Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 February 21

= February 21 =

Formality of "get to do something"
I wonder if the phrase "get to do something" (to succeed, become enabled, or be permitted to do something) sounds informal. Someone told me it's neutral and can be used in a neutral or formal document. Thank you so much! --YURi (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd call it informal. Besides, the triple definition you give suggests that it ought usually to be avoided for ambiguity. —Tamfang (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Try replacing "get to do ..." with "have an opportunity to participate in ...", for a more formal sound. StuRat (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Excessive comma?
I already know that in the English language people tend to use a lot of commas in running text, but is the second comma in the following sentence really necessary or proper: "Stevns developed at a young age, and maintained throughout his life, a fervent belief in God." --Pxos (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, this sentence doesn't need any comma. But if you keep the first comma, you need to keep the second comma too, because the two parts (or clauses or whatever you may call) share the same object, "a fervent belief in God". If you keep the first comma and remove the second one, the meaning might change (i.e. Stevns underwent development at a young age and he maintained a fervent belief in God throughout his life). Please be noted that I'm not a native speaker of English. I may be wrong. --YURi (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am a native, and I would say you need both commas. DuncanHill (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * With only the first comma, it's positively misleading. With only the second comma, it's nonsensical.  Without any commas, it's ambiguous. The only way to make it mean what (I think) the writer intends it to mean is to have both commas.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I see! I sincerely thought that the meaning was as follows: 1) Stevens developed early, i.e. had an adult-like disposition at a young age. 2) Completely unrelated to the previous sentence, Stevs had a life-long belief in God. This only goes to prove that no matter how correct the grammar is, there is bound to be people who do not understand what is being said. Thanks! --Pxos (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of writers would recast it: "Stevns developed a fervent belief in God at a young age and maintained it throughout his life." --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought it was perfectly clear in the first place. I'd also put a comma after "at a young age" in Jack's suggested alternative. Try saying it out loud, with and without the comma, and see which sounds better. DuncanHill (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See Serial comma (just to muddy the waters a bit more). Alansplodge (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it would be better to replace the commas with brackets or dashes. Better still would probably be to reword it: "Stevns developed a fervent belief in God at a young age, and maintained this throughout his life." Iapetus (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest another alternative: "Stevns developed at a young age and maintained, throughout his life, a fervent belief in God.", but prefer Wardog's suggestion. --Thomprod (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it widespread to break the subject, two or more predicates and the following object(s) with commas? I'm more accustomed to the logic of the Russian punctuation (which has developed under the influence of the German one), where sentences like "Subject predicate1, and predicate2, object" are wrong. It is either "Subject predicate1 and predicate2 object" or "Subject predicate1, predicate2 object".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Developing
Can you use the word "develop" alone in English meaning growing up? E.g. would a solitary sentence "Jones developed at an early age" mean that while his friends were still behaving like children, Jones was already providing for his family and was regarded as an adult by other people? --Pxos (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th ed) includes a definition for develop as an intransitive verb. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You could, but I would take it to refer to his physical development, rather than his mental or emotional development. DuncanHill (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If referring to those, I would use some variation of the word "mature", even though it can also be used to refer to physical development: "Jones matured at an early age." or "James was emotionally mature at an early age." or something along those lines, depending on how specific I needed to be. Matt Deres (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I concur. Also beware that when one says a girl "developed", it's often a euphemism for "grew breasts".  For a boy, maybe it means he became muscular.StuRat (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A line from Groucho Marx in Animal Crackers, while discussing his trip to Africa: "We took some pictures of the native girls, but they weren't developed." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Am I happy with who I am?
Or, am I happy with whom I am? --Llaanngg (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Am I happy with who I am is the correct one, and is also the one that a native speaker would use in ordinary speech. Am is a form of to be, which takes the subjective case (who) in its complement (thus who I am). Note though that in many other contexts, it is usual in ordinary speech, but not technically correct, to use the objective case after to be, as in Hello, it's me. Loraof (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note also that in ordinary speech people usually use who even if whom is technically correct, because whom sounds too formal. Loraof (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, but there's also a form of hypercorrection that uses "whom" in certain constructs that, by traditional grammar, actually call for "who".
 * For one, there's what I call the "butler's whom", as in *whom shall I say is calling?, which would be correct only in an imaginative reading that treats "whom" as the object of a phrasal verb "say is calling".
 * More generally, it can be very confusing when "who(m)", or especially "who(m)ever", is used to introduce a relative clause that is used as the subject or object of the larger sentence. The rule is that it is "who" or "whom" depending on whether it is the subject or object of the clause, not of the sentence.  For example,
 * Whomever John chooses will lead the group.
 * where we use "whomever" because it's the object of "chooses", but
 * John will choose whoever best answers the following question.
 * where we use "whoever" because it's the subject of "answers".
 * This particular rule is very hard to get right; I remember having to ask about it over and over again in class, because it seems like both approaches could be justified.
 * There even seems to be a contingent that believes "whomever" is always the correct word, and that there is no such word as "whoever". This is nonsense, of course, but I have met at least one apparently highly literate Wikipedia editor who could not be convinced otherwise. --Trovatore (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the "butler's whom" is incorrect - "Whom say ye that I am?" (Luke 9:20).  Isn't "whom" the direct object of "say" in both sentences?  Compare "Whom shall I announce?" Tevildo (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I admit to a little question mark about this.  But if whom shall I say is calling? is correct, then couldn't it be correctly answered *you shall say is calling him?  Or if we're a little more flexible about word order, we can get *you shall say him is calling, which isn't much better. --Trovatore (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems unanswerable, but there is Dominical authority against it. On the other hand, "[I say that thou art (not "thee ist", a word combination which almost certainly can be found in the modern corpus)] Christ" would be St Peter's full reply.  Is "Whom" in the St Luke example a literal translation of the Greek, or just a - mistake? Tevildo (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We've reached the limit of my competency in such matters. I would be interested to hear from someone with more detailed knowledge. --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The best example is: 'God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"'. Book of Exodus chapter 3: verse 14 (New International Version). Alansplodge (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Some translations say "I am that I am". But "Happy with who I am" would be right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Verily we spake thus in 1611, but I thought I'd pick a modern translation. Afterthought: Sorry Bugs, you're quite right, even some modern translations have "that", but it was too good a riposte to cast aside ;-) . Alansplodge (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I yam who I yam... --TammyMoet (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I yam what I yam (and that's all I yam). Mitch Ames (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Moses asked for God's Name because he thought that the Israelites would question whether he had really spoken with God. What is not told in the biblical text is that the Israelites already had names for God and used them. Moses knew that what they really would be interested in was which name God would reveal, because all the names had attributes. The names the Israelites used were, Hashem (when He was merciful), Elohim (when He exercised strict judgement), (El) Shaddai (when He performed miracles). The name he reveals in the verse to Moses is 'I Shall Be As I Shall Be', which is in itself a Divine Name and here means that God would be with the Israelites in this exile sorrow as He would be with them in other sorrows, in other words, forever. This translation, 'I Shall Be As I Shall Be' and the foregoing explanation is taken from the (English) footnotes to the verse in the Stone Edition Tanach, (c)1996, First Edition, Fifth impression June 2001, of which I have a hard copy. Akld guy (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In my view, the phrase "lost in translation" is applicable to large chunks of the Bible. Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The rule is as following: Any proposition (e.g. "with") - followed by "who" or by "whom", must be followed by "who" - if and only if what follows the proposition can be replaced by "what" (or by "whatever" or by "whoever"). HOTmag (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So why don't owls say 'Twit to whom'? KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 18:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The way I heard tell, normal owls cry, "Who? Who? Who?" while paranoid owls cry "Why? Why? Why?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Placement of apostrophe
It is  or   :


