Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 December 10

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 10

Subject

I know that a clause has a subject, which is the thing doing whatever to the object. This is usually where I stop learning about grammar, because I'm unable to keep this simple fact fixed in my mind. The problem is that the word subject, outside of the context of grammar, seems to me to have the same meaning as object. If I take them apart etymologically (valid or not, this is my usual way of remembering what a word means), I get "towards-throw" for object, which is very satisfactory; but I get "under-throw" for subject, which is fairly meaningless, and what's worse, in ordinary language, a subject isn't a thing which acts; it's a thing which is acted on, or subjected to actions. You might be the subject of a debate, an autopsy, a song, a photograph, or a frenzied attack. Subjects are passive things, so how has the Subject (grammar) come to mean the thing doing the action, and what cues can help me conceptualize and remember it as such? 81.131.43.12 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

this is all correct - In English grammar a grammatical object is something that is subject(ed) to an agent's action - but it is also the object of the grammatical subject's subjection. Confusing I know.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This very confusion was why I learnt much more from Ancient Greek and Latin grammar than any attempt at English grammar, and end up thinking of things as nominative/accusative/genitive etc, even if English doesn't quite work like that any more. It's just easier (and directly transferable to learning other modern European languages, at least). 86.161.208.185 (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A cunning plan! 81.131.43.12 (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In Voice (grammar) I read: "When the subject is the agent or doer of the action, the verb is in the active voice. When the subject is the patient, target or undergoer of the action, it is said to be in the passive voice." You can read more about that in the article. -- Irene1949 (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Can there be a phrase in which the doer comes before the verb, yet is the object? That article seems to imply that a passive verbal phrase like "was eaten" is what causes the object to be promoted to subject - or is it merely that whichever one comes before the verb is the one called the subject? If I try to engineer a passive phrase that lets the doer come first: "the cat was the animal by which the mouse was eaten", does the doer (the cat) become the object? I see I've introduced another verb there (was), though, so now maybe they're both subjects. 81.131.8.249 (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

in "the man was eaten" the man is the grammatical subject, not the grammatical object, but he is also the semantic patient, because the verb is passive. In a passive clause the agent is taken out of the equation and the previous grammatical object/semantic patient is promoted to the status of grammatical subject.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the subject always on the left of the verb? 81.131.8.249 (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

English does not mark nouns with case to show which noun is the object and which is the subject, instead it marks it by position relative to the verb. Generally the subject comes before the verb and the object after. Exeptions are in subordinate clauses when you can for example say "the dog that the man kicked" - here that shows that man is the subject of the subordinate clause even though it comes after the object of that clause.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Er. So "that the man kicked" is the subordinate clause, and "dog" its the object even though it isn't inside the clause, and even though in "the dog was kicked by the man" the dog is the subject and the man is the object, in "the dog that the man kicked" the dog is the object and the man is the subject? Have I got any of that right?

How about this rule: the subject is either the agent of a verb in the active voice, or the patient of a verb in the passive voice (which voice puts the focus on the patient, making the patient a kind of pseudo-agent)?

I would very much like to know who first started calling this constituent of a clause, the subject, by the misleading name "subject". Any idea where that comes from, and why? 81.131.8.249 (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In a complex clause such as "The dog that the man kicked ate the meatballs" - the dog is subject and agent of the main clause and object and patient of the subordinate relative clause. the man is subject and agent of the subordinate clause, and meatballs is object and patient of the main clause. I don't know where the terminology comes from, but my guess would be old latin grammar.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing it has the sense of being the "foundation" (under-placed thing) of the clause (probably originally in Greek), which gives me the fundamental thing and the thrown-towards for subject and object. I can probably live with that, even if the passive voice means that the thrown-towards is sometimes the thing doing the throwing. 81.131.8.249 (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the grammatical subject follows the verb “says” or “said”, like in this sentence: "And this," said the Director opening the door, "is the Fertilizing Room.". I found it here -- Irene1949 (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha, I never noticed before how absurd that is. Apart from the comma, it looks like the phrase in quotes is saying the person, equivalent to A mouse, ate the cat. 213.122.23.184 (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Huckabee etymology

"Huckabee" is an odd name. Our article states only that it is "of English origin". Can we trace it back further? The "-bee" seems like maybe a variant of the Danish "-by". Assuming this were the case, then the "Hucka" would probably be derived from the genitive of some noun or (more likely) proper name. Any thoughts? LANTZY^TALK 05:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You do know the Danish spent some time in England right? --Jayron32 05:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course. That's precisely why I suggested that the "-bee" might be an Anglicized Danish suffix. It's the "Hucka-" that I'm really curious about. LANTZY^TALK 06:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

