Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 August 1

= August 1 =

Club soda
Where does the "club" in club soda come from? Dismas |(talk) 07:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The term "originated in 1877 as a brand name for carbonated water, manufactured by Cantrell & Cochrane (C&C), of Dublin Ireland. It was promoted as a wholesome beverage that neutralized lactic acid in the blood. In reality it was just carbonated water. The Club Soda trademark is still owned by C&C." (Darcy O'Neil, Fix the Pumps).
 * Etymonline's entry on "club", subsection on social club: "Club sandwich recorded by 1899, apparently as a type of sandwich served in clubs; club soda is 1877, originally a proprietary name."
 * So I guess it was referring to social clubs and their exclusivity. As for the social club's etymology, the link has "The social club (1660s) apparently evolved from this word from the verbal sense "gather in a club-like mass" (1620s), then, as a noun, "association of people" (1640s)." ---Sluzzelin talk  07:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Although I am unable to find a source, I've always assumed that club is a qualifier to distinquish from the soda that one could get at a soda fountain (sweet, flavored non-alcoholic carbonated mixed beverage) — Club soda is generally associated with adult beverages (i.e.: carbonated mixed beverage containing alcohol) that one could get at a "club".  — 71.20.250.51 (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC) →[typos fixed: 08:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)]


 * Did it / does it possibly also distinguish from cream soda? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I order the club sandwich all the time, but I'm not even a member, man. I don't know how I get away with it.  SemanticMantis (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The name "cream soda" is an oddity. Now, it is simply a flavor of soda (as with "grape soda" or "cherry soda") —But, it is not cream flavored.— They should just call it vanilla soda.  The original cream soda recipe calls for cream of tarter, eggs, a bit of milk, not to mention Epsom salts (!) I told you: not to mention "Epsom salts" . See:   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably had to turn the grapes, cherries or whatnot into a cream first. Back before flavours, textures and colours came in vials. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Great to hear that the M&S has a nose "with a slight nutty/popcorn element". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Nominalization of comparisons in English
From yesterday's featured article Royal baccarat scandal: "...the prince was at his most unpopular for several years afterwards." Is this sentence correct and good style? I understand that "most popular" here is a nominalization in the very same way as "at his best", but it still appears somewhat strange to me. Is it correct to say "My financial situation changed to the more worrisome."? Google search for "changed to the more" does not seem to return results in which the adjective is the object in its own right and nominalized. --KnightMove (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentence in the article looks fine to me. The superlative is often used in this way; the comparative rather less so. There are set phrases like 'all the more', 'change for the worse', and so on, but it's rare otherwise. Your example looks awkward, although it's perfectly clear what it means. But to be at one's best/worst/most unpopular is part of a much more widespread pattern. I hope it's clear how your example and the sentence in the article differ in this regard. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I found a long list of examples of "superlative preceded by at + possessive pronoun" in Hendryk Poutsma's old (early 20th Century) A Grammar of Late Modern English for the Use of Continental, Especially Dutch, Students (Poutsma selected all examples from English literature, as explained in our History of English grammars). (Examples "The dock was now at its busiest." ; "Even at his ungainliest and his most wilful Mr. Thompson sins still in the grand manner" ; ... there are over a dozen examples more. ---Sluzzelin  talk  10:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's also constructions like "of the best", which will be hard to Google because it'll find "A piece of the best linen" rather than just "The linen was of the best". AlexTiefling (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you all. Subsequent, last question: Why, presumably, is there such a difference between comparative and superlative in this regard in English? In my native language (German) this isn't the case; expressions with comparatives (like "Let's change the garden to the more beautiful.") are as usual as with superlatives. --KnightMove (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does German lack the difference? DuncanHill (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * An adjective is an adjective, and a comparison is a comparison. I don't see an obvious reason for making a difference here, and German simply doesn't have any unobvious ones. Of course, it has thousands in other regards.--KnightMove (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Can one say: (a few) "flowers of senecio" in one word? or "flowers of groundsel" in one word?
senecios? groundsels? 87.68.247.69 (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would depend on the context, specifically whether it's clear that one is referring to flowers rather than whole plants. One could say, "He included a few senecios in the floral arrangement," and it would be obvious that one was talking about flowers. If, however, one were to say, "I saw a variety of senecios when visiting the botanic garden," the listener would assume that the speaker was referring to various species of the genus, whether they happened to be flowering or not. The same goes for "groundsels". Deor (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely the more common construction would be "senecio flowers" and "groundsel flowers"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Deor an Martin. It's all about the context. In English "She gave him three daisies" would often mean three flowers. If the context is ambiguous, we'd say "daisy flowers" or "daisy plants" or perhaps "potted daisies" to clarify. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ye Olde English
I've been attempting to read portions of the 18th-centry The Winthrop Papers,[page does not exist??] which is written in Ye Olde English. The frequent use of superscript, for the most part, I can decipher (for example, the year 1745 is written: 170 ; no, the zero is not a typo ). However, there is one key sentence that I am unable to decipher, on page 309:
 * And tho such great men as were principall in y[?] sd cantons might be stiled, for honrs sake, sachems, yet...

