Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 March 31

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.

March 31

Hebrew grammar/translation help please

See Talk:Gush_Etzion#.22literally_bloc_of_Etzion.22 --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

For good or bad?

Does the idiom "for good" have a negative connotation? I found someone asking the same question [1], but there were no answers. The meaning in "He left for good." would be "permanently", but does it also mean "good riddance" which has a negative tone to it? Jay (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say there are no negative connotations to the phrase. It just means "forever", but is perhaps rather more emphatic in its statement of permanence. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The expression "for good" can have other meanings besides "permanently". See http://www.forcesforgood.net/.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See also For Better or For Worse and Marriage vows. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See also Pro bono publico. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wavelength for the references, but they don't really relate to the usage I was talking about and which Richardrj has rightly replied. Is there an informal dictionary of slangs or colloquial usages? Perhaps I can get the usages there. Jay (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You can investigate several dictionaries at http://www.dmoz.org/Reference/Dictionaries/World_Languages/E/English/Slang/. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good links. I went through every one of them but could not find "for good". Perhaps it is too formal to be included in slang dictionaries. Jay (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My dictionary says the original expression was "for good and all", but I've never heard or read that anywhere else. It has shades of "for the good of all", and that could have a somewhat negative connatation (in the sense of Wilde's "Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go".) -- JackofOz (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The correct spelling is connotation. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that for good can have a negative connotation if it is being used in irony. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Settle in"

According to wiktionary:settle in, to "settle in" means to get comfortable or established. Can it be used together with "in some place", such as "I had just settled in in my favourite chair" or "I later settled in in Helsinki"? It's this double "in" that seems incorrect. Can a native English speaker clarify whether this is OK or not? JIP | Talk 19:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective (native BrE Speaker) the double negative's fine. However, I'd use 'I had just settled into my favourite chair', but not in the latter case. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine, but of course it's not a double negative. One "in" is an adverb or particle and the other is a preposition. --Anonymous, 20:20 UTC, March 31, 2009.

I mis-typed. Of course it isn't a double negative. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Settled in in Helsinki" is possible, but only after you'd already made it clear that you'd settled there (as in, moved there from another place), otherwise it would appear to be a typo (which could unsettle some editors to the point of making them want to change it). In other words, you first settle there, then you settle in. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This use of "settle" meaning to move there certainly exists, but I think it's relatively uncommon, perhaps especially so in North America. If I read the original sentence I would read it as intended and not expect a typo. --Anonymous, 20:22 UTC, March 31, 2009.

If this wording is used, a comma after the first occurrence of in would help (1) to clarify the meaning, (2) to indicate that there was not a typographical error, and (3) to indicate to someone reading the words orally that this is a place/time to pause. The pause in oral reading would help to clarify the meaning to someone hearing the words being read. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wavelegth's point is also made in the style manual Words into Type, which says (in the "Comma" section, under "Repeated words"): "Separate repeated words in the same construction by commas. Repeated words in different constructions often need separation by a comma for the sake of clearness." The examples given are "The mere knowledge of what this substance is, is of great value," "What money there was, was steadily drained away," and "A dosage was arrived at, at which each bird was found to maintain constant weight," the third of which is parallel to the "settle in in" construction. I have to say, though, that I've frequently seen such constructions in print with no commas used for separation. Deor (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I would consider each of those commas erroneous except for the "at, at" one, which is optional. Even if you believe that commas are acceptable regardless of grammar if they indicate a pause, in the original sentence there is no pause. --Anon, 10:00 UTC, April 1, 2009.

No, there is a pause in each of those examples given by Deor. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends on the speaker. I wouldn't say them with pauses, except for No. 3. How would you punctuate this: "What he said was, was "Was "was" a good word to use there?". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That appears to be ungrammatical: the second "was" has no function, and the quotation marks are unbalanced. I'm guessing that it's meant to be a transcription of an ungrammatical spoken sentence with a pause after the first "was", and with one more closing quote at the end. In that sort of usage I have no problem with the comma, but of course the nested quotation marks should be single at alternate nesting levels. So: "What he said was, was 'Was "was" a good word to use there?'". What else? --Anonymous, 08:14 UTC, April 2, 2009.

You're spot on about the quotes. Otherwise, though, "What I meant was, was that ..." and similar expressions are frequently found in speech. They may not be sanctioned by grammar books, but they have their own descriptive authority. So I can't agree that it's entirely ungrammatical. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Phesant = peasant?

I'm told that "pheasant" is an alternate spelling of "peasant". Is there any evidence to support this? Xenon54 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

When I was exposed to the word "pheasant" in the fourth grade, I thought it meant peasant. I must say, it made the hunting story I was reading a lot more interesting. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The English word pheasant is derived indirectly from the Greek name of the Phasis River in the Caucasus. The English word peasant is derived indirectly from the Latin word pāgus (meaning "district"). -- Wavelength (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember a lass at my school coming out with the classic line "Bonnie Prince Charlie escaped from the battle and avoided his persuers by dressing as a pheasant." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.106.17 (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The correct spelling is pursuers. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the 'errata' in 1066 and All That reads "for 'pheasant' read 'peasant' throughout". --ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if 'pheasant' was an alternative for 'peasant' in modern english, it would make the pheasant plucker tongue twister irrelevant, and I doubt anyone would allow that, unless they were Korean.--KageTora (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

KageTora's link refers to this. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)