Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 January 16

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.

January 16

a word [A word meaning "mission responsibility"?]

I am looking for a word which has as its meaning "mission responsibility". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Packianathan (talk • contribs) 00:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Packianathan, this site[1] talks about a committee for mission responsibility and the term, MR under a couple of sections. This suggests it's a loaded term or phrase condensing others associated with money, morality and Christian "stewardship" around investing at least, and bringing pressure to bear wherever. So stewardship may be one word for it, but there are other subtle implications that make simply "stewardship" look too general, which is possibly why they've come up with this jargon. Still, it's a start. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

mandate? remit? —Tamfang (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Opposites of "must"

I recently found myself writing (I'll remove the context):

Write X if you absolutely must - and you certainly don't here - but never Y.

I got to wondering just what it was that I was denying with "you certainly don't" Things that are "not-must" seem to fall into 3 camps:

A. the ones you must not do (under any circumstances)

B. the ones you may do but don't have to (it's your choice)

C. the ones you may do but only if you absolutely must. If there's no other option, then you must do them, otherwise you must not do them (no middle ground).

I think my case falls into Camp C. I don't think that "you certainly don't" is bad writing, but if I were asked to complete the phrase ("you certainly don't <something>"), I suppose it would have to be "have to". But "you don't have to" suggests there's a choice, whereas in this case there is no choice - either you must, or you must not. No other options. Maybe I could have said "and there's certainly no requirement here", but that seems to be invoking pedantry for its own sake. Nobody would misunderstand what I meant, but analytically, it seems somehow unorthodox. Can anyone comment on this in a meaningful way? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Use "have to" instead of "must". Then "don't have to" is fine. DuncanHill (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two verbs in the main body of the sentence:

Write X if you absolutely must – and you certainly don't here – but never Y.

So without considering the pragmatics or the conventional grammar, you don't can be elliptical for either you don't write X (fails pragmatically: an improbable meaning) or you don't must [write X] (fails grammatically).

Since the sentence is bound to fail one way or another, I would advise not using it. The grammatical failure reminds me of exchanges like this, which are increasingly common:

Have you got time for a coffee?

No, I don't. Sorry.

You don't what? You don't get time for a coffee? You don't got time for a coffee? Traditionally the exchange would have gone like this:

Have you got time for a coffee?

No, I haven't. Sorry.

I think none of that has directly to do with the opposite of must, which can be either must not, may, or what we might express as not must, depending on the exact scope of the negation. Consider a simple statement:

I must go

We seem to be able to apply a negation operator in four ways, though the operator is not strictly of the same kind in each:

1. NOT[I must go]

meaning It is not the case that I must go

expressible as I do not have to go

2. NOT[I] must go

perhaps meaning Whoever must go, it is not I

expressible also as I'm not the one who must go

3. I NOT[must] go

meaning the same as 1

4. I must NOT[go]

meaning I must not go

expressible also as I may not go, though that form of words can be taken two ways: I NOT[may] go (correct here) and I may NOT[go]

I hope that helps.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A: mustn't B: needn't C: shouldn't I don't think those carry all the weight we'd like them to, but I think they're applicable to the cases. I do think "you certainly don't" is bad, but that could be just me. I hear a faint "don't must" that is distracting. I hope my answer has been meaningful. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This brings up the old "That which is not forbidden is compulsory" bit... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you all. I particularly like Duncan's suggestion for its simplicity. Noetica's excursions are, as always, fabulously entertaining and educational. Like you, Milkbreath, I have a niggling voice that says one should not write "have to" if "must" is more appropriate - not that it makes any real difference apart from perhaps a stylistic thing - but there's no reason why "have to" wouldn't work just as well here, thus obviating my (and your) problem with "you certainly don't". Jayron, I take a grimmer line - "That which is not permitted is forbidden". But I'm sure you'll be pleased to know I graciously permit you to come along any time and be of service.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine, JoO. I'm just grateful that no one has exposed the errors that I later detected in my own contribution. They hardly matter, so I'll let them sit there. [By the way, I don't know how those posts got into that sequence. I should have been alerted to an edit conflict, but it didn't happen. System glitch?]

