Language desk
< December 18	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 20 >

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 19

Place–manner–time in English - how strict?

With some surprise I just read Place–manner–time, as many years ago, I had learned manner-place-time to be the usual order in English. Now a sentence I wrote in an essay (which should use rather simple English terms, which is why I avoided "water-meadow", for example) made me think:

"[The Magna Carta] was signed at Runnymede, a wet grassland near London, in 1215 by King John of England, who had succeeded his departed brother Richard the Lionheart in 1199."

I think that "in 1215", standing after the place, is suboptimal for the readability and the elegance of the sentence - however shifting it to the very end would be a catastrophy in both regards ("... in 1199, in 1215."). I think the best would be to start the sentence with "In 1215, the Magna Carta...". What do you think about it? Is there some freedom of word order? (And any other feedback for this sentence?) --KnightMove (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The order "by King John of England in 1215" is fine, but I'd go with "[The Magna Carta] was signed in 12125 at Runnymede, a wet grassland near London, by King John of England, who had succeeded his departed brother Richard the Lionheart in 1199.". μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going simple. You should consider shorter sentences and active voice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't really tell without context how to cut that down into separate sentences. But I agree, "King John of England, who had succeeded his departed brother Richard the Lionheart in 1199, signed [The Magna Carta] at Runnymede, a wet grassland near London, in 1215" works well. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant context is just my starting sentence (based on the introduction in the Simple English Wikipedia, but altered), which might explain why I chose passive:

"One of the most celebrated documents in English history is the Magna Carta, which is Latin for 'Great Charter'. It was signed at Runnymede, a wet grassland near London, in 1215 by King John of England, who had succeeded his departed brother Richard the Lionheart in 1199."

Would it still be better to use active voice, even though the text features the Magna Carta?

How could I pack the year best into the first sentence?

About the long sentences: I'm going to read it aloud and slowly, as a listening and understanding practice for the others. I think that some longer, more challenging sentences won't hurt, but unknown words would. --KnightMove (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But note that "wet grassland" is not necessarily an accurate description of a water-meadow. "Field" might be a safer substitute.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Both the OP's original wording (""[The Magna Carta] was signed at Runnymede, ..., in 1215 by...." and Medeis's wording "[The Magna Carta] was signed in 1215 at Runnymede, ... , by.... " are absolutely fine. (2) If you want to pack the date into the first sentence, it would be "One of the most celebrated documents in English history is the Magna Carta (1215), which is Latin for 'Great Charter'." (3) In the second sentence I would say the passive voice is much preferable to the active voice, because it allows you to put the focus ("The Magna Carta" or "It") at the start of the sentence. The active-voice alternative would be the much inferior "King John of England, who had succeeded his departed brother Richard the Lionheart in 1199, signed it at Runnymede, a wet grassland near London, in 1215." Duoduoduo (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree, this is definitely one of those times that the insistence on active voice just ruins the flow of information. Lsfreak (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that either form is OK, though I'd quibble about "was signed... by King John of England", because he didn't sign it - he couldn't write, he affixed his seal to it. Also I really don't like that "departed brother" bit, maybe it's my British bluntness but I'd prefer "dead" or "deceased"; "departed" mainly implies "left" to me, which could be used to describe Richard the Lionheart at any time during his reign, as he only spent around six months of his ten year reign actually in England. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the Magna Carta is the subject under discussion, then insistence on the active voice is wrong. The OP's last formulation is perfectly cromulent. But the word order is still at issue for simple english. If it is for simple english, I would say "The Magna Carta, which is the Latin name for the 'Great Charter', is one of the most famous documents of English history. It was signed in 1215 at Runnymede (which is a wet grass-land near London) by King John of England, who had taken the kingship from his missing brother, Richard the Lionheart, in 1199.""μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to quibble on John's accession: I can find no support for your assertion that he took the kingship from Richard the Lionheart. Rather, all the sources I have seen say that John was named as heir by Richard on his deathbed. During Richard's absence John had been wheeling and dealing to secure his position as Richard's heir, but had not usurped his brother. So to be accurate, the second part of the last sentence should read something like "... who had acceeded to the throne on the death of his brother... " --TammyMoet (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So all those Robin Hood films are wrong? I'm devastated! Alansplodge (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Take control' can be active or passive regarding agency--took control applies equally when the former dies on his own as when you yourself have killed him. I did worry about that word choice, actually, but only enough to decide it was okay here. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noun-izing words, and how to refer to them

Playing an online word game, today, I wondered whether it's grammatically correct to stick an "s" at the end of any word in English, when the subject of the sentence is multiple instances of the word itself.

For example, if the speaker wanted to know how many times the word "happy" occurred in a sentence, he might ask, How many happys were there? More problematically, if the word were "dogs", he might ask How many dogses were there? (Most writers would write the two words as happy's and dogs's, but I'm pretty sure that's grammatically incorrect.)

