Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 January 17

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 17

Question/answer

What is the difference in comparison between "the original question remains unanswered" and "the original answer remains unquestioned"? Are they opposites, anecdotes, analogies etc. or something else? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"The original question remains unanswered" means "the question has never been answered since it was first posed;" "The original answer remains unquestioned" means "the question was posed, and then answered, and that answer has never since been challenged as false." Was this the response you wanted, or am I misunderstanding the question? Xenon54 / talk / 02:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If no one had responded to your question, the first quoted statement would be true and the second quoted statement would be meaningless because there would have been no response. Now that someone has responded, the first quoted statement is no longer true, and the second quoted statement remains true because I am not challenging it. It would become false if someone disagrees with Xenon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to compare whether making one true falsifies the other. By the way was this an unintentional self-reference? ~AH1^(TCU) 02:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In the words of Horton, "I meant what I said, and I said what I meant; an elephant's loyal, one hundred percent." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This question brings up the thorny problem of whether or not something that doesn't exist can still have properties. See Alexius Meinong, for starters. It's arguable that the second statement is true if the first one is, assuming that "being unquestioned" is a property (or a non-property?) that a non-existent answer can have. Making the second statement false would (again, arguably) falsify the first, if we can say that, for an answer to be questioned, it has to exist. On the other hand, it's certainly possible to question a _refusal_ to give an answer (see the Ref Desk talk page discussions on medical questions), which would mean the second statement could be false and the first statement true - if a non-existent answer is still an answer. At least, the two statements aren't logically identical or logically inconsistent. Tevildo (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Let logician Charles Lutwidge Dodgson explore the issue

`Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on.

`I do,' Alice hastily replied; `at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know.'

`Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. `You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!'

`You might just as well say,' added the March Hare, `that "I like what I get" is the same thing as "I get what I like"!'

`You might just as well say,' added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, `that "I breathe when I sleep" is the same thing as "I sleep when I breathe"!'

`It is the same thing with you,' said the Hatter...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese have a useful verb "unask". Kittybrewster ☎ 10:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

They also have unuseless objects. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

True or false?

"Self-references make everything permissible". Or is the statement itself a self-reference? ~AH1^(TCU) 01:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

First, translate that axiom. What is it trying to say? It doesn't make obvious sense to me. However, I got D's in literature. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a link to "self-reference". ~AH1^(TCU) 02:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the statement is valid as it stands: "This statement is true" just sits there, not generating any particular logical difficulties, although its truth-value isn't obvious, and "This statement has five words" is a simple (analytic) truth. The Latin phrase is Ex falso quodlibet - "From a falsehood everything follows". "Contradiction makes everything permissible" would be a more accurate statement. Self-reference can generate falsehoods, as in the liar paradox, but one can deduce that every statement is true just by using a false premise, without having to use self-reference. See Material implication. Tevildo (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"the well"

why is a part of the courtroom near the judges bench called "the well"? many judges prohibit lawyers from " entering the well". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.155.74 (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You can see the transference of meaning through the following definitions of 'well, n.', all from the online OED:

• 1. a. A spring of water rising to the surface of the earth and forming a small pool or flowing in a stream; a pool (or, rarely, a stream) fed by a spring.
• 3. a. A pit dug in the ground to obtain a supply of spring-water; spec. a vertical excavation, usually circular in form and lined with masonry, sunk to such a depth as to penetrate a water-bearing stratum.
• 7. A shaft or pit bored or dug in the ground. In various specific applications.
• 8. a. The central open space, from roof to basement, of a winding, spiral, or elliptical staircase; the open space in which a lift operates.
• [8] b. The space on the floor of a law-court (between the Judge's bench and the last row of seats occupied by Counsel) where the solicitors sit.

--ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It reminds me of an orchestra pit. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The omissio of "to"

Why not "We ought not to suppose that love is necessary for marriage," instead of "We ought not suppose that love is necessary for marriage"?

