Language desk
< September 10	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 12 >

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.

September 11

Some questions on learning Italian

I'm currently in the process of learning Italian, and since I don't have the time and the money to take a course at the moment, I decided to learn as much as possible by myself. I'm quite content with my progress so far, but some of the finer points still elude me.

Am I right in assuming that the -one suffix (as in cassone or zio Paperone) means "big one" (the opposite of the diminutive suffix -ino)?
What's the difference in usage/meaning between giorno/sera and giornata/serata? My dictionary lists both as day/evening, but I assume there must be some difference in meaning when there are two different words.
Ah, another question: I've found a number of quite useful online resources for vocabulary training, grammar exercises etc, but what I'm still looking for is a kind of student's forum where I could offer to proofread/correct an Italian's German texts in exchange for them proofreading my attemps at writing Italian texts. Does anybody know a site where I could make that kind of offer?

Thanks, Ferkelparade π 08:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the suffix -one, see augmentative ("l'accrescitivo" in Italian). Two of my favorites are "il donnone" (masculine!) for a certain type of woman, and il panettone, a combination of two opposite suffixes, pan(e)-ett(o)-one, literally "large little bread", the suffix -etto/-etta, like -ino/-ina, is a diminutive. Italian also has pejorative suffixes "-accio/-accia" or "-astro/-astra".
"La serata" refers to the course of the evening, or the rest of the course of the evening. For example, you say "Buona serata" when parting company, wishing that the other person(s) spend the rest of the evening in a pleasant way, while "Buona sera!" can be used as a greeting. I guess the host at a party or a receptionist of a hotel could say it not so much as a farewell, but as the final part of greeting his guests ("Enjoy yourselves", "have a pleasant evening (here or elsewhere)"). The same applies to giornata ("Le auguro una buona giornata" as a farewell, but "Buon giorno" as a greeting). Pirandello's Una giornata, or Ettore Scola's Una giornata particolare refer to the course of one day, not to the day ("giorno")as a date or unit of time. Hmm, if I find a more satisfactory and referenced explanation, I will add it later. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here a similar query is answered by Giorgio De Rienzo, linguist for the Corriere della Sera (not serata). My loose translation:

"“Giornata” in its proper sense indicates the time encompassed between dawn and sunset; in the bureaucratic sense it indicates the daily duration of work. In addition, there are other meanings of minor usage. "Giorno" in its proper meaning indicates the total time of the 24 hours, that is it gets applied to the time it takes for Earth to complete a rotation around its own axis. That said, the two terms have become easily interchangeable in everday speech and some dictionaries may feature them as synonyms." ---Sluzzelin talk 11:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Sluzzelin, I think I'm beginning to understand the difference. As for my third question, in case anyone else is interested in such a resource, a Google search for "language learning forum" turned up the appropriately named language learning forum, which is just the kind of resource I was lookin for :) -- Ferkelparade π 12:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Is there a grammatical rule which prefers either "for what voltage was this designed?" or "what voltage was this designed for?"? --212.204.150.105 09:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionalists would prefer the former, on the basis of the rule that one should never end a sentence with a preposition. Breaching this rule was something up with which Winston Churchill would not put. -- JackofOz 09:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Churchill's point was rather the opposite - a draft of one of his speeches had been rewritten to comply with the "rule", he returned it to his original version, commenting "This is exactly the sort of thing up with which I will not put", thus making the point that it led to unnatural and unclear language. DuncanHill 10:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here I have a reference, "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language", David Crystal, CUP, 1995, p194. The "rule" that a sentence should not end with a preposition appears to have been "first introduced by John Dryden in the 17th century, and shows the influence of Latin grammar, where prepositions usually preceded nouns. It has never reflected colloquial practise in English, though in formal English the prescriptive rule tends to be followed. To alter someone's practice can be dangerous , as in Winston Churchill's famous reaction to secretarial changes made to his usage: "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put".

