Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 February 15

= February 15 =

Auteur as an adjective
"The movie is auteur, intriguing and atmospheric."

That's a real quote from a review I read recently. I understand the concept of an auteur, but how can the work of an auteur be described as "auteur". It's like describing Michelangelo's statue of David as "sculptor", or Beethoven's 9th Symphony as "composer", isn't it? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know how it's called, but I think it's using the implied foreign accent on the particular word when you parse the sentence mentally. It does not work well with every combination. With Beethoven that would be "The Ninth... is so much Komponist." Hem.  --Askedonty (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But what does that mean? --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just a creative form of wording. He's bringing the noun into service as an adjective as a way of describing the film.  Anything wrong with that? --Viennese Waltz 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm long past calling anything that people do with words "wrong". I simply don't understand what he's trying to say.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The meaning is entirely clear: "having the characteristics of an auteur's work" (essentially having a strong artistic voice). An auteur is not just any film-maker, which is why your analogies don't work.
 * Adjectiving nouns is pretty standard practice: "her shoulderpads are very 80s"; "He said what? That's so Alan!". HenryFlower 22:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I've seen 'auterist' somewhere as a more natural way of putting this. 'Individualistic' might be another. Blythwood (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It sounds like he's trying to impress his audience by dragging high-falutin' words into it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Jack, you're just going to have to get used to the fact that in modern speech, nouns can be adjectived and verbs nouned and so forth, as English becomes ever more an isolating language. That being said, was it really you who asked how many people are crapping at the same time on the earth?  Or was that a Jackelganger? μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have long been aware that words can have multiple functions. That was never what this question was about.  There's no need for everyone to jump on the Bandwagon of Irrelevancy.
 * @ User:Henry Flower: The meaning was not "entirely clear" to me - until you explained it, which is what I came here for. Thank you.
 * @ User:Medeis: Unless there's another User:Jack of Oz, it must have been I.
 * I bid you all good day. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually,, I have had users both register and use μηδείς as their username (mine is User:Medeis) or edit their signatures after the fact to μηδείς to make it look like I had posted something which they had composed. Hence my question was quite genuine. μηδείς (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This matter is off-topic for this question. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When I see nouns serving as adjectives, I often find the meaning more clear if I mentally add "-ish" or "-esque"  to the word, which is fair game for anyone who respects compositional semantics. I think it works in this example, along the lines of Henry's suggested meaning. Also, we can make those adjective serve as nouns, and then get fun things like "The auterishness of the movie was overwrought", which is how I often feel about modern movies/directors to which the word "auteur" is applied :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That helps. Thanks.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See also maybe Art pop: "Several sources[who?] have noted the attempts of art pop music to distance its audiences from the public at large". I get the same impression as for what would be the intended meaning in your example, but that's the "intriguing" qualifier, not necessarily every "auteur" director might qualify. --Askedonty (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Old English
Here's an Old English excerpt from the "C" version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the corresponding translation. Here's the question. Does the first instance of eorl refer to Ælfgar's title, or does this refer to Leofric's title?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Old English: "Ða ðæræfter binnan lyttlan fyrste wæs witena gemot on Lundene 7 man geutlagode þa Ælfgar eorl Leofrices sunu eorles butan ælcan gylte...".
 * Translation: "Then within a short while after this there was a council-meeting in London, and then Earl Ælfgar, son of Earl Leofric, was outlawed without any fault...".


 * The first instance refers to Ælfgar, and the second goes with Leofric, as they are both in the genitive (Leofrices...eorles). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ with Adam. Hamid Hassani (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)