Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 August 30

Salir
In my Spanish class we were taking a chapter test and it had some true/false questions on it. One went like this: Al anochecer sale el sol. I took this as being 'at dusk the sun leaves' and I put true because it made sense as it did for most of the class. My teacher proceeded to mark that question wrong for everyone saying that salir means to come out. She insists she is a "native speaker" even though she only lived in Mexico until she was 5. I looked it up in 501 Spanish Verbs and it agrees with me saying that salir means "to leave;to go out" as does my Oxford Spanish Dectionary. I was wondering if I could get another native speaker's opinion on this, preferably from Mexico, but if that's not possible, that's fine. Thanks, schyler 12:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how detailed your Oxford dic is, but http://www.diccionarios.com has an extremely detailed definition of salir.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  13:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, here's two usages your teacher might have been talking about, from the Spanish-English translator at diccionarios:
 * 8: verbo intransitivo. proceder - to come (de, from). "de la aceituna sale el aceite" - "olive oil comes from olives"
 * 5: verbo intransitivo. mancha - to come out, come off.
 *  Λυδ α  cιτγ  13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll answer your question despite the fact that you make it clear on your user page that you find me immoral and/or disgusting. Your teacher's right. You can't translate salir, and many other words, into English without context. Sale el sol is equivalent to The sun comes out or The sun is coming out. or The sun is appearing. The variety of Spanish is irrelevant, as far as I am aware.


 * If you find that confusing, you need to see it in terms of different systems of verbs of motion in relation to the perspective of the speaker or hearer, go, come, bring, take, and so on. Spanish and English both have systems that are coherent in and of themselves, but not equivalent. Another difference between English and Spanish is the translation for "I'm coming" when someone call's you, is "Voy." mnewmanqc 14:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Think of it this way: The Sun has been hiding all night, and now it exits from wherever that was. The basic meaning is: emerging from a confined space into the open. --Lambiam Talk 14:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The sun leaves doesn't make sense anyway, especially when referring to dusk. What does the sun do at dusk?  You need to think about how you translate these things into English. --   the     GREAT     Gavini   15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's coming out, so you better get the party started... 惑乱 分からん 15:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Lambiam for the example. schyler 22:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd avoid the idea of confined space. When an actor comes onto the stage, the verb salir is also used. e.g., Sale Hamlet in stage instructions.mnewmanqc 02:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe there should be a user box for people who consider schyler to be "immoral and/or just plain gross". Also, shyler, not all user boxes are babel boxes. By the way, I wonder what 'coming out of the closet' is in Spanish. 'Salir del armario'? :) DirkvdM 06:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling with the concept of a person with an opinion like this who also claims to have a policy of neutrality on controversial issues. JackofOz 07:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've heard salir del armario in Spain. Years ago, there was also salir del cascarón, but that seems to have fallen into dissuse.
 * As for Schyler, hopefully this will be a lesson in manners if not that people unlike him are real human beings.mnewmanqc 14:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line with translations is that the end-product has to make sense. Spanish doesnt have the same mindset about the "go/come" distinction as English so "salir" has to be translated as "go out" or "come out" depending. For example a busy barman will shout "Voy" (literally "I go") to a new customer rather than "I'm coming". ie - he describes the movement he's about to make from his point of view, not the customer's. Jameswilson 23:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Grammar
Is the following " I am waiting on you (as opposed to waiting for you) grammatically correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.67.199 (talk • contribs)


