Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 September 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< September 18 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 20 >
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] September 19

[edit] When referring to groups...

When referring to a group of people who use the name of a single thing (as in Modest Mouse, The Blue Man Group) is the correct phrasing X is here or X are here? Does it vary between British english and American? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Froglars the frog (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement. -Elmer Clark 07:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I read all of the above. It got me thinking. Why would we say "The Yankees is a great baseball team" ... but ... "The Yankees are playing at six o'clock" ...? By some twisted logic, does the first use of the term Yankees refer to the one collective group / team / whole body ... and does the second use of the word Yankees refer to each one of the 20 individual players (one by one)? By context, it seems that both uses refer to one entire body/team (and not the 20 individual players on that one team) ... and thus should both take the same verb form of "is". And certainly, this does not sound right: "The Yankees is playing at six o'clock." So, what am I missing ... or where is my thinking incorrect? Thanks a lot. (Joseph A. Spadaro 13:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC))


I would say "the Yankees are" in all contexts, but then I'm not a Yankee myself... 80.254.147.52 13:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I am a Yankee (though not a baseball player), and I'd never say "The Yankees is ..." --LarryMac | Talk 13:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that the same as saying "The committee are meeting at six o'clock" ...? (i.e., incorrect grammar) or no ...? The word "is" is correct for this six-o'clock committee sentence, no? (Joseph A. Spadaro 13:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC))
It's not at all the same. In the linked article, it states "Proper nouns which are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Colts are the champions." --LarryMac | Talk 13:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, then I am at a loss to explain the album title The Animals is Here... -Elmer Clark 23:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
In English English the convention when applied to teams is to use the plural when referring to the team (as if it's lots of people) and the singular for the club (as if it's an entity), hence "The Norwich team are the Pride of Anglia; the club is currently languishing in the Football League Championship." --Dweller 13:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Dweller ... So what does that do for my original 2 sentences (great baseball team; and playing at six o'clock)? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 13:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC))
Joseph, as a Brit I would be happy with "The Yankees are a great team", slightly more than "The Yankees is a great team", and I think that is because the name "Yankees" has plural form. On the other hand I would say "Norwich is a great team" (or not a great team) or "Norwich are a great team", but "They are a great team", not "It is a great team". You are quite right that "The Yankees is playing" does not sound right, and I think this is again because of the plural form. "When is Norwich playing?" sounds as though Norwich is one of the teams taking part in a tournament that will consist of many matches running over the course of a day: "When are Norwich playing?" sounds as though there is one match that day and I am not sure of the time. SaundersW 14:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"They are a great team" = the players are highly skilled and work well together.
"It is a great team" = with a wonderful history, organisation, facilities etc.
FiggyBee 09:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think what SaundersW's comment comes down to is that with a singular name (eg. Norwich), you have 2 options. Nobody would object to either "When is Norwich playing?" or "When are Norwich playing?". They're both reasonable, for different reasons. And they can be easily interchanged within a dialogue (Q. When is Norwich playing? A. They are playing tomorrow. - and vice-versa.) But with a plural-form name, you really have only one option. Most people would object to "When is the Yankees playing?", or, in reference to the Yankees, "It is playing tomorrow". -- JackofOz 00:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best Word Choice?

Let's say that someone like Jennifer Hudson has only won one Oscar Award, but that someone like Katharine Hepburn has won several of them (2, 3, 4, 100, whatever ... any number bigger than 1 ...). What are some good, appropriate adjectives to describe each person ... such as to fill in the blanks: Hudson is a __________ winner, while Hepburn is a __________ winner. Hudson is a one-time winner (seems too informal or unprofessional). Hudson is a single winner (makes no sense). Hepburn is a multiple winner (that sentence doesn't get the idea across, almost makes no sense). Hepburn is a repeat winner (also seems informal/unprofessional to me). Any suggestions, without reconstructing the sentence? Ultimately, what I am trying to say is this:

  • Since the first Academy Awards ceremony, 800 actors have won an Oscar: 100 of them are __________ winners, while 700 are __________ winners.

