Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 June 10

= June 10 =

acknowledge their fiefdom to me
The context is as follows: "Like other great landowners, I have tenants(referring to the birds on the author's farm). They are negligent about rents, but very punctilious about tenures. Indeed at every daybreak from April to July they proclaim their boundaries to each other, and so acknowledge, at least by inference, their fiefdom to me." I am not sure about what the phrase "acknowledge their fiefdom to me" means. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.232.27 (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See fief. The writer is expressing the first sentence in a different way, saying that if both the birds and the writer claim to possess the land, the birds' claim must mean they agree they are her his tenants.Taknaran (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. For the curious, this quote comes from A Sand County Almanac & Other Writings on Ecology and Conservation by Aldo Leopold. Alansplodge (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have fixed pronoun! Taknaran (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Fiefdom is actually the wrong word. It describes the status of the overlord to his tenants. The correct word for the duty owed by the tenants (the birds in the work cited) is fealty. Wymspen (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if they, the birds, have a fiefdom, and they are acknowledging the speaker for it, then the speaker is (or at least claims to be) their liege. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * if the birds "have a fiefdom" that means that they are the overlords - they own the land and the speaker only receives it from them. In that case they would have to acknowledge their fiefdom over him, not to him. The use of "to him" implies that the speaker owns the fiefdom, the birds hold it under him, in fee, and owe him fealty. Fiefdom describes the relationship of the overlord to the subject - not the other way round. Wymspen (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, not here. A "fiefdom" was the land over which a vassal vows vassalage and service to the overlord. The birds have a fiefdom in vassalage to their overlord, the speaker. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still odd wording. In modern lease terms, it would be like saying "my tenant acknowledges the leased property to me". The concept the author had in mind was probably "vassalage" or "fealty", the bird's relationship or status of being a vassal or tenant of the author, rather than the property that is the subject of the tenancy relationship. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

EURO 2016
What is this tense that is apparently ALWAYS used, exclusively, ad nauseum, by (UK) football pundits and commentators?? e.g. "What he's done, Harry, is, he's come out here, and he's knocked it about a bit, and he's taken his chances and he's given it his all, and he's walked away with his head held high", ".... and the team has always been looking for a win. They've taken their chances and they've reaped the rewards...". etc., etc., 217.38.95.202 (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Perfect tense, specifically in English. What else might you use when describing something which has happened in the past? Bazza (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That's hardly an answer. How about "What he did is, he came out and he knocked it about and he took his chances and he gave it his all and he walked away ....".  That's certainly what I would naturally use.


 * The tense in the OP's example has been called the "gratuitous present perfect", and it seems to be beloved of sports commentators generally. In Australia, possibly elsewhere, it's widely used by police officers when describing incidents, and by the general community when telling stories or narrating events, with some notable exceptions such as myself, except when it's appropriate to use it.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * A bit unkind, especially as you've answered a question not asked. I acknowledge that your contribution is more substantial, but I took the question literally and checked to which specific tense (out of the raft English has available) he's and they've (as contraction of he has and they have) applied, and provided a link to it. If I got it wrong, then I'm happy to be nicely corrected. Bazza (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Hmm, you know, what Jack's done, isn't it, he's put jumpers for goalposts, hmm, isn't it? Marvellous. But it's just not cricket." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my response ruffled your feathers, User:Bazza 7. I was seized particularly by your "What else" question, which sounded to me as if it were being posed rhetorically, as if your point was there's no reasonable alternative to the "What he's done, Harry, is, he's come out here  ..." formulation.  But of course there are alternatives, one of which I provided.  I don't know what you mean when you say I "answered a question not asked".  I answered your "What else" question, and I answered the OP's question seeking the name of the tense.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "What he did..." is strictly past tense, meaning that the action was done in the past. It can leave the impression in the hearer's mind that the action was completed longer ago than was actually the case. The phrase cited, "What he's done..." is short for "What he has done..." and gives more immediacy to the action, as though it's just happened, and importantly it means that the consequences are still ongoing. The immediacy and the implication that there are ongoing consequences are why the form cited is favoured by sports commentators. "What is this that thou hast done?" (Genesis 3:13) is an example where the consequences are still ongoing, since the question was not, "What did you do?" Akld guy (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And of course, the Bible was written in English, because God is British. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 07:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Toni du bist ein Fußballgott!!" Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * We have an article called Historical present which describes this. Alansplodge (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that have been: "What he does is, he comes out and he knocks it about and he takes his chances and he gives it his all and he walks away ...."? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Language in Use - Tense Football Managers calls it "the active present perfect" in agreement with Jack above. Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that excellent source, Alan, with examples from a real expert. I guess it's not the commentators as such who are to blame (especially when instant replays constantly propel the recent pitch past into the perpetual studio present), but the pundits discussing at half time. ... I was going to call you a "monkey wrench", but I don't think I'll bother. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I, for one, could never understand why English speakers choose a present tense to describe past events and call it perfect on top of that. — Kpalion(talk) 17:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Doubts
Hello everyone, I've just expanded this page (click), but I'm not sure that everything is ok about the grammar. Could somebody take a look? Thank you so much!! --Random Wikipedia User (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've done some cleanup (not all of it grammar-related). I've tagged one unclear sentence, the one about the goal in a 2-0 victory. (Also, it's normal to put the winning score first, i.e. 2-0 vs 0-2, when referring to a "victory".) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One point - for Association football, it's normal to put the score of the home team first - see, for example, this blog posting. Tevildo (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that blog says that "when we speak about the result the winner comes first". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)