Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 January 27

= January 27 =

Spanish translation question
"Con tres millones de indígenas, cristianos y católicos, no realizaríais la república ciertamente. No la realizaríais tampoco con cuatro millones de españoles peninsulares, porque el español puro es incapaz de realizarla allá o acá. Si hemos de componer nuestra población para nuestro sistema de gobierno, si ha de sernos más posible hacer la población para el sistema proclamado que el sistema para la población, es necesario fomentar en nuestro suelo la población anglo-sajona. Ella está identificada con el vapor, el comercio y la libertad, y no será imposible radicar estas cosas entre nosotros sin la cooperación activa de esa raza de progreso y de civilización."

I am struggling with the final sentence of the above paragraph, written by Juan Bautista Alberdi in the “Bases y puntos de partida para la organización política de la República de Argentina”

I translate the sentence as: Anglo-Saxons represent steam, commerce, and liberty, and it will not be impossible to instill these things within ourselves without the active cooperation of this progressive and civilized race.

He appears to contradict himself with the double negative of: it will not be impossible…without their cooperation. Leading up to the final sentence he is saying that they need Anglo-Saxons to encourage these qualities, as such it seems illogical to say “it will not be impossible without”. “It will not be possible without” would make more sense …or am I missing something? Vrac (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "It will not be impossible" is not a double negative in the usual sense of the term; it just means that's it's possible but maybe difficult. So if it's possible (but maybe difficult) to do it without help, then perhaps the author is saying that the readers should try to do it for themselves without help. --Kjoonlee 09:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, a litotes. --ColinFine (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Several other sources have "y nos será imposible", which (unlike the version with "no") does make good sense in the context. --Lambiam 16:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the version I saw had "no", "nos" makes a lot more sense. Vrac (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

gas trouble, Indian English?
Gas trouble is a very common expression in India. Do native speakers use this expression to mean flatulence? A Google search returns mostly Indian links. 09:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never heard that, we just say "gas" for flatulence. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As an American I'd certainly understand that and not think it strange if I heard it, but I'm not sure I'd say it myself. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "I have gas" in British English is more likely to be construed as gas that causing burping. "Wind" is used for flatulence.--ChokinBako (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As a(nother) BrE speaker I'd say that "wind" can apply to, er, either end and "gas" to neither. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

to the manner born
is the accepted usage 'to the manner born' or 'to the manor born'? Meaning that one was raised in a particular subculture and so is not a 'poser', or that one was raised among the privileged classes (who live in 'manors'). thanks, Tim (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * AFAIK the original is "to the manner born", indicating someone who does something completely naturally. There was a Britcom called To the Manor Born, whose title was a pun, but was many Americans' first exposure to the expression, so they didn't get the pun and thought that was the actual phrase. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 16:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (after ec): The phrase is traditionally 'to the manner born', as for example OED s.v. 'manner', 3b: " b. to the manner born: (originally) familiar from birth with a given custom, role, etc.; (now usually) naturally suited for, or taking readily to, a given role or task."
 * To the Manor Born was a BBC sitcom, whose name was a deliberate pun. --ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (after 2 ecs) According to this, 'to the manor born' predates that show, and may have originated as a mistake rather than a pun. Algebraist 16:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer, looks like I had it backwards in my mind. And Algebraist thanks for the pointer to that site--very good one to know. Tim (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

IPA help
I'd like to add IPA pronunciation to the article on the basketball player Deron Williams. Currently, the article reads "Deron Michael Williams (pronounced DARE-in)." It's homophonous with Darren.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess the transcription in accordance with the system used at Help:Pronunciation is . —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooh, that's a very useful page. Thanks for pointing it out to me.  Williams plays in the United States, and large numbers of Americans make no distinction between "ɛər" and "ær" and, for that matter, "ɛr."  How do we know which one of these vowels is the correct one?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going by your assumption that it's homophonous with Darren. From the spelling "Deron", however, I would have guessed . —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in the dialect of the city where he plays, sounds exactly the same as .  I would ask which version is more helpful to non-Americans who actually differentiate those two vowels.  The main reason, however, I want to include the IPA is that lots of people mispronounce his name .  How do you transcribe "dare" and "air" by the way?  I'm really bad with these vowels.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Help:Pronunciation gives for the vowel of mare, so I guess  and . But that page is trying hard to be transdialectal; if you're focusing on General American,  and  are probably sufficient. As for Deron, I'd use  on the basis of the principle of least surprise. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 21:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the fixes to the Williams article too.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is sort of covered above, but I want to emphasize it. The three words in "marry, merry, Mary" are pronounced identically by some people while others say they have completely different vowels after the M. And still other people pronounce two of them identically and distinguish the third. (Here's the Wikipedia article.)

When someone says that two words are pronounced identically and at least one of them uses one of those vowels, my reaction is that I need to know how they pronounce "marry, merry, Mary" before I know whether their statement is meaningful to me, because for me, all three are different. (And "Darren" has the vowel in "marry", "Deron" looks as though it ought to have the vowel in "merry", and "DARE-in" specifies the vowel in "Mary".) I have not heard how this Deron pronounces his name and I make no recommendation as to what to do in the article: I just want to remind people that this is a tricky range of vowels to describe with anything short of IPA -- which in turn makes it difficult to request help with the IPA by giving a description of the sound. --Anonymous, 00:05 UTC, January 28, 2008.

Grammar
1. I know "less of a commitment to work" is correct, while "a smaller commitment" is not, but why? Is "a commitment" considered an uncountable noun, even though it's got the article?

2. Why is the following sentence incorrect: "Complex human traits such as artistic talent or social skill are likely shaped by thousands of genes"? Why must it be "...are likely to be shaped..."?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagine Reason (talk • contribs) 23:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think (1) is outright incorrect, it's just not something you'd usually hear. Commitment, by the way, is countable. There's nothing wrong with (2). Likely shaped is fine. Strad (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Strad that (1) is just not so idiomatic as the alternative. I disagree about (2). Likely is normally an adjective, and that is how it appears in are likely to be shaped. In are likely shaped it is an adverb; and according to OED, adverbial likely is obsolete, except for this:
 * "2. Probably, in all probability. Now chiefly most likely, very likely; otherwise rare exc. Sc. dial., or (freq.) N. Amer."
 * Because this usage is regional, rare, fossil-bound, or old-fashioned, it is best avoided. Most likely others will have something to say about this, too.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 05:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the OED that that usage is still completely accepted in North America. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OED doesn't say that exactly. It says "(freq.) N. Amer." There are some who object to it there. M-W's Concise Dictionary of English Usage, 2002, deals thoroughly with this usage, and notes that NY Times waged a war for thirty years against it. Nevertheless, M-W sums up by saying that it is "well established in standard general use in North America".
 * Regional, as I have said. Like alternate meaning alternative.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 06:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Having lived in NYC for over a decade, I'd thought that they're both correct. I'm not sure why GMAT would want to test something so controversial (these questions coming from GMAT's official prep software). I'm pretty sure I didn't make a mistake in copying the questions. Imagine Reason (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, "a smaller commitment" is correct where "commitment" is a quantity. For example, in finance, "commitment" can mean the amount (of an asset) that one is committed to buy (or whatever), so "Bank X has subscribed to a smaller commitment" is correct. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Going back to "less of a commitment", I guess that's fairly common, but one could also say "a lower commitment", or "not as strong a commitment". Purists might argue that anything less than fully committed is not committed at all.  They'd say that, of the three levels of commitment (I'll try; I'll do my best; I'll do whatever it takes), only the last represents actual commitment.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. It seems also that "are less committed to...." would be even better? Imagine Reason (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)