Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 December 19

= December 19 =

Japanese
In Japanese the word order is backwards, does that mean that they know know what they were talking about if they get interrupted mid-sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlateStayber (talk • contribs) 18:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They might think our word order is "backwards" and ask us the same question. The answer is that they know their language, and we know ours, so if something's missing it stands out. Simple comparison of what I think you're talking about, since I don't know Japanese. "I am going to the store". Backwards could be "to the store am going I". Either way, if you get interrupted you'll know what you left off. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Japanese has some flexibility in word order that English does not have. It is no way backwards, just different, like any language. --Denidi (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * According to Johanna Nichols, Japanese SOV word order (Japanese_grammar) is quite common, and I find it very logical. See also Latin, which of old had this word order. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"Potential candidates should be proficient in one of two fields. The first being xxxx. The second being yyyy."
How are called the constructions "... being ... " as a full sentence? Are they grammatically wrong or bad style? Wouldn't as direct form ... is ... be more appropriate?--Denidi (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They are not complete sentences. Semicolons would be better, rather than periods. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to retain the three-sentence construct with periods, 'being' should be replaced by 'is'. If you want to adopt a one-sentence construct so that it flows better, the following is grammatically correct: Potential candidates should be proficient in one of two fields, the first being xxxx and the second being yyyy. It's the use of 'being' that allows the joining of the sentences. The following is NOT a good construct: Potential candidates should be proficient in one of two fields, the first is xxxx and the second is yyyy. Akld guy (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding the construction, see Parallelism (rhetoric), though, as others have noted, your example would be considered ungrammatical (but probably fine for a newspaper headline or the like). 99.235.223.170 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, newspaper headlines follow rules of brevity and eye-catchiness. Probably the cleverest headline I've ever heard of was, "Stadium airconditioning fails, Fans vent anger". Akld guy (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Corrected misquote. Akld guy (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wrong connection, extra rule? "The Bachelor of Forensic Science, like any empirical science, is based on ... ."
The bit "any empirical science" refers obviously to "Forensic Science", and it's referring to something that's previous to it. However, what makes this sentence awkward, at least to me? What rule else should references like this follow? --Denidi (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, this sentence is poorly formed. The problem is that the university degree itself (the "Bachelor") is not a science. If it was written as "Forensic science, like any empirical science..." that would be fine. 99.235.223.170 (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but what rule says 'you have to refer to the whole'? Is intuition our only tool here? Denidi (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * To correct the sentence, you would need to know what came after "based on", and whether it was related to the "Bachelor of Forensic Science" or the "empirical science". It's not clear what 'referring to the whole' means - the degree and the science are not in a part-whole relationship. Peter Grey (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Can a degree and a science be based on the same thing? —Tamfang (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've seen a funny version of this same error on a TV ad: "If you or a loved one has been injured or died, give us a call...". I wonder how many calls they get from dead people (maybe if the phone line went down in a storm and landed in the graveyard ?).  The proper way to phrase this, of course, is "If you have been injured, or a loved one has been injured or died, give us a call...".  StuRat (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You can say whatever you like about members of the empty set. I trust the firm wouldn't turn a potential client away merely for being dead. —Tamfang (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Any respectable ambulance-chasing law firm would be proud to represent all the best corpses in town, but asking the corpses to give them a jingle might be a bit much, as the typical dead guy exhibits a rather pronounced reduction in telecommunications, post-mortem, with only the occasional Long Distance Call. StuRat (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the subject of the main sentence ("...is based on") is the degree, but the subject of the parenthesis ("like any empirical science") is the science. There are two "somethings", not one.  Anacoluthon is the technical term for this sort of error. Tevildo (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)