Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 June 18

Jul &gt;&gt; ! width="20%" align="right" | &gt;
 * }

= June 18 =

Use of "And" in the beginning of a sentence
What is the acceptability in literature and essays of using "And" in the beginning of a sentence, excluding in dialogue? I.e. "And so it goes year after year, always in the same cycle." "And upon the revelation of the stone, all gasped at its beauty." Thanks. Crisco 1492 00:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe both of these are acceptable uses, although in both sentences, especially the second (revelation of the stone), you could omit "and" without damaging the meaning. It seems to me that starting a sentence with "and" is more acceptable than starting one with "but". Renbelcher 01:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that depends on who's doing the accepting. It was traditionally taught that one should never start any sentence with "and" or "but", but practice going back at last as far as Shakespeare belies this.  As long as it's appropriate for its context, I think it's not necessarily a bad thing.  And it can be a good thing.  But don't do it to excess.  --  02:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackofOz (talk • contribs)


 * It's generally safe to ignore the grammarians, if you're not writing to an Editor or an English professor. Shakespeare himself wrote "farther" in "further" contexts (and did a million other "ungrammatical" things).  The Jade Knight 09:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ideosyncratic orthography at St. Nicholas Magazine
I recently picked up a 1919 copy of St. Nicholas Magazine, a literary magazine for children which existed in the early 20th century, and I noted that they invariably put a space in contractions - "they 've", "he 's", "we 're", etc. I've never noticed that before in any other publications from the same time period. Was this something unique to St. Nicholas, or was it common during the time? Corvus cornix 02:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not an authoritative source, but from the proofreading guidelines from the Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreaders:


 * Contractions


 * Remove any extra space in contractions: for example, would n't should be proofread as wouldn't.


 * This was often an early printers' convention, where the space was retained to indicate that 'would' and 'not' were originally separate words. It is also sometimes an artifact of the OCR. Remove the extra space in either case. [Edit to fix italics.] Tesseran 08:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tesseran. Corvus cornix 15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Cockroach by Kevin Halligan
Hi im Samantha and im analysing this poem for school, to write and deliver a speech on it and i can't find anything about it! I've searched for an hour, and can't find anything so i decided to ask and see whether that would help me at all.

it goes as follows:

I watched a giant cockroach start to pace, Skirting a ball of dust that rode the floor. At first he seemed quite satisfied to trace A path between the wainscot and the door, But soon he started to jog in crooked rings, Circling the dusty table leg and back, And flipping right over to scratch his wings- As if the victim of a mild attack Of restlessness that worsenes over time. After a while, he climbed an open shelf And stopped. He looked uncertain where to go. Was thie due payment for some vicious crime A former life had led to? I don't know, Except i thought i recognised myself.

Any help would be appreciated, all i need is either a link or some basic information, i can do the rest :) thanks
 * We can't do your homework for you, but we can offer you a few general pointers to get you thinking. I would start at the end (the last line) myself.  What do you think the author means when he says he recognises himself in the movements of the cockroach?  When you read the descriptions of the cockroach, do any of them sound like metaphors for something that a human being might do? --Richardrj talkemail 08:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The poem's rhythm may be understood by counting the number of syllables in each line (see metre for more details). You might also want to describe the rhyme scheme used. — Gareth Hughes 10:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, I would say that technical matters like rhyme and metre are the last things you should approach when analysing a poem. I don't mean they should never be described, but they should only be mentioned in the context of what they bring to the poem - i.e. how they contribute to its overall tone and meaning.  --Richardrj talkemail 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the rather important point that it's a sonnet-- though perhaps you wanted the OP to find that out for zirself. Marnanel 13:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Samantha. The author, John Kevin Halligan, is a little-known poet who was born in 1964 in Toronto, Canada, where he lives now. He has also lived for long periods in England, but wrote this poem while travelling in Asia. Another aspect you might try to analyse is the way the narrator (the "I" in the poem) is speaking. Imagine for example you're sitting next to each other, and he is telling you this. What effect does it all have on you, the reader? --Lambiam Talk  12:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cadence for marching prisoners, in German, ca. WWII
I need to know, or come up with a plausible approximation of, how a marching cadence would be shouted in German in either of the following scenarios: From my reading, I actually think the latter case would've mainly amounted to shouts of "Schnell!" accompanied by nonverbal methods (e.g. beatings, lashings, prodding with fixed bayonets, threatened or actual shooting, etc.), though testimonies describe people made to form groups of five and marched in columns. The "cadence" I'm thinking of would be the equivalent of the English-language "Left / Left / Left, right, left /". The pages on lockstep marching and military cadence (and their respective Talk pages) were not informative; where else might I search? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 10:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A Kapo in charge of getting a squad of Nazi forced labor camp inmates from the camp to the offsite workplace or back again, or
 * An SS, Gestapo, or similar policeman getting inhabitants of a ghetto to march to the railroad trains of a East-bound transport (i.e. to concentration or extermination camps).


