Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 February 23

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.

February 23

throw out his chest upward

I am describing how a man swam. I want your opinion about the sentence "He threw out his chest upward." Is it understandable? If not, could you suggest some proper expression for this idea. A lot of thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.239.194 (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense for swimming, and it would even be bad (very, very bad) form for backstroke. There's no stroke for which you want to throw out your chest. Even with breaststroke what happens follows from the arm motion, not from deliberate expansion of the chest. Idiomatically, you would not say the two words out and upward together--just simply "he threw out his chest". μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thrust would be a better word than throw. But it's a terrible description of swimming.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

We agreed for him to go there.

Is "We agreed for him to go there." correct? I can't find any result in dictionaries. I'm only sure of "We agreed that he should go there." Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.239.194 (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

They are both fine. The second is more polished, although you will not hear British under 50 saying it, since they have lost the subjunctive. It is still used by Americans and other educated English speakers. But "for him to verb" is the usual way of expressing the subject of a verb in the infinitive. User:JackofOz is technically not British, but he uses forms like "we agreed he speak first" impeccably. See English subjunctive, English infinitive. μηδείς (talk) 10:16 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Did you miss the "should" in there? It's no subjunctive. Actually, the second sentence sounds considerably less formal and stilted. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No, but I was hoping a Brit would object, not a fellow Teuton! Technically should here is the subjunctive of shall--it's just not treated that way any more. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"We agreed that he should go there" sounds unexceptional to me, and I'm sure under-50 Britons would say it without batting an eyelid. Can any UKers confirm? The test of subjunctive-friendliness is sentences like "It's really important that you be at the meeting tomorrow", which many would render as "It's really important that you are at the meeting tomorrow". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack, I knew I could count on you. I'd give "I insist he is here" versus "I insist he be here" as a starker example of why the subjunctive is indispensable. They mean totally opposite things. μηδείς (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Good one. I'll use that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

English Englishman here. "We agreed for him to go there." is understandable, but sounds awkward. "We agreed for him to go" is marginally less awkward, but still weird. "We agreed that he should go there." is fine, although what I would actually say in real life is, "We agreed he should go". Simples. I wouldn't normally add 'there' because that infers we knew what 'there' meant, and is therefore unnecessary because we're obviously discussing someplace-he-might-be-going. If the place were not known, I'd expect the proper noun, e.g. "We agreed he should go to the chip shop." I wouldn't say "that", even in a formal situation. Maybe that's just me; it's just an opinion - but I read "Can any UKers confirm?", so there's one opinion, FWIW. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Jack, re meeting, it sounds much more natural to me to say, "It's really important that you're at the meeting tomorrow". It's not very common to hear people *say* "you are", unless a) they're angrily enunciating every word, or b) they're ESL or teaching English. I'd be moderately surprised to hear "...that you be at the meeting". I also think it'd be more common to hear, "...that you attend the meeting tomorrow." or "...tomorrow's meeting." 88.104.19.233 (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "important that you be at the meeting" is perfectly fine for this South African English speaker. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

the order of adjectives

I'm not certain about the order of adjectives. Could you tell me if there is something improper in each of the following 3 phrases in terms of the order of adjectives: "dirty,long stockings"; "a dog-eared, dirty, slender notebook"; "beltless, knee-length, black-silk pants"? Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.234.16 (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

They are not strictly wrong, but usually adjectives describing size and shape come before adjectives describing qualities. So: "long dirty stockings"; "a slender, dog-eared, dirty notebook"; "knee-length, beltless, black silk pants", Looie496 (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

For more information, see adjective order.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd put the permanent/inherent qualities of the object nearer to the noun than the transient/acquired qualities: dirty long stockings (no comma!), dirty dog-eared slender notebook. As to the pants, I'm neutral, and you can quote me on that. —Tamfang (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

amiable

Would you please tell me whether "amiable" is a good word in the sentence "The former classmates were amiable to one another in the reunion."? Or is there any better word or phrase? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.234.16 (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It would sound better to say "friendly with". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Amiable is used grammatically in the same way as "likable", although the meaning is not the same. If you substitute "likable" in your sentence, you will probably see what is wrong with it. Looie496 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Dictionary.com gives three senses: likeable, friendly, and agreeable. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amiable Looie is correct that the likeable sense doesn't work here, but the other two do. If I heard this sentence I would assume agreeable was meant, and take it as implying they hadn't normally gotten along in the past. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

114.249.234.16 -- The sentence seems acceptable to me (though vaguely redolent of the 18th or 19th centuries), except that one would usually say "at the reunion"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You could have "The former classmates were amicable with one another at the reunion." mixing some of the answers from above. This assumes that the classmates may not have been expected to be on friendly terms. But definitely "at the reunion". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

To me were amiable to one another describes how they behaved outwardly, rather than how they felt or the nature of their relationships. I'm guessing (because of the context of the reunion) that that is what you meant; but it is easy to imagine that you intended something different, so I would clarify it by saying something like behaved amiably to one another. --ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Accents

