Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 March 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< March 28 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 30 >
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.


Contents


[edit] March 29

[edit] Who/whom

My friend and I were watching a television show. One character refers to someone and another character interrupts: "I'm sorry—whom did you say?" My friend exclaimed that that was incorrect, that it should be who. I initially thought the character was correct, but now I'm not sure. Is it the direct object of say and so it should be whom? Is it the subject of an unfinished sentence ("Who did you say [should perform the investigation]?")? Or something else? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A person can't be the direct object of the verb "say" (how do you "say" someone?), so I'd go with the latter; it's the subject of the unfinished sentence "who [should perform the investigation]?", and that sentence is in turn is the object of the verb "say". So your friend was right and it should be "who". FiggyBee 04:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course, for many of us, "whom" is obsolete and "who" is correct regardless. --Anon, March 29, 2007, 05:57 (UTC).
Who says that "whom" is obsolete? --Richardrj talk email 08:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
There are many people whom never use it. For they, it's obsolete. —Angr 08:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
But obsolescence is an external thing. A word is only obsolete if no-one uses it. The anon above can't just opt out of a basic rule of English because he/she feels like it. --Richardrj talk email 10:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean "because him/she feels like it".
That said, it is a common irregularity in English to use "who" instead of "whom", and "whom" sounds quite odd to most people unless it's immediately preceded by a preposition ("Whom are you talking about?" sounds strange, but is techically correct, while "To whom do you refer?" sounds okay). Most people use "who" most of the time, and in all but very formal contexts you'll get away with it. On the other hand, misusing "whom" is always a no-no, which is why a lot of people are afraid of the word. FiggyBee 11:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC) changed this a bit, on reflection

Thank you, FiggyBee, that makes sense (though it's too bad; I wanted my show to be correct). Anon, I appreciate your insight—I should have specified that the context was standard (dictionary) English, though I can understand the appeal for abandoning a separate form for the objective case. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure many of we can understand that appeal. —Angr 06:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If whom is not yet obsolete, it's certainly obsolescent. Which is a pity, imo. There's a lovely anecdote where one person said "Who you know is more important than what you know", to which the other person replied "I disagree. Whom you know is more important than either of them". Or words to that effect. JackofOz 13:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Is that in the biblical sense or what? @_@ I don't get it... 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 20:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, maybe if I gave what I think is the original version rather than my lame attempt at remembering it, it might be clearer. Person A said "It's not what you know, it's who you know". Person B replied "It's not even who you know, it's whom you know". It was a neat way of pointing out the correct use of "whom" vs. "who", not about Biblical .. (er) knowing. I'm struggling to find the source of this on Google. I thought it might have been by Dorothy Parker, but I've drawn a blank there. Any suggestions? JackofOz 04:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Prescriptivists may go on about subjects and objects, and datives and ablatives, but any alien linguist would tell you that "who" is for daily use, and "whom" is for when you want to sound sofisticated. --TotoBaggins 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "A place to hangout" or "a hangout place"?

There's a dispute on my talk page (click "duck" on my sig) on what to use. Can anyone explain which is better? --Howard the Duck 12:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "hangout" is a verb in itself, it should be "a place to hang out", otherwise, both seem correct to me. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 12:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see the context of the disputed phrase, but off the top of my head, I'd say that a hangout is a place to hang out. Note that the noun is a single (compound) word, and does not normally take "place" after it. The verb form requires two words. Examples: "The video arcade is a popular hangout with the Dance Dance Revolution crowd." or "Since they put in the new DDR machine, the arcade has become the most popular place to hang out." --LarryMac 12:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's all really petty, actually. On Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines, there's a line that says "Tambayan is a Filipino word which means a place for hanging out." (notice hanging out, as you've said). User:WizzieBlue changed it to "Tambayan is a Filipino word which means a hang out place." I reverted it, and a mini-revert way escalated. Then WizzieBlue apparently had a Wikibreak and contacted me on my user page (now I do admit I was brash, but...) today, which led me to post here.
As for your and Wakuran's explanations, it helps a lot. Thanks to you both. --Howard the Duck 13:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
A revert war over whether to call something "a hangout place" or "a place for hanging out"? That's got to be one of the lamest revert wars ever. —Angr 13:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey at least it's about grammar thingy. --Howard the Duck 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It should be either Tambayan is a Filipino word that means "hangout". or Tambayan is a Filipino word that means "a place to hang out". It is standard, in American English at least, to use "that" for restrictive clauses and "which" for nonrestrictive clauses following a comma. Since this is a restrictive clause (i.e., the meaning of the first clause is not complete without the second clause), you should use "that". Also, "a place to hang out" is more idiomatic than "a place for hanging out". (Actually, "a place for hanging out" suggests a place set aside for hanging out, which is unusual given the casual feel of the verb "to hang out", whereas "to hang out" suggests a place suitable for hanging out, which is all a person usually needs to hang out.) Marco polo 17:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I was one of the editors who voted for "a place to hang out" for the same reasons. Thanks for making this clear to us :) --- Tito Pao 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] executive management

(question moved from Miscellaneous RD)

Dear friends, I've been reading a text on managers and executives and came across the word executive toy. What could it mean in the context. The sentence is Imane, a chain of shops, specialising in pricey executive toys ) Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.140.89.79 (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Basically all the gadgets and goodies that execs buy to make it clear that they make more money than you. -- mattb @ 2007-03-29T12:53Z
In Britain in the 70s, 'executive toy' had a more specific meaning than that - it used to refer to little toys that "executives" would supposedly like to have on their desks. They tended to be made out of stainless steel, and either had magnets in them or little weighted balls or figures that the executive could set in motion and watch them slowly come to rest while thinking executive-type thoughts. Anyone else know what I'm going on about? --Richardrj talk email 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
A quick Google search took me to the site for Office Playground which shows several examples of "executive toys." There were many other search results returned, of course, no endorsement of this company should be inferred. --LarryMac 13:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "One or more" - 'is' or 'are'?

Which of these would be correct?

  • "One or more of your subscriptions is due to expire"
  • "One or more of your subscriptions are due to expire"

...or should I be phrasing it completely differently? I'm leaning towards the second one, but someone else I asked thinks the opposite.

Cheers — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 14:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I always heard that in the "X or Y" construction, the verb should agree with the member it's closest to, thus:
  • One or more of your subscriptions are due to expire.
but
  • Is one or more of my subscriptions due to expire?
—Angr 14:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, I have heard that if there is a plural of the item in the sentence, then the verb should agree with the plural, giving you Are one or more of my subscriptions due to expire rather than your suggestion of Is one or more of my subscriptions due to expire. I have no evidence to back up either of us though. P.S. I am from England and it may be that there are different rules for this in British English and American English (therefore I may have given the correct British English version and User:Angr may have given the correct American English version). Besides, I would recommend rephrasing the sentence as suggested below. --80.229.152.246 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm always a huge fan of recasting a sentence when such confusion arises. In this instance, I'd go with "One or more of your subscriptions will expire soon." --LarryMac 14:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Aah, of course. Thank you! — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 15:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Or "At least one of your subscriptions is due to expire". JackofOz 04:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It is also not uncommon to render the construction as follows:
  • One (or more) of your subscriptions is (are) due to expire. (A favorite of one of the smartest people I have ever met, who is also incidentally one of the worst writers, make of that what you will).
Personally, I favor the first variant you posted, because "One or more" can not be satisified without also satisfying "At least one", which would indicate that is the subject of the sentence. dr.ef.tymac 02:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singular or plural

Hi. I have a grammar question. How should this be written, with singular or plural? Sorry if this is an obvious question, but my English is not very good. Thanks, Cattus 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Plural. The subject of your sentence is "territories." --LarryMac 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. StuRat 02:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birthday Card in Polish

I realise that this Reference Desk is not designed to be used as a translation service, but I would still like to know the following so that I might be able to buy my sister a birthday card while I am in Poland. Could someone please tell me how to write the following in Polish for a birthday card, please? Also, could someone tell me what word(s) to look for on a Polish birthday card if I want to send one to my sister? E.g. On an English card, it often says 'To my sister' or something similar to that, what would this be in Polish? Obviously, the <name> bits need not be translated.

 Dear <name>
 Happy Birthday
 Love From <name>

Thank you very much for any help you can give. --80.229.152.246 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the Polish word for "Birthday" is "Urodziny", it's likely inflected by case, as well, if the spelling differs. You could probably ask the clerk for help. If s/he wouldn't know any English, sometimes German works, where the equivalent term is "Geburtstag" (geh-BOURTS-taak). 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the most common birthday greeting in Polish is "Dziś są Twoje urodziny!". Another is "Wszystkiego Najlepszego z okazji Urodzin". For "Dear", you could use "Kochana". (This is the feminine form, since you are addressing your sister.) "With love from" would be "Z miłością od" or "Kochająca". "To my sister" would be "Mojej siostrze". Marco polo 01:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Just out of interest, could someone provide a literal translation of the Polish? I guess "Twoje urodziny" must be "your birthday", and "Mojej siostrze" "My (with locative case) sister", but what about the rest? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the help, it was exactly what I am looking for. --80.229.152.246 16:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you can only use "Kochająca" if you are female; if you are male, you should use ""Kochający". It means "Loving" or "Lovingly". "Kochana" literally means "Beloved". "Dziś są Twoje urodziny!" literally means "Today is your birthday!". "Wszystkiego Najlepszego z okazji Urodzin" literally means "All the best on the occasion of your birthday". Z miłością od" literally means "With love from". Wakuran correctly translated everything else. Marco polo 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)