Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 June 26

= June 26 =

What is the plural of "how-to" when used as a noun?
Is it how-tos, how-to's, howtos, etc.? --Sonjaaa (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no justification for either removing the hyphen or adding an apostrophe, so I'd go with how-tos or "how-to"s. --  JackofOz (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(econ) :This machine's popup says how-tos so it looks like the apostrophe for this plural has been phased out pretty much. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should ever have been phased in, in the first place. --  JackofOz (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is not to pluralize "how-to", but instead use it attributively to modify a more familiar noun—something like "how-to articles". --71.162.249.44 (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That works. But sometimes you have to put words into the mouth of a speaker rather than a writer, and speakers do talk about "dos and don'ts", and "let's not concern ourselves with the how-tos and how-not-tos but focus on the principle", etc.  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In versus On
Is the use of one preposition over the other more appropriate ... or is either acceptable in the following context? Is there any difference in meaning between the two?

Context 1: (a person) John is on the list. -- (versus) -- John is in the list.

Context 2: (a person's name) John's name is on the list. -- (versus) -- John's name is in the list.

The above are generically contrived sentences, of course. But I am looking for correct grammar / usage / word choice in instances such as:

All of the doctors in/on this list will accept your insurance plan. OR The names of all donors in/on this list will be forwarded to the senior vice president.

The actual sentence that prompted my question was: Each of the actors in this list has appeared in two or more Oscar-winning films.

Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC))


 * Based on the 9 prepositional uses of on here, I'd say that Context 1 should be in. Personally, I'd still go with in for Context 2 although it could be argued that number 1 (or 5) on that list might work. I would use on if it the context was:
 * Context 3: (something tangible) The ink with which John's name is written is on the page representing the list.
 * Or for anything intangible that could be said to have an upper surface or the ability to be touched from above. It may depend on dialect in a similar way to the example at Preposition and postposition. I wonder if there's any context where the choice makes an impact on the meaning. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Both in or on are possible with list. It depends on whether the speaker thinks of the list as being written on a 2-dimensional surface like a piece of paper (where you use on) or as an abstract 3-dimensional container (where you use in). Many things can be conceptualized as either 2-D or 3-D. Compare these contrasts:


 * He's standing on the corner
 * She's sitting in the corner


 * You stand on a 2-D surface but you can sit inside a 3-D corner.


 * He's sitting on the chair
 * She's sitting in the chair


 * sitting on the chair focuses on the contact between body & 2-D sitting surface, sitting in the chair focuses on the chair having 3 dimensions. Note how benches are conceived as being essentially a 2-D object (without 3-D sides), which makes the in the bench semantically odd:


 * He's sitting on the bench
 * ?She's sitting in the bench


 * Same with streets. Either focus on street surface or as container-like object.


 * They're playing on the street
 * They're playing in the street


 * Many chucks of linguistic discourse like paper, word, sentence, speech, joke, story, novel, conversation are viewed in English metaphorically as 3-D containers. This is why they can be used with in or out of (The character appears in that story, I couldnt get any meaning out of her speech). This 3-D linguistic container metaphor is part of the larger English conduit metaphor of communication, written about by Michael Reddy (Metalanguage).


 * Many instances of prepositions are idiomatic in English like stand on queue, stand in line, something on my mind, something in mind. Sometimes you can see how they appear to be frozen examples of a particular conceptualization of space. – ishwar  (speak)  13:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For this wondering: "I wonder if there's any context where the choice makes an impact on the meaning", there is definitely a difference with objects that are primarily conceptualized as 3-D objects like houses, cars, etc.


