Language desk
< August 13	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 15 >

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.

August 14

German noun genders

Is there any way of remembering the gender of a particular noun in German other than straight rote memorization? Dismas|^(talk) 00:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few systematic rules -- for example, any word ending in "chen" is neuter -- but generally speaking, no, unfortunately. It's the hardest thing about learning German, as far as I'm concerned. Looie496 (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The good thing is, unlike say, confusing your umlauts (schwuel versus schwul), it hardly ever matters meaningwise. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the things that people learning languages with noun genders often get caught up in, at least from what I've noticed—they figure the native speakers must know some sort of rule or have a natural intuition for guessing the gender. They don't. They have to remember them just like you. There are some things that may be giveaways, like the -chen suffix mentioned above, but for the most part, there is no magic trick for that. Some people may be helped by knowing another related language, in which case most of the cognates will be of the same gender. Speakers of Swedish, for example, will already know the gender of some Dutch words. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 05:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While there is still a lot of information that ends up having to be memorized, the question poster should be directed to a list of tips, patterns, etc. for learning the genders, which cover a substantial proportion of the frequently used nouns (such a list may even be in the OP's German textbooks if he or she has one) -- for example, take a look at the following: http://german.about.com/library/weekly/aa042098.htm; http://german.about.com/cs/vocabulary/a/nsuffix.htm; http://www.mrshea.com/gender.htm. --96.246.60.108 (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of German nouns are masculine, feminine or neuter? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. The number of German nouns is limitless. It is easy to create as many new ones as you want, like Reinheitsgebotverantwortungsgesellschaft. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jealous? Just change the rules and have "villagegreenpreservationsociety" be one new word instead of four old ones! --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen such a statistic, I seem to remember that a plurality over 40% were masculine, but can't remember where and I don't have a source. This unscientific unreliable answer confirms what I remember: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_percent_distribution_of_genders_in_German_nouns. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I copied my question to the German RD and (extending my sincere gratitude to Grey Geezer) it was found that footnote #2 of this paper, PDF gives the gender distribution for German nouns and footnote #4 the gender distribution for Dutch nouns. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote from the Schiller and Caramazza paper says: "The distribution of the three genders in German is as follows. There are 4164 monomorphemic nouns listed in the CELEX database (Baayen, Piepenbrock, & Gulikers, 1995). Fifty-one of these have multiple genders (e.g., der See [�the lake�] vs. die See [�the sea�]). Of the remaining 4113 entries, 1758 (42.74%) have masculine gender, 1567 (38.10%) have feminine gender, and 788 (19.16%) are neuter. If one takes word frequency into account (each entry multiplied by its frequency of occurrence), the following picture emerges: masculine—38.76%, feminine—35.36%, and neuter—25.88%." μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth keeping in mind however that this applies to monomorphemic nouns. Nouns built from several morphemes (e.g verb stem + suffix such as -ung or adjective + suffix such as -heit or noun + suffix such as -schaft) will have a far higher proportion of feminines as most of these productive suffixes form feminine nouns. So I'd suggest the proportion of feminine nouns in a typical German text would be higher than 35% or so. Valiantis (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if these are hard and fast rules but I've generally noted that;

Words ending in -chen or -lein are neutral,
Words that are pluralized with an umlaut and -er are neutral e.g. das Haus, die Haeuser; das Land, die Laender, In fact I think all words that are pluralized by adding -er are neutral, but I might be wrong.
Nouns that are formed from verbs are neutral e.g. das gehen, das machen, das sehen, and this flows on to nouns built upon those nouns e.g. das aussehen.
Words ending in -heit, -keit, -ung, -ion are feminine.

Also note the the Germans themselves will argue about the genders of nouns like Nutella and Couch. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the 'try and do it' construction?

