Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 September 30

= September 30 =

When one thing is many
I first encountered this problem when trying to express an idea in Spanish, but have realized that it can be just as confusing in English. Specifically for English, unless you also know about Spanish, how should a verb be conjugated when it refers to both singular and multiple objects? (e.g. "My favourite part of the exhibit was/were the paintings") I hope I'm not just crazy and making up an issue out of nowhere, but this has been recently catching me up in Spanish, probably because I can't even think of the correct English usage. Any response would be appreciated. Helixer (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Spanish, but in English the sentence "My favourite part of the exhibit was the paintings" is normally construed with the singular was, which agrees with the singular subject part. In English, verbs agree with their subjects, not the complements that follow linking verbs. Deor (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So you would say "My favourite part of the exhibit was the paintings", but "The paintings were my favourite part of the exhibit"? Interesting. I am always unsure too, just like the OP.--Lgriot (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly correct. It's no different from "My wife and my children are my family" (are is 3rd person plural, to agree with the plural subject "my wife and my children"), vs. "My family consists of my wife and my children" (consists is 3rd person singular, to agree with the singular subject "my family").  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   08:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)v


 * Not sure if your second example is completely appropriate: "consist" is not a copular verb, while "to be" is one. With "to be", it is not immediately obvious which part is the subject and which is the predicate, at least not in all languages (especially those with free word order). However, since the subject of this thread is English, where SVO is rather strict word order, I take it that the only grammatically correct (if not particularly stylish) version is: "My family is my wife and my children" rather than *"My family are my wife and my children", right? No such user (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. Since Spanish and English grammar are so similar, Spanish speakers are also unsure about this when it comes up. The "Diccionario panhispánico de dudas" answers the question for Spanish here: http://buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltGUIBusDPD?lema=ser#211 (2.1.1 c) in that page). According to it, Spanish doesn't follow the "element on the left (since speakers aren't sure which one is the subject, I'll call it that way) dictates whether it is singular or plural" rule, but simply uses the plural in these cases: Cuando el sujeto y el atributo son dos sustantivos que difieren en número, lo normal es establecer la concordancia con el elemento plural: «Mi infancia son recuerdos de un patio de Sevilla» --> In English, literally *«My childhood were memories of a patio in Seville"». Hope that helps. --Belchman (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So does that mean it should be "El parte más favorito de la exibición fueron las pinturas" or "El parte más favorito de la exibición fue las pinturas"? I'll have to ask my boyfriend. Steewi (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Mi parte favorita de la exhibición fueron los cuadros" vs "My favourite part of the exhibit was the paintings" - get the genders right, I know that there isn't any rule for them, but it sounds awful to native speakers if you get them wrong, it sounds like calling a girl "he". --Belchman (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers! I guess I'll go with what the Diccionario panhispánico says. And yeah, Steewi, make sure your genders are right :] ... if somebody could put the resolved symbol on here that'd be great... I don't know how.... Helixer ( hábleme ) 00:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Broke/broken/break down
This seems to have various meanings:
 * temporarily ceased to function properly (as in a car breaking down, or a person having a nervous breakdown)
 * decrepitude (as in an old and broken down dwelling, or person)
 * wept (as in a defendant breaking down when he hears the verdict/punishment).

I'm sure there are others. I'm most interested in the third meaning. How did bursting/breaking into tears come to be characterised as "breaking down"? The person hasn't ceased to function, nor have they had a nervous breakdown. Whenever I hear this, I have an image of the person collapsing dramatically in the dock and needing immediate (para-)medical assistance and possibly transportation to some healthcare facility. But that's almost never what it means in such cases. If they actually do collapse, the report would spell that out. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A metaphor for the defendant's defences breaking down under assult by the cross-examining counsel? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is bursting into laughter called "Cracking up"? AnonMoos (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That one can be used transitively - "That cracked me up".  But we don't say "The news broke him down" - rather "The news brought him to tears".  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What does "No Wangers" mean?
On a recent trip to Morro Bay, California, I saw a sign on the window of a surf and skate board shop saying "no wangers". The usual slang meanings of the word wanger, referring to male or female body parts, did not seem to fit. Does anyone know what it means in this context?173.146.224.225 (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Urban Dictionary: wanger. I think they are trying to say something like "Don't be a dick" (see image)  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  09:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But one of those Urban Dictionary definitions is a half erect penis. I wonder if that's what the shop is referring to in this case.  Since it's a surf and skate shop people are likely to be coming in with swimwear and shorts on, and maybe the owners of the shop don't want to be confronted with such sights. --Viennese Waltz 10:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Their motto is, "If you want to shop in our store, you have to be fully erect." —Angr (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or it may have been an establishment catering exclusively to surfer chicks...? Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  10:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Can one say "He is broad" (i.e. fat, or has broad shoulders, and likewise)?
HOOTmag (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm pretty sure your question isn't quite so much "can one say" as "can one say and be understood". I'd say yes, in theory, but based on other senses of broad you might not want to. Lexicografía (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While Lexi is right in that one may say this, a native speaker of English almost certainly wouldn't. Rojomoke (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Broad as an adjective is not normally used to describe people. It is used to describe objects and sometimes body parts, but not entire bodies.  If you say "He is broad", I don't think that you can expect native English speakers to understand you. They might wonder if you mean "broad-minded".  In American English, the common way to say what you want is "He is big".  You can say "He is fat", but that amounts to an insult.  A nicer way to say that is "He is heavy."  Marco polo (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your answer is thorough and exhaustive. "he is broad minded" is acceptable. "his shoulders are broad" is acceptable too, but "he is broad" (in the sense of "he is fat") is unacceptable. Eliko (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone was being described to me, and I was told "He is broad", I'd expect him to have broad shoulders. It's possible that they'd mean he was a bit overweight, but it's not the euphemism that I'd expect to hear. My first instinct would be shoulders. (This is in the context of Australian English). Steewi (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but even in Australia, I think you wouldn't be sure quite what was meant. Marco polo (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have heard something like "he's broad in the beam," meaning "wide in the rear end." --- OtherDave (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)