Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 March 31

= March 31 =

be down for something new
What does the phrase "be down for" mean as in the sentence: The drink is definitely for people who are adventurous, people who are down for something new. Lots of thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.216.39 (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To be down for something is to be willing to try something or to do something. For example:
 * Are you down for a game of blackjack? - "Would you like to play blackjack?"
 * I've never played, but if it's not for money, I'm down [for it]. - "I've never played, but as long as we do not gamble, I am willing to learn."
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Down for" seems to be an exact synonym of "up for". Is that so? --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If invited to try something different I would (if willing) always say that I am "up for it." "Down for it" is not an expression I have ever heard - except in the phrase "put me down for it," when adding your name to a list is implied. It may be regional (I am British). 217.44.50.87 (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Heard more in America. I gather that "I'm down for it" and "I'm down with it" are African-American expressions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * For general reference, this exact question ("up for" versus "down for") has recently been discussed at length on the academic linguistics blog Language Log. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, here's the direct link to the post . SemanticMantis (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is what Urban Dictionary has to say on the matter:, , , . Some of these are of the form "down with..." rather than "down for...", but you see both usages.  The sense is always of "general agreement".  -- Jayron 32 14:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * (Detroit here) I've most often heard it in terms of a purchase: "The tickets are $20 each ? Put me down for 2 then." StuRat (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not really the same usage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "If you're down with P., well then you're down with me." . "You down with OPP? Yeah you know me!" SemanticMantis (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This guy from back in the day gets it. He's not down with ToC, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Table of contents, that is. He might be down with ToC. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a great find, thanks! Also OPP is now (correctly) a DAB link, with a number of interesting options. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang has the definition "Black E. ready and eager for action; (also) formidable in a fight; tough." The first citation is from 1944 in Dan Burley's Original Handbook of Harlem Jive, so by that date it was already well known enough to appear in such a work. The citation is "Down with It ... to be ready for action".  A citation from 1952 uses "down for it".  CodeTalker (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently, we're not supposed to be "down to clown" anymore, but "D.T.C." As of last November. Remembrance Day, if that helps it stick. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If your Down to Clown then you're up for some general highjinks - that's hard to parse, unless "your" and "you're" are allowed to be used interchangeably these days. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In that dictionary, "ur" lucky to get a Y at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm well aware of that, but I still get stopped in my tracks by glaring inconsistencies like that. Same with signs that advertise, e.g. "Hamburgers, pizza's, sandwiches, drink's, coffees, ....".  Hypothetically, plurals are formed either with an apostrophe, or without one.  Whatever they believe to be the case, let them have the courage of their convictions and stick to that, not this wishy-washy namby-pamby having a bet each way and a foot in both camps business. (I'm reminded of User:SteveBaker's gem (as slightly modified by me): Inconsistencies are just that - inconsistancies).  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In the Specific Islands, they used to call their heroes Hero's. Not sure if they called their submarines that, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that being "up for" something is a metaphor for standing up to volunteer for it, and being "down for" it is a metaphor for having written down your name on the list of volunteers. Hey, it's no worse than "burn up" vs. "burn down". --69.159.61.172 (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * On a slightly lateral tangent, I read of people "going out for" some educational discipline in college (quite often "going out for sports"). I've never been sure what this means.  Is it a less energetic form of "going all out for", as in, putting in every effort to achieve some goal?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing fancy about this one. Just like going out to the store for beer, going out to the coast for a job or going out to Karachi for some sweet, sweet jhajariya. At least that's what the people I hear say it mean. It might sometimes mean trying out for a team. Far more common to do that in rag-tag high schools, but walk-ons exist in college, too. Typically though, you know what you're going out for first. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the analogy. One purchases beer, or travels to the coast or to Karachi.  But what's the action involved in "going out for sports", when mentioning the things one is planning to study in a forthcoming academic period?  See these examples:,  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait. It's explained here. As far as study is concerned, is there anything else one "goes out for", apart from sports? --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The way I hear it, it could be anything, so long as they go out somewhere, for it. But that link of yours treats it like I'd expect to hear "go all out". Gung ho, balls-to-the-wall, beast mode (Montage!). If you were a 1936 New York "bachelor maiden", you might go out for business, politics or art. That headline seems to capture the mundane meaning and the exciting one. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it necessarily does mean leaving the house. The way I've heard it used on American movies and TV (which is the only time I've ever heard the expression, so it surprises me that the Americans here don't seem to be aware of it), "going out for sports" could include writing emails, letters, on-line applications etc in order to gain admission to some sports-related course.  The physical side of it could include maintaining one's fitness in a home gym.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Cuneiform
Can somebody help me identify the characters on this tablet?

The left column looks like A AB BI A2 ALEPH U I, and the top of the middle column like AL MA GAR; but the rest of the characters are too difficult for me to match against the list of cuneiform signs. --217.140.96.140 (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Good source of poetry analyzed line by line
Either online or on print, provided it's not shmoop, which I dislike mainly for it's informal tone. Llaanngg (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Proper wording in a sentence: can you use "both" and "each" together?
Here is a sentence. At the 61st Academy Awards, Rain Man and Who Framed Roger Rabbit each received 4 awards. Would it be correct or incorrect to use the word "both" in the sentence? At the 61st Academy Awards, both Rain Man and Who Framed Roger Rabbit each received 4 awards. I can't quite tell if you can use the words "both" and "each" together. Are they redundant? Or do they negate each other? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just redundant, I'd say. Either is fine. But not both, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Worse than redundant, because "each" is grammatically singular while "both" is plural, so they can never be used of the same referent. Here are some simple tips for the use of each vs. both.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So which is (the more) correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In this sentence it's marginal. "They both received 4 awards" could mean that they were the joint recipients of 4 different awards; although, without anything else to suggest joint candidature, that's an unlikely interpretation - but possible.  "They each received 4 awards" has no such ambiguity.  I'd go with the latter.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. (But not an issue with referents?) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your query means. Each is a kind of shorthand way of saying "This one and that one and the other one etc. were the objects or subjects of the same verb, but individually, not collectively".  That's why it's singular, and why we say "each is ...", not "each are ...".  It can apply to an unlimited number of referents greater than 1.  "The 16 children were each given an apple" can only mean that 16 apples were distributed to 16 children and no child got more than one apple and no child missed out.  Same for 2 children.  But "Both children were [note plural verb] given an apple" means there were exactly 2 children, no more and no less.  It probably defaultly means the same as "Each child was given an apple", but in some context it could mean they were jointly given a single apple to share between them.  To avoid any possibly misunderstanding, use "each", unless you want the other meaning to be conveyed.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank heavens we're not discussing apples and oranges here. And yes, they should give apples instead of Oscars. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The more common place where "each" is needed is versus "all". I regularly see restaurants say "10 meals all for $10 !", which would mean the meals are $1 each.  They should, of course, say "10 meals each for $10 !". StuRat (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)