Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 January 23

= January 23 =

For native English speakers only: Would a native English speaker talk like this?
(Let's say A and B are friends in their late twenties, and A is a pessimist when it comes to dating and relationships.)

A: ''She only loves you for your money, obviously. If you told her you sold your car and quit your job, she'd be gone in a minute.''

B (being sarcastic): ''Sure, I'll take your word for it. You're a self-proclaimed authority on dating, aren't you? You made me realize that every woman I've ever met or fallen in love with was either a sociopath or a gold digger.''

(I got mixed responses the last time I asked native-English speakers if this conversation sounded natural to them. Some said the wording is so archaic and stilted. Others said it's fine the way it is. What are your thoughts? If you were A, and B told you that, would you say "well, I didn't expect a 21st century native English speaker to say that"?)Jra2019 (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I moved the above q here from Talk. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You moved the question but the question did not move you. Contact  Basemetal   here  14:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say "archaic and stilted", but B is using a rather more formal register than would be appropriate for a conversation between friends. The first change I'd recommend to make it sound more natural is to drop the "either". Tevildo (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And, if speaker B is using a sarcastic tone, "self-proclaimed" sounds unnecessary to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It sounds like a bit of dialogue from a TV show or movie, or any medium where they need to get to the point without wasting time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is perfectly good English, but only in a contrived, scripted way. I can and occasionally do talk like this in real life, but usually when I'm feeling particularly sarcastic or snotty.  And when I do, I'm called out for it. Mingmingla (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Bugs (for a change) and Mingmingla; I'd paraphrase B: If you say so: you're the authority on dating, right? According to you, every woman ... — The phrase "You made me realize" may be unique to television. —Tamfang (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As long as User:JackofOz'es phrases weere actually pronounced with reduced vowels and elided consonants, I'd see nothing wrong, save the following. "You made me realize that every woman I've ever met or fallen in love with was either a sociopath or a gold digger" should be, "You've made me realize that every woman I ever met or fell in love with was either a sociopath or a gold digger." μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not my phrases, darling. All I did was move User:Jra2019's question here from the Talk page.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Procedure for writing better
What would be some advice to write better? I don't mean the learning process, but the actual moment when one sits down and writes. How often should someone re-read the text? Is a draft necessary? What software is of help? --Llaanngg (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It depends on the writer, and what is being written. Outlines are popular, but not everyone finds them useful. Software choice varies (I typically just use a word processor), too -- just try things that might seem useful. Wabbott9  Tell me about it....  17:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In my experience, use the simplest tool available (I use emacs - simple for me ;-). The tool should not get into the way. Writing is something where training helps a lot. Do it early, do it often. A draft can be helpful, but if you have one, I would not try to rework it sentence for sentence, but much more freely - maybe some ideas flow better in a different order, maybe you notice (for technical writing) that defining some new terms make everything clearer and more concise, and so on. I quite like Strunk and White for advise on composition and style. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I keep rewriting until nothing needs changing. That is, after each change I reread it one more time. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll just say this. The worst error most people have (with whom I have worked) is that they edit as they write, as if every sentence should come out perfect on the first try.  The best way to write is to make writing and editing two separate activities, otherwise you will be constantly interrupting yourself.  If you type on a keyboard, and you get stuck, simply type FIX THIS or BETTER WORD in all caps and keep going.  If you stop to address every error/problem as it comes up you'll get nowhere.


 * Stephan's early-often advice is also good, especially as advice to youngsters. (If you are fifty, you don't have quite so much time to practice.)  Outlines are especially helpful with long subjects, and when you are not familiar with the subject.  For example, if you are writing a paper on 19th century English female composers, but are not versed in the subject, you'll definitely need an outline to work from.


