From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< April 6	<< Mar | April | May >>	April 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.

Contents 1 April 7 1.1 A plus... 1.2 British English vs. American English 1.3 "[Noun] is bias"

[edit] April 7

[edit] A plus...

Reflecting on the "in bed" question above, it seems there are words with an a- prefix which mean being at something and it seems like a remnant thing that is sometimes in use now but some have faded out. I'm thinking of await, abide, aside, asleep, abed, even awake. Some might not be the right thing (I'm just a-guessing), but were these abridged from at+ and now have changed back to having at instead and what is this a+ called? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the OED the a- in words like abed and ashore is from the Old English preposition on (= "in"). In words like afresh and anew, it's from OE of. And there's a few other origins in other kinds of words—for instance, in your await example it's already there in the French word from which the English word comes (Fr à). Deor (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'a' in 'awake' comes from OE 'gi', which in this sense means an action which has happened, so "I am already wakened".--ChokinBako (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that in bed and abed show the same evolution of grammar: in both cases preposition plus noun phrase has been reduced to almost a single unit, so that the noun no longer has much independent existence. In neither case can the noun occur in the plural, or be modified by an article or an adjective. There's very little difference between a prepositional phrase such as in their new beds, where the preposition links a noun with a verb, and an adverbial phrase such as abed, where the noun modifies the verb. In bed is now practically an adverb.

This a-, by the way, can also be found in phrases such as nowadays, three times a day, ten cents a sheet. —kwami (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that "a" just the indefinite article? I've always assumed these expressions were abbreviations of "three times in a day" etc. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, three times on a day → three times on-day → three times a day.

The OED has,

a, prep. : A worn-down proclitic form of OE. preposition an, on. [...] In 11th c., on began to be reduced before consonants to o, which from its tonelessness soon sank to a (ə). [...] The separate form a is now rarely used, [...] except in a few verbal constructions, as to go a begging, to set a going; and in temporal distributive phrases, as twice a day, once a year, where it has been confused with the 'indefinite article.' [The use for rate, as tenpence a pound, is a later extension of this.] But the preposition a really remains in a large number of combinations, where present spelling treats it as a prefix to the governed word, and the whole as a compound adverb, as abed, afoot, aback, around, atop, afloat, asleep, alive.

Other modern remnants: aboard, ashore, afield, afore, ahead, aside, asunder, apart.

As a preposition, the original construction was a plus a noun: a live, a sleep, a work, a jar, a thirst, a blaze, a fright, a float, (the float was the foam on the water) a stare, but some of these were homonymous with verbs, and so in modern times the construction was reinterpreted and extended to any verb: a-wash, a-swim, a-blow, a-run, a-gaze, a-howl, a-tremble, a-shake, a-jump. kwami (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. And how is this related to Scottish English? "My heart's in the highlands, a-following the dear deer" for example. --Kjoonlee 11:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That comes from the Gaelic construction 'ag' or 'aig' + present participle to show the present tense and the present progressive. (There is another simple present form, but it is only used in writing, mostly, and hardly ever in the spoken language.) --ChokinBako (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Things like "a-following" are used in English dialects that have never been in contact with Gaelic. It's from "on" as well. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 04:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And the loss of that on is why in modern English the present participle has the same form as the gerund. —Tamfang (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Amazed, thanks all. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British English vs. American English

The following questions refer to every native english speaker:

If you're British (or Irish or Australian or New-Zealandian), then please tell me which way you find better (in formal speech):

• "He claimed that when he was dead - nobody would be sad".
• "He claimed that when he were dead - nobody would be sad".

If you're North-American, then please tell me if you can say (in formal speech):

• "He claims that when he will be dead - nobody will be sad".
• "He claimed that when he is dead - nobody will be sad".
• "He claimed that when he will be dead - nobody will be sad".

If you're a native english speaker, then please tell me if you can say (in formal speech):

• "He claims that when he be dead - nobody will be sad".