Any suggestions, without reconstructing the sentence? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 13:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

Hudson is a one-off winner, Hepburn is a multiple or prodigious winner. But I suspect that the former may not be regarded as good English in the USA. --Dweller 13:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hudson is an Oscar winner. Hepburn is a multiple Oscar winner.
I'm not sure that it is possible to find an adjective that is specific enough in this case without either naming the award itself, or reconstructing the sentence. The adejective you are seeking modifies the award - the number of times it was received - and not the recipient. Not naming the award leads to confusion as the modifier ("single winner," "multiple winner,") seems to apply to the person. - Eron Talk 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the sentence I am really concerned with, not the Hudson/Hepburn one:

  • Since the first Academy Awards ceremony, 800 actors have won an Oscar: 100 of them are _______ winners, while 700 are _______ winners. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 14:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC))
one-off and multiple will do you admirably. I think the preferred Americanism for the former is "one-time" but you seem to think this too informal for your needs. I don't know if there's a worthy alternative. You could give the information by inference, hence:
  • Since the first Academy Awards ceremony, 800 actors have won an Oscar; 700 of them are multiple award-winners.

--Dweller 14:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Without reconstructing the sentence, I think "100 of them are single winners, while 700 are multiple winners," would probably do the job as there is enough context in the whole sentence to make it clear what you mean. (That said, I prefer Dweller's reconstructed version.) - Eron Talk 14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
How about the following:
Since the first Academy Awards ceremony, 800 actors have won an Oscar, of whom 100 have won more than once.
Or something along those lines. --Kyoko 14:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Recasting the sentence is (as almost always) the appropriate decision, and this rephrasing would work perfectly. Tesseran 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"One-off" sounds decidedly British, to my American ear. Corvus cornix 17:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
What nationality is your other ear? Clarityfiend 01:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Why, it is the one that is off! 03:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.230.198 (talk)
But of course! I knew there was a logical explanation. Clarityfiend 04:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to ask that damn Jenkins. Corvus cornix 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
unique winners...repeat winners. You could try sole-winners...winners numerous times . How about... solitary and mulitple. I cannot see this mattering particularly provided you are clear one group are holders of only one award, while the other group are winners of multiple awards. ny156uk 18:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Single-award winners, not single winners, to avoid confusion with marital status. Clarityfiend 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"One-off" has the connotation that it was an unexpected and never repeated win. The door, having been opened, is now securely and permanently shut. E.g., John Wayne, while extremely famous and popular, was never really considered Oscar material, despite his nomination for Sands of Iwo Jima - until True Grit, but even then, it was widely claimed that the award was not so much for his performance in that one film but in acknowledgment for the credit he'd built up over decades, in hundreds of films. Jennifer Hudson, on the other hand, is alive and well and may well be nominated - and win again - in the future. -- JackofOz 00:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Right. That's what I've always thought the Britishism "one-off" meant. In Merkin it would be "a one-time thing". To answer our friend's question: Without recasting, "one-time" and "multiple" are perfectly good English (American, anyhow) in any register and the only words possible, as far as I can tell. --Milkbreath 11:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"In Merkin?" --Dweller 16:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, like "Ozzie" only diametrical. --Milkbreath 18:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idiom: Blood on Blood

I listned to bruce springsteens highway patrolman and heard the prhase "blood on blood". I think i understand the meaning but it would be nice if someone could place an explanation under the category idiom since i guess it is the right place? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.172.177.18 (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this was an idiom, since that is defined as a phrase with a figurative meaning which is only known through common use. In this case I don't think "blood on blood" is a commonly used phrase. You don't say what your understanding of the phrase is, but in the context of the song it refers to the close relationship between two brothers. --Richardrj talk email 04:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The e-word

Is there a word that can be called the e-word? (Just as love can be called the l-word) Lova Falk 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Anything beginning with 'e' could be called the 'e-word'. Unless you make it clear what the context is, however, people might not know what word you mean. There are a few words which are generally known by their initial ('f-word', 's-word'), but even these are not certain. I would not immediately think of 'love' for the 'l-word'. Daniel (‽) 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It all depends on the context. A quick Google search suggests that evangelism, ethanol, evolution, and evil have all been called the e-word — but all with appropriate context so readers aren't left in the dark. —Keenan Pepper 18:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
As Keenan Pepper says, it does depend on context. In some contexts the c-word is "commitment", for example. I could also imagine using the expression "e-word" to describe terms like email, e-banking, e-commerce, e-learning, and so on. SaundersW 18:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it could be anything that starts with the letter e that one considers (or jokingly pretends to consider) a bad word; in the right context it could be environment, economy, earthquake, etc., etc. —Angr 18:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers! I got really confused when I googled "e-word", trying to find out what was meant, because I didn't know the meaning could change according to the context. Lova Falk 18:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It's almost like a miniature snowclone IMHO. --Kjoonlee 19:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
According to its head master, Tony Little, "Eton is a four-letter word". Xn4 02:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
elephant. Capuchin 10:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Kjoonlee hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what it is, a miniature snowclone, the archetype being "the 'f' word", "fuck". --Milkbreath 11:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, in the UK, anyone referring to "e" is likely to be understood to be referring to Ecstasy. There's a growing usage of "e" to mean "email", but it's unlikely to be confused, given the context of a sentence. Except that colloquially both can be "dropped". --Dweller 16:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin translation of "Intrum Justitia"

