Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 February 5

= February 5 =

The cucumber is bound to its vine.
In "The cucumber is bound to its vine.", is the word "bound" a correct usage here? Are there some alternatives? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.168.3 (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You would probably say it was attached to the vine, or simply "on the vine". Bound means tied by string or some other restraining material. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) Although I've not heard that before it sounds more idiomatic to me. "As the cucumber is bound to its vine, so too is your mortal flesh bound to this earth." 196.214.78.114 (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Usage like that would be considered highly poetic or literary nowadays. You wouldn't find it in normal speech or sober academic writing. It's not something you would write outside a poem or a sermon. μηδείς (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To me "bound" has a different feel than "attached". To be bound seems oppressive, as in chains, while being attached does not. StuRat (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

a long face like a cucumber
Is the phrase "a long face like a cucumber" acceptable in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.168.3 (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, except that must be a very funny looking person: it makes perfect sense, but it is not a common phrase. An unattractive person with a long face is often described as horse-faced.  E.g., "John was horse-faced and his wife had an overbite but their three children were beautiful." μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "...as was their mailman". StuRat (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that the phrase pulled a long face is used idiomatically to mean someone is unhappy and frowning, thus causing his or her face to look longer than if he or she were smiling. (For example, "She pulled a long face when I said it was time for us to visit the dentist.") If you are using the phrase in that sense, then it would seem a bit strange to a native English speaker if you added "like a cucumber" after it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

as sb. well puts it
In "as sb. puts it", is the word "well" redundant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.168.3 (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's not redundant; they mean different things. As somebody puts it means "as someone says" and As somebody well puts it means "as someone says skillfully". μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Can a sentence beginning with "more than once" be inverted?
Can a sentence beginning with "more than once" be inverted? If it can, could you give me one example? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.216.244 (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding the question correctly, starting with "more than once" would be regarded as the inverted version: "I have seen him here more than once" is more idiomatic than "More than once I have seen him here", even though both are correct. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I assume that the OP may refer to the inversion of meaning. As in "more than once" vs "less than once".  The latter, "less than once", may be used jocularly but has little usage in spoken / written English.  It may be used in statistical statements (e.g. "married couples kiss less than once a week") where it refers to some real number (they kiss 0.345 times a week).  Of course, either sequence can appear in a longer construct, as in:  "3 popes, less than once thought, ...", but this has an entirely different meaning.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking the inverted meaning of "more than once" is "once or less" not "less than once". -- Q Chris (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Straight version: "More than once you've told me, and that's enough."


 * Inverted meaning (say it with a Jewish accent): "More than once you could have told me, no ? ...and it would have been much appreciated if you had." StuRat (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"It" or "they" to refer to "a pair of trousers"?
Should "it" or "they" be used to refer to "a pair of trousers"? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.216.244 (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * They. See plurale tantum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Once homo sapiens becomes extinct (yes, I am getting older) and octopus sapiens sneaks into the "void", the above question becomes slightly more complex. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm. While English is not my native tongue unlike Andy's, I'm not so convinced, particularly by his explanation. While grammatical number of trousers is certainly plural (tantum), grammatical number of pair is actually singular; number of the whole phrase a pair of trousers is a bit unclear. Having googled a bit, I saw both usages:
 * When he returned two days later, a pair of trousers was missing. BBC
 * while he was in a liquor store at Thompson and Bleecker streets on Wednesday evening a pair of trousers was stolen from him NY Times
 * A pair of trousers was discovered in the river
 * On the other hand:
 * I told Mr. Scott that a pair of trousers were found on Chapman
 * Reports suggest a pair of trousers were located in a nearby seating shelter sparking the alarm. Island Echo UK
 *  In Vivienne’s shop a pair of trousers were 50 quid Dazed
 * No such user (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding the second set of usages above, I agree with No Such User that the key word here is pair which is singular, so I would go with it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One could choose to put on "this pair of trousers" or "these trousers". But not "these pair of trousers" or "this trousers".  But why do we use the "pair" anyway?  They never come in single legs, do they?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No_such_user -- third person verb agreement and pronoun reference (especially pronoun reference across clauses and across sentences) are not always exactly the same thing. Verb agreement can be indicative of probable pronoun reference, but it's not decisive direct evidence of pronoun choice... AnonMoos (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

dare not think those thoughts any further
I am not sure whether "dare not think those thoughts any further" is idiomatic or not. I need your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.216.244 (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Could be considered a little "literary". In older language, "dare" could function as an auxiliary verb, with additional forms "daren't", "durst", and "durstn't"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A little more formal than "don't dare think ...", but nothing too out of the ordinary. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