"The Oxford Guide to English Usage", 2nd ed. OUP 1993, p206, says "It is a natural feature of the English language that many sentences and clauses end with a preposition, and has been since the earliest times. The alleged rule that forbids the placing of the preposition at the end of a clause or sentence should be disregarded". DuncanHill 10:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone edited hyperbaton today, with a reference claiming the Churchill quote is apocryphal. While the "influence of Latin grammar" is no doubt a real factor, I think it's often used lazily as a catch-all explanation. Wareh 14:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Dictionary Of Quotations Revised 4th Ed, OUP 1996 ascribes it to Churchill, with a reference to "Plain Words" by Ernest Gowers, 1948.DuncanHill 14:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference given in the hyperbaton article did not, AFAICS, address the issue or Churchill, I have amended the article accordingly, and given a ref to Plain Words. DuncanHill 14:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quibble with Sir Winston's example: I maintain that in the phrase "put up with," the word with is not a preposition at all. For a parallel, consider the sentence "John swore off coffee for Lent." I assert that the verb in this sentence is "swore off." That's why something like "Off what did John swear for Lent?" sounds so wrong. Thus in Churchill's example, I claim that both up and with are mere particles, two constituents of the compound verb "to put up with."—PaulTanenbaum 00:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gowers does describe put up with as a phrasal verb when he tells the Churchill story. DuncanHill 01:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about with. I'd make it with which I will not put up. A true phrasal verb can be used without an explicit object; what verbs with with can be so used? —Tamfang 22:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that a true phrasal verb can be used without an explicit object? Can't there be transitive phrasal verbs as well as intransitive? Contrast the function of the word ‘with’ in the two sentences “I will eat with Kelly” and “I will put up with Kelly”. In the first, ‘with’ is a true preposition carrying its own meaning, while in the second it has no real meaning of its own but is merely part of the phrase ‘put up with’. --Mathew5000 22:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I would guess that the phrase originally meant "I will not stay in Kelly's presence" (cf we put up at an inn); in such a usage with is clearly a preposition, used in its literal sense. The present usage is a metaphorical extension of that, not changing the grammatical structure.

In the sentence This room reeks of garlic, is reeks of a phrasal verb? No, because garlic cannot be removed leaving a valid sentence; but of garlic can be. And of is no more literal here than with in the Churchill gag. —Tamfang 02:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I was driving home after writing my previous comment, I reconsidered it .... Some verbs like put on and take out can have the object either before or after the particle: I put my shirt on, I put on my shirt. In these sentences the particle evidently is not a preposition, but these verbs do need an object, so I guess what I meant to say above is that what looks like a preposition in a true phrasal verb does not require an object. —Tamfang 02:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That particle is still a preposition—it is just not functioning as the head of a prepositional phrase. Strad 03:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not positioned pre-, shouldn't it be called something else? —Tamfang 05:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a line in Pogo: "If time-tellin' is come to that, I is swearin' off!" John swore coffee off may sound odd but John swore it off is good. —Tamfang 02:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't this problem arise when English grammar was made to comply with Latin grammar instead of Germanic grammars, such as separable prefixes?LShecut2nd 13:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is known as preposition stranding, and there is nothing wrong with it. The choice between stranding or "pied-piping" (keeping the preposition in front of its object) is usually made with regard to how formal the register of speech is. Strad 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This from Gowers - "Do not hesitate to end a sentence with a preposition if your ear tells you that that is where the preposition goes best. There used to be a rather half-hearted grammarians' rule against doing this, but no good writer ever heeded it, except Dryden, who seems to have invented it. The translators of the Authorised Version did not know it." DuncanHill 00:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Churchill – there is indeed reason to doubt that he is the author of the famous "up with which", see this Language Log post. (And another post in support of PaulTanenbaum's point.)--Rallette 07:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which appears to be saying to me (it is written in appalling English) that if it ends a sentence, it isn't a preposition. Why can't linguists write clearly? DuncanHill 12:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is its argument, then I would disagree. Only pedants would make you change "I am enclosing the brochure you referred to" to the stuffy "I am enclosing the brochure to which you referred", however there is no doubt (at least in my mind) that the "to" in the first version is a preposition. -- JackofOz 06:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly not what it says. In fact (I found it fairly easy to follow, but then I'm a linguist) it says that some things (such as the up in put up with) which traditional grammar classes as adverbs are in fact prepositions, although ones which don't take an object. The point (or one of the two main points there) is that such prepositions can't be "pied-piped", and thus it is often ungrammatical for them to go anywhere other than at the end of a clause. Hedgehog 08:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whence this verb pied-pipe? —Tamfang 02:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wh-movement#Pied-piping Hedgehog 09:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capito

