Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 May 18

= May 18 =

Origin
What is the origin and literal meaning of the word 'remember'?--178.106.99.31 (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the full explanation: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So, Wabbit, it doesnt have any relation to the word dismember ?--178.106.99.31 (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The one derives from "memory", the other from "member". I recommend you use that link to look up those words and any others you're curious about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, if dis-member were the opposite to re-member, the latter would describe the surgical procedure of re-attaching what has been re-moved in the former. See member #4. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sort of like how "pissed off" is not the opposite of "pissed on". In fact they are close synonyms.  Because, whenever I am pissed on, I find I am at the same time pissed off... -- Jayron 32 03:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * When you are pissed on, that's the time to piss off...quickly. Akld guy (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sportswriters are aware of this issue, when writing about players who re-sign with their club. Without the hyphen it is a perfect homograph of "resign", which means exactly the opposite. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that, after the word 'resign' you use the word 'from' and not 'with'. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 11:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Except that, within a given context, a sentence such as Joe Schmo has re-signed. is valid. Efforts must be made to ensure it doesn't look or sound like "Joe Schmo has resigned".  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that, with a name like that he shouldn't have been employed in the first place. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 10:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Except now you're no longer content with being racist, sexist, antidisestablishmentarianist, religionist, ageist, homophobist, alcoholist, deletionist, inclusionist, alarmist, anachronist, chauvinist and larpulartist, but have now descended to being a namist. Shame on you.  (Nothing personal, just an observation.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And that makes you (and sometimes me) a shamist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Which is most correct/natural?

 * a place I know exists / a place that I know that exists
 * a place I know it exists / a place that I know that it exists

--Theurgist (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My first reaction was, it's I know a place/where the music is fine/and the lights are always low...
 * Why didn't you suggest "a place that I know exists"? That sounds best to me, if I understand your intended meaning correctly.  There are other things you could be intending, I suppose (like "there's this place I know, and by the way, it exists") but they would be unusual. --Trovatore (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As for the "other things" you're talking about: All depends on the whole sentence: If it goes like: "The Paradise is a place I know exists", then the "know" refers to the "exists" (i.e. I know it exists), but if the whole sentence goes like: "Everything exists. Therefore, every place exists. therefore, a place I know exists" (period), then the "know" refers to the "place". HOTmag (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See that: "That is often omitted when used to introduce a subordinate clause—"He told me that it is a good read." could just as easily be "He told me it is a good read."" In general, relative pronouns like "that" can be omitted from their conjunction function without much of a change of meaning in a sentence (though there may be subtle differences in emphasis).  See this forum post which discusses it well, as does this style guide and this "ask a grammarian" bit on BBC.  -- Jayron 32 13:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "a place I know it exists" doesn't seem to be valid sequence of words. Can you add some context?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  13:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither, for that matter, is "a place that I know that it exists" -- Jayron 32 16:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Jack is correct. However, the "it" could have been useful if the sentence had been of the form: "a place about which I know it exists". HOTmag (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

All the examples are intended to mean the same, and all of them are single nominal phrases. "A place I know exists" should be read as "a place whose existence I'm aware of", as in "This is a place I know exists." It shouldn't be read as a complete sentence: "There exists a place that I know."

What I'm interested in is not the omission or non-omission of the subordinating conjunction that, but rather, the presence or absence of a subject ("it") in the last subordinate clause. Trovatore's suggestion, which I appreciate, is in fact another variant of the examples in the first bullet.

Indeed, "a place that exists" does not require another subject: "a place that it exists" and "a place it exists" are simply wrong. But on the other hand, "I know (that) it exists" requires the subject, because "I know exists" is wrong too, and "I know that exists" can be correct only if that acts as a demonstrative pronoun and not as a subordinating conjunction. My question is what happens when these two types of clauses are combined.

So, how about some more examples:
 * (This is) a place (which/that) he claims exists
 * (These are) things I think matter
 * (This is) a service everyone is aware is available
 * (He is) a person I have always firmly believed can do that
 * (This is) a mechanism I supposed worked
 * (This is) a mechanism I was glad worked
 * (He is) a person whose neighbours are complaining makes noise

Are none of them valid sequences of words if one inserts "it/they/he" right before the last verb? --Theurgist (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It has to do with the fact that "I know it exists" and "I know that it exists" both use "it" because they are noun clause that require the subject pronoun it; because they are the predicate of the verb "to know". In the case of "a place that exists"; that's not a predicate clause because it isn't even a complete sentence, in that case it's an adjective clause, that modifies the word "place".  Completely different grammatical functions which require different forms.  -- Jayron 32 03:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As for your last example: "(He is) a person whose neighbours are complaining makes noise". I suspect the "whose" here is wrong - and should be replaced (by "their" or) by "his", unless "he" is inserted before "makes". Let's look at a simpler example: "He is a man (who) his neighbours are complaining makes noise ", or: "He is a man whose neighbours are complaining he makes noise ".
 * I have to strongly disagree with your advice, HOTmag. What you've come up with does not even have the dignity [sic] of a run-on sentence.  Your suggested "their" and "his" are just wrong. "Whose" is perfectly correct, and I cannot think of any other word that would do there.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Before I refer to your response, let me ask you: How would you fill in the blank space?
 * He has a daughter, (whom) his neighbours know (i.e. he has a daughter and his neighbours know her).
 * He has a daughter, (whom) _____ neighbours know (i.e. he has a daughter and her neighbours know her).
 * Would you insert "whose" or "her"? Please do not remove the "(whom)" from the last sentence, just as it can stay in the first sentence.
 * Back to your response, and again let me ask you: How would you fill in the blank space?
 * "He has a daughter, (who) his neighbours are complaining - makes noise" (i.e. He has a daughter, and his neighbours are complaining she makes noise).
 * "He has a daughter, (who) _____ neighbours are complaining - makes noise" (i.e. He has a daughter, and her neighbours are complaining she makes noise).
 * Would you insert "whose" or "her"? Please do not remove the "(who)" from the last sentence, just as it can stay in the first sentence.
 * In my view, the "(who)", must be followed by a standard declarative clause - followed by the last two words, as you can realize by analyzing the first sentence. Inserting "whose" (instead of "her") is only possible, when "she" is inserted before "makes" - while omitting the "(who)", i.e.: "He has a daughter, whose neighbours are complaining she makes noise"
 * The same is true for the original sentence in dispute: "He is a person, (who) ____ neighbours are complaining - makes noise ". Inserting "whose" (instead of "his") is only possible, when "he" is inserted before "makes" - while omitting the "(who)", i.e.: "He is a person, whose neighbours are complaining he makes noise".
 * HOTmag (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As for your original question, Jack of Oz is correct: The "it" should be omitted. However, it should have been added - if the sentence had been of the form: "a place about which I know it exists ". In order for you to understand why your original sentence should not contain the "it", please have a look at the following sentence: "This phenomenon, I know exists in America, is rather interesting. Question: where do I know this phenomenon exists? Answer: In America ". Please note that the question cannot contain the "it": Therefore, its previous sentence should not contain the "it", either. HOTmag (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)