money from selling apples
Is "money from selling apples" a proper phrase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.216.244 (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. "money from the sale of apples" would be more formal, but there's nothing wrong with this version. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Does beware stem from be aware?
--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * They are both from the same root, as is wary. But, as the OED says, "The origin of this is involved". Beware is a blend of an Old English derived verb bewarian meaning to defend, and the two words be ware, where ware was an adjective with a similar meaning to modern wary. --ColinFine (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In general, the English "be-" prefix comes from an old prepositional form, and has nothing to do with the verb "to be"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether you are disagreeing with me or not, . In general you are right, but the OED specifically mentions both sources for this word (and mentions forms such as I am ware). --ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't examined the etymology of this word, but most English words with a "be-" prefix have nothing to do with the verb "to be"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For example, OE "beniman" has a locative sense, "to take away", while simply "niman" is "to take". Also look at modern "bewitch"; "witch" has no verbal meaning, but "be-" turns it into a verb.  Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * See also wikt:ware. --Trovatore (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Writing accented letters
I live on a street which has the letter "ä" in it. I recently bought an item from eBay from an American seller. When I received the package, it had my address on it two times: a printed sticker, and handwritten text on the box itself. The sticker had the street name spelled correctly, but the handwritten text had replaced the "ä" with an "a". The seller must have seen my street name spelled correctly with an "ä" both on the e-mail they got and on the printed sticker, but still written the name incorrectly with an "a". Why would anyone do this? Is it so difficult to put two extra dots on the box, or is this some kind of attitude against foreign letters? J I P &#124; Talk 19:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're talking hand-written, not machine-printed, right? To the average American citizen, "ä" and "a" are the same thing. So they might just not have noticed it or thought it mattered. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In some Nordic languages a and ä are different letters in their respective alphabet. In German, it is not. Few Americans can tell the difference between an umlaut and an accent. I many languages today, accents are not considered mandatory. I would guess, as Bugs does, that they did not think it mattered. DanielDemaret (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In American English there are words and place names that use diacritical marks: naïve, coöperate, jalapeño, fiancée, café, San José, La Cañada. They are not considered distinct letters, and they can be used or omitted as a matter of style without changing the meaning.  In fact, they sometimes cause problems (ask anyone who has a "complicated" name about their experiences at airport checkin).  The sender probably believed that he was writing the same name, with the same letters, but in the form most appropriate to addressing a package.  --Amble (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In handwriting the letter ä may, depending on the language and the individual's handwriting style, look like ā, ã, a̋, ȁ, or something else. However, the orthographies of some languages would demand that the opposition between certain letters be preserved in handwriting. Estonian has both ö and õ, Hungarian has all of ó, ö, ő, ú, ü and ű, and Vietnamese has a whole bunch of diacriticized vowels (see Vietnamese alphabet). --Theurgist (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bugs. In the UK, most people don't bother with diacritic marks either. It's very common to see "cafe" for "café" even on shop signs: see this, this and this. I'm sure that Wikipedia editors set themselves a higher standard though. Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You're skating on very thin ice here, Alansplodge. There are some of us who consider the retention of diacritics in words that have become thoroughly anglicised to be toffy-nosed and pretentious snobbery.  I refer here to cases like cafe, role, premiere, debut - and particularly where they become parts of speech other than their original uses.  Such as the verbs debuted or premiered.  There never were French words such as débuted or premièred, so how can those accents be justified in these words that are English and only English?  We don't refer to the Parthenon in writing as Παρθενών, or Moscow as Москва.  Well, that would be consistent with insisting on début, rôle, café etc etc.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully support your viewpoint on anglicised words here. But my street name was never anglicised, it's a Finnish word, not an English one. J I P &#124; Talk 20:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And Häagen-Dazs and Mötley Crüe have done much to reassure people in the Anglosphere that those dots are unimportant decorations. Actually, so have Löwenbräu, but probably not deliberately in their part. (If you ask for [ˈløːvənbʁɔʏ] in most British pubs you'll get a blank look: it's /'ləʊənbraʊ/.) --ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, if you ask for a /'ləʊənbraʊ/, you get a blank look because it's crap watery beer, like most American brands. When I was in Munich with my Russian and Chinese friends, we called it 'Piss-Wasser'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, let's make some distinctions here. You've got your basic traditional American lager, Budweiser and Coors and so on, and I completely agree with you on those.  My impression is that they're based on the German style, more or less, so it's not too surprising that you'd have the same reaction to Löwenbräu.
 * But it's entirely unjust to identify those with "American beer" in general, and to ignore the microbrew movement of the last few decades. The center of gravity for innovation in beer is now the United States. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am a member of CAMRA, so I know beer. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm rather amazed this discussion sparked off to beer. But I have to agree, Löwenbräu tastes very bland. One of the best German beers I have recently had was Augustiner, in the centre of Munich. I'll have to see if it's available here in Finland. There are some very good Finnish beers too, most particularly Keisari ("Emperor") and Kukko ("Rooster"). Most Finnish beers taste bland, but I have found these two to taste very good. J I P &#124; Talk 20:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My favourite is to go into a pub and say "Kann ich ein Bitter haben, bitte?" because I've hated laagers since the Boer War. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Another point to note here is that in some languages the diacritic version of a letter is considered not just a variant of the "base" letter but an independent letter in its own right, which has its own separate entry in their alphabet. When this fact is combined with the fact that not all countries' versions of the alphabet strictly follow our familiar A,B,C ... Z schema, you're getting into tricky waters.  Some alphabets have a certain letter in a certain place, and the diacritic version(s) of that letter somewhere later, not immediately following the base letter.  This makes the simple sorting of a group of international names a much trickier task than it may first appear.  Or would be if we attempted to honour all those different alphabetical orders.  But that would be expecting librarians, lexicographers and ordinary readers to (a) know all these details, and (b) be able to identify at sight the origin of any particular name - and that would be absurd.  Hence, in the anglosphere all names with á, à, â, ä, ǎ, ă, ā, ã, å, or ą, are treated for sorting purposes as if they were all simple a's.  The widespread and standard convention is to ignore all diacritics when sorting; which explains why when sorting our article Georg Müller, the DEFAULTSORT is set to "M u ller, Georg" and not "M ü ller, Georg", etc etc.  It's not surprising to discover that vast numbers of people who are lacking in a knowledge of any languages other than their own extend this approach to all contexts and simply always write all those versions of a as, well, a. Same for all those other weird foreign letters.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The obvious solution to the OP's problem is for him not to deal with Anglophone countries, regardless of the ridiculous prices he will pay otherwise. I'd just be happy not to be spelling my a-umlauts with a 'я'. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

yokutch language
i am trying to find out how to say "welcome I am going to talk about my home town" in the Yokutch Indian language, for a speech I am working on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFE8:A980:C5EE:6219:D81A:77C1 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Yokuts language? μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)