Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 December 31

= December 31 =

Placement of adverbs in transitive-verb, English clauses. [Revisited]
Hello, again!

Some time ago, I found myself puzzled by the writing advice of usage commentator Wilson Follett apropos placement of adverbs in the present subjunctive. Alas, after posting on this reference desk, I was left with more questions, than answers.

Now, after much thinking—and re-thinking—I feel as though I've encountered a rule far superior to either my earlier one, or to Mr. Follett's. Viz., It may very well seem that (in present subjunctive clauses) one must distinguish between different types of adverb. Allow me to demonstrate with the following, collapsed sets of examples:

In all cases, one splits the auxiliaries.

While one splits the auxiliaries in most cases, he does not in the case of the present subjunctive.

While one splits the auxiliaries in most cases, he does not in the case of the present subjunctive.

While one splits the auxiliaries in most cases, he may or may not in the case of the present subjunctive, depending on his preferred style.

Since "not" and "constantly" fall under (3) and (1), respectively, this would adequately explain why—in my prior post—one would split the latter, but not the former. What do you think, out of curiosity? Can we (finally) lay this question safely to bed?

EDIT: I just fixed an error in the tables. Pine (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * All right, judging by the stunned silence, I'll safely assume that we can! Pine (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

My talk page
What does this mean? I figure it may have something to do with the section above it about the airports. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I imagine it has something to do with this page, which you protected a few days ago. Perhaps the IP is questioning whether Kwak Jung Wook really is a former artist. --Antiquary (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The IP was from Indonesia so I just figured it was the airport. CambridgeBayWeather (mobile) (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

5 Sentences in English I find difficult. Help me out and I might just learn something today.
I have collected a few English words I am unsure about... or rather what I am unsure about is whether I use them correctly in the sentences shown below. So a little help would be appreciated, so I might learn. If English is your mother tongue, that would be great. Learn from the native speakers and all that ;) Bear in mind that I am not looking for explanation as to the meaning of the words (for that there are dictionaries), just whether I am using them correctly in these sentences, and if I am not, then which words would be better to use in the 5 given examples? The words I am unsure about is written in CAPITAL LETTERS.

1. “He MIGHT/MAY yet live to see our age.”

"He MIGHT/MAY indeed."

(In the first comment both variants seem correct to me, even though "Might" is supposedly paste tense of "May". In the reply to the first comment "may" seem correct to me, while "might" seem wrong. But the words seem to often be used interchangeably... So I'm not sure if both words can be used.)

2. But the horses had mostly scattered about the area during the commotion, and had to be REELED IN first.

3. The two newcomers seemed uncomfortable, no doubt feeling the other men’s resenting STARES/LOOKS/GLARES ON/AT them, but they sat down, putting on gloomy faces.

4. STRAPPED/BUCKLED TO the stranger’s back was a round metal-shield. / SLUNG OVER the stranger’s shoulder was a round metal-shield. (Here it is assumed that the shield in question has a belt so that the shield can be carried across one shoulder, so technically it won't actually be fastened like "strapped" or "buckled" might suggest. Very unsure about this one...)

5. They were for the most part spared by their conquerors, but still forced to assimilate INTO/TO their societies/culture. (Are both "into" and "to" correct, or only one of them?)

