Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 November 13

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.

November 13

buildings

What is the etymology for the noun building?

Cos why call it a building when it is already built. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 04:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The word came to us from "byldan" which was the verb form of "byld"/"bold" or "house". So originally the "-an" form was the verb, and that without it was the noun. At some point the terms got swapped. See etymonline for a short explanation. --Jayron32 04:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What a speedy reply. Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 04:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As for the -ing ending, we also say things like a "painting". One builds a building; one paints a painting. These are called cognate objects. In pre-modern English, the present participle ended in -end, as it still does in German, while -ing formed verbal nouns, and was not used as a participle. Since -end has been lost and replaced with -ing we confuse old verbal nouns like these with participles of the verb. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"Writing" is another case, although as a noun it's used only in the plural, and in a sort of general and uncountable sense (The writings of Mandrake Oliphant reveal a bleak view of life). We never refer to a single piece of writing as "a writing", nor can we say Oliphant completed 115 writings: 4 plays, 3 novels, 15 short stories and 93 poems. At least, I don't think we can. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Plural or mass noun--I usually enjoy your writing, Jack. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. There's also "doings" (This article is about the lugubrious doings of undertakers); and "making" ("The making of The Taking of Pelham 123") and "the makings" (in reference to the tobacco and papers needed for a roll-your-own). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Jayron32 -- "-an" was the Old English infinitive ending (or actually one of two Old English infinitive endings). It always disappears in modern English, and has no particular connection with the "-ing" suffix... AnonMoos (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

What's the difference between "which" and "that"? --168.7.231.242 (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

English relative clause#That or which --Viennese Waltz 06:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

To expand on that (posted when I was rushing to get ready for work): take the sentence "Yesterday I was given the prize which I won". Strict grammarians would say that "which" in that sentence is incorrect and that it should be "...the prize that I won". Others would say that the two are interchangeable. On the other hand, in the sentence "The first prize, which I won, was a holiday", only "which" is correct. The "which I won" part is like a comment in brackets and could be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence. --Viennese Waltz 08:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that one must remain careful, in English, not to confuse homographs. In my experience, part of the problem stems from assuming that the relative pronoun that has the same meaning as either the demonstrative pronoun that (the opposite of this) or the subordinating conjunction that (other subordinating conjunctions include—but are not limited to—because, until, and before).

I advise that you limit using that and which to plants, animals, and inanimate objects, and use who, whom, and whose for men, women, and children. Then, temporarily substitute all the thats with whos and whoms to see whether the sentence still "works." If it does, then you are correctly using that as a relative pronoun and not some other part of speech. Pine (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't agree. Compare "the door whose hinges have come off" and "the door the hinges of which have come off". The former is elegant, the latter is ugly. --Viennese Waltz 09:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Pine didn't mention whose in the second sentence. Whose, as you point out, is used for inanimates (as the possessive of what as well as who). Pine's point is correct in respect of who and whom (whos, parallel with whoms, means 'instances of the word who - it's not a misspelling of whose). --ColinFine (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

When I said "I don't agree", I was referring to his first sentence. --Viennese Waltz 14:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"Whos" as in "sheeps" "geeses" and "oxens"? I don't think so. They'd be italicized and apostrophied. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Pine's whos and whoms were both italicised but not apostrophised, and they were quite clear to me, in context. --ColinFine (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Biblical citation

How many ways (in terms of formatting style) can you cite the Bible? I know that you would first write the book, then the chapter, add a colon, and then add the verse. Example: Matthew 1:5. What determines a verse in the Bible? I am just wondering, because if you read an English translation, then a verse does not really mean one sentence! Why can't you (or don't you) cite the Bible by page number and by the actual physical copy of a translation of the Bible as you would do to a normal book/article/source? If a biblical scholar/translator has his hands on the original manuscript, then how would he cite that? Is the Bible cited by verse because it would be difficult practically to cite it otherwise since the original manuscript fragments may not have any page numbers or be bound as a book? How do you know what order you should place the verses, chapters, and books? It may look like a series of questions, but really I am questioning on a single point, out of personal interest and curiosity: biblical citation. 140.254.227.134 (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The article Chapters and verses of the Bible has some of the answers you are looking for. Chapter and verse divisions were not originally part of the text, but since they were introduced they have become the standard way of citing the Bible. The reason of course is that it is (for the most part) independent on which printing, translation or language you use. Anyone in the world can find the passage you intended. No 'original manuscripts' of the Bible exist, there are ancient copies however. When referring to a manuscript Bible scholars may use the same verse/chapter system, or if it is a small manuscript they might give the column and line number.

The order of Books in the Bible is more or less arbitrary. Different orders have historically been used and are still in use. The order of chapters and verses in one Bible book is just how they appear in the available manuscripts. - Lindert (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The usual way to cite the Bible is, as mentioned, by book, chapter and verse only. If the translation is important, it's common to add a reference to it - for instance, as an abbreviation such as KJV or NRSV. Page numbers vary even between different printings of the same translation, so they're basically never, ever used. If you want to cite a codex, or other original copy, then either (a) cite a scholarly reproduction of it as you would any other scholarly work, or (b) refer to it directly by name. Some have Latin names, such as Codex Sinaiticus, while others, such as individual Dead Sea Scrolls, may have code numbers referring to their place of discovery and position in an academically-agreed sequence. In the unlikely event that you need to cite a book that doesn't normally appear, directly from an original source (such as Sinaiticus' version of The Shepherd of Hermas), I think you'd just say what line of the text you were referring to. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)