Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 November 20

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Language
Language desk
< November 19 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 21 >
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 20

edit

Pairs of words

edit

Is there a special name for set constructions like 'knife and fork', or 'mother and father', where by changing the order, the constructions sounds unusual? I noticed a lot with non-native speakers that they would switch the order - this is so common that I feel quite impressed with them if they say them in the order I am used to. I know that in Japanese, the order is always 'father and mother', and they transfer this into English (I found myself transferring my preffered order into Japanese, and I was told it was 'incorrect'). More interestingly, Japanese does not have a particularly set order for 'knife and fork', yet they invariably say 'fork and knife' when speaking English (which sounds particularly funny for Northern Br. Eng. speakers). I have also heard Chinese use the same order as Japanese, as well as speakers of (non-English) European languages. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 10:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably call that "cultural common usage", or some such thing. I don't know of anything more specific. I suspect one could find some differences in such things between American and British, which would mean that it's not necessarily native vs. non-native speakers. (Although a Brit is a non-native speaker of American English, and vice versa.) ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Siamese twins (linguistics). — Kpalion(talk) 10:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well there you have it, and I think I'll use "irreversible binomials" as it has a nice ring to it. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I knew there would be a name for it, thanks. So next time I am in hospital, I can tell them I fell down the Apples and Pairs, and the nurse will say, "You mean the 'stairs'?", and I will reply, "Yes, nurse. My doctor says I have a bad case of irreversible binomials." :) Anyway, thanks. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 10:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That article needs just a bit of trimming, I think. "Last will and testament"? "No quarter. No mercy"? That was just a cursory scan. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 11:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict; answering Mandruss "Well there you have it..." and ignoring everything that came after) Some pairs that are not included (yet?): "brother and sister", "mother and father", "father and son", "the quick and the dead" (but "dead or alive"), "cats and dogs" (I believe "cats and dogs" is more common, maybe because of "raining cats and dogs", but I've also heard "dogs and cats", or "a dog and a cat", uttered by people who were definitely native speakers of English), "no ifs, ands, or buts", "dot the i's and cross the t's", etc. You can probably expand those lists indefinitely. It's great to have a name for it but in fact it's a catchall. It doesn't say anything about why any such pair is "irreversible" (there maybe different reasons: rhythm, meaning, or simply habit). Knowing that you say "big bad wolf" not "bad big wolf" seems to be something similar and distinct from the fact that you say "I drink coffee" not "I coffee drink" which seems to involve a more basic component of the grammar although who knows there may be borderline cases. Contact Basemetal here 11:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be some sort of clear criteria for inclusion, beyond "word combinations that usually occur in this order". You don't include "last will and testament" simply because no one says "last testament and will". I believe it's a legal term, which is where the word order comes from. You could start by excluding combinations like that, and then use Google to determine the degree of preference. "Cats and dogs" is preferred to "dogs and cats", but it only has about 55% of the total, not enough to justify inclusion. Something along those lines. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 11:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also maybe we should not rush to grant the term "irreversible binomials" a status it might not deserve. It may just be someone's coinage. As alluded by Kage Tora's joke "irreversible" by itself usually carries another meaning. "Non reversible" or "Non invertible" may be a better description of what's going on. Also check out set phrase and all the see alsos in both articles. This may be a day to enlarge our linguistic vocabulary. Contact Basemetal here 11:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Mother and father" - 60%, still not enough. The more selective it is, the more meaningful the results, imo. Requiring 100% would be too much, being virtually impossible, but say 80% might be a good compromise. "Law and order", 86%. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 11:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have to take into consideration that a very large number of websites, though written in English, are not written by native English speakers. So my second point in my original post still stands. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 12:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A very large number, or a very large percentage? In other words, do you think they would skew the results to the point where they are no longer meaningful? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 12:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between a large number and a large percentage? I was merely saying that in English we have these set phrases, and also in other languages they also have set phrases, some of which may have the same word order, and others which may not. It would be very difficult to find out the nationalities of all the people who wrote the websites, comments, sub-comments, etc., (plus the fact that lots of comments are written in 'nonsense' English, such as "ya, bu a no da, bu e woz ur dad's baba"). I don't think that in this case, Googling the results would be helpful, albeit inasmuchas giving us a very rough estimate of how people use the constructions. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 18:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, forget the idea then. To answer your question, I think most people would call 20 million a large number. Whether it's a large percentage depends on the size of the total. Twenty million is a large percentage of, say, 30 million, but a tiny percentage of 30 trillion. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who in the world says father and mother? μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one. Not even this guy   Contact Basemetal here 20:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but it's said 18.9 million times on the web, starting with a couple of biblical references including "honor your". Could be the aforementioned non-native speakers. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what Al Murray might like you to believe, the Bible was not written in English. It was merely translated. Word for word. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 20:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. No one. Not even this guy     Contact Basemetal here 20:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to Google Ngrams, "father and mother" has been most common overall, with only a brief period of "mother and father" dominance between 1981 and 2004. Lesgles (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm late to the party, but I'll point out set phrase which is a related concept. By the way, regarding the listing at Siamese twins (linguistics), an objective criteria for example inclusion/exclusion is WP:Verifiability - that is, does an external reliable source provide them explicitly as an example of the concept being presented. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for set phrase. It had already been mentioned three times but no such thing as too much of a good thing. And now a fourth time. (That wasn't a set phrase now was it?) Contact Basemetal here 09:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word order article explains that ' you say "I drink coffee" not "I coffee drink" ' because English is a subject–verb–object language. Under "word order" one might also file adjective order (you say "big bad wolf" not "bad big wolf"); however, the current "word order" article seems to deal only with syntax, whereas adjective order I guess is lexical semantics. But that's still a different pigeonhole from lexicon, where set phrases and Siamese twins are filed, being mere lexical items. Of course Big Bad Wolf is now a set phrase, but it wasn't when it was coined. jnestorius(talk) 13:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting slightly off-topic, but I recently saw a study that suggested that when speakers of any language, regardless of VSO, SVO, or SOV word order, used sign language to express anything, they would invariably use SOV order (pointing at the person first, then the coffee, then making a drinking motion). KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 14:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an acceptable sentence?

