Language desk
< October 8	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 10 >

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.

October 9

ENGLISH

would i say Corey has been with the company six months longer than I or me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.134.212.121 (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formally, it is "than I": he has longer than I have: since "I" is the subject of the verb "have" (even if you don't actually say the have), it should be "I", not "me". However, colloquially it's than me: pronouns take the object form after any connecting word, even "and", in colloquial English ("John and me went to the store", etc.). However, you can only say "than me" if you do not say the assumed verb "have". kwami (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These rules are very beautiful in a surreal kind of way.--Radh (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)A pedant would say "longer than I" because it's short for "longer than I have been". Some idiolects may still prefer it. But in almost all other circumstances, "longer than me" is acceptable. It's completely idiomatic; so much so, that to say "longer than I" would make most people wonder which planet you were from. And that's not the point of communication. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone better at pedantry (me, say) would recognize the "formal" analysis as wrong, because it is based on reasoning in the wrong direction. It assumes that because "than" is a conjunction in "longer than I have been", it must also be a conjunction in the shorter expression. But usage determines what is proper. "Longer than me" is, as Jack says, perfectly acceptable to most people, from which we conclude (1) that it is correct, and (2) that "than" can also be a preposition. And if you look in dictionaries that's generally what you'll find -- try www.onelook.com to check several of them. --Anonymous, 18:15 UTC, October 9, 2008.

Again I must take issue with you on the question of right vs. wrong. You speak as if this is (were) an absolute. It's not. The prescriptivist school of grammar, while acknowledging that it's rarely encountered in everyday speech, would not outlaw "longer than I". I was certainly taught that version in school (and then promptly ignored it except for homework and test questions). It is very redolent of Jeeves and his ilk, so although his ilk is a dying breed, it's not as if it's utterly unheard of in practice, and there would still be some people who prefer it. Pernickety ageing school teachers, for example. It's certainly encountered in novels by Jane Austen and her ilk. It's become old-hat; that doesn't make it "wrong". The descriptivist school would definitely support "longer than me", because that's what almost everyone actually says these days. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Taking issue"? Jack, I have no disagreement with anything you just said. --Anon, 00:56 UTC, October 10, 2008.

Sorry, I read the sentence "Someone better at pedantry .....", and the one after it, as referring to my previous statement. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whom you talk to? With friends and people on your own level "I" will sound arrogant (or funny). This I/me thing is complicated only because the two ways of speech (formal) against (informal) are social weapons. People will judge you, according to their own class rules: (prissy, over-correct, old fashioned, stiff, correct, beautiful) or (collloquial, fun, wrong, uneducated, ugly). People love to put others down and your speech is as obvious as your teeth. Wrong spelling, wrong use of I or me, reflect at once on your character.

School rules for I/me are simple: Old rules (up to 1950(?): I is nominative, me is accusative only. New rules (reflecting the "bad" grammar people actually use): me is also used as nominative. On the other hand, undereducated people wanting to be "correct", but don·t know how, very often use I as accusative, thinking "I" must always be right. This is never allowed, not even by the descriptivist school. If you want to have a job with middle class people you should still learn the old rules? --Radh (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Segev

He is an Israeli reporter and writer. Please let me know how his name is pronounced in Israel. Many thanks. --Omidinist (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, User:Deborahjay, who's normally responsible for questions about Israeli Hebrew on the ref desk, hasn't edited Wikipedia in over two weeks. My guess is [ʃɛmuˈɛl ˈsɛgɛv] (roughly shem-oo-EL SEG-ev), but that's really nothing more than an educated guess. —An gr 12:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Here I am, checking in from a furlough in the States during this holiday period, with only intermittent Internet access and lacking a Hebrew-enabled keyboard; thanks, Omidinist for the e-mail head's up and to Angr for the acknowledgement...) I'm not familiar with the named individual, rather than the better-known Tom Segev, a historian (not reporter, though his remarks and articles are often published in the Israeli press, notably Haaretz).

