Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 June 2

= June 2 =

Plural vs Singular
I've been looking online, and most dictionaries have usage notes that state "none" requires a singular verb, as in None was qualified. This sounds odd to my ear. Are there any cases in which none should use a plural verb? Are there any other words that are colloquially used with a plural verb, but should be singular?

Also, media, as in mass media, is technically the plural of medium. Therefore, one would think it should be followed by a plural verb. However, our wiktionary article states that it should be followed by a plural verb in this sense; this is supported by encarta and the American Heritage dictionary, but they state that there are instances in which media can be followed by a plural verb, depending on the context. Merriam-Webster (the second definition &mdash; I can't link it for some reason) states that using media with a singular verb might incur criticism. So, what are your opinions?

While I'm here, I have a question about the singular they. I was taught that one should use "he" when referring to one person whose gender is not known. I often hear "they" being used, and find it incorrect. However, I've looked, and using "he" is attacked as sexist. I personally think using things such as s/he, he or she, xe etc. is poor form, and don't use it. Which is the most "correct" way to write this? Thanks. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Using singular verbs with "none" sounds find to me. To me, it's like using singular verbs with "no one", where both "none" and "no one" are not plural.  I can't think of any cases where you would use a plural verb with "none" either. I might be wrong, so someone feel free to correct me.  But for the second question, the grammatical way is to use "he" if the gender isn't known, and using "they" is incorrect but politically correct, the problem brought about by not having a gender-neutral term for he/she unlike in some other languages.  I find myself using grammatically incorrect "they" when I'm trying to hide the gender of the subject, but that's because the alternative is saying stuff like "this person", etc. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント  (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * None is a contraction of "not one", so it should be treated in the same way. A lot of people don't like singular they (I don't), but the OED has citations going back to the 18th century, so it is well established. See singular they.--Shantavira|feed me 06:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't post answers when you don't know what you're talking about. None is not a contraction of "not one", and is either singular or plural.  This is easily confirmed in the online Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Infoplease, or Compact Oxford dictionaries, all of which can be searched simultaneously via www.onelook.com.


 * In practice "none" is often treated as a plural when you might expect there to be many of whatever it is that there are none of.


 * --Anonymous, 07:44 UTC, June 2, 2008.


 * Well I'm sorry but that is what I was taught, and the OED confirms that "none" is derived from not one (Old English ne = not + an = one). FWIW, I have been a professional editor for 25 years, so I do have some inkling what I'm talking about.--Shantavira|feed me 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Is derived from ne+an" is not the same as "is a contraction of not one". --Anon, 20:45 UTC, June 2 (copyedited later).


 * In particular, when the expression "none of …" is used, none is usually construed as plural when the object of of is plural ("None of them are going on the trip") and as singular when the object of of is singular ("None of the milk was spoiled"). When none is used alone, the number assigned to it varies, as Anonymous said, depending on what the writer or speaker has in mind. Deor (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "I think the phrase none was qualified may seem strange to you because you are previously assuming that "none" signifies plurality, as in, why would you use this phrase if you weren't talking about two or more people/things? If you were talking about just one person/thing, you would probably say he/she/it was not qualified more often than none was qualified. Anyway, I too feel none was qualified sounds strange, but that's because (as I suggested) I have a previous bias which makes me assume "none" signifies plurality; chalk it up to language upbringing.--  十  八  09:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As for gender-neutrality, I'm against it on principle. (Keep 'em separated, I say. Vive la difference, too.) "He" is the traditional gender-neutral pronoun and is still the usual word. There has grown up a taboo, a remarkably persistent one, around "singular they". It is indeed considered incorrect, but in reality it is not. It is a part of many dialects, mine included. There is an in-depth treatment of the subject of the "singular they" here. One amusing absurdity mentioned there is "'I believe it's strictly a matter between the patient and his doctor.' -- senator Hayakawa opines upon the subject of abortion." --Milkbreath (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether 'none' is a contraction of 'no one' or not is a complete irrelevancy. It tells you nothing at all about whether it is construed with a singular or plural verb. Language doesn't work that way, and people who believe that you can settle matters of linguistic usage by an appeal to historical development are out of touch with how language actually works. I too was taught that 'none' should take a singular verb, with the same rationalisation, and like most English speakers I use plural more often, but singular when there is a presumption that only one of the set might have done whatever it was. --ColinFine (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless you're talking about uncountable nouns such as milk, what's an example of a set that might have contained only one element, Colin? --  JackofOz (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * E.g.: None of the days he was absent at was a Friday. but None of the workers were absent on a Friday. 76.111.32.200 (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That works for me. Nice example.   Thanks.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Loser's folly
I was just commenting on a talk page when this phrase popped in my head and I used it, and I'm pretty sure I'm know what it means, but I am surprised how it appears to be used very little in common speech. However, even the LA Times used the phrase in the second sentence of this article. Is using the phrase "loser's folly" to describe a hopeless venture really that rare of a phrase, and does anyone know where it originates from?--  十  八  09:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The phrase as used in the LA Times article seems related to the gambler's fallacy. (It's a fallacy even when you're experiencing a winning streak). There is also an article on illusion of control. ---Sluzzelin talk  09:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You think you know what it means? I don't, and I don't think you do, either. In the sentence you cite, the gambling is described as such, but also the "master-planned excess of Summerlin" and "the cookie-cutter streets of Green Valley and Henderson". I don't think it means anything except loose writing and looser editing. Don't look to journalists for usage tips; they'll toss in a whole mule to give it kick and an anvil for iron. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Verkündung der Wehrfreiheit (Germany, 1935)
I've queried this and a related term (? "'Verkündung der Wehrge*ekes". ) on the Talk page for Treaty of Versailles. Since they're quite context-dependent, please see the details there. --Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved thanks to stalwart RefDesk editors Angr, Lisa4edit, and Lambiam. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Linguistic content (possibly of interest here):
 * I think there must be another mistake in the second version. I can't think of any feminine or plural noun in German that ends in -ekes (and it would have to be a feminine or plural noun because of the definite article der in the genitive before it). Do you have a scan of the document? (If you can't upload it here for copyright reasons, let me know and I'll send you an e-mail so you can send it to me as an attachment.) —Angr 16:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The second could be "des Wehrgesetzes" if its a scanned document. Reichswehrministerium has a quote for 1935. ] There was however an earlier law  that might be viewed as violation.  The term "Verkündung der Wehrfreiheit" only got 3 ghits (6 yahoos), so the actual law was called something else. --Lisa4edit (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Verkündung des Wehrgesetzes" itself only gets 2 ghits, but I suspect you're right that that's what it says. I can see how a Fraktur "tz" ligature would look like a "k". Take a look at Commons:Image:Deutsches Reichsgesetzblatt 1871 000 000.jpg; the title says "Reichs-Gesetzblatt" but someone unfamiliar with Fraktur could easily think it said "Reichs-Gefekblatt". —Angr 18:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Usage of word "aspect"
Quotes by Thomas Hardy (1840-1928) English writer: "Aspect are within us, and who seems most kingly is king."

I am trying to understand what Hardy is saying in this quote where he uses the word "aspect" as singular, yet treats it as plural.

Can anyone help me out here? Thank you SunnyErn (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC) SunnyErn A young man's exhortation
 * Is that just a misprint?

Call off your eyes from care By some determined deftness; put forth joys Dear as excess without the core that cloys, And charm Life's lourings fair.

Exalt and crown the hour That girdles us, and fill it with glee, Blind glee, excelling aught could ever be, Were heedfulness in power.

Send up such touching strains That limitless recruits from Fancy's pack Shall rush upon your tongue, and tender back All that your soul contains.

For what do we know best? That a fresh love-leaf crumpled soon will dry, And that men moment after moment die, Of all scope dispossest.

If I have seen one thing It is the passing preciousness of dreams; That aspects are within us; and who seems Most kingly is the King. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"mille e tre" in Leporello's catalogue aria (Don Giovanni)
In Leporello's catalogue song, he sings of the number of his master's conquests, giving actual totals to date. I once heard a discussion in which a speaker said the the figure 1003 ("Ma in Ispagna son gia mille e tre.") was not to be taken as a literal figure, but that it was an expression for "incalculable." The Wikipedia article entitled "Madamina, il catalogo è questo" brings to the attention an opera also concerning Don Giovanni (1787) by Giuseppe Gazzaniga. In this version, the servant Pasquariello sings: "Della Francia e della Spagna ve ne sono non so quante." This is Englished as "From France and from Spain there are more than I know." When Mozart's librettist wrote "mille e tre" was he expressing the same? LShecut2nd (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the modern 'This device has a thousand and one uses', based of course on The Thousand and One Nights-- but here meant simply as a metaphor for 'very many'.

However, in the case of Leporello's claim, he so insistently repeats it that I believe we're meant to take it quite literally. This serves to build up the Don's mythic figure.

Besides, what's a mere thousand and three women bedded? Georges Simenon claimed twenty thousand. Ah, these sluggish Spaniards--how can they hope to compete with the hot-blooded Belgians? Rhinoracer (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Latvian question
Does anyone here speak Latvian? What does this headline I found in a Latvian newspaper mean?
 * Par garo brīvlaiku Elza saka - fooorši. Tiešām? J I P  | Talk 19:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to find this all day! No luck. An idea would be to post the question on the Latvian wikipedia's help desk/reference desk (there would be many who speak at least basic English) but I can't tell if they have one! Fribbler (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did post it at the Latvian Wikipedia. I couldn't find a reference desk so I posted it on the main page's talk page. I already got a reply: it means Of the long holidays Elza says - coool. Really?. J I P  | Talk 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On the left in languages the link is Latviešu. Where you go from there, I don't know. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you asked any of these people? Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 04:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Catcher in the Rye
Moved to humanities desk -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)