Language desk
< April 20	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 22 >

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.

April 21

Right/wrong = frequency

Is right or wrong in language just a case of frequency? Style would be just the frequency of who does it and at what situation. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. For meanings of words, generally yes: if you use a word with a different meaning from most people you're liable to be misunderstood, and/or judged as using the word wrongly; but if enough people come to use the word in that way any descriptivist will acknowledge that that is one of the meanings of the word. For grammatical structures it's more complex. Sometimes there are possible variations within the general grammar of the language, and a form comes to be used in a slightly different way just like the case of a word (for example, the use of the present perfect vs. the simple past). But where it is a structure that no native speaker would ever say, (eg "Black dog the") we can say unequivocally that it is ungrammatical. (And I'm not even considering the black-and-white but arbitrary strictures of the prescriptivists). --ColinFine (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)In lingustics there are prescriptive grammars and descriptive grammars. The prescriptive grammars determine what is right and wrong based on somebody saying that it is right or wrong, regardless of usage. Such sentences as "My job is to amicably respond to customer complaints," "He is being watched," and "I ain't got no cheese" are all considered "wrong" by some people based on prescriptive grammar (Split infinitive, Use of the passive voice, and for the last one double negative and the use of the word ain't). Descriptive grammars are determined by usage (whether it is used or sounds right in a given dialect; note that any "standard" is also a dialect for these purposes). No native English speaker from any dialect I know of would be likely to say "I are smart" or "Me the dog bit" or "I have none cheese" regardless of how comprehensible these sentences are ("You understands this sentences probably, but it is no right on descriptive grounds"). From a descriptive standpoint, however, "I ain't got no cheese", for example, is perfectly correct if you speak a dialect where that usage is normal. I also suspect that it is possible to be prescriptively correct but descriptively wrong. "The man and his daughter, whose mother bore him 29 years ago, was about to have been about to visit the woman who was taller than she to whom I gave the shoes" might be correct from a prescriptive standpoint (it doesn't violate any "rules" that I know of), but it sure as heck doesn't seem to be correct from a descriptive standpoint because nobody in their right mind would ever say that. Falconus^{p t c} 15:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that divides the question in two. Is descriptive grammar just a question of how frequent something occurs? And prescriptive grammar a question of how frequent some select group of people use some form? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Falconus: Spoken like a true auguist lingustician. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 15:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that all of the rules of English are subject to change, even those listed in the previous responses, if a large enough percentage of English speakers start to use different rules, and enough time elapses. The time is needed to ensure that it's not just a passing fad, and allow those who write grammar guides and teach English a chance to catch up. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. I wish some changes were just passing fads, but most aren't. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-prescriptivism is a self-refuting idea. It aims to prescribe against prescriptivism, and it ends up with such absurdities as denying that a person can ever say "that's not what I meant to say" because once they said it is was what they did say, and any standard of comparison is just imaginary. That is, the descriptivist believes there is no such thing as that which was meant to be said, only that which came out of one's lips. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you have one group which refuses to update grammar rules, and another which consequently ignores those rules, you eventually get the splitting of the language into two. StuRat (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A split between conservative and innovative is called diglossia. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply untrue, Medeis, like simplistic critiques of moral relativism. It is not necessary to ignore the speaker's intent in order to be a descriptivist. Or do you know better than a descriptivist what they intend to believe? The standard for descriptivism is the established usage, which provides a context for both intent and speech. But you know, please go on giving misleading, unhelpful answers. Don't stop pretending to know the beliefs of a group better than its own members. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your point is that descriptivists aren't consistent, I won't argue. There is no problem with a descriptivist grammar in itself, but the moral zeal with which you will see some ideological descriptivists prescribing against prescriptivism is amusingly ironic. μηδείς (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it sounds natural and all relevant parties effectively communicate with each other, it seems "correct" to me. If there is a breakdown in communication because the speaker and listener have different grammars, then the communication is "wrong", but only in the sense that it is ineffective. The fact that different dialects have different rules is precisely why I think that there have to be more prescribed standards, at least broadly speaking. My problem with prescriptivism is that it takes a perfectly valid construction, which is completely understandable to almost every competent English speaker ("That ain't right" or "What do y'all wanna eat?"), and declares it wrong based on who knows what. In my opinion, it is only pertinent to be prescriptive in situations that might lead to difficulties in communication or perhaps to retain historical litteracy. Regrettably, the world doesn't work that way. Medeis, I think that your idea that descriptivists say that people cannot say what they don't mean based on the grounds that "there is no such thing as that which was meant to be said, only that which came out of one's lips" is a false understanding of the idea of descriptivism. Descriptive grammars are pretty much looking at how people formulate their meaning, not stripping their speech of meaning. Falconus^{p t c} 17:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with prescriptive grammarians who understand that what they are expressing is social norms on a par with how to dress or how to behave at table. Often they don't appreciate this and appear to think they are ruling on something much more fundamental. --ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, and both types of grammars have their place. (I'd love a good descriptive grammar of Spanish. What I read in textbooks and what I know from actually speaking it vary quite profoundly.) I have had a very hard time trying to explain to certain professional philosophers focussed on teaching logic that linguists do actually have valid reasons for producing descriptive grammars, and that this does not merely reflect sloppy thought. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the article "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" for an argument why simple frequency is an insufficient guide to correctness in grammar. Gabbe (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian English - "in hospital" or "in the hospital"

