Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 January 17

= January 17 =

English an noun/verb agreement
The Keratoconjunctivitis sicca article contains the text below. I'm pretty sure this is incorrect, but I just wanted to make sure there isn't some rule that I'm unaware of that would make this actually correct. Is there some reason why 'Dry Eyes' is being treated as if it were singular? --Mdwyer (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Dry eyes also occurs or gets worse after LASIK and other refractive surgeries, in which the corneal nerves are cut during the creation of a corneal flap.[5] The corneal nerves stimulate tear secretion.[5] Dry eyes caused by these procedures usually resolves after several months.


 * I agree with you. All I can think of to justify the way they did it is that "Dry eyes" was seen as being short for "The dry eyes condition". StuRat (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with taking "dry eyes" as a singular; indeed, it is helpful for clarity. "Dry eyes" as a plural means eyes which happen to be dry. But "dry eyes" as a singular implies a lexicalization of the term. Depending on context, the lexicalization could imply a more chronic character to the condition, a more "recognized-by-experts" character, etc. Such lexicalization is common, and no grammatical problem at all. Tb (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This (correct) grammatical usage is termed Synesis, by the way. Tb (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See also Bahuvrihi... AnonMoos (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, what looked wrong last night is reading okay this morning... I guess it depends on your mindset?  The Synesis link was very useful — Thank you! — but is sort of annoying since it means that the sentence is both correct and incorrect depending on how it is read.  It appears like this is correct in a case of notional agreement under the notion that the text is actually:

"(The condtion called) Dry eyes also occurs..."
 * In the end, it might be better to just correct it to the full scientific name. --Mdwyer (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't change the article at all on this score; there is nothing unscientific about the non-latin name, which is pretty commonly used. Tb (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The reader trips over it, and that's why it's wrong. It is puzzling on first reading, as you rightly detected on first reading it. It needs to be changed in some way so that the poor reader knows what's going on without having to think about it. If "dry eyes" is actually the official, recognized name of a condition, then so be it, but you still can't use it raw, you have to make it something like "The condition known as dry eyes also occurs...". If you want to make up a name for the condition, that's fine, but it should be "dry eye", not "dry eyes", after the model of "housemaid's knee" (not knees) or athlete's foot (not feet), even when both knees or both feet are affected. This is elementary. "Dryness of the eyes" works, too, as a simple description rather than an ad-hoc name for a condition, which would make it "Dryness of the eyes also occurs..." and "This dryness usually resolves...". --Milkbreath (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article introduces the term in just the way you suggest it should; please read the lead. Moreover, "dry eye" is also no good, since "eye" is a count noun; we'd need to say "a dry eye".  The point is that the lexicalized form "dry eye(s)" is the name of a syndrome, and "a dry eye" is a momentary condition, which is a symptom of that syndrom--but could also be caused by other things.  The lexicalization is a useful disambiguation.  Note the difference between saying "I have athlete's foot" and "I have an athlete's foot."  Similarly, "I have dry eye" means something different from "I have a dry eye".  (And, "I have dry eyes" is ambiguous, since we can't tell if "dry eyes" is plural, nonlexicalized, or singular, lexicalized.)  Tb (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right about the number thing; I didn't look at it in situ. But I don't know what you mean about "dry eye", which is the name one would expect for the syndrome and which would alleviate ambiguity. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it may depend on how many Visine commercials with Ben Stein you've seen. :) Tb (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, he's supposed to be smart. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not depend on ads to give you a clear idea of how English is supposed to work. We have one at the moment - "Your local Telstra Shop are here to help you".  It refers, I assume, to the fact that there are many such shops, in all the places you'd expect to find them, but the English is execrable.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-decade?
Would a span of five years be a "semi-decade"? I poked around a bit and didn't find a list of chronological terms by length. Dismas |(talk) 18:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The meaning is clear, but I've never seen it before, I can't find it in any dictionaries, and it doesn't seem to be much used (under a thousand ghits compared to tens of millions for 'decade'). Probably best avoided. Algebraist 18:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You could also call it a "quinennium" but actual usage seems to be extremely limited. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard "semi-decade", which sounds pretty clunky to me. Making up new words with the prefix semi- is pretty uncommon. How about "half decade"? Tb (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For a five-year period the Romans had the word lustrum, giving us in English 'lustre', which can mean the same. Strawless  (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the tiny number of people who actually care, lustrum was uttered in a John Wayne movie (True Grit I believe). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See quinquennium - Wiktionary. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Analogy suggests *pentade. —Tamfang (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * people actually use half decade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.82.231 (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * lustre, quinquennium, and pentad are in OED, and a sentence of five years' imprisonment is called a handful. I would no more use any of these in general prose than use Olympiad to mean "four years". jnestorius(talk) 20:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, although pentad can mean five years, it can also mean five days or five months, as it can mean five of anything. I believe its origins in English are in Pythagoreanism. Now then, jnestorius, I admit I should not be very likely to use lustre, quinquennium, or pentad in general prose, nor when having a word with the postman; but we have thousands of such arcane and beautiful words in the English language, and don't they all have their time and their place? Strawless  (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The word quinquennium is found in Google News Search results.
 * Ennahar Online (paragraph 6 = last)
 * Economic crunch bites church - JAMAICAOBSERVER.COM (paragraph 18)
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Japanese: Magazine title translation request
Can anyone translate this magazine title? Google says that it is Sesame Street Land, but I'd like to make sure it is. Can anyone translate the pink title text on the cover image? Muppet Wiki would appreciate it greatly. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert, but as far as I can tell the main part of the title (セサミストリート) says "sesamisutorito" or Sesame Street. Unfortunately, I can't read the rest of the title clearly enough to be able to translate it fully.  Astronaut (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It says 「セサミストリートまちがい探しランド」 or 'Sesame Street Machigaisagashi Rando' which means 'Sesame Street Spot-The-Difference Land'.--KageTora (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On a side note, the English version of the Sesame Street program had everything in English and also the same stuff in Spanish all mixed together. The Japanese version, however, was all in Japanese, so we just all saw the same stuff twice in Japanese. Fairly strange.--KageTora (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Astronaut and KageTora, its much appreciated, I was able to make the change today! --  Zanimum (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)