 * I don't know if this could possibly have been heard, but the standard march order is Marsch! or Vorwärts, marsch!. To also indicate the cadence, a possibility is Marsch! Eins, zwei, eins, zwei, marsch! – marsch!, or Marsch! Eins, zwei, drei, vier, marsch! – marsch!. In Brecht's Einheitsfrontlied the words Drum links, zwei, drei! Drum links, zwei, drei! are used; Drum ("therefore") is out of place, but the links ("left") is authentic, and another possibility for indicating the cadence is Links, zwei, drei, und links, zwei, drei... !. Disclaimer: I've never been subjected to military-style march orders, and additionally I've no specific knowledge of the tone and style that was common in the 1940's. --Lambiam Talk  13:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You generally do not attempt to get civilians to march in step. The exception would be for prisoners in connected leg shakles. new recruits in training take a few days to get all of the basic commands right. 208.226.76.43 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Latin translation needed - please.
I assume this is Latin and would like an English translation:

Eidos de lego to ti en einai hekastou kai ten proten ousian. Thanks.--Doug talk 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like Latin to me, however I'm not sure what language it is in. --Richardrj talkemail 12:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is quite definitely classical (Attic) Greek, transliterated into the Latin alphabet. --Lambiam Talk  13:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, I wasn't sure myself what language it was. In English is it close then to:

"Eidos - meaning the essence of each thing and its primary substance." (?) --Doug talk 13:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems to be a possible translation. I think the original Greek must have been
 * Eἶδος δὲ λέγω τό τί ἦν εἶναι ἕκαστου καὶ τὴν πρωτὴν οὐσίαν
 * and this more or less fits word to word. More literally: "By eidos I mean ...". The Greek word eidos can mean "shape", "appearance", "form" – literally, that which you can see, but in this context most likely chosen by the philosopher, presumably Aristotle, in contrast to "matter". "Essence" seems a fair translation. --Lambiam Talk  14:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps.--Doug talk 14:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In the form cited, it's from Aristotle, Metaphysics 1032b1. The Revised Oxford Translation has, "By form I mean the essence of each thing and its primary substance."  Wareh 16:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Has anyone checked out the original Greek? The phrase 'το τι ην ειναι εκαςτου', as conjectured above, does not seem to make any sense. Maid Marion 12:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Greek above is correct. τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι is a standard Aristotelian expression for "essence," though admittedly it is weird by the standards of ordinary nonphilosophical Classical Greek!  The SEP article on Aristotle's Metaphysics notes, "This phrase so boggled his Roman translators that they coined the word essentia to render the entire phrase, and it is from this Latin word that ours derives."  More literal renderings like "a what-being-is" (Bostock's 1994 Clarendon edition of books Zeta and Eta) seem ill-advised (though "being what it is" is fairly literal and comprehensible)... Wareh 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Wareh. I had been aware that Aristotle was a byword for crabbed, unintelligible Greek. This convinces me to stick with Plato! Maid Marion 07:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I happen to have found this in an essay by Professor Joseph Novak (Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo) at this location (lower right hand corner - "A Sense of Edios"). It turns out it is from Aristotle, Metaphysics 1032b1. Professor Novak's essay is the basis reference source I used for a new article for eidon. The article has been elected for deletion only days from when it was new. I have given my reply why I believe it should be kept. If other editors would like to input, please feel free.--Doug talk 16:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation
The other day, I had to type a sentence that was similar in construct to Sentence 3 (below). In doing so, I found that I was puzzled by how to punctuate the sentence. Can anyone tell me what the proper punctuation would be ... and, more importantly, why? Thanks.

Sentence 1: Can you please lend me a dollar? (This is clearly a question and thus would end with a question mark.)

