Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 February 15

= February 15 =

Comma before 'and'; 'firstly'
I'd like to know RD-ers' views on the following two questions. The first one is a fairly FAQ I think. In a list of items written as a sentence, should one put a comma before the final 'and'? As in, "the meeting covered topics X, Y[,] and Z."

I'm sure one of my English teachers once told me that "Firstly" at the beginning of a sentence that goes on "secondly...thirdly..." etc. was incorrect and that it should be "First", although "secondly" and "thirdly" were correct. Any comments? Many thanks. --Richardrj talkemail 14:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That comma is known as the "serial comma" or "Oxford comma" or "Harvard comma". The Wikipedia Manual of Style takes no position on its use. "Firstly" is an oddity nowadays. "First" is perfectly good, but both are deprecated except where absolutely appropriate, that is, in an actual list that requires that kind of numbering. Whichever way you start you have to continue in that mode: firstly, secondly, thirdly, or first, second, third. It used to be that "firstly", etc. was the only correct form, which became "first", "secondly", "thirdly" because people hated "firstly". That's all me talking, but see Columbia Guide and American Heritage. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict]Whether to use a serial comma before the conjunction is a matter of style. Whether or not to use it depends on the style you are following.  Typically, in the United States, book publishers use serial commas, while periodical publishers do not.  Wikpedia neither mandates nor prohibits serial commas, so there is no consistent Wikipedia style.  As for your second question, both firstly and first are correct, as are secondly and second, and so on.  I think that the main rule would be to be consistent.  That is, if you start with First, then you should follow with second, not secondly, or vice versa.  Personally, I think that the forms without -ly are cleaner and more elegant.  Marco polo (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I endorse what that anonymous English teacher and MB say about the sequence first, secondly, thirdly, etc. This is an unimpeachable way of proceeding in careful academic writing, because first is taken to be more natural as an adverb than firstly is, despite appearances when it occurs near secondly and the others. Often it is possible to use first, second, third, etc., instead; that's fine, so long as no hybrid sequence is used.
 * As for the serial comma, our WP article is exceptionally good. Beware of short summary statements about use or non-use of the serial comma, or glib rationales for consistent use or consistent non-use. For what it's worth, Chicago Manual of Style and Oxford Manual of Style support its use by default, with cogent reasons. So do I, with equally cogent reasons. Others vehemently disagree, and claim to have their cogent reasons also.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 22:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good sir, for once you've managed to mystify me (I knew it was only a question of time, you being from Dandenong and all ...) . What is "first, secondly, thirdly ..." if not a hybrid sequence?  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hybridism is relative. Of course the sequence that includes first and secondly can be seen as hybrid, at least by surface appearance to many observers. But if it is set up as a standard, alongside another standard (first and second, etc.), then it is reasonable to speak of hybrids that fit neither one nor the other of these two.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 22:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And your suggestion that I am from Dandenong is an outrageous affront! I am from the Dandenongs, which is an entirely different matter. (Outside, mate...)
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 22:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, first things first. I apologise unreservedly for God having given you thin skin.  But as a word person (I almost said "word guy", but I assume too much, and I wouldn't want to rub salt into the wound), you must recognise the linguistic problem your apparently inclusive but actually exclusive nomenclature presents - or maybe exclusivity is a way of life up in those rarified parts.   :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, first, first things first. That's rarefied, not rarified. Secondly, second things second. It's much more a matter of practice than of rationality, with those two sequences each of which begins with first. Once the practice is settled, with whatever rational justification, it is reasonable to speak of hybrids that mix elements of the two.
 * (Let's be careful: people might think we're really fighting! Enough, anyway. this is not the place.)
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 01:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

LET'S GO -- what is the subject?
What is the subject in the sentence "Let's go"?

