Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 February 7

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Language
Language desk
< February 6 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 8 >
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 7

edit

"Adjective" stress

edit

Objective, subjective, projective, injective, probably others: These are all stressed on JECT. But AD-jective is stressed on the prefix. Why isn't it ad-JECT-ive, and are there any other exceptions? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because 'adjective' is, ironically, a noun, not an adjective. Your other examples are adjectives. Compare, similarly, PRO-ject (noun) with pro-JECT (verb), or OB-ject (noun) with ob-JECT (verb), or SUB-ject (noun) with sub-JECT (verb). KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 20:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Objective' can also be a noun, but its stress doesn't change. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adjective is also probably nativized earlier than the other words. The longer a borrowed word had been in English the more likely it is that it's been assimilated to our normal phonological rules. Consider imperātor which is stressed on the 'a' in Latin, and how it is stressed in its English borrowings. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean words like imperative? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is imPERative that you know that 'imperAtor' is stressed differently in English as imPERator, and also that its derivative EMperor is also too as well. :)KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 14:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I've ever heard of imperator being used as an English word. Our article calls it a Latin word. There is the expression Rex imperator, but any time I've heard that spoken it's always been with the stress on the 3rd syllable of imperator, as per Latin. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've never played Rome: Total War, then... It's perfectly common for Ancient Romans to speak English with American accents, apparently. :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 12:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly wrong. Everyone knows from classic films that the ancient Romans spoke with a British accent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is why Rome II: Total War uses British accents. It's an updated version. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 15:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scots, Welsh and Irish are British accents. So are Lancastrian, Somerset, Scouse, West Country, Geordie ... I'm pretty sure historians will confirm that the Romans spoke with well-educated English accents. Even that's way too non-specific, but Professor Higgins played a major role in Cleopatra so perhaps we can ask him to help us out here, without necessarily getting down to the exact street in London they lived in. No wonder they felt at home when they invaded Britannia. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 16:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
No wonder Rome fell, speaking British. (Scots and Irish are actually Goidelic, not Brythonic.) If American was good enough for Jesus, its good enough for me. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) ...and "emperor" too, I'd guess. I can't find any sources on it, but I think KT and Medeis are on to something. Stresses change based on age-in-language, and also part of speech. Think "nation" vs. "nationality", "proper" vs. "propriety", etc
Now pretend "adjective" was an adjective, and meant something much like "auxiliary" -"*Turn on the adjective generator" - I'd pronounce it with the stress on the second syllable in that hypothetical usage. Also consider that Latin iacio [1] sounds nothing like "ject" (more like YAHK-ee-o), and when we turn Latin words into English, we pronounce them how we think sounds right (and maybe following Germanic influences...). SemanticMantis (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that. When 'adjectives' are used 'adjectively' (which makes it an ADverb, and therefore used adVERbally) then we can pronounce the JECT more than the other syllables. I think this makes some sense. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 14:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ephemeral statements.

edit

When using the ephemeral statement "as of", what tense should follow?

Example:

  • As of February 7, 2015, The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water has grossed an estimated $23.1 million worldwide.
  • As of February 7, 2015, The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water had grossed an estimated $23.1 million worldwide.