There is this company called Intrum Justitia. Does anybody know how to translate it's name into English. I know that Justitia means either Justice or Lady Justice, but what is the full English translation of the name of this company? Mieciu K 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Intrum is not Latin. While I guess it could be a personal name, I suspect it is simply one of those vaguely fancy-sounding names marketers invent for their purposes (e.g. when a new car model comes along). Wareh 21:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a real latin word, but my dictionary suggests that if it were, intrum would mean "a way of being involved in". FiggyBee 09:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would, but I'd be curious to hear how your dictionary led you to believe so. Wareh 11:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
=>intrum
tr                   SUFFIX
means, instrument; place;
intr.um              N      2 2 NOM S N
intr.um              N      2 2 NOM S N
intr.um              N      2 2 VOC S N
intr.um              N      2 2 VOC S N
intr.um              N      2 2 ACC S N
intr.um              N      2 2 ACC S N
insum, inesse, infui, infuturus  V   [XXXBX]
be in/on/there; belong to; be involved in;
And yes, I realise it doesn't agree at all with Justitia. FiggyBee 12:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The first part is attempting to record that -trum shows up as a suffix to verbal stems in words like aratrum, rostrum, monstrum. But where the computer program has deceived you is in suggesting that *intrum can possibly have anything to do with the verb insum. As far as I can tell, this engine merely spat out a lemma alphabetically near what you typed in; certainly no knowledge of Latin was involved. Wareh 12:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
That's William Whitaker's program, which is usually very very good, but sometimes deceiving, like in this case. It's not a Latin word but the program recognizes suffixes and prefixes and is able to put them together to create something that never existed. There is a word "introrsum" though. Adam Bishop 15:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I never meant to suggest it was a real word. I just thought it could be a hint to what the namers were thinking. FiggyBee 18:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I see we even have an article William Whitaker's Words (not sure it's really notable). The creator concedes the possibility of nonsense words, but this seems more serious, since the engine's (otherwise well-reviewed) logic has failed pretty badly in implicating insum here. Assuming the namers weren't running their ideas through this program, they were just looking for something unique and Latinate, perhaps evoking the "dynamic connectivity" implied by intra-/inter- words or some such nonsense. Wareh 23:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The company was founded in the 1920s, so I don't think they'd have been using this program. :) FiggyBee 02:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I should have read the article & learned that, since, really, the style of word-coining I was talking about seems an odd fit for then & there. Maybe someone can explain Intrum on another basis (name? I couldn't find evidence). Wareh 13:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should be looking for possible etymologies in Swedish. —Tamfang 05:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I sent an e-mail to Intrum Justitia, and they replied :-) Here is the e-mail they sent me:

Thanks for your inquiry about the meaning of Intrum Justita. The answer is that "Intrum" doesn't mean anything. It is a word that sounds like latin, but has no meaning in that language (or any other to my knowledge). "Justitia" is the name of the lady of justice in Roman mythology.

I omitted the name of who wrote it. I know that this answer sounds a lot like the ones provided above, so it may look like I invented it, but it's actually real. The similatiry with the answers above, to me, shows that reference desk guesswork actually works. A.Z. 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] whistle down the wind: etymology

Where did the expression, "whistle down the wind" come from. An easy answer could be that it comes from the title of a work by Andrew Lloyd Webber; but I am asking the question beyond that: where did Andrew Lloyd Webber go to in order to come up with the expression? bhorton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.88.106 (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=whistle&searchmode=none) page has a bit on whistle which includes some speculation about the 'nautical whistling for a wind', which could well be related to the above. All very much guessing game in these things it seems unfortunately. ny156uk 22:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable can be searched at Bartleby. It's a great place to get answers to questions like this one. The link for "whistle down the wind" is <http://www.bartleby.com/81/17414.html>, and for "blown upon", <http://www.bartleby.com/81/2071.html>. --Milkbreath 04:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)