I have been reading ye as "ye" as in plural of "thou" (i.e: "your"), but when I searched the book for "ye", many instances of ye were highlighted, but not the y[?] in that sentence. —As a side question, is there a distinction between ye and your? —There are instances of "your" as well (printed: yr). Also, what would be the contemporary understanding of the word canton? At any rate, any assistance is appreciated, ~E71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, ye is probably the, see Thorn (letter) which is often confused with "y". -- Jayron  32  23:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going to say the same thing but got edit-conflicted. As to the OP's other question &mdash; ye is not possessive so it's not comparable with your, but if you meant what is the distinction between ye and you, the historical distinction in a brief moment of pre-Shakespeare Early Modern English was that ye was nominative and you was objective. --Trovatore (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See ye (pronoun) for further details. --Trovatore (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Since da thorn came from dat dere rune, which comes from da Latin D, do does who speak like dis have a case dat dey were (not was) doing it right dis whole time? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because orthography does not create pronunciation. The sounds people use when speaking are not derived from the letters used to represent those sounds.  -- Jayron  32  23:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Dangnabbit. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no reference for the claim that the thorn rune comes from the Latin letter D, and it strikes me as unlikely. I think the rune is simply a crude drawing of a thorn on a stem. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Surely 170 means 1704/5 - from when the year changed in March? DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For which see Old Style and New Style dates. DuncanHill (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was just going to say that. Since I wrote at greater length I'll post it anyway:
 * 170 does not mean 1745. It is another way of writing what I've more often seen as 1704/5 or 1704/05, and refers to the period that was in 1704 if you counted March 25 as the first day of the year, but in 1705 if you used January 1.  March 25 was official usage in most of the British Empire until 1751, just before they adopted the Gregorian calendar; but apparently a significant number of people were already using January 1 by then, and Scotland had already switched officially to January 1.  See New Year's Day.  Curiously, on page 308 the date "March 25. 170" occurs twice in one sentence.  I suppose either it is a typo for an earlier date in March (or for two different earlier dates), or else the writer himself was accustomed to using January 1 and managed to forget that March 25 would be in 1705 for everyone.  --69.158.94.114 (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like we all noticed this at the same time. Here's the post I just double edit conflicted to write...: I just noticed that as well.  Duncan has the gist of it.  Old Style and New Style dates covers this topic well.  The change of New Years Day from March to January caused dates for much of the 18th century to be reported with a slash or bar, especially when they fell between January 1 and March 20... for example, George Washington's birthday is frequently reported as 11 February 1731/2... -- Jayron  32  23:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * [this too, is an e/c; I'll catch up on reading in just a sec...] :Oh.   The date in question is printed (p 208): March 25. 170   —And now that I think about it, it couldn't have been 1745. -(oops)- Would that definitely be 1705 by today's reckoning?  As for canton it seems to sometimes be used to describe a subdivision of people, as well as land; I am assuming that it was used in a general way, as in a subset of something larger.  After reading the sentence in question several times in context, my current understanding translates to something like:
 * Although those great men that are considered leaders in the aforementioned regions might be called, for honors' sake, sachems, ... —(?)—   E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, a canton is a subdivision of a country, or a small district - compare, for examples the cantons of Switzerland. And Also yes, that would be 25th March 1705 (by our modern convention of starting the year on 1st of January). DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And Oxford English Dictionary has "sachem" as "The supreme head or chief of some American Indian tribes". DuncanHill (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, Wikipedia has an article titled sachem. -- Jayron  32  01:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the sachem part, it was mainly the "ye(?)" + "sd" -which, without the helpful explanation, I was leaning toward interpreting as "...your so-called..." instead of "...the aforementioned..."   ~Thanks, y'all!  —E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Must be "aforementioned", since "sd" is an abbreviation of "said". Adam Bishop (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Right; but in the context of ye meaning your -- "your said" could mean "your so-called" or "as you say", etc.   — 71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on the foregoing discussion, I believe the correct reading is "the said" and not "your said". — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 05:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, what 71.20.250.51 are reading as "ye" is really þe; þ being the letter thorn, which became the digraph "th" in modern English. Under the writing of the day, þ looked a bit like a curvy "y".  Wikipedia's article Ye Olde actually explains the confusion between thorn and wye, and the confusion that it has caused.  -- Jayron  32  05:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)