Language desk
< January 18	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 20 >

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.

January 19

Punctuation

I found the following typo in Wikipedia (on the Main Page, no less):

Did you know ... that the bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton track constructed for the 1976 Winter Olympics in Austria, was the first permanent, combination artificially refrigerated track,?

This led me to the question: Is there any conceivable way that an English sentence can possibly end in a comma? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Not in what you'd consider a normal sentence. Of course, writers can always choose to construct sentences that would normally be considered erroneous, for artistic reasons. And then there's the old style of writing letters, where the last sentence could merge into the complimentary close: I am, sir,

your obedient servant,

--Anonymous, 03:45 UTC, January 19, 2008.

Thanks. But ... no, I mean just a "normal" English sentence. Not an artistic expression. But this also got me thinking. What is the correct way to punctuate the following sentence?

Because of their distance from the home row on a keyboard, the three most difficult characters to learn in typing are &, @, and ,.

Would that (above) be correct? If I am trying to say that the hardest 3 keys are the & key ... the @ key ... and the comma (,) key ...

Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

In an informal context you might write it like that, but in a manual or something, you'd want to distinguish the characters by a typeface change or by quotation marks. Since the typeface of a character like the comma is hard to read, "'&', '@', and ','" works best. Er, that might be hard to read. I mean that

"&", "@", and ","

works best. Well, either that or using words: "ampersand, at sign, and comma". Another choice, if it's a long list, is a block-quotation format, like this:

The permitted characters are:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) / . ,

--Anonymous, 04:59 UTC, January 19, 2008.

The United Church of Christ uses the slogan "God is still speaking," which ends in a comma (an allusion to Gracie Allen's quote, "Never place a period where God has placed a comma"). —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Angr, nice work! I would never have come up with that one. Ten points! Quorumangelorum (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I suppose, technically, that sentence has not ended (with a comma or otherwise). :) Gwinva (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input ... much appreciated ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

English to Tamil translation

How does one say

"I learned Tamil just in time for your birthday"

in Tamil?

Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you'd be lying. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=P Acceptable (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hee hee hee hee hee Quorumangelorum (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

உன் பிறந்த நாளுக்கு முன்னாடி நான் தமிழ் கற்று விட்டேன்.

Un pirandha naalukku munnaadi naan Tamil katru vittaen.

--Masatran (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames relating to animals and birds

My question is this - how did people, back in time immemorial, come to have surnames that related to animals and birds? Did Andy Partridge's ancestors keep one of the things in a pear tree? Seriously, though, would such a name come about from some sort of professional relationship with the animal/bird in question? 211.30.58.79 (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to A Dictionary of Surnames publiched by the OUP, the surname "Partridge" is either an occupational name for a hunter of partridges, or a nickname for someone with a fancied resemblance to the bird, or it can be a house-name (that is, for someone who lived in a house distinguished by the sign of a partridge). It can also be a form of the name Patrick. DuncanHill (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult question to answer since it is so broad. The example of the name Partridge can fairly easily be determined, but there are so many Anglo surnames that incorporate animal names that it would be difficult to give you a precise answer that would cover all of these names. My take on it is that almost every surname in English can be traced back to the Middle Ages when someone at some point in time was known for something that was peculiar to that person. This could be a profession that the person practiced, a location the person lived, the father of a person, some personality trait, or some unusual physical characteristic of the individual. As surnames became more common there tended to be more standardized naming practices - some of the earlier surnames in Anglo culture are pretty funky. So, to answer your question with a very generalized, somewhat vague, and somewhat inaccurate response, I'd say that yes, if someone's surname has an animal associated with it, then it would probably indicate the person who originally was given that surname had a professional association with that animal. On the other hand, perhaps the person acted or looked like such an animal. For instance, someone could have been called John Hawk because he had a hawkish-looking nose. Or someone could have been called Peter Buck because he was a fast runner - like a deer. It is very difficult to really know for sure why many names ended up the way they did. -- Saukkomies 04:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Sentence