According to A Dictionary of English Surnames (Routledge, 1991, p 242, ISBN 041505737X), the name "Huckerby", as in "Robert de Huccerbi", "Ralph de Huckerby" (1252), and "Ranulph de Huckerbi" (1333) is derived from Uckerby. That Wikipedia article says that it is "thought to derive from the word 'Ukkr' meaning a restless Viking, the 'by' meaning home of. Uckerby is believed to be an origin of the surnames Huckaby and Huckabee although Huccaby in Devon is more likely", according to the Dictionary of American Family Names, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-508137-4. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I just banged up a surname page for it -> Huckabee (surname).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the etymology on the Uckerby article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Well done, everybody. Conjectural or not, the next time I see Mike Huckabee, I'll think of a restless viking. LANTZY^TALK 13:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Larrabee side question

That reminds me of a question I've had floating around in my head for months now and whose time has finally come.

Whenever I hear the name Larrabee, I always associate it with very well-to-do and well-established American families. Specifically American. Larrabee would never be the name of a British character, for example; always American, and always from the right side of the tracks, often with a southern connection (Kentucky is ringing loud bells here). I seem to have memories of various movie and TV characters over the years called Larrabee, and they always fitted this bill. It's almost a movie cliche, in my mind at least. Yet, when I checked it out on IMDb, I couldn't find any evidence for my belief. There were a few characters named Larrabee, but nothing like the legions of wealthy Larrabees that exist in my mind. The only one that really matched was the Larrabee family in Sabrina (1954), a film I did not finally see until last year.

Can anyone shed any light on how I might have made this association between the Larrabee name and old wealth? Or maybe there really is something to it but I've missed it in my research. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The only Larrabee I know of was a character on the old Get Smart program (not the sharpest cookie in the jar)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thornhill's attorney in North by Northwest is named Victor Larrabee (played by Edward Platt). Here is IMDb's list of productions with characters named Larrabee. In the real world, Lairmont Manor is sometimes called Larrabee House and was built for C. X. Larrabee "who wanted one of the finest homes in the northwest" (not in the south). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for those responses. Seems this is a figment of my imagination. Great things, imaginations. So true to life sometimes. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Etymological dictionary

Can someone show me where I can get software for etymological dictionary for free download?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.35.7 (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This Google search may help. As always, be wary of anything being offered for 'free download'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

EtymOnline, while not software available for download, is an excellent etymological resource. Lexicografía (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

So I cannot have a software for an Etymology??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.35.7 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The creator of etymonline has observed [1] that his site is popular as an academic resource, despite his lack of qualifications (which "makes me cringe a bit"), so that implies there aren't any free alternatives, online or offline. "I figured some academic or professional organization eventually would put up a thorough, accurate, free, searchable database of etymologies under the seal of some university or prominent publishing house. And etymonline could retire. But I haven’t seen that yet." 81.131.8.249 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope he doesn't retire any time soon. As far as I am concerned, EtymOnline is one of the best websites in existence, and we here at the LangRefDesk use it all the time. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"a ma vie de coeur entier"

I wanted to have this phrase on a ring for my boyfriend but apparently although there are loads of internet pages that use this spelling and grammar, some people are saying it is incorrect. It is an old phrase so I thought it might just be old fashioned french but even a shop website where rings with this inscription on it says "This 15th century ring is inscribed in period French with the inconsistent spelling of the time, "a ma vie de coer entier", you have my whole heart for my whole life." While my own French is very poor, that of my boyfriend is very good, so I can't afford to have something grammatically incorrect put on the ring. If somebody here tells me it is old spelling/grammar, then I will tell him so, otherwise I'd need to know the correct version, please. I'm slightly confused as to how something that is supposedly incorrect could be so widespead. Any suggestions? ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.243.97 (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The modern spelling/grammar would be "tu as ma vie de cœur entier" (where there is no pro-drop in modern French, and further slight grammatical adjustments might be preferable). If it's an accurate copy of an actual 15th-century inscription, then it would be faithful to the historical model, and the modern language would be somewhat irrelevant... AnonMoos (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this is what I'm asking in part: Is it in fact an accurate copy of an actual 15th-century inscription? If it was grammatically correct back in the day, then I'll be even more chuffed, because I find that even more romantic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.243.97 (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Joan Evans A History of Jewellery 1100-1870, "Among the jewels Joan of Navarre, wife of Henry IV, forfeited in 1423, were two, one inscribed A ma vie de coer entier, the other A vous me lie." I suppose you would have to read up on those two to decide how romantic that makes the inscription, but it is at least authentic Middle French. --Antiquary (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Killing

