Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 August 14

= August 14 =

Chinese classifier
I'm not sure if the whole "league of copyeditors" for Wiki is still going on, but I feel like although this article obviously took some time and work, a lot of the sentences are too choppy, tricky, or just overdone. Anyone care to help out? Or at least make suggestions on how to improve some sentences? (WARNING: Long article that may need to be split up into several parts as time allows... also requires Unicode/Chinese character sets).

Thanks! ★ Dasani ★ 00:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

German pronounciation
How do you pronounce the German word Hessian? Is it Hesh-en or Hes-en? Googlemeister (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Duden says it's three syllables, sounding something like "Hess-e-an". Merriam-Webster agrees with your first pronunciation. Never doubt the Duden when speaking German (but I would go with M-W if speaking English). Xenon54 (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hessian is no German word at all (not even a loan), it is de:Hessen (state, the tribe) or Hesse (single aborigine). Or do I just not get the point? Did you talk about the textile? But this German word is unknown outside the trade (?). Or am I wrong again?--Radh (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The instance I know of, the mercenaries the British used in the US revolution were called Hessians because they were from Hesse, so it is probably an Anglicized form of a German word. Googlemeister (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think - looking at the Duden entry - that the German word 'Hessian' means the fabric, which is similar to sackcloth (and may be the same thing as burlap - I can't tell, offhand). On the other hand, Merriam-Webster is at least in part talking about the mercenaries deployed by the British during the revolutionary war, in order to get around the treaty restriction against using royal Hanoverian troops in the New World. In any case, I've never heard anyone, British, American or German, pronounce any derivative of 'Hesse' with anything but a clear sibiliant consonant in the middle. The 'sh' pronunciation is unknown to me. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The British forces broadcasting people always called Hessen the state of Hesse, like the writer, don't know why.--Radh (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's because British people have conventionally used a half-French form to refer to German states and their rulers - hence Saxe-Coburg-Gotha instead of Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, for example. Not to mention Cologne, Hanover, and so on. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Americans normally pronounce Hessian (meaning a mercenary soldier from Hessen, as deployed in the American colonies during the War for Independence) HESH en. Marco polo (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's correct. And given the German rules for pluralization, I'm guessing that "Duden" is the plural of "Dude". Fer shur. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you mean the fabric, or citizens of Hesse ? 83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of that kind of thing, is it true that "Ein Berliner" is a pastry? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in Berlin. The pastry the rest of Germany calls a "Berliner" is called a "Pfannkuchen" (pancake) in Berlin and Saxony. So they would have understood what JFK meant. (See Ich bin ein Berliner if you're confused) Xenon54 (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But a "Berliner" is not a pancake, it is called a pancake to mask the fact it really is a Krapfen. --Radh (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've spotted an Austro-Bavarian :P 92.80.6.159 (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As a side note, it should be 'Pronunciation' instead of 'Pronounciation', which is a very common mistake made in English language. I thought OP might be interested. - DSachan (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct spelling is overrated.
 * Is correct house building overrated? No?  Think of spelling as making the bricks the best way, so that your linguistic house doesn't fall down.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is overrated. Spelling is not how you make the bricks, it's more like whether you paint them a colour that your neighbourhood considers suitable. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of past participle
Is it OK to say "I was sat in the garden" as well as "I was sitting in the garden"? I've looked in Fowler but can't find an answer.Airalan09 (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "I was sat in the garden" sounds like someone forcefully made you sit there, although it doesn't sound quite correct overall (maybe it would be for humourous purposes). "I was seated in the garden" sounds more correct, like someone ushered you to a chair that had been reserved for you. It could also mean the same as "I was sitting" (which is a normal and correct construction in any circumstance), but the latter sounds more like you were just sitting on the ground, for any reason. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that "I was seated …" (and the "I was sat …" that Adam refers to in his first sentence above) is a use of the passive voice in the past tense, whereas "I was sitting …" is a use of the imperfect tense. In English, usage of a past participle after a form of "be" is normal in passive constructions but not idiomatic in imperfect constructions. Deor (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The past participle of to sit is sat (Grammaire anglaise ISBN 2-04-730315-X). Therefore "I have sat in the garden" would be the correct usage. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC) (PS upon reflection it sounds horrible out loud and I would stick to the preterit "I sat in the garden") -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The two sentences have different meanings. The first one sounds wrong, unless you are trying to sound funny, as Adam Bishop says.  The more natural way to express this meaning would be something like "They made me sit in the garden."  The second is a normal past progressive, or imperfect.  Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe there are some dialects in Britain where they do say "I was sat" with the meaning "I was sitting". I don't know specifics.  --Anonymous, 21:48 UTC, August 14, 2009.


