From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< September 29	<< Aug | September | Oct >>	October 1 >

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 September 30 1.1 (In)transitive verbs 1.2 aspects of Mary 1.3 Grammar 1.4 Meaning of a phrase 1.5 Latinized Dutch names 1.6 Grammar

[edit] September 30

[edit] (In)transitive verbs

• "Our production will be touring next year. It will play Chicago, Philadelphia and many other cities" (ie. the play will be performed in these places)
• "Please write me if you have time" (ie. please write to me)

These and various other examples use a verb that is transitive in form but intransitive in meaning. Are they classified as transitive or intransitive? -- JackofOz 01:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The me in write me is an indirect object; the validity and identical meaning of write to me show that. Write is ditransitive, but it just so happens that it has no direct object in this sentence. The first sentence seems wrong to me, but perhaps that is an established usage. Strad 03:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This transitive meaning of to play is listed in dictionaries: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/play.  --Lambiam 03:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think by they you mean the two verbs in question. 'Write' is a transitive verb, and 'play' can be either transitive or intransitive: there's a technical word for that, ambitransitive. Xn4 03:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In English, transitivity is not marked, so we can't say a verb is "transitive in form"; now what counts is only the meaning. In "write me", as you noted, "me" is dative (not accusative), with the object omitted (a letter/an email), thus "write" is transitive. In "play Chicago", as you noted, "Chicago" is locative (again, not accusative). There're no objects, thus "play" is intransitive in the middle voice. (In other modern European languages, e.g. in French, the production will "play herself" in Chicago, i.e. reflexive). All in all, the very idea of "transitivity" is a very clumsy one (it doesn't apply to many languages of the world), and perhaps we should not think too much over it.--K.C. Tang 03:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There are cracks in grammar, and you've found a couple. We can "play" Chicago the same way we can "tour" it, but we sense a missing preposition with "play". It rings of slangy ellipsis; the "in" got dropped somewhere, but it's still there in our minds. So the meaning of "play" in this context takes a meaning somewhat different from its parent word, and it becomes transitive by default. Same goes for "write [to] me". You can "write" me the same way you can "contact" me. I do believe there are English-speaking places where "write me" still sounds mighty strange. --Milkbreath 03:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Milkbreath, "write me" still has a barbarian ring in England, even after a generation of hearing it in American television. Xn4 04:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "write me a sonnet"? —Tamfang 07:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Related old thread. (link to reference desk archives) A.Z. 05:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In "Write me a sonnet", "me" is a dative used in the sense of "to me, or for my benefit" similarly to "cry me a river" or "buy me a present". SaundersW 08:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, all. (Btw, I would never use these expressions, which seem to be confined to North America; I was just curious). -- JackofOz 00:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] aspects of Mary

Somehow I got to thinking this morning about names like Dolores, Concepción, Consuelo, Guadalupe – which are short for Maria de los Dolores etc., different titles of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

• Is the pattern unique to Spanish-speaking cultures?
• How many such names are in use?
• I notice that the list of titles in the article is much longer than the list of feast days there, and most or all of the names I thought of are on the short list. Is it reasonable to suppose that the calendar was an important motive in the adoption of such names?

Thanks for indulging my curiosity. —Tamfang 07:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but Dolores at least is an Irish name as well as a Spanish one. Algebraist 10:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dolores has become a common name in the English-speaking world, even among non-Catholics, but its origin is the Spanish name María de los Dolores. —Angr 10:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My Spanish wife was born in early February and she is called Maria de los Reyes (Maria of the Kings - that is the Threes Kings (Reyes Magos) who arrive in early January.) She was also born near Seville whose patron saint is Maria(la Virgen) de los Reyes, so a double reason. Richard Avery 16:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My Spanish aunt is Maria de los Milagros which is Mary of the Miracles. She is universally known as Mila. I had a friend named Maria y Jesus who was always known as Chus. SaundersW 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll also encounter Maria del Carmen = Carmen and Maria del Pilar = Pilar. Corvus cornix 16:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose del Pilar refers to some incident? —Tamfang 22:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Basilica of Our Lady of the Pillar. Corvus cornix 18:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why my Spanish dictionary translates pilar as basin. —Tamfang 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised to find some similar titles in French (e.g. Notre Dame de Paris, Notre Dame de Lourdes). Lourdes has become used as a given name (although perhaps only by/due to Madonna), but I don't know of any other names in French that have that sort of origin. Steewi 01:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Is there something wrong with the sentence: "We never observed membrane ruffling when Jurkat cells were co-incubated with..."? I would have written "We did not observe..." but I don't know whether that's because the other is wrong. --Seans Potato Business 17:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

did not observe could be taken to mean that there was only one observation (and it was negative), while never observed emphasizes repeated observations. Nothing obviously wrong with either. —Tamfang 17:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "we never observed" in everyday discourse, but the last part of the sentence sounds like it belongs in a scientific report, and those are usually written in a formal and precise tone. "In 10 experiments when Jurkat cells were co-incubated with Kzinti-Vulcan hybrids, membrane ruffling was not observed", that sort of thing. Of course, the "10 experiments" part could be left implicit if you've just described them. And if you're not writing for a publication that requires a formal style, there's no reason to use it. --Anonymous, 21:12 UTC, September 30, 2007.