I know British English uses "in hospital" (and other variants) almost exclusively, while SAE prefers to add the definite article, but where do our neighbors up north stand on this? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Botswana is north of South Africa. I would guess (and this is a guess) that they say it without the article. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, based on the title, I am guessing that perhaps the intended meaning of "SAE" is "Standard American English" in this case, not "South African English". Falconus^{p t c} 15:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous meaning of the acronym "SAE" in linguistics is actually Whorf's "Standard Average European". The term for American English spoken without marked regional peculiarities is "General American". On Wikipedia, "Standard American English" redirects to "General American"...AnonMoos (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't that be Standard Australian English or Southern American English? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or Standard Armenian English? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 15:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm not arguing that "SAE" on it's own is not ambiguous. I am however arguing that when somebody asks about "Canadian English" and refers to their "neighbors up north", "Standard American English" is the most logical meaning of "SAE", since between Canada, Australia, the American South, and Botwsana, only one of those countries/regions is located north of the United States. Evanh, correct me please if I am wrong. Falconus^{p t c} 15:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My God, Falconus... Did you actually think about it before you posted? What manner of witchery be this? :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standard American English. If Botswana had relocated to somewhere north of the equator and west of the prime meridian, I imagine it would have made the papers. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the question, and apologies for the comment above, I would believe it depended on the person. In the UK, we tend to use 'in hospital' for referring to the state of being in a hospital, and generally because of illness or injury, and 'in the hospital' would usually refer to a state of being in a particular hospital (and in fact, not necessarily being there for a reason of illness - maybe visiting or working there). Similar to how we would say 'my son is at school'. This may or may not mean he is there at this particular moment. Saying, 'my son is at the school,' however, would imply he is there now. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadians do say "in hospital" and "to hospital": [1] Rmhermen (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That reads more like Headlinese to me. Mingmingla (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is once in the headline and twice in the very short text. Rmhermen (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will hear some Americans say "in hospital" under the circumstances Kagetora mentions, but my assumption is that will be signs of British influence. I myself might say, "I spent a lot of time in hospital over the last ten years", but it would be an acquired, not a native pattern. I can easily imagine myself saying "With all the time I've spent in hospital..." It would be referring to the state of hospitalization, not to being in any specific hospital. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking regionally, I've never heard "in hospital" in Vancouver unless it was said by someone from India or the UK, and Hong Kongers vary depending on how long they've been here. Mingmingla (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet during multiple stays in Montreal, I have heard "in hospital" used by locals. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everybody! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can also imagine people saying "in hospital" but it sounds wrong to me, like these hypothetical people would just be speaking sloppily. "In the hospital" certainly sounds more normal to me. (Speaking about Ontario, anyway.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native Montrealer, and I use "in hospital" and "in the hospital" in just the way Kagetora describes above. It is analogous to the distinction that our neighbours to the south (or I) would make between "in prison" and "in the prison". The Gage Canadian Dictionary lists "in hospital or in the hospital, in a hospital as a patient: Two of the accident victims are in hospital with serious injuries." I have to say I am somewhat surprised to hear that Canadians from other parts of the country differ significantly from us on this. Google searches restricted to the websites of the CBC, the Montreal Gazette, the Toronto Star, the Toronto Globe and Mail, and the Vancouver Sun yield the following results, which show a clear preference among journalists for "in hospital":

cbc.ca "is in hospital" 454 [2] "is in the hospital" 29 [3]

montrealgazette.com "is in hospital" 23 [4] "is in the hospital" 1 [5]

thestar.com "is in hospital 223 [6] "is in the hospital" 18 [7]

theglobeandmail.com "is in hospital" 63 [8] "is in the hospital" 9 [9]

vancouversun.com "is in hospital" 96 [10] "is in the hospital" 8 [11]

