Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 May 1

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Language
Language desk
< April 30 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 2 >
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.


May 1

edit

Very Unique?

edit

I know that "very unique" is incorrect because you're comparing an incomparable quantity. Does this type of error have a name? 213.48.15.234 06:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it possible to "know" things which aren't true. :) Although many people regard it as incorrect, "very unique" is not incorrect in any real sense. --Ptcamn 07:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So... can we rank people by their uniqueness? - You should probably go and correct [1], too. I'm talking about the "undisputed sense". 213.48.15.234 07:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't think anyone uses "very unique" in that sense. Whenever they use "very unique", they're using it in one of the other senses. --Ptcamn 07:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many language purists will indeed argue that the word unique represents an absolute condition, and should therefore never be modified by any adverb that indicates a matter of degree; for example "very". In other words they understand "unique" to be a binary value, something is either unique or not, it is not a gradable adjective, and any use of qualifying modifiers is automatically "incorrect". However, the word has acquired multiple meanings and usages and not all of its senses preclude the use of such modifiers; there is no "undisputed sense". Merriam-Webster's site gives the various definitions and, quite helpfully, even specifically addresses objections to "very unique" as an(always) incorrect comparison[2].--Azi Like a Fox 07:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's ridiculously interesting. 213.48.15.234 07:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome. As an aside, if you were an American I was going to warn you to tread carefully lest you inadvertently impugn our Founding Fathers who in the very Preamble to our great Constitution saw fit to use the phrase, "more perfect union"; but since you don't appear to be, I wont. ;) -- Azi Like a Fox 08:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read a fascinating article on this once on the web that I think came from a wikipedia link but for the life of me I can't remember where (It was a whole collection of essays about disputed grammatical issues - sound familiar anyone?). I think the gist of it was that it is generally considered incorect usage but nevertheless is quite common. The example they gave was something like "he had the roundest head of anyone I had ever seen" which I would say does not sound strange at all even though something can't really be "more round" than something else. I'm sorry I can't think of the actual name for it though. Storeye 09:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of a name for the error, unless it's disagreement between an adjective and its modifier. It's impossible to name all possible errors. See Comparison#In grammar and Adjective#Comparison of adjectives for more on this subject.--Shantavira 10:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I notice about things like "a more perfect union" and "the roundest head I ever saw" is that objections to them stem from a misunderstanding of how to interpret comparatives like "more" and superlatives like "-est". Saying "union A is more perfect than union B" means simply "union A is more nearly perfect than union B". It's very common to use comparative adjectives to mean "more nearly X"/"closer to being X". If I come home with all F's on my report card once, and my next report card is all D's, my second report card is "better than" my first, but it's still far from being "good". So if I can say "X is better than Y" to mean "X is closer to being good than Y, but neither of them is good", then I can say "the new union will be more perfect than it used to be" to mean "it will be closer to being perfect than it used to be, but still without achieving absolute perfection". The same goes for round heads: no one could possibly have a truly (perfectly) round head, but if one's persons head can come closer to it than anyone else's, it's absolutely grammatical to say "that's the roundest head I've ever seen". —Angr 10:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Angr, such disputes are more often than not semantic as opposed to grammatical. -- Azi Like a Fox 10:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are all my favourite. 213.48.15.234 12:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that common English parlance, especially in marketing, is increasingly using 'unique' as a rather lazy term for 'interesting, quirky'. In front of me I have an estate agent's blurb about a property for sale which says "This house... is absolutely unique. It is one of three that were built in 1880..." - RA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Haha brilliant. However I don't like to rely on marketing to expand my English knowledge. 213.48.15.234 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, if the other two had since been demolished, it could now be unique in the strict sense. --Anon, May 1, 2007, 21:48 (UTC).
My personal most favorite is, free gift! And there was a hardware chain, since bought out, that had 'More of Everything', emblazoned across the front of their stores. --killing sparrows (chirp!) 14:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was it "Cheap at half the price"? - X201 14:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably 'No purchase necessary (details inside)' Scouse Mouse - 日英翻訳 16:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Unique' is not gradable, which is why you can't/really shouldn't say 'very unique' is standard English. This term normally applies to antonyms, but I'm not sure 'unique' has a unique antonym. Gradable adjectives can be modified by 'more/less/very/a little' etc., but ungradable ones cannot, unless someone goes as changes their meaning or use. You should find a treatment in any basic Semantics textbook. Drmaik 18:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently saw a TV ad that offered, once one had purchased whatever it was they were selling, a Free gift. Absolutely free. No conditions at all *. Then, lower down, was * conditions apply. I still don't know what to make of that. JackofOz 00:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm sure the clever bloke who drafted this will make short work of anyone who tries to dispute it, or make sense out of it, or both. dr.ef.tymac 00:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the point of that Monty Python sketch on the Spanish Inquisition about an "inquisitor" who gets all tripped up by correcting himself on prescriptive technicalities? It really shows up the whole issue of getting one's panties in a bunch about things like "very unique" mnewmanqc 01:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I does know knot weather me am prescriptivist, butt dont every body agree that sum things are moar corect then others?  --LambiamTalk 11:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling is definitely right or wrong, because spelling isn't part of grammar. And even descriptivists don't defend usage that no native speaker would ever use. There's a difference between nonstandard forms used by native speakers and flat-out mistakes that only nonnative speakers (if even they!) would make. —Angr 13:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling is definitely right or wrong? a skeptic sceptic might question your judgement judgment. dr.ef.tymac 14:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So where do utterances like Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning? and You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test fit on the scale between "nonstandard forms used by native speakers" and "flat-out mistakes that only nonnative speakers (if even they!) would make"?  --LambiamTalk 18:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
is our children learning is an error, but a different kind of error. It's an accident, a slip up — it's not something done intentionally due to lack of knowledge of what the correct form is.
Anyway, he deserves a high-five for using that good ol' Germanic V2 word order. --Ptcamn 22:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English grammar: need confirmation before article edits

edit

Consider the following examples from Garden path sentence:

  • 1) "The horse (that was raced past the barn) fell."
  • 2) "The horse raced past the barn fell."

