copy, try google books again :) Interesting that Heston used "hands" instead: must be the poet in him. It would be ironic if Michael Moore has helped to modify this trope permanently. jnestorius^(talk) 19:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps he has elevated it well into the troposphere. StuRat 17:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, fingers! Thanks for the earlier quote. It does seem that 1979 was a banner year, also from this belt buckle. Wareh 03:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"would have never been" or "would never have been" or "never would have been" or "would have been never"

Which one is correct?Coffsneeze 21:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)(4 tildes)[reply]

The second or third; the third reads slightly better. -- Arwel (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the context is something like "X etc etc in this position if he hadn't met Y". If that's correct, then I agree with Arwel that the second or third are the only options. However, I prefer the second for some reason. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 21:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're following the proper rules of grammar, then we can't use the second one, as it splits the verb (would have been). That leaves number three, for me. Jfarber 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such rule. It is standard for verbs to be "split" in this manner. --Anon, April 1, 00:03 (UTC).

In my idiolect the first is fine as well, if perhaps more colloquial. Google (arbiter of all linguistic correctness) seems to back up the idea that it's not simply wrong. Tesseran 13:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Now, which one is correct? "They all are," or "They are all," or "All of them are," or "All of which are,"?Coffsneeze 21:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the context, I think any of these could be correct; each has a slightly different meaning. Jfarber 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain the "slightly different" meanings.Coffsneeze 23:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"They all are" like, if you have a basket full of bananas and nothing else, you say, "They all are bananas".

"They are all" like, if you have a basket with 1 banana, 1 apple, 1 coconut, while your mother said you should get 100 of them, but you couldn't find that many, you say, "They are all :("

"All of them are", I learned it as, "when referring to living things". So, when talking about wikipedians, all of them are idiots. Otherwise I would use it.

"All of which are", if you are referring to something, but what they are is not the main object. So, when talking about all wikipedia article, all of which are idiotic, you can use this. Here, the main sentence is: So, when talking about all wikipedia article you can use this. But "all of which are" is used as a qualifier of the subject.

I hope I am right :P--Scheibenzahl 23:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example 2 is not one where you could use either expression without misleading your mother. If there was anything other than a banana there, regardless of how many bananas were there, either expression would be inaccurate. JackofOz 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"They all are" jars on my ears somewhat; I would never use it. "They are all" is fine, and so is "all of them are". I've never heard of the latter being restricted to only living things. You could say "All of them are bananas" no problem. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 05:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're not referring to wikipedians here? --Lambiam ^Talk 06:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. This "not living" thing was meant for something else which I later edited out (I used it to remember, when to use "Who" and when to use "Which" when I was a kid). "All of them" can be used for both. Regarding "They are all", the literal meaning is what I have shown. I would personally prefer "That's all I have got" in the condition, or "That's all I could get" instead of "They are all I could get".--Scheibenzahl 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only place I would use "They all are" is as a reply to, for example, "How many of them are Wikipedians?" "They all are.". If the sentence kept going, I would say "They are all Wikipedians.". Skittle 10:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many of my friends are here? They all are.
They are all here, wearing helmets.
All of them are jumping up and down on trampolines.
The trampolines, all of which are purple, seem very unsafe.

Jfarber 00:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first or third seem most correct to me, depending on context. The Jade Knight 11:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My examples are there to show a example of each phrase used correctly. In other words, any of them CAN be correct, but note that each means something slightly different; they can't be used in place of each other. Jfarber 18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody for bringing this up and discussing it; that's the kind of problem why I only have an en-3 userbox. And thanks to Jfarber in particular for the lovely trampoline example. (Another word like guillotine - see above ;-) — Sebastian 19:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]