Killing one's brother is fratricide. What are the words for (killing one's) husband, wife, son, daughter? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well husband is Mariticide and wife is Uxoricide. I don't think there's a term for killing a son or daughter specifically, but to kill one's child is Filicide. --Cameron* 13:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I know you didn't ask, but killing one's sister is Sororicide.

--SoggyCooky (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was pesticide. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Killing ones brother is fratricide. Richard Avery (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Infanticide can also be used in such contexts. -- Irene1949 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Whilst not exactly a reliable source, I will put forward this site for a huge list of words ending in '-cide'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a handy list of -cide words. Some of them seem to be made up (like poultrycide, tickicide and lousicide). I found one spelling error: the killing of everything would be omnicide rather than onmicide [sic]. And one egregious omission: they mention mundicide (destruction of the entire world), but not novomundicide (well, isn't everyone sometimes tempted to blow up the New World but leave the rest of the world intact; I know I am). See also our Category:Homicide for articles we have on some of these words. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Goon Show: "Yes, I killed my mother and sewed her into the mattress." "Good God, man, that's matricide." Marnanel (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how he killed her. Maybe he poisoned her with a razor blade - by giving her arse a nick.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Then there was the guy who smashed a Mac over his evil roommate's head. He was an Applecider. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal pronouns used for organisations

I have an uneasy feeling about the use of "whose" in a sentence such as: "The Broccoli Society is a non-profit organisation whose goal is to promote the consumption of brocolli." I can't quite lay my finger on why it feels wrong, it just looks like something Miss Haward would have marked with a large red X. (Miss Hayward was a real battle-axe of the Dickensian variety - the terror of an entire generation of 6th-graders back in the 1970s.) Roger (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it. 86.184.27.68 (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC).

I feel there's something not quite right with using "whose" or "who" for a subject that one would use "it" in a simple declarative statement: "It promotes the consumption of brocolli." For me there is a mismatch but I can't figure out why. BTW it might be significant to point out that I speak South African English. Roger (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Whose is a possessive pronoun not only for who, but also for which or that. Basically, whose is the all-purpose possessive relative pronoun in English. Marco polo (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Miss H expected you to spell her name and broccoli correctly. See me after class. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What Marco Polo said. There are probably still pedants (not saying that Miss Haward/Hayward was one of those; we can do with more of her type these days, however she spelt her name) who reserve personal pronouns for humans. And in their defence, I think most people would still tend to say "The dog that bit me was a blue heeler" rather than "The dog who bit me ..." (but then, they often use "that" for human subjects where I would usually use "who" - it's the The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance vs. The Man that Got Away conundrum). But "whose" is useful in all possessive contexts. Otherwise, it'd have to be "The Broccoli Society is a non-profit organisation, the goal of which is to promote the consumption of broccoli", which is a little tedious. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I just came across a usage note here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.83.77 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Most abject and groveling apologies to the ghost of Mrs. Hayward for that most egregious of typos! (We used to be the very epitome of abject grovelsomeness in her class. The word "harridan" comes to mind even thirty years later.) Stealing a bit of an idea from User:JackofOz I think I'll be happiest with "The Broccoli Society is a non-profit organisation, its goal is to promote the consumption of broccoli". I'll even consider making it two separate sentences. Thanks for your input everyone. Roger (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Consider? It's mandatory, mate!! What you have there is a comma splice, a sub-category of run-on sentence. You've connected two sentences with just a comma, which is not sufficient. You need a conjunction like "and" (which wouldn't work very well here stylistically, but still 1000% more preferable to that comma); or a semi-colon; or calling a spade a spade and making them 2 separate sentences, as you say. (Btw, I see Miss Hayward has gone and got herself married now. Congratulations to all concerned.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid if M[r]s Ha[y]ward insisted that whose only be used as a genitive of who, then she is full of it. To quote the beginning of the entry on whose in Webster's Dictionary of English Usage:

