Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 January 2

= January 2 =

Thair leirit he tonis proportionat
May someone please write that Scottish line (?) in English for me. Many thanks in advance. --Omidinist (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't risk a translation, but the line is more often quoted as "Thare lerit he tonys proportionate". It's line 226 from Robert Henryson's Orpheus and Eurydice, and the whole verse and poem can be viewed here. ---Sluzzelin talk  09:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "There he learnt proportionate tones" - "proportionate" in the sense of "harmonious" rather than "appropriate". The verse goes on to describe Orpheus learning the Music of the Spheres. Tevildo (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The verb lere in Scots means "teach", not "learn". My source is The Dictionary of the Scots Language.  So that would be "There he taught proportionate tones."  Marco polo (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The rest of the verse describes Orpheus _learning_ the music, though, rather than _teaching_ it:

"In his passage amang the planetis all

He herd a hevynly melody and sound

Passing all instrumentis musicall

Causid be rollyng of the speris round

...

Thare lerit he tonys proportionate

As duplar triplar and emetricus

Enoleus and eke the quadruplate

Epodyus rycht hard and curius"


 * (The last three lines would require a disquisition on fifteenth-century musical theory that I am not competent to undertake). :) Tevildo (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand those to be rhythm styles - double, triple, extra-metrical, ?, quadruple and ?. Enolean and Epodean rhythms are Latin poetic rhythms, but I don't know their specifics. Steewi (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the Dictionary of the Scots Language, lere can mean either "learn" or "teach". Warofdreams talk 12:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that "learn" is often used for "teach" in contemporary demotic English - "What's today's special?" "Fillet of anteater." "That'll learn it.".  cf "lend/borrow". Tevildo (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Potato/Potaato?
1. I've always thought when you are referring to a person from Argentina, you say (And I hope I'm not offending anyone)an Argentine, but some people say Argentinian which sounds a bit incorrect to me at least. Which is correct?

2. I've also thought that saying invite instead of invitation sounds a bit dodgy. Again which is correct or is it a matter of, in what context?

Thanks, NirocFX --41.193.16.234 (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For the Argentina question, there is a forum discussion on this here. In my personal experience, foreigners (i.e., people not from/in Argentina) tend to use "Argentinian" more...on the other hand, when my girlfriend was living in Argentina she switched to a hardcore "Argentine" user, which suggests to me that people in Argentina (or, at least, the ones she was hanging out with) use that. Judging by the length of that forum thread, though, it seems there is no correct or incorrect, they're both allowable. If what you're interested in is which one is used more, the best way to go about that would be to look into linguistic corpora and do searches for both "argentinian" and "argentine" to see which is more frequent. (Google searching is not likely to be helpful here, because there are too many synonyms and false positive, and the way Google's software works means that hit counts this high are not reliable anyway). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 10:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is of little help, but my Spanish-English dictionary gives argentino/a as the proper Spanish for both "Argentinian" and "Argentine" (note capitalization). Meanwhile, as I suspected, my old Webster's says that "argentine" (note lower case) means "of or pertaining to silver". Interestingly, in the gazeteer it gives "Argentine" as noun and adjective, then "Argentinean" as noun and "Argentinian" as adjective. "Argentina" derives from the Latin argentum ("silver" - chemical symbol Ag), and to me calling yourself "Argentine" suggests that you're made of silver. But common usage apparently says otherwise. The word actually used for "silver" in Spanish is plata, and "silver-colored" is plateado/a. Hence Río de la Plata which borders Argentina. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Argentinean/Argentinian thing is strange...I had always heard that the spelling was a US/Brit difference. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 13:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect the "-ean" version is essentially obsolete. That dictionary is from ca. 1960. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Judging by these search results, I would say -ean is probably still around, although it may be dispreferred in more formal writing. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Argentina" is short for "República Argentina", which translates into English as "the Argentine Republic". So "Argentine" is already an adjective, making it unnecessary to create a new one from the country name, and making "an Argentine" the simplest noun. Personally I have never seen "Argentinean", so perhaps it's a North American thing, based on such as "Chilean" and "Salvadorean".

"Invite" is similarly unnecessary as a noun created from the verb, as the word "invitation" already exists and is unambiguous. --Sussexonian (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness gracious, and the world would end if a language ever got more than one word for the same thing! r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 15:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The "Argentina" part of "República Argentina", translates as both "Argentine" and "Argentinian". My old Webster's (ca.1960) lists "Argentine" first, implying it's the preferred. It gives "invite" only as a verb. The noun form, shortening "invitation" by a syllable, is apparently a more recent construct. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * or to put it another way, "invitation" is no longer necessary as we now have the word "invite", coined as many English nouns are from a verb. Or to put it a third, neutral, way, both 'invite' and 'invitation' are in use, but 'invite' does not get used in formal contexts. --ColinFine (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add that some use the term Argentine for the demonym, and Argentinian for the general adjectival form. That's how my OALD defines the terms. However, pondering all the previous references, I don't want to pretend that this is the correct usage.  Pallida  Mors  12:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

After reading all of this I'm awarding top prizes to Argentine and Invitation. However if there are still some folks who disagree with me, I'll just point to all of you guys and say... It was him and him and him and him and him!!!

