Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 May 9

Language desk
< May 8	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 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.

May 9

Suffix "up"

Why is the suffix “up” on the following words, and how did it come about?

act up; add up; back up; bang-up; belt up; bone up; break up; brush up; buck up; buckle up; bundle up; butter up; button-up; buy up; call up; catch-up; choose up; clam up; clean up; cozy up; crack up; curl up; cut up; dial-up; dig up; do up; doll up; double up; dream up; dress up; drum up; dummy up; face up; fed up; fix up; follow up; foul-up; frame-up; gang up; gear up; give up; gussied up; hard up; jam-up; keep up; lead up; lighten up; loosen up; make up; mark up; measure up; mix-up; mop up; open up; pass up; pay up; pipe up; play up; pony up; power up; ring up; round up; runner-up; scare up; screw up; sew up; shack up; shake up; shape up; shape-up; shoot up; show up; shut up; sign up; sign-up; size up; souped-up; speak up; start-up; stink up; sum up; sum-up; tag up; talk up; tear up; tie up; touch up; trade up; trump up; trumped-up; tune-up; use up; wait up; warm up; warm-up; wash up; wind up; wise-up; work up; write up; write-up

Sirrom1 (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't think there's really a "suffix" up, in the usual meaning of the word suffix. However, there's prepositional up ("up there"), adverbial up ("go up"), and verbal particle up ("give up"). The examples you give are verbal particles, and their origin is the same as that of English verbal particle constructions in general. AnonMoos (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You might find [1] interesting (make sure the book pic displayed says "Phrasal Verbs") 71.236.24.129 (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the word "feedback"

Am I correct in thinking that the word feedback was coined by Norbert Weiner, the founder of cybernetics? And that its first published use was in the 1948 book Cybernetics: Or the Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Paris, France: Librairie Hermann & Cie, and Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press? I did read a paperback edition of this book once years ago - it is a non-technical popular account. His Wikipedia article mentions a classified secret monograph written in 1930 and made public in the early 1940s which might predate it, but I've never read it and it seems to have had only a small readership. 84.13.54.183 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The earliest quote in the OED (with the spelling 'feed-back') is from 1920, appearing in Wireless Age, whatever that may once have been. Algebraist 17:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was a radio communication magazine. Indeterminate (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A patent filed in September 1915 and issued in September 1916 contains the phrase "feed-back circuit" (p. 2 ff.). --Cam (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any information on when it came into wider use please? Our world has been changed a lot by that idea I think, and people who were brought up before it became widespread may see society in a more dictatorial way. 84.13.54.183 (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hang on. The OED distinguishes two meanings for 'feedback' (well, three, but the third one - the howling noise you get from a PA system - is not relevant). The older is a technical term in electronics, and it is this that goes back to 1920. The second meaning (which is what our feedback article mostly covers) the OED dates to 1943. --ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say it is "not relevant"? All three terms are related in meaning (mechanically similar), only differing in the medium of the feedback. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The terms are related in origin, and if you understand the physics you can see the relationship; but their meaning is different. You can hear feedback³ and cover your ears whether or not you have the least idea what causes it. Feedback ² is more abstract: while it may refer to perceptible entities (eg words, or voltages) they are feedback only in respect of how they are used, not in respect of any intrinsic quality. And feedback¹, while technically an instance of feedback², is so specialised that you need to understand its field (electronics) to know what it is about. Actually I would distinguish a fourth meaning: comments and reactions, whether or not they are to be used to modify or refine a process. --ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

aneka in Sanskrit

What all meanings aneka can have? Literally, it means that is not one/more than one. However, some online vedic or scriptural interpretations give the meaning of many or even innumerable. When did this word come to have the meaning of many? Can somebody tell? --Sankritya (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right that aneka (अनेक: अन् + एक) literally means "not one". The disctionary meaning follows:

• Monier Williams' dictionary: not one , many , much ; separated.
• Capellar's dictionary: not one; many or much (also pl.), manifold.
• Macdonell dictionary: more than one, various; many, several.