 * They're sitting on the house
 * They're sitting in the house


 * Since houses are 3-D, using on means you have to think of a 2-D surface on the top of the 3-D house. The contrast between these is quite apparent. – ishwar  (speak)  13:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. It definitely helps me articulate what I'm about to ask :). Doesn't the choice depend on whether the speaker thinks of the list as being a 2D surface? I would say that a list is an example of an "abstract 3D container" (the page with the names written on it is just a representation of the list) but Wiktionary disagrees. That's why I thought that in is better. The abstract list could be written on a peice of paper but the list would still be abstract, right? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think so. The list would be 2D by it being on a 2D surface (e.g. paper). Other dictionaries say that a list is a series of words or numbers (not mentioning its dimensions). Personally, I think that I like using on the list over in the list, but I can use either one. And you can find several thousands of examples of both with google. Also you can refer to either 2D or 3D by talking about the removal of an item of the list:


 * I took/got his name off the list (2D list)
 * I took/got his name out of the list (3D list)


 * Compare:


 * I stepped off the mat (2D mat)
 * I stepped out of the house (3D house)


 * An interesting thing is how on and in are used for units of time. Time doesnt have any actual dimensions, but metaphorically 1D, 2D, and 3D conceptualizations of the time units are used: at 3:00, on Monday, in June. Generally the smaller units of can be 1D points while larger units are often 2D or 3D. Larger units cant be 1D very easily, so ?I went to work at Monday is odd. But, it's somewhat complicated. And maybe the metaphors are now just frozen idiomatic constructions. – ishwar  (speak)  19:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that I might disagree with you (regarding in vs on with respect to list) because of the possibility of many copies of a list. Say I have 500 identical copies of a list on 500 pieces of paper. How many lists are there? I would say that there's only one abstract 3D list but 500 2D representations of that list. Wiktionary would say (and you would agree, no?) that there are 500 lists. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the more I think about this the more I realise that you're right and the 2D definition of list is a better definition. Thank you. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Re standing in/on the corner: a person standing on the footpath at the corner of a building or near the intersection between two streets would standing "on the corner", but if they were inside the building they'd be standing "in the corner". --  JackofOz (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Have a life
Is there any way to say "I have a life" civilly? Is "I have other social endeavors besides Wikipedia" the equivalent? It doesn't seem like it, say, what happens if I like to taste wine alone at my kitchen table by myself? That excludes sociality. And "I have a nonwikipedia life" doesn't cut it, because taking a crap and piss wouldn't be my kind of pastime...... Is there any one noun, of not, any one word? If not a hyphenated word (/compound word)? Or a space compound word?68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Having a life means different things to different people, but what's wrong with words such as successful, independent, outgoing, ambitious, street-wise, cool, fashionable, and so on?...--Shantavira|feed me 07:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What was the charge, 68.148, that you feel you have to justify yourself? Without that, there are many uncivil one-worders out there. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was just an argument on wikipedia.68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Mesleems
What is this word in the Finnegans Wake? You can see the context here:. And why isn't there an apostrophe in the title? I know that anything unusual is usual in Joyce. More information if you have, please. --Omidinist (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The lack of an apostrophe in the title leads to an intentional ambiguity. It could mean "the wake of Finnegan" (wake meaning waking up, or a funeral wake).  Or it could mean "many Finnegans wake up".  As with so much of Finnegans Wake, the wordplay is dense, allusive and impossible to gloss.  As for "mesleems", your guess is as good as mine.  --Richardrj talkemail 08:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking a stab with the context nicely supplied, the Hooth are the Baloch people who are predominately Muslim, and perhaps then, mesleems refers to Muslims with further play I won't tackle here. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To save further people the trouble, the quote reads "Rise up, man of the hooths, you have slept so long! Or is it only so mesleems?" My first thought when reading it was that "mesleems" contains echoes of "sleep" (referring back to "slept") and "seems".  You could maybe gloss the second sentence as "Or does it only seem so?" --Richardrj talkemail 10:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also like "methinks", so "me seems" (seems to me), and "me sleeps" also, like dreams. A nice play of light with "wake" and "sleep", "seems" and "dreams", like half waking, half sleeping, that holy, illusory, hallucinating bracket between both... Luscious, isn't it. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To Richardrj ... you say that the lack of an apostrophe could indicate: "the wake of Finnegan" (wake meaning waking up, or a funeral wake). Or it could mean "many Finnegans wake up".   Doesn't the "missing" apostrophe directly point to your #2 option (plural Finnegan) and specifically exclude your #1 option (possessive Finnegan)?  Just wondering ...?  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC))
 * Hi Joseph. I see what you mean, but Joyce was interested in bending the rules of language and syntax.  The last part of Ulysses, for example, contains a 4000-word sentence with no punctuation marks at all.  So I don't think Joyce was too fastidious about these things, and the lack of an apostrophe shouldn't be taken as fixing the title to one particular meaning. --Richardrj talkemail 10:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, one can hardly pin him down on anything, it would seem ... Thanks ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC))