When an Italian says "capito," is he saying ho capito (I understood) or è capito (is understood)?LShecut2nd 13:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus[reply]

According to Google [1] [2], it's "ho capito," but someone who knows Italian will have to give you confirmation.--El aprendelenguas 16:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For proof you can take the negation, always "non ho capito" (or "non capisco") but never "non è capito". Similarly, if someone asks you "Capito?", it normally means "Hai capito?" or "Ha capito?", that is "Have you understood?", not "Is it understood?" ---Sluzzelin talk 19:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Capito" just means "Understood". Just like in English, it does not explicitly say whether one means "It is understood", or "I have understood". You can interpret as you wish, since the result is the same in most cases. --Lgriot 13:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The English Word "That"

What is the title/description/part of speech for the English word "that"? Also, consider these types of illustrative sentences below. Is one form considered more proper / grammatically correct than the other or no? Or is it simply a stylistic preference? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sentence 1: I think it is a great idea.
Sentence 2: I think that it is a great idea.

Sentence 3: He said he is getting tired.
Sentence 4: He said that he is getting tired.

In your examples it is a matter of preference. "That" has distinct roles in English. One is a demonstrative: "that hat" as opposed to "this hat". In US English in particular it is used as a relative: "the house that Jack built", "the man that I love". Now let me go and check on your application! *runs* SaundersW 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complementizer! Bingo!SaundersW 18:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never built a house, but if I ever do, the man I love will live there with me. :) -- JackofOz 22:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two thats which are in different lexical classes: the first that is a determinative, meaning that it usually functions as a determiner or a modifier. The other that is a subordinator (subordinating conjunction). As for your sentences, it does really come down to style. You can end up with sentences (like I don't think that that's a good :idea) which sometimes sound better with just one that. Strad 00:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, oh JackofOz, you have lost me. What you wrote above is a lovely sentiment, but I don't get the connection. Would you help me with a hint or two? Bielle 00:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just cast your eyes two lines above my post, Bielle. Firstly, I couldn't help but notice the pleasing juxtaposition of these two phrases, the first of which mentioned my name. While I certainly wasn't disagreeing with the point [that] SaundersW was making, it was also my very, very subtle way of saying [that] I prefer this expression in its "that"-less form, such as in the song The Man I Love. Seems [that] it was way too subtle. I'll try harder next time to be (ever so slightly) more transparent. :) -- JackofOz 03:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In formal English, Sentences 2 and 4 are correct. Sentences 1 and 3 each represent an "ellipsis" - an omission of the word "that", which is understood from the context. The omission of "that" in this type of sentence is very common in informal speech and writing, but you will still find the word "that" written in such formal writing as legal documents, where precision of meaning is critical.

For amusement's sake, note that Sentence 1 can be formally constructed without the "that" as follows:

"I think it to be a great idea", although this sentence may sound stilted or archaic to informal speakers, at least in the US. Unimaginative Username 03:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Famous People

In communicating, we often use the names of famous people to convey certain thoughts or ideas. Consider these sentences below.

Example 1: Beware of your coworker, he's another Benedict Arnold. -------> Your coworker is a traitor.
Example 2: Who do you think you are, the Queen of England? -------> Do you think you are so special?
Example 3: He pulled a Tom Cruise yesterday. -------> He started jumping up and down on the couch.
Example 4: Don't Bogart all the candy. -------> Don't take all the candy for yourself without sharing.