Please translate this sentence for me: Majus igitur cogitabile est, quod est in re quam quod est tantum in intellectu (Copleston, vol.ii, p.526).--Omidinist (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Latin-English facing-page translation of this one on Google books. "Therefore, what exists in reality is conceivably greater than what exists only in the intellect." Adam Bishop (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) OK, you've finally made me drag out my copy of Copleston (the paperback edition, in which volume 2 is divided into two parts, paginated separately, so that your page numbers don't work for me). He translates this in the sentence that immediately follows the quotation: "That which really exists is majus cogitabile than that which does not really exist but is merely conceived." As for the meaning of "more thinkable" (majus cogitabile)—i.e., greater in the scale of objects of thought—he goes on to say, "… inasmuch as that which really exists is 'visible' or capable of being intuited, and that which can be intuited is 'greater' than that which can be merely conceived or can be known by abstractive thought alone."

I also see that the sentences about univocality that I translated for you a few days ago are elucidated in detail by Copleston. Why do you keep asking us about things that are clearly explained in the very book you're looking at? Deor (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you know the meaning of the sentence, you find out that it has been explained (not translated, by the way) in another part. But I do not know the meaning to find that out. --Omidinist (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought of enrolling in a Latin class? It would be immensely beneficial if you want to read all this stuff. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On that topic, if you'd rather self-study, I've been having success with "A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin" by John F. Collins (ISBN 0-1832-0610-3). Of course, ecclesiastical Latin is slightly different to academic Latin, but it's very accessible to a beginner (as long as you don't mind a lot of Catholic related exercise questions). Steewi (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggestions. --Omidinist (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singular and plural

From the British Guardian, normally a very well written newspaper: "More than 2,500 people were killed in these kind of execution-style murders in Mexico last year."

I can't decide whether this apparent mangling of singular and plural is correct or not. If I was writing it myself, I would probably put "this kind of execution-style murder". Is there a compelling reason to use "murders" in the plural, and if so, maybe it should be "these kinds" rather than "these kind"? Jack, this is one for you I think - all other comments gratefully received as well, of course. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's incorrect, with no redeeming justification. Just slipped by the editors/proofreaders, in the same way as "He was one of those people who is always thinking about some problem" sometimes does.

(Although the latter might somehow work if you just mentioned some group of people. Probably not though). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.18 (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Normally a very well written newspaper"? The Grauniad? Malcolm Starkey (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From The Guardian, September 28, 2007: "We misspelled the word misspelled twice, as mispelled, in the Corrections and clarifications column on September 26, page 30." 194.171.56.13 (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the quality of grammar and syntax deployed by its writers, not spelling or typographical errors. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 17:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the insistence on agreement in these kind of constructions is an American preoccupation.[1], [2] --Lambiam 19:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, and thanks for the vote of confidence. I am but one voice here, and not even primus inter pares ... yet (one day, one day ...). I think there are 2 ways of sorting this out: Your own suggestion is fine, and it might also have been intended to be "these kinds of execution-style murders", assuming there's more than one kind of execution-style murder. All I know is, I'm postponing my next visit to Mexico till they can rectify these kinds of circumstances. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has a ring of "thees" kind of Mexican verbal expression with accent (fake or otherwise). IMHO it's a repetitive expression, so I'd go for an edit: "More than 2,500 people were killed in execution-style murders in Mexico last year." Thanks for clearing up my fantasy of visiting Mexico, ever. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bahamas

Which is the correct name ... or does it not matter?

Bahamas
the Bahamas
The Bahamas

In particular, do you or do you not capitalize the word "the" when it appears mid-sentence?

My uncle just moved to Bahamas.
My uncle just moved to the Bahamas.
My uncle just moved to The Bahamas.

Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I would write "to the Bahamas". —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest just going by whatever rule you use with "(T/t)he United States." -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It requires the definite article, as many other similar proper nouns, such as the North Island, the United Kingdom, the Doctor. A footnote in the South Island page outlines the usage clearly:

The South Island takes the definite article when used as a noun whereas maps, headings or tables and adjectival expressions use South Island. This pattern can be found in a number of other names, such as the United Kingdom, the Vatican and the Internet. Examples: My mother lives in the South Island; The North Island is smaller in area than the South Island; I'm visiting the South Island; The major South Island peaks are all in the Southern Alps

And no, do not capitalise the if it occurs in the middle of a sentence: it is not actually part of the proper noun, unlike The Hague, which is an exception. Gwinva (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gambia is another exception. But please never refer to The Lebanon or The Argentine, as some toffee-nosed persons still do. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think Phil Oakey, that son of Sheffield, is "toffee-nosed". What's wrong with saying the Lebanon anyway? Malcolm Starkey (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point, Malcolm. I was of course referring to the country, not the song. Lesson: I will never say "never" again unless I've covered all the bases. OK? Oh, just in case you were being serious about the name of the country, there is no country whose English name is "the Lebanon", and those who insist on referring to Lebanon that way, or Argentina as "the Argentine", are guilty of the sin to which I referred. I must admit I've not heard these affectations for some time now, but during the Falklands War some media personages consistently talked about events in "the Argentine", and during the Lebanese civil war we'd hear about the latest events from "the Lebanon". A Lebanese-born friend of mine asked me one day, "What the f*** are they talking about? We don't refer to our country as "the Australia", do we?". I could only agree with him. :) JackofOz (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were ever going to go to either place, I would write "I'm going to the Hague" and "I'm going to the Gambia" with lower-case the. But in the latter case, I'd probably drop the article altogether and just say "I'm going to Gambia". I'd capitalize the article in Le Havre, of course, unless I were writing in French, and then I'd write "Je vais au Havre". —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gambia, without the definite article is acceptable (as per Angr, we can say 'I'm going to Gambia') whereas it's incorrect to say 'I'm going to Philippines'. But I disagree with your usage of 'the Hague'; in this case the The actually forms part of the proper noun. It must, therefore, be capitalised (as The Hague article does). I must have a style guide somewhere in my house to confirm this; bear with me if it takes a week to find it! Gwinva (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the input! Much appreciated. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I am surprised that no-one has consulted Wikipedia to discover that, of the 193 countries generally recognised throughout the world, only two have the definite article as part of their name. Thus we should always write "The Bahamas" and "The Gambia", but all other countries can only have a lower case definite article, if one is used at all. So we must write " ... the United Kingdom" and " ... the United States of America", unless the article begins a sentence, of course. dbfirs 23:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of consonant f as s

Ive noticed, in reading English texts up to the early 19th century, that some times what appears to be the use of the letter "f" in the place of "s". How did this develop and when was this usage discontinued. 70.49.139.79 (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not an f, it just looks similar. See Long s. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Interesting that it is not used as the last letter in a word, making it similar to Greek lower-case sigma, which also has a different form in final position.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because paper was expensive, writers (in very old times) used abbreviations a lot, and some letters within words were modified and joined to the next. Later it became a stylistic thing to do this, but the 'f' (without the cross-bar) was kept right up to the 19th Century. I can't give a specific year for its disappearance. It was kept in pre-WW2 German, interestingly, Irish, too. This, so-called 'Gothic font', can still be seen on some shop signs in UK, Ireland and Germany. --ChokinBako (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to "without the cross-bar", note that in roman typefaces (as opposed to italic), the long s often had a half crossbar, making it look even more like an f.

As to German, there is still a remnant of the long s in the language today. In the double lower case letter ss in most situations is reduced to a single character ß, called "scharfes s" or sometimes "eszett". This looks a lot like a Greek letter beta (β), but that's just a coincidence; it originated as a ligature of a long s with a following z. (When capitalized, by the way, it becomes a double S; thus "Schloß", castle, in block capitals becomes "SCHLOSS".) --Anonymous, 02:35 UTC, January 20/08.