Thank you very much in anticipation of your favorable action on this matter.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.107.154 (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "You". It is an imperative sentence. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

'''huh? So, if I'll be the one who will say that sentence, it means to say it's like I'm saying "You let us go?" It just doesn't seem right. "Hey, Fred. you let us go to the park now." It's just a little bit strange.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlrichard (talk • contribs) 15:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the article on grammatical mood, subsection Imperative: "In English, second person is implied by the imperative except when first-person plural is specified, as in "Let's go" ("Let us go")." Maybe: "Hey, Fred. we let us go to the park now." :-S (?) ---Sluzzelin talk  15:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It does sound strange (and "we let us go" even stranger). That might be why we don't say the "you". But think about it. An imperative can only be a way of addressing another person or other people (luckily, "you" is both plural and singular). The subject isn't really there at all, but it used to be. It's all over Shakespeare: "Come you hither, sir." "Therefore come you with us and let him go." --Milkbreath (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The imperative is not necessarily "you", see in French "Mangeons!" which is the translation of "let's eat", and is a perfectly normal first person plural imperative. --Lgriot (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would argue that this is really a case of the cohortative mood. It is not really a command, but rather a suggestion or an urging.  I agree that the subject is the third first person plural pronoun, normally "we"; but this construction requires the oblique form "us" because it incorporates a fossilized second-person infinitive.  It is a case of deep structure versus surface structure. Marco polo (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoosh! (sound of all that going over my head) Sounds good, but did you mean to type "first person plural pronoun"? And that would make "God shed his grace on thee" jussive? --Milkbreath (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say so. In contemporary English, we might say "Let God shed his grace on you" or ("May God...").  I think that let has become a kind of cohortative/jussive marker in English.  Thanks for the correction on third vs. first person!  Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that it's a linguistically fossilized construction. Originally "let" was a 2nd-person imperative verb, but by now "let's" is a fixed expression used to introduce a phrase with an overall 1st-person imperative (or "cohortative", if you wish) semantic value. Notice that in modern English the pronoun "us" doesn't contract anywhere other than in "let's"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Compare Italian lei and Spanish Vd (usted). These are originally third person in strict grammar, but they are functionally second person. The same can be said about English your Honour, or Madame in "Would Madame wish to see a less expensive gown, perhaps?"
 * Yes, functionally let's eat is the equivalent of mangeons, as a first-person-plural "imperative", or, as Marco has it, a cohortative (or exhortative, or hortative, or jussive). (Serious academic linguists will say all this slightly differently. Meh.)
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 22:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While let's X is somewhat idiomatic/fossilized, the part that seems most confusing to Carlrichard and others (the omission of the subject) is required for commands/requests unless there is some sort of syntactic movement. One way of seeing it is in sentences like "Hey, you, get into my car" or "Everybody get down tonight" the latter of which would be "everybody gets down tonight" in the non-imperative mood. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Everybody Wangs Chung tonight! Tesseran (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

'''Am I right to think that there are implied words that go along that sentence? In other words, is the sentence "Let's go" an elliptical sentence? Carlrichard (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)'''


 * Not really. All relevant morphemes are present.  It's just that "Let's" is a fossilized fixed expression. AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The form is that of an imperative: "Let us pray", "Let joy and innocence prevail", "Let my people go". Only the last type can be interpreted as an actual imperative (command), because there is an agent (ol'Pharaoh) capable of granting the desired freedom. Syntactically, an imperative has no subject. Semantically, the agent being addressed can be considered to be the hopeful future subject of the verb. The first two types of use, in which "let" is not a command addressed to an agent (although, for the second, one might imagine a being with supernatural abilities being addressed), may have originated in the third type. Grammatically this is a special construction, one of a kind. The sentence cannot be made "more complete" by adding words, so no words have been left out, just like nothing was left out in the sentence "Come here!". --Lambiam 10:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that let's go has no ellipsis, with one proviso. If it were to be construed as a standard second-person imperative (which remains an option), it would involve ellipsis, as most second-person imperatives do. I do not agree that imperatives have no syntactic subject: they do have one, but it is usually elided! Consider: You come here NOW! That is an emphatic imperative, without any elision (ellipsis). The less emphatic form, with ellipsis, is Come here now!
 * We can reasonably say that the logical subject of let's go is we; but we is certainly not the syntactic subject.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 11:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Such subjects are called implied or tacit. In Spanish, they are syntactic. I don't know if that applies to English, but it apparently doesn't, according to Noetica's comment.
 * By the way, the objective form us reminds me a lot of pronominal, quasi-reflexive (i.e. fossilized, not actually reflexive) Spanish verbal forms as moverse, jactarse, etc. Sorry for my bit of off-topicness. Pallida  Mors  17:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

thats also let us go where the subject is "us", the subject is still "us" in let's go, it's just written "'s".Boomgaylove (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

'''Hmmm.. So, is it like, "Vamos"? I got to thinking that maybe Let's go is just another way of saying "We'll go" where the subject is "we." What do you have to say? Carlrichard (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)'''