Now, let's say that we add an introductory clause to the original question:

Sentence 2: Because the banks are closed and I lost my ATM card and I don't have my wallet with me, can you please lend me a dollar? (This, too, is clearly a question and thus would end with a question mark.)

Now, what happens if we take Sentence 2 (above) and merely switch the two clauses? We have:

Sentence 3: Can you please lend me a dollar, because the banks are closed and I lost my ATM card and I don't have my wallet with me

Should Sentence 3 have an end punctuation mark of a period or of a question mark?

(A) Can you please lend me a dollar, because the banks are closed and I lost my ATM card and I don't have my wallet with me.

(B) Can you please lend me a dollar, because the banks are closed and I lost my ATM card and I don't have my wallet with me?

Sentence 3 is still a question, as it is merely taking Sentence 2 and flipping around the two clauses. Thus, it would seem to take a question mark at the end.

However, adding the question mark simply does not look right -- as that makes it appear as if the second clause (the three reasons why I need to borrow a dollar) is a question when it is merely stating three facts. (In other words, the first clause is essentially interrogative, and the second clause is essentially declarative. Yet, the entire sentence -- as a whole -- is a question.)

Any suggestions?

As I stated above, I would like to know the correct answer ... and, more importantly, the reasoning behind the answer.

Also ... yes, I understand that a sentence can be reworded in order to avoid this issue altogether. But, my question is, if indeed the writer/author wants to keep Sentence 3 worded exactly as it is above, how should that writer/author punctuate Sentence 3?

Thanks! (JosephASpadaro 16:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC))


 * I'd have to go with (B) if you're really not willing to recast the sentence to avoid the issue. Another alternative is to permit yourself a sentence fragment and write:

- Can you lend me a dollar? Because the banks are closed and I lost my ATM card and I don't have my wallet with me?
 * What I find interesting about Spanish punctuation is that it uses the inverted question mark at the beginning of a question, but only in the part of the sentence that really is a question. So if English followed the same rule Spanish does, the punctuation of sentence 2 would be:

- Because the banks are closed and I lost my ATM card and I don't have my wallet with me, ¿can you please lend me a dollar?
 * But I don't know if Spanish would also put the regular question mark in the middle of a sentence like 3. —Angr 18:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, you should not use a comma before the word "because". The word "because" is not a conjunction that joins principal clauses. "because the banks are closed and I lost my ATM card and I don't have my wallet with me" is a subordinate adverb clause. If you put a question mark before the word "because", the next statement will start with "because". In formal writing, you should avoid starting any statement with the word "because". If you would like to place a question mark before the word "because", I would suggest removing the word "because", capitalizing the first letter of "the", and ending the sentence with a period. There must be something done with the run-on subordinate adverb clause. You, JosephASpadaro, put two "and"s. (1) Place commas before each "and". Remove the first "and". (2) Alternatively, replace all the "and"s in that subordinate adverb clause with semicolons. Your pick. --Mayfare 19:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the only real answer that applies is: spoken English and written English differ dramatically. This sentence offers an excellent example of something that could easily be said and would be easily understood, but cannot be written down. Indeed, it is not even a valid sentence in written English (for a number of reasons, main among which is the punctuation issue).


 * A parallel example: consider the idiomatic phrase "Yeah, right." (meaning roughly "I doubt that"). In my experience, in formal written English (when the mavens can't avoid typing it) this is always written with a comma. But this does not fit with the spoken phrase, which is almost invariably spoken as a spondee, which would be more accurately represented as "Yeah right." Indeed, to add the pause that the comma suggests would actually change the meaning, from "I doubt that" to "I agree with you". (The phrase is sometimes stretched out to emphasize the sarcasm, but there still is no pause.) Anyway, what can we do about this? Not much, except to establish an agreed-upon convention for rendering unprintable sounds as text—just as we do with "meow" and "uh-oh!" Everyone who reads these representations knows what sound they refer to (unless they're British and are used to "miaow").


