Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 August 7

= August 7 =

"Tomorrow, when the war began"
This phrase is the title of a book. My high school teacher insists it is not ungrammatical, citing the future perfect tense. I've always thought that future perfect requires "shall have" or "will have", though. Can someone give a definitive ruling on this? — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's called "literary license". As a statement by itself, it's a mixture of future and past tense and I would say you're right about the future perfect tense, and technically it is not grammatically correct - but it's a play on words. I'm going to guess, not having read it: It sounds like it's intended to suggested a flashback. If the story begins the day before the war began, and the author is looking back from a point well after the war began (and hopefully ended), then it makes some sense. There's another way it could be said: "The next day, when the war began." That's totally past tense. "Tomorrow, when the war began" is more clever or catchy, less prosaic. That's my tupence, anyway. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For other creative uses of the future tense, see Douglas Adams's The Restaurant at the End of the Universe and Ursula K. LeGuin's Always Coming Home. The latter is set in a post-apocalyptic society that "might be going to have lived a long, long time from now in Northern California". BrainyBabe (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks like perfectly valid (if a little unusual) future perfect tense to me. Douglas Adams was intentionally using very weird, wrong and/or plain made up grammar for comedic effect - very creatively, though, you are right. --Tango (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also reminded of Gene Wolfe, The Book of the New Sun, which has notes about the difficulty of getting reliable information about the distant future; such sentences substitute 'futurity' where you'd expect 'history' or 'antiquity', but I don't remember how they treat tense, though the story itself is in the conventional narrative past tense. —Tamfang (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'd say it was bad grammar. Does grammar care what a word like "tomorrow" actually means, other than that it is a time? It's semantically flawed, certainly, but the grammar seems fine. It's not future perfect, though, by any means. "The war began" is simple past tense, "when the war began" is a relative clause giving more information about the time "Tomorrow". It is, of course, just a fragment - it would be interesting to see what tense the rest of the sentence is written in, if there it is used somewhere in the book as well as in the title. I think, grammatically, it should be a past tense (simple, perfect or imperfect would all work). --Tango (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Language surveys
Editors of Wikipedia articles sometimes get a bit contentious about what the usage or understanding is of certain words or phrases. For example, when editors decide to write "46 BCE" instead of "46 BC", does this confuse most of our readers? If we omitted conversions from metric units to American customary units, would most of our US readers be confused? I would like to know if there are publications that regularly publish surveys on public attitudes toward, or understanding of, language usage issues. --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this answers anything, but I can tell you in most cases if I'm only given data in imperial units in an article, I have almost no idea what they refer to. I have a vague idea what the difference between 5 feet and 5 meters is or what the difference between 5 miles and 5 kilometers is, but I have no idea what the difference between, say, 40 degrees Fahrenheit and 100 degrees Fahrenheit is. I imagine it's the same the other way around - I doubt a US resident will have full grasp of how hot it is outside, if I say it's 34 degrees Celsius. The simplest solution would be for the US to, ekhm, finally see the light and start using metric like the rest of the world :) TomorrowTime (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the opinion of one editor is not a scientific survey and I can do nothing with it. I say this not to be unkind, but to clarify the kind of information I'm looking for--Jc3s5h (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you asked a question as well as asking for surveys, and you jammed BCE together with metric units, so it's easy to confuse people.
 * I think it's safe to say that most Americans wouldn't have a good idea of the U.S. equivalent for almost any metric figure, so that removing the conversion or dual-listing would greatly reduce the usefulness of articles for the average American reader. Pop culture here abounds with joking allusions to Detroit being 869.045 kilometers from Washington DC, or a football team finding itself at third down and 0.9144 meters.  In a few cases, metric quantities are in common use -- liquids in half-liter or liter bottles, for example, or auto parts measured in millimeters -- but those are exceptions.  Ironic, since the U.S. was one of the original signatories to the Treaty of the Meter.