edit

Following sentence is from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_rotation)
"Thus rotation allows increased yields from nutrient availability but also alleviation of allelopathy and competitive weed environments."
As per my Indian English I think it should be:
Thus rotation allows not only increased yields from nutrient availability but also alleviation of allelopathy and competitive weed environments.
Kindly comment. Thanks. Vineet Chaitanya (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya[reply]

The second is an improvement, in my opinion, but we could improve further. The "not only—but also" construct doesn't serve much purpose here, and "allows alleviation" seems a little cumbersome. I also feel "provides increased yields" seems more natural (unless something besides rotation is required to get the increased yields). Here are some alternatives.
Thus rotation provides increased yields from nutrient availability and alleviation of allelopathy and competitive weed environments.
Thus rotation provides increased yields from nutrient availability. It also alleviates allelopathy and competitive weed environments.
Thus rotation provides increased yields from nutrient availability, and it alleviates allelopathy and competitive weed environments. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 13:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving style aside I wouldn't say "increased yields from nutrient availability but also alleviation of allelopathy and competitive weed environments" is unacceptable in the sense of it being ungrammatical which may have been what Vineet was asking. I've got here a recent example from an experienced WP editor who is also a native speaker of American English (Jerome Kohl -- I hope you don't mind my using your testimony in this context at the RD; regarding the figured bass thing I'll have something else to ask at that page). Here Jerome writes: "Andrew Manze has made a case for performing violin music from before about 1720 senza basso (on grounds that the continuo parts tend to be musically very simple, and even redundant, but also because of documentary evidence from the period)." so the dangling "but also" is definitely acceptable in American English per Jerome's testimony. The choice of the dangling "but also" (as opposed to "not only ... but also") may connote something like a hierarchy, or a difference in perceived importance, between the two terms, but I'll let others discuss that. Contact Basemetal here 13:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do talk like that, it is true, but I hope that, when writing formal English for Wikipedia articles, I reflect on my first draft and improve the quality of the syntax. After all, there is a difference between informal and formal language, even in American English.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't these English female names end in -a?

