Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 July 21

= July 21 =

Possessive case for inanimate objects
When you have an animate object (human), you use the word "who" ... and when you have an inanimate object (thing), you use the word "that" (or "which") as a relative pronoun. For inanimate objects, in the subjective case, you would say: "This is the car that gets the best mileage" ... and you would never say "This is the car who gets the best mileage". In the objective case, you would say: "This is the car that I want to purchase" ... and you would never say "This is the car whom I want to purchase". So, what happens with the possessive case? What is the correct way to complete this sentence, when you want to indicate the possessive case for the inanimate car: "This is the car ____ windshield is broken." ...? The only word I can think of -- or have seen in similar sentences -- is "whose". Is that correct? Is "whose" the correct possessive case relative pronoun for "that" or for inanimate objects? In light of the other examples, "whose" seems incorrect. Any input? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Is there something wrong with "that's"? ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes; "that" is a conjunction (strictly speaking, a complementizer), not a pronoun, so it doesn't get put into the genitive. "That's" is only a contraction of "that is" or "that has". "Whose" is the genitive not only of "who(m)" but also of "which", so Joseph's instinct of "This is the car whose windshield is broken" is correct. —Angr 04:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Angr! I’ve just spent a lovely half hour, in the midst of a violent thunderstorm, searching through my C.O.D. and my Fowler, looking for something at least vaguely pronominal about “that”. It is a relative pronoun, of course, but you are perfectly correct about its genitive. (What you just know some of the rest of us have to go searching for.) Fowler, in the second edition of Modern English Usage, page 625. says:
 * We find again that while who has two possessives (whose and of whom), and which one (of which), that has none of its own, though it often needs it, and has to borrow of which or whose.
 * Thanks for today's lesson. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Traditional grammarians like Fowler might consider it a relative pronoun, but modern linguists don't. For modern linguists, the that in "the car that I want to purchase" is the same as the that in "I know that the sky is blue". The difference is that in "the car that I want to purchase" there is any empty relative pronoun slot in addition to "that", while in "I know that the sky is blue" there is no relative pronoun slot. —Angr 19:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In English, that is true, but is it the case in other languages? I recall from my far-away lessons in English grammar other languages which (heh, or that :)) have not got this problem?doktorb wordsdeeds 20:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can go to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whose and show translations of the relative pronoun meaning "of which". -- Wavelength (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Angr, I had no idea so much had changed in the world of grammar. As you might have guessed, my pre-university schooling was finished before Fowler's Second Edition was published (1968). What desk reference book should I have now to replace it? (I need to find out, among many other things, what an "empty relative pronoun slot" looks like when it is home of a Sunday afternoon.) Thanks for your help. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Doktorb, I don't think many other languages use the complementizer "that" in places where a relative pronoun would be expected, but there are probably a few. Munster Irish springs to mind (though the other dialects of Irish don't do it). Bielle, I don't know if there are desk reference books for advanced syntactic theory, but empty positions don't look like anything because they're invisible. The empty relative pronoun slot is also invisibly present in "The car I want to purchase", showing that that is optional in this construction, just as it is in "I know (that) the sky is blue". —Angr 04:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A type of doughnut called "buht"??
Is there something that resembles a doughnut with plum, jam, cheese curds or sweetened poppy called "bukht" or "buht" or something like that in any world language or tradition? --206.248.172.247 (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't make anything of the name, but going by the desription of the fillings—if this is not fried (like a doughnut) but boiled or steamed—I'd say it's a Hungarian dessert dumpling. (This is lamentably lacking from the "Cuisine of Hungary" list of sweets.) Don't know the name, but if no one else chimes in, I'll phone the Hungarian restaurant in town and get back to you. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a thing called "Buchtel" in Austria / Vienna. It is, sort of, an unholey doughnut, but I can´t remember it to have a filling.  I think they are baked, though.  The "ch" is pronounced like the Scottish "ch" in loch.  It is not to be confused with "Krapfen" (WP thinks es ist ein Berliner), which are quite similar to doughnuts and are filled, typically with jam.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We even have an article on Buchteln. The text says they're filled with plum jam, but in the photograph they aren't. What is filled with plum jam and sprinkled with poppyseeds, and is so tasty it ought to be illegal, is Germknödel. —Angr 10:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, the photograph doesn't show a cross-section of one, so we don't know if they're filled or not. --Random832 (contribs) 18:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any good recipes for this illegally delicious desert? :) Buchtel seems to be the cognate I was looking for.  --206.248.172.247 (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A recipe for Germknödel? Sure:
 * Travel to Vienna
 * Go to a good traditional Viennese restaurant
 * Order Germknödel
 * Enjoy Germknödel
 * Repeat steps 3 and 4 until you can't move any more
 * That's the best way to eat Germknödel! —Angr 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It truly is :). Viennese Germknödel is inhumanly delicious. IceUnshattered[ t 23:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly I need to get out and find some of this stuff! --Richardrj talkemail 05:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude! How long have you lived in Vienna now? You've never tried Germknödel? It was almost single-handedly responsible for the fact that I had gained so much weight during the 6 weeks I visited Austria at the age of 12 that my parents almost didn't recognize me at the airport when I came home. —Angr 06:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've been here 2½ years without a germ of Germknödel passing my lips. I will rectify this serious omission ASAP. This is the kind of original research I like. --Richardrj talkemail 12:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See also Mr Creosote´s Germknödelian epitaph.  Would Monsieur like a bucket? Clearly, maths does not go down well with Knödel, as proposed in his Incompleteness Theorem.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Several cultures have a sweetroll or pastry similer to what you discribe though I don't know any specific recipies that use plum and cheese. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Italian Proverb
Dio ci salvi dal povero arricchito e dal ricco impoverito. English translation: God save us from the enriched poor and from the impoverished rich.

What is the explanation of the above Italian proverb? It does not make sense to me. 66.239.75.243 (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It means that the rich know how to be rich, and the poor know how to be poor, but if you move them one way or the other they are unhappy and cause trouble. Hasn't it got some grains of truth in it? Xn4  ( talk ) 23:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are some related topics.
 * Parable of the Prodigal Son
 * The Prince and the Pauper
 * Rags to Riches
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You might add social mobility and economic mobility; but we've moved away from language issues now... jnestorius(talk) 08:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)