Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 October 7

= October 7 =

Using the word "of"
In proper English grammar, would I say "analysis of science or mathematics" or would I say "analysis of science or of mathematics"? --2601:642:C301:119A:C54E:B1EF:D0E9:D355 (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Either is OK. If you can give the full context, one may be preferable. StuRat (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I prefer "analysis of science or mathematics", because I think the extra "of" in the other sentence is redundant. Both are grammatically correct, though. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ironically, your last sentence is grammatically incorrect. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "Never use two words when one suffices."
 * Or...
 * "Do not ever make use of a pair of words at whatever time a word used singularly can be made practical and effective for the expression of the same thing." —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:6130:AA57:396F:78BA (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * KISS principle (originally from naval engineering systems but seems applicable here). Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "For your homework please write an essay on the analysis of science or of mathematics" would be preferable to "For your homework please write an essay on the analysis of science or mathematics". Sometime keeping it simple makes it sound stupid. DuncanHill (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If your goal is elegant prose, adopting the standards of naval engineers seems imprudent. - Nunh-huh 00:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Related quote: "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." —Blaise Pascal -- 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:CCE8:62C2:FF45:AE7B (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I see a difference in the two. The second is unambiguous: you are directed to analyse either science or mathematics but not both. The first requires that you analyze (science or mathematics). This is ambiguous: are you to produce single analysis of some dichotomy between these fields, or are you interpret this as either/or? This ambiguity is the reason lawyers use extra words in contracts. -Arch dude (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a perennial feature of the way we express ourselves.  For example, is 6x3+2 twenty ((6x3)+2) or thirty (6x(3+2))?   I like to add in the brackets.   There are two possibilities:


 * (Analysis of science) or mathematics
 * Analysis of (science or mathematics) equivalent to (analysis of science) or (analysis of mathematics)

Arch dude finds three possibilities. I'm not so sure about the third: what does "some dichotomy between these fields" refer to? 82.14.24.95 (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My third possibility is that we are supposed to perform a single analysis of something that has to do with both fields. Example: Which field is more similar to philosopy: science or mathematics?" The use of the second "of" excludes this interpretation. Basically, the sdandlone "or" may be either inclusive (and/or), or exclusive (or but not both), or it may be "contrastive", requiring that you contrast the two objects joined by the "or."  I don't know the correct term for "contrastive". -Arch dude (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the lawyers would disagree with you Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 July 8. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

peruna
In H. L. Mencken's hilarious essay on Thorstein Veblen (in the First Series of the Prejudices, 1919) I came across this sentence: Almost every year sees another intellectual Munyon arise, with his infallible peruna for all the current malaises. Finnish happens to be my first language, and in Finnish peruna means potato, but surely that's not what Mencken means here? And who or what the hell is Munyon? I use the annotated Library of America edition, but the annotations explain neither word. --Edith Wahr (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * James M. Munyon ? If so, then "Munyon" might be used as a synonym for "fraud".  And peruna might refer to peruna tonic, a "patent medicine" which was really just a way to get drunk: .  StuRat (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * ah, thanks. James M. doesn't show up in Munyon, though, it's not that I didn't look it up before posting...--Edith Wahr (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I added it. Even weirder, the US songwriter David Munyon has a German Wikipedia article, but no English Wikipedia article I can find. StuRat (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * And this may be your "peruna" - http://www.bottlebooks.com/Peruna_reprinted_from_collier.htm Wymspen (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

He/she/it endings of verbs
It seems rather strange that out of all the person verb endings in English, the only one that is different is the he/she/it form.

Is there a particular reason that the -s or -es ending is still added only for this particular form,and is there any reason why it could not be altered to fit in with the others in a simple regular pattern so whatever person is being used,the end is identical? Lemon martini (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, are you asking why the possessive forms are "his", "hers", and "its" instead of "he's", "she's", and "it's" ? Or are you asking about plural forms ? StuRat (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the OP is talking about these forms: I go, you go, we go, they go, he/she/it goes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if it isn't clear... yes I was referring to I ask,you ask,we ask,they ask,you(pl) ask, he/she/it askS and why the extra S came to be there and if it is needed there? Lemon martini (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Define "needed".
 * ... is there any reason why it could not be altered ...? - No, there's no reason why not; language change happens all the time. But if you're thinking this possibly sensible reform could be implemented immediately by vote of the Wikipedia Reference Desk community, well, I have to tell you that that is not how language change occurs.  Sorry.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Some articles which may be of interest to the questioner are : English verbs, Uses of English verb forms, and for some historical background Old English grammar. Grammatical person may also be helpful. DuncanHill (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Lemon_martini -- in grammar/linguistics, it's usually called the third-person singular present-tense verb ending. The reason why only the 3rd-person singular ending survived is partly due to accidents of historical attrition -- the plural endings for all the persons ("we", "you" plural, and "they") had already collapsed together at the Anglo-Frisian or "Ingvaeonic" stage; a number of endings disappeared due to general reductions in word-final unstressed syllables during Middle English; while distinction of number in second person forms (i.e. the pronoun "thou" and the "-st" verb ending, "-t" in some modals) was eliminated for basically sociological or sociolinguistic reasons around 1700. In the modern "Continental Scandinavian" languages, all person and number endings have been merged together or lost (though written Swedish until relatively recently had some plural verb forms which are considered archaic now). AnonMoos (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)