Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 June 24

= June 24 =

Deleted entry
I recently entered a word and my definition of it, then left for a while and came back to discover that what I wrote in no longer existed. Did I do something wrong, or did it get deleted without discussion?24.9.133.42 05:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If all you entered was a dictionary definition, or if what you entered was a neologism that has not established itself in the English language, it was probably speedy deleted. —Angr 06:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These are actually not criteria for speedy deletion; see Criteria for speedy deletion. If we knew the name of the article, we might be able to say more. --Lambiam Talk  17:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * True; on the other hand, depending on how long the user was gone when he "left for a while", it may have been WP:PRODded and then deleted. —Angr 20:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The place for word definitions is Wiktionary. Clarityfiend 19:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Word for glove maker?
Is there a more specific word for "glove maker" than "milliner" (which usually means "hat maker", but also "accessory maker")? Thanks. --TotoBaggins 14:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Glover! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ouch. Thanks. :)  --TotoBaggins 21:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that terms fits like a ... :-) StuRat 03:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mingler
Hi! Could a native speaker please suggest what kind of a person is described as a mingler in English? I could provide more context, but I'd prefer spontaneous ideas. Thanks! Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say it's a person who mixes with lots of people at social events, not staying in one 'safe' group but talking to new people (but not having very long or meaningful conversations) — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * With emphasis on the not staying put in any one group for long, in my opinion. &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 17:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Matt! Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 10:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Although worth pointing out that if you heard this spoken by a British person, it might have been the slang term 'minger' (generally used by the young), which is a derogatory term generally meaning a disgusting person, usually female. Skittle 21:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia
[Title added by ColinFine 22:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)]

hello!!! I'm a new user on this page. I really want to explore more on this site for my studies. Usually I just enter a subject on the search box, then after viewing the answer, it already ends to my search. How should I search any topics with vast answers?--125.60.248.135 22:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC) In editing a page, how could I make sure that my editing is correct?--125.60.248.135 22:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you could help me in my queries as a first time user on your site.....

THANKS AND GOD BLESS!!!


 * First, please read the instruction at the beginning of this page: you did sign your post, which many new posters do not; but you did not include a title. (I have added one).


 * Secondly, questions about Wikipedia are best posted at the Help desk rather than here. But the simple answer to your first question is that searching in Wikipedia is rather limited, and you are much better using a general purpose search engine.


 * Finally, if you pick 'Help' above the search box, it will take you to a great deal of helpful information, including Editing Wikipedia.


 * Welcome, and good editing! --ColinFine 22:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Present Perfect Tense used for distant past events
I've asked about this previously but respondents didn't seem to have a clear idea of what I was talking about. It's about what I'd call a local variant of the use of the present perfect tense. Local, because I've only ever heard Australians use it this way. It seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon: I remember exactly the very first time I ever heard it (1992), because it sounded so odd to my ears. It seems to appear when a speaker is narrating events that happened not just in the very recent past where one might expect the present perfect to be appropriate, but also long ago. It seems to be confined to speaking; I've never seen it in writing except when the writer is recording some speaker's exact words.

Here's a good example, from today's The Age (page 3, "Tale of a jockey on the tiles from 'a funny character' who's Queen"). In 1997, the horse trainer Lee Freedman met Queen Elizabeth and had a private conversation with her about her horse Arabian Story, which was a runner in that year's Melbourne Cup. Yesterday, on television, his daughter Emma Freedman was relating a part of that conversation as told to her by her father, and her TV appearance was partly the subject of today's Age article. She was reported as saying yesterday, about the 1997 conversation:
 * "Queen Elizabeth looked at him in absolute horror and has gone "You're kidding, aren't you?". And Dad's just started to laugh and she's then proceeded to say "Well, it would have been a lot better if ....".

The 3 underlined bits could just as easily have been "went" (or, preferably, said), "Dad just started", and "she then proceeded". I hear this sort of thing more and more commonly, and wonder if it's becoming a new way of talking. Is it purely a feature of Australian English, or does it turn up elsewhere in the Anglophone world? I'd appreciate any information about its genesis. -- JackofOz 02:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This expensive article seems to be about that. A.Z. 02:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look at the article; full of jargons, as you might have expected... the author suggests "the PP in Australian English seems to be more widespread than in British English and of course American English", and proposes "first, the PP in Australian English can be modified by a past adverbial which is definite... Second, the PP can be found in narrative sequences where a temporal progression from one event to the next is expressed... Third, the Australian PP is widely used in informal spoken discourse where the moment of speech is 'reset' as in uses of the historical present. The effect of this shift is a foregrounding one: it makes the narration more vivid... Finally, such a flexibility in use leads to the Australian PP being used for stylistic contrasts in narratives where much tense-switching occurs. Again, this is not unlike what happens in written French where the PS [passé simple] and the PC [passé composé] alternate to express a range of contrasts." Cheers.--K.C. Tang 03:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that you could read it (or a part of it) for free. A.Z. 03:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you not consider that K.C. Tang might have access to the original journal, in a library for example? --Richardrj talkemail 05:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't. A.Z. 05:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Or maybe K.C. Tang is wildly rich and spending $31.49 plus tax to read one article doesn't faze him. At any rate, to me the construction is strongly reminiscent of the historic present, which would sound like: "Queen Elizabeth looks at him in absolute horror and goes "You're kidding, aren't you?". And Dad just starts to laugh and she then proceeds to say "Well, it would have been a lot better if ....". I see we still don't have an article on the historic present and this is the second time I've had to mention it in an RD answer. —Angr 05:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, naughty us who haven't snapped our heels already. :)   The solution is readily apparent, Angr.  Be bold and start it yourself.  Build it and they will come.  --  JackofOz 05:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Back to the meat of the response - yes, it does have a kind of redolence to the historical present, although it's clearly a different construction in itself. I see you also noticed the disjunct between "Queen E. looked at him and has gone ...".  --  JackofOz 05:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone else already has (thanks, A.Z.!), but didn't cite any sources, which is exactly the reason I didn't start it myself. I don't have any sources to cite and don't even know where to start looking for them. —Angr 06:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is common, Jack, in English (probably all British in fact) football. Commentators and players often use this construction as opposed to the past tense. Maybe this is because they are talking over replays so it seems like it's happening now, or it's telling a story in the present tense or something but I suspect now it's just the culture. Certainly not as common in everyday speech. Also interesting apart from the tense used, is the use of the verb 'to be' to mean said. 'she has gone "quote"' or 'she wnet "quote"' rather than 'she said "quote"'. This is very common. Cyta 09:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A-ha! So it is more widespread than I was aware of. Thanks indeed.  Re the substitute for "said", I think you're referring to the verb "to go", aren't you?  --  JackofOz 12:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah of course I am, I feel a bit stupid now.Cyta 07:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All is forgiven, my son. Go, and sin no more.  --  JackofOz 01:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A side note: the situation is exactly the same as in my native Serbo-Croatian; namely, when reporting events from the past in a narrative manner, either (perfective) present tense (historical present), aorist (semantically corresponding with English PP or French passé simple) or past tense (semantically corresponding with English SP or French passé composé) can be used. However, usage of (historical) present or aorist better expresses the motion of the story than the past tense, and "makes the narration more vivid". Otherwise, outside of narrative contexts (such as storytelling), aorist is fairly dead. I could take the quotation brought from K.C.Tang almost word for word. Oh, and he could spend some of his incountable money on this one :-) Duja ► 11:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)