From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< November 22	<< Oct | November | Dec >>	November 24 >

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 1 November 23 1.1 Vigil verb 1.2 If you are in India, can you say to a woman that she is a cow? 1.3 It's not who you know, it's whom you know 1.4 Finding subject in certain sentence. 1.5 J'sais aps 1.6 general question about eloquence in languages

[edit] November 23

[edit] Vigil verb

Is there a single verb in English that conveys the meaning of staying awake or keeping vigil? — Kpalion^(talk) 00:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There's probably not a single word that covers it. Most of them are verb phrases, like keep vigil, stand vigil, stand watch, etc. The word invigilate comes from vigil, but the meaning is not the same, now. Steewi (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The verb watch used to have that meaning ("I watched while the others slept" didn't necessarily mean I looked on, just that I stayed awake), but it's obsolete in that meaning now. —Angr 06:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would take the reader some effort to construe "watch" that way nowadays, but it's in the AHD in that sense. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And in SOED as well, although marked something like "obsolete". Bessel Dekker (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. The reason why I asked this question is that I was thinking about the best way to translate some Polish phrases containing the verb czuwać which has the meaning desribed above. One of them is a prayer to Virgin Mary: Jestem przy Tobie, pamiętam, czuwam, "I am with you, I remember, I—" watch? stand watch? keep vigil? Another one is the scouting watchword, Czuwaj, which is the imperative of the verb. The article about the Polish Scouting Association renders it as "be aware" or "stay awake", but I guess a better alternative could be found. "Stand watch", perhaps? — Kpalion^(talk) 17:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I like "I keep vigil" for Mary. "Vigil" has a religious ring to it owing to its slight archaicness. "I watch" indeed does not mean what you want it to—not enough context. "Stand watch" calls to mind sentries. For the Scouts, I like "Be vigilant", because that's what it means. "Be aware" is not bad; I give it a close second, but it lacks the snap of "vigilant". "Stay alert" is a possibility, but it's broader and sounds like a road sign. "Stay awake" is right out—too figurative on the one hand and apt to be taken literally on the other. --Milkbreath (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Be alert, the world needs more lerts." StuRat (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The actual Scout motto in English that corresponds to the Polish one is "Be prepared." Deor (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If you are in India, can you say to a woman that she is a cow?

Since cow is a nice animal over there, it is at least plausible, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.3.246 (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I imagine it would depend on the intent of your message. If it is obvious that you regard cows as a thing above humans, then it would probably be nice. But cows are still animals, and calling a woman such might lead them to believe that they are less than human, even if the animal is a good one. Also, even if cows are revered, they aren't necessarily attractive, so there may be an implication that a woman is unattractive. I would hesitate to call a woman a cow, even in India. Steewi (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Cows are admirable in many ways and perhaps deserve the respect they have in India. I wouldn't want to offend a woman anywhere by comparing her to a cow. It might be just as unfair to a cow to compare her with one of our own plague species. Xn4 00:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I wonder whether this question is in good taste. Why restrict it to a woman rather than a man? And would the next step be to ask about comparing adherents of certain other religions with certain other animals? This is not a linguistic matter anyway: it belongs in the sphere of anthropology. There, too, it might be ill-advised to go into it. Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In English, dogs are often said to be "man's best friend", yet calling someone a dog is an insult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.99.82.107 (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And "bitch" is even worse. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

'Lucky dog' is not an insult (even when 'lucky bitch' is one) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.5.5 (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

...while "fox" is a compliment. Tesseran (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I got curious and did some googling. I came across a blog from a visitor to Uganda, who was given the nickname "as lovely as a cow". I suspect, from reading Alexander McCall Smith, that comparisons to cattle would be quite appreciated in Botswana. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's not who you know, it's whom you know

Could someone confirm I have used "whom" correctly in the following sentences? I've read all the rules, but I'm still not 100% sure. (1) Even in the case of an old friend, we should feel that we don't really know whom we are meeting. (2) The feeling of victimization often comes from our unacknowledged feelings of ill will towards the people whom we imagine dislike us. (3) It is therefore worth considering whom we choose to associate with. Thanks--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In the case of no.2, I would change whom to who. I see the words "we imagine" as a parenthetical clause, which could be omitted without altering the meaning of the sentence. Without those two words, who would be correct ("the people who dislike us"), so I think who is correct with the words "we imagine" as well.

In the case of no.3, whom is correct but formal English would require that the sentence be reordered to "It is worth considering with whom we choose to associate." --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Richardrj about (2) and (3). In (1), the short answer is that "whom" is definitely correct according to the rules. The longer answer is that, despite the rules, very few people would object to "who" in this sentence. I'd go further and say that many people might raise their eyebrows at what they would regard as the over-correctness of "whom" here, particularly if this sentence was spoken, but even in many written contexts. Perceived over-correctness is one thing, but unnatural or clumsy expression may be an even worse sin. There would be many exceptions to this, but the last thing a writer generally wants is to interrupt the flow of the narrative by causing the reader to do even a momentary double-take over the writer's use of language that doesn't sound natural in its context. Despite its technical correctness, "whom" still seems to jar in this sentence, and if it were I/me, I'd use "who". If you're unhappy with using "who", or can't decide which word to use, a recast of the sentence might be called for. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Richardrj and Jack are right on the money as far as "correctness" goes, but I would go further and say that "whom" is moribund and "who" is now correct in any register in all three of your sentences. "Whom" is the feeble old man of pronouns, and it can't stand very well on its own anymore; it needs to be propped up by a preposition standing right next to it. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. One of the "rules" I came across (here) is that if you can remove "whom" without changing the sense, "whom" is correct. However, that seems not to apply in (2) then, because "whom" can certainly be removed.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that rule is therefore defective. A better practical trick is to reword with a personal pronoun referring to the antecedent of who/whom. In this case: "We imagine they don't like us." This type of sentence trips up many people who otherwise observe the traditional who/whom distinction. The only more frequent error is when people write, "Give it to whomever comes first," when whoever is correct as the subject of comes (the object of to is the implied antecedent: "to that person, whoever comes first"). Wareh (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

They qualify their rule with "in most cases". This is one of the other cases. As Richardrj pointed out, the who/whom in (2) relates to "dislike us", not to "we imagine". "We imagine" is parenthetical and can be safely removed without damage to the sense of the sentence. That leaves us with " ... our unacknowledged feelings of ill will towards the people who/whom dislike us". Now, apply the rule. Remove the pronoun and you have " ... our unacknowledged feelings of ill will towards the people dislike us". This makes no sense, therefore a pronoun is required, therefore it can't be "whom" but must be "who". The trouble with the "rule" you referred to is that it leaves the door open for exceptions, without specifying what those exceptions are. Hence, in any given case, you won't know whether the rule applies or not. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll just point out that Richard's claim that no 3 requires a reordering is an acceptable opinion, but it is IMHO not a compulsory prescription. We had a section on this topic just some days ago: You may want to add your bit there for the case.Pallida  Mors 19:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finding subject in certain sentence.

Fairly recently, on Australian version of "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?" appeared following question: Find one or more subjects in this sentence: "Sticks and stones can break my bones".

Before they reveled answer i would bet on anything that correct answer was that subjects were "sticks" and "stones" but it turns out that correct answer was "sticks", "stones" AND "bones". I was sure that "bones" were object of the sentence, something that subject do their activity on and i just can't understands why would "bones" be subject. Did they make a mistake? If they didn't can someone please explain logic behind "bones" being subject. Thanks - Nighthawk001 (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, mistake. They meant to say "find the nouns", it looks like. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

True. There is another mistake, however, if implicitly: the question is not what the subjects are but what the subject is. Subject is not an entity in real life, it is a word group functioning in the sentence. In this sentence, sticks and stones functions as the subject (not subjects), and therefore sticks and stones is ( not: are) the subject. Likewise, the object is my bones (the word group) rather than bones (the brittle things).

No doubt SamuelRiv is right: all these words are nouns, and that is what must have been meant. Funny, because nouns belong in parsing, not in sentence analysis, a different activity altogether. Bessel Dekker (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. As BesselDekker said, the subject is a complete syntactical structure which, in the present example, amounts to "sticks and stones". One could say of course that the subject is compound, in the sense that it has two nuclei, sticks and stones. Furthermore, bones is a noun that acts as the nucleum of the object. Well, it constitutes the whole object! Pallida  Mors 19:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've watched that program a few times out of curiosity, and I caught that episode. The show glorifies and handsomely rewards ignorance in a most shameless manner. Usually, it's the embarrassing ignorance of the contestants that's on display. In this case it was the ignorance of the question-setters, which is far more serious because it actively spreads disinformation to an already under-educated public. Since the supposed answers cannot be trusted, my recommendation is not to take it seriously if you do watch it; or not watch it at all. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Last night on the Canadian version of the show, they asked which island group the true North Pole is in. The question was multiple choice and the contestant gave the expected answer (Queen Elizabeth Islands) by eliminating the other two. But in fact the Pole is in the open sea about 500 miles from those islands. Good grief. I certainly agree with Jack's recommendation. --Anonymous, 01:17 UTC, November 24, 2007.

Yes, Jack, figured that much by myself. I bet if anyone who ever answered anything on WP:RD would care to apply for that show, they wouldn't get past interview. They seam to selectively pick "stupid" people, and stretch their concept of 5th grade question, asking questions that no 5th grader would know (except of their coached kids). When they finally break the limit, they go with blatant mistake like this one. And I also strongly agree about your statement of undereducated public. First off, just to note, I'm not Australian, i came from Croatia (my native language being Croatian, and second English) , where i felt European educational system on my own skin. After that, Australian education seamed to limited and focused on skills you need, and not generally educating their students. Which is wrong in my opinion. Nighthawk001 (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Rant: Why would people go on a show where the only thing they can prove is that they're smart enough to graduate from a class they've already done, and run the risk of showing that they should have been kept back? /rant 130.56.65.25 (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I know it was a rhetorical question, but how about $1,000,000? jeffjon (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J'sais aps

Can anyone tell me the meaning of this French phrase? My first instinct was Verlan (i.e. J'sais pas) but I couldn't find anything that would actually tell me! --Bearbear (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a typo to me. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case it would have to be two typos, which I suppose is possible. But it might be Verlan (or an attempt at it). What was the context? Bessel Dekker (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be in a dialect, or a related language such as Jèrriais. Our esteemed colleague User:Jade Knight may be able to shed some light. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I like your first instinct, Bearbear, it must surely be a typo for "J'sais pas"... translate as "I dunno". Xn4 01:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was a typo, because it was written by hand and also said to me!--Bearbear (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I've had another thought, it could be shorthand for "je sais absolument rien". Xn4 14:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried googling the phrase and I fond this website which confirms that aps is Verlan for pas. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Kpalion. And at least that site agrees with "I dunno"! Xn4 21:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone :-) --Bearbear (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that the final "s" is normally not pronounced; "aps" is rather spelled "ap", and "j'sais" is sometimes spelled "ché". Some links: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Korg (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] general question about eloquence in languages

In English, there is something (which I have never mastered) called elegant variation: altering ones choice of words by using synonyms to create a pleasing and colourful effect. Without such variation, writing becomes staid and monotonous. Yet I read somewhere that Old French had a limited vocabulary, and supplanted elegant variation with something more like "elegant repetition." That is, the rhythm of good prose came from using the same word repeatedly, so it had perhaps a kind of sonorous, meditative feel. Such writing would sound dreadful in English. Does anyone know if my understanding of the nature of Old French is correct, and if there are other languages that employ a limited vocabulary in the same way? 203.221.127.206 (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Elegant variation" is a phrase coined by HW Fowler in his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926); it does not quite have the meaning you ascribe to it. To modern ears, it would be simplest to describe the usage of the word "elegant" in the phrase as sarcastic - elegant variation is, according to the New Oxford Dictionary of English, "the stylistic fault of studiedly finding different ways to denote the same thing in a piece of writing, merely to avoid repetition".

Thus, using words like tome, volume, paperback etc merely to avoid repeating the perfectly adequate word book would be an example of "elegant variation". The motive on the writer's part may well be to create "a pleasing and colourful effect", but the result is more likely to be jarring or distracting unless the choice of words is handled very carefully. The phrase is intended to be opprobrious, rather than laudatory. 64.236.80.62 (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right, but there is a tendency for inexpert writers to use pet words that would benefit by a little variation. If everything is "striking" or "invaluable" or "important", the words lose their meaning and the writer loses credibility. It's not so much a matter of variation, though, as saying what you mean each time. The problem can be better addressed by deleting every adjective and adverb you can find, of course, but if you must have more than one, make them different from each other unless you want to emphasize a quality.

Too, there is a place for repetition of the kind you suppose must have existed in Old French (you have no doubt noticed that we are avoiding that part of your question). It can come as hammer blows to the sensibilities or as dew dripping from a leaf into a mountain pool. It is often a comfort to the reader to have a familiar word scattered through a text like steppingstones. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The sonorous repetition of particular words or phrases for poetic effect is common in Classical Greek narrative poetry: look at how Homer is always banging on about the Argives' black ships or the wine-dark sea. 64.236.80.62 (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fowler's sarcasm is not shared by everybody, and applies to elegant rather than to variation in the first place. The discussion, which seems to be veering to the subject of rhetoric, might benefit by distinguishing between a few different tropes (and between theme and variation):

1. Repetition for emphasis (But Brutus is an honourable man): studied and effective
2. Repetition for lack of better words (Well then I...): often unconscious and easily boring
3. Lively variation (Then... Next... Subsequently... etc. etc.), to avoid the kiss of death: studied and often effective
4. Forced variation (Fowler's butt): studied, rather inept, diverts attention from the message.

In fact, repetition itself is a problem in literature. There are conventions which disapprove of originality. There are conventions which reject repetition. Some schools embrace the familiar, others welcome the inventive. Bessel Dekker (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Mapping Echoes with TACT in the Old French Epic the Charroi de Nîmes1

EDWARD A. HEINEMANN

New College, University of Toronto Canada

Edward A. Heinemann, Department of French, New College, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1.

Repetition in the Old French epic is proving to go far beyond the epic cliché and the ‘oral formula’, and a number of texts show brilliant use of echo as an aesthetic device. Computerized searches tracing such recurrences, however, are hindered by an often elaborate play of variation in the echoes. ... After describing briefly the fact of repetition in the genre and the problems posed by the variation of expression in repetitions (Section 1) and the two-phase approach to tagging under TACT (Section 2), we examine the complicated weave of constants and variables found in the Charroi de Nîmes (Section 3) and the progressive approach to their discovery and indexing under TACT (Section 4), and we conclude with a summary of those tools offered by TACT which serve this project (Section 5) and of lines of further enquiry both in the Charroi and in the genre in general (Section 6).
So it looks as though your understanding was correct. SaundersW (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And in this [5] long document discussing Breton lays (p54), we find the sentence The lady presents her case through the rhetorical device of anaphora, the repetition of a word or a phrase in successive lines. So now the device has a name!SaundersW (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only do we have the Classical term anaphora for repetition, but we also have such terms for avoiding repetition: Latin variatio, Greek μεταβολή. That said, it is striking that in Ancient Greek, and in most Medieval languages I've read (of which Old French is one of the ones I'm most superficially acquainted), there is often an evident and striking lack of concern for what a Victorian would consider inelegant repetition. If you browse through the first canto of Dante's Inferno, you'll find several examples. I'm not so convinced by the analogy between elegant variation and elegant repetition. The marked practice is the compulsion to vary wording. In idioms that lack this compulsion, I'm not sure the rhetorical significance of repetition is any different as a result. I'd be surprised if there is any literature whose critics have not commented on rhetorically effective repetition. Wareh (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those fascinating answers, especially the last two, which between them seem to confirm about half of what I wrote. As I understand it from Wareh's answer, "the marked practice that is, in most languages and idioms, is the compulsion to vary..." Also, I wasn't really saying that the importance of repetition was due to the lack of compulsion to vary, but because of the impossibility of this with a limited vocabulary. Still, Wareh's answer appears to hold equally, given the generalisation in his last sentence, which sounds reasonable. 203.221.127.19 (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I was clear. When I said "marked," that was, I suppose, a vulgarized use of the concept of markedness; what I meant is that, in most langages and periods (but according to the impression made by my extremely partial knowledge), there is no compulsion to vary, and therefore it is perhaps the compulsion to vary, and its attendant consequences, that should be regarded as a special restricted case. Since leaving my comment, I read James Wood's recent review of the Pevear-Volokhonsky translation of War and Peace. Search for the word "juicy" for Wood's discussion of Tolstoy's non-aversion to repetition, and the distaste this provoked in critics who prized variation, which Wood associates with Flaubert ("Il se répète!"), even naming the whole tendency "post-Flaubertian." That's a very partial view at best, as Early Modern literature in English was certainly often variation-obsessed (Shakespeare, the 1611 Bible). Wareh (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)