Assuming sentence 1 accurately reflects speaker intent and intended meaning, the article seems to imply that sentence 2 is a grammatically correct instance to convey that meaning. Is that correct? Also, the word "was" in the first sentence simply should not be there, correct? Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 17:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last things first: no, was should be there. Someone was racing the horse past the barn... which is what 2) is equivalent to. Drmaik 18:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit confict) Both "The horse that was raced past the barn fell" and "The horse that raced past the barn fell" are grammatically correct sentences. They have somewhat different meanings, depending on whether the verb "to race" is used in its transitive or intransitive sense. If the word "was" is included it is clear that the horse was made to race, possibly by a jockey; the version without "was" leaves the possibility open that it raced fully on its own accord. Sentence 2 also implies that the horse was made to race. In general, a construction of the form "(NOUN) (PAST PARTICIPLE)" means "(NOUN) who/that is/are/was/were (PAST PARTICIPLE)"; for example, "words spoken in anger" = "words that are spoken in anger", and "the principle established by these experimental studies" = "the principle that was established by these experimental studies". So the words "was" in sentence 1 is correct.  --LambiamTalk 18:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearly this was a brain fart on my part. Thanks Lambiam and Drmaik. dr.ef.tymac 18:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children's songs in unknown languages

edit

My three-year-old son is singing a couple of songs that he has learned in kindergarten, and I can't recognise the languages they are in. Can anyone help to identify them? The first one sounds like this (apologies for the lack of IPA): Hemmer hemmer hecky, schweeder makiar, sung to the tune of "Itsy Bitsy Spider". The second one includes a line sounding like Oh shy no manekin. Any ideas? Many thanks. --Richardrj talk email 18:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The line in the second song sounds rather like the German phrase Oh, schöne Mannequin. I'm not aware of any song incorporating that phrase, though, and it seems a somewhat unlikely line for a children's song, given the German meaning of Mannequin = English "fashion model" or even "supermodel".  --LambiamTalk 19:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be "Oh, schönes Mädchen" (Oh beautiful girl). --84.149.87.104 18:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like hämähäkki is Finnish for "spider"; it's probably a Finnish translation of the song. --Cam 19:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Finnish version is:
  Hämä-hämähäkki kiipes langalle

Hämä-hämähäkki kiipes langalle. Tuli sade rankka, hämähäkin vei. Aurinko armas kuivas satehen. Hämä-hämähäkki kiipes uudelleen. I found it here. Scouse Mouse - 日英翻訳 21:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to me that kindergarten would be teaching your son Finnish without your permission. Perhaps there is a Finnish student and he learned it from him ? StuRat 05:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, children shouldn't learn anything without parental permission. Otherwise they could get smarter than you! Oh my god, I just realised somebody teached me to sing Frère Jacques without permission! Mon dieu! --141.35.20.90 11:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, he did not learn it from a fellow "student" (cripes, he's only three!); and yes, the kindergarten taught it to him. And I have no problem with that at all, in fact I think it's rather cool. --Richardrj talk email 13:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the English title for this story?

edit

A mother goat leaves the house while her children remains inside the house. A wolf is hungry and spies on the house and its plump occupants. After the mother has disappeared, the wolf tries to enter frequent times. He tries once by swallowing chalk. He also tries to cover flour over his paws so his feet look like those of goats. He then tricks the kids that he is their mother. When the door opens, he eats every one except one last kid. The mother comes home and discovers her kids are gone except one kid left. The two found the wolf and dump stones in the wolf's stomach. The wolf wakes and drowns. What is this story? 69.218.214.249 22:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article is at The Wolf and the Seven Young Kids, but I think a more common English name is The wolf and the seven little goats. Really one for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. jnestorius(talk) 23:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wolf And The Seven Kids. It can be found here. Scouse Mouse - 日英翻訳 23:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was half right; apparently "kids" is preferred to "goats", but "little" is preferred to "young". Google books matches "The wolf and the seven..."
  • little kids 257
  • kids 173
  • little goats 91
  • young kids 28
  • goats 9
  • young goats 1
I suggest moving the article to The wolf and the seven little kids jnestorius(talk) 23:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wolf and the seven young kids is a literal translation of the title Der Wolf und die sieben jungen Geißlein by which the tale was originally presented by the Grimm brothers.  --LambiamTalk 07:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wolf and the Seven Young Little Goats would be just as adequate a translation, though. I would definitely avoid "the seven little kids" because of what "little kids" usually means in English. —Angr 08:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a better translation, in my opinion. The cognate word Kitz for young goat exists in German (also for young deer, ibex, chamois etc). Maybe Geisslein has more of a folksy and children's book tone. I would translate it as little goats (or goaties?). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, the other meaning of "little kids" didn't occur to me till Angr alluded to it. I guess it's more established in American English. Angr did you really mean "Young Little Goats"?!? Not very idiomatic. In any case, further discussion should talk place at Talk:The Wolf and the Seven Young Kids#Rename. jnestorius(talk) 23:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2007_May_1&oldid=1080984713"