"The misinformation that passes for gospel wisdom about English usage is sometimes astounding. A correspondent in 1986 wanted us to help him choose between two sentences containing of which; he had used of which to refer to the word house, he said, and had not used whose because it is "not formal." Not formal! Look at these passages:"

This is followed by very formal counterexamples to this 'rule' from Hamlet ("I could a tale unfold whose lightest word // Would harrow up thy soul"), King James Bible, Paradise Lost, Pope and Wordsworth. After the examples, the usage dictionary remarks: "It would be hard to find passages surpassing these in formality and solemnity." Apparently, after 400 years of whose being used for things as a matter of course, the idea that this might be wrong came up in the 18th century and even made it into the OED at some point. Already in 1851 Goold Brown [2] gave an overview over the contradictory usage advice by various grammarians, pointing out that one of those who rejected generalised use of whose actually employed it himself. (This kind of thing happens quite often, because bad prescriptivists are generally quite good at writing and only suck at describing correctly what defines good style. So they just ignore their own bad advice.)

Webster's also mentions that none of the modern usage advice they surveyed advised gainst use of whose for what can't be referred to using who. The entry closes:

"The notion that whose may not properly be used of anything except persons is a superstition; it has been used by innumerable standard authors from Wycliffe to Updike, and is entirely standard as an alternative to of which [...] in all varieties of discourse."

Hans Adler 08:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Japanese: pronunciation of を and お

Hi, I've read in several places, including the Wikipedia article on hiragana, that Japanese を is pronounced the same as お. However, this page, part of a site that, while not written by a native speaker, seems largely reliable and useful, says that the sounds are very close but not the same. Which is correct? Or maybe it varies depending on the speaker? 86.184.27.68 (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC).

They are basically the same, but depending on the speaker and the sound immediately preceding the を, I have heard を pronounced with a very slight 'w' before it. I believe this is more prevalent in carefully spoken NHK Japanese. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"o" and "wo" were once distinct morae written with the corresponding kana and pronounced as you'd expect. Some distinction does seem to survive—I've often heard "kore o" pronounced such that it sounds more like "kore wo", for example. I suppose this is analogous to pronouncing "what" as "hwat" in English even though the more usual pronunciation these days is "wat". But Japanese spelling has changed in line with the pronunciation change, so that almost all of the words formerly spelled with を are now spelled with お. So it's a mistake to say that the modern characters を and お are pronounced differently—even if there are still two sounds in some contexts, they no longer match up with the spellings. -- BenRG (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that the "wo" pronunciation used by some people for the particle を is also used in other words that were previously spelled with を but are now spelled with お? Do you have any examples? 86.161.83.77 (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a list at ja:を#歴史的仮名遣いで「を」が含まれる語 of words that used to be written with を, and some person and place names are still inconsistently spelled that way, like かをる. But, admittedly, I can't remember hearing any of them pronounced with "wo", except maybe in deliberate imitation of old-fashioned speech. -- BenRG (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is the katakana ヲ no longer used? --84.61.182.248 (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It is still used, when everything is written in katakana, such as in telegrams, or on older mobile phones (which couldn't use hiragana or kanji), certain official documents, signs, notices, etc. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

How did synthetic/polysynthetic/agglutinative languages originate in the first place?

From my study of the major languages in the world, it seems to me that, virtually all of them have inevitably lost some of the inflection systems of their proto-languages and have evolved more or less in a analytic/isolating direction. The original phonological systems also tend to be greatly simplified (due to 1) laziness in speech; 2) imperfect imitation by non-native speakers or offsprings; 3) unawareness of grammar). Hence the envisaged reconstructed proto-languages appear to have far more complexity and are inherently strictly-governed by many more grammatical rules than their modern descendants. My question is, how is this possible? How did our ancestors "accidentally" create languages by babbling away sounds which are undeniably that "rich" in grammar - say nouns which automatically decline according to their case and number and verbs which conjugate according to tense, mood, person. I'm sure this is not what the hypothesis that a gene mutation initiated genesis of languages would predict. Under that hypothesis, the original state of all proto-languages would definitely be very analytic, and languages tend to become more complex inflection-wise giving rise to the now-observed polysynthetic/agglutinative etc. languages. But this is practically much more unlikely than simplification and languages like English and Chinese have almost evolved uni-directionally into more analytic languages, for example in Chinese - the lost of initial causative s- prefix from Old Chinese, loss of pronoun declension in most dialects, etc.. Old Chinese used to utilise a strict set of correspondences of initials and finals for word formation, and used ablaut for verbification of nouns, but in modern Chinese it is just (in a way, numb) morphemes combining, without any variation on syllable structure to indicate morpheme relationships. Please help. I am really confused. Adressss (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It is really quite simple, you're assumptions about how language changes and have changed are wrong. Languages change to become both more and less "complex " (although there is no good definition of what complex and simple means in a language context). Languages can change from isolating to polysynthetic or vice versa. Languages were also not created from babbling but evolved from primitive communication in a period of millions of years - and it evloved together with our brains and our capacities for symbolic thinking. I don't think any hypotheses that postulates language as being the result of a single mutation is tenable (or that anyone believes this) - læanguage is the result of millions of years of cumulative mutations and changes in human culture.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to be nit-picker, but you're obviously quite confident talking about technical linguistic matters, and I see from your user page that linguistics is the primus inter pares of your main interests - yet you write "you're assumptions" for "your assumptions". What were you thinking, man?  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

