Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 August 12

= August 12 =

(at) home
"I like to be at home" and "I like to be home". Both sentences seem to be correct. Is there a rule that might explain this omission of preposition without making the sentence incorrect? There should be many more examples. Would you please suggest some of them with other prepositions. --Omidinist (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say there's a rule for it, it's just that the word home can be either a noun (in which case it can be preceded by a preposition) or an adverb (in which case it can't). +Angr 16:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or just the tendency of English speakers to abbreviate when the meaning is clear. As with the well-known midwestern expression and variants on it, "Do you want to take/come with?" Then later someone will say, "Let's go home." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To be "at home" is also a particularity of certains echelons of UK society. One prints up cards with one's name, the phrase "at home" and the address to RSVP then handwrites the time, date and occasion for the invitee . -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I think about, it seems like both expressions are simply English shorthand. "I'm at home" vs. "I'm home". Change "home" to "house" and neither sentence makes sense. "I'm at my house" makes sense. But to a native English speaker, leaving out "my" and "at" does not harm the meaning, when "home" is used, as "my" and "at" are implied. It's vaguely like when a Brit says, "I'm going on holiday". Seems like it should read "a/my holiday" = "a/my vacation" as Americans would say. But we don't say "a/my vacation", we just say "vacation". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well from a grammatical perspective "shorthand" is an almost entirely meaningless term. Talking about words like "home" shifting from nominal to adverbial makes it clearer what role they actually play in sentences and why things like this happen in certain contexts but not others. Mo-Al (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A question for US-English speakers of the eastern coast

 * 1) Who (of you) make a full distintion when pronouncing the following three words: far, for, four (I'm referring to the for in sentences like: "What is it for?")
 * 2) The same question with the triple: bum, bomb, balm (only if you don't pronouncce the "l" in balm).
 * 3) If you don't pronounce for like four, then what do you think of the common web abbreviation: 4U, instead of four you?

It would be helpful if you might also point out where you live (or rather: where you got your accent). Thank you in advance

HOOTmag (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I live in central New York, and 'for' and 'four' sound exactly the same. '4U' makes perfect sense to me.  'Far' is pronounced like /fɑr/.  'Bomb' and 'balm' are usually identical, thought sometimes you hear the L a little bit.  'Bum' is pronounced with the short 'u' sound. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 19:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanx. HOOTmag (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with Akrabbim. Ages 0 through 12 outside Philadelphia, 12-18 in Connecticut, 18-21 in Wisconsin 2/3 of the time, 21-35 back in CT and 35+ near Richmond VA.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankxs. HOOTmag (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree with much of what Akrabbim says. I would say "far" is never pronounced like "for" or "four". The "a" is an "ah" sound, whether you enunciate the "r" as a midwesterner would, or drop the "r" as a northeasterner would. "For" and "four" are not necessarily identical, but they're close enough that "4" suggests "for". To someone who drops the "r", I would say it's "faw" vs. "foe-uh", but obviously some regional accents make them sound very similar. Like he also said, "bum" is short-u, like "drum". "Bomb" and "baum" and "balm" are similar, but not exactly the same. "Bomb" rhymes with "Tom", "baum" is properly said to sound more like "bow" (as in the bow of ship, or to bow; not the bow of a bow and arrow) but is often spoken the same way as "bomb", and the "L" is typically somewhat audible in "balm". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You've forgotten to indicate where you live (or where you got your accent). HOOTmag (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mostly midwest, lived several years on the east coast, and I tend to notice accents. