Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 June 9

= June 9 =

I'm buffaloed
In Brewster F2A Buffalo, it says the Finns called it "Pylly-Valtteri", which supposedly translates to "Butt-Walter". What the heck is going on? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That was done more than a year ago, by an editor who appears to no longer be active. As it's unsourced, you could feel free to zap it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The name does seem to have been used in Finnish - http://www.pienoismallit.net/galleria/malli_3845/ - though I note that "pylly valt teri" translates as "government minister's bum" which might be a more likely origin for a nickname. Perhaps the shape reminded some pilots of the minister of defence! Wymspen (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be great support for the nickname. Perhaps better to find a reference than delete. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Could a Finnish speaker (perhaps User:JIP?) please confirm that this document might be a reliable source. There is a section headed PELLEN "PYLLY-VALTTERI" on page 5. If there is a relevant sentence that you could translate, that would be helpful too. Alansplodge (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts, this document from the Finnish Air Force would do. Could somebody please translate 'Jatkosodan alussa se oli paras hävittäjämme ja lempinimet "Pylly-Valtteri", "Taivaan helmi" ja "Ryysteri" kertovat sen suosiosta' better than Google?  Alansplodge (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a Finnish speaker, but I have it on good authority that it says "At the beginning of the winter war it was our best plane and the nicknames Pylly-Valtteri, Pearl of the Heavens and Ryysteri [??] speak of its popularity" Intelligent  sium  15:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It says "At the beginning of the continuation war..." (not winter war). The Finnish version of the article lists four nicknames ”Pylly-Valtteri”, ”Taivaan helmi”, ”Lentävä kaljatynnyri” and ”Ryysteri” among others. https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A Akseli9 (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Dropping the subject in english
In spanish we don't although could say the subject explicitely For example we would say: don't know to ride a bike instead of I don't know to ride a bike I want to know whne its also acceptable in englihs I have seen it sometimes informally like: or can I drop the subject in english informally whenever I feel like, or whenever its meaning is understood or are there limitaiton to this? --212.163.6.23 (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * seems normal to me
 * looks ok from here


