Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 January 31

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 31

Adverb of "Hard"

Quick->Quickly Slow->Slowly Hard->??? Not hardly, what would be the word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuanche (talk • contribs) 05:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Usually we just use the word 'hard' as an adverb, as in "He hit the table hard with his hand." Many adjectives in English can be used with their root form, without a derivative suffix like '-ly'. Steewi (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Steewi. Sometimes an adjective has no obvious adverb associated with it because the property it denotes cannot be applied to actions, even metaphorically. Yellowly? I don't think so! Blackly? Yes, because there is a metaphorical sense: "He looked blackly at his companions, and wondered who would be the next one hanged." And yes, both hard and hardly are adverbs from the adjective hard, but with different applications. Consider also the interesting case of fast (adjective and adverb). There is no "fastly", though many children apply the general rule and attach -ly to the adjective, just as they pass through a phase of saying goed instead of went.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of annoyance: What time the sick moon looks up yellowly / Out of the pillowed sky, ... (Muriel Stuart, The Dead Moment) ---Sluzzelin talk 07:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Keylet. In poetry, as in love and war, all is fairly fair. (If we are to make our comments littlely.)– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 08:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Or we can just use a synonym of "hard" - "forcefully" for example. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fun question, Kuanch. On the subject of weird adverbs, I noticed that biglyis a legitimate word - Adambrowne666 (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the OED, 'hardly' was once used as the adverbal form of hard in all its senses. Algebraist 10:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to catch me, this is the bait you should use. I can't resist commenting about adverbs. "Quick" and "slow" are adverbs. "Come quick" and "Drive slow" are good, plain English and are more correct than "come quickly" and "drive slowly" in their ordinary meanings. It is mere hypercorrection to tack an "-ly" on the end. Why are we still so afraid of our third-grade teachers? --Milkbreath (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? An adverb describes a verb, while an adjective describes a noun. Hence "a quick dog" but "the dog runs quickly". "Come quick" and "drive slow" are incorrect. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Caught one, sorry it was you. They are correct. See here and here. The hypercorrection has become the norm to some extent, it seems. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of them sound like exclusively American usages to me. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Those links don't support your position at all. "Come, quick!" is not a verb plus an adverb, it's an imperative. The only online dictionary I trust is the OED, which says that this usage of quick "represents the adjective in the phrase 'be quick'" --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look just above the OED entry you mention, you'll see the entry for the adverb ("=quickly"). The imperative "quick" you mention is like "hark" or "lo", an old-fashioned single-word interjection, not the adverb we see in "Come quick." If we make it "Come here quick", we can see that it is an adverb in "Come quick". The OED says the adverb is "now usually considered less formal than 'quickly'", the operative words being "usually considered". I consider it plain English in settings where "quickly" is over-formal. If you trust any dictionary at all, we're going to have a hard time communicating, but the OED calls it an adverb. QED. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What's difficult is forming adverbs from adjectives that already end in -ly, like friendly. In Texas, you can see signs on the road that say "Drive Friendly", which sounds bad to non-Texans, but there's not really an alternative. "Drive Friendlily" sounds even worse. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To me, quick and quickly as adverbs have subtly different meanings, which I can't even really put into words. "Quick" would mean do it fast, "quickly" would mean, in a quick manner. Like I said, it's hard to explain. Drive slow and Drive slowly are not even subtly different, but majorly (majorlily ?) different. "Drive slow" is how fast the car goes, "Drive slowly" is how fast you move within the car. Corvus cornix_talk 19:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Are you saying that "drive slowly" means "drive the car (at an unspecified speed) while moving slowly in your seat"? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's sort of how I interpreted it, implying slow movements of your extremities while steering, shifting, and hitting the pedals. A Communicative Grammar of English (by Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik) states: "There is no difference in meaning between drive slow and drive slowly or buy cheap and buy cheaply, but the adjective form tends to be more informal." ---Sluzzelin talk 23:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at Modern English Usage, second edition, Gowers' revision of Fowler's work. They mention under the entry "slow(ly)" that the comparative and superlative are more common than the forms with "more" and "most". "Drive slower" won't raise the same eyebrows as "drive slow", which isn't fair to the plain adverb in my book. Enough people have reported that they sense a semantic difference between forms like "drive slow" and "drive slowly" that we must al least entertain the possibility that there is one even if we don't hear it ourselves (I do). Our boys explain it saying that "the adverb, and not the verb etc., should contain the real point." They compare "we forged slowly ahead" with "drive as slow as you can." They also note that "go slow" (in the US, "run slow") for clocks is the only idiomatic form (but I think a case could be made for that being a predicate adjective). --Milkbreath (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I hear a difference too, though mainly when I think about it. If my front-seat passenger said "Please drive slowly.", I certainly wouldn't assume they are referring to my jerky hand- and footwork. (Nor would I think about their usage of an adverb.) As always, I'm just fascinated and happily confused by all the experts disagreeing over English grammar and semantics. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We are as one on this, Sluzz. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And on further reflection, it seems to me that if the passenger wanted the driver to increase the speed of the car while continuing to use non-jerky hand and foot movements, they'd have to say something like "Could you please drive faster but still drive slowly". That might be enough to cause the driver to either veer off the road into a ditch, have a heart attack, or smash the passenger's face in. (I know which option I'd prefer. But then, I've always had a strong over-reaction to contradictory commands.) -- JackofOz (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Me again. Thanks for the input. This was my first time posting a question and I'm delightfully surprised at the response. @Milkbreath. I get what you're saying; quick and slow are legitimate adverbs. (I actually just picked the first two examples off the top of my head.) But I still would use quickly and slowly. I don't consider this "hypercorrection". After all, as you've said, the -ly forms are perfectly okay also. I choose to use the -ly forms mostly out of habit. But also, a part of it is that I understand that the way you speak gives a message about you. Most people associate the non-ly forms with poor grammar. The irony is that someone like you who uses them understands the grammar of it better than they do. Perhaps this is one of those cases where I choose to go with the norm instead of insisting on sticking with my esoteric ways. Another example would be the word "forte" as in "Public speaking isn't my forte." From what I understand, the proper way to pronounce it would be "fort", similar to the English word. But I got so many funny looks about it that I gave up trying and now use "for-tay."