I remember my father telling me that "try and do it" should be "try to do it". I was never taught this rule in school, but I have read criticisms of it. My question is, what is the origin of the construction historically? Could it, for instance, be from an old late Middle English trien before the infinitive ending was lost? μηδείς (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of this exact construction's origin, but I'd be willing to bet it's parallel to something in Norwegian (and Swedish and Danish), [at] ta og + verb, literally "[to] take and [verb]" . It's a fairly informal thing, and might show up somewhere like Vi skal ta og spise lunsj, literally "we're going to take and eat lunch" or Skal du ta og gå på kafeen?, literally "are you going to take and go to the café?" I'm not sure of its origin, either, but as far as I'm aware, the "take" part of it has no semantic function. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 06:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's closely related to the Serial verb construction, which is found in many languages. In any case, it would be "do" (not "try") which might take an infinitive ending in earlier English... AnonMoos (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-native (German) speaker, I hear a slight semantic difference between the two versions. "try to do it" would imply testing whether you are capable of doing it. "try and do it" implies an experiment to see whether something can be done in principle, something like "try by doing it". Does that make sense? --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting that some have actually noted a semantical difference between "try to" and "try and". As a native SAE speaker, I've never noticed it myself. One of my writing teachers used to stress that "try and" doesn't mean much of anything, outside of constructs like "try and fail" or "try and try again". I guess, logically one can infer that if someone "tried and [something]" in the past tense, that the attempt was successful, they "tried and" did the thing the attempted. Outside of that rather rare past tense usage, though, I don't think it has any genuine meaning as opposed to "try to". Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The MWDEU is helpful here. Apparently "try and" dates back only to the seventeenth century, but a similar construction has been used with other verbs (begin, go, take, come) since the thirteenth. Lesgles (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ AnonMoos, I agree the infinitive would be unlikely, but what I was suggesting was that an earlier * to trien doon hit got reanalyzed as to try and do it with the new "and" being generalized. A somewhat parallel being * He should of done it." μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, "try" would more often not be in the infinitive in uses of the expression in speech... AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not trying to argue that that is the source. The alternative is either that the and is original or it isn't. The example with ta og above seems to imply it is a natural phrase. But possibly its actual origin is lost in the way certain people do not realize that the of's in I kind of liked him and I should of liked him have different origins. Perhaps the phrase was once "go on do it" > "go 'n do it" > "go and do it". μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curious and suspicious adjectives

There are certain adjectives that tell us very different things about the subject, depending on the context. In one case the adjective applies fully to the subject, but in another case the tables are turned and the adjective virtually applies to observers rather than to the subject themself. Let me give a couple of examples.

He's a curious fellow.
- In one context, that could mean he’s interested in many things and is naturally inquisitive. We say "He's a curious fellow" because he is curious about others.
- But in another context it could mean that there's something or maybe a number of things about him that excite the curiosity or grab the attention of other people. We say "He's a curious fellow" because he makes others curious about him.

He's a suspicious person.
- In one context it could mean he's emotionally insecure, always anticipating the worst or attributing negative motives to others. We say "He's a suspicious person" because he suspects others.
- But in another context it could mean he's acting in a way that makes others think he's doing something inappropriate. We say "He's a suspicious person" because he's making others suspicious of him right now.

Are there any other similar examples? Does this peculiar property have a name, and is this a special case of a bigger picture? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"nauseous" is similar: it can mean either feeling ill oneself or provoking nausea in others[1] (some people argue that it should be restricted to one sense, but as that link says the two meanings are both historically long-established). Not sure what it's called. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the (other) OED the second use the "curious" (evoking curiosity) is more recent, though still quite old (1715). Not particularly helpful, I know, but that search told me two things I didn't know: that 'In booksellers' catalogues, the word [curious] means "erotic, pornographic."' and that asphyxia, in a "curious infelicity of etymology" means the stopping of the pulse, not the breath. (added) Aha! Same source as sphygmomanometer AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

When you first mentioned the phenomenon, back in 2008 [2], Tamfang mentioned "the peasants are revolting!", to which I can add "This Door is Alarmed".

OK, that was a bit wide of the mark, but how about "mistaken"? (He thought he had been mistaken for somebody else, but he was mistaken.) Possibly also "inspired". Paintings can be inspired, and so can painters. Card Zero (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zero. My memory really needs some new RAM. But at least I'm consistent in my thinking. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz -- It's similar to the traditional "subjective genitive" / "objective genitive" contrast (i.e. does "his portrait" mean a portrait of anybody which he happens to own, or a portrait of himself which he may or may not own?). Not sure if there's a specific name for this with respect to adjectives. AnonMoos (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

past/passed its "best by" date?

Which is correct and why please? -- SGBailey (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could see both of them being used appropriately. If something "is past" its best-by date, that means it "has passed" its best-by date. But you can't mix and match. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the idiom is "past its sell-by date", though "sell-by date" is not in fact one of the expressions legally used. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the States, you'd say "expiration date" — I know that sounds funny in the Commonwealth. --Trovatore (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It's passed it's use-by date" and "It's past its use-by date" can both be correct, depending on whether "it's" is a contraction of "it is" or "it has". But otherwise, no, they are not interchangeable. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Past" is a noun or adjective form, and "passed" is a verb form. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Passed" is indeed a verb form, but also can be an adjective per the OED--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 23:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend substituting "expiration date" or "expiry date".