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a feature. Sometimes MediaWiki is clever enough to see that two conflicting edits don't actually conflict with each other. In this case it just applies both. Algebraist 12:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Taphephobia

If taphephobia is the fear of being buried alive, what is the fear of being cremated alive? I think I'd rather suffocate in a silk-lined box than be burned.--KageTora (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We need a Greek noun to provide the element before -phobia. There are several candidates from Ancient Greek, having to do with immolation, sacrificial burning, or burning in general. The Modern Greek for cremation is αποτέφρωσι, from an ancient root meaning "ashes" (so "reduction to ashes"). This is not a bad start. I would suggest apotephrophobia, or some variant of that, until we find better.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I suppose we could work on that one.--KageTora (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Still, I think being cremated alive, while far from pleasant, would at least be over faster. One hot whoosh and you're gone. —Angr 07:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why, if it happened to me, I'd like to be buried with a few bottles of whiskey. If I was indeed still alive, I'd sleep through the suffocation process, then! No point in putting a bell outside, because in these economic times, I'm sure someone would steal it! :) --KageTora (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sprees?

What is does "teen-pop spree" mean: Jennifer Paige (in the lead paragraph)?96.53.149.117 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an odd way of saying "teen pop explosion" or "an era where teen pop was dominant." "Spree" is probably not the best choice of words there. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

English to Spanish translation help, please

I typed this statement into Babelfish: I do not speak or write Spanish. I had help with writing these questions. What came back as the Spanish translation was: No hablo ni escribo español. Tenía escritura de la ayuda con estas preguntas. Is this correct, or is there a better way of sayng it? Thanks ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No hablo ni escribo español. Tenía de la ayuda por escrir escribir estas preguntas.--KageTora (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

One hint: To test an automatic translator like Babelfish, do a "round trip translation". That is, translate the results back to the original language. If it still makes sense, you probably had a good translation, if not, the translation is suspect. StuRat (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the improved translation, KageTora, and thanks, StuRat, for the hint. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, I tried StuRat's test with Babelfish. I fed back the two Spanish versions to see what kind of English resulted. For No hablo ni escribo español. Tenía escritura de la ayuda con estas preguntas, I got back I do not speak nor I write Spanish. It had writing of the aid with these questions. For No hablo ni escribo español. Tenía de la ayuda por escrir estas preguntas, courtesy of KageTora, Babelfish produced I do not speak nor I write Spanish. Preguntas' had of the aid to escrir these. I think I will continue to check here. :-) ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The first part goes along with what I said. Since "I do not speak nor I write Spanish" is a reasonable translation (although I'd have said "...nor do I write Spanish"), this part was likely translated properly. The second sentence is far worse after the round trip, as "It had writing of the aid with these questions". Since that's not very easily understood, that suggests that the machine translation of the second sentence was a poor one. So, that part of my suggested test worked. However, plugging in a manual translation to see what happens when you go the other way with Babelfish is not at all what I suggested, and therefore doesn't tell us whether the manual translation is good or bad. In short, a machine translation can be machine verified, but a manual translation must be manually verified. StuRat (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My Spanish is far from perfect, but KageTora's translation is awkward. I would say Ni hablo ni escribo el español. Tenía la ayuda con escribir estas preguntas. You might get better help at WordReference forums. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the first Babelfish translation was "machine-back-to-machine:

I typed in originally: I do not speak or write Spanish. I had help with writing these questions.

Babelfish gave me: No hablo ni escribo español. Tenía escritura de la ayuda con estas preguntas

Then I typed in: No hablo ni escribo español. Tenía escritura de la ayuda con estas preguntas

And Babefish translated it as: I do not speak nor I write Spanish. It had writing of the aid with these questions.

