Language desk
< April 12	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 14 >

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.

April 13

the meaning of where

Would you please teach me the meaning of the word, "where" in the following passage? Does it mean "that" of conjunction?

Many thanks.

  You just have to imagine where a word might have an invisible w in front of it.  Like oinos, 
  which would become woinos, and would remind you more of 'wine,' which is what it actually means.
  ---Erich Segal, The Class, p.82.180.7.14.224 (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)yumi[reply]

Think about this sentence. "You just have to imagine a situation in which a word might have an invisble w in front of it." It has a similar meaning. "Situation" literally means "place". Here, it is used in an extended sense. Itsmejudith (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can change it to: "You just have to imagine ~~where~~ that a word might have an invisible w in front of it." Both 'where' and 'that' mean 'situation', or こと in Japanese (単語の前に「ｗ」があることを想像すればよい」). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"where" = "at which locations in the verse that you are scanning". Iblardi (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that passage, "where" means "the case, such that".

The passage changes to "You just have to imagine the case, such that a word might have an invisible w in front of it." Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think "where" is used in the spatial sense. The speaker talks about positions within a verse. Cf. Digamma, "Classical Greek":

_{For example, the words ἄναξ (king), found in the Iliad, which would originally have been ϝάναξ /wánaks/, and οἶνος (wine) are sometimes used in the meter where a word starting with a consonant would be expected. Further evidence coupled with cognate-analysis shows that οἶνος was earlier ϝοῖνος /wóînos/[1] (cf. Cretan Doric ibêna, cf. Latin vīnum and English "wine").} Iblardi (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above explanations are all good. "Where" is a slangy, sloppy way of saying "in which" or something of that nature. I think if I had written a sentence like that in my old English comp class, I would have been marked down for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If only you could come up with an example where 'where' would be slangy, and a situation where 'where' would not be slangy, whereby we can all compare where we agree and disagree on the wherewithall and thenceforeth, and etc. etc., signed [random colonial, thinking 'posh' English is all the Motherland speaks]. It is not slangy, as all of the above have demonstrated. "Put'n food on ya faamlee" is. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If only I could bring my elementary school teachers back from the dead and ask them to explain things to you better than I can. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jones, where Smith had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had the approval of the examiner. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is because 'had' had a weird name which, for some reason, was not capitalised. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OED lists as meaning 9 c (b) of "where": "In U.S. use freq. equivalent to that pron.²". It doesn't further limit it, but all the examples given have "see" or "read" as the matrix verb. I have certainly also met "I heard where ... ", again in US sources. --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The words where, why, and how are the reflexes of various archaic case forms of the who/what pronoun. In other words, "by what/whom", etc. μηδείς (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monologue

Is there a term describing monologue, where each line is a verbatim copy of a lyric from a variety of songs? Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying. --Jayron32 05:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cento? Iblardi (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct term for an instance of a recurring event

Resolved

Just like "episode" refers to a single instance of a tv series, what does one call a single instance of an annual music festival? "The 2010 <what?> of the Great Big Jazz Festival was marred by controversy when...." Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edition? Or simply "the 2010 GBJ Festival"? Victor Yus (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that "edition" really works, I think it works for publications, not live events. Sorry my example was poorly formulated. I was actually thinking of a situation where the required word can't be left out, such as: "There was a fifteen-fold increase in ticket sales from the first to the tenth <editions?> of the festival, with only the 2008 <edition?> showing a decrease due to unusually wet weather." Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's iteration, but you may find that somewhat formal-sounding. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've not usually seen a word used for this, instead the wording "The 2010 Great British Beer Festival" tends to be used, or "The 39th Cambridge Beer Festival" if you use a ordinal number instead. So I'd rewrite your sentence as "...from the first festival to the tenth festival, with only the 2008 festival showing a decrease..." --TammyMoet (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting lots and lots of Google hits for "edition of the festival", even when restricted to .uk sites. I think it certainly is used, even though it sounds a bit wrong. I think it's a choice between that and the rewording that Tammy suggests. PS: Or maybe "year" would work in some cases (I mean "the first/third/tenth year of the festival"). Victor Yus (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People definitely do use "edition" for events. 86.146.106.118 (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They also talk of the "running" of a festival. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably write that sample sentence thus... ""There was a fifteen-fold increase in ticket sales from the first to the tenth festival, with only the 2008 event showing a decrease due to unusually wet weather." HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would use "occurrence" or "instance". But I concur that "edition" is used in this sense. --ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I would use either "occurrence" or "instance". I can't specify why, but they don't sound right when talking about an organized event of this type. Victor Yus (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parsing a law

The first part of the Smith Act states: "Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government...". Which of the following interpretations is correct (in terms of grammar, not law)?

Advocacy of force or violence is a prerequisite of the crime.
Advocacy of force or violence is not a prerequisite of the crime. DHN (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having noted that the grammar of legalese is not the same as the grammars of other written varieties of English, which are again not the same as the grammars of spoken varieties of English, I remark that I cannot see any grounds for your second interpretation. (I'm rather surprised to see all those commas in the quotation: British legalese generally eschews commas, lest the presence or absence of a comma in a particular instance be used as the basis of argument.) --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I'm having an argument with a non-native English speaker who insists that the second interpretation is meant. DHN (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that it can be parsed "Whoever ... advocates ... overthrowing the government ... by force or violence, or by ... assassination ..." In other words, the offence can be committed by advocating non-forceful and non-violent assassination (by poisioning, for example). Tevildo (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think for most purposes we can consider calling for someone's death against their will, whether by violent means or not, can be considered "force or violence" :-) DHN (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would parse it like this: Whoever {knowingly or willfully} {advocates, abets, advises, or teaches} the {duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety} of {overthrowing or destroying} the {government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein}, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government.... There is no escaping that force or violence is required to be advocated etc. I suppose you could make it so: Whoever {knowingly or willfully} {advocates, abets, advises, or teaches} the {duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety} of {overthrowing or destroying} the {government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof}, or the {government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence}, ... — that would be a legally bizarre reading but grammatically just about plausible. Sussexonian (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every time we vote, we take part in a non-violent and totally legal potential "overthrow" of the government. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with others: "Whoever...[intentionally]advocates...overthrowing...government...by force..." is guilty, under this (now superseded) law. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I parse Whoever {knowingly or willfully} {advocates, abets, advises, or teaches} the {duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety} of {{overthrowing or destroying {the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein}, by force or violence}, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government}. However, there is a certain art to writing such laws so that they can be construed constitutionally by a court and unconstitutionally by a prosecutor. Wnt (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]