 * P.S. If this sentence were ever written, I think it would have to be in a context where the author is trying to reproduce the sound of speech as closely as possible. In this case, I would go with "Can you please lend me a dollar, because the banks are closed and I lost my ATM card and I don't have my wallet with me." This highlights the breathless rush through the litany of reasons (as well as the downturn in tone at the end that normally marks the end of a declarative sentence) and does not imply that the speaker paused too long on the question at the beginning. Tesseran 21:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's hard to punctuate because, although it's something we hear all the time, it's not logically constructed, and I reckon there simply is no answer that would satisfy all the rules. The best compromise is to reconstruct the sentence, but that's not what you're asking for.  One event, or connected series of events, is (A) "the banks are closed and I lost my ATM card and I don't have my wallet with me".  This leads to the unstated sentence (B) "I need a dollar".  The reason he's asking for a loan of a dollar is not (A), but (B).  The words (C) "Can you please lend me a dollar?" follow logically after (B), but can't syntactically be connected to (B).  (B) belongs with (A), not with (C).  That is, the whole thing is shorthand for "I need a dollar because the banks are closed and I lost my ATM card and I don't have my wallet with me.  Can you please lend me a dollar?".   --  JackofOz 22:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. This is more complex than I thought.  Tesseran, you made the statement: "Indeed, it is not even a valid sentence in written English (for a number of reasons, main among which is the punctuation issue)."  Why exactly is my Sentence 3 not a valid English sentence?  Please expand on that.  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 03:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Because "The word "because" is not a conjunction that joins principal clauses." But is a sentence that begins with "Because" valid? &mdash; Sebastian 04:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand why one cannot use the word "because" in such sentences. To that end, are the following two sentences valid or invalid?  And why or why not?  (1) Because I am broke, would you lend me a dollar?  (2)  Would you lend me a dollar, because I am broke?  Thanks for any input.  (JosephASpadaro 15:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC))


 * There is nothing invalid about sentence 3 above (if punctuated with "?" at the end, as in option B). It is indeed like sentence 2 in this set. It might be considered poor style in writing because the "?" is separated by so many words from the interrogative words, but that's another matter. I have no idea what the person who objected to the use of "because" is thinking of, because there's nothing wrong with that either. --Anonymous, June 20/07, 00:40 (UTC).


 * The problems with all these sentences is that "because" is not used in written English to explain a situation or request; it is used to specify the reason or cause of the clause that it modifies. The only way that someone could respond in the affirmative to Sentence 3 would be to say "Yes, I will give you a dollar, but only because the banks are closed and you have lost your ATM card and you don't have your wallet with you. Each of these three ingredients is necessary. If you had not lost your ATM card, even if it was at home in your wallet, I would refuse to give you this dollar." Your sentences above may not be ungrammatical, but I don't think the meaning is the one you meant. To "Will you lend me a dollar because I am broke?" the answer is "No, but I'll lend you a dollar because you're my friend." Sentence 2 suffers from the same problem.


 * Let's say you have a girlfriend, and I like her; if your relationship with her ends, I plan to approach her. If I say "Did you break up with your girlfriend because I want to date her?" you would most likely respond "No, I broke up with her because we didn't get along. I didn't even know you wanted to date her!" [The punctuation here is irrelevant to the point I'm making.]


 * Note that word order matters here: "Did you finish the cake because I want some" is a silly but grammatical (corresponding to "he finished the cake because I wanted some"), while "Because I want some, did you finish the cake" doesn't make sense. It is impossible for a question to be the "result" of "because" in this way. Compare: "Because I laughed, he hit me" with "Because I laughed, did he hit me?" with "Did he hit me because I laughed?" Finally, I should reiterate that this all is restricted to formal written English. I think every sentence here would be unexceptional if spoken with the right intonation and in the right context. Certainly such sentences are spoken, and so as a descriptivist I conclude that they are correct when spoken. But they are descriptively and prescriptively wrong in written English. I hope these examples help to clarify my meaning. Tesseran 05:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In other words, when you said "written English", you meant formal written English. But the original sentence obviously was informal usage. --Anon, June 21, 06:09 (UTC).

Unnamed Short Story
Hello. I was reading an unnamed short story where it had a character named Lou Parvizian. What is the title of that story? Thanks. --Mayfare 19:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a question for the Humanities section of the reference desk. When you post your question there, it would help if you could include more information about the story: do you know when it was written (within the last 50 years or not, say)? The genre (science fiction, murder mystery, medieval history)? Any more details about the plot or setting? Where did you read it? (on the internet, in an old book you found, etc.) Tesseran 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For those who may be curious, the story has been identified on the Humanities desk, and apparently the one thing we were told here about it was wrong! --Anon, June 21, 2007, 06:14 (UTC).