I apologize for any lack of clarity in the preceding information. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Neither is mine, but I'll try nevertheless, and hope that a native comes along soon: No hablo ni escribo español. Tuve ayuda para escribir estas preguntas. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not trust Babelfish. Different languages have different ways of saying something but Babelfish translates everything literally. For example, if I were to write "Yo tengo dos anos" (sorry for the unaccented "n": I am using a German keyboard at the moment), I am pretty sure Babelfish would give: "I have 2 years" which is clearly incorrect. Babelfish has this nasty habit of literal translations. As for the question: "No hablo ni escribo el espanol. Tuve ayuda para escribir estas preguntas". This is basically the same as the above response except I would write "el espanol" instead of "espanol": note that it is very important to be able to use "por" and "para" correctly. The best place to learn Spanish is [2] (in my opinion). --PST 11:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately escritura de la ayuda is not even a credible literal translation of help with writing. — As for your missing diacritic, you could write ñ (&ntilde;), and in years gone by I occasionally saw nn used in Usenet. —Tamfang (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Especially because I'm quite certain you don't have two anos ("anuses"). - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No hablo ni escribo el castellano. Tuve asistencia con la escritura de estas preguntas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.82.231 (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for "Ni hablo ni escribo" not "No hablo...". español / castellano is more or less arbitrary, the former being more common in the New World and the latter in Spain. For the latter sentence, I'd be more inclined to say "Tuve ayudo en escribir estas preguntas" or even "Tuve ayudo en escribir las preguntas estas." But I'm not native. A native speaker would be very welcome here. - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

French accusative infinitive?

Is there such a thing as an "accusative infinitive" in French? Obviously this would not be the same as in Latin since there is no accusative, but I have seen similar constructions, something like, for example, "il dit être..." meaning "he says that he is...". I see this sometimes in newspaper headlines, so I am wondering if it is French headlinese and not standard, or if that is an actual construction in standard French. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not the standard I learned at school and I did it for A-Level. I'd say it was a new construction. As you know, newspapers often use colloquial expressions, especially the lower-end newspapers.--KageTora (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the "il dit être ..." is called "complément infinitif" in French. French WP has a brief section under fr:Proposition infinitive. Its usage appears to be similar to the accusativus cum infinitivo. I think you encounter this construction more frequently in relative sentences ("...qu'il dit être rentré ..." ---Sluzzelin talk 04:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact the construction does occur in standard French. There is at least one example in Grevisse's Le Bon Usage (with dire); there could be others, but Grevisse is a maze. Ferrar's A French Reference Grammar allows such constructions with "verbs of saying or thinking", like affirmer, croire, dire, prétendre. Ferrar cites Balzac using dire, and Flaubert using croire.

I don't think this is called accusative infinitive. Wouldn't that be il se dit être, which of course also occurs? Nor, I think, is "complément infinitif" well focused for the usage under discussion. Ferrar contrasts verbs that take complements (like être, sembler, paraître) with dire and the others mentioned above, which by implication do not. Then again, in broader linguistic theory complementation is a very catholic affair. Fluidity in the terms, I fear. But the facts of usage are plain enough.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Then there's all this from TLFi, entry for "croire" (my emphases in bold):

[...] b) Croire + inf.
Croire + inf. + compl. Avoir l'impression ou admettre que quelque chose est certain. Werbrust et Gigonnet ont cru me faire une farce (...) je vais bien rire ce soir à leurs dépens (BALZAC, Gobseck, 1830, p. 410). Je crois voir, la nuit, sous les meubles, un chat qui me regarde (A. FRANCE, Hist. comique, 1903, p. 2).
Croire + inf. + inf. (pouvoir ou un autre verbe). Avec valeur d'auxiliaire et constituant une manière d'atténuer une affirmation. Je crois devoir vous dire très simplement que je souhaite pour la France et pour vous, mon Général, que vous sachiez et puissiez échapper au désastre (DE GAULLE, Mém. guerre, 1954, p. 269) :
5. ... je n'étais pas seule à être exaspérée par cette habitude qu'a prise Robert de toujours dire qu'il a « cru devoir faire » tout ce que, simplement, il a fait parce qu'il en avait envie, ou bien, plus souvent encore, parce qu'il lui paraissait opportun d'agir ainsi. Ces derniers temps, il perfectionne; il dit : « J'ai cru de mon devoir de... » comme s'il n'agissait plus que mû par de hautes considérations morales. GIDE, L'École des femmes, 1929, p. 1280.