Perhaps some would say that I shouldn't do this, and maybe they are right. But I think of it like this: Language is for communication, and I communicate better with others when we don't have to take 2 minute detours to explain why my prounounciation actually is correct and then engage in another 30 minute debate in which they will never concede defeat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.83.113 (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

... the proper way to pronounce it would be "fort" .... I've never heard anyone say "fort" for forte, in the sense of a personal strength or expertise. It's a borrowing from the Italian word for strong, loud. Its antonym is piano, hence the word pianoforte (soft-loud), so called to distinguish it from the harpsichord, on which it's apparently impossible to regulate the volume (I don't know this from personal experience, though; the piano is my forte). But people, even pianists, tend to say "fort" when it comes to Panadeine Forte. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I, too, learned it as "fort". It's a French word in English, and there is no justification for the "ay" sound at the end in either language. In fact, if you want to wax infuriatingly pedantic, the OED notes that the original form was the masculine fort, for which the feminine was "ignorantly substituted". The OED also says of our pronunciation "formerly", which would seem to sound the death knell for it. The AHD has an interesting note here. I think you're right that communication trumps "correctness", and this one was a losing battle from the start, considering that we need another homonym like we need another hole in our heads. Anglo-Saxon to the rescue with "strength". --Milkbreath (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have vague memories of seeing "hardly" as an adverb for hard in the James Bond books (one of the originals by Ian Fleming, not the newer ones). Bond must be recuperating or something because there is a question about retaining his "00" licence. And Fleming has something like "the licence to kill had been earned hardly". Which confused me greatly. Had he barely earned it, or had he earned it with difficulty? Can't remember the book, though, sorry. Telsa (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

@Telsa: hmm... that's interesting. The Bond books weren't so long ago, I wonder if "hardly" feel out of usage recently.

Actually, the odd thing this (and why there is so much confusion) is that the music-forte is from Italian, while the expertise-forte is from French. That's why they are pronounced differently. Though it seems the French have yet again lost a battle :). For-tay has won out. 75.143.83.113 (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's all sip a latté latte to that - and while we're doing it, we can discuss whether it's LAH-tay (as most aficionados seem to say it), or with a stronger accent on the second syllable (la-TAY), as I presume the French would have it. Those poor French persons, how they've suffered at the hands of the English. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So if I said the adverb of leisurely was leisurelyly, would that be an example of hypercorrection? Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Latte being an Italian word, I don't see why the French should get to determine its pronunciation. And before we all rage, rage against the dying of the -ly adverb, let us remember not to go gentle (not "gently"!) into that good night. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The things you learn. Thanks, Angr. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Usage: cost and costs

When do you use the term costs and when do you use the term cost? What is the exact difference? Is there a "rule" for it? 195.243.0.5 (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)annabell

You'd need to be a bit more specific as to the contexts in which you want to use those words. In accounting terminology, for example, you might talk about a fixed cost and also about fixed costs. In a more general sense you would refer to the cost of something. Give some examples of what you want to say and we can help you more. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"At all costs" is the correct form of the expression, not "at all cost". I can't prove that, but a search of the corpus will bear it out. Now watch someone disagree. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get anyone disagreeing with you on that. "All" indicates the plural, so obviously it would be "costs". Alternatively you could say "at any cost", which would mean the same thing. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Plural as in All the worlds are a stage, and Abandon all hopes, ye who enter here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) 15:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the word "all" can only refer to the plural. I was referring to the specific phrase quoted by Milkbreath. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Shakespearian quote is "All the world's a stage ...", meaning "the whole world is a stage". So "all" in that case is not denoting a plural. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Lambiam knows that; he was intentionally misquoting it to illustrate exactly the point that "all" does not have to be followed by a plural. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, obviously I knew that. But just in case I didn't, maybe this is National Obtuse Day. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In our controlling department there is debate about the general usage of the terms cost and costs. We refer to all kinds of costs, i. e. distribution costs, variable costs, packing costs are increasing, decreasing etc.....I was hoping there was a (grammatical/idiomatic?) rule for when to use the plural word and when to use the singular word. 195.243.0.5 (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)annabell

In those usages you give, costs is fine since you are talking about a number of costs. If you are only talking about one cost, it would be correct to use cost. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

spelling translation

On an Irish flag I saw the motto

        "Erin Ga Bragh"

However I am not sure of the spelling. I was told it meant "Ireland Forever" Can you help me with the correct spelling with any accent marks or whatever??? Thank you 64.22.197.113 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You probably saw the anglicized spelling "Erin Go Bragh". The correct Irish Gaelic spelling is Éire go brách; however, as our article says, the familiar English spelling may come not from Irish but from Scottish Gaelic, where the spelling is Èireann gu bràth. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

See Erin Go Bragh. --169.230.94.28 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Communicating with few words

Dr John John claimed that all communication in English could be carried out in 20 words. What are they? 23:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)1022wcharles (talk)

I don't know, but Basic English has a list of 850 words. Twenty words are required just to cover the prepositions (or "directives"). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, Edward de Bono once formulated a challenge of designing a language with no more than 20 words.

"Suppose your vocabulary was to be limited to 20 unalterable words. These words would have to suffice for ordinary day to day living, not for technological communication. They could not be supplemented by facial expression, tone, gesture, or sign language. Nor is picture material allowed but simple indicative pointing is allowed. The words do not have to exist at present. You can invent any words with which you would like to communicate particular meanings. The words could be used separately or in any sequential manner. What are your 20?" [1]

Answers? :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 23:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Try Natural Semantic Metalanguage for a start. It's not intended as a useful lagnuage, but rather as a language to talk about meanings (thus METAlanguage). Steewi (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well you could just assign dozens of meanings to each word, differentiating them with some linguistic trick (repeating the word, placing it in a different grammatical position, making it 20 syllables long and stressing a different one for each distinct word), but the language would sure be a headache to understand. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask Dr John John. Who on earth is he and where does he make this ridiculous claim?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading something like this. The basic list was just about enough to communicate your intentions (sort of), but you couldn't understand anyone else... I think I read it in a Bill Bryson book, so it's not that reliable. 130.88.140.119 (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Who needs 20 words? Start with smurf and you're already halfway.  --Lambiam 10:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

One more word and you can start talking in morse code. Algebraist 11:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No doubt there was a time at the dawn of "language" when only 20 "words" existed and were sufficient.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Then perhaps Anthony Burgess wins the prize, for having created the language of the Ulam in Quest for Fire. I believe he wanted the sound of each word to reflect its meaning. I don't know how many words he created though; the only one I remember sounded something like "atchr" for fire. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Rhubarb, rhubarb ..." repeated endlessly wins, I think. It means everything (but also nothing), and has the advantage of being 19 words shorter than 20. What a boon for those with short-term memory loss (What? No article? Someone obviously intended to write it, but forgot ...). -- JackofOz (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Poking around that link Sluzzelin provided, yields this [2]. A reasonable looking attempt. APL (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)