I've added "is" in order to avoid getting too much of what has been referred to here as "headlinese." After all, if you're omitting "the" only because you're writing a headline, you'll probably also omit "is." 96.46.198.53 (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, as some commentators invoked South African English. When South Africans say "in hospital" it means "has been admitted to the hospital as a patient". The phrase "in the hospital" means "is located somewhere within the property known as the hospital", the reason for being there is not implicit in the phrase. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greek alphabet, Latin alphabet

Why didn't the Romans and consequentially us (excluding Medeis, who does it to annoy everybody) use the Greek alphabet when writing in Latin, or other Indo-European language (or something more or less adapted from it). It seems appropriate, and Greece was highly regarded in the Ancient time. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem, unusually for an uneducated troll, to have been able to figure out my name, Osman. Or perhaps you are educated? Were I actually trying to annoy people, my signature would be: ♥ Something like ┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐ this ♥ As it is, the Greek alphabet is high school level knowledge and, I think, rather elegant. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You look like an alien?165.212.189.187 (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

That is actually kind of cool looking, isn't it? Hehehe. μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... The Roman alphabet is a adaptation of the Greek alphabet. Or rather, an adaptation of an adaptation, the Etruscan alphabet. See Roman Alphabet. The English alphabet is, of course, an adaptation of the Roman alphabet. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but why adapt it? Sometimes you need extra letters, but in general what is better in it? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well ask: why did the Greeks adapt the Phoenician alphabet? And the answer is roughly the same -- you don't need some letters because your language doesn't have those sounds, and you need new letters because your source doesn't have letters for sounds you do have. And the source alphabet might not match the linguistic structure of the borrowing language particularly well. (And of course, alphabets can change over time as languages change over time.) Cyrillic from Greek shows the same things at work. -- Elphion (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And see: History of the Latin alphabet. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OsmanRF34 -- the Latin alphabet is a descendant of the early Euboean version of the Greek alphabet, as exported to the Greek colony of Cumae in Italy, modified by the Etruscans to suit their own language, and then borrowed by the Romans from the Etruscans and modified again by the Romans to suit the Latin language. That's the way that things commonly diffused in ancient times; uniformity in such matters across wide geographic areas usually did not exist in the absence of a centralized ruling empire. Probably most literate Romans would not have intensively encountered the Ionic version of the Greek alphabet (i.e. the 24-letter version that you have in mind) until around the time of the Battle of Corinth (146 BC), and presumably would not have seen any reason to adopt an alphabet which did not have separate letters for the Latin sounds [h] and [f], but did have letters for sounds [pʰ], [tʰ], [kʰ] that were not needed in Latin, especially when they already had a perfectly good alphabet for Latin. The Romans did adopt the letters "Y" and "Z" from the Ionic Greek alphabet, but apparently felt no need to go further... AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With very few exceptions, nobody ever set out to create a new script. Just as with languages diverging, scripts gradually diverge.If you consider the changes between Greek and Etruscan, or Etruscan and Latin, they will have needed to write sounds that weren't in the original language, and not needed to record or distinguish some that were distinguished in the original language. They would do the first either by using existing letters in new ways, or by inventing new letters: in either case it is likely that different people will have tried different solutions before they settled down to a standard. In the case of sounds or distinctions that they didn't make, nobody will have said "We won't have that letter in our alphabet": they will just not have used it. Finally the shapes of the letters changed over time and became distinct from those of the original language. Again, it is unlikely that anybody decided to give them new shapes: they will just have diverged over time, in much the same way as originally common languages diverge over time.

You might like to consider South and Southeast Asia, where almost every major language has its own, very distinct, alphabet. In contrast, almost the whole of Europe uses just two alphabets (families of alphabet, really): Roman and Cyrillic. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Europe-Mediterranean area between the early middle ages and the modern period, the Georgians and Armenians had national scripts (and at times there were a few others now abandoned or reserved for strictly liturgical uses), but for the most part use of scripts went along religious lines -- Latin Christians (Roman Catholics and later Protestants) used the Latin alphabet, Orthodox Christians used the Greek and Cyrillic alphabets, Muslims used the Arabic alphabet, Jews used the Hebrew alphabet, etc. -- to a large degree independently of what languages they were writing. That's why shifts of scripts (such as Romanian from Cyrillic to Latin, or Turkish from Arabic to Latin) were understood as momentous shifts in civilizational alignments... AnonMoos (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]