My questions: (a) Are the above constructions grammatically correct? I know it's more clear-cut if the sentences were rephrased, but I just want to know if these constructions are correct. (b) If so, does that mean that the word dogses may be a correctly spelled word? Tarcil (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Use–mention distinction is of interest to the problem you are having. --Jayron32 06:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether it ever occurred to style manual writers to address this situation or not. I would use italics or quotes around "happy" but not enclosing the "s": 'How many "happy"s were there?' or 'How many happys were there?' But I suspect no one would approve of 'How many dogss were there?' or 'How many dogses were there?' (Incidentally, to my ear "nounifying" sounds more natural than "noun-izing". Duoduoduo (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linguists use the word "nominalization", but not really to cover this particular situation. AnonMoos (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A style manual would almost certainly recommend that in a formal context this is rephrased to something like "How many times did he say 'happy'?" or "How many occurrences of 'happy' are there on page 340?". However eg a satirical newspaper article might use a lighter style with deliberate use of a non-existent word for the purpose of humour: "How many taxeses were there in the minister's speech?". -Ehrenkater (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics term

Hello all! When translating a phrase from one language to another (i.e., English), sometimes I see something like:

Je ne parle pas français.

1STPERSONSING-NEGATIVE-Speak-NEG-French

"I do not speak French"

Is there a word for the second representation (stuff like "SUBJECTMARKER-PRESENT-pinch-RECIPROCAL-FINALVOWEL") ? πr² (t • c) 17:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a bit like some kind of Metasyntax. But I'm not sure. --Jayron32 19:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interlinear gloss. Lsfreak (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, interlinear gloss is right. Angr (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely it, thanks! πr² (t • c) 22:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rhotic

How can I put the rhotic /œ/ in Wikipedia ? Fête (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In an article? Can you not copy and paste it? You should also find it in the list of "Special characters" right above the editing box. If you mean as an article, we have one: Œ. --BDD (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess he means [œ̃˞], which can be found in R-coloured vowel, and can be copied and pasted just like I did right now. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does one hear such an exotic vowel? μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes American English [ɚ] with some degree of retroflexion is loosely equated with French [œ] (going both ways). I'm not sure what the basis for this is, but they do sound at least slightly similar. Have no idea about [œ] with r-coloring... AnonMoos (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the R-coloured vowel article, that vowel is found in Quebec French. I don't know what the vowel is exactly, but "un" for example usually sounds something like "earn". (The way that that vowel is pronounced by people who were in French Immersion in Ontario is even more irritating.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is how a stressed rhotic mid vowel in words such as occur, prefer, or her is pronounced in certain American Midland accents. Marco polo (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments seem to be weird subjective comments by British English speakers who find both rhotic and rounded front vowels equally exotic. No American is ever taught French by being told to substitute -er for eu, and the two bear no resemblance to rhotic speakers. We are told to say "eh" while extending our lips to say "oh". perhaps this is a mattew of Bwits who have a pwobwem pwonouncing theieh doubew yews? μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- I'm a proud Murrkin from USofAia, and my [ɚ] is syllabically quasi-retroflexally rhotic. No real French teacher would teach students to do this, but many quick-phrases-for-tourists books have done this in their rough-and-ready pronunciation guides, and I have a book for French speakers (ISBN 2-8315-0860-6) which uses the French spelling "eu" to indicate [ə] and [ʌ], and "eur" to indicated [ɝ]/[ɚ]. Of course, this may also have to do with the recent French tendency to pronounce traditional French schwa with a kind of front rounded vowel... AnonMoos (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, I myself speak rhotic American English. My comment does not confuse the French non-rhotic vowel with a rhotic vowel. I merely observe that in certain versions of American English, an r-colored version of French -oeu- as in boeuf (not -eu as in feu) occurs. Marco polo (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to argue that some Americans don't badly mispronounce French. (Manger le berf sounds almost as good as Fetchez la vache!) I still find it the hardest language to pronounce well that I have learned. I studied it under a Romanian Jewess with Yiddish-accented English, and she would never have suggested such a shortcut. Might as well have said silver plates means "thanks" and shut the door means "I love you". μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Silver plates" might get you close to "please", but not particularly close to "thanks". Angr (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mercy bucket! μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you were referring to me but, I'm a Canadian English speaker... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to all you folk. And thanks, Adam, (smiley) I shall keep that fact on file.... μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be serious, I really do find this suggestion that one say "er" for "eu" quite odd. Is there any serious textbook that suggests it beyong a Ber(ullsh)itz level? μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is actually suggesting to learn French as a second language that way, but listen to several seconds of Quebecois French and you'll hear rhotic vowels. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French is never rhotic. In fact most people find it erotic. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E-rhotic is the online version of rhotic. You know, the sound you make when you're not making a sound. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation reminds me of F.U.N.E.X. from the Two Ronnies. Alansplodge (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]