 * I'd also recommend the concise Art of Non-Fiction which was originally a course meant for essayists. μηδείς (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to give some refs on software, noting of course most of this is highly subjective: Many people like to write in LaTeX - it, unlike many popular writing tools, separates layout and presentation from content and semantics. Other made-for-writers applications like Scrivener_(software) aim for a minimal, uncluttered UI, and also include light outlining tools and markup. Depending on what you're writing, you might like to use outlining software. If you roll that way, you can also write most anything in Emacs or Vi. They have very powerful tools for editing text, but also require some work to learn to use efficiently. Some writers like Word or Open Office (i.e. traditional lame "word processors") but in my personal experience most people into the craft of writing don't use those programs. In general, if you are writing fiction, you might look up to see if your favorite writers give their personal guidelines. Hemingway has some here . Apocryphally, he is said to have typed with his typewriter above his head to promote short concise phrases! SemanticMantis (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Famous writers may not always be good to try and emulate. I doubt it would be to most people's advantage to adopt Dosktoyevsky's methods: he used to think about his story for a long time, filling pages and pages with the kind of illegible scribble shown in the picture (you can find many other examples on the web cause he was famous for that) and when he was good and ready dictated his story to his wife Anna in one go. Btw, I have no idea how he went about it before meeting Anna. Contact Basemetal   here  15:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral pronoun
Does any language utilize a neutral pronoun when the gender in question is unknown or irrelevant? Not equivalent to it referring to a genderless noun, but equivalent to he/she. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 21:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Plenty of languages do not have gendered pronouns at all: does that meet your requirement, or do you want one with gendered pronouns 'and' an unspecified one? French has the indefinite pronoun 'on', but that is not used for referring to a specific person. --ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Digression: My impression is that, in colloquial French, on most often means "we", and that it is used for "we" more often than the specific first-person plural pronoun nous, at least in the nominative case.  Can any French speakers confirm or deny?  For some reason I can't quite put my finger on, I find this usage a little disturbing. --Trovatore (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the Trovatore has not trovato even one French speaker to answer his question, I'll pitch in and try to help. You obviously seem to know about 'on' for 'nous' and in which cases that can happen (i.e. only in a non-emphatic subject position), so I'm not sure what your question is exactly? Contact  Basemetal   here  14:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether it's true that on has mostly displaced nous in this position in informal speech, to the extent that nous is rarely used in that way. --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is statistically true. But it doesn't follow that nous has becme literary or formal (like say the simple past tense or the imperfect of the subjunctive have). While it has become rarer it is still in use. You can safely use nous w/o any ridicule if you prefer. You can even find it (or a verbal form that implies it) alternating with on in the same sentence: "Nous n'aimons pas Verdi, alors on vous passe les billets, et nous, on va rester chez nous" or "Disons qu'on va pas en prendre le risque, parce que finir par se taper 500 bornes pour rien, ça, tu vois, ça nous dit rien", etc. Of course on is still very much alive in its impersonal usage. That is completely unambiguous in "On ne parle pas la bouche pleine". But if someone says "Au Maroc on mange avec ses doigts" (officially you're supposed to say "avec les doigts") then on means nous if they happen to be Moroccan but it is being used its impersonal capacity if they're not. (The Moroccan may also say: "Au Maroc on mange avec nos doigts"). Incidentally I don't know what you find a little disturbing about this. Even in English you could say "people have been waiting for hours here in the cold" even in a case where you are part of those people and are personally complaining. That's not a whole lot different, is it? Contact  Basemetal   here  22:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Trovatore, yes, it is true. 15 children together happily and noisily begging for more cake, "on veut du gâteau, on veut du gâteau", would never say it the "nous voulons du gâteau" way. "We are the champions" ia always said the "on est les champions" way. "On s'est aimés" is the common way to say it, just like "on s'est battus", "on a gagné", "on a perdu", etc. Akseli9 (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See "Gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns".—Wavelength (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you didn't mention it when asking the question, English does, in the form of singular they. The French example "on", corresponds most closely to "one" in English: "One really shouldn't do this". We have a corresponding pronound in Norwegien: "man": "Man burde ikke gjøre dette". Attempts have been made recently at creating new politically correct pronouns that satisfy the exact requirements of your question, most notably Swedish Hen_(pronoun). --NorwegianBluetalk 23:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See my note above, on on. --Trovatore (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Q: Does any language utilize a neutral pronoun... equivalent to he/she? A: The English language. --Shirt58 (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In addition to the examples above, written somewhat-informal Chinese sometimes uses TA (written out in Latin characters) as a gender-neutral pronoun. This is because the two common gendered third-person pronouns, 他 and 她, are both pronounced tā (and both type  in Pinyin-based keyboard input methods that are common nowadays). This isn't universally used, though; my impression is that it's only used in informal but non-conversational writing (e.g., a system message on some website like Facebook that is trying to sound informal, like "It's your friend's birthday? Send TA a smiley!", rather than an actual IM conversation between real people). r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * According to Douglas Hofstadter in Metamagical Themas (if memory serves), 她 – the explicitly feminine spelling of the pronoun – is a relatively recent invention. —Tamfang (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not only does Finnish have a gender-neutral pronoun (hän) it does not have non-gender-neutral pronouns. This is why Finns have to translate a specific distinction between "he" and "she" as tämä/tuo mies vs. tämä/tuo nainen ("this/that man" vs. "this/that woman"). J I P  &#124; Talk 15:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I gather that Farsi does not, either. For a time in grad school, one of my apartment mates was a married man from Iran, studying in the United States without her.  He would sometimes refer to his wife as "he". --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My former boss used to do that too. He speaks Finnish as his native language, as do I. He sometimes referred to his wife, or to female coworkers, as "he". J I P  &#124; Talk 21:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Female cow-orker" is a tautology. One who orks bulls would be a bull-orker.  And a woman who orks bulls would be a bull-orkstress. Or bull-orkix.  Or something like that.  Either way, there's something terribly wrong (as people have been saying to me most of my life).  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am besmayed at you, User:JackofOz, that's orxtrix. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like Jack is one who shits bulls... -- Jayron 32 00:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You had good/better/best answer this question