English is not my language I'm just trying to use it...·Maunus·ƛ· 18:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Doesn't this come down to the way in which a language is analyzed? Chinese is often given as the classical case of an analytical language, yet I think a case can be made that it is evolving into an agglutinative language. Its morphemes do combine according to rules to form compounds, and those compounds combine very regularly with particles and other morphemes to form grammatical phrases. Linguists make what can be somewhat arbitrary decisions on where to draw word boundaries. Why should we not consider Chinese phrases as the words of an agglutinative language? Incidentally, I don't think that you are right that synthetic languages are "richer" in grammar than analytical languages. English grammar, particularly the rules for the use of articles, word order, and verb aspect, can be dauntingly complex for non-native speakers. Marco polo (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not true that the isolating/synthetic distinction is just a matter of analysis. It is a matter of the definition of a word - under a standard definition words have syntactic freedom and are usually phonologically marked (i.e. as stress units). In a polysynthetic language morphemes are relatively more bound and their sequence is governed by morphological rules. In isolating language they are relatively more free and their sequence is governed by syntactic rules. Both have complex grammars - one has more complexity in morphology the other in syntax.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Examples of mophologically complex forms deriving from analytic ones in English are the contractions: I'm, You're, doesn't etc. if this were to become the general pattern it would turn into fairly radical synthesis. This does happen in some languages. I work with Otomi which is a language that has evolved what I would call polysynthesis (some linguists disagree) from a fairly strict analytical typology. This happens all over the place - the problem is that when you are only doing typology with the one percent of the worlds languages that have the most speakers you don't have a representative sample. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

An example that may be easier to understand for native speakers of English is used to (see also thread further up). It started with an obsolete meaning of the verb use. It was once the case that you could say: "These days, I use to wake up early". This is no longer the case (except in Irish English). Currently strange grammatical rules are developing around used to, and it's already grammatical to write: "I didn't used to wake up early" (with what looks like an odd double past construction). It seems we are witnessing the birth of a new past form. In similar processes, prepositions or postpositions (which some languages have instead of prepositions) get attached to their referents and turn into cases. (It was once popular to read "Peter's dog" as a contraction of "Peter his dog", but I am not sure how correct this explanation of the Saxon genitive was.) Later the cases gradually get lost and people rely more and more on (new) prepositions or postpositions. Hans Adler 22:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is complex morphology something that can be quite easily acquired by languages over time, without contact with already morphologically complex languages nearby? It seems to be something that tends to be lost rather than gained (cf. Indo-European languages from PIE). Adressss (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

My argument is that when languages reach extremes of isolation, they often start to develop synthetic forms. English is another case in point, as Maunus starts to point out. We write "I do not want to go" or "I don't want to go" but say something like "ʔaɪ 'doũwʌnə goʊ" in which I would argue "'doũwʌnə" is a synthetic form that has developed in modern times. Many such forms exist in English, and it is not hard to imagine a historical process in which such forms proliferated in an originally isolating language. Marco polo (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Slurring of the language in order to talk faster, which I suppose is how we get "ampersand" from "and per se and", and "folks'll" from "forecastle". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

some forecastle never eat a skunk, and then again some forecastle.

like cletus, the slack-jawed yokel! 82.234.207.120 (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice one! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Plural of paterfamilias