edit

Why don't they end in -a? Examples include Jane, Elizabeth, Mary, Esther, Eve, Ruth, Catherine and Rachel. They don't end in -a. But some variants do: Joanna, Isabella, Maria, Eva. 140.254.226.219 (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why they should? DuncanHill (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is they don't because there is no requirement (or convention) that English female names should end in 'a'. I suspect that many English female names ending in 'a' are in fact variants originally from elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few female names that come from Latin (Amanda, Angela, Barbara, Clara, Diana, Marcia, Stella etc.) but English is not one of the Romance languages so names more frequently come from other roots. Dbfirs 18:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope everyone realizes that there are VERY few personal names (male or female) used by modern English speakers that are "natively" English. The only common one I can think of off the top of my head for women is Ethel. The vast majority of recognizable English personal names are borrowings from other European languages. It's no wonder there's such a wide variance. --Jayron32 19:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although some very common male names are Germanic: Edward, Harold, Robert/Robin, Richard, Roger. Less common these days: Albert, Alfred, Arnold, Bertram, Cuthbert, Edmund, Gilbert, Wilfred, Wilbert. Hence Roberta, Alberta, Alfreda. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edith and Mildred (see [1]) also seem to be Old English. Hilda (which does end in 'a') is at least Germanic, if not natively English. Presumably the Anglo-Saxons brought Germanic names with them, so deciding what is or isn't 'native' is likely to be difficult. There were of course also Anglo-Saxon male names ending in 'a' e.g. Offa. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget that indomitable woman Emma of Normandy and the Empress Matilda. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Emma of Normandy wasn't 'natively English' - she was of Norman/'Viking' descent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Matilda" and "Hilda" have a common root.[2] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - but I've not found evidence that 'Mathilda' was used in pre-Norman England. It is of course possible, given its widespread use elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The a-less names that are mentioned are all either long nativized, like Mary, and have lost their final -a which in usually became a schwa, then a silent e, as in Eve. See also Marie. Or, like Ruth, Rachel and Elizabeth, they never had a final a in the original Hebrew or Aramaic. Isabella, Maria, and Eva are more recent borrowings from Italian or Spanish or some Romance source that retained the final a. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elisabetha Nina Mary Frederica Lehmann was better known as Liza Lehmann. Her father was German, but I've never even heard that variant of Elis(z)abeth in German. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • EO has histories of popular names. Elizabeth apparently started as Elishebha, "God is an oath," and the trailing "a" had been dropped by the Greeks long before it worked its way through Latin and into English. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs -- In the original Biblical Hebrew, it's [ʔĕlīʃeβaʕ], ending in a pharyngeal consonant sound, so the [a] vowel is not actually part of a feminine ending. In the transition from Hebrew to Greek, a "t(h)" was added to the end of the word -- which can be part of a feminine suffix in Hebrew, but not in Greek! AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mention should also be made of King Anna, although I wouldn't recommend naming your son after him. Alansplodge (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some Old English names are probably best left unrevived. I wouldn't recommend naming a daughter after 8th-century abbess Bugga. [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, bugger, and that was my second choice after 'Frigg' was turned down by the authorities...:) KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 23:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see the ditheme pattern become productive again. —Tamfang (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Old English, -a in the nominative singular was more often masculine than feminine. It was -u in the nominative singular which was more often feminine than masculine... AnonMoos (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to check this up, just now, but wasn't that from the P-Germ. -n stems? Also used as a diminutive? KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 01:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was just coming to post what AM said, in Old English grammar, feminine nominatives usually end in -u, -e or -0 (no ending.) The proto-Germanic language had -ō-, not -a as the feminine thematic vowel. According to proto-Germanic grammar the original -Vn stems were masculine or neuter, and the feminine -ōn stems were an innovation based on the original feminine -ō stems with the -n added by analogy. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Griselda is Germanic, is it not? I'm not saying that it was loaned into English through a Germanic language, but it is ultimately Germanic in origin, no? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's another "Hilda" variant.[5] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that the reflex of pG -ō, in OHG was indeed -a, if not -a in English nominatives. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I almost forgot, one still has Amelia (a variant of Amalia which was influenced by "Emilia") which is ultimately derived from *amal ("bravery"). They also have "Milly" (from "Mildred"), Ashley (because it can be used as a female name nowadays), Hayleigh, Dawn, Dahlia (sort of), Adele (and thus "Adie"), Erica (sort of, also influenced by the unrealted botany term), Audrey, Beverley, Callie (originated as a short form of "Caroline"), Carol, etc. etc. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Emilia", the feminized "Emil". "Erica", feminized "Eric". "Milly", diminutive of "Mildred", "Milicent", etc. "Addie", diminutive of "Adeline", "Adelaide", etc. "Ashley" is mostly a feminine name now, was once mostly just a surname.[6] "Beverly" means "beaver lodge", I kid you not.[7] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2014_November_20&oldid=1146508613"