 * According to Joyce's Waking Women: An Introduction to Finnegans Wake by Sheldon Brivic, page 89, Hooth refers to the Hill of Howth where the man to whom she is calling lies buried. Brivic connects mesleems and Muslim too: " [...] linking woman's view to the other world, she fears that her recognition of his death is 'only Muslim' or impious illusion." (Of course this doesn't devalue anything said above. Just thought I'd add an interpretation by someone who has published several books on Joyce. Exploring FW's evocations in their full plasticity and ambiguity is more appropriate, than trying to give a definite interpretation). ---Sluzzelin  talk  12:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I wouldn't put it past Joyce to have fossicked further language-wise. Maybe Sheldon didn't have the wiki article... Bit of a dig (not Joyce's) at Muslims I'd 'a thought – superficially anyway. ; ))  Julia Rossi (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

English-language term for SS person-unit
What is the proper term in English for referring in the third person to an individual (male) of unknown rank who served in the SS (not necessarily the Waffen-SS)? This is for captioning archival photos, so I'm seeking language that's accurate and reflects the available level of detail (i.e. lacking specifics). -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "SS soldier" – inappropriate (?) since the SS wasn't an army.
 * "SS trooper" – little evidence of this
 * "SS member" – weak; doesn't indicate function
 * "SS man" – looks suspiciously like a faux ami translation of SS-Mann, the rank of private.
 * "SS Paramilitary" may work as an alternative. In the UK, paramilitary is used to describe an organisation or an individual within a paramilitary organisation. - X201 (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The very article you link to uses the terms "SS member" and "SS personnel". You could also use "officer of the SS" or "reservist in the SS". Paul Davidson (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In principle and in practice, I don't accept the wording of a Wikipedia article as an authoritative source of terminology unless that topic is expressly treated in the text. (N.B. I will move this discussion to the article's Talk page when conclusions are reached.) Meanwhile, I would no more use "SS member" than I would LAPD member, and I suspect "officer" refers to a command position and not simply as with a "police officer" at any level. And why "reservist"? My problem is that I lack information beyond that of a uniformed man serving in the SS. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I just read the entry on SS in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (vol. 4, pp. 1399-1404), and not once does the case I require come up. There are soldiers of the "militarized" Waffen-SS, SS guards on the staffs of camps, and officers in command positions — but no particular word I could use as a term for one of the SS rank and file. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Member of the SS" or "SS member" sounds okay to me. I don't understand the objection "doesn't indicate function" since there are no details anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Verb tense
I found the following sentence in Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance:

His thesis not be a part of a substantive field, because to accept a split into substantive and methodological was to deny the existence of Quality.

Is the verb here correct? What tense is it? Mr.K. (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Reminds me of "Here be dragons" or "There be whales!", but I have nothing more than that... -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think that looks like a typo in the original text. The sentence is confirmed by this page, but I can't imagine why Pirsig would have written it like that. --Richardrj talkemail 12:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I can imagine a context in which that might just work, but in isolation it's very odd indeed.  It seems to be missing "could", "would", "should" or "might".  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Or "may", if you ask me. Kreachure (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PS To me the phrase sounds like it's being spoken by a stereotypical western movie Native American who is currently working on his PhD. :) Kreachure (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it International Talk Like a Pirate Day already? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless it's that English way of saying "put kettle on" whatever that dialect is. But again, why Pirsig...   Julia Rossi (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like Lancashire. But the Lancastrians I've encountered claim they say "Put t' kettle on" and listeners don't pick up on the t'.  Yes, not very Pirsig-like, is it, unless he was quoting someone.  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Per definite article reduction, it's more of a Yorkshire than a Lancashire thing, although it's still present in both. --Richardrj talkemail 13:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite. I was thinking Yorkshire but wrote Lancashire.  How uncharacteristic of me.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"Whether"
I just read what I wrote on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk:
 * I didn't know whether they spoke English or German...