For latinates: I am writing about More's Utopia and I need to know what would be the correct latin plural form of "paterfamilias". ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"familias" seems to be an archaic genitive, so that part doesn't change. The plural given in all the sources I found in google books is "patresfamilias". Our article on pater familias has "patres familias" too. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks! Wikipedia really is a better source than you'd imagine!·Maunus·ƛ· 15:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I second Sluzzelin. See wikt:paterfamilias. Lexicografía (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There are two very different ways to make it plural: "patres familias", "fathers of the family"; and "patres familiae", "fathers of families", which is sometimes found in erudite English as the standard plural of "pater-familias". In a Latin text, all these terms should be written as two words. LANTZY^TALK 15:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is "familiae" an older version of the genitive plural then? I know it's the standard Latin singular genitive. In standard Latin "fathers of the families" should be patres familiarum, as far as I know (which isn't very far, admittedly). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Familias is a 1st declension genitive singular form which was archaic in Latin (cf. the Greek -ης ending), but there's no corresponding archaic genitive plural that I've ever heard of. Each individual family of Republican Rome could have only one head of household, so I would really go with patres familiarum... AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Could patres familias refer to different heads of a single family during the course of time?—Emil J. 19:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The word familias never changes its declension whereas pater, patris changes according to its function. A very good example by Cicero is given in his case Against Verres:

atque adeo nostra res publica, quoniam illa populi Romani vectigalia sunt, hunc tot patrum familias numerum desiderat et reposcit. ager Herbitensis primo anno habuit aratores CCLII, tertio CXX: hinc CXXXII patres familias extorres profugerunt. "and to that extent our republic has to regret the loss of so many heads of families, and demands them back at his hand, since they are the real revenues of the Roman people. The district of Herbita had in his first year two hundred and fifty-seven cultivators; in his third, a hundred and twenty. From this region a hundred and thirty-seven heads of families have fled like banished men." Cic. Ver. 2.3.120

In the first use by Cicero, patrum is plural genetive and I would parse that as a genetive of the whole. The second use is in plural nominative: the subject of profugerunt. This is the exact form that you seek: the plural nominative of pater familias is indeed patres familias as demonstrated by Cicero. The easiest way to perform research in Latin is to search the Perseus website[3] or Textkit[4], which is very useful for Ancient Greek as well. I could be wrong concerning pater familias as I only studied Latin for 8 semesters at University, but it may be difficult to find a doctor in the house. Gx872op (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In the general Latin construction X Y_[gen], where X and Y are two words acting as nouns and Y is in the genitive case (e.g. "magister militum", "mater lectionis" etc.), Y does not change case, since its syntax is solely dependent on "X", and is not really affected by other surrounding words in the sentence. However, in some cases "Y" can change number (to plural or singular), if this would be more suitable to the intended meaning which is desired to be expressed in a particular sentence, and this is the general principle which I was applying when I suggested "patres familiarum". The evidence you've gathered suggests that the archaic form "familias" was treated as an idiom in this construction, and so did not in fact change number; however "patres familiarum" might be considered technically be more accurate than "patres familias" in describing precisely the family law of Republican Rome... AnonMoos (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

take out procession

Is it an Indianism? --117.204.81.99 (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I am a BrE speaker and it sounds alien to me. In fact, I wouldn't even really know what it meant except by guesssing from context. 86.161.83.77 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC).

I'd say the same thing. Can you give us the context? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If you Google the phrase you will find many instances in Indian news papers. Here's one from the Hindu. 117.204.82.93 (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

