Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 March 29

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 29

Books on English grammar

Please suggest some standard authoritative books on English grammar. --Reference Desker (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Essential Grammar in Use by Raymond Murphy [1] fits the bill, it's for elementary level. Also there is this one for intermediate level. --Viennese Waltz 09:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

For which variety of English? Roger (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Modern English and American English. The books suggested by Viennese are elementary level books, suggest some authoritative books for advanced level. --Reference Desker (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The standard text used to be "Fowler's English Usage". I know it was updated about 15 years ago (I have a copy) but I don't know if any updates have happened since. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I started typing "Fowler is not a book on grammar" - but then I realised it is. But with a different meaning of grammar from what I was thinking of. So, Reference Desker, do you mean a book which will tell you the details of how to use particular words so that people won't judge you as uneducated (which is what Fowler will give you) or do you mean a book which will explain the underlying structure of how English works? --ColinFine (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The original Fowler which was actually written by Fowler was rather idiosyncratic (and in places eccentric), and was somewhat notorious for inventing out of whole cloth a number of "correct usage distinctions" which had never existed in actual English language usage. I really don't know that it's ever been the "standard text" (in the U.S. it seems to have been far outsold by Strunk and White for many decades), and the successive revisions since 1965 have greatly watered down its original "Fowlerness". I wonder if TammyMoet has ever read through many of the entries of the original 1926 edition... AnonMoos (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And also Dr Johnson's dictionary, which is even more idiosyncratic. However, as an ex-English teacher, and ex-proofreader, that's the text we always used to reach for. To use ColinFine's other definition, the teaching book that seemed to fit the bill most of the time was one of the Cobuild series (pick one to suit the level and the situation). --TammyMoet (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't claim that these are the best ones, since there are a number that I've never had occasion to use, but two that I've consulted and found useful are Randolph Quirk, et al., A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language and, for a more traditional approach, George Oliver Curme's A Grammar of the English Language. Deor (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Muralitharan

How is Muralitharan pronounced in Tamil? (Preferably IPA, but whatever.) Lfh (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You should probably double-check this with a Tamil-speaking Wikipedian, but having examined Tamil script and Tamil phonology, and assuming that they are accurate, I conclude that IPA would be as follows: mʊɾəɭɪðəɾən. (Note the retroflex lateral approximant.) According to this text, Tamil words do not have distinctive stress, but such stress as there is tends to fall on the first syllable. Marco polo (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Great, and thanks for your hard work. Lfh (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

More than idiom

Hi. I'm looking for some idioms (I think idiom is the right word, perhaps colloquial metaphor - feel free to correct me) for "more than". All I've come up with is "more than most people change their socks" or "more than you've had hot dinners". As many as possible really :D Thinking of creating a set of Editcountitis userboxes which are a little more interesting. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it's exactly what you're looking for, but I recall the US Army used to use the catchphrase of "We do more before 6 a.m. than most people do all day." Is that the kind of thing you're looking for? Matt Deres (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping for more countable ones, but that one is certainly helpful, yes Worm^TT · (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of "more than" expressions come about in reference to very specific things. "That political movement's got more splinters than a lumberyard," "She's got more books than the Library of Congress," "I got more stories than J.D.'s got Salinger!" Of a house full of heroin addicts or knitting enthusiasts: "More needles in there than a pine forest." Of a particularly brave man: "Dude's got more balls than a bowling alley!" I don't know how generalizable the expression pattern is while still remaining witty - for it to be repeated, I think the expression generally needs to be clever/funny, and the best of those are very specialized like the above. Poetically speaking is another matter. It is often said there are more (whatever) than there are stars in the sky, grains of sand on a/the beach, blades of grass on a plain, fish in the sea, etc., etc., etc. But I think these uses are remembered less for the fact of their use than because whatever they are describing really is that massive/numerous and mind-blowing, thereby fixing even a pedestrian description in one's mind. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There's an expression I've only come across in American books, "More [whatever] than Carter has pills". And Groucho Marx could have suggested another one: "More women than you can shake a stick at, if that's your idea of a good time." --Antiquary (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Which "Carter" has a lot of pills ? StuRat (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a reference to Carter's Little Liver Pills, a famous patent medicine that we really ought to have an article about (our articles on patent medicine and Bisacodyl mention them). Looie496 (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"He/she has more front than Myers" (Americans read Macy's, Brits read Harrod's). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What should Americans substitute for front? —Tamfang (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Boldness, brazenness, fearlessness, daring, etc - but used in a pejorative sense, suggesting the he/she has little or no sensitivity but just comes out with whatever they want to say. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Chutzpah... AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There are five different comparisons at PETULA CLARK - MY LOVE LYRICS. (The text has the adjective "everyday" where it should have the adverb phrase "every day".)

—Wavelength (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all for some brilliant ideas. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I heard one particularly funny neologism idiom in the early 1990s on some American comedy show: "Your momma is so fat she has got more chins than a Chinese phonebook." JIP | Talk 17:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

For more comparative metaphors than you can count, find any of Dennis Miller's "rant" books. For example, in reference to some D.C. scandal some years back, he said, "Washington has more overused escorts than Budget Rent-a-Car." Or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Weird Al used that one in "Fat", JIP: "The pavement cracks when I fall down; / I've got more chins than Chinatown." Deor (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Agent vs. Officer and Office vs. Bureau vs. agency

Translating Jeffery Deaver's Edge, I found the sentences as follows:

"Um, Agent Corte."

"Officer Corte." I corrected. My organization is an office, not a bureau or agency.

Apparently, the speaker isn't a police officer. He is with a secret governmental organization.

I want to know what the difference between an agent and an officer, and among an office, a bureau and an angency are.

(At least why the speaker emphasizes the difference.)

--Analphil (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a rather pedantic distinction. If such a distinction originally existed, the meanings now thoroughly overlap. StuRat (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, different organizations use different terms. State police officers in the U.S. may prefer the term "trooper," while county police officers may use the term "sheriff's deputy." A CEO or CFO is an "officer" but not an "agent." Same with a military officer. Or, perhaps as StuRat says, the speaker is being extremely pedantic, thinking that only an "agency" can have "agents." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

State police officers are happy with officer too. Marco polo (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that Corte means "the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency have 'Agents', but I'm not with either of them; I'm with the Office of Something Secret, whose agents are called 'Officers'." —Tamfang (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To continue with this line of thought, wouldn't FBI employees be "bureaucrats" or "investigators", FDA workers be "administrators", SEC employees be "commissioners", and NOW members be "organizers" ? StuRat (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Where would functionaries work then? — Kpalion^(talk) 11:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Metaphorical? Hyperbole? Figurative?

If I say: "charging 25% interest is criminal" when in fact the criminal rate of interest is 50%, what would it be called? The use of the word "criminal" is not meant to be taken literally. I would call it a hyperbole or a use of figurative language but is there a more precise term? Eiad77 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Exaggeration. (Too obvious?) It's also rhetoric, but that's less precise than hyperbole. You could combine the two and have "rhetorical exaggeration", if you want to excuse the statement's literal untruth. 81.131.66.235 (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it just means "should be a crime" instead of "is a crime". Also note that usury rate laws will vary by jurisdiction. StuRat (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't mean it should literally be a crime, I mean it is morally wrong. It is like saying "cheating in chess is criminal". Of course it is not literally against the law to cheat in chess, but it is a really bad thing to do. Eiad77 (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, then, "as bad as a crime". (But of course, there are also some crimes that don't seem to be "morally wrong", like many obsolete statutes that stay on the books forever.) StuRat (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think hyperbole is exactly the right word. Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks a lot. Eiad77 (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)