 * Yes, that would sound fine to me (as a Kentishman from England): 'I was sat in the living room when the postman knocked on the door.' Probably a bit colloquial though --80.42.47.106 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it sounds fine to me too (also from South East England). It sounds to me like it should be wrong, though. A bit like "lay" as the simple past of "lie". "Lay" should be to "lie" what "raise" is to "rise" (the name of that relationship with mentioned on this desk not long ago, but I can't remember it), but for some reason we also use it in the past tense, I think it is the same with "sat" and "sit". --Tango (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it! The causative form. --Tango (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but what the OP is asking about is not causative: as various correspondents have said, in several English dialects 'was sat' is a colloquial variant of 'was sitting' or 'was seated' (those dialects can also have 'was stood' as a variant of 'was standing'). It could just about be given a causative meaning in context (?'I was marched through the gate and sat in a chair') but I would expect 'sat down' in that meaning, not just 'sat'. --ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Argue
(I hope you will pardon this non-native speaker's ignorance of what is probably an obvious answer; it seems that no matter how well one is schooled in a second language, he can never appreciate every nuance.) Am I correct to think that argue can be an auto-antonym, meaning alternately dispute and propone? This occurred to me while I was reading this week's Sports Illustrated, in which "argue" is used both ways over just a few pages. In the absence of context, one might read (this isn't directly from SI, but it approximates the meaning of one of the lines) "that he is a great golfer cannot be argued" to mean either "that he is a great golfer is beyond dispute" or "he isn't a great golfer, and an argument to that effect cannot be made (i.e., is untenable)", yes? Just struck me as odd. 76.229.210.231 (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * After looking at the definition of auto-antonym, I don't think the word "argue" qualifies as one. The definition of "argue" doesn't intrinsically imply a particular side, i.e "for" or "against." In the sentence "Susan argued about abortion," sthe word "argue" doesn't give any insight into whether Susan is for or against abortion. The context of the word (ex. "argue for" or "argue against") is what allows the reader/listener to determine the side being argued.
 * On first reading the phrase "that he is a great golfer cannot be argued," my gut reaction was that the positive meaning (his prowess at golfing leaves no room for contrary arguments) is the only correct reading. While trying to determine why that was so, I thought about the reordered phrase: "It cannot be argued that he is a great golfer." In this second case, the meaning becomes much more ambiguous or even slightly negative. (i.e. there are no arguments supporting the position that he is a great golfer) I have concluded that as a standalone phrase "*something* cannot be argued" is an idiom that almost always implies the positive reading. I would like to note that you can imply the opposite meaning with modifiers as in, "his prowess in golfing cannot be argued convincingly". I think the phrase "cannot be argued" is an auto-antonym. 152.16.15.144 (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'll excuse the pedantry (this is the language desk, after all!), "his prowess in golfing" is not a logical statement and cannot be argued for or against, you mean "he has great prowess in golfing" or "he has a lot of prowess in golfing". --Tango (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I think that a sentence like "his skill is unarguable" is grammatical. So from a descriptive perspective whether "skill" or "prowess" is a "logical statement" is irrelevant. Language is a largely instinctive mapping between surface form and meaning in the brain, and as such trying to force rules on it isn't productive if they don't align with what is actually in use, in my opinion. Mo-Al (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Tango was saying that "his skill is unarguable" is ungrammatical, but that it is nonsensical, since an argument requires a logical premise. "his skill" isn't a complete sentence, so it can't be a well-defined proposition. In order to make an argument about "his skill", you have to either explicitly state (or imply) something about his skill. In this case, the sentence "his skill is unarguable" works because it raises an implicature: "(that he has a lot of skill) is unarguable". Indeterminate (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I understand your logic, but I question the statement that it's "nonsensical", as it is something which I believe speakers would say in normal conversation. Mo-Al (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The word argue just means to make an argument, or to engage in a verbal dispute. It doesn't imply an argument in favor of or against any proposition.  It is a neutral term describing a behavior rather than a position.  As such, I don't think it's an auto-antonym.  Marco polo (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "to argue that..." means to make a case in favour of the following statement, so "that he is a great golfer cannot be argued" should mean that nobody could make a case for him being a great golfer, however, I would never actually interpret it that way. I think it is one of those mistakes that is so common you barely notice it and just interpret it as the person meant it. Another example is responses to the question "isn't it?". "Your name is Bob, isn't it?" "Yes", means "Yes, my name is not Bob", but that is never what the person speaking wants to say so you just ignore the mistake. (As a pedant I prefer not to make such mistakes, so I usually say "it is" or "it isn't" rather than "yes" or "no", it sounds pretentious, but I can live with that!) --Tango (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is, I think, why it seemed strange to me. Thanks, everyone, for the considered replies. 76.229.210.231 (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A lawyer is often admonished to "argue his case", which means to provide the evidence, law and reasoning that supports his position. When, in the passive mode, it's said that "a case was argued at trial", it might mean that a particular position was advanced, or else that both (or all) sides were argued for. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Case" has different meanings in those sentences. In the first it means a collection of arguments in favour of a point. In the second it means an issue before the court (or the police or anyone else doing some kind of investigative work or even more generally). --Tango (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)