Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 May 1

Language desk
< April 30	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 2 >

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.

May 1

Help with English grammar

I'm looking for material that I can use to explain the basic rules of English grammar to kids. More specifically, I'm looking for a relatively small, clearly defined, and coherent set of constituents that are adequate for analyzing simpler sentences. A problem that I have is that the traditional grammar I learned back when I was in school, the newer grammar books, and the university-level references I've seen all seem to use different sets of concepts and terminology. For example, depending on the book, a verb phrase may be synonymous with a predicate, or may be just a part of it that includes the main verb and possibly a few extras. As another example, the concept of determiners was not used when I learned grammar in school, but some of my newer dictionaries do label determiners as such. Sometimes when I try to explain why a sentence is ungrammatical, I would have trouble explaining the rules simply and clearly, because the explanation I come up with would require new terms to be defined, and sometimes defining them would require yet more terms to be defined!

See Index of linguistics articles. It does not directly fulfill your request, but you might find it to be a helpful reference.

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This will hardly help you, but I always fancied that The Lumberjack Song would make an excellent sing-song introduction into basic English grammar. You'd have to limit yourself to the first stanza, of course, to avoid funny questions... TomorrowTime (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

See number 415 at http://www.deweybrowse.org/Dewey_Browse_400.html. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What's this kind of bag called in English?

Resolved

Please see the results of this image search. It's a small bag, that comes with a belt that you strap around your waist, and is carried behind you. Suitable for walking and running, smaller that a backpack. And does it have an article? Thanks, --NorwegianBlue ^talk 13:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In American English, a fanny pack; in British English, a "belt bag"; see the article for other synonyms. - Nunh-huh 14:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --NorwegianBlue ^talk 14:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's actually called a 'bum bag' in British English, and not a fanny pack, which would denote something entirely different - either a pack of fannies (doesn't even bear imagining!) or a bag intended for the use of a fanny.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said that it was called a fanny pack in Brit English. Dismas|^(talk) 06:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but Nunh-huh said it was called a belt bag in British English. The sort of bag called a fanny pack in America is called a bum bag in the UK; a belt bag would generally be more belt-like, if that makes any sense. 80.41.75.99 (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that the image search in Norwegian refers to a "Rumpetaske"; if "rumpe" translates as "rump" then that's a nice direct translation of the en_GB "bum bag". For en_US readers, en_GB "bum" -> en_US "fanny". en_GB "fanny" -> en_US "lady's front bottom". Americans! Never pat an Englishwoman on her fanny unless you know her really well! Tonywalton ^Talk 22:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, a direct translation of "rumpetaske" would be exactly "bum bag". Thank you all for your help. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 11:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Not quite to the point, but for same strange reason single strap backpacks are marketed in Germany as "body bags". --Janneman (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As it were

There's a cricket commentator who uses a lot of trite expressions, such as "as far as x is concerned", but the one that irritates me the most is "as it were". He uses this expression often for no apparent reason (to me, anyway). Can someone explain the grammatical construct of this? It doesn't even make sense grammatically. Sandman30s (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Some (including the OED) posit that it's a shortening of "As if it were so" or "as if it was true", echoed somewhat in the alternative "so to speak". Both have also been co-opted as an indicator of double-entendre which doesn't help identify the exact etymology, no-one seems to know exactly what it means. Nanonic (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly the same expression, "als het ware" is used in the same manner in modern Dutch, where it looks equally strange. It uses the past subjunctive of "zijn" (=to be) and has effectively turned into an adverb.[1]. Iblardi (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

See the ninth of ten questions at http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/grammarlogs4/grammarlogs540.htm.

-- Wavelength (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As someone who uses this phrase, I believe it refers to the speaker just having used a simile or methaphor. For example: "The bowler made a right pig's ear of that ball, as it were" - the ball was not literally turned into a pig's ear by the bowler: the phrase is a colloquialism meaning to make a mess of. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case then a lot of people, including said commentator, have no idea what it means nor have any idea how to use it. Thanks for the answers. Personally, I think it has its roots in stuffy sophistry and should stay there. Also, blabbermouths use it and other hackneyed phrases when they don't have enough to say or want to garnish the core meaning of their speech - remind you of a few politicians? Sandman30s (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Geez, thanks for the insult. I recommend you read posts before you respond in such a way. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the commentator subject to Sandman30's opprobrium was the cricket commentator first mentioned, Tammy. As for sports commentators using trite and out-of-place expressions, that's what they're paid for, isn't it? Tonywalton ^Talk 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes well I did start my comment with "As someone who uses this phrase"... and then he told me to leave it in "stuffy sophistry" and that "blabbermouths use it". As someone once said, I resemble that remark!--TammyMoet (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised that someone took offense to my remark. It was not intended to insult any of the posters. I'm always grateful for the help given here. Tony - you're on the mark there - thanks. Sandman30s (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, considering you started with "As someone who uses this phrase", it was insensitive to have said that. A thousand apologies, as it were... Sandman30s (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!--TammyMoet (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)