Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 November 13

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.

November 13

Which is the sentences the more correct? (and why)

1. It has sweet tasty. 2. It has A sweet tasty. 5.28.177.33 (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

They are both incorrect. The first is slightly more incorrect than the second. The sentence you're looking for is: It has a sweet taste. As to why, I guess it's that the object of "has" should be a noun (taste), not an adjective (tasty). The presence of the word "a" is more about what is common usage, rather than a grammatical rule, and perhaps a linguist could elaborate on that point. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

They're both ungrammatical, because HAVE requires either a past participle (as in "It has gone bad") or an object. An object is normally a noun phrase. A phrase headed by "tasty" is an adjective phrase; it can't be either a past participle nor an object. ¶ It occurs to me that your "tasty" might be a typo for "taste". If so, both (1) and (2) would be grammatical, because "taste" can be either uncountable or countable; however, (2) would be commoner. Where (1) would be appropriate, "It tastes sweet" would be likelier. -- Hoary (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing can be either something nor the other. Only or. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. "It has sweet taste." by itself would sound unusual in most contexts. I think it would normally be found as part of a list where the other items don't take an article, such as "It has sweet taste, less calories, and freshens your breath!" Matt Deres (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

People can have sweet taste if you like their style of dress or choice of words, but you said they had "a" sweet taste, it would imply your tongue's been on them. "It" can be a semi-person, like a robot or corporation. Coca-Cola has a sweet taste; The Coca-Cola Company exhibited sweet taste in reprogramming our ideas of Saint Nicholas. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Malayalam translation requested

Hi there, there's been a lot of really ridiculous edit-warring going on at Twenty:20 (film) involving two editors, one who prefers an actor named Mohanlal, and another who prefers an actor named Mammootty. The short story is this: Film articles typically derive the cast order from the "billing block" that appears on the film's poster. The film posters here contain billing blocks, but I don't see the actors' names. I'm interested in knowing whether or not the actors names appear on the posters in Malayalam, and whether or not the names are consistently in the same order. The two users keep warring over which poster to use--the one where Mohanlal is on the left, or the one where Mammootty is on the left so they can order the credits per their preferences. It's a really absurd problem that I'm hoping to be able to resolve. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Working from Malayalam script, I don't think the two names are in the Malayalam text, and I'm pretty sure that all six posters have the same text. --ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

First, note that even if you click on the posters on the original page to enlarge them, you are given them in slightly reduced form. For the full resolution delete the trailing part (starting with ?w=) from the URL for each poster: for example, this one. However, even at full resolution the image is not good enough to resolve the finer lettering. Still, I agree with the original poster that the English-language billing block does not contain these actors' names, or indeed any of the other three actors shown as credited cast by the IMDB. I also note that Mammootty is മമ്മൂട്ടി in Malayalam, while Mohanlal is മോഹൻലാൽ, and while I don't speak the language or even read the alphabet, it seems clear that neither of those names shows up in the Malayalam text on the posters either. (I agree with Colin that it's the same on all six.)

The credit order on the actual movie would therefore seem to be the best way to resolve this, and the IMDB normally lists its credits in that manner, which would put Mohanlal first. (However, it's possible that the movie uses some form of diagonal (aka staggered) billing—a practice mentioned under Billing (filmmaking)#Competitive top billing—in order to deliberately rank the two stars as equal. If it does that, then it means the order in the IMDB was arbitrary and in that case I think there is no win.) --174.88.134.249 (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks all! I agree that if the names don't appear on the posters, the film credits are the way to go. Hopefully there aren't TWO versions of the movie, one with Mammootty first and one with Mohanlal first...(Puts gun to head). Anyhow, thanks for the input! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct verb for a subject complement

Which is correct and why? Sentence A: The highlight of the year was the improved test scores. Sentence B: The highlight of the year were the improved test scores. Also, in these, which is correct and why? Sentence C: The improved test scores was the highlight of the year. Sentence D: The improved test scores were the highlight of the year. I forget what the grammatical term is. (Subject complement?) So, in other words, what do you do when you have a subject complement where one noun is singular and the other plural? Is the verb singular or plural? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sentence A is correct of the first two. The Subject is third-person-singular, which takes "was" as a verb. English has subject-verb agreement which means you conjugate the verb based on the grammatical sense of the subject. "Highlight" is a singular word, so it takes "was". In your second pair, Sentence D is correct, for the same reason, the subject of that sentence is "scores", which is third-person-plural, and so takes "were". --Jayron32 17:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Is Sentence A versus B (and also Sentence C versus D) a matter of stylistic preference? Or is Sentence B (and Sentence C) flat out incorrect? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The difference between the two sets is Voice. The difference is voice is between a situation where the subject commits the action, versus where the object commits the action. --Jayron32 17:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood the question. B and C are completely wrong. The difference between choosing A or D would be one of voice, which is a stylistic choice. But B and C would never be grammatical. --Jayron32 17:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Although I get your gist, "voice" is not the correct topic, and to be doesn't have a passive voice. English nowadays has a pretty set word order, and if the first noun mentioned can be considered the subject (highlight in the first case, scores in the second), then the verb, here the copula, which must agree in number with the subject. The term after the copla has various names, but we have an article under subject complement. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed not a matter of voice. Voice is (for English, anyway) a matter of active versus passive. (On the distinction, see Pullum, "Fear and loathing of the English passive".) BE indeed doesn't passivize -- as expected, because BE doesn't take an object. ¶ Subject–verb agreement in English isn't so simple; consider "Twenty kilometres is too far to go just for shopping"; "The majority of those present agree to strike". ¶ (A) and (D) are grammatical, but (D) is rather infelicitous; as (or to) a writer (rather than amateur linguist) I'd back e.g. "The improvement in test scores was the highlight of the year." -- Hoary (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Those are, indeed, good counter-examples. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hoary's examples introduce two new factors not present in the first sentences. In the expression "twenty miles is", the implied or understood meaning is, "a distance of twenty miles is". Likewise, the majority agree to strike is not problematic, because a majority always implies at least two outvoting one, again the plurality is understood. In "the highlight of the year" and "the majority of those present" of is expressing the genitive case of possession or reference in the first example and the partitive genitive in the second. You could logically substititue the highlight which belonged to that year in the first case. You could not say the majority that belonged to those present in the second case. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Good explanation. Makes sense. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)