Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 June 16

= June 16 =

Gerund +ing in lists
When to write "by" in gerunds:


 * "by doing,... by writing..., and by talking..." or
 * "by doing,... writing..., and talking..." or
 * "by doing,... writing..., and by talking"

Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any rule, just personal choice. At least without more sentence context. Consider "I travel by walking, by biking, and by swimming." -- "I travel by walking, biking and swimming." Both are grammatically correct. When I search for /gerund preposition/ I mostly get sites for English learners telling them how to write sentences like those above... SemanticMantis (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)\


 * The third example has incorrect parallelism, and would be considered wrong in careful usage. In the first example, "and" joins three adverbial phrases; in the second, it joins three gerunds within a single phrase; but the third doesn't work either way.  (But it's a very minor error and wouldn't be at all surprising in speech or casual writing.) --69.158.92.137 (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue isn't gerunds, it's parallelism; the same question arises in I make my stew with tomatoes, with beans and with onions versus I make my stew with tomatoes, beans and onions.
 * It's equally legitimate to write either
 * I accomplish this
 * by doing,
 * by writing
 * and by talking.
 * or
 * I accomplish this by
 * doing,
 * writing
 * and talking.
 * Note that, if not for the and, it would be possible to arrange the bullets in any order – which would not be the case if you write by exactly twice. This is one way to detect a faulty parallel.
 * Do you want to put the by inside or outside the bullet points? It's up to you.  There is a difference in connotation: the first suggests that the three actions or vegetables are independent and each may be sufficient on its own (resulting in three different stews), while the second suggests that each is necessary to reinforce the others (as in my chili). —Tamfang (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Correct usage of " effect" and "affect"
What is the correct usage- is it "effecting arrest" or "affecting arrest". Can you explain in detail?RegardsSumalsn (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably "effecting arrest," but I can't tell for sure without seeing the full sentence. In the sense you are using them, "effect" basically means "to bring about or cause" and "affect" basically means "to alter or change."--Dreamahighway (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Which is correct depends on what you mean the phrase to convey. For most common usages, 'effect' is a noun, and 'affect' is a verb . "His speech had a great effect on the audience", and "Obamacare has affected millions of Americans." But-- there are less common usages when 'effect' can be a verb that means "to bring about", and 'affect' can be a noun, with a meaning from psychology. Examples are "effect a change" and "He showed a displeased affect".  So, if you mean "to bring about an arrest" you can say "The detective was critical in effecting arrest". If you mean "the arrest was influenced by some factor", they you can say "The nearby police presence was a factor affecting arrest of the suspect." See the subtle but important difference in meaning?  See more here . SemanticMantis (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why an aadvark I'm not really sure: Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't show how the arrow effected a change in the aardvark's affect :-) --Trovatore (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

He married her. He married them.
How do you know if the subjective pronoun of the sentence is a participant in the wedding or the wedding officiant? The latter seems to be ambiguous. It may either mean that he is a wedding officiant or that he is participating in the wedding as the groom. The former seems also to be ambiguous. It is possible that he is participating as the groom or that he solemnizes a woman's wedding with some unknown suitor. 140.254.226.242 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is ambiguous. You have to use context to figure out which meaning is intended. Angr (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's even more ambiguous than the OP describes. It has also meant "to marry off". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a known ambiguity in English, leading to the riddle "Who may have married many a wife / Yet still be single all his life?" AlexTiefling (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And to some elaborate trickery near the end of As You Like It. —Tamfang (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the best way to describe the many Chinese dialects?
I am not sure if it's best to say: Is there a term for the language of the Shanghai people? of the Wuhan people? 140.254.226.243 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * He spoke Chinese in the Shanghai dialect, and nobody in Wuhan understood him.
 * He spoke Shanghainese, and nobody in Wuhan understood him.


 * As far as I know, Shanghainese is a thing. I suppose you could consult the Wu Chinese article for more details. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 20:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Though there is much debate about the nature of Chinese (1 language, many dialects? Many languages? 1 or 2 written forms shared across dialect/languages?), it seems reasonable to many to conclude that the Varieties of Chinese can be considered different Languages of China. Cantonese, Fukien, Manadain, etc, are often as different from each other as Italian and Spanish. Mingmingla (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Both sentences make sense, though many would challenge the use of 'dialect' in the fist and in your heading, as to many a dialect is a variety of a language that's not too far from it and so would be understood by another speaker. With this usage the branches of Chinese are too mutually incomprehensible to be called dialects. To avoid this the word 'varieties' is preferred. See varieties of Chinese for a full discussion.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If your first sentence was transfered into the European realities it would sound like "He spoke Romance in the French dialect, and nobody in Spain understood him." Quite acceptable for European scholars of the I millennium AD.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Victor Mair regularly uses the word topolect for the different Chineses spoken in different parts of China. This is one of many LanguageLog posts on the subject (note that the first section of that post is reproduced from an article that he is criticising quite heavily). --ColinFine (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Word for spring flower scentr
There is a word that describes the perfume, scent, fragrance, of wild spring flowers. does anyone have any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.143.6 (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, "vernal" means spring, so a "vernal fragrance" might work, although that's 2 words. If it's not clear from the context that you mean the flowers' fragrance, then you'd need to add a 3rd word and call it a "vernal floral fragrance".  StuRat (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)