Language desk
< November 7	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 9 >

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 8

New Year's Eve

Does New Year's Eve 2006 refer to December 31st, 2006, or December 31st, 2006? Thanks! --Philosofinch 01:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My intuition tells me 2006-12-31. --Kjoonlee 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, but New Years Day 2006 would be January 1, 2006. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To original poster: But who would say something like "New Year's Eve 2006"? --Kjoonlee 11:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dick Clark does. --Philosofinch 18:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Scotland, the 'eve' would be Hogmanay and the 'day' would be ne'er day, each in different years. Easy eh?

Well, when "Eve" is attached to a day, such as "Christmas Eve", it refers to the day before. So, "New Years Eve 2006" would refer to the day before "New Years 2006". IOW, Dec 31 2006. --Mabris 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...difficult, if not impossible..."

Does this expression mean the task is definitely possible or only that it may be possible ? StuRat 06:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. Hard to the point where accomplishment verges on the impossible, though, in theory anyway, still achievable Clio the Muse 06:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could theoretically mean either, depending on intonation. It is most commonly used with the latter meaning though. --Ptcamn 06:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "if not" seems to have two contradictory meanings... AnonMoos 07:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's saying if the subject isn't impossible, it's at least difficult. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 07:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it as, "if this is actually possible, it's still difficult". --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other meaning would be easier if you said something like "difficult, but not impossible". I can see how you could interpret it that way, but most speakers will think of a different, clearer sentence first. ugen64 22:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "difficult, but not impossible" and "difficult, if not impossible" clearly have different connotations. "difficult, but not impossible" definitely sounds more encouraging than "difficult, if not impossible" Shingrila 07:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this clearly means: "Could be impossible, if it is not impossible it will be difficult." Another common use which is less difficult to interpret is: "Most, if not all." This makes the general term easier to understand in my oppinion. Vespine 23:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what I said, I think.... I'm getting to confused now =P --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remain somewhat, if not totally, confused. :-) StuRat 03:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can we help you, Stu? Wirbelwind and Vespine had the best answers imo. The thing may well prove to be impossible, but even if it is possible it will still be difficult. I'm finding it difficult, if not impossible, to understand why don't understand this. Maybe an example would help: In the 1940s, I'm sure scientists would have said "Getting to the moon will be difficult, if not impossible". Even in 1969 it was difficult, but it proved to be possible. JackofOz 04:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So everyone is saying it means "it's difficult, and may even be impossible" ? StuRat 07:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, yes. JackofOz 06:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landstraßer Hauptstraße

There's a district in Vienna called Landstraße, and its main street is called Landstraßer Hauptstraße. My question is, why does the street name have that additional 'r'? My first thought was that it might be something to do with the genitive, but I don't think the genitive case is appropriate here, and according to my dictionary Straße doesn't change in the genitive anyway. Any help gratefully received - thanks very much. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landstrasser is a proper (geographical) adjective, and toponymical adjectives formed from German (as in the language) place names are usually formed by adding -er to the proper noun, or just an -r if the name already ends in -e. In your example it's Landstrasse >> Landstrasser. In some cases the older -strassener or -strassner might have prevailed as well. Famous exceptions of the rule are München >> Münchner and Zürich >> Zürcher, though they end in -er as well. Landstrasse Hauptstrasse, without the final r would sound like an intersection of two streets. ---Sluzzelin 09:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks very much. I didn't realise Landstrasser was an adjective in this case. I had a look at German adjectives - this would be an example of 'strong inflection', right? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. Geographical and proper adjectives don't get inflected at all, though I didn't see this mentioned in the article on German adjectives. For example, compare: Dein Haus steht an der langen Hauptstrasse with Dein Haus steht an der Langstrassener Hauptstrasse.---Sluzzelin 09:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all geographical adjectives are of this kind, e.g. "schweizerisch". Sometimes, both variants are more or less common (schweizer/schweizerisch, hamburger/hamburgisch, kölner/kölnisch). The -isch variant behaves like usual adjectives.--gwaihir 10:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, gwaihir. Nations and regions often use -isch, and I should have specified: The non-inflection rule applies to geographical proper names ending in -er. Most adjectives derived from cities are formed this way, with a number of exceptions, as you pointed out, though I thought that Hamburgisch specifically referred to the local dialect(s).

