Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 March 30

= March 30 =

What modifiers modify
Is there a word meaning "the word or phrase that a modifier modifies"? I mean every preposition has its object and every pronoun its antecedent, so does an adjective or adverb get some kind of foobar?—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The word is modificand. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a quick search through http://wordover.com/ for other English nouns derived from Latin gerundives, and I found the following words: analysand, confirmand, deodand, distilland, doctorand, duplicand, graduand, honorand, integrand, ligand, magistrand, multiplicand, operand, ordinand, proband, provand, radicand, summand; addend, adherend, augend, distribuend, dividend, faciend, legend, minuend, provend(er), reverend, subtrahend, unreverend; gerund; addenda, corrigenda, counterpropaganda, credenda, definienda, delenda, memoranda, mutanda, notanda, propaganda, pudenda, reddenda, referenda, videnda. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That term, however, is not particularly common. One also encountered just modified (e.g. the X modified). Personally, I find modifiee is a better as it parallels employer/employee and this -ee is fairly productive (you may not find this in print though).


 * In linguistics, the most general term for relations between the elements of a phrase is head and dependent. The term that covers modificand is head although the meaning of head is more general. There is the following:


 * within noun phrase: head = noun, dependent = modifier (adjective, relative phrase, etc)
 * within prep. phr.: head = preposition, dependent = object (or complement)
 * within verb phr.: head = verb, dependent = noun phrases (i.e. subject, objects), prep. phrases
 * within adjective phr.: head = adjective, dependent = modifiers (adverbs)
 * within adverb phr.: head = adverb, dependent = modifiers (other adverbs)
 * (perhaps more theoretical: complement phrase: head = complement, dependent = sentence)


 * The relation between a pronoun and its antecedent is a little different. (The antecedent can be outside of the sentence containing the pronoun; it may even be distanced from the pronoun by thousands of sentences or, in fact, it may never be uttered at all.) – ishwar  (speak)  01:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Two questions from above
Two questions based on topics far above:
 * About Will/Bill for William, and Rick/Dick for Richard, how in the world did "Rip" become a nickname for "Richard"? (See for example Rip (Richard) Hamilton, Rip Van Winkle)
 * I was reading over the shall/will discussion (I can't feel much of any difference between the two words, and when reading the shall and will, I can rationally find a difference (shall being more of a command and will - sometimes, at least for me - being less so). Part of the difference I think, is that I think "shall" just isn't used very much where I'm from (urban, midwest US). My question is about "should" - how is it related to "shall"? Etymologically? In strength?

zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Rip" is close to "Rick", another short form of Richard that is not a direct contraction. Similarly "Kit" is short for Christopher (e.g. Christopher Marlowe).  In some dialects of English it's common to glottalise unvoiced consonants in casual speech which will mean /p/, /k/, and /t/ sound similar or identical.  Also, nicknames often arise from attempts by small children to pronounce complex words, in which case you may get the first consonant and a vowel but not much else.  The entry Nickname describes some other methods of formation; it says letter swapping is common. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is "Rip" even a nickname for Richard? Neither Rip Torn nor Rip Taylor is named Richard, and I don't think Rip Van Winkle ever says he was named Richard either. With Rip Hamilton the similarity could just be coincidence.

—Angr 11:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So is Rip a "real" name (i.e., originally not a nick-name)? zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * there is a theory, first proposed in George Wetzel: Irving’s Rip Van Winkle, in the Explicator 10, 1954, that Rip's name stands for Rest in Peace. --Janneman (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

etymologically, "should" is the past tense (including past subjunctive) of "shall", just as "would" is the past tense (including past subjunctive) of "will". —Angr 11:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Translation into German
Please could someone translate the following sentence into German for me: "If I had not telephoned you, would you ever have responded to my email?" Many thanks. --Richardrj talkemail 04:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My suggestions: Wenn ich dich nicht angerufen hätte, hättest du überhaupt auf meine E-Mail geantwortet? (informal) or Wenn ich Sie nicht angerufen hätte, hätten Sie überhaupt auf meine E-Mail geantwortet? (formal). —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 05:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say "jemals" instead of "überhaupt" ("überhaupt" would be "at all"), otherwise I completely agree with Sebesta. -- Ferkelparade &pi; 09:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Jemals" is a more literal translation of "ever", but I think "überhaupt" better expresses the exasperation of the original English. —Angr 09:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. Just as a follow-up, could you guys parse the tenses for me?  I'm a little surprised that both parts of the sentence use "hätte/hättest". Since the first one is pluperfect and the second is conditional perfect, I would have expected the auxiliary part of the verbs to differ from each other. No? --Richardrj talkemail 09:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just a fact of German grammar that both clauses of an irrealis conditional are in the conditional (in this case, the conditional perfect), whereas in English the "if"-clause is in the past subjunctive (which here looks identical to the pluperfect indicative since English doesn't distinguish between indicative "had" and subjunctive "had"). —Angr 09:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that this would be phrased as a statement in spoken German rather than as a question: "Wenn ich Sie nicht angerufen hätte, hätten Sie wohl überhaupt nicht auf meine E-Mail reagiert."  (Not sure about the puctuation. May need a questionmark, too.) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean. I asked for it to be translated as a question, not as a statement.  You've translated something completely different. --Richardrj talkemail 14:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As a statement, it ends with a period, not a question mark, and it sounds like an accusation, especially with that wohl in there. —Angr 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

word pronunciation
what is the correct pronunciation of the work chaste? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.184.47.16 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Chay-st. Exactly the same as "chased". (Although, people who are chased, romantically, may not remain chaste for long.)  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps why it's called "falling" in love. Jay (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This article plays on the words chase, chased, and chaste. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See (and hear) chaste and chastity; see (and hear) chaste and chastity. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rhymes with baste, haste, paste, taste, waste but not caste. —Tamfang (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)