Slight correction: "In 10 experiments in which (or possibly where) Jurkat cells were co-incubated with Kzinti-Vulcan hybrids, membrane ruffling was not observed" sounds a bit better. As for the OP, I would imagine "never observed" sounds fine. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 06:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"We never observed ..." sounds kind of like you were expecting to observe, and are surprised that it didn't happen. Also, as Anonymous and Wooty have demonstrated, it's more common to use non-agentive passive voice in scientific writing than to talk about what we did. FiggyBee 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of a phrase

Sixpence None The Richer sang in "There She Goes": "She calls my name, pulls my train, No one else could heal my pain"...What does "pull my train" mean? I've never heard that phrase with a possessive. 69.201.150.130 18:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"If it rhymes, it goes". I'd hazard that he means something like "she floats my boat". --Seans Potato Business 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks. 69.201.150.130 15:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely that's The La's? Cyta 14:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, that was just a tad before my time. I see that Sixpence's was a cover. I'll seek out the original version, then. Thanks! 69.201.150.130 15:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latinized Dutch names

Why do so many Dutch/Afrikaans surnames seem to be Latin? For instance, Arondeus, Bolsius, Corstius, Couperus, Erasmus, Fabricius, Pistorius, Petraeus, Pretorius, Wiselius, etc. Obviously it was once a trend throughout Europe for public figures to Latinize their names, but rarely were these passed on to their children. Is there any particular reason why the Dutch have held onto the Latin names? Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 18:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Erasmus at least is easy to explain: Desiderius Erasmus was the (assumed) name of an eminent Dutchman. —Tamfang 19:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but other nationalities have Latinized their names as well. But there aren't many Frenchmen with the surname "Cartesius" or Swedes with the name "Linnaeus". It seems like it's a trend specific to the Dutch. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Before I looked at your links I thought you meant given names; Erasmus is the only one on the list that I recognized, and I believe it is now primarily a given name (Erasmus Darwin being a famous example) – I'd never before heard of anyone with that surname, other than the original. Given names often become family names, and your Rassie Erasmus may be descended from an example.

Carolus Linnaeus is a poor example: his father assumed the name Linnaeus (this was when family names were a novelty in Sweden) and the son changed it to von Linné when he was ennobled. —Tamfang 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch are also prone to Latinization of their given names. I have a dissertation written by a Dutchman whose full name is Ruben Florentius Hendricus Eduardus van de Vijver and another by a Paulus Petrus Gerardus Boersma. In real life, they go by "Ruben" and "Paul" respectively, but their full names on the front pages of their dissertations are in Latin (the dissertations themselves are written in English). —Angr 19:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Some Latinized-looking non-Dutch surnames (although some of them may have had Dutch forbears): Andriuškevičius, Brosius, Cornelius, Helenius, Kanzius, Sventenius, Thilenius.  --Lambiam 23:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the responses. Bhumiya (said/done) 02:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Squeezing in an extra note - Latvian and Lithuanian names wil often look like Latin - most of Lambiam's examples are from that area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steewi (talk • contribs) 01:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to Dutch for a moment: Latinizing one's surname was rather customary in the Renaissance (Voet -> Voetius, Kruik -> Cruquius), especially among scientists, but has long fallen into disuse.

Latinized forms of given names bear no connection with dissertations. They are usually the names handed down from generation to generation, and are now becoming superseded by more fashionable names such as Sven or Max. In other words, they are becoming old-fashioned — and sometimes were modelled on the names of Catholic saints. However, it is a rule that on the title page of a dissertation the full official name is given, hence a connection between Latinized forms and dissertations might suggest itself; but this is fortuitous. Bessel Dekker 03:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest there was a direct connection between the Latin names and the dissertations, merely that the front pages of dissertations are all I have that give these people's full legal names rather than the names they commonly go by. —Angr 23:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Is a grammatical error made in saying "make sure you brush your teeth" as opposed to "make sure that you brush your teeth", and if so, what is the relevant grammatical rule? --Seans Potato Business 20:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No error. The word "that" is generally optional when it introduces a subordinate clause, and it's a matter of style whether to use it. It's most likely to be used in formal writing, least likely in informal speech. --Anonymous, 21:14 UTC, September 30, 2007.

There certainly is no error. that may be left out in informal usage in an object clause ("He promised he'd brush his teeth") and in a relative clause ("The house Jack built is dilapidated") — unless it is the subject of that relative clause ("The house that had cost him a fortune proved to be dilapidated").

If two subordinate clauses occur, the second one usually has that ("He promised he'd brush his teeth and that he would go to sleep immediately"). Bessel Dekker 03:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)