Thanks. HOOTmag (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As a BrE speaker: I would always use ".. when he was dead .. " for the first question. For the third, I would say "no". (All this applies to standard, modern, non-dialect English.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What about: "He said that if I were late I'd be punished"? Should one prefer: "He said that if I was late I'd be punished"? HOOTmag (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

All of those sound incorrect somehow. "He claimed that when he was dead - nobody would be sad" sounds okay, but "He claimed that when he died - nobody would be sad" sounds better, meaning either that he would die someday or he already died between his claim and the report of it. "He claims that when he dies - nobody will be sad" sounds good for a present claim. The subjunctive and future perfect don't sound right in any of these sentences, especially the last one. (Note that I am Canadian which usually falls in between British and North American somehow). Adam Bishop (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What about: "He said that if I were late I'll be punished"? Should one use the subjunctive here? or should one prefer: "He said that if I was late I'll be punished"? HOOTmag (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of those would require "I would be punished" (but "He said that if I am late I'll be punished"). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. What about: "He said that if I were late I'd be punished"? Is it wrong? and what about "He said that if I was late I'd be punished"? Wrong? HOOTmag (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Those sound fine to me, although "if I were late" is less likely to be used. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. HOOTmag (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm North-American and the middle phrase of my options is the only one that sounds correct. The last one is similar to Ebonics, though to be more correct in that dialect it would be "he claim that when he be dead - nobody gon' be sad." This probably doesn't make grammatical sense considering the semantics. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. What about the first option of the three, i.e. "He claims that when he will be dead - nobody will be sad". If you think it's incorrect (or uncommon) so how would you say? "He claims that when he..."? HOOTmag (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

after EC:

The only one that I would use (as a Brit) is

• "He claimed that when he was dead - nobody would be sad".

I imagine that you are using "he were" as the rarely used subjunctive. "If he were" would be correct, because it is a conjecture, but "when he was dead" is a certain event, and so the subjunctive or any other conjectural mood is not appropriate. SaundersW (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Would you like to tell which english you use?

What about: "He said that if I were late I'd be punished"? Should one really use the subjunctive here?

HOOTmag (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

GA speaker: None of the first three are any good. GA does not have relative tense, and you cannot use the modal will in a relative clause. (This is often given as evidence that English has no grammatical future tense.) The last option (he be dead) sounds archaic, but I don't know if it'd actually be acceptable. For me, the one Ƶ§œš¹ liked would only be acceptable if it were gnomic rather than present tense: He claimed that when he is dead, nobody is sad — that is, he's been dead many times, and it never bothers anyone.

He said that if I were late I'd be punished.

He claims that when he is dead, nobody will be sad. —kwami (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question which I asked Adam Bishop. See below my comment. HOOTmag (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(Australian) The tenses don't match: his death is in the future relative to his time of speech, so you might say "He claimed that when he would be dead, nobody would be sad." Or better yet, "He claimed that if he died, nobody would be sad."

I also think it would be better to use a comma rather than a dash. The dash separates the two parts of the sentence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. What about: "He promised that when he [is/was/were/will-be/would-be] in the US he would visit me"? HOOTmag (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You can also say He claimed that when he died, nobody would be sad, if it's clear that that is just the past tense of He claims that when he dies, nobody will be sad. That would probably pass unnoticed in conversation. However, if you stop and think about it, it sounds like he's saying that he died, which may be why PG8 prefers He claimed that if he died, nobody would be sad — another example of why to look at corpora of actual conversation rather than rely on grammaticality judgements, which are often unreliable. kwami (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. What about "He promised that when he [is/was/were] in the US he would visit me"? HOOTmag (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He promised that when he was in the US he would visit me, or

He promised that when he is in the US he will visit me, or

He promised that if he were (ever) in the US he would visit me, or

He promised that if he is (ever) in the US he will visit me. kwami (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx. I assume that whatever you've indicated is according to GA usage only, whereas in British-English, which does have relative tense, one would never say: "He promised that if he is...".

By the way, what did you mean when you wrote: "you cannot use the modal will in a relative clause"? Can't the Americans say: "he claims that if he will.."? Can't the British-English speakers (as well as the Americans) say: "He will claim that if he will..."? HOOTmag (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of this has to do with English/American differences. I (an American) agree with everything the non-Americans have said here and have never heard that things like this change in different forms of English. Both "He claims that if he will..." and "He will claim that if he will..." certainly would sound unnatural here. -Elmer Clark (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree with the Americans here? for example, what about: "He promised that if he [is/was/were] in the US he would visit me"? and what if we changed the "if" into "when"? HOOTmag (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Elmer. To the best of my knowledge, this is basic English grammar and there's no difference between British and American English. Jack^(Lumber) 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you did not answer my second question! what about: "He promised that if he [is/was/were] in the US he would visit me"? and what if we changed the "if" into "when"?

HOOTmag (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He promised that if he was in the U.S. he would visit me. Same if you substitute when for if. "If he were" implies a condition contrary to fact. Jack^(Lumber) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx. Anyway, you disagree with kwami, who (like you) uses American English, and you also disagree with SaundersW, who hasn't indicated which English he uses. HOOTmag (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. Kwami only said that "...were..." would be acceptable with if and speaking in the subjunctive - "was" is more likely to be your intended meaning in the "if..." sentence; in the "when..." sentence you can never use "were," since "when" can't take the subjunctive. Again, this has nothing to do with American/UK usage. Read English subjunctive for more information. -Elmer Clark (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankxs a lot. And what do you think about PalaceGuard008's reply? He indicated that he's Australian, and stated that one might say: "He claimed that when he would be dead, nobody would be sad." HOOTmag (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't understand the insistence on seeing these questions as related to dialect, despite several editors having indicated that such is not the case. You also left off an important part of PalaceGuard's reply, giving a much more natural sentence to use in place of the tortured syntax that he indicated one might say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryMac (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you've got me really confused here. It seems like you're trying to prove some point rather than actually get a useful answer. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Who? Are you talking to me or to LarryMac?

I just want to know whether the subjunctive usage has the same rules in all of the english dialects. If you say it has - then I believe you, but I still want to know why other users have given apparently different replies, That's all. If you say that all of you have given the same reply - then I believe you again. I don't want to prove anything. HOOTmag (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoot, I am not sure how closely you are reading this discussion. I clearly said "as a Brit", and also I do not disagree with Jack of Lumber. "If I was" never even entered my comments. SaundersW (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I keep reading this discussion very closely.
• Sorry for having skipped over the "as a Brit".
• You wrote (some days ago): "If he were" would be correct.
• Jack^(Lumber) wrote: He promised that if he was in the U.S. he would visit me..."If he were" implies a condition contrary to fact.
• I understood that Jack insists on "If he was" (since "if he were" - implies a condition), so I wrote to Jack: you also disagree with SaundersW.
• That's all. I hope you now understand what I've meant.

HOOTmag (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "[Noun] is bias"

Why is the phrase "[noun] is bias" being used in place of "[noun] is biased?" For example, I frequently find people saying that a particular "article is bias". As can be seen by the link, this form of incorrect grammar is not isolated but quite common throughout forums and Wikipedia talk pages. Is this a product of international users using incorrect grammar? Is this a case of English speaking peoples omitting the easy to ignore "-ed" sound in biased? Is this an emerging trend that is rapidly being accepted? Lastly, is anyone else frustrated by how common this phrase is used? 128.227.81.59 (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have it with the "not hearing the -ed sound" conjecture. You also hear people say things like "you're so prejudice" - I'd imagine that this is the same phenomenon. To my knowledge this is not considered correct by anyone, and yes, it is rather annoying. -Elmer Clark (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A great example is this About.com page which manages to correctly use "prejudiced" but incorrectly uses "is bias" in the same sentence. Thanks for mentioning "[noun] is prejudice." I had completely forgotten how common that phrase is especially since it was probably around before "[noun] is bias" became popular. 128.227.81.59 (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dialectically in the US, final consonant clusters are reduced, so that for example friend rhymes with Ben, as in the delightful Michael Jackson theme song of that light-hearted movie, Ben. I think it's probably not that people don't hear the final C in these particular words, but that they don't have such sounds at all. kwami (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not in my dialectic :) Clearly, in the idiolects of the people who use "bias" instead of "biased" and "prejudice" instead of "prejudiced", the final consonants in these words are absent. But I bet most of these people have words in their idiolects that, phonologically if not phonetically, exhibit word-final (homorganic) consonant clusters such as /st/ and /nd/ (a case in point is the phrase "so-and-so is bias against", where the final word ends in /st/). I don't think the tendency for some dialects to simplify consonant clusters can account for the majority of cases where an English speaker uses "bias" as an adjective. --Diacritic (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suspect that the words are used by people who do not do a lot of reading. If you have only ever heard these words, the endings are easy to miss. It happens easily if the language is not your native one, and the construct is not familiar to you. I do similar things in French all the time, having heard a phrase, and then repeated it with some of the "swallowed" bits missing. It sounds fine to me, but not to a native speaker. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be, but could also be that the writer says bias agains, but knows that against has a silent tee at the end. Then, if the words were used rap music, people which do have final consonant clusters might be first exposed to them that way, and learn them without the ending. kwami (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

When did that 't' in against go silent? --LarryMac | Talk 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, when I was a kid in the UK, I remember most of my friends saying "I can't eat [....] because I'm allergict.' instead of 'allergic'. This obviously came from the fact that 'allergic to' was the most common use of the word and they guessed that the word 'allergic' must have a 't' after it even when 'to' does not follow.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)