I didn't find any standard dictionary define aneka as innumerable; I guess that would be a justifiable extrapolation, but don't know when that meaning was first applied. Apte gives the following Sanskrit translations for innumerable: asaṃkhya, gaṇanātīta, saṃkhyātīta, agaṇya, asaṃkhyeya . Abecedare (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As usual, Abecedare is right. You may add Apte (p. 80) to the list of dictionaries that define "aneka" as "many", "manifold", or "diverse" but not listing "innumerable" or "infinite" as meanings. The noun ekatā means "oneness, unity, union, identity" (Apte p. 314). An-ekatā is the opposite of those things. I do not have a reliable source that discusses why some translators use "infinite". Since Apte provides literature citations for each definition of the term he gives, dating of the works he cites could be done to try to trace a history of use of the word, but that would constitute original research, which is forbidden here. Looking for translations of the word in texts on hand I find Brahma Sutras 1.3.27 with अनेकप्ततिपत्तेः translated by S. Vireswarananda (Brahma-Sūtras, p. 102) as ॰the assumption of many (forms). The context of that passage is explaining how the gods can be in many places in many forms at one time. The word occurs several times in the Bhagavad Gita (6.45, 11.10, 11.13, 11.16, 11.24, 16.16). In 6.45 it must mean "many" and not "infinite" because it promises that eventually the wise person is "attaining perfection through many births" (translation of अनेकजन्मसंसिद्धः by S. Gambhīrānanda, Bhagavad-Gītā, p. 313). Buddhipriya (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Expressing possession

Well, I asked a question on the talk page of American and British English differences. The page writes as I know that the possession is normally expressed by the verb have. But chiefly in Britain (?) you can use the phrase have got and in American slang you can simply use got. That's OK, I know, but I'm confused about their tenses and their time references. I'd like someone to complete (and correct) this table below.

    have             have got             got                              blah-blah
I have a car.    I have got a car.    I got a car.  These sentences refer to the present, I have that car now.
I had a car.          ? ? ?              ? ? ?      This sentence refers to the past, I had that car in the past and don't have it any longer. How would it be said with (have) got?
I've had a car.       - - -              ? ? ?      This refers to a part of the past or present it's not important, it's importance is the experience I've ever owed a car. I think it would not make sense with have got, but what about got?

Thank you, --Ferike333 (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is:

(1) The phrase have got as opposed to have is somewhat more common in Britain (especially in negative and interrogative sentences), but it's used in both British and American English. Generally speaking, have got is more colloquial than have.

(2) The phrase have got can only be used in the present tense. So, we can't say I had got a car. We can only say, I had a car and I have had a car (or I've had a car).

(3) I've got a car sounds more natural than I have got a car.

(4) Got for have is nonstandard, and it should not be used in writing.

I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 22:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And while we're at it:

Consider the question, "Have you got a car?"

A British person would answer, "Yes, I have." or "No, I haven't."

An American would answer, "Yes, I do." or "No, I don't.", as if the question were "Do you have a car?", which is the more common form in American English.

I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 23:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In American English, I got a car does not mean I possess a car. It means I acquired a car, generally in the recent past. Tempshill (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I retract that it doesn't mean "I possess a car". It can mean that in the most casual of circumstances. Who's got a car? Oh, I got a car. But it would be regarded as improper even to us provincial loutish Americans. Tempshill (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You can also say "I had gotten". I was thinking you could also say "I have gotten", but that sounds weird to me. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"I had gotten" and "I have gotten" both sound okay to me. "I have gotten 19 people to sign my petition." No use of the word "got" is appropriate in formal writing at present, though, among my generation, it is a very very common expression. As for, "I had got a car," I think that that's something that some people might say, but it definitely is not correct grammatically. --Falconus^{p t c} 04:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You could say "He had got out of bed and had showered and was half-dressed before he realised it was Sunday morning and he was due for his sleep-in". I never use gotten, so I can't say whether that "word" could replace got here. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The only real differences between British and US usage is that in the U.S. "gotten" is used as the past participle of the verb "to get" in contexts other than indicating simple static possession. So in the sentence "I've gotten five votes over the last hour", the meaning of the verb in context is to obtain or recieve, which is why "gotten" is used in American English. But in "I('ve) got enough money in my pocket", British and American are the same... AnonMoos (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Guys--let's keep it simple. As a long-time ESL/EFL teacher, I know how easy it is to confuse learners.

As for got vs. gotten:

Generally speaking, the past participle of get is gotten in North America and got in most of Britain and Australia--when it does not indicate static possession or obligation.

(N. Amer.) I have gotten 19 people to sign my petition. = (Eng., Aus.) I have got 19 people to sign my petition. (= I have made them sign my petition; I caused them to sign my petition.)

In English English and Australian English, this I have got (19 people) looks like I have got (a car), but it's semantically and grammatically different. Quite different.

Also note that, in English English, "I got enough money in my pocket" and "I've got enough money in my pocket" are always different; the latter indicates possession, the former does not.