 * It's never done in formal writing. Informally, it's considered acceptable, if not standard.  Even I sometimes do it in places like here (where nobody gives a damn about grammar, spelling etc, and would never, ever be so rude as to comment on other editors' perceived imperfections ...) .  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * From a grammatical point of view, it's possible in Spanish only - because when Spanish speakers hear "sé", they immediately understand who the subject is, but when English speakers hear the word "know" (following no subject) - they cannot decide who the people who "know" are: We, you, they, me, who?
 * However, you'd better asked your question about the auxiliary word "am": Can I say "am happy" instead of "I am happy"? So, it's an uncommon usage, although it's possible - in principle (maybe grammatically as well). HOTmag (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * From a grammatical point of view, it's possible in Spanish only - depends what you mean by "grammatical". It's certainly possible in English, where the context tells the listener what the subject would be; for example, I just said:
 * depends what you mean by "grammatical", not
 * it depends what you mean by "grammatical"
 * and I didn't hear anyone complaining they couldn't understand me. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your example does have a subject, which is [the correctness of] the very claim (quoted by you): From a grammatical point of view, it's possible in Spanish only. However, your example is ungrammatical - because of another reason, which is the absence of the words "the correctness of the claim": Your example would have been grammatical, though, if you'd written explicitly: "The correctness - of the claim From a grammatical point of view it's possible in Spanish only - depends on what you mean by grammatical". HOTmag (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. You've misread my post.  First, I quoted your words.  Then I commented on them.  My sentence "depends what you mean by "grammatical"" is meant to be read as an entire sentence, and one that does not have an explicit subject.  It's separated from the thing it was commenting on by a dash.  I could have also used a colon.  Had I meant your words to form part of my sentence, I would have continued without any kind of separator. But you still don't explain what you mean by "grammatical". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, now I see - that you're right - i.e. that your example doesn't have a subject, but not only because of the dash (which is a rather weak proof in my opinion) - but also because of the absence of "on/upon" after "depends". Anyway: your example - which is subjectless - is also ungrammatical, not only because of the absence of subject (which is a reason you may disagree about), but also because of another reason - which is the very absence of "on/upon" after "depends". Please notice, that if your example had contained the "on/upon" after "depends", it would have had a subject (which would have been the subject indicated in my previous response).
 * As for your question: "Grammatical" means "consistent with grammar", whereas "grammar" means the huge set of rules telling us about every sentence whether it's grammatical. Vicious circle? Yes! Unless we explicitly present all of those "rules of grammar". However, if we don't want to formally present them, nor do we like vicious circles, then we will have to rely on the socio-linguistic definition: A given sentence is "grammatical", if and only if it's accepted in any speech delivered by HM the Queen in Parliament, or by the President in Congress, and the like. I suspect - neither the Queen in Parliament - nor the President in Congress, may say "depends" followed by any word other than "on/upon". HOTmag (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh?? The Queen and the President define grammar?  Really?  Craziest definition I've ever heard.  Very few people speak the way the Queen does, so does that mean that all the others are speaking ungrammatically?  I hardly think so.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * When I indicated the Queen's speech, I was not referring to her style, which may be "high" or sometimes poetic or even archaic, but rather to the syntactic and morphological structures of her sentences. So yes: according to the socio-linguistic definition of "grammatical", every sentence is grammatical if and only if it's consistent with the set of rules controlling the structure of HM's sentences. Anyway: I allow you to put aside the Queen example, if you don't like it - maybe because of her high style that avoids curses and Slang and likewise (although there are many "grammatical curses"). However, the President in Congress may use curses or Slang (e.g. "What's the hell does Mr. Putin think he's doing in Ukraine ").
 * Additionally, please note that I've never claimed, that any speaker who doesn't speak the way the President "does"  - speaks ungrammatically. I've only claimed that every grammatical sentence must be "accepted " (in any speech delivered by the President in Congress). "Accepted" speech, doesn't mean the President will ever use it: He may avoid it, maybe because he (like the Queen) doesn't like curses and Slang and likewise ("I haven't got a bloody clue' ", and the like), but such a Slang would still be regarded as "accepted" in his speech in Congress, i.e. in principle (even if not practically): For example, if he'd said (in his speech in Congress) "I haven't got a bloody clue " - nobody would have claimed he spoke "improperly" (i.e. ungrammatically), but if we'd heard somebody say "I don't have no idea ", or "I is speaking now ", or even "depends what you mean ", then you and I would have claimed that what we'd heard couldn't (in principle) be a part of any speech delivered by the President in Congress. HOTmag (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether it's only, or at least mainly, the "it" and "I" that can be omitted in informal speech (and never in formal speech). For example "thought you would never come", "hope you are OK."
 * In the examples mentioned by the OP and by JackofOz ("depends") the "it" was omitted. Just try to omit some other subject and see how strange it sounds when you drop something else.
 * Things like "am happy" or "am hungry" sound like baby talk to me. Llaanngg (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "You" is sometimes dropped, as with the expression "Know what I mean?" Anytime the subject is dropped, it's typically clear from the context. See? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * All of these examples, being possible in spoken English, are ungrammatical: Not only because of the absence of subject ("you"), but also because of the absence of the auxiliary verb "do". HOTmag (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They would not be used in formal English, no. In informal or casual English, yes, whether spoken or written. For example, this, from a series of TV and print ads from some years ago, featuring Jim Varney as "Ernest P. Worrell". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. Actually, an ungrammatical written text, is usually intended to imitate the (ungrammatical) spoken usage, and that's what I meant by "spoken English". HOTmag (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the OP knows it's informal, and every answer is based on this fact too. The question is still a valid one about when and why we do this. Llaanngg (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I knew the OP had known it's informal (and ungrammatical). I only pointed out that the examples indicated by Baseball Bugs are ungrammatical (although they do answer the OP's question), as opposed to "am happy" - which may turn out to be grammatical (I still hesitate about that though) - just as it's grammatical in Spanish ("estoy feliz"). HOTmag (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * English is notorious for abbreviating things. Like how "forecastle" became "folks'll". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and the most notorious grammatical abbreviation in English is (in my opinion) "won't ": It's even worse than the ungrammatical "shouldnt've" (It seems like only "ain't" is worse than "won't "). HOTmag (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The contraction "won't" comes from a now-archaic version of "will". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Branching off a bit... recently I saw Adele on James Corden's "Car Pool Karaoke". He asked her a question, and she said, "I haven't got time for that", only the way she say "haven't" sounded more like "ant". Is there a further British-slang contraction for "haven't"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it wasn't "ain't"? HOTmag (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I watched it again. You're right, it's "ain't", at about 11:35. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you familiar with linguistic prescriptivism and registers, ? → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 21:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. Btw, I'm anti-purist (when I wrote "notorious", I was just kidding). HOTmag (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As per the Extended Projection Principle, English sentences are required to always have something in a subject position, barring cases where that word moves out of that position (eg when asking a question). Hence, "it rained" and never "rained".
 * There are some cases where not pronouncing the word in subject position is possible, but always with pronouns, and (in English) always in an informal context; see pro-drop language for details. Or for example, consider the situation where you and your friends are in a library, and you hear thunder, and your friend remarks "(it) must be raining". But never "(the police officer) arrested him". → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 21:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless in answer to the question "What did the gallant defender of public order do then?" —Tamfang (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Anecdotally it occurs to me that "I"-dropping is more acceptable in past-tense constructions for reasons related to the imperative mood. "Went to the store" has an implied "I" subject that would be understood by a native speaker of (if I'm not mistaken) any variety of English. However, simply "Go to the store" not only doesn't imply "I am going to the store" but is instead actually taken as the (second-person) command form. Unlike Spanish and most other languages that I'm aware of, English doesn't have a separate verb conjugation for the imperative mood; it simply typically uses the second-person present indicative, often with the "you" subject dropped. This is why we pile words and phrases onto requests in order to make them sound deferential and non-presumptive: "Would you be so kind as to...", "Would you mind...", etc. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 01:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know what dialect of English you speak, but "are afraid, are very afraid" does not sound acceptable as an imperative in mine. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 02:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good observation. I meant to mention above that "to be" is the obvious exception to the indicative=imperative rule. There may be others that I'm not thinking of. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 13:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well if two speakers know what the subject is the pronoun could be dropped regardless: Q:"What happened?" A:"Arrested." (this works for I, he, she, we, they). Or: Q"What then?" A: "Went to the store". Alanscottwalker (talk)
 * Woke up, got out of bed, dragged a comb across my head. DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)