And this, for "dire":

[...] 9. Vous tombez, chère Athéna, dans un moment de l'entretien qu'il n'est pas exagéré de dire pathétique. DUHAMEL, Chronique des Pasquier, Cécile parmi nous, 1938, p. 49.
Dire + inf. Et vous dites aimer votre fille! (LEMERCIER, Pinto, 1800, I, 3, p. 14). Vous calculez, et vous dites aimer (BALZAC, Langeais, 1834, p. 276) :
10. Il expliquait que la mine ne pouvait être la propriété du mineur, comme le métier est celle du tisserand, et il disait préférer la participation aux bénéfices, l'ouvrier intéressé, devenu l'enfant de la maison. ZOLA, Germinal, 1885, p. 1382.

TLFi uses complément in the more modern, very generic sense.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A certain type of construction, possible with laisser "let", and verbs of perception, is described as "Accusative+infinitive" in Foundations of French Syntax By Michael Allan Jones, p.436,445: Paul la laissera manger les frites = "Paul will allow her to eat the frites". This doesn't work with dire, croire, or indeed faire. jnestorius^(talk) 23:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks! Adam Bishop (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Mall" in "National Mall"

Hello, I'm Italian and I wrote recently the article "National Mall" on the italian wikipedia. I know the british pronunciation of the mall is mael, but I'm not sure about the american, especially the local, pronunciation of mall in "national mall". Can somebody help me? Thank you, --Gabodon (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In America, mall is always pronounced like maul, i.e. to rhyme with all, ball, call, fall, gall, hall, pall, stall, tall, and wall. Whether the vowel is actually /ɔ/ or /ɑ/ depends on the speaker's accent (see cot-caught merger). —Angr 07:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "mael". In Britain, "mall" has at times been pronounced to rhyme with "tell" and "well", but I think such pronunciation is now obsolete or affected. Not that British pronunciation will be of much interest here. Morenoodles (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Gabodon are you referring to the article "Pall Mall, London" where it states, "Pall Mall (pronounced /pæl mæl/)..."? To me that use sounds like -al as in ballet. Pall Mall cigarettes doesn't give pronunciation. My pop-up gives the 16th-17th century game as "pall-mall |ˈpel ˈmel; ˈpôl ˈmôl; ˈpal ˈmal", and the wikipedia article makes it "pal mal". But for "the mall" as in shopping centre, Australians also say "maul" as Angr's explanation. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

London also has The Mall, usually pronounced /mæl/. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Even the English say shopping maul (when we use the term at all). Algebraist 12:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Since Gabodon said he was writing about the "National Mall", I assumed he meant the National Mall in Washington, DC, which is why he was asking explicitly about the American pronunciation. I also assumed that by "mael" he meant /mæl/ and ASCIIfied æ to ae. At any rate, the correct en-US pronunciation is now present at it:National Mall. —Angr 12:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

John C. Wells gives a 50-50 split in the UK for /ɔ/-as-in-ball and /æ/-as-in-shall; but younger speakers are more likely to use the /ɔ/, and London placenames always use /æ/. jnestorius^(talk) 22:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

IPA is REALLY confusing and I wish that people didn't insist on using it. If I see "mael" I would want to pronounce it in my British accent the same as mail, rail and pail. The London street Pall Mall is pronounced "Pal Mal" (as in my friend Malcolm). "Shopping Mall" is rarely used in the UK (shopping centre is peferred), but it should be prounced like the mall in Pall Mall. However, the American pronounciation is more commonly heard (particularly on TV) and sounds like maul and rhymes with Paul and ball. Astronaut (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S. the cigarette is pronounced like "Paul Maul" (rhyming with "hall", "wall" etc.). I believe that "mall" on its own in British English is pretty close to the American (the vowel sound is slightly different): "Pall Mall" gets a non-standard pronunciation, as to many place names. - Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)