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My answer is similar, although not exactly the same. I was born and grew up in Lancaster, PA, and currently live outside of Philadelphia.  "For" and "Four" do sound exactly the same, with "Far" being different, the "a" being an "ah" sound.  However, I pronouce "bum", "bomb", and "balm" all differently.  "Bum" has a short "u" sound like "dumb".  "Bomb" has a short "a" sound similar to the "a" in "father".  "Balm" has an "aw" sound, similar to "saw".  --Zerozal (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankx. HOOTmag (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I grew up in a suburb of New York City in a mostly nonrhotic environment but was trained to be rhotic. I have lived in and near Boston for most of my adult life, again in a largely nonrhotic environment, although I remain rhotic.  I think that in both the nonrhotic and rhotic varieties current in both New York and Boston, "far" is distinct from "four" or "for".  In all of the above cases, "four" and "for" have the same pronunciation, but only when the word "for" is stressed.  Most often the word "for" is part of a prepositional phrase in which it is not stressed.  In these unstressed positions, its vowel ([ə] or [ɚ]) is quite distinct from that of "four", which is invariably pronounced [fɒ:] (nonrhotic Boston), [fɔɚ] (rhotic General American), or something like [fʊɔ:] (nonrhotic New York).  As for bomb/balm/bum, I agree that "bum" is always distinct from the other two in all varieties I know.  I am afraid I am guilty of the "spelling pronunciation" of [balm], which is pretty common in my environment.  I think that for most New Yorkers who don't pronounce the "l", "bomb" and "balm" will be pronounced the same ([ba:m]).  For most Bostonians who don't pronounce the "l", however, "bomb" would be [bɒm], whereas "balm" would be [ba:m].  Marco polo (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanxs. HOOTmag (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't anyone pronounce "for" lazily more like "fur"? I often do that (but then I am kind of far from the US east coast). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fur shur! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm from the midwest but currently live in Vermont. The following is based on what I hear on a daily basis (although it matches exactly with how I would naturally say it in my own midwest accent).  I'd say that four and for are pronounced the same when "for" is stressed.  When it is not stressed, as Marco Polo said, it is pronounced much like "fur" or "fir" which are both pronounced the same.  So if I were to say "I'm waiting for the bus", the word "for" would be pronounced like "fir/fur".  Although, if I were holding a dress and someone thought it was mine (for whatever reason given I'm male) I'd say, "No, the dress is for my wife", it would be pronounced the same as the number "four" since I would be stressing who the dress is for.  And I can't say what I hear as far as bum/bomb/balm since I can't remember the last time I heard anyone use those words in conversation.  Dismas |(talk) 03:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa, we posted at the same time, without an edit conflict, and you answered my question without even knowing I was going to ask it! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My usage agrees with Dismas' description. I pronounce "for" and "four" the same in a vacuum, but "for" is more likely to be said quickly, without emphasis, which causes it to lose its distinct vowel sound. "4U" is unambiguous in most contexts, though puerile. I haven't heard 'balm' said much, but I pronounce the 'l' slightly, and the 'ah' sounds similar to the vowel in 'bomb', and not like the vowel in 'saw' (though I wouldn't notice if someone said 'bawlm', it sounds correct, if slightly more 'proper'). I grew up in northern Virginia / southern Maryland, and live in the Midwest now. -Silence (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Grew up in Western Massachusetts, and "far," is completely distinct from "for" and "four" (pronounced like "car). There is the 'slightest of differences in pronunciation between "for" and "four," so slight that I'm not sure whether it's really there, or I just think I hear it.  "Four" is pronounced just a little bit like "foor," but it's very, very subtle.  "For" would be pronounced "fer" in conversation unless it was being stressed or I was trying to speak especially clearly.  Using the numeral 4 in place of for makes perfect sense, but I hate it.