Thanks in advance for any help ;) 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:8054:C572:DEBB:DF66 (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Grammatically, both "Might" and "May" are possible, but I would prefer "might". It has the same meaning as in the title of this section - "perhaps"
 * 2) "To reel something in" is what you do to a fish after you have caught it on a fishing line. You turn the "reel" (wheel) of the fishing line, and pull the fish towards you.  Here it is being used metaphorically, but still implies that you have to fight the horses, and pull them to the correct location using a rope
 * 3) I would use "stares" but no "at/on" and no "them" ("The two newcomers seemed uncomfortable, no doubt feeling the other men’s resenting stares, but they sat down, putting on gloomy faces.")  "To stare" is when to look intensively at something (either looking continuously, with interest; or alternatively looking blanking at something, without doing anyything).  "To look" is neutral.  "To glare" implies a degree of anger.
 * 4) I'll pass on this. "Strapped" and "slung over" sounds OK to me, without a contradiction.
 * 5) Using "into". They are entering the new culture, so "in" is appropriate.
 * I hope that this helps. Bluap (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bluap - Alright, "Reel in" as you say is like when you draw a fish up in your boat with your fishing pole, which is kind of why I've been unsure about using this word. I wasn't intending to imply that the horses would resist. I suppose "collect" or "gather" might work better if I rephrase the sentence. On 3 "glare" might be the best option, I guess, as there is anger and contempt involved, and I like the sentence better the way you presented it, with no "at/on them." Simple, but better. I guess I should learn to sometimes use fewer words. Your answer on 5 is a little confusing. I interpret it as you saying "into" would be your choice, but that "in" also works. Thanks 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:8054:C572:DEBB:DF66 (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The usual term in sentence 2, rather than "reeled in", would be "rounded up". Deor (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As a native English speaker, I would say:
 * 1. Slight preference for MAY.
 * 2. ROUNDED UP is good whereas REELED IN is surely wrong.
 * 3. resentFUL would be better. STARES or GLARES are better at being resentful than LOOKS. Although one stares/glares/looks (verb) AT, you want ON here because the new men are feeling the glares (noun) ON them (though you could drop the ON THEM entirely if you wished).
 * 4. If the strap is a permanently attached part of the shield then SLUNG OVER is best
 * 5. INTO
 * --catslash (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, guys. You're a helpful bunch ;) 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:8054:C572:DEBB:DF66 (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. They can be used interchangeably, but due to one of may's meanings being "to be allowed to", might is usually preferred.
 * 2. I've never heard anyone say reeled in when referring to a horse. Hypothetically, if you were writing poetry, you might be able to say that, but I would avoid it in common discourse.
 * 3. Err... I would rephrase that sentence in one of a few ways, rather than directly answering your question:
 * The two newcomers seemed uncomfortable, no doubt feeling the other men’s resenting looks, but they sat down nevertheless, putting on gloomy faces.
 * The two newcomers seemed uncomfortable, no doubt feeling the resenting glares of the other men, but they sat down nevertheless, putting on gloomy faces.
 * The two newcomers seemed uncomfortable, the other men staring at/looking at/glaring at them resentfully. Nevertheless, they sat down and put on gloomy faces.
 * Perhaps it's just my dialect of English (remember, by the way, that no dialect of English is better than another, and that there is no such thing as truly "Standard" English when push comes to shove. Someone will probably think that you sound funny no matter where you go. You just have to pick which dialect of English you wish to cater to and run with that.) but "glare on", "stare on", and "look on" sound strange. The only one that sounds remotely reasonable is "look on", but even so it sounds a bit strange in this context.
 * I suppose that you could use either strapped or buckled in this sentence, but personally, buckled sounds better to my ears in this case. Still, it's up to you. Slung over in this case sounds a bit odd, though nevertheless still "logical" in and of itself. However, if I were to read that line in a book somewhere, I would stop reading for a moment and say "...What?" in confusion.
 * Into, not to. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "assimilate to" is generally more common in British English (per OED), but I can see the argument for using "into" in this context. The "into" preposition following assimilate used to be rare on both sides of the pond, but overtook "in" in America in the 1970s. |Google ngrams   D b f i r s   21:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In case my answer was unclear: I agree that one would not glare on or stare on somebody. I was interpreting the glares here are nouns, which one would feel on oneself as one would feel the wind or the rain or the sun. I would consider "I felt the sun at me" very strange.
 * Rephrasing to avoid a construction of which you are uncertain (or which is subject to disagreement), is a good strategy, but that aside, the original phrasing was fine. --catslash (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I guess I misunderstood what you said before. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I see that the sentence can be parsed in two ways:
 * ...feeling {the other men’s resenting glares at them}
 * or
 * ...feeling {the other men’s resenting stares} on them
 * The OP's English seems good enough (forgetting sentence 2), that his/her opinion is as valid as ours on these issues. --catslash (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for all answers. To be clear, I'm well aware that I could have simply chosen to rephrase the sentences to begin with, but that would have been avoiding the things I was unsure about. I would have learned nothing. But now I feel I did. Cheers. 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:4D05:9E71:B18A:9AA7 (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Angliæ