 * The other main characters are Rab, a ferocious dog, his owner the Howgate Carter Jamie, and the  ailing wife.

-- Green  C  18:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As it's the possessive form of the plural, the apostrophe comes after the s, so . Rojomoke (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Carters" is plural? How do they end up with one ailing wife?
 * If you told us what this is from,, we might be able to evaluate it in context; but without context, it looks to me as if she is the wife of one Carter, and therefore requires the apostrophe before the s. Until such time as we get rid of this perennial time-wasting problem by getting rid of the useless mark entirely. -ColinFine (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry, completely misread the quote. Rojomoke (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's "the carter's ailing wife" - no capital on carter. The carter is called Jamie. The article is Rab and his Friends. DuncanHill (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, a carter is a person that drives a cart rather than a surname, in this instance. Alansplodge (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If it were a surname, it would not be "the Carter's ailing wife". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I thought the quote is self-explanatory. His name is "Jamie Carter" and he is from Howgate. So correct answer:  ?--  Green  C  23:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No, his name is not "Jamie Carter". His name is Jamie Noble, and his occupation is carter. You can read the story on Gutenberg.org. DuncanHill (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If so, then the original sentence is fine, except de-capitalize "Carter" to avoid confusion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Which, if you had looked at the article, you would know had already been done. DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then the OP did not quote it accurately. So what are you yelling at me for? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I made the mistake of thinking that you might have read the answers above, and the wikilinked article. Silly me. DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The OP's quote does not appear in that book. So, yes, silly you. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He was quoting the article. DuncanHill (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 4 hours after you linked to that article, the OP was stilled confused. Why you're yelling at me instead of the OP is anyone's guess. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You were making things up off the top of your head, and giving them as answers. You didn't bother to look at the article, you didn't bother to read the story, you just made something up, ignoring what had been posted already. Par for the course for you I know, but I live in hope that one day you might actually bother. DuncanHill (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're being a jerk. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * (ec)It's an awkwardly-written statement. But since Carter is a name rather than an occupation, lose the "the" and just say "Carter's ailing wife." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Read the fucking story Bugs, then you won't look like such an idiot. DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You forgot the smiling face, Adolf. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. The capital "C" threw it off as to the correct meaning of carter. The book (which I should have referenced but didn't think there was a factual problem) says "James the Howgate carrier". The plot was copied into the article by an IP from John Brown's page since deleted as unencyclopedic. -- Green  C  23:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A carrier is much the same thing as a carter, perhaps one step up the social scale. DuncanHill (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. -- Green  C  00:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem, glad to have been of help to you. And it sent me back to Tennyson's Break, Break, Break, which is quoted in the story. DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the most maudlin stories I've ever read - everybody dies, dog 'n'all; no wonder the Victorians loved it. I have taken the liberty of expanding the text of the "plot" section, which will hopefully make it more intelligible. Alansplodge (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)