If you look up the word have in a good learner's dictionary, such as Merriam-Webster's, you will find all of the senses of have for which the phrase have got can be used. In contemporary NAmEng, these are the only possible uses of got as the past participle of get.

I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 19:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I got a car is past tense. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it? In the meaning "I obtained a car" it's past tense, but as a contraction of I've got a car, with the meaning "I have a car", not really... AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard, nor used, that construct in present tense. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Haven't you ever heard Ray Charles sing "I Got A Woman", or Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders sing "Got Brass in Pocket"? AnonMoos (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, but that doesn't mean they're using standard English. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever -- you may not like it, but it's nonsense to say that you've "never heard" it, then... AnonMoos (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In Am.Eng. 'You got a cigarette' can be an acceptable substitution for 'Do you have a cigarette?', which is not only Am.Eng. but also Southern Br.Eng. In the North of England we'd say 'Have you got a cigarette?' (also acceptable in some parts of America). 'You got a cigarette?' (question form, hence the question mark) to me, would be simple past tense referring to having actually obtained a cigarette. This is something I also as an EFL/ESL teacher for many years find trouble explaining to students (most of whom need to learn Am.Eng. to pass exams).--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's still not grammatically standard American English. I don't know what you mean by "acceptable substitution". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's nonstandard, and I made that clear in my very first post. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 23:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please find some proof that it's standard English. [2] says it isn't. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please give me some proof that you can actually read! I said NONSTANDARD time and time again. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 00:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, giving us some proof that you understand Wikipedia protocol and can be polite, as we are all trying are best to answer your question, but we are also talking to each other either agreeing/adding information/disagreeing, would also be nice. Calm down and don't shout.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

When I was growing up (in Southern England) "do you have?" was a strange thing that Americans said. It was not normal in English English (except for the frequentative:"Do you have dances in your village?"). My observation (OR) is that when "have" is an auxiliary, it patterns as an auxiliary ("have you seen?" "I haven't seen") in all varieties of English, but when it is a substantive verb North American English tends to use it like an ordinary verb ("do you have any?") but British English has tended to continue pattern it like an auxiliary ("have you any?"). This distinction has been reducing over the last thirty or so years, so "do you have any?" is reasonably common in the UK now - I haven't noticed any difference in Northern and Southern usage there, but there may be. I believe that the prevalence of "Have you got?" in colloquial British English is partly because of the prosodic preference for a stressable element in non-first position: in lects where "do you have? is normal, this can be stressed as "do you HAVE", but where this form is (or was) unavailable "HAVE you?" is weaker than "have you GOT?". The same argument can account for the affirmative construction, with a bit of fiddling: "I have got" (with full 'have') is comparatively unusual except in contrastive use, but in the colloquical register where 'got' is common, so is contraction, so "I've got one" is much more common. Here again the 'got' gives us something stressable in second place. --ColinFine (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

o.O Thank you very much. Let me please, write a short conclusion so that you can see whether I've understood or not. Have is the most widely used, however it's uncommon in Southern Britain in simple questions like Do you have any apples?. In this case a Southern British person would choose the have got form which is common in whole Britain. Got is nonstandard, only used in American slang. They really do, I know as I've heard people saying that in a film (called: Chicago). The form have gotten cannot be used to express possession, only as the past participle form of get, and this form is chiefly American, in Britain, standardly, got is used for past simple as well as past participle. Had got and gotten can neighter be used for possession, it sounds strange even to me, I just asked because one of my former teacher said it was to express possession in the past, something like the past form of have got but it's not true, and I haven't heard eighter. So have got and got can be used only when referring to the present, even though have got is formally a perfect phrase. Have got is naturally and ususally shortened to 've got (eg: I've got...). Though, I won't always use the short form because on my keyboard it's a bit difficult to put an apostrophe so I usually write the full forms as it takes fewer time than putting apostrophes (or when I don't have to be official I simply omit them). I think that's all we've already mentioned, right? If I skipped something important, please remind me, it's not easy to follow a such long text like this. And now, more questions: Chiefly Americans often use ain't instead of numerous negative short forms (aren't, haven't, am not, etc.). By this way, can I say I ain't got any eggs. or I ain't have any eggs. instead of I haven't got any eggs. (both sense) and I don't have any eggs.? --Ferike333 (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"I ain't got any eggs" (or more likely "I ain't got no eggs") is grammatical in the nonstandard dialects where it occurs, but *"I ain't have any eggs" (likewise *"I ain't have no eggs") is (AFAIK) totally ungrammatical in any variety of English, standard or nonstandard. +Angr 15:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much to all! Now I understand. It was interesting to discuss it with you. Really it was. :) --Ferike333 (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"had got" (or rather "'d got") for possession the past is certainly possible in British English, but I think less common than in the present. "He'd got a car" is more colloquial than "He had a car", but I think the distribution of these two is different from the distribution of "He's got a car" vs. "He has a car". "Gotten" is not usual in any British variety of English in any sense, AFAIK.