--68.219.47.248 (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

See Modal verb. In English, modal auxiliaries are followed by bare infinitives (without to). Deor (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely "ought" isn't really a modal verb? "We ought not to suppose.." sounds right to me, and "We ought not suppose.." sounds wrong, in parallel with "We ought [to] suppose..". Contrast "We should [not] suppose..", where "should" really is modal. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Deor's answer is lousy: We say "We ought to do that", not "We ought do that". Michael Hardy (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why "We ought not suppose.." sounds wrong. It is just like "Mark ought not drink so much." (Notice there is no "to.")--68.219.18.169 (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that English modal verb does not list 'ought'. It does, however, list 'ought to'. That suggests that the negative must be 'ought not to'. But 'ought not' (without the 'to') has a long history. That says to me that the real modal is simply 'ought', which (unlike all other modals) almost always takes 'to' in the positive, but may safely do without it in the negative. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses without prejudice against any future responses that might fine-tune the prior ones. --68.219.18.169 (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark ought not drink so much: I don't think I've ever heard anyone use such a construction! I'm rather fascinated. Marnanel (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

One more data point: to me (native British English speaker) "ought not to suppose" sounds better than "ought not suppose", though the latter does not sound totally wrong. Tinfoilcat (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the case of ought is similar to the cases of dare and need discussed in the last paragraph of Modal verb#List, where the verb is used both modally and nonmodally, although nonmodal negative constructions parallel to "he doesn't dare to" and "he doesn't need to" don't occur with ought in standard Modern English. (In some U.S. dialects, however, statements like "He hadn't ought to do that" are quite frequent.) Deor (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In Ruddigore, W.S.Gilbert has Dick Dauntless say "Ought you to ... ?" ... "No, ... you did not ought ... " ... " and I won't ought, accordin'". But many things mark Dick's speech out as non-standard, and I believe that this sequence is intended to be comical.

I would not use "ought not drink" without 'to', and would stumble over it if I encountered it in writing. --ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No. I speak British English and would always use ought not to suppose. Kittybrewster ☎ 03:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This completely disagrees. Also, see my response to Bielle @ User talk:JackofOz#Ought not. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No one has yet mentioned the fairly common (UK?) usage "Didn't ought..", as in "you didn't ought to do that". In my experience the "to" is always included, to that extent that it's as if the phrase was "you didn't oughter..". (this link says that "didn't oughta" is cockney rhyming slang for "daughter", which is news to me.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of random recollections: a song - "There's a little white duck sitting in the water / A little white duck doin' what he oughter"; and a tobacco ad done by the players of The Beverly Hillbillies - "Winston tastes good... like a cigarette had oughta!" The colloquial pronunciations both standing for "ought to". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And this timeless gem from Dizzy Dean, describing a batter swinging at a pitch that he should have laid off, as it was not a good pitch to hit: "He shouldn't hadn't oughta swang!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is what friend Fowler has to say:

• You didn't ought to have done that is a not uncommon colloquial vulgarism. 'Ought', the past tense of 'owe' (now used as present also) is the only surviving form of that verb in its sense of be under a duty to, or be expected to. An auxiliary cannot therefore be used with 'ought' as though it were an infinitive, and it must be negatived with a bare 'not' in the old-fashioned way;

all fine so far, but he then gives the somewhat paradoxical (in view of the preceding) example:

• you ought not to have done that.

I just don't know what to make of that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I presume he means you should say "you ought not to.." ('bare "not"') rather than "didn't owe". In another context the "old-fashioned way" would be "I spoke not" as opposed to "I did not speak". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To this more-or-less GAm speaker's ears, "ought" w/o "to" sounds distant -- either foreign or archaic -- but not like an outright error. --Atemperman (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And also to this speaker of UK English, though I agree with Jack of Oz that one does sometimes hear ought not without to, and it does have a long history (e.g. the opening of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar: What ! know you not, Being mechanical, you ought not walk, Upon a labouring day. without the sign Of your profession). This usage struck me as archaic when I first read it (very many years ago). Dbfirs 09:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing that people write so many words without mentioning this: One says

We ought to do that.

but never

We ought do that.

I'd have thought that was the reason for the question, but a lot of people above seem to have missed it completely. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody has missed it. Both Deor and Atemperman referred to it, and I take it that most of the contributors assumed it. But arguments by analogy are always weak in discussions of usage. It's clear that some contributors find "ought not do" acceptable and others do not. This has nothing to do with whether anybody finds "We ought do that" acceptable or not. --ColinFine (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

English grammar

In reply to previous differently-worded version of query:

First example,

We ought not suppose that love is necessary for marriage.
   