Thanks guys, --NirocFX (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

English Grammar: -
Why do Englishmen write


 * late 19th century but
 * mid-20th century

"From the late 19th to the mid-20th centuries, investigators used early tracking technologies to assist their observation, in a research climate that ..."

- Eye movement in language reading

217.228.69.145 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Late" is a standalone word, "mid" is not. "Mid-20th century" is a shorthand way of saying "middle of the 20th century". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * More precisely, some people don't accept "mid" as a standalone word. (I'm one of them too.)  Others are happy to write "mid 20th century".  --Anonymous, 06:42 UTC, January 3, 2010.


 * The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary lists "mid" as a stand alone word, although it does say "(Freq. with hyphen.)". Mitch Ames (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The same logic applies to the stand-alone word "then", in such phrases as "his then wife" or "the then president". There's no need to hyphenate it, but it's often seen hyphenated.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It could be called "creeping hyphenation". Originally it was base ball, then base-ball, and then baseball. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Creeping hyphenation" is common, but that is not quite what we are talking about here. I would never write "then" as a stand-alone word in this sense (except possibly in parentheses, and in informal writing).  In formal writing I would always use "former" or "at that time".  Similarly, I would always hyphenate "mid" because it is short for "middle", though the hyphen is sometimes lost in short words such as "midpoint" (following BB's "creeping hyphenation" rule).  According to the OED, "mid" has very rarely been used as a stand-alone word (except in poetic or archaic style) since the spelling was standardised several hundred years ago.    D b f i r s   15:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hyphenation seem to be used less and less in UK English; perhaps it should be "creeping dishyphenation". Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Using "former" instead of "then" is a common error in some contexts. If the text was about something that happened in 1951, referring to Harry S. Truman within the text as "the former president" would be quite wrong.  He was the incumbent at that time, and only became the "former president" after his term finished in January 1953.  He should be referred to within that context as "the then president" if necessary, or just "the president" - but definitely NOT "the former president", because that would be referring to any one of Truman's predecessors, such as FDR.  If the form "the then president" is chosen, I've never seen any case for making it "the then-president".  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that "former" is wrong in that context. I would prefer "the president at that time" in formal writing, or "the (then) president" informally, but I would never use then as an adjective.  ( I'm also starting a campaign to preserve the English hyphen, so that I don't have to wonder how one can ork a cow! )    D b f i r s   00:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To each his own, but I wonder where your aversion to the adjectival 'then' comes from. My trusty 1974 edition of the Hamlyn Encyclopedic World Dictionary lists this adjectival use of 'then', with the example "the then prime minister" - along with 8 adverbial meanings and 1 nounal meaning of 'then'. So it's not as if it's some neologism.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   03:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can't deny its use in the past. The OED has this usage from 1584, so it is nothing new.  Would you use "now" adjectivally? For example, the now prime minister.  Is this where my aversion derives?    D b f i r s   10:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Very possibly, but that's not an appropriate comparison. 'Now and then' - they're both adverbs in that sense.  'Now' is never used as an adjective (well, not properly, anyway; I'm sure I've heard journalists coin new usages, but the things they come up with ... don't get me started).  But 'then' has an honoured place as an adjective and can be used with abandon as such.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is it not a parallel? If we are quoting dictionaries, the OED allows "now" as an adjective, and cites the Daily Telegraph (UK) of October 21st 1998: "the now Trade and Industry Secretary" (but this was presumably written by a journalist, so it doesn't count as good writing, even in a prestigious newspaper.  I'm in agreement with you there!)  I think we are disagreeing on style, rather than on grammar.    D b f i r s   08:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Mm, probably. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   12:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Phrasing
Will somebody help me to write this sentence correct?:

"These competitions and festivals are for gifted children and young pianists and are meant to support the talents."

Maybe this is more correct:

"These competitions and festivals are for gifted children and young pianists and are meant to be supporting events for the talents."

Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * These competitions and festivals are meant to support the talents of gifted young pianists. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, Rtganag. These sentences are correct, but you hid few words to fix the sentence. Please read my additional post here. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So what? The words were redundant and not performing any significant function in the sentence; editing very often involves removal of unnecessary words. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 13:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The only real _error_ in the original sentence is "the talents" - it should be "their talents". However, it's a bit of a run-on sentence as it stands, which is a problem with style rather than grammar.  I would rewrite it as "These competitions and festivals for gifted children and young pianists are meant to support the participants' talents."  Tevildo (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first sentence, Tevildo. But it's not a run-on sentence.  A run-on sentence is one "in which two or more independent clauses (that is, complete sentences) are joined with no punctuation or conjunction", such as, for example:
 * These competitions and festivals are for gifted children and young pianists they are meant to support the talents.
 * That would be a run-on sentence. Putting a comma before "they" would have made it a comma splice, which, for my money, is a type of run-on sentence and just as loathsome.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I would consider the two clauses of the original sentence as being independent - they just don't have the subject expressed explicitly.  Is "I got up and had my breakfast and went to school and had my dinner and went home and had my tea and played on the computer and went to bed" a run-on sentence?  If not, what is it? Tevildo (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's just poor style. It is a list of actions.  Lists need only one "and", before the last item (e.g. "The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost"); however, putting in extra "and"s may be superfluous and irritating, but not ungrammatical.  It certainly "runs on", and on, and on - but lacks the defining characteristic of a run-on sentence.  A run-on sentence version of it might be something like:
 * "I got up and had my breakfast I went to school, I had my dinner, I went home and had my tea I played on the computer and went to bed". There are many ways of making that a run-on sentence; this is just one possibility.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   22:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The minimal amendment I can suggest (and in my former capacity as a textbook editor would therefore employ) is to place a comma after 'pianists' and change 'the' to 'their.' 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That's sufficient to make the meaning perfectly clear to me (though I suppose that some pedants might quibble about what "their" refers back to).    D b f i r s   09:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If the goal is to make the minimal edits, I agree with 87.81.230.195: first sentence, change "the" to their, place a comma after "pianists" (I think the comma is optional, but improves the flow of the sentence).

If the notion of "supporting events" is desirable, I would rewrite the second sentence: "These competitions and festivals are meant to be supporting events for the talents of gifted children and young pianists." A fairly significant edit, but the most clear in terms of what describes what.

If the goal is the most straightforward and clear sentence possible, I like Rjanag's approach, amending to "support the talents of gifted children and young pianists" if distinction between the groups is important. If condensing the groups is not a problem, you could also go with "These competitions and festivals are meant to support gifted young pianists' talents." What is most desirable depends on the context in which the sentence is to be written as well, of course. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Noun form of cretinous
What is the noun form of cretinous? In other words, what word means "the state of being a cretin?" Is it cretinousness or something else? 20:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cretinism. Deor (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Homophone of, and unrelated to, "Cretan", a citizen of Crete. "Cretin", believe it or not, is a French dialect variation on "Christian", according to my old Webster's. What that has to do with the thyroid ailment called cretinism is unstated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely not homophonous: 'cretin' rhymes with "let in", and 'Cretan' with "tree-tən" in my ideolect. The OED backs the article's existing suggestion that 'christian' was intended to emphasise that the sufferers were indeed humans rather than 'brutes.' 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My old Webster's gives a long "e" and then says "especially British", short "e". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would distinguish 'cretinism' for the medical condition from 'cretinousness', pejorative or mildly insulting term for stupidity or foolishness. --ColinFine (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the OP (whoever that might have been) needs to clarify what he's asking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know it was a medical condition! The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Klick
the vietnam era distance measurement "click" how far is one click? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autorunr (talk • contribs) 21:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See Klick. Answer: one kilometer. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We still use that in Canada, at least, but more for speed than distance (like the speed of a car, or the wind). Adam Bishop (talk)
 * In other words, meaning one kilometer per hour. I am also in Canada but do not remember ever hearing this.  Presumably it is regional or limited to some specific milieu.  --Anonymous, 06:44 UTC, January 3, 2010.
 * I hear it in southern Ontario. I would expect to hear it from my rural relatives more than my urban ones, but I think I've heard meteorologists say it on the news too, about the wind (maybe someone from the Weather Network?). I'm not certain though. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My brother has used the term to mean both speed and distance several times in my presence. I believe that he picked it up from being in the (US) military.  Dismas |(talk) 09:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also from Southern Ontario and I hear it used both ways (distance and speed). "He was doing twenty klicks over the speed limit" or "The cottage is only about twenty klicks away." This makes sense as kilometers per hour is often shortened to just kilometers in speech anyway. I only ever hear it (rather than see it in print), so while the initial k makes sense, I don't know if I would have spelled it that way off the top of my head. Matt Deres (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it varies by milieu, then. I'm also in southern Ontario. Although not next week... "see" you all later. Anyway, thanks. --Anonymous, 21:24 UTC, January 3, 2010.
 * Yeah, me neither! I thought it was "click", and must have meant the little lines on an odometer, or something. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, I only "knew" it had an initial k from these refdesks. In fact, it was probably this question from a few years ago that twigged me to it. Matt Deres (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's understood in the UK too - amongst hillwalkers anyway (although miles are universally used by motorists, walking scale maps were metricated more than 30 years ago - so much easier to calculate distances in kms) Alansplodge (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)