 * "Bum" is also completely distinct from "bomb" or "balm" (pronounced like rum. "Bomb" and "balm" again very slightly different.  It's not so much a matter of different vowel sounds, in this case, or hearing the 'L,' but more that "balm" talks a few milliseconds longer to say.  Again, barely perceptible.  Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In these days of Biblical illiteracy and Mideast terrorism, "a balm in Gilead" will probably suggest the latter if the "a" is not forcibly overstressed. I know this from experience. Srnec (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "A balm?! What are you giving him a balm for?" +Angr 09:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When I came back to Providence, Rhode Island, from London in 1961, my mathematics teacher (who I think was a Rhode Islander) would pronounce "four" with two syllables: Foe-uh [schwa], or before a vowel, Foe-uhr ("foe-uhr apples"). Although less common, this is still accepted as a normal, though disinctly Yankee, variant among New England accents, and is quite different from one's pronunciation of the monosyllabic "for". Most Rhode Islanders, however, don't distinguish their pronunciations of "four" and "for", unless deliberately (and usually artificially) exaggerating, either for clarity ["No, she said 'I went fo-uh days without sleep.'"] or for humorous effect. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Children's radio story from the late 50s or early 60s
Good Morning I am hoping that you are able to help me with the title of a children's radio story that was played on the National Programme (usually on Sunday mornings) in the late 50s or early 60s. From memory the story was about the moon racing with, I think, some type of animal. The story could have been either Australian or New Zealand. The animal may have been a koala. I know that this all sounds very vague! Please help me with the title of this story, and where I could possibly obtain a copy. Thank you for your efforts. Kind regards  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.171.59 (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It might be useful to know in which country or city this National Programme was broadcast. . . DOR (HK) (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference to Australia/New Zealand gives it away, I think. For those ... of a certain age, the term "the national program" or "the national station" means one and only one thing, the radio broadcasts by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, or Commission, as it was back then.  It acquired this name because it was, and still is, a truly national broadcaster.  It's a lot more diverse now than it was back then, with many regional and local broadcasts, and a lot more channels for different audiences, but it still has many programs that are heard all over the country by anyone who cares to tune in (on Radio National, as well as ABC Classic FM).  I remember various serials from those good old days, not all on the ABC - "Blue Hills", "No Holiday for Halliday", "Portia Faces Life", "When a Girl Marries" (which had the inimitable intro: For all those who are in love, and for those who can remember), "Rocky Starr", and others, and of course the Argonauts Club, which wasn't a serial but a daily children's program beloved by many adults as well.  But after all that, I'm afraid your question rings no bells at all, sorry.  Unless .. you're thinking of The Muddle-Headed Wombat.   --  JackofOz (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a "National Programme" in NZ too. The story you want is "The Foolish Koala".  You can play a clip of it here.  You can find it on volume 2 of Don Linden's collection of Children's Favourites, along with Mollie Whuppie (And he ran and she ran), Peter and the Wolf, The Little Bull.  Buy the boxed set and you can also get Sparky, and the Happy Prince, and Gerald McBoing Boing, and....  You might want to check prices; it's also available from Marbecks.  Gwinva (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Plural in Polish language
In the Polish language (and I believe in Russian as well) the plural form for 2,3,4 is different from that of 5,6,... (22,23,24,32,33,34,... are like 2,3,4). For example: 2 złote, 3 złote, 4 złote, 5 złotych, 6 złotych,... Is there a historical reason for this behavior? bamse (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No idea, but I'd just point out that at least in Russian, the form used until 4 is actually the genitive singular of the noun ("three comrades/rockets" = lit. "three of a comrade/rocket"), while the form used after 5 is the genitive plural (seven comrades/rockets" = lit. "Seven of comrades/rockets"). In Bulgarian, the Old Church Slavonic dual has become a special "counting form" used after numerals: it often has a similar form as the genitive singular, but I don't know whether there's a connection with the Russian/Polish situation. BTW, that's nothing to the Arabic coutning system, which has a kind of heterosexual gender agreement: female noun takes male number and vice versa.:) --91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it seems that there is a connection. I just checked some books and it turns out that Serbo-Croatian, like Bulgarian, has a special counting form stemming from the dual, except that it's used only with the numbers for 2,3,4, like the genitive singular in Russian! This strongly suggests that the genitive singular form used in Russian (and, I presume, Polish) after 2,3,4 is originally the Proto-Slavonic dual. And that's what P. H. Reiff's "English Russian Grammar Or Principles of the Language" (1st ed. 1862, found it on Google Books, p.96) claims.
 * Essentially, the story goes like this. Old Church Slavonic (and presumably Proto Slavonic) used the dual after "two" (naturally), the plural after "three" and "four" (because they were morphologically adjectives agreeing with their nouns), and the genitive plural after numbers from "five" upwards (because they were morphologically nouns modified by other nouns). That's according to Bernard Comrie's The Slavonic Languages. Next, the dual form, which lost its original meaning, was extended to three and four (at this stage it is aptly renamed to a "paucal" = "few-ish" form). This is the situation still preserved in Serbo-Croatian. Next, Russian and Polish confused this paucal form with the genitive singular and substituted the genitive singular for it, giving rise to the present system in these languages. Bulgarian, on the other hand, ceased to distinguish between 2,3,4 and the higher numbers, and extended the use of the "paucal form" to all numerals, turning it into a general "counting form". Case solved!--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would just point out that, while Polish and Russian apparently use the genitive singular (derived from a generalized dual form) for numbers from 2 to 4, Czech uses the plural for numbers from 2 to 4 for most nouns, though dual forms after the number 2 are preserved for a few nouns. So in Czech, the dual was apparently not extended to 3 and 4.  Rather the plural was extended to 2 except for the few nouns that preserved the dual.  Marco polo (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A small but important correction to what is being said and repeated here, for completeness - unlike Russian, Polish does not use the genitive singular after the numbers 2, 3 and 4; rather it uses the nominative plural. In this regard, it is much more akin to Czech than Russian.  This choice of case is also illustrated in the table below, but it is worth pointing out given the misunderstanding above.
 * The confusion may have arisen from the example in the original post, which perhaps slightly obscured matters by choosing a noun (złoty) which is rather atypically declined as an adjective - but even then, the form after 2, 3 and 4 is złote, the nominative plural and not the genitive singular złotego. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Slovene has the singular, dual, paucal plural for 3 and 4 and "regular" plural for everything from then on (well, until 101, at which point you start over). The form used in paucal (say, "stoli" - "chairs") is also used for a non-counting plural - let's say there's chairs in a room, you'll use the paucal form "stoli" for them as long as there is no counting involved, even if there is clearly over 4 chairs in the room. The "regular" plural form is genitive, "5 stolov", "10 stolov". Basically, other than having a dual, counting in Slovene follows the same principle as counting in Russian described by 91.148.159.4 above. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that it keeps pretty much the original Proto-Slavonic system, judging from the table posted below. So the form used with "paucal" numbers is actually the regular plural (stoli); and with higher numbers you get the genitive plural (stolov).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For further clarification of the differences between different Slavic langages, see the table below. It's a slightly modified version of a table taken from Dual (grammatical number), which I recommend to read for more details. — Kpalion(talk) 07:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't get easier with bigger numbers. Polish has "21 wilków" (gen. pl.), "22-24 wilki" (nom. pl.), "25-30 wilków" (gen. pl.); but Russian has "21 волк" (nom. sg.), "22-24 волкa" (nom. pl.), "25-30 волков" (gen. pl.). — Kpalion(talk) 07:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, it does get simpler in Slovene, as I said above. I suspect the reason is in the somewhat unorthodox way Slovene forms two-digit numerals from 21 on - starting with the small number first. Basicaly, you don't say "twenty-one", you say "one and twenty" enaindvajset (or six and fifty for "fifty six", or three and seventy for "seventy three"). I believe because of this, the number 21 is not felt as having as strong a relation with the numeral "one", so the numbering just simply follows plural forms. Until 101, as I said above - 101 uses the 1 form and so on.
