Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 February 11

= February 11 =

English V2?

 * Now you are here.
 * Are you now here?
 * Now are you here......

In English, the first and second word orders above are statements. In both English and German, the second word order above is a question. In English, the third word order would indicate that it is a question and in German it would be an indicative statement. That's because English is an SVO language and German is a V2 language. Or at least, that's the usual account of these matters, I think. Now then: A cartoon has a physics professor saying that under Einsteinian relativity, gravity too is limited by the speed of light. A student says:
 * So professor, your saying that if a planet were destroyed long ago in a galaxy far, far away, only now would we sense a disturbance in the force?

(Then the professor says:
 * Congratulations. You get an A.  Please leave. )

Now notice: "Would we sense..." in English would usually be a question. If it were a statement, one would say "We would sense...". But when "Only...." is there, then one says "Only now would we sense..." and it's a statement, not a question.  Likewise, if one says "Does one see such a thing...." it's a question, but if one says "Seldom does one see such a thing..." then it's a statement.

So sometimes English behaves like a V2 language!

Is there an account of this phenomenon in standard grammars? (There must be, I would think.) Where is it? (Naively.....) Michael Hardy (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There sure is. It's called negative inversion, but we don't have an article for it and the article for inversion isn't very good. --Kjoonlee 09:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I guess negative inversion is a type of subject-auxiliary inversion in English. --Kjoonlee 09:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But the sentence "Only now would we sense..." is in the Yodaese dialect of Galactic Basic, not English so... Rmhermen (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yodaese is somewhat like German and Dutch in its syntax, but I think sentences like "Only later did I realize that..." is perfectly normal English. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is some relevant information in "Subject Verb Object".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In formal (especially written) English, V2 (or more specifically, inversion after an adverbial phrase) is quite common. In informal English it is unusual. --ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But the phrase "Neither am I" is not unusual in quite informal speech. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ...you're saying that if a planet was destroyed... Sleigh (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, kjoonlee and others who have answered. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * These "only now", "only later", "not only" etc. constructions are among the few times when English still has subject-aux inversion outside questions and negatives ("not only" doesn't count as a negative here). I've noticed it's hard for German speakers to grasp this - they're so accustomed to suppressing subject-aux inversion when they speak English that they don't know to say "Not only is it important to understand that XYZ..." but say "Not only it is important to understand that...", which to my ears is ungrammatical in any register of English. Subject-aux inversion in positive statements used to be more common back in Early Middle English - you encounter it a lot in Shakespeare, the King James Bible, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, etc., e.g. "The Lord is my shepherd, therefore can I lack nothing", where in today's English we would say "therefore I can lack nothing". But even in EME, the verb always follows the subject in subordinate clauses, just as in German the verb always comes at the end there. For example, from the same psalm: "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death". Since though is a subordinate conjunction, there's no inversion after it. —Angr (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So is this. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Have a go at analysing this: "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of York; and all the clouds that lour'd upon our house in the deep bosom of the ocean buried." Roger (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a verb form of "appellation" meaning "to name"?
Obviously "appellate" doesn't work, though that seems the natural fit to me, because it's already well-established as an adjective having to do with court appeals. I was hoping for something sharing the same appell- root, if possible. Just a bit of whimsy, is all. The Masked Booby (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the OED Online lists appellate as a rare verb meaning "[t]o call, to designate". Two quotations are given, one 1765, the other 1837. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 06:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Christen, Designate, Denote, etc. might work for you. 109.128.65.70 (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is something wrong with "to name" as a verb form meaning "to name"? 71.141.88.54 (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes: it's not what the questioner is looking for. L ANTZY T ALK 12:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You could "apply a name" to something. That's as near as I can come to what you're looking for. L ANTZY T ALK 12:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclate? Some dictionaries have it, others don't, so I'd check it in something reliable like OED before using it. - X201 (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, none of these terms are similar in form to appellation (apart from appellate which I mentioned earlier). Nomenclate does occur in the OED Online ("To assign a name or names to; to call by a certain name. Also: to classify"; marked "poetic" and "rare"), and we could add to all these delightful words the Old English yclepe ("To call by name, name": OED Online). — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 13:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The root of "appellation" is "appeal". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please help with this sentence structure OR How can we make this sound better?
I am working on a new procedure manual for our department (New Director - New/'Better' Procedures) This sentence has been kicked back to me again & at this point Im not sure if I just want to burn the book or just forget this procedure ever existed!!! :0

Here is the sentence:

BACKGROUND (title)

The Environmental Services Director may communicate internally and externally using a variety of methods, and may be formal or informal communications.Bartswife (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Environmental Services Director may communicate internally and externally using a variety of methods; these communications may be formal or informal." -- LarryMac  | Talk  18:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strip the sentence down a bit, and it comes out as: "The ES Director may be (formal or informal) communications." That is the problem with the sentence, adjust the object-subject relation around there and you have a better sentence. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for saying so, but do you really need this "procedure" to be spelled out - at all? Internally and externally covers the entire set of possibilities, so that can go immediately.  Everyone in business communicates, and is expected to communicate, using a variety of methods (face to face, phone, email ...)  nothing special there.  Formal and informal communications - what else is there?  So, what possible value is this procedure adding to what everyone and his dog would normally expect anyway?  It's a little like having a formal procedure saying "The Director will breathe air and will eat enough to keep himself healthy".   I speak as one who's written policy manuals and the like, so I'm not being flippant.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jack's point that this procedure sounds a bit superfluous. However, if you must have such a sentence, you could change "and may be" to "which may include", and the sentence would be fine.  Marco polo (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sadly in business sometimes the axiom is "that which is not expressly permitted by the rulebook is prohibited". If they don't spell out that this poor sap can talk to people he might not be allowed to! I concur with your change, however I might break it up a bit more:  "The Environmental Services Director may communicate internally and externally.  The methods used may be formal or informal."  I've always been a fan of direct, short sentences in business writing where ambiguity can be dangerous and misinterpretation a problem. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Or even just "which may be". Straightontillmorning (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this part of a job description? I'd change 'may' to 'will' if such communication is part of her job, and simplify all the various kinds of communications, then add what she'll be communicating about to make it more clear.  I don't know what the director really does, but it might go something like, "The Environmental Services Director will keep the staff informed about health and safety issues, and will communicate the company's goals and progress to the media, the community, and our stockholders."  Just my opinion, feel free to ignore it, I am not a trained technical writer, etc.  Let 'simplicity' and 'clear communication' be your watchwords. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Or in plain English, "Use plain English". :)  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How about this: The Environmental Services Director is permitted and encouraged to communicate internally and externally by any method, formal or informal, that the director judges to be appropriate.  I'm assuming here that what you're really trying to say is that the director doesn't have to submit messages to anybody else for filtering. Looie496 (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How about:"The Environmental Services Director may use a variety of formal or informal methods to communicate with others internally within the department or externally to the department." or "The Environmental Services Director may use a variety of methods to communicate with others within the department and outside of the department. The methods used to communicate with others may be formal or informal." or "The Environmental Services Director may use a variety of formal or informal methods to communicate within or outside of the department." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)