From the Hindu link above: "Construction workers in the district took out a massive procession and staged a demonstration here on Tuesday to press their 14-point charter of demands". I'd say it isn't standard British English, and I wouldn't think it was standard US English either? 'Procession' sounds too formal in any case, in this context. I'd just write "Construction workers in the district held a massive demonstration here on Tuesday...", or if it was a walkout, "Construction workers in the district staged a massive walkout and then held a demonstration here on Tuesday..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not American English. Despite the examples, I still don't feel certain what it's supposed to mean. Marco polo (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Some things you can take out are: a loan, which is clear enough, since you take the money out of the bank - but also a newspaper advert, a subscription, and a petition. I'm not sure what object it is that any of those are taken out of. Oh, and a contract and an injunction. The phrase seems to generally apply to papery things. 81.131.51.70 (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the mob used to 'take out' people, but I don't think that is the intended meaning. I think we need further examples to get to the bottom of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That comes from "take out a contract (killing) on", I think. Or could it be from "take out for a nice meal"? Who can say. 81.131.51.70 (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think it comes in a circuitous way from "take out a contract on" and not the more direct meaning of "take out" to mean "remove"? For example, "Take that sentence out, and your essay will be better." —Bkell (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I guess you're right. ("Take out that bridge" even involves weapons, too.) This gives a potential meaning to "Construction workers took out a massive procession" that I hadn't considered. 81.131.51.70 (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly a long line at the McDonalds Drive-thru window Buster Seven Talk 06:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Very strange that this phrase so widely used by the Indian press is so strange to native speakers! Even the OED has failed to list it. It's not a recentism either. I think this phrase should be suggested to OED. --117.204.91.108 (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Native speakers? Of what language? There are many Englishes, as this example well demonstrates. A native speaker of any of the variants can reasonably claim to be a "native speaker of English" - but a group of native speakers, one each from the Yukon in Canada, from South Africa, from the western isles of Scotland, and from the hills of Sri Lanka, would have considerable difficulty in understanding each other. Differences in vocabulary, grammar, idiom and pronunciation would all be barriers to immediate mutual comprehension. Example: When I first met my partner, who was brought up in Sri Lanka, I assumed he spoke only Sinhalese natively and came to English much later, as a second language. I thought this for quite some time, until he informed me that, not only did he speak both languages natively, but his mother was an English teacher! He was almost offended by any suggestion he was a Johnnie-come-lately to English. That doesn't alter the fact that I still often have difficulty in understanding what he says, for the 4 reasons I mentioned. But he's a native English speaker, just as I am. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to be a native speaker of Indian English, but there aren't very many. The figure that sticks in my head is a quarter of a million. Most Indians who speak English learn it in school. --Trovatore (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely Indian English, perhaps from "turned out" in procession. There are numerous common expressions which aren't quite right as compared to British or American English. A favorite one is "revert" to you for "respond" later. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Or opening the window to let the air force in. That's one I'll always remember. 00:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm always bemused by how tag questions spoken by many non-native Englishers (and even natives from certain places) are always "isn't it", no matter what the preceding context may be, or its tense. Such as, "Your wife wrote that book, isn't it" (rather than "didn't she"). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Could be short for "isn't it so?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

wikt:innit —Bkell (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

One day, I hope to write an article on this somewhere (not Wikipedia, it is OR). I'm going to entitle it Egalitarianism, innit? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The reduction of all tag questions to "isn't it?", "innit?" is a noticeable element Multicultural London English. You've been beaten to it, Andy. It's already been used in a book title "Education make you fick, innit: What's gone wrong with England's schools, colleges and universities, and how to start putting it right?" by Martin Allen and Patrick Ainley. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can only say that anyone who thinks that 'innit' is solely due to a failure of the education system has rather misunderstood the phenomenon. You'll find this, (or variations, like 'isn't it') in English from many parts of the world, and a careful study of its contextual usage suggests to me that it is often used to convert a direct statement into a question, in a situation where directness could be interpreted as asserting superior knowledge. As I suggested, there seems to me to be a linkage to an egalitarian ethos - the same one that results in 'brother' or 'bro' (or even 'blood') being used as a normal term of address in Multicultural London English. In Australia, which is another notably egalitarian society by ethos (in terms of language usage at least), the noted rising infliction inflection automatically makes the most direct statement sound like a question, rendering any 'innit' unnecessary. As I say, this is original research and not something I could definitively argue without further evidence, but this is my interpretation, innit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The things you learn here. I had always thought of the high rising terminal as a Valley girl phenomenon (broadly construed; of course not all Vals are female, or where would little Vals come from?). But apparently we have an article on Australian questioning intonation? --Trovatore (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Whoops, no we don't — it's a redirect to high rising terminal. I'm going to go mark it as a {{R with possibilities}}; someone could probably turn it into a real article. --Trovatore (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting: "...assertive speakers, leaders of the peer group are more likely to use HRT in their declaratives than the junior members of the particular peer group" (from the high rising terminal article). I think this fits in with my theory - in an egalitarian culture, 'leaders' need to stress their egalitarianism the most strongly. Thanks, Bro... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you called it an "infliction", Andy (have you been mixing with too many New Zealanders or South Africans?), because a lot of Australians cringe when they hear their compatriots speaking this way. We like to think it's confined to Queenslanders, but that's probably not strictly true. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Doh! I meant 'inflection', innit... And yes, there is a Kiwi in the vicinity. She confuses everyone... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)