Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 September 8

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.

September 8

Correlative conjunctions

Not only ... but also is a correlative conjunction that's similar in meaning to both ... and that gives emphasis to the latter. However, there's also a correlative conjunction that corresponds to either ... or that differs the exact same way; this is not necessarily ... but possibly. How come so many sources include not only ... but also as a correlative conjunction but none include not necessarily ... but possibly?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it tautological? I mean, if something is "not necessarily true", that automatically means it is "possibly true", and that doesn't need to be stated. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

By my reading, the OP is contrasting "Not only X, but also Y" with "Not necessarily X, but possibly Y" (rather than "Not necessarily X, but possibly." which seems to be your reading) MChesterMC (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, but I wouldn't expect such lists to be exhaustive. You're really just getting into parallel structures and phrasing with not necessarily ... but possibly, right?

We can make up all sorts of these, and yet they are probably not going to show up in grammar books or dictionaries: Sufficiently, X,... though sometimes Y or expectedly, A, ... even though B. Our articles at Conjunction_(grammar)#Correlative_conjunctions and Correlative seem to indicate there are many, many possibilities, so they describe the concept and list a few examples, rather than attempt an comprehensive list. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Preposition

Is the use of prepositions correct in the following sentence?

"He had been my junior partner at my legal practice for a couple years."

Thanks. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's grammatical. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You are missing a preposition between "couple" and "years". It should be "couple of years". —Stephen (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

One could also say "two years"... --Jayron32 15:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"Couple of years" is acceptable, but so is "couple years", at least in informal usage, like for a novel. Here [1] someone suggests it may be a BrEng/AmEng split, similar comments here [2]. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

We Americans might say it as "a couple o' years", which I'm sure would set Henry Higgins spinning in his fictional grave. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but I understood that the major difference was that in Britain the phrase "a couple of" means "two", while in America it means "a few". 80.44.94.57 (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No, in America a couple consists of two. No one pictures an orgy when one describes a couple. --Jayron32 12:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That's far too dogmatic a statement. "Couple" to mean "a small group" is very common usage in America. Dictionary.com [3] says "The phrase a couple of, meaning “a small number of; a few; several,” has been in standard use for centuries, especially with measurements of time and distance and in referring to amounts of money." It also notes that the omission of "of" is an recent informal Americanism. CodeTalker (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect, in English, like in American, a couple can mean both two or a few, depending on context. Fgf10 (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me. It seems odd that you would say "incorrect" before doing so, however. Stating that one of the possible meanings of "couple" in American English is "two" when I did the same thing, but then calling me incorrect, is just plain weird.--Jayron32 18:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone else read Fgf10 as agreeing with Jayron32? —Tamfang (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

My indentation made it perfectly clear I was replying to the 80.44 IP, not Jayron32. The IP was incorrect, not Jayron. Not sure how you could read it otherwise.Fgf10 (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Misread the indentations. Mea culpa. --Jayron32 20:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionaries offers a series of definitions suggesting that "couple" means exactly two, or a pair; and a further meaning of "an indefinite small number". Bazza (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Several

The word "several" appeared above as part of the definition of "a couple of", along with "a few" and "a small number of". That accords with what used to be my long-time understand understanding of "several". But I've become gradually disabused of this idea by things I see all over Wikipedia, along the lines of: Shakespeare wrote several plays; there are several cities in India; the universe contains several stars, etc. My impression is that it is now taken to mean "a number greater than one", with no upper bound, literally. But now along comes dictionary.com, which puts it back in its cage of "a small number of". So, I'm left confused. Can someone clarify this? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who'd use understand as a noun would, I dunno, letterspace blackletter or bite cigars. —Tamfang (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionaries states "More than two but not many", the precision of which is nicely appropriate for the word in question. Bazza (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The origin is related to "sever", e.g. "The governor shall ensure that the grant be divided equally among three several parties", to specify that the parties are severed from each other. Apparently we gradually forgot the "distinct" meaning and assumed that it was a vague reference to the number of the concepts being addressed. Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This was explained earlier:

No. Two would not be considered to amount to "several". There is one caveat, however, the legal term "joint and several liability". This basically means that if you sign up to that everyone is equally liable so if the other party/parties on your side of the contract default you are liable for their share. 86.176.16.43 (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it includes two down here. If someone said to me "Look, there are several cars coming down our driveway", I'd know it was more than 1 and probably less than 5, but could be any of 2, 3 or 4. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)