 * I would suppose so, though in my experience it is rarely heard. Use "waiting for you" instead.  Peter O. (Talk) 17:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is grammatically correct, there is nothing wrong with it there. It sounds a bit odd, the 'waiting on' construction is usually only found in other ways: 'the servants waited hand and foot on the lugubrious and plump noblemen'. &mdash; D a  niel  (‽) 18:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Waiting on" sounds very redneck to my New York ears. --Nelson Ricardo 21:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's incorrect. And it's 'grammar'! Rentwa 21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Is this a point of grammar or a point of usage? Anyhow... The construction "wait on" is also commonly used in Hiberno-English as an alternative to "wait for". So I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is incorrect...why should one dialect of English be considered "correct" and the other "incorrect"? Pikiwedian 10:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, if you sit on somebody until they agree to give you money, I suppose it would be correct to describe that as "waiting on" the person. :-) StuRat 21:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perfectly correct. Besides the context on which a waiter "waits on" diners, "I'm waiting on Fred", to my ear anyway, means you're hanging around waiting for him to show up, instead of being in the same vicinity, but that may just be me.  New Yorkers wait on line.  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To "wait on" some one in the sense of "wait for" them is very common in Texas. I've often wondered whether it's attributable to the influence of Texas German, as in German you say "auf jemanden warten", not *"für jemanden warten". Mick Jagger must have known this when he wailed in his abominable pseudo-Southern accent "I'm not waitin' on a lady, I'm just waitin' on a friend". As for the question whether it's grammatically correct, the answer is yes, if you're a speaker of a dialect in which it's used. —The preceding signed comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 07:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that "wait on" is actually the older expression, although it is usually considered "nonstandard." It survives in many parts of rural America, which preserves forms of English that are more conservative sometimes than standard forms. My guess is that elites, who usually set language standards, were uncomfortable saying that they were "waiting on" anyone, given the alternative meaning of this expression. So they started saying that they were "waiting for" someone, and that became the standard. Marco polo 13:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For more than 100 years, language critics have grumbled over the use of wait on and wait upon to mean roughly “await” or “wait for,” as in We are still waiting on management to approve the expenditure for new offices. As the critics would have it, wait on should mean only “to serve the needs of someone.” But it’s hard to see why these phrasal verbs should be so restricted, especially when they have such widespread use as synonyms for wait for among educated speakers and writers. So don’t wait on any more advice—go ahead and use them. (original poster forgot to cite the American Heritage Book of English Usage) dpotter

Words that are only used in a certain phrase
What's the name of the phenomenon of a word in English that's only used in a certain phrase or in conjunction with another word or words, and never used otherwise? Or some examples of such a word? I read about this years ago but can't recall even a good example of it any longer. All my search attemps have failed. Thedoorhinge 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I could come up with one example in Norwegian, "varg i veum" means something like "outlaw" or "ostracized", literally "wolf in temple/shrine", "veum" is the plural dative case of an Old Norse word meaning temple, but except for this fixed phrase, the word is never used. 惑乱 分からん 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Kith" as in "kith and kin" is an example (but maybe no says "kith and kin" any more). --Cam 18:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Thou' is only really used in English in the set phrase 'holier than thou' (according to the article on Thou, at least). &mdash; D a  niel  (‽) 18:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (Give uth a kith, Cam.) I don't know what they're called, but obviously we need an article! Of course there are lots of words that are only used in some phrases in a specific sense (colloquialisms), but that is not quite the same. Some examples: bate one's breath (bate meaning something else in other senses); dereliction of duty; extenuating circumstances; footloose and fancy free; to gird one's loins; to (not) have an inkling; keep one's pecker up; rack and ruin (again, in that sense); live on a shoestring; to give short shrift; to cock a snook; in the varsal world.--Shantavira 19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've heard abandoned ships, cars, and people called "derelicts". As for the rest, we will just have to settle for girded loins, raised peckers, and cocked snooks, I suppose. StuRat 21:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * People who sleep on the street and are usually found drunk are also called derelicts. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I usually hear them described as fossilized or embalmed words, idioms or usages. A good place for these relics to live are quotations and proverbs "cast nae clout…", "spick and span", "hither and yon". The can be thought of as an extreme form of collocation: a bold time-travelling lexeme trapped in the present. Sometimes old usages are overhauled when they don't seem to make sense anymore: I have heard "guard my loins". Even clichés people do not realise as such: black coffee fine, white coffee well no it is usually brown. And when was the last time you heard a telephone "ring". MeltBanana  19:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Shantavira, 'bate' is slowly morphing into 'bait' ('with baited breath'), and it lives on in the world 'abate', methinks. &mdash; D a  niel  (‽) 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought of a couple more... "beck" as in beck and call and "petard" as in hoist by his own petard.Thedoorhinge 20:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or hoist on his own petard. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Morphemes that only occur in conjunction with certain other morphemes are called cranberry morphemes, after the fact that the morpheme cran- never occurs except in combination with berry. Strictly speaking this only applies to morphemes and not whole words, but I think I have heard the term cranberry loosely applied to the kind of words you're talking about. --Ptcamn 01:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought "cran" was a form of the word "crane". User:Zoe|(talk) 02:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a related form, yeah, but it is never used with the intent of meaning "crane" specifically, even in other compund words and phrases, it's otherwise "crane", for example "crane fly". 惑乱 分からん 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Thou" also appears in "Thou shalt not," "Thee" in "I kid thee not," and "Thy" probably appears in some phrase or other that I'm not thinking of right now. All three also appear quite often as seperate words (as opposed to parts of set phrases) in the KJV and in Shakespeare, both of which are well known and still often read/quoted/etc. And I still use Thou/thee/thy just for laughs every once in a while... Linguofreak 03:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Quakers use "thee" and "thou" when speaking among themselves. I'm not sure they continue to do so outside of their community.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And don't forget "to thine own self be true". StuRat 10:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Lest we forget. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  12:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Lest you think it antiquated, I must point out that I use 'lest' outside that phrase, as it is so handy. Skittle 20:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And I am known to use "thine", "score", "cowabunga/rad", etc. but I don't think it makes me any groovier. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  13:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not quite the same, but what about "while" as a noun? As in "worth your while"? Adam Bishop 22:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's also "Every once in a while." User:Zoe|(talk) 02:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * While, used as a verb, only seems to appear in "while away the time". JackofOz 03:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My favorite is "inclement weather." Do you ever see or hear "inclement" without "weather?" Do you ever say, "What an inclement day I had today!?" -- Mwalcoff 23:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The best example is probable "gamut," as in "run the gamut." Another example is "scantily," which seems now to be used almost exclusively before the word "clad," though it could be used elsewhere. zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Gamut is actually an important term in colour theory.--Rallette 09:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a list of fossilized words in phrases from Bill Bryson's Mother Tongue:
 * neck of the woods
 * tell time, and bank teller etc.
 * short shrift
 * hem and haw
 * rank and file
 * raring to go
 * not a whit
 * out of kilter
 * newfangled
 * at bay
 * spick and span
 * to and fro
 * kith and kin