 * As for any hope of resolving editorial contentiousness, I recall a remark I saw on someone's user page: the original name for Wikipedia was "Unemployed Ph.D. Death Match." --- OtherDave (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say most Americans say BC and AD. Regarding metrics vs. the English system, try to divide a meter into thirds and you can see how useful the metric system is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * One would have three piles of useless machine parts made of metal, plastic or wires, because, to me, a meter is a physical tool that measures things. I'm always intrigued how the Americans have resisted the metric system (which is their right), but still feel quite entitled to change the spelling of its fundamental unit, the metre (which is also their right).  It's a bit like saying "I refuse to have anything to do with witchcraft, but I'm still going to spell it watchcruft".  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well actually Baseball Bugs, the English (and whilst we are at it, the Scottish, Welsh and Irish) use the metric system for virtually mostly everything these days, with the exception of miles (and the Irish in Eire use kilometres), and that's mostly due to the huge expense that would be involved in changing the entire road system. Fortunately, gone too, are the 'good 'ol days' of pounds, shilling and pence... -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not at all true. Algebraist 22:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck virtually to read mostly - there's still a legacy of the imperial measurements. Admittedly, you still drink a pint, but buy petrol and ice cream in litres, wine in cl, room sizes in houses are often given in both measurements, new furniture is in cm, food is sold in grammes but you use a tablespoon of vinegar... -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Closing a letter with " Sd/- "
When someone closes a letter with 'Yours sincerely', and then types the letters: Sd/- where they will affix their signature ... what does this SD/-  mean or stand for? Thanks if you can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.134.43 (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the old days when business letters were typed manually, there were usually one or two sets of initials like this, the first identifying the drafter, and the second the typist. --Xuxl (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, usually the drafter's initial were capitalized and the typist's were lower case. Thus (if they had lived about a century later), if Robert Cratchit had typed a letter for Ebenezer Scrooge, it would say "ES/rc" at the bottom. But it's hard to fit "Sd/-" into that format. +Angr 14:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder if it might be an abbreviation for "Signed"? Here's an example that's not from a letter (warning PDF link).  -- LarryMac  | Talk  16:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The format AB/yz used to go below the signature and above the enclosure line. The -- usually indicates that the writer typed it, the usual typist or secretary being absent. There were some knee-slapping jokes back in the day about the etiquette of this. Big boss got his own "girl", while junior execs had to make do with the typing pool.  So Mr Sean Hinksveldt would not want to have assigned to him a typist named, for example, Irma Taylor. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I found a slightly better source to support my guess here, however the page is primarily in Spanish. Interestingly enough, both the PDF I linked earlier and this new link show this abbreviation being used in what appears to be an Indian context.  Make of that what you will . . . -- LarryMac  | Talk  18:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sd may also stand for "sine die", meaning that no future date has been set for a further discussion / meeting / appointment relating to the documented matter. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeking a philosophical motto for an egg cup
My six years old nephew is going to start her school career. For the occasion I'm planning to give her an egg-cup as a gift, with some suitable motto, but I can't find anything satisfying. I'd like something classic, encouraging and inciting to the hard work of studying &c. Latin or Greek are welcome: I don't care if she can't read it. I mean now. Does anybody have a nice hint? --pma (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Great oaks from little acorns grow"? (With a nod to the eggcorn, and thus the egg itself.) By the way, a nephew is male and a niece female; English lacks a non-gendered word for this relationship (as with uncle and aunt).  BrainyBabe (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I propose nephron. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anthropologists occasionally use "nibling"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For something to do with eggs, how about "ab ovo", "from the egg", or the longer "ab ovo usque ad mala", "from the egg to the apples", which literally describes the course of a Roman meal, but I suppose could also figuratively describe the course of someone's life. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps something about the curate's egg would pique her curiousity? Something along the lines of "The curate's egg: parts of it are excellent!" - Nunh-huh 20:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A female nephew? Hmmm... In any case, I'm thinking of something along the lines of not confining oneself to a shell, or not letting life be a "yolk" around one's neck, or something. But I don't know any Latin puns. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Et in Arcadia ego, ..hotclaws 07:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Need a speech word for wrongdoing of another
Looking for a word that would be used referencing a speech that another party or group of people have acted with wrongdoing in violation of the law or the wrong moral thing to do. For example the other group punished (killed, put in jail, fined) a particular person without due process of law. Then a person spoke out about this of the other party in a very emotional speech describing the wrong events (illegal) that happened to the person that was wrongfully punished.--Doug Coldwell talk 18:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Orations by type - the nearest I can find is Philippic which might be applicable if they were condemning the violating party.83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also maybe "tirade", I'm sure there are is a better term.83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you meant a description of the persons misfortune in the form of a speech designed to create feelings of empathy or sympathy for the wronged in the audience.?83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant "feelings of empathy" and I think "tirade" or "philippic" are just the word I was looking for. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A tense question
If I were asking someone whether they'd ever met, say, Barack Obama, I'd ask "Have you ever met Barack Obama?". But if I were asking them if they ever met Richard Nixon, say, I'd ask "Did you ever meet Richard Nixon?". The different form of words takes into account that Obama is very much alive and it's possible, even if the person has not met him so far, that they could still meet him; whereas, Nixon is very much dead, and if they never got the chance to meet him before he died, they never will now. It depends on my knowing whether the person I'm asking about is alive or dead. For a person who's still alive, it's also possible to ask "Did you ever meet ..." or "Did you ever get to meet ...". But for a person who's dead, it's not usual to ask "Have you ever met ...".

