Language desk
< February 10	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 12 >

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 11

Tense vs. Time in Grammar

Could you help me to know, why whenever we want to talk about tense of verbs, we use the word "tense", and not "time"? For example, why we dont say Present Time? Thank you in advance. --Questioner12 (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Grammatical tense#etymology. It effectively means "time". Lectonar (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. But can you describe me more? I didn't get the exact reason. --Questioner12 (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional English grammatical terminology is largely based on Latin dead metaphors (Conjugation="joining together", Case="fall", Declension="bending down" etc.). In any case, tense is not the same thing as time -- grammatical tense has a somewhat complicated relationship with objective chronological time... AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm not sure what you're having trouble understanding, so perhaps you can clarify. The reason that the word is "tense" is that the word "tense" was adopted into English from the Old French word "tens", which in modern French is spelled "temps" (French pronunciation: [tɑ̃]), both of which just means "time" in French. So the reason the word tense is used in English is that it was borrowed from a word in French and modified slightly in pronunciation. English is filled with words like this. --Jayron32 16:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. That was so helpful. Good luck. --Questioner12 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in contrasting the concept of an idiom with the principle of compositionality, the idea being that the choice of the word "tense" rather than "time" is somewhat idiomatic. You seem to be instinctively thinking of meaning as deriving from composition, rather than idiomatic connotations. IBE (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat surprