Language desk
< June 10	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 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.

June 11

GRE ASAP

Could you let me know what is GRE ASAP means? GRE means graduate recorded exam. what is ASAP? Thank you124.43.51.119 (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it normally stands for As Soon As Possible. What's the context? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References to the idea that language and the physical world are one and the same?

Are there any cultures with the above tradition, or philosophers who have expounded it? I'm hoping for references that aren't too modern - the mid 20th Century or before, if possible - but I'll be grateful for any ideas.

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In the beginning was the word..." -- Q Chris (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some interpretations of the Kabbalah perhaps.Rhinoracer (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurufism? AnonMoos (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read about Logos? --Omidinist (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice stuff, thanks all - so tempting to interpret these things as a precursor to the modern idea that information is physical. Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow vs. permit

I just made a minor edit here. I was re-reading the Medical Advice Guidelines for the first time in eons, and came across the sentence:

... it is not allowed to answer this question with ...

I instantly knew it was not grammatical, so I changed "allowed" to "permitted". Then I wondered just exactly what was wrong with the original version, and I'm slightly stumped for an answer. In many contexts, "allow" is a synonym for "permit", and that's clearly where the writer was coming from. This appearance was in a passive construction, the active version of which might go

... <we> do not allow/permit you to answer this question with....

It's clear that either verb could be used in the active version. But after converting it to passive, only "permit" is available. This issue could also apply to "let" - ok in active, but not in passive. Why is this? -- JackofOz (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, it's not just a question of active vs. passive. We do say "This practice is not allowed/permitted". But we can't say "It is not allowed to <something>", whereas we can say "It is not permitted to <something>". -- JackofOz (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And we can say "You are not allowed to <something>", but not "It is not allowed to <something>", unless the "it" refers to a dog that's not allowed to come inside the house, for example. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if you restructure it slightly to

* … answering this question with … is not allowed/permitted …

then both words become equally valid again, odd. Perhaps it's just one of those nuances of word use where a native speaker immediately knows exactly the right one to use, but can't explain why. Mikenorton (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The expression it is not allowed to (with it as a dummy pronoun) sounds acceptable to me, although it can be ambiguous, and Google reported 2,600,000 pages that use it. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those pages use the expression with it as a personal pronoun. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I can't say I've ever heard it down here. I've never come across it in the millions of pages I've text edited in various contexts. It really does sound quite unnatural to my ears, but English is so diverse, no one person could hope to be across all the variants. I'd still be surprised if "let" could be used in place of "allowed/permitted" in the original sentence, in any dialect. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google reported 536 pages where it is used in the TLD ".au". -- Wavelength (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those pages use the expression with it as a personal pronoun. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could say "... it is not allowable to answer this question with ..." or "... it is not permissible to answer this question with ..."
or "... it is impermissible to answer this question with ...". -- Wavelength (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not permissible - yes. Not allowable - I still have my doubts. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've googled "not allowable", and most hits (not all, admittedly) are about fees, charges, expenses, legal costs, tax deductions, actions proscribed in a piece of legislation, that sort of thing. It seems to be mainly confined to these sorts of technical/legal/judicial contexts. Whereas, "not permissible" has a much wider application, but it can't be used in many of the above examples. For example, we talk of tax deductions being "allowed/not allowed" or "allowable/not allowable", not usually "permitted/not permitted". For me, that captures the nuance I was after. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please to be

Hi all, is it grammatical to say: "Please to be [verb]-ing"? E.g. "please to be enjoying this show" or "please to be remembering the date for the meeting".

In such a situation, I would say "Please enjoy this show" or "Please remember..." But is the first-mentioned construction valid at all? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider it an error in American English. To me, it sounds like an Indian construction, or rather a caricature of Indian speech. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's a standard caricature of the English spoken in India. Tempshill (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One could say "She was pleased to be enjoying the show, given that only that morning her whole world had fallen apart".

But "please to be" - I can't think of any context where it might apply.

This talks about "please to <verb>", and if we can stretch our brains, the verb could be "be", I suppose. Highly contrived, though.

This contains the sentence: Those maneuvers only highlight how desperate he and his crew are to please, to be urban-authentic. But that's not the same thing at all.

Something perhaps a little closer is this: Allow me please to be parochial for a moment, and point out that the new New York senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, is a UCLA School of Law. But one could argue the "please" is parenthetical, and should be swathed in commas. And parochial is not a verb anyway.

This gives us an interesting version: And while this versatile collection was too eager to please to be truly wicked, it was a sexy outing nonetheless.

These are just some of the over 17 million hits I found on a google search. I've checked a few pages, but have found no example of what the OP’s asking about that isn’t either a spelling error or a dialectal variant that is not standard in Brit, US or Aus English. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those examples are a mish-mash of rather irrelevant odds and ends (the first with multiple spelling and punctuation errors, the second with "please" being a mere parenthetical interjection, and the third with "to be" connected with the whole phrase "eager to please", not just the single word "please"). AnonMoos (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think this is an in-community joke based, as pointed out above, on caricatures of Indian English. Some context: here: "Unless the fic being discussed involved Civil War canon, please to be taking your CW rant to whatever new comm has replaced scans_daily, where it belongs." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an archaic construction, there is a UK rhyme that says "Please to remember the fifth of November gunpowder treason and plot" [1] -- Q Chris (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's in the same category as my first link above, where "please to + verb" is reported as being described as archaic, although it's apparently in current use in Jamaica. What the OP's asking about, though, is "please to be + present participle of verb". -- JackofOz (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Incidentally, archaic language is a topic at Wikipedia:Use modern language. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Two odd phrases (Americanisms?)

These two phrases seem odd to me, and I've only ever seen/heard them coming from Americans. Are they an American thing?

"I don't got a problem with..." (where got should clearly be have)
"I could care less about..." (where could should clearly be couldn't; this is quite egregious, since it is the exact opposite of what is meant)

--Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that both are fairly common in American speech, but I can't comment on whether they are unique to Americans. I consider both to be errors, and I think most prescriptivists would agree. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They sound quite informal to me, even somewhat uneducated, and I'd never use them myself, but I've heard both constructions from other people often enough that they don't surprise me in the least. What does still catch me by surprise is the reanalysis of got as an infinitive and present-tense form (a preterite-present of sorts) to the extent that the 3rd person singular becomes he gots. Obviously it should be no surprise that someone who can say "I don't got a problem" can also say "He gots a problem", but still the second of those seems even odder to me than the first. +An gr 14:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Could care less" is a standard shibboleth which has received much discussion (including in Steven Pinker's Language Instinct). AnonMoos (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the first phrase I hear "I ain't got no problem with that" more often (Southern US)71.236.26.74 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Words, which is usually reliable on linguistic matters, says "could care less" "was coined in the US and is found only there".[2] There is a great deal of discussion of the idiom online, as AnonMoos says, so you should be able to find more information on it easily. "I don't got a problem" sounds like a common American usage, but I'm having difficulty googling for it. Peter Trudgill says it's not standard usage in the USA[3] but no information on how common it is. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with 71 above. Tempshill (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

name of this literary device?

when you keep repeating a phrase for emphasis (and sometimes rhythm), example the poem don't go gentle into that good night —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.233 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might call that Repetition or Repetitio if you want the latin term for it, though its usually just one word or phrase, it could be extended to cover a whole sentence. For more Information see literary device--91.6.60.195 (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, I'd call it a refrain, the same device that is used in songs. The article on Do not go gentle into that good night calls it "refrain" too, a formal element of the villanelle. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, we can., Yes, we can., YES, WE CAN, YES WE CAN. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Stylistic device in rhetoric. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you may have a look to epistrophe and have a look to anaphora. --pma (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusive - have I understood this?

From http://www.zavvi.co.uk/zavvi/terms-and-conditions.info

"11. Price and Payment All prices are inclusive of VAT (where applicable) at the current rates and are correct at the time of entering the information onto the system. We reserve the right, however, to change prices at any time without notice to you. If your delivery address is outside of the United Kingdom and the Island of Jersey you may be subject to import duties and taxes..."

The 'inclusive' in the first sentence means 'includes VAT' ie the price has VAT added. Is this right? Thanks77.86.10.194 (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Funny thing is zavvi has informed me that they have not paid VAT on a VAT eligble item I bought,(via email) which is funny because it seems like they are saying that they have breached their own contract, misrepresented it to me, and evaded tax, all in one fell swoop. What a funny old world!77.86.10.194 (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If something is shipped from Jersey to the UK you don't have to pay VAT or duties if the shipment is less than £18.[4][5]. The conditions say that VAT is added if it applies (e.g. if they shipped from within the UK). --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the thing I ordered was more than £18, the postal package was marked "import VAT pre-paid" - but no VAT appears on the receipt!77.86.10.194 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Euphemisms for "Crying Jay"

I am looking for other euphemisms for the phrase "crying jay" or "crybaby". Also, does anyone know how this phrase originated? --Reticuli88 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Crybaby" doesn't appear to be puzzling: babies cry, hence "crybaby". I have never heard the expression "crying jay" unless you meant "crying jag", which is quite different from "crybaby". Other expressions similar to "crybaby", and from the same type of playground use of many decades ago are "woose", "mama's boy", "wimp" and "snot nose". I am sure there are many, many more. // BL \\ (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of those words is more commonly spelt wuss, I believe. —Tamfang (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa and naming of nations

Are there any other nations other than South Africa the names of which are also their locations? Cheers, SGGH ^ping! 22:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East Timor, Western Samoa (as was), Northern Ireland, North Korea, South Korea. Gwinva (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Northern Ireland might qualify if we consider it a "nation". It's sometimes considered a "country", e.g. it competes against the other "countries" (England, Scotland, Wales, etc) of the United Kingdom in various sporting contexts. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See article Home Nations... AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Central African Republic --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial Guinea, perhaps? We could even add Ecuador in for the same reason. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara, if you consider it a nation. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See List of country name etymologies. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norway! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually that's the way to the north (taking the most likely derivation of the name). Mikenorton (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western Australia and South Australia would be similar to South Africa in that the non-directional term is a continent. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zhongguo, obviously!--Rallette (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Along those lines, Japan comes from Nippon (日本), or "source of the sun", "land of the rising sun", etc. It could easily be paraphrased as "East Land". Indeterminate (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 June 11

Contents