I have to say, I never learned the grammar of my tongue. Formally, that is - by usage, I have spoken it since young. My teachers spent more time on Lit. A pity, I suppose. I don't know much, I looked it up, and this is how it goes: Hey!

Sorry, this is how it goes:Hungarian website for learning German. It's in German, and the rule is explained just before the purple/pink table-box. Zwiebelfisch also has an interesting column on the intricacies of correctly naming the inhabitants of German cities. ---Sluzzelin 22:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For hamburgisch, just consult google.--gwaihir 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right on, I learned something new. Thanks, gwaihir. ---Sluzzelin 23:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word "rug"

Hi, I recently bought a fluffy blanket, a small one meant for your lap. The packaging said it was a rug. (My Engrish sensors started to ring.) For me, rugs were meant for your floor, definitely not your lap. It was made in China. (The bells started getting louder.) I had never seen a blanket labelled as a rug before, but the blanket was fluffy enough to be called a rug, so I couldn't really dismiss the possibility that it really was a rug. (OK, it didn't have a rubbery bottom, but anyway.)

Later on, I found out that Merriam-Webster lists "lap robe" as the first meaning of rug. Pardon me for my ignorance, but is this an American thing, or was I in the dark? :) --Kjoonlee 15:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm English, and I had never come across 'rug' meaning 'blanket' before either. However, it seems from the OED that this usage predates a rug being something on the floor. There is "I wished 'em then get him to bed, they did so, And almost smothr'd him with rugges and pillowes" (John Fletcher, 1625); and "Mighty hot weather; I lying this night..with only a rugg and a sheet upon me" (Pepys, 1667). The earliest usage meaning carpet is from Jane Austen, 1808: "She does not doubt your making out the Star pattern very well, as you have the Breakfast-room-rug to look at." --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) I can now appreciate "snug as a bug in a rug" instead of wondering about it. :D --Kjoonlee 15:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm American and have never before heard of rugs being used anywhere but on the floor. I think that this is an obsolete usage. Marco polo 17:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that they are using an obsolete meaning of rug. There seems to be a problem that dictionaries leave the first definition the same, even though it is now obsolete. Then, someone for whom English is a second language reads that dictionary, and believes them when they claim it as the primary meaning. Thus, it's more the fault of English dictionaries than the foreigners. If the Chinese start selling "happy-time hot dogs", they may well be marketed as "gay wieners". :-) StuRat 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the OED, the first entry isn't meant to be the 'primary meaning' but the first meaning; ie, the first recorded use of this word had this meaning. Skittle 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a problem then, how are we to know which meanings are obscure and which are common ? StuRat 03:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You look at the latest citations to see if there's a recent one. --Kjoonlee 05:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

... which isn't the best way, since M-W Online doesn't have citations. --Kjoonlee 06:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just for the very bored - "rug" is also used within the UK to describe a Wig. --Charlesknight 21:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or just one's hair, as in Martin Amis's splendid phrase for a haircut, "rug rethink". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 22:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone mentioned the OED, I thought I'd bring it is a source. The first listed meanings are: (1) (obsolete) a rough woolen material, or a kind of frieze, (2) "A large piece of thick woollen stuff (freq. of various colours) used as a coverlet or as a wrap in driving, railway-travelling, etc.", (3) "A mat for the floor, usually of thick or shaggy stuff". The meaning "wig" is also found in the U.S. (the OED actually lists it as "U.S. slang") Lesgles (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Australian and use rug and blanket interchangeably (for the small lap cover; what goes on the floor is always a rug and what goes on the bed is always a blanket). Perhaps it's an Australasian idiosyncrasy. Natgoo 18:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natgoo's evidence shows that the OED has made the right choice in not yet marking this usage obsolete (which it should do for truly obsolete meanings). They need a more recent Australian citation, because as it is the most recent they've got are from the 1870's (e.g. Jane Welsh Carlyle's letters: "We had to wrap our invalid in quite a heap of rugs and shawls"). Wareh 14:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]