Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 February 22

= February 22 =

marry off
Hello! I have a question about the phrase "marry off". I know "marry a daughter off" is correct, but can I say "He has become old enough for his dad to marry off."? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.157.191 (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither of those sounds correct. Americans say "marry off" to refer to a parent getting rid of responsibility for a child.  "John married off all three of his daughters the day they turned 18."  "Mary was married off young to a gentleman twice her age, and girth." μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Medeis -- "marry off" carries a strong connotation of arranged marriage, and is just as obsolete. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, even in the UK, arranged marriages are rare (except in some communities), but the expression "marry off" is not obsolete because it is still used in jest, so the first sentence would be correct in the sense mentioned by Medeis (and in the literal sense in some communities). The second sentence sounds odd, but I suppose it might be used in some context.    D b f i r s   12:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In the realm of fiction (novels, films, TV shows ..) characters are sometimes "killed off". This doesn't mean the character is murdered, necessarily; they may have an accident, or simply die of natural causes. Similarly, a character who needs to be moved away from the main action can be "married off" so as not to pose a threat for their romantic rival anymore, allowing him/her to have a clear run for the attentions of the hero/ine.  Or so he/she thinks.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good one, Jack, and yes, that's a somewhat different sense from real-life parentally directed marrying off. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Generalising, there are several phrasal verbs marry off, kill off, send off (in some senses), where "off" carries the meaning of "as part of a plan". Usually we think of the plan in real life, but as Jack says, it can be an author's plan. --ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Translate 2 words of Persian?
Hi,

Can someone please tell me what this might mean - it should be the name of a place, probably;

موتور 22بهمن (موتور جليل ريگي )

Google translate isn't necessarily helping me - something about electric pump O_o

It is listed in that way on a census spreadsheet here, in row number 3118 under the heading "آبادي" which apparently means "Village".

I'm trying to work out whether the places listed are actual notable villages or not, for the purposes of a Wikipedia discussion.

It would also help if you could comment briefly in general on the names given in that column - does it seem to be a list of government-recognized "Villages" (or whatever the equivalent is)?

Thanks, 88.104.19.233 (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can't really answer your question, but the Google thing is probably based on understanding موتور as "motor"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They are actual villages, not very notable, in the province of Sistan and Baluchestan. The name you have mentioned means "22 Bahman Motor". The village must have been formed around a water pump named "22 Bahman" which is the day the Islamic Revolution reached its climax. And yes, it is a government-recognized village, though very small, with a population of 179, according to the general census of the year 1385 AH. Omidinist (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, that makes sense. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Imperative forms
I've noticed that in many, completely unrelated languages, the imperative form of the verb is identical with the base of the verb, with no additional morphemes. Is there some kind of regularity? --Theurgist (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't examined it systematically, but it seems very common indeed. That's a candidate for a typological (near-)universal if there is one. It appears to have a simple practical explanation: Imperatives are common in situations of urgency, where you have no excess sounds or syllables to waste. I'm thinking of how in Latin, the four imperatives fac ("do!"), dīc ("say!"), dūc ("pull!") and fer ("bring!") are seemingly shortened even more than would be regular (compare allegro form – oh, we don't have this term). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Allegro form is another one of those terms, Florian that does exist in linguistics, but for which the epicene English Wikipedia has no entry. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, I wouldn't have been surprised 10 years ago. But the gaps are becoming ever fewer and I'm amazed about all the obscure terms we have entries for! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can't think of a reference off the top of my head, but this is pretty much a language universal--the second person singular imperative is either the stem or very close to it, and stress is often attracted to the initial syllable. Zulu mostly uses the bare stem for the second singular imperative.  As Florian mentions, Latin has the four "irregular" (not really irregular, but rather, original) imperatives,dic, duc, fac and fer, which reflect the bare stem, and has ama, mone and audi as "regular" imperatives showing the thematic vowel, with -te added for the plural.  Russian has -i or a soft sign (historically a weakened i) added to the stem with the same PIE -te added to make the second person plural imperative.  German normally uses the bare stem for the 2nd singular, as does English, which doesn't distinguish number.  The thou form is just the bare stem.  So if you see Speakest! it is bad mock grammar on the part of the writer. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason why the quattuor imperatores (a nickname I just came up with) are irregular is that the thematic vowel is missing: Regular imperatives would be *face (< *faci), dīce, dūce (both attested in Plautus) and *fere. Possibly, however, a sound-law (in the Old Latin period) resulted in the regular apocope of -e after /k/ and /r/ under certain conditions (compare hic, haec, hoc with original -ce, and the neutral i-stem noun calcar from *kalkari), but its effect was analogically undone in most cases. Frequently used forms (unlike less frequent forms, which are mentally formed by analogy whether the results are sanctioned by the speech community or not) are stored as their own entires in the mental lexicon, making them less susceptible to analogy and therefore prone to irregularity. In these cases, it came in handy that the (historically regular but synchronically irregular) forms were also monosyllabic as befits frequently used commands. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll have to find my Carl Buck. But I am sure these are described as relict forms that retain the older athematic state, the same as English retains first person -m in the most common verb, to be.  There would be no reason for these and only these forms to lose the thematic vowel.  Are you suggesting athematic imperatives in other -r and -c stem verbs exist?  (I like the four emperors coinage.) μηδείς (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)