 * We had better think this issue through before we go any further.
 * We had best think this issue through before we go any further.

Both of the above are reasonably common constructs, but is there any known use of what I might call the neutral form:


 * We had good think this issue through before we go any further.

It sounds ungrammatical, ugly and wrong, but that may be purely because it's unfamiliar. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, seems like a solecism. "Well" or at least "good" would seem to fit better than "best". Correct? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As best as I can work out, ....
 * The "we had good" construction seems ungrammatical to me too. I think there is an implicit comparison in the "better" and "best" constructions -- "It is a better choice to think this issue through before we go any further than to just plow ahead ignorantly" or "The best choice of all is to think this issue through; all the other options are bad ones." English sometimes uses a form that seems unmotivated in the level of the utterance because there's something implicitly there, it's just not expressed explicitly. As long as everyone in the conversation is used to it it works out fine. Wabbott9  Tell me about it....  02:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In answer to the first question: "Good" is not usually admitted as an adverb, though it is so used in some non-standard varieties ("Did you do it good?") so the relevant word would be well rather than good. "We had well think this issue through" is possibly grammatical, but not normal, though "We should think this issue through well ... " is normal. The use of "had" marks this construction as irrealis, so it doesn't really make sense without a comparative.
 * On the second question: yes, this is surely a conflation of "as well as" with the frozen idiom "as best", in "as best I can". The syntax of the latter is now otherwise obsolete, so it gets reanalysed as a variant of "as well as". That is how languages change. --ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Colin. All clear now.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Goodthinking is highly recommended by your Big Brother. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * User:ColinFine has this right. These are subjunctive frozen phrases with archaic constructions of the same sort as "the more, the merrier", which has nothing to do with the modern definite article the.  I am sure there are plenty a source; if Jack wants me to find one, I'll spend some time on it. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, Medeis, are you claiming that the the the  construction is not productive in modern English? I think it is.  It's true that it doesn't seem to have much to do with other uses of the word the, but I don't see how you can call a productive construction a "frozen phrase". --Trovatore (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no need. Colin's nailed it for me.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the adverbial use of the meaning "to the extent that" (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the#Etymology_2),, which is actually of a different origin from that of the article. μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's actually very interesting. Thanks, Medeis.  I had wondered about this usage of the; I never realized it was a separate etymology.
 * I still don't see it as a "frozen phrase", though, given that it's productive. --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)