SEgev (both vowels a "short e" - I can't do IPA today) is a contemporary Israeli surname, i.e. not one with Diaspora roots.
SAmuel [sic] would be pronounced as in English, if Mr. Segev indeed spells it this way at home as abroad - ? Alternatively: SHMUel, a common Israeli first name of biblical origin. (see below) -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think [ʃmuˈɛl] (shmoo-EL) is more likely. Actually, our Hebrew phonology article transcribes Hebrew mid vowels as close-mid rather than open-mid, so that makes it [ʃmuˈel ˈsegev]. — Emil J. 13:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emil, I'd say this is true in the pronunciation of Israeli Hebrew words—however, names are generally an exception, primarily (I suspect) to distinguish them from the word per se. (e.g. the word "yaFA" vs. the name "YAfa".) The case of SHMUel shows the characteristic shift of accent to the penultimate syllable and shortening (to schwa) the vowel of the antepenultimate (the initial letter "shin"). -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah, I'm glad you decided to pop in, even though it's Yom Kippur! Emil is actually talking about the quality of the vowel (open-mid [ɛ] as in "dress" vs. close-mid [e] as in French "été"), not about the location of stress. Both he and I assumed the stress would be on the last syllable, so it's interesting to here it isn't. I knew the Yiddish pronunciation would be SHMU-el with no vowel between the sh and the m and with stress on the first syllable, but I didn't know the Israeli Hebrew pronunciation would be the same. —An gr 19:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from Deborahjay. And thanks for all suggestions. Well, I thought Mr. Segev might be a Russian emigré in Israel. In that case, his surname would be pronounced like sigof. He is a Middle East correspondent and the author of some books, including Mivtsa Yakhin: aliyatam Ha-hashait Shel Yehude Maroko Le-Yisrael. --Omidinist (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

中國人如何學好英語？

流利得像你們一樣--Wmrwiki (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

多看、多聽、多說、多練，就是如此簡單而已。 Aas217 (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

学好英文的人应该常常根说英文的人说话。如果你主宰的城市有外国人，跟他们做朋友。别只为了练习英文跟他们做朋友，可是除了跟他们说话，联系英文，没有很多好方法学好英文。也能用skype还是msn做朋友。有一点更难，可是如果没有外国人跟他们说话，就网上找到人联系英文也可以。 Aas217写的也很重要的。看英文电影，听英文音乐，看英文书，都也可能把你的英文听读写说的琉璃提高。 Steewi (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What they said. All I can understand in the header of the question is "Chinese people" (中國人) and "English language" (英語). —An gr 05:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is asking how Chinese people should study English. And the answer is to make friends who will speak English, and get on Skype and MSN, watch English films, listen to music, read books, you know, the usual.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Language Diagram or Graph

Hi all. I am looking for a diagram or a graph on the history of the English language; from it's origination to modern English. Do you know where I can locate this in Wiki? --Emyn ned (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we had one, I suppose it would be at History of the English language, but there's no diagram or graph there. —An gr 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you go to Google Images and search for "indo-european languages", you should be able to find a suitable diagram. --Anonymous, 18:22 UTC, October 9, 2008.

What do you want this chart to show? If all you need is the sequence Old English → Middle English → Early Modern English → Modern English that shouldn't be hard to whip up, though I wonder why you'd want a picture. Do you want to show the kinship of English to other languages? By "its origination" do you mean the point at which Old English ceased to be part of the Low West Germanic dialect continuum, or something else? Are you looking for something to show the inflow of borrowed vocabulary from Norman etc. as tributaries to a river? —Tamfang (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anonymous had answered my question and directed me where I needed to go. Thank you everyone for your help..--Emyn ned (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is correct American English?