In my head what makes sense is "As of X date, the movie had grossed $Y because the accuracy of this information exists in the past. Where this is somewhat problematic above, is that this movie was just released and is constantly being updated. So I can understand why someone would write it in the present tense because today is February 7 (depending on where you live). But it seems we should be writing the statement in anticipation of the content becoming out of date. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make it simpler, "had" always goes with "by February". As of today, I feel we should use the "as of" timeframe for tense, but there'll always be someone who disagrees, because it doesn't seem quite right. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's grammatically correct to not use either had or has, yielding an active voice with the verb grossed instead of a passive voice (I think that's what this does, but I didn't major in English), so I'd just shorten the sentence by omission and you can't go wrong. --Modocc (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's good. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although the grammatical jargon jars my brain (I don't recall ever learning what a passive voice is in school—it was learned on the streets) I think omitting either has or had is just fine by me. Appreciative for all the replies, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't it. The passive voice is what you use when you make the object of the action the subject of the verb. I wrote this clause in the active voice, but this clause was written (by me) in the passive voice. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; plain "grossed" is the wrong tense. It needs to be one of the perfect tenses, as per the original question. The simple rule is that "has grossed" implies that the information is still current (it's present perfect, so it's a statement about an action just completed), while "had grossed" implies that it it's out of date or might be out of date (it's past perfect, so it's about an action completed in the past). Unfortunately this breaks down in the context of a Wikipedia article, where you may want to provide the most current information but you know it will become out of date in the future until someone else updates it again. As a pragmatic matter I'd use the present perfect ("has grossed") and trust someone to later edit it to "had grossed" if they decide the information is now out of date and they aren't prepared to update it. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plain "grossed" is the wrong tense? I don't understand this assertion because my suggestion seems fine to me. For instance, simplifying: As of today's date, SpongeBob grossed a few more dollars. Needs must... of course. --Modocc (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could say something like "today SpongeBob grossed ..." as the simple past, but if the date is in the past then you need to say something like "up until yesterday, SpongeBob had grossed ...". Dbfirs 15:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Until yesterday, SpongeBob simply grossed fewer dollars. So I don't agree. Maybe I'm just being thick English-wise as it has happened before. --Modocc (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could say something like Until yesterday, SpongeBob grossed fewer dollars per day, but yesterday (and today) it grossed more... or you could say as of today, SpongeBob has grossed ... but if the date is in the past and you are quoting a cumulative amount, then you need had grossed, as explained above. Dbfirs 16:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why an accumulative amount matters. For instance, until about 1980 (I was twenty then), I grew 5 feet and six and a half inches (and I also was probably learning a lot more than I am now. :( ). I pretty much stayed that way too, until a couple a years ago when I noticed that for some reason I am now another half-inch taller! Sure I could have said "had grown", but it would seem to constrain my thoughts too much. The time period is also irrelevant, for I could say that until a few hours ago, I didn't eat anything. I ate oatmeal for breakfast, so I'm OK now. -Modocc (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this is a difference between British English and American English? See Comparison of American and British English. In British English we might say "until a few hours ago I didn't (habitually) eat oatmeal, then I tried it for the first time." Dbfirs 20:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I admit. I'm still confused on what the preference is. And the article subject is American, so we would use American English. I probably should have mentioned that up front. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think your original analysis was accurate. Dbfirs 21:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about British and American English, it's about the completness of the action. Say that on Thursday I walked 1 mile, on Friday 2 miles, on Saturday 1 mile, on Sunday 2 miles. Then I now (or "as of now") have walked (not walked) 6 miles, and as of Saturday I had walked 4 miles. You can use the simple past when the action isn't happening any more (five years ago I walked 10 miles in a period of 4 days) but not when it's still going on and you're expressing what's been completed so far. --70.49.169.244 (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I take frequent walks, some longer than others, thus I can relate to this example. "I now have walked..." prevents mixing the past tense with the present tense of "now". "As of today, I walked 6 miles," doesn't mix tenses. "As of February 7, 2015, The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water grossed an estimated $23.1 million worldwide," lacks perfect tense specifying whether the receipts are dated, current or continuing, but that is somewhat unimportant considering that this information is nailed to and presumably valid for a specific date only, but I'm also fine with the perfect tense alternatives. -Modocc (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The accuracy is fleeting. Though it is correct as of the specific moment it was written, it could be outdated in an hour, by the end of the day, or tomorrow. Should anybody read it at any point after it was written, shouldn't the content read, "As of February 9, 2015, the film had grossed $82.8 million" vs "As of February 9, 2015, the film has grossed $82.8 million" or "As of February 9, 2015, the film grossed $82.8 million." If I read "has grossed" on Feb 10, that tense is outdated and would need to be changed anyway, right? We wouldn't say "As of three weeks ago the film has grossed $82.8 million. The debate seems to be chiefly between "had grossed" or just plain "grossed", no? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We need not debate. There is a convention of updating articles as needed as was indicated by the IP above, thus I wouldn't change "has grossed" to "had grossed" or simply "grossed" until the next day. Something to also consider, since the article is in many ways a historical account we also want to avoid proseline (see wp:proseline) thus the article's prose might require or be best written with "had grossed", especially when its needed to give the pluperfect tense. -Modocc (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2015_February_7&oldid=1073728922"