I'm wondering what this nuance is called in techno-speak. Is the Obama variant a form of continuous past tense? The usual way of using that tense is "I was writing", as opposed to "I wrote". Both questions are asking about what could, for all I know, have been a single brief handshake, although it's possible my interlocutor has not only met Nixon/Obama but was/is a close personal friend or had some other kind of relationship that went way beyond a single meeting. Is any of this making any sense? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not continuous past (see Continuous and progressive aspects), which would be "Were you [ever] meeting …" The distinction here is between a simple past form (your Nixon example), which in an interrogative construction requires the use of the auxiliary "did"—although at one time "Met you ever Richard Nixon?" would have been idiomatic—and a present perfect form (your Obama example). Not-entirely-adequate discussions of the semantic nuances of the latter can be found at Perfect aspect and Present perfect tense. Deor (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider this example: "Have you ever been to France?" - the question is asking about your experience of a place that still exists and it implies that you still exist, too, and therefore this experience is still with you. You 'have' the experience of going to France. However, imagine you were at the Pearly Gates and Pete was asking you a few simple questions before he let you in. He would ask, "Did you ever go to France?" (we are not concerned with the answer here nor the consequences) and this would imply that you may or may not have had that experience, but in any case, you won't have it now. Simple past refers to an action in the past that is finished and done with. Present perfect refers to an action in the past that has some sort of continuation into the present, as in experience. This is what I teach my kids here in Korea. When greeting me, they very often ask, 'did you eat yet?' (or variants thereof) and I correct them to 'have you eaten yet?' - the implication being that the act of eating earlier has caused me to be full and satisfied and that is what they are asking about. Any present-perfective act has consequences that carry on to the present. This is why it is called the Present Perfect - 'present' because it applies to now, and 'perfect' (from Latin perfectus, meaning 'finished, completed') meaning it has been done already. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That all makes perfect sense (no pun intended). But consider this.  After you've eaten, the effects linger for a while, so if we're talking before we're ready to eat again, we usually say "I have eaten".  Or if the question is whether I've ever in my life eaten camel's liver, I'd say "No, I have never eaten camel's liver" or "Yes, I have eaten camel's liver", or even "Yes, I did eat camel's liver once" (but not just "Yes, I did eat camel's liver").  If we're talking about what happened last week, we're simply reporting a fact - "Last Saturday, I ate truffles in champagne".  But after you've met someone, all you can report is that fact.   What happens as a result of that meeting, if anything, is neither here nor there, grammatically speaking.  I could say "I have met Obama", meaning that, at some unspecifed time or times in the past, we met.  If Obama were dead, I could still say "I have met Obama", but I'd probably be more likely to say "I met Obama once", or "I met Obama a few times", or "I never met Obama", but not "I have never met Obama".  The fact of the meeting/s has not changed just because Obama is now dead, so it's still not invalid or incorrect to say "I have met Obama".  But the language changes post-mortem to "I met Obama".  Is this just a way of signifying that I am aware he's dead; or is there more to it?  I mean, if he died but I hadn't heard that he'd died, I'd still be asking "Have you ever met Obama?".  Once I came up to speed, I'd then be asking "Did you ever meet Obama?".  "I have met ..." usually means that it happened on at least one occasion and there's still the possibility it could happen again.  That much is clear.  But it's not so clear with "I met ...".  In some contexts, it means it happened on at least one occasion but there's no longer any possibility it could happen again ("I just heard Obama died.  Did I ever tell you I met him a few times?").  In other contexts, it's used while he's alive ("I met Obama at the conference yesterday, and we're planning to meet again next year").  With statements, there's a choice with "I met ...".  So, returning to my original question, which was about questions rather than about statements - and here there seems to be less choice:  the "Have you ever met ..." form seems to be restricted to people who are alive, or are dead but not known to the questioner to be dead; while the "Did you ever meet ..." form seems to be restricted to people who are known to be dead.  