"Ain't" is not standard in any modern variety of English, but is widely used in non-standard dialects throughout the world. There is some uncertainty how to contract "am not", and "ain't" is a solution which at certain times was regarded as acceptable. My grandfather, I'm told, used to say "amn't I" but I have rarely heard this. In English English it is common to say "aren't I", but in the affirmative "I'm not" is the only common contraction. (I say 'English English' because Scottish English often takes a different tack with these contractions). --ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, interesting, again. Yeah, but then had got is just colloquical. About amn't I've never heard. (Only on lessons when beginners try to make short negative forms and teachers tell them that's incorrect.) But we learn general English however everyone knows that that does not exist and we are not allowed to use dialectical structures in e.g. language exams. But now I'm learning a little bit of Southwestern British as I will be going to Cornwall. What case can you use aren't I in? Could you plese tell me some examples? --Ferike333 (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've previously waxed lyrical about "ain't" vs "amn't", and I'm about to do so again. There was a time when "ain't" was 100% acceptable - but only in a tag question ("... yada yada, ain't I?"). The school ma'ams did their work too well, and when they taught us that it was never to be used in cases like "I ain't read that book", the message they imparted that it was never to be used at all. (Same story with "Me and him" vs. "He and I" - "me and him" is correct in "There's a difference between me and him", but people now regularly think they're speaking correctly when they say "There's a difference between he and I", which they're not.) So "ain't" got banned, and the relatively latter-day "amn't" was created to fill the gap. It was never necessary, and if I had my way, I would decree that the use of "amn't" is punishable by death. Long live "ain't" - in its right place, of course. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks. By the way, I should say Klau and I went to school together today and not Me and Klau... and should say John is elder than me and not John is elder than I - but it's the thing you mentioned that it's used, incorrectly. Sorry for repeating everything but as I'm non-native in English, I repeat it for you to know if I had understood, because I don't want to misunderstand anything, mainly what I asked :) --Ferike333 (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "aren't I": this is absolutely standard in conversational English throughout England as far as I know - even in parts where the accent is rhotic, so though it may have arisen originally as a form of "ain't I" it is now a different word. In formal speech, people will fall back on "am I not", but that often sounds stilted.

Re "than I" - the sort of people who insist on "correcting" "it's me" to "it's I" usually also insist on "John is older than I", and ultimately for the same spurious reason: because that's how Latin does it. (By the way 'elder' can only be used attributively, as in 'elder brother': in predicative use, native speakers say 'older'). --ColinFine (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I see, but they should realise English is English and Latin is Latin. If so, then the "me" structures are like French therefor that should also be used in English because it's the same in French. Madness... Thanks for older-elder, too. Cheers, Ferike333 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

classic example

so we don't have a classic example article, but if we did, it would define classic example, and also give some examples. What examples might it give -- what would be a classic example of a classic example? 79.122.9.184 (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

How about some classic classical examples, such as Oedipus Rex, a classic classical example of tragic irony, or Mozart, a classic classical example of a Wunderkind, or the term "classical music" as a classic example of ambiguous metonymy. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But the most classic classical example, the archetypal of everything, is of course Homer! --pma (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

ha ha. very funny guys, but I'm not asking for a classical example. Just a classic example that would illustrate the meaning of the term "classic example"... 94.27.208.52 (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The Ford Edsel is often considered a classic example of a poor business decision. The McDonald's Coffee Case (where the victim was burned on the legs by spilled coffee) can be considered, alternatively, a classic example of an extreme jury result in a lawsuit (overly high damages) or of a corporation's uncaring endangerment of the public (in reality the plaintiff was not greedy and the jury damages were ultimately not overly disproportionate). --71.111.205.22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC).

Careful on claiming Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is an extreme — as you say, it probably was not extreme. Tempshill (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The Magna Carta as an example of restraint on executive power. Wrad (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A classic example of compassion after seeing horrific things done by your own side in a war would be Oskar Schindler.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)