Language desk
< August 16	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

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

August 17

Better and best, but not good

There are two virtually equivalent expressions: "<subject> had better <verb>" and "<subject> had best <verb>". The "had" is often omitted.

Examples: You('d) better go now before your father gets home. I had best eat now as we won't get another chance for 6 hours.

But we never say "<subject> had good <verb>". Why is it ok to use better or best, but not good? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is what OED says about the usage: "In Old and Middle English, the comparative adjectives liefer, better, etc., were constructed with be and the dative, e.g. him were better ‘it would be better for him’ (see e.g. better adj. A.4a.i, lief adj. A.1c). Constructions with have and the nominative arose in Middle English, as he had better ‘he would hold or find it better or preferable’. Use with positive and superlative adjectives arose later, as did use with adverbs (apparently from a reinterpretation of liefer, better, etc., in these constructions as adverbs" which may or may not help you. DuncanHill (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Mark 14:21 in the KJV: "good were it for that man if he had never been born." --Lambiam 21:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like the OED, I think that better and best in this idiom have become to be interpreted as adverbs, so one had well wonder why we never say "<subject> had well <verb>". --Lambiam 21:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comparative element is important, which is why "<subject> had as well <verb>" does occur, though it's rather old fashioned. ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic correctness of a phrase

I wonder whether the phrase a vegan anti-livestock farming film is semantically correct. Does "vegan" refer to "film"? Leyo 21:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does, but the punctuation should be "a vegan anti-livestock-farming film". Deor (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would probably be better phrased more along the lines of "an anti-livestock-farming film from a vegan perspective". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this phrase would be linguistically better. My concern above was whether a film may be characterized as "vegan". --Leyo 22:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sort of shorthand phrasing. It doesn't really make sense to describe a film as being vegan, but the meaning is pretty clear to most fluent speakers. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There can be vegan food, and vegan people, but not really a vegan film. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've increasingly seen "vegan" on labels of products other than food, to indicate that no animal products or animal labour were involved in the manufacture. Clothing is a relatively common example. In the case of Dominion 2018 film, the sense is vegan advocacy. Folly Mox (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Does "vegan" describe the film (motion picture) or the film (physical medium on which the motion picture is photographed)? If the former then I would take "vegan" to apply to the editorial or artistic position of the motion picture. If the latter, a "vegan film" would be one in which the film stock did not contain any animal-derived product (just as one can buy vegan shoes). To the best of my knowledge all photographic film contains gelatin, so could not be classified as vegan in the sense which I have just suggested. DuncanHill (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the former meaning, i.e., not any materials used to physically produce the film. :-) --Leyo 08:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Were any fossil fuels used for the energy needed to produce the film? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant? I can't see any reference to fossil fuels in the original question, or any of the replies so far. Bazza (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you missed Duncan's comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reference to fossil fuels or energy consumption in DuncanHill's contributions. --Lambiam 21:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He posed the question of whether a film could literally be vegan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with fossil fuels? Were you eating strawberries while posting your question? --Lambiam 11:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are all fossil fuels derived from plants? Or are some of them derived from animals? If the latter, does the use of them compromise the "vegan" concept? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The vegan lifestyle is an ethical choice, seeking to exclude all forms of exploitation of animals, whether by keeping them captive, breeding them, trading them, killing them, or eating them. It is not a dogmatic religion lending itself well to abuse by casuistry. Wheat flour and other plant-based flours will unavoidably contain some percentage of animal protein, and so will fruits, roots, tubers, beans and nuts. The soil on which edible plants grow is kept healthy by the natural activity of earthworms. Only people opposed to the ethics of veganism will draw the conclusion that vegans are not allowed to eat bread or cabbage. --Lambiam 09:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns about the phrase "a vegan anti-livestock farming film" would be "in what way is it anti-livestock? And in what way is it a farming film?" I suspect the original author meant "anti livestock-farming". DuncanHill (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some debate about the wording of the lede in Dominion (2018 film). One option was the phrase above, of which I was unsure whether is it semantically correct. --Leyo 08:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:PREFIXDASH says it should be anti–livestock farming. Bazza (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"a vegan anti-livestock farming film" can be interpreted in two ways:

a vegan film that is against livestock farming
a vegan farming film that is against livestock

I think most people will read it in the intended first sense, but the ambiguity is there. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A way around this would be to rephrase, e.g "a vegan film against/criticizing live stock farming". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]