In example 1, Benedict Arnold's name is understood as a specific substitute for "someone who acts like a traitor".
In example 2, the Queen of England's name is understood as a general substitute for "someone who is important".
It is "general" to the extent that I could have said The Pope, The President, Cher, King Farouk ... a lot of other specific names to convey the same general message.
In example 3, Tom Cruise's name is understood as a noun for "histrionic antics like jumping up and down".
In example 4, Humphrey Bogart's name is understood as a verb for "monopolize".

Is there an overall general word that describes this general concept (using a person's proper name as a substitute for an English word)?
Is there a specific word to distinguish more specifically the various ways (e.g., the four illustrations above) in which a proper name can substitute for, say, a verb or a noun or an adjective or a whatever?
Are these four examples considered to be "synonyms" or not? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think they are a kind of Metonymy where a specific example is used to indicate the class itself. SaundersW 19:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several principles involved here, it could be seen as metonymy, Benedict Arnold as a part of the set of traitors, but the question used examples meaning another element of the set, not the set itself, not traitors in general. Metaphors lie close to metonyms, as explained in the latter article, and some of the examples are also a form of metaphor. And it is connected to eponymy - The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal Scrooged by fate - a name takes on a life of its own calls it eponymy as well, and lists many examples. (The article is from 2002, the introductory example is the WSJ headline "Canada's Chrétien: The 'Schroeder' of the Americas", a somewhat unlikely choice these days. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're misanalyzed example 3. If "Tom Cruise" were understood to be a noun meaning "histrionic antics", then "I hate Tom Cruise" could be understood as "I hate histrionic antics", where in fact "I hate people who act like Tom Cruise" is necessary. [Note that "I hate Tom Cruises" might be possible, along the lines of "I hate Uncle Toms", but this is distinct in form from your example.] In fact, "pulling an X", where X is a name, is a common English expression meaning "to behave like X". (It might be more accurate to say "to behave in the particular manner for which X is most famous"; cf. the fact that "I wouldn't want to pull a Jonathon and forget I had a test!" implies that Jonathon is well-known for forgetting a test.) Tesseran 23:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS! Would it be correct to consider these as synonyms? Or not really? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 00:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

not synonyms, but as mentioned above, a type of metonym. Drmaik 12:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although one wonders how common it has to be for it to become a synonym - perhaps something that is more firmly etched in a national conscience? I have heard Quisling *has* become a synonym in Norway for traitor; perhaps this is different than the Benedict Arnold case becasue the American Reolution was not as widely supported when Arnold did what he did, whereas Quisling's actions went against pretty much the entire country and also resulted in a far greater loss. A native Norwegian can confirm or deny this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.221 (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very surprised if that's not the case, but I have no actual knowledge of Norwegian metonymistic practices. Quisling is a well-known synonym for traitor in Australia and, I would assume, most other English speaking countries. Its best known recent use here was by Senator Robert Ray, who in 1996 alliteratively called the then Senator Mal Colston "the Quisling Quasimodo from Queensland". -- JackofOz 04:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When working on the Donald Bradman article, I needed to discover what this is called (in Australia in particular, "(like) Bradman" or "Bradmanesque" is used for outstanding excellence). It's an archetypal name - and you've just reminded me to create the article, which was missing until now. --Dweller 10:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Howard was only today called "the Don Bradman of Australian politics" by Joe Hockey, who had to backtrack a little when he was reminded that The Don scored a duck in his last Test match; and Howard's predecessor Paul Keating named himself "the Placido Domingo of Australian politics". -- JackofOz 04:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did bogart get that meaning? From the actions of one of his characters? —Tamfang 22:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from the way he always seemed to have a cigarette in his mouth. It originally applied to marijuana; to "bogart" a joint was to keep it in your mouth and not pass it along for someone else to toke on.[3] From there it generalized to anything else that one might hoard, rather than share. "Don't bogart those Doritos, man!" - Eron ^Talk 23:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He always would keep a cigarette in his mouth, but he would never actually smoke it. He just liked the look, style, feel, effect, etc. Thus: selfishly keeping something for his own whim / amusement ... rather than allowing another to put it to good use (like, by actually smoking it). (Joseph A. Spadaro 06:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 September 11

Contents