Meaning=We don't have to suppose that love is necessary for marriage.   
   

Second example,

You need not call me.
   
Meaning=You don't have to call me.   
   

Which article on WP explain the grammar of the red text? If WP doesn't have an article for it, please refer me to some Website.--68.219.47.248 (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think the not is in the "wrong" place with respect to the logical meaning, then that would fall under what linguists "negative scope". However, the real explanation is that "ought" and "need" are used as quasi-auxiliary verbs here, and so take the negative in the same place that auxiliaries do (e.g. "needn't" like "haven't" etc.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.--68.219.18.169 (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As AnonMoos says, the construction is the same in every case: "ought not", "should not", "would not", "need not", "have not", and "do not" are all following the same pattern. In fact, this was once how all negatives were expressed: "she loves me; she loves me not", for example. However, over time, things have evolved to the point where pretty much only auxiliary verbs are negated, and we simply use a throwaway "to do" if we want to negate anything else - so "she does not love me" sounds more natural to a modern English speaker, although the "does" has no real function.

Incidentally, your meaning in the first example is incorrect - although it's actually rather hard to find another way of phrasing "ought not"; I think "It is our duty/We are obliged not to suppose that love is necessary for marriage" is roughly what I would understand by that statement. (Note that, to my ears, it is not saying "It is not our duty...") - IMSoP (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the first example could be ambiguous (as you say, it could be interpreted either as "We don't have to suppose that love is necessary for marriage." or as "We have to not suppose that love is necessary for marriage."), but in practice I think the second meaning is rare and would be phrased differently. I think the meaning given by 68.219 is the main/most common by far, although it's true that "I ought to" is not strictly equivalent to "I have to" (It's a bit of a shall/will difference, for those of us that make that distinction). 86.178.229.168 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Gah! And now it's flipped on me and the ones that sound right have completely reversed. Must. Not. Overthink. 86.178.229.168 (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I often think that cases like this are a good argument in favour of split infinitives - there is a clarity in "we ought to not suppose", for instance, even if it does sound a little clumsy.

I definitely think "ought not" is more likely to indicate "ought" + negated verb rather than a literal negation of "ought", though - I guess the more common analogue is "must not", which definitely means "compelled not to", rather than "not compelled". (In modern English, at least; it occurs to me that the King James Bible used "thou shalt not" in its commandments...) - IMSoP (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

YOu don't need to make an argument for a split infinitive, as there was never a good reason why they should not be used. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How about, "To carelessly oppose is something we ought not to"? PhGustaf (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The original question ought to be answered in English modal verb, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be. --ColinFine (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Repetitions?

What does reps mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.106.27 (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

To give someone reps (or, more emphatically, mad reps) is to give them praise or kudos. It started out as a clipped form of "reputation", although you could never say *"I'll give you reputations". I think it's originally skateboarder slang. +Angr 12:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, what does 'giving props' refer to and what is it short for? I've seen it written here and there, and all I can imagine is people giving someone items to be used in some sort of stageshow or musical. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 15:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It refers to giving credit or giving recognition ("I did all this great work and didn't get props for it..."). I don't know what it's short for, though. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

According to this, it's either meant literally, in the sense of "support" (as in "prop up" or "clothes prop"), or it's short for "proper respect". Tevildo (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In his time, this guy got a lot of props for his great work. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mac or Mack

Where does the slang term "to mac", meaning to hit on someone, come from? Black Carrot (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it comes from the older meaning of "to mack," to be or act as a pimp, and the related noun "mack," a pimp. "Mack," in turn, is a shortened form of either "mackerel" or of French "maquereau," each of which means a pimp. John M Baker (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Another slang definition of "to mack" that I've heard of means "to make out with". ~AH1^(TCU) 01:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell that to Mack The Knife! DOR (HK) (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Might be a more general example of the way that violent terms end up becoming sexual ones. e.g. "I'd hit that". --129.11.12.201 (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)