Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 May 26

Language desk
< May 25	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 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.

May 26

On the grammar and style of long sentences.

Does this prose read well?

There is no best form of government. No system of government or form of constitution can rid our country of corruption and nepotism. There will always be loopholes and grey areas from which corruption will emerge. A rigid and strict governmental system with laws imposing severe penalties against corruption doesn’t necessarily result in political reform. Likewise, no system of government can promise an instant success without the public officials conscientiously deliberating on the country’s fiscal and economic policies. Hence, changing our system of government, which ultimately requires a substantial revision of our constitution, is abrupt and impractical, to say the least. We don’t need a new government. We need honest and sincere leaders.Rja2015 (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, cause it's nonsense. And btw this is a "request for opinion". Which means that (give it a few hours) some self-appointed RD "enforcer" is bound to hat it. Contact Basemetal here 14:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Go ahead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions:

1) Omit "the" in front of "public officials".

2) Change "country's" to "nation's".

3) "Constitution" should be capitalized, when referring to a specific document.

4) Note that, under the parliamentary system, "a new government" means "the same form of government, but with new leaders", not what it does in the US ("a new form of government"). So, as written, this paragraph wouldn't make sense under the parliamentary system.

(Incidentally, I disagree with the logic, too, but you didn't ask us to comment on that.) StuRat (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. You can comment on the logic of this paragraph too. Overall, how's the style of this paragraph?Rja2015 (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There is illogic in the transition from the first sentence to the last sentence because the first sentence refers to a "form of government" and the last sentence says that "[w]e need honest and sincere leaders." This is sleight of hand. "[H]onest and sincere leaders" are irrespective of a "form of government". Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In short, it's propaganda disguised as a question, and should be zapped as per Basemetal's recommendation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks more like a homework assignment to me. And while we can't do their homework for them, we can review their homework for any errors. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• If Bus Stop can read the passage as sneakily conflating two concepts, when its whole point is to contrast them, there must be some room for improvement in clarity. —Tamfang (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Like Stu I'd change the last "we don't need a new government" into "we don't need a new form of government". I'd also change "no system of government can promise an instant success" into "no system of government can promise instant success". As to the logic, frankly I wouldn't know where to start. It's been known for about 250 years that what you propound here is a fallacy, as nobody has yet come up with a sure way of finding those "honest and sincere leaders", not to mention a way of keeping leaders "honest and sincere". It's been known for that long a time that the best chance to achieve some sort of a reasonable form of government (or at least a form of government that slowly and clumsily moves towards reason) is not by relying on or hoping for moral virtues on the part of either the leaders or the governed but by balancing the selfish self-interest of the several actors. How you do that is an ongoing process of trial and error which does involve in fact tweaking the form of government, and, unfortunately, is not a process that is invariably moving forward. Contact Basemetal here 17:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• For what little it's worth, I disagree with half of StuRat's suggestions: I see no advantage in nation over country (not all sovereign states are nation-states), and I'm content to read constitution as meaning the structure rather than the Document that describes it. Even if comment were invited on the substance of the argument, I hope I'd resist the temptation. —Tamfang (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

On rereading (yeah, I do that sometimes, I know it may be weird) I find I also disagree with StuRat's last point. Wherever the sample paragraph mentions government, it's in a phrase like system of government. If a reader mistakes this for a synonym of cabinet, it is not by the negligence of the writer. Of course, maybe the OP altered the archive after Stu's remarks. —Tamfang (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

There will always be corrupt leaders, but in some forms of government, with no checks and balances, they can do whatever they want, including genocide and stealing all of the nation's wealth (see kleptocracy). In a democracy, especially one with term limits, they can only do limited damage before they are removed from office. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have missed when Barry Goldwater's democratic election led to the destruction of mankind. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, it's not so illogical. But it is too wordy. I will attempt a rewrite: "Various forms of government each have their own weak spots vis-a-vis exploitation by the unsavory slime-buckets that arise from time to time." The phrase "unsavory slime-buckets" can be replaced by "corrupt politicians" for greater palatability. Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Are there any savoury slime-buckets? (Apart from tripe, liver and oysters, that is.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"Various forms of government each have their own weak spots vis-a-vis exploitation by the unsavory slime-buckets that vie for power with the savory slime-buckets known to exist only by the shadows they cast and their barely perceptible gravitational fields." Bus stop (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A pride of lions

A group of wombats is called a "wisdom." A "pride" of lions consists of related females and offspring and a small number of adult males. Why those terminologies? Are there other examples of animals of a species having a specific name when they occur in groups? Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Check out List of English terms of venery, by animal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for. Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There was a list I saw in a computer book, long ago, which had several satirical collective nouns. I can't find the reference just now, but it included a "bleat" of users, an "absence" of hardware engineers, and the like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

lol Bus stop (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Old joke: "Four scholars at Oxford were making their way down the street and happened to see a group of ladies of the evening. 'What’s this?' said the first. 'A jam of tarts?' 'Nay,' said the second, 'an essay of Trollope’s.' 'Rather, a flourish of strumpets,' advanced the third. 'No, gentlemen,' concluded the last. 'Here we have an anthology of pros.'" Deor (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The play is on the word "prose". Bus stop (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I've heard that a group of wombats is also known as a wet mess. Bus stop (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"Terms of venery" is the terminology related to hunting of animals, but these are more generally just collective nouns. Here's a list on wiktionary: [1]. As for "why" - most of these don't have good "reasons" other than they sounded nice or evocative to someone and got used in print. Many are more-or-less made up for fun. Many will have very rare usage outside of such lists, and have several equally "correct" alternates. But that's ok, all words are made up ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"Glint of goldfish" seems very appropriate. Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, I've always been fond of "a kaleidoscope of butterflies". ---Sluzzelin talk 17:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)