A. We haven't bought anything yet.

B. We haven't boughten anything yet. Thanks. ike9898 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Boughten is not a standard English word. --LarryMac | Talk 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ike9898 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just mention: agree that boughten wouldn't be correct as a verb in standard U.S. English—but I can recall encountering this word as an adjective meaning "store-bought" (vs. homemade). Such usage is likely regional, though offhand I couldn't say where. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, surprise, surprise (as I never heard it), an entry in the Merriam-Webster on line plus a few more. The use mentioned by Deborah also turns up frequently. For all I know, this is perfectly valid US English. Maybe some native speakers of USian could clarify if it is "merely" colloquial or regional.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the M-W entry says it is "chiefly dialect." Also note that M-W are usage sluts. --LarryMac | Talk 21:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a good thing, IMHO. --Kjoonlee 02:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "perfectly valid US English" is a bit strong? I can not remember boughten from any novel or magazine. Why use it, if you have bought available?--Radh (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right grammar?

Hello,

Could you please tell me if this kind of sentence is good english? (I don't mean if it's ok, I mean, is it really correct and nice-sounding?)

"Some healthy cells may be observed whose somata are on the surface on the slice" [somata = the bodies of the cells]

Thanks!

The nested clauses make the sentance hard to parse. Try a simpler structure "In some healthy cells, the somata may be seen on the surface of the slice" or something like that. Always aim for simpler sentance structure and less words. Compact, easy to follow language is always better than rambling, hard to follow language. Also, use more precise and simpler words where possible (seen vs. observed). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to parse; there's only one subordinate clause – though it is somewhat uncommon style to separate "cells" from "whose". —Tamfang (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not wrong, except it should say "surface of the slice"; but it can be improved. Does mentioning the somata make a meaningful distinction, i.e. is there a reason you couldn't say "Some healthy cells can be observed on the surface of the slice"? Or do you mean to say that some of the cells (whose somata are) on the surface are healthy, while those not on the surface are all unhealthy? Or am I misunderstanding the sense of "slice"? —Tamfang (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use the possessive: "the slice's surface". 207.241.238.217 (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I made a mistake, it's on the surface of the cell. In fact, the sentence is taken from a scientific book. The part about the somata has to be kept, because it's only the somata (bodies) of the cells that are on the surface of the slice, not the whole cell (we're talking about neurons, so the parts of the cell which are not in the soma are the axon and dendrites). And the word "slice" refers here to a piece of rat's brain that has been cut.

Can the axons and dendrites, which are not on the surface, be seen? If not, I'd say "The somata of some healthy cells can be seen on the surface of the slice." —Tamfang (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pollepel Island

Anyone know how to pronounce this island in the Hudson River? kwami (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google provides this from the Dutch: "not Pol-luh-pel but Pol-lay-puhl" meaning spoon, maybe a ladle. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neutral toward religion

What would be a good word to describe a person who is neutral toward religion, neither a believer nor an atheist, not even an agnostic, because s/he has not really pondered the theological problem, but who is aware of and interested in the role of religion in society? (I'm not looking for the name of an academic discipline.) --Halcatalyst (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A (non-observant) observer, perhaps? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That captures the idea... could there be something more specific? --Halcatalyst (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An apatheist? Deor (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a word that implies interest but not commitment. --Halcatalyst (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like a non-academic anthropologist? kwami (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sort of like that -- but maybe not self-conscious about it. --Halcatalyst (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that having a noun for this position makes it slightly self-conscious after all. I thought of "indifferentist" coming from "indifferentism" meaning the belief that differences of religious belief are not important. Though I feel we are not there yet, it suggests "indie" +/- any cultural theism. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for introducing me to that word. It would seem that an indifferentist has taken up a position, though, so it's still not quite what I'm looking for. --Halcatalyst (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's descriptive rather than an academic or otherwise position afaik. By neutral do you mean someone who has no position either way? More like a theistical virgin or natural born (as in non-academic) anthropologist perhaps. Theistical observer maybe... Julia Rossi (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 October 9

Contents