In Fraktur fonts, the long-s is still mandatory, at least by German standards. In English, the long-s disappeared in 1800. That is, the earliest I've seen the long-s gone in modern mainstream English writing is 1792, in "The Man of the World", and the latest I've seen it is 1803, in the Edinburgh Review. It still puzzles me why it disappeared so suddenly with no explanation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any consolation, it seems as if this was also confusing to people back then, too. For instance, the word "sneeze" was actually originally spelled (and pronounced) "fneeze" (from the Old English "fnéosan"). However, someone goofed up the pronunciation, and the new form of "sneeze" took on, eventually people forgot about the original version of the word. To check on the accuracy of this, I refer you to the good old Oxford English Dictionary where it talks about this word's history. -- Saukkomies 04:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to above explanation can be found here. Similarly with 'ye' used for 'the', as 'th' was written with 'þ' (thorn), which in manuscript very often looked like a 'y'. This is why people now say 'Ye Olde English Tea Shoppe', when it should actually be 'The'. 'Ye' was actually a totally different word in Old and Middle English, simply meaning 'you'. --ChokinBako (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymonline notwithstanding, I find it highly unlikely that the change of "fneeze" to "sneeze" is due to misreading of f as ſ. First, what proportion of the English-speaking population was literate in the 1490s? Second, how often is the word likely to have been written in comparison to how often it was spoken? Third, the consonant cluster "fn-" does not otherwise occur at the beginning of a word in English, and so is quite liable to get changed to a more familiar cluster by straightforward sound change. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely or not, that is the etymology given by the big OED:

app. an alteration of FNESE v., due to misreading or misprinting it as ‘nese’, after the initial combination fn- had become unfamiliar. Fnese had app. gone out of use early in the 15th cent., its place being mainly supplied by nese NEEZE v. The adoption of sneeze was probably assisted by its phonetic appropriateness; it may have been felt as a strengthened form of neeze.

My new discovery for the day. Thank-you, Saukkomies. Gwinva (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, but acording to the OED, Fneese became Neese and the S was added later so that people weren't confused by the sharp s, but added an s for some other reason. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 09:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes. In the short time I took to look it up, I forgot what the others had said about the f,ſ and s, and focussed on the misreading of 'fnese'. Thus, the 's' is unrelated to any misundertanding of f→ſ. It is an unusal construction, but I like it: fnese is more onomatopoeic than sneeze. Out of interest, the OED has another word which begins in teh same way: fnast, meaning breath. Gwinva (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested, the name of the Gothic-style font used to write German is known in German as 'Fraktur'. Steewi (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence, ChokinBako, for the cost of paper being the reason for abbreviation in mediaeval texts? I've always supposed that speed and ease of writing were quite adequate as a motive.

I would suggest it not being the cost of paper (or more specifically, Vellum), but rather the ease of writing. Having spent some time doing Calligraphy, including the process of sharpening and writing with a goose quill pen, I can say that any shortcut that one can come up with would be a very welcome thing, since the actual labor involved with writing in these archaic methods is a lot more involved than what we are accustomed to today with our keyboards and ball-point fountain pens. BTW, thanks for the compliment, Gwinva. -- Saukkomies 15:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On fneosan and fnast, it is no surprise to find words in fn- to do with breath, as they are presumably cognate with Greek 'pneu-'. --ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing I can show on the internet about the cost of vellum being the reason for abbreviation, but I can say that 'Introduction To Old Norse' (CUP or OUP) goes into it in quite a lot of detail, and says it was practised all over Europe.--ChokinBako (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did actually find something on the internet here about the cost of vellum being the probable reason for the use of abbreviations. --ChokinBako (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the cost of vellum inspired medieval scribes to use abbreviations, why did they also always leave such ginormous margins? —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is also mentioned in the article, Angr. It remains a mystery to this day. Also, a lot of manuscripts are ornately gilded, and all sorts. There must be reasons, but they remain as elusive as the texts that were very often scrubbed out and written over - to save on the costs of vellum, of course.... :)--ChokinBako (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, palimpsest. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saukkomies's answer (regarding ease of writing) rather than cost of vellum makes more sense. Lets face it, we all use abbreviations to save ourselves the effort of writing something in full. It's like an early form of txtmsg. Gwinva (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]