Is this true in all the major Englishes?  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be correct, if you knew he was dead, to say "I have met Obama." Your two sentences, "I (once) met Obama" (=I did meet Obama) and "I have met Obama," are both reporting incidents in the past, one reporting the finished and completed past and the other the past relating to something that continues (ie: Obama).  Consider the difference between "Have you seen that guy who walks a cat on a leash?" and "Did you see that guy walking a cat on a leash?"  The first suggests that seeing the cat-walking man is either a regular occurrence or one that is potentially repeatable.  The second suggests that the event occurred in the recent past (perhaps you were driving past the cat-walker in a car).  If you were to add "ever" ("Did you ever...") the suggestion is similar, but suggests the more distant past.  In both cases, the implication is that the event is over and probably not repeatable.  Your answer to question 1 would be "I have (not) seen him (but I might)" and to question 2 (a) "I did (not) see him" and (b) "I (never) did see him."  Exploding Boy (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of the "did" form is somewhat complicated to explain, and stems from the three forms in the present English: "I go, I am going, I do go", which are often missing in other languages (in French "je vais"). It can be used as a question/confirmation "Did you meet President Obama at the meeting? Yes I did and I will meet him again on Tuesday" (and Obama is still alive, and I shall meet him again), as a way of emphasising "Have you been to Wal-Mart? No, I have never been to Wal-Mart, but I did think about it", or even as a replacement for "used to" - "I did go to the shops everyday until I broke my left leg". I will try and look up the use of the three forms in the present tense which may shed light on the use in the past. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From my grammar book (translated into English): "Do is the auxiliary of the interrogative, negative and emphatic forms of the present and simple preterit (my emphasis added). -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting question, Jack. I hadn't thought about it before, but you're right, the preterite of "meet" definitely seems to preclude the possibility of future meetings. But I don't think it's necessarily a life-and-death sort of question - I think it's about perceived possibility. For instance, if someone told you, "I've just spent the last two years lobbying in Washington D.C.", you could easily ask, "Did you ever meet Obama?" even though you're both quite aware that he's still alive. The perceived possibility of meeting him, however, has passed, or at least is a lot smaller than it was. Indeterminate (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Take the "ever" out of that phrase and go back to the simple "Did you meet Obama?". The answer is a simple yes or no. No inferrence can be made whether it is likely or not you will meet Obama on a different occasion. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although "Did you ever meet Obama", free of context, could be literally interpreted as "Have you ever in your life met Obama", in Inderterminate's scenario it refers only to the period I spent in DC (which was the only period, as far as the questioner is aware, during which I could reasonably have ever met him). Thus it means "Did you meet Obama while you were in DC for those 2 years?".  For me, the presence or absence of "ever" makes no difference to that meaning, in this context.  --  JackofOz (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked back at your original question and I think on reflection that the real question is the role of the word ever in a phrase, which in effect, changes the sense, and brings other (not necessarily vocalised) elements into play. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe. I was thinking of a context such as someone being interviewed on radio or TV.  They'd written quite a lot about US politics over quite a long time, and the interviewer was wanting more details of their career, the people they interacted with, some juicy or amusing anecdotes, etc.  Imagine this line of questioning: "I know you spent a lot of time at the White House during the Nixon years.  Did you ever meet him?".  The question could have been "Did you meet him?", but to me it's more natural to use the "ever", even though it probably doesn't mean "at any time in your life", although it could.  If the interviewee had indeed met Nixon, but not during that period when he spent time at the White House, he'd answer "Yes" anyway, but then probably clarify that it wasn't at that time but some other time.  But you're right, there are no doubt other contexts where the "ever" would make a greater difference, and produce a different answer.--  JackofOz (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)