I intended this to mean "I didn't know whether they spoke any of the following languages: English and German". But it can just as easily be understood as: "I didn't know which language they spoke. English? Or German?". Finnish avoids this ambiguity, by having two different words for "or": tai is used for the former, vai for the latter. Is there a similar distinction in English? Or in any other non-Finnish language? J I P | Talk 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Latin also distinguishes between vel (inclusive or: and/or) and aut (exclusive or: either.. or..). But this is OR. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In English, you could have disambiguated by writing "I didn't know whether or not they spoke either English or German". Latin in fact has four words for "or", in addition to vel and aut, there's an and sive (not to mention the enclitic -ve, which is a variant of vel, and seu, which is a variant of sive). In this case, in Latin you'd probably use Nescivi utrum Anglice an Germanice locuti sint if you mean "they spoke either English or German, but I didn't know which" and Nescivi num vel Anglice vel Germanice locuti sint if you mean "I didn't know whether they'd understand me if I spoke to them in either English or German (though they might have understood me if I'd been able to speak to them in Yindjibarndi or Chichewa)." (Sluzzelin, you're such a punny guy.) —Angr 22:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: Would JIP's second meaning be achieved if there was a comma after "English"? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that would be less ambiguous than JIP's version, but Angr's idea is better. Except "whether or not" is redundant in this case.  "I didn't know whether they spoke either English or German" conveys the message quite effectively.  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the redundancy was intentional, to make doubly sure the disambiguated meaning was understood. (As the Germans say, Doppelt hält besser.) Alternatively, the "either" could be removed: "I didn't know whether or not they spoke English or German" is also unambiguous. On further reflection, the doubling of vel in the second Latin sentence above is unnecessary, so I've amended it above. —Angr 15:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * After much fruitless writing, re-thinking, editing and more re-thinking, and then on actually re-reading the original question, I now tend to the following solution: "I didn't know if they spoke English or German". (You could put "either" before "English" - it adds no real value but it does no harm, and it may be stylistically appropriate for the context.)  This is clear; for all you know they might speak only Finnish, Japanese and Swahili, and you want to know if you and they have any common languages, English and German being the only ones in your inventory.  There are only 2 possibilites you're interested in: they speak at least one of English and German, or they speak neither.

The word "whether" introduces an ambiguity in this case, not easily clarified. It's unclear whether you know they speak one of them, but not which one; or whether you don't have any idea which languages they speak. The possibilities now become four-fold: they speak only English, they speak only German, they speak both, they speak neither. If your only language was English, then "whether" might have a use ("I didn't know whether they spoke English or not"). But here we have two languages, and the logic is easily confused if we use "whether". I usually reserve "whether or not" for cases like "Whether I vote or not, XYZ Party is going to win the election" --  JackofOz (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Jack, but for me, "I didn't know if they spoke English or German" has precisely the same ambiguity as "I didn't know whether they spoke English or German". Both sentences can be interpreted either as setting up an alternative (whether it was English they spoke or German) or as a simple indirect question that happens to include a disjunction (whether or not they spoke a language I could communicate with them in; in my case, that would be English or German). —Angr 07:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To me, the "whether" version does not come across as ambiguous, although I can see the other reading, but the "if" version does. --Anon, 05:30 UTC, June 30, 2008.

In Polish I would say the sentence in the first meaning:
 * Nie wiedziałem, czy mówili po angielsku czy po niemiecku.

And in the other meaning:
 * Nie wiedziałem, czy mówili po angielsku lub po niemiecku.

The latter uses the word lub which is the usual Polish equivalent of "or". The former repeats the word czy which in this case is the equivalent of "whether" (in other cases it may be also used for asking questions). &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 21:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)