 * By the way, how many other languages are there that form numerals in the described manner? I'm sure there are more, but none of the ones I speak or have a fleeting knowledge of fits the bill... TomorrowTime (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean oher languages where the multiples of one are said before the multiples of ten, as in "two and twenty"? German is one example of this that I know. Unless you mean other Slavic languages. — Kpalion(talk) 09:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * German for sure. AFAIK Dutch also. 92.80.0.248 (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Argh, I feel stupid now. Of course, I completely forgot German, and I even speak it... TomorrowTime (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It even exists in English in archaic remnants - four and twenty blackbirds, when I was one and twenty, etc. --  JackofOz (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting thread. Could the "two-and-twenty" counting in Slovene be because it used to be part of a German-speaking country empire? In Norway counting was traditionally done that way, but in the spirit of being "modern" (at least that's my impression) this was changed by reform in the 1950s or 60s. Legislating language is hard; even I, born long after the reform, sometimes resort to the old way of counting. A brief summary of the reform can be found here (nonreliable source, but fits the story I seem to remember) Jørgen (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that is a very likely cause. Slovene lands have been under German/Germanophone cultural (at first, and later and for a good part of the time imperial as well) influence for over a thousand years. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the orginal question is about numbers in Polish, let me write a little more about the compexities here, in addition to the above. First, masculine-personal nouns (i.e., generally nouns referring to men) are an exception and may follow two different patterns in the 2–4 range. One with nominative case and the other with genetive case. Unlike for non-masculine-personal nouns (referring to inanimate objects, animals and women), the number also assumes the genetive case, in agreement with the noun. Here's an example:

Another interesting case is when you talk about groups people of mixed sexes. Here you use special "group numbers" and a noun in plural genitive: dwoje, troje, czworo, pięcioro... ludzi (2, 3, 4, 5... people). Russian has similar "group numbers" as well. — Kpalion(talk) 12:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In Russian, group numbers are not confined to mixed-sex groups. Again I have occasion to refer to Prokofiev's ballet Chout - the Russian long title of which used the genitive of the word семерo, referring to a group of seven. In this case, the seven were definitely all males, because the scenario was about seven male buffoons who all murdered their wives at the instigation of another buffoon who promised them he could bring them back to life with a magic whip. (Yeah, I know it sounds unbelieveable, but it's all cited.)   --  JackofOz (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, you can also quite often hear people using group numbers to refer to all-male groups in Polish, but that's incorrect. Whenever I hear someone say wy dwoje (you two) to me and another guy, I always want to ask, "which one of us do you think is a woman?" — Kpalion(talk) 13:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Expanding the table to include Bulgarian. Concerning (Serbo-)Croatian, Comrie's book distinguishes the paucal (234-form) from the genitive singular, but they almost always seem to be identical. The only exception I've found in the noun declension tables is in the prosody of the a-stems: genitive žene has a long vowel in the second syllable, while the paucal has a short vowel (p.322). Since length is often lost in posttonic syllables nowadays, I guess this means that SC is now becoming like most other Slavonic languages. Obviously, the adjectives and adjective-like words are a completely different story.

--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully final summary: Proto Slavic and Old Church Slavonic used the nominative dual after "two", the nominative plural after "three" and "four", and the genitive plural after numbers from "five" upwards. Slovene has preserved this system intact. Czech, Polish and Ukrainian have simplified things: they have extended the nominative plural to "two", displacing the nominative dual. Russian and Serbo-Croatian have simplified things in the opposite direction: they have extended the nominative dual to "three" and "four", displacing the nominative singular. Bulgarian has gone still farther in this direction: it has extended the nominative dual to all numbers, displacing both the nominative singular and the genitive plural.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It may also be worth pointing out (or at least interesting) that the form Russian uses after the numbers two/three/four isn't exactly the genitive singular; it just happens to be identical to it 99% of the time. A small set of nouns actually have distinct forms (compare GenSg течение часа "course of an hour" (chása) and "paucal" два часа "two hours" (chasá) - two distinct stress patterns). Even more telling is what happens when you combine an adjective with the "paucal": большого дома "of a large house" vs два больших дома "two large houses". Macnas (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)