Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 August 5

= August 5 =

"Young at Heart"
Would anyone happen to know a word that describes someone who is young at heart? Like, "Bob is _____(young at heart)____." Thanks for your help! 132.250.122.83 (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * young,youthful, childlike, childish, boyish, girlish, young-looking, vigorous, energetic, lively, enthusiastic, active, sprightly. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Somehow, I don't think "Bob is girlish" is going to convey quite the same meaning as "Bob is young at heart". —Angr 13:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you've assumed Bob is male, which is possible but not known. 79.66.32.107 (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Evergreen - X201 (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Cardialogically juvenile" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Temperamentally neotenous.
 * – ⊥ ¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T– 12:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"I am" with past-perfect verbs
Is there a name for the grammatical construction which involves, for instance, saying "I am arrived" instead of "I have arrived"? And what are the differences in precise meaning and connotation between these two phrases, if any? An article here(I can't find it at the moment), gives "I am seen wonderful things" as the translation of a Basque sentence; how is that different from "I have seen..."? 207.233.84.97 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The name I would use is 'archaic'. In older forms of English, forms of 'to be' could be used to form the perfect of unaccusative verbs, as in French and German, but this almost obsolete. It has never been grammatical with transitive verbs (again as in French), so 'I am seen' (as an active perfect) is ungrammatical at all stages of English. --ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not really past tense in English to use a past participle. The usual formation of the present perfect is the present tense of to have followed by the past participle, for example 'you have played'. This usually suggests a present state that has been ongoing for some time. The combination of a form of 'to be' with the past participle is more rare in Modern English, it was formerly more common. It is retained for certain statives like 'she is finished', giving a sense of completion (perfective aspect) even though the state is only now achieved. The use of such a grammatical construction beyond this limited set of statives is now incorrect in Modern English. Thus, 'I am arrived' may have been popular in the past, especially in archaizing poetry, but is 'I have arrived' in Modern English. One can say 'I am seeing wonderful things' (progressive aspect) or 'I have seen wonderful things' (perfect aspect), but not 'I am seen wonderful things'. However, the passive voice is 'I am seen by wonderful things'. The usage of the past participle with 'to be' stems from its nature as an adjective. Other Germanic languages, like German, still use both 'sein' and 'haben' with past participles. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ColinFine, I don't think I'm following your last example. Would this not be an example?  The spy is reporting on his mission: "I have just entered the control room, when I am seen by the guard."   (Other than this uncommon example, I certainly agree that I am (past-tense) is... past its prime. OtherDave (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As Gareth says, 'I am seen' is completely grammatical - if a little unusual - in the sense that somebody sees me. It is ungrammatical as any kind of alternative or equivalent to 'I have seen'. --ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Thanks. Where's the coffee? OtherDave (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's not ignore the mention of the Basque sentence, which is probably meant to be an example of the ergative - so it may look like it says "I am seen wonderful things" but it doesn't actually mean that. Hopefully someone else can explain what the ergative actually is, since I don't quite get it. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See recent and typically erudite discussion (with good links) at Languagehat. Note also that Slavic languages use their verb to be as an auxiliary in all compound active forms. Example in Serbian:
 * Ja sam pio rakiju.
 * = I [auxiliary, part of biti "to be", <> "am" or "have"] drunk raki.
 * = I drank raki.
 * That's what a male speaker would say. A female speaker would use the feminine form of the active participle:
 * Ja sam pila rakiju.
 * The participle must agree with the subject just as an adjective would. The passive participles are different in form, so though they also take forms of the verb "to be" as auxiliaries (with agreement in number and gender, as typically in other European languages like French and Italian) there is no confusion:
 * Ja sam brao jabuke.
 * = I [male] picked apples.
 * Ja sam brala jabuke.
 * = I [female] picked apples.
 * Oni su brali jabuke.
 * = They [male, or mixed] picked apples.
 * Jabuka je brana.
 * = [The] apple is picked.
 * Jabuke su brane.
 * = Apples are picked.
 * [Subject to correction of details. My Balkan is a bit rusty. :) ]
 * – ⊥ ¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T– 14:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Adam, my first reaction to your suggestion was 'there's no way "I am seen wonderful things" could render an ergative construction, but on reflection I think it might be an attempt to render a distinction in an ergative language. The point is that in an ergative language the same case (absolutive) is used for the object of transitives and the subject (patient) of intransitives. (I have seen this explained - wrongly - as 'all transitive verbs are passive). It may be that in some ergative languages verbs of sensing, like 'see' are treated as unergative, and the subject (patient) takes the absolutive. (Perhaps this is the case in Basque, I don't know). If so, one might imagine a misguided attempt to translate 'I see' by the passive 'I am seen', to convey that the subject is in the case normally associated with the direct object. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Italian translation
Can someone translate this sentence for me: "Vi sono soldi per cibo e caramelle nel portafoglio". Thanks --212.120.246.239 (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * With a little help from Google, I get "There is money for food and sweets in the wallet."--El aprendelenguas (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Speeded or sped
Which is grammatically correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.159.153 (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Both. According to speed, the British English convention is that "sped" is used for objects in motion (the race car sped up) while "speeded" is used otherwise, but American English doesn't make that distinction. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So what does American English use? Speeded or sped or both are acceptable in any situation? --Lgriot (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for all Americans, but I use them specifically in different contexts. If the verb means "exceed the posted speed limit", I use speeded, as in she speeded, and got a ticket for it. If the verb simply means "go fast", then I use sped, as in the Road Runner sped across the desert. In particular, it's always sped up, never *speeded up. —Keenan Pepper 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. --Lgriot (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've thought about this in the past as well, and since "speeded" always sounds somehow wrong to me, I just avoid it entirely. In Keenan's sentence I would say "she was speeding...", so there is no past tense. Otherwise I agree with the usage of "sped". (I am Canadian if that matters.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a AmEn speaker and also would not use "speeded" but I also find forms like pleaded and dived grating. Since those are widely used by television reporters, I suspect I may be in a minority on this. Rmhermen (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In America speeded vs sped is a regional thing. Marriam-Webster (American dictionary) recogizes both forms while the OED (British dictionary) recogizes speeded only as a form of the noun speed (not the verb). Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you find that in the OED. It lists both 'speeded' and 'sped' as adjectives in particular senses; but it does not usually give different inflected forms of words (such as past tense forms) unless there is something remarkable about them. In any case I don't know what 'speeded' might be as a 'form of the noun speed'. --ColinFine (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)