—Wavelength (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the "expiration date" and the "best by date" are slightly different things with different meanings. Usually the phrase "expiration date" means that the product is of no use or actively harmful after a given date - a product which is past its expiry date should be discarded. On the other hand, the "best before" or "best by" date is primarily advisory. It is usually safe to use a product which has passed its "best before" date, although the quality may not be the same as it was prior to it. I concede that the definitions are not hard and fast, and there is some variation of use, but that doesn't negate the fact that there are different connotations, and the two aren't freely interchangeable in all circumstances. -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A yellow traffic light signifies "exercise caution", and a red traffic light signifies "stop".

—Wavelength (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you meant amber when you said yellow: Down here, going through an amber light is just as prohibited as going through a red light, but in the amber case there may be a defence if you can show it would have been unsafe to stop. In the red case, there's no such defence. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is such a defense even for the red light. In the NT, the drivers of our massive road trains occasionally use that defense successfully when it really was unsafe for them to stop at the point that the light first turned orange even though it had turned red by the time they crossed into the intersection. On the Stuart Highway just outside Darwin there are traffic lights in 80 and 100km/hr zones where this happens on occasion. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he meant amber. In America, the middle color of the traffic light is referred to as yellow. And AFAIK driving through one is a bad idea but you won't get a ticket for it. Angr (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just mentioned that because we also have flashing yellow lights in some places, such as certain pedestrian crossings, construction sites close to roads, etc. and these do indeed mean "proceed with caution" as Wavelength said. But amber lights as part of the trio of red-amber-green are far more common. Most drivers have convinced themselves that driving through an amber light is perfectly OK, as long it turns red only after they enter the intersection. That is as wrong as it's possible to be. If you're approaching an amber light, and it's safe to stop given the current traffic conditions, the law says you must stop, on pain of a traffic infringement notice/fine. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, you're supposed to stop at a yellow light in the States if you can do so safely. In practice, only an excessively gung-ho policeman is likely to cite you for it, as long as you're in the intersection by the time it turns red, and I would expect such a case to be thrown out of most courts if you trouble yourself to contest it. I am not any kind of lawyer, much less a traffic lawyer, and my advice on this topic is worth what you paid for it. --Trovatore (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

America also has flashing yellow lights, which do mean "proceed with caution", but the light in between red and green on normal traffic lights is also called "yellow". Americans don't use the term "amber" in reference to any sort of traffic light, which is one of the mistakes Peter Sellers made in "Balham, Gateway to the South" when he was trying to sound like an American travelogue commentator. Angr (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will sometimes find these lights described as "amber" in very formal contexts or in official documents (drivers' handbooks and such). You're quite right, though, that it's very unusual to hear the term "amber light" in colloquial discourse. --Trovatore (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but any way you cut it, ~~Wavelength's point was not valid;~~ what you call yellow lights are not there just to say "exercise caution". They are there to say "stop", with the rider "if you can reasonably do so". If people rationalise that there's a good chance of getting away with more than the law allows, bully for them, but that doesn't change the law into a "theory". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I withdraw that outrageous slur on Wavelength. His point was entirely valid in analogising the difference between a best-by date ("exercise caution") and an expiration date ("stop"). I'm just wanting to not have people go away believing that a yellow traffic light means "exercise caution", because it doesn't. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It is passed its 'best by' date" is preferable to "It is past its 'best by' date". We are understanding the object to have figuratively passed a marker of time. Bus stop (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It is passed its best-by date" is not merely not preferable, it is not Standard English in this context. You have created a passive of a verb incorrectly. The infinitive of the verb phrase is "to pass the best-by date", so a passive form from this would be "the best-by date is passed". The form "It is passed" means "something passed it" and it can't take a direct object ("its best-by date") anymore than any other passive form can as the passive makes the semantic object the grammatical subject. As others have already said "It has passed" and "It is past" are both possible. Valiantis (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and...? To recap, SGBailey asked if he should use "past" or "passed" with "best-by date". You responded by saying "substitute expiration date". Assuming you weren't suggesting substituting "expiration date" for past/passed, I remarked that you can't blindly substitute "expiration date" for "best-by date", as they mean different things. You then respond that a yellow light and a red light mean different things. To which I respond - yes, yes they do mean different things. For example, if someone asked a question 'Should you use "drove past a yellow light" or "drove through a yellow light"?', it would be irresponsible to tell that person, without any additional caveats, 'I recommend substituting "red light"'. A yellow light and a red light are different things, so saying "He drove through a yellow light" and "He drove through a red light" have different meanings, even if there are locations like Australia where you might be fined equivalently in most circumstances. Likewise, "this food is past its best-by date" and "this food is past its expiry date" can mean slightly different things, even if the end result in both cases is throwing it into the garbage. That was my point - what was yours? -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the distinction that you mentioned at 02:46 seems to be (at least somewhat) analogous ("g" pronounced as "G" in "Gus") to the distinction between a yellow traffic light and a red traffic light.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]