Does anyone perceive that they speak their own native language with an accent? I'm not talking about knowing it intellectually, but about actually "feeling" it. 86.167.19.222 (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

When I was a small child my family moved from my native Belfast to England for a few years with my dad's work. When we came back, I had an English accent, and I was very aware of speaking with a different accent to my friends. My accent gradually adapted, but for many years the vowels of "house" and "race" remained stubbornly English, and I felt self-conscious of that through my teens. Whether anybody else noticed I have no idea. So yes, I think people can be conscious of their accent, when they speak with a different accent to everyone else around them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've lived in various parts of the UK, and in various places I have been aware that my speech was different from that of most people around me. However, I never truly felt that it was me that was speaking with "an accent". 86.167.19.222 (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Most people don't, unless they are trained in phonetics. But people who move and learn to assimilate to a new dialect as teens or young adults often do become conscious of the difference. I notice the difference between my Delaware Valley accent and my New York City accent. I know people who have lived in western Florida and NYC, and Virginia and South Jersey who are aware of their accents, and a NYC native who spoke both "black" and "radio announcer" English. μηδείς (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a slightly odd situation, in that I grew up in the south east of England, but both my parents grew up in the North. Mostly, this just manifests as using certain "Yorkshire-isms" like "lass" (for young woman) and "aye" (for yes), while still speaking with a mostly southern accent. However, I do find that I use glass (to rhyme with ass) and glass (to rhyme with arse) interchangably, which I became very conscious of recently after asking at a bar for "A bottle of wine with two glarses and a glass (ass) of water". MChesterMC (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a friend, born and bred in the Hertfordshire with northern parents. She says "laff" instead of "larf" (laugh). Alansplodge (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've known someone who did the reverse, basically. He grew up in Western Tennessee but made a conscious effort not to pick up a Southern accent. His accent was just sort of a Midwestern accent from what my ears could tell. Dismas|^(talk) 00:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

With a bit of basic background in linguistics, and a slight obsession with Canadian regional accents and the differences between Canadian and American accents, I am usually very aware of my own accent. I am always amused by the way I pronounce "car". Adam Bishop (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of my accent! As a Southerner with an RP accent lining in Northern England I get teased about it often. What's worse is now I have picked up just enough of the Northern accent so that despite being "Obviously a Southerner" round here when I visit the south I get asked if I come from the North! -- Q Chris (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Amongst people who speak with a different accent, I am "aware" of my accent, in the sense that I can perceive that I pronounce words differently from them. That is easy enough. However, when I listen to myself speaking, it still always seems to me that I say every word in a completely unaccented way -- in the only really "ordinary" way -- and that everyone else is pronouncing words with an accent imposed on top of this "ordinary" pronunciation. Do you mean that's not the case with you? 86.151.119.122 (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I studied languages in England, and a couple of my fellow students thought my Irish accent would be a handicap in learning a foreign language. They thought they didn't have an accent, that the way they spoke was "neutral", and didn't see that their English accent is just as foreign to a French person as an Irish one is.

Perhaps its a core/periphery thing. If you live in, say, Surrey, you'll grow up hearing people on TV and in the government speaking pretty much the way you do. That way of speaking is therefore felt to be "normal" and other ways of speaking as "different". But if you grow up somewhere peripheral like Belfast, you'll be aware that the people on TV and in the government speak in a different way than you do, and so you grow up taking for granted the idea that people from different places speak differently. But I don't know about that. With modern communications you can't grow up isolated from other accents. Even people in Surrey will hear American accents on TV and in films. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC

(OP) That's interesting ... I'm in the position that you describe, of having a "normal" southern English accent, such as you hear "on TV and in the government" (though obviously you do hear other regional accents in those places too). Many people who speak the way I do believe that they have no accent at all, even though they are aware that other people speak differently. I wonder whether many people from other regions also feel that they have "no accent". 86.151.119.122 (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Occasionally I am aware and surprised that I will say something that comes out with a strong Northern accent, though my accent is usually RP. For example telling my daughter to get ready for school I heard myself say "get your coat" as closer to "git yer coot". Maybe this is because my daughter usually speaks in a local Northern accent, but quickly switches when talking to RP speakers! -- Q Chris (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a northerner (from Liverpool), but I speak with a mostly RP accent, having spent most of my life abroad. When in Liverpool (and in my own village) people I meet for the first time very often ask me where I am from - usually one of the first things they ask me! But outside Liverpool, people start calling me Scouser as soon as I open my mouth. I swap and change my accent, though. My family and friends in Liverpool don't like me speaking RP, because it sounds like I am being condescending to them. In other parts of Northern England, I'll switch to a generic northern accent, and in the South I'll switch to RP. Or at least I think I do - people still know I'm a scouser, probably due to the speed at which I speak (very fast). When I speak fast, my Liverpool intonation comes back. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)