OK, so I'm not even going to try translating this Latin book title into English, so any help you can provide would be much appreciated! It's ''Tractatus de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Regni Angliæ, tempore regis Henrici Secundi compositus, justiciæ gubernacula tenente illustri viro Ranvlpho de Glanvilla, Juris Regni et antiquarum Consuetudinum eo tempore peritissimo. Et illas solum leges continet et consuetudines secundum quas placitatur in Curiâ regis, ad Scaccarium, et coram justiciis ubicunque fuerint. Cum MSS. Harl. Cott. Bodl. et Mill. collatus.'' (According to "Tractatus of Glanvill", "MSS. Harl. Cott. Bodl. et Mill." refer to the Cottonian, Harleian, Bodleian and Doctor Mille's manuscripts of the work.) — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you try Google Translate? It says, "Treatise on the laws and customs of the Kingdom of England, which, compared with the time of King Henry the Second, held it the righteousness of the government of the illustrious man, Ranvlpho de Glanville, the right of the kingdom, and to the ancient custom at that time, so skillful. And it contains only the laws and customs of those according to which plead in the court of the king, to the Exchequer, and before the justices, wherever they may be. With MSS. Hari. Cott. Bod. and Mill. bestowed." Does that make sense? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Er, not really ... I'm looking for a more accurate translation. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How would you know? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A good translation should read as if it were written directly in the target language by a native speaker of that language. Infelicities of expression such as "held it the righteousness of the government", and "to the ancient custom at that time, so skillful" should be reworked till they read less clunking and more naturally. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What he said. And also because the Google Translate version just doesn't make complete sense to an English speaker. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably because most people have more sense than to stick something into Google Translate then sit back and think that was a helpful response. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, at least I did something, which is more than the OP did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He asked a good question and some competent people answered it. I know it's confusing, since that's not how it usually works when you're around. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And I gave an answer based on Google Translate. If he didn't want something from Google Translate, he could have said so. Now, what's confusing to me is why you expect your personal attacks on me to improve anything. Or do you just attack me for fun? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a tip. No one will ever want an answer based on a Google translation. Ever. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a tip. You have no basis for that claim. And/or since I do use Google Translate myself, you have just called me nobody. Thanks for yet another personal attack or joke or whatever it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really care what you do personally do with Google Translate. But let's look at what happened here:
 * - SMUconlaw asked a question about a language you don't know (this isn't the first time you've tried to Google translate Latin)
 * - You can't believe that he rejected your answer, because how could he possibly know if it was wrong?
 * - You chastise him for not doing his own work and translating with Google in the first place, even though your own results didn't make any sense
 * - So not only do you not know anything about the source language, you don't even know why the translation was bad
 * - You think this counts as doing something
 * Obviously, any idiot could plug some text into Google. It might be significant when people prefer to ask a human here. But why bother even telling you, again, that you don't have to answer every question just because it's there. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If the OP had given any indication that he had already tried Google Translate, obviously I wouldn't have posted it. The OP indicated he didn't want to deal with translating the whole thing, which suggested he can't. But even a flawed translation is better than nothing. It leaves the OP only to tweak the parts that don't quite make sense in English. If I were in the OP's shoes I would have been very happy to receive even a flawed translation. I was acting in good faith, which according to you, makes me an idiot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me try an even simpler explanation of this: A Reference Desk poster (could be anyone): "Can you help me translate this?" Baseball Bugs: "Sure, here's some crap!" *beams proudly*
 * Google Translate sucks, especially for Latin. No one will ever be expected to try that first, and there's no reason to try it for them. Who cares if you acted in good faith? Whatever that means. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me try an even simpler explanation: Something is still better than nothing. And Wikipedia does care about acting in good faith, even if you don't really care about it personally - or, as it seems, have never heard of it. How long have you been here??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to assume as a general rule that anyone Internet-savvy enough to find their way to the Reference Desk is already aware of the existence of Google Translate. No harm done by posting one anyway in my opinion (though it's very unlikely to be helpful), but challenging them when they say they're looking for something more accurate is more than a little silly and patronizing. -Elmer Clark (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it wasn't clear that this section was related to an earlier question that I asked above (see ""). I'm not that familiar with Latin but I did try translating that shorter and simpler book title with the help of Google Translate (and think I managed to get most of it right), but I was quite sure that website would not be sufficiently helpful for this much longer book title, which is why I said I wouldn't even attempt a translation. And, as I mentioned above, what I was looking for help for was an accurate translation and not just a rough gist of what the title says. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Treatise on the Laws and Customs of England" is indeed the usual translation; see Duhaime.org - Legal Dictionary quoting Holdsworth, William, A History of English Law, Vol. 2 (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1952), page 186-192. I couldn't find a full translation online, but I 'spect there is one somewhere. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Google Translate is pretty amusing for Latin. Partial marks for plucky effort, I guess. It knows certain set phrases, and this title is rather famous, so it gets that right at least. For the full title, how about "Treatise on the laws and customs of the Kingdom of England, composed in the time of King Henry II, while the illustrious man Ranulph of Glanville, who at the time was the most experienced in the law and the ancient customs of the kingdom, held the position of chief justiciar. And it contains only those laws and customs according to which pleas are made in the court of the king, at the court of the exchequer, and before justices wherever they may be. Collated from the Harleian, Cottonian, Bodleian, and Mill manuscripts." Adam Bishop (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Much obliged! Happy New Year, everyone. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)