Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 July 24

Language desk
< July 23	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 25 >

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.

July 24

'College' for ages 3–18?

How atypical is the use of 'college' in the name of this British school: St. Anthony's College, Mijas? I used to think that 'college' in English always referred to 'tertiary education', even in British English. --31.4.138.251 (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It's unusual but not unique, there are plenty of "colleges" who are "schools". Personally I've only really come across them as private, fee-paying schools. See Dulwich College as an example. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

And it is the standard term for 6th form (16-18 years old), which is still secondary. From College#United_Kingdom:

In the United Kingdom, "college" can refer to either sixth form in the context of secondary education, or a constituent part of a university in the context of higher education.

Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You forgot further education colleges which offer mainly vocational courses to those who have left school. I agree with User:TammyMoet that British schools that call themselves colleges are generally fee-paying independent schools: see Brighton College, Trent College, Ardingly College, Ratcliffe College and of course Eton College (although the last is 14-18 only). Alansplodge (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the article is repetitive and less than ideal.Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, some preparatory schools call themselves "colleges". I've found Kew College which only takes pupils up to the age of 11. Thincat (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Further concurrence with Tammy and Alan: my own secondary (11-18) school was/is called Kent College, and was a 'public' school in being part of the Headmasters' Conference, though a significant proportion of its pupils received free tuition through the government's Direct Grant system. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.26.60 (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

See Collegium. A collegium was an association under ancient Roman law, roughly equivalent to a modern non-profit corporation. It would seem that originally the word "college" referred to the collegium or association of priests that operated a school, whether or not within a university. Vestiges of this usage are found with the College of Cardinals, which is the highest-ranking Catholic college of priests, and in the US Electoral College. In modern usage, it normally but not always refers to higher education. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hence the term "colleague".[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

French to English Wiki article creation

Is there a wikiproject that works on translating French wiki article to English or place to put translation requests?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English.—Wavelength (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

That one is more for articles that are already on en.wiki but aren't in English. There is a WikiProject for this, but I don't know how active it is: Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/French. There is also Wikipedia:Translation for other options on how to get an article translated. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia translation contains Category:Articles needing translation from French Wikipedia.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

English Intensifiers

unsigned request for speculation, see top of page for guidelines μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At present, there are three degrees of intensifiers in English Language: Positive, comparative and superlative. In he face of ever-evolving dynamism of language, do we see the possibility of another degree of comparison?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

► Non-speculative reference information follows. See reference desk for context:

The use of degree (of intensifier) is more of a segregation of type than a scale of variation. Confer three degrees of a burn -- while a burn can be categorized in one of three degrees, there is variability within degrees. This dissertation might be of interest: "Intensifiers in current English" (PDF). See also: Osgood's semantic differential. -- preceding comment added by an editor who believes that IPs are people too 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:98E7:59EE:3480:3C03 (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to be contrary, the OP (I don't know or care whether he's an IP WP:COMPETENCE) has asked for us ("do we see") to speculate on the future development of English. He also seems to have confused adjective, most of which have comparatives and superlatives; with intensifiers, which do not. There is no sequence supe, super, supest; or rathe, rather, rathest.

So whatever you like, the OP should follow the guidelines and express himself clearly, or even say, "am I using the right words here" and give an example of what he means. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When examining past scholarly discourse regarding problems defining categories of intensive qualifiers, as the linked source does, one can make projections (or "speculation", if you prefer) regarding limitation of intensifiers to three degrees. For example, the source refers to a study by Sidney Greenbaum concerning restrictions or co-occurrences of intensifiers with verbs, leading to the (speculative) possibility of a "heightened" degree.

And frankly, unilaterally shutting down the OP's query as a "request for speculation" had indeed put this responder in a contrary mood as reflected in the tone of the reply. --[dynamic IP]:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:30F1:64EA:E6A4:7C2C (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Parenthetical phrases

When is a parenthetical phrase not parenthetical?

Parenthesis (rhetoric) says: "The parenthesis could be left out and still form grammatically correct text".

Consider this sentence I wrote recently:

• The inordinate delay meant that large numbers of people from distant parts, who would not otherwise have considered making the journey, did so.

Leaving out the bit enclosed in commas leaves us with:

• The inordinate delay meant that large numbers of people from distant parts did so.

A reader would now be asking: "Did what?", because the sense of the sentence relies absolutely on the bit between the commas, but that can allegedly be left out without risk. I mean, it's still a valid sentence, but it's lacking some important information to make it make sense. So is this really parenthetical after all? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It is clearly not parenthetical at all - it contains information without which the main clause does not make sense. Wymspen (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing ungrammatical about the sentence after the stuff between the commas is removed, so that stuff is indeed parenthetical (it "could be left out and still form grammatically correct text") in the syntactic sense. I think that you (and Wymspen) are confusing grammar with logic, Jack. Deor (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Right, so "grammatically correct text" is the sole criterion. Good to have that clarified. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

I would dispute whether the reduced phrase is grammatical. The problem is that the expression "did so" is not used in a grammatically correct manner - it requires the prior statement of the action to which it refers. It is surely difficult to call a sentence "grammatical" if it doesn't actually make sense. Wymspen (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

That gets us into "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" territory. Such sentences are semantically nonsensical, but grammatically correct. That's what I was getting confused about in my question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd consider the phrase between the commas in your example parenthetical. Grammarians can tell me I'm wrong, but I'd focus on the meaning and not base the determination on whether mechanically deleting the phrase would result in a grammatical sentence. In your example, "so" is a pronoun. It just so happens that the antecedent is found in the parenthetical phrase. Your example is equivalent in meaning to:

The inordinate delay meant that large numbers of people from distant parts, who would not otherwise have considered making the journey, did [make the journey].

If you delete the phrase in the middle, what you have left is:

The inordinate delay meant that large numbers of people from distant parts [...] did [make the journey].

That is a grammatical and perfectly understandable sentence. --72.78.149.18 (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, "so" is an adverb - it qualifies the verb "do". Wymspen (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

"So" can be an adverb, but not in example sentence we're talking about here. In that sentence, it functions as a pronoun. See sense 4 of this dictionary entry. --72.78.149.18 (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)