Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 February 27

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.

February 27

be between husbands

Thanks in advance. I cannot even guess the meaning of "be between husbands" in the following passage. Would you please teach me the meaning?

  Eva was right. The Gilberts returned in the spring of 1975 and again in 1976.
  The third time, they even brought Julie --- who, being "between husbands," 
  was keen to test the myth of Israeli machismo.--Erich Segal, The Class, p.459.123.227.223.236 (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.227.223.236 (talk • contribs) ← I'm sorry... I missed your signiature in the original post. Please disregard. Falconus^{p t c} 02:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand that to mean that she had previously had a husband, but had not yet remarried. On a timeline, she would be "between" the two periods where she was married, and, I guess, seems to have been enjoying her singleness. Falconus^{p t c} 02:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but there's also a tone that is conveyed by this wording, implying that she is into serial marriages, and not able to commit to a single man. StuRat (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's redolent of the euphemism "I'm between jobs" when one doesn't want to acknowledge one is unemployed. But that's where the comparison ends. That at least has the basis that being employed at all times is an ideal for most adults of working age. Whereas, being married at all times is not necessarily what most people aim for; the right person is sort of an essential component of the scenario. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an analogy between anyone who can't keep a job and/or can't keep a spouse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

expectocrasy

When a person or group of individuals that produces nothing expects everything to be given to them by others that are productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.230.62 (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

(I added a reflist tag to your post.) But was is your question exactly? It sounds like a movie or political quote. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Martin

It sounds like a good description of the average CEO. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If not for him

I would like to know the correct way to express in English the following idea:

If not for him, we would get lost.

Is this correct? Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary gives the following example: If not for him, I wouldn't be where I am today.

If my sentence is wrong, could you correct it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnitempore (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's correct, but the "get" sounds a bit awkward ("Get lost !" is a rude expression, at least in American English). I'd write "If not for him, we would become lost" or "...be lost" (this one is more for being figuratively lost). StuRat (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree: "...we would be lost" is better. ("Get lost!" is also an imperative expression in British English, although I wouldn't call it rude.) Bazza (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

In British English, "getting lost" is slightly different to "being lost". I can't immediately find a reference, but "if you went that way, you might get lost" is different to "if you went that way, you might be lost". Alansplodge (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Needs more context. In addition to what Sturat said, I would say "we would have been lost" or "we would/could have gotten lost"165.212.189.187 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I would have written "if it were not for him", or, colloquially, "if it wasn't for him". Is it common to omit the first verb (subjunctive or otherwise)? The omission seems to open up possible ambiguities. The usual idiom is "but for him, we would get lost". Dbfirs 21:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a cross-Atlantic difference or just my hearing of the idiom, but there is a difference between "get lost" and "be lost". "Be lost" is more metaphorical -- it could cover just about any situation where you find yourself in trouble. "Get lost" is also future only -- "we might be lost" is different from "we might get lost". RNealK (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that "get lost" has a different meaning that "be lost" in American English. ("Get lost" means to become lost, whereas "be lost" indicates that one has already become lost.) I actually think that the questioner's sentence is okay in American English, though "if not for..." has an old-fashioned and/or formal sound to my ears. I think "If it weren't for him, we would get lost" is more natural in American English. I agree with StuRat that "Get lost!" is a bit rude in American English, though not exactly offensive; however, I think that there isn't anything rude about the verb phrase "get lost" when it's not in the imperative. Marco polo (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If the idea you wish to express in English is the same as the example from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary, I would write it as follows:

 We would be lost if it were not for him.  Respectfully,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiyang (talk • contribs) 03:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC) 

That is in the present tense, whereas the original "would get" is in the future. How about: "We would become lost if it were not for him" ? –Preceding mediocre comment added by ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I know that "We'd be lost without him" is usually said in a figurative way (meaning "we would not be able to achieve this result without his help"), but it could easily be turned to good use in a literal context. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

introductory paragraph

an introductory paragraph for the following essays:

1. the importance of women in nation building
2. ways of minimizing election disputes in Ghana
3. major causes of divorce in Ghana  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.53.171 (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 

When writing essays, it is good to write the body of the essay first and then you can write the introduction and the conclusion from it. The general format should be that you say what you're going to say (introduction), then you say it (body), and then you say it again (conclusion). --TammyMoet (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If this is for school, they may very well be required to write and submit the introductory paragraph first. Also, a writer really should know what they're their going to write about before they start, or they will tend to drift aimlessly. However, in this case, those 3 thesis statements give us enough of an outline to hopefully keep the papers on target. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

We won't do your homework for you, but if you write introductory paragraphs and place them here, we will critique them for you. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

But wait, there's more. For no extra cost, we'll even point out gross errors that no native speaker would ever make (like "a writer really should know what their they're going to write").  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the OP expects Wikipedians to pick a good essay topic. The trouble is, that part is up to the OP. Often, it is suggested that writers write they are most interested in. If 1, 2, or 3 sounds most interesting to the OP, then the proper advice is "Go for it!" 140.254.121.34 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that they are in a writing class, and today's lesson is to write introductory paragraphs. Therefore, their HW assignment was to write 3 intro paragraphs, for the 3 topics listed. StuRat (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)