Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 March 5
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < March 4 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 6 > |
| 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 5
edit"Please check which trader this voucher is to be used."
editThis sentence from an online payment service is incorrect and requires a preposition - right? "at which trader"? "for which trader? --KnightMove (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- It could be at for or with, depending on the sense. Which preposition one chooses (and there probably should be one) will change the sense of the sentence. Prepositions are not interchangeable. --Jayron32 16:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's still an awkward sentence even with an added word. I suggest a rewrite:
- "Please examine your voucher to verify the name of the designated trader."
- StuRat (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with VW. However, I would put the preposition 'with' at the end. It could go before the 'which', but I would prefer it at the end. There is nothing in our Germanic linguistic heritage that actually dictates we should speak like the French. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 16:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- The deal is, if one wants to say "Go actually ask the trader in question directly by communicating with them as a person" you'd say "Check with". If one wants to say "Go and look at the trader's store/website/whatever and visually inspect to see if they have a notice that say accept the voucher" you'd say "check at". "With" implies an interaction, "at" implies a location. Two completely different senses. So, before we know which preposition to use, we need to know if we're supposed to interact with someone, or just go somewhere. --Jayron32 16:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- A trader is a person, a "someone", not a location. There are no senses in which "check at which trader" would be correct, it can only be "check with which trader". --Viennese Waltz 09:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've never met Trader Joe or Trader Vic. Words like this are very commonly used as a form of metonymy to mean both the business AND the person who runs it. The use of a word like "trader" as a place of business rather than a person who works there is perfectly cromulent and understood by all native speakers without discomfort or any sense of misunderstanding. --Jayron32 15:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- This seems like a novel semantic change. I would definitely think it strange if someone referred specifically to Trader Joe's establishment as Trader Joe, but if someone said, "check at which trader" I would only not be uncomfortable because I'd be understanding them to mean trader as a type of business, not because I'd understand it as a use of metonymous language. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not at all. You can say, for example, I need to go to the florist to get some flowers, and not mean "The person who sells flowers to me" but "the store where I buy flowers" and everyone would understand that. --Jayron32 17:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- You could say that, but I believe "florist's" would be more correct, like "baker's". Alansplodge (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's probably a dialect thing then, because I would find the possessive forms to be marked for me. --Jayron32 18:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I expect you're right. I think I'd probably say "florist" too, if only to avoid the "sts"! Alansplodge (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I suppose it's one of those things where two slightly different meanings have the same semantic referent. Some people would say "trader" metonymously and some would use it with the tweaked definition of trader. The same thing with florist. It could even be the case that the former use has led to the latter. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I expect you're right. I think I'd probably say "florist" too, if only to avoid the "sts"! Alansplodge (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's probably a dialect thing then, because I would find the possessive forms to be marked for me. --Jayron32 18:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- You could say that, but I believe "florist's" would be more correct, like "baker's". Alansplodge (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not at all. You can say, for example, I need to go to the florist to get some flowers, and not mean "The person who sells flowers to me" but "the store where I buy flowers" and everyone would understand that. --Jayron32 17:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- This seems like a novel semantic change. I would definitely think it strange if someone referred specifically to Trader Joe's establishment as Trader Joe, but if someone said, "check at which trader" I would only not be uncomfortable because I'd be understanding them to mean trader as a type of business, not because I'd understand it as a use of metonymous language. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've never met Trader Joe or Trader Vic. Words like this are very commonly used as a form of metonymy to mean both the business AND the person who runs it. The use of a word like "trader" as a place of business rather than a person who works there is perfectly cromulent and understood by all native speakers without discomfort or any sense of misunderstanding. --Jayron32 15:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- A trader is a person, a "someone", not a location. There are no senses in which "check at which trader" would be correct, it can only be "check with which trader". --Viennese Waltz 09:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, the context: As said, it's about an online payment service. The online trader from which the customer wants to purchase an item, and the voucher PIN he tries to pay with, are incompatible, due to different currencies, legislations, trader-internal rules... So the customer (1) needs to use a different voucher PIN if he still wants to buy the item there, and (2) he should find one of MANY other traders for which his specific voucher PIN might be used. The error message addresses only problem (2), which might not be the wisest choice (but this is not my decision). --KnightMove (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Additional question
edit"The PIN entered is not valid for payment at this trader." - is this good English, given that we're talking about online payment? --KnightMove (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)