Apparently that's the term for these kind of words, fossils. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ  13:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ranks and files are still used in military formations. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Metes and bounds in surveying. Wrack and ruin. Halcyon days of yore. Poring over a document. Edison 17:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I love that word, halcyon! freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  08:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In days of yore, valiant knights went around derring-do.
 * Yule and yuletide are never used except in ironic senses. JackofOz 23:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true. Yule is the winter holiday of neopaganism, and you can buy Yule logs.  As well as Yule cakes.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses. I also thought of ulterior as in motives... Thedoorhinge 18:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Caps
is dynasty supposed to be caps. like lydia dynasty or babylonian dynasty.


 * In Both of those cases, probably yes, but dynasty by itself is not, unless you're referring to the T.V. show. You should capitalize all words that are part of a proper noun (though for some reason it is wikipedia policy not to title articles that way...). That is, if you are referring to a dynasty which is Babylonian, then it would be "a Babylonian dynasty". But if there is only one, it is "the Babylonian Dynasty". Note that one usually uses "a" and the other "the". - Rainwarrior 20:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Dynasty" = To die in a particularly nasty way, as Elvis, who died on the toilet "while straining at stool". :-) StuRat 20:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet another gratuitous scatological reference from the unchallenged master of this particularly unsavoury genre. :--)  JackofOz 07:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Rhetorical question
Is this a Rhetorical question? "Is jon Doe cool?" i asked this and i already knew the answer but i was wanting to see their reaction.


 * A rhetorical question is one that you ask not for the purposes of getting an answer. You apparently still expect some kind of answer even if it is not a direct yes or no. Rhetorical questions are usually posed in rhetoric, one way communication, not two way conversation. The best way to annoy a speaker is to answer his rhetorical questions "Why should you vote for me? Well I'll…" "Cos the other guy's a cretin". MeltBanana  23:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Is this a rhetorical question?" I wanted to say "no, because the answer isn't obvious". But then you went and spoiled it by actually asking another question. :) DirkvdM 07:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, if one asked this at a Mensa meeting, where one can assume everyone to know this answer, then it would be a rhetorical question. But only because they know it isn't a rhetorical question, so is the answer then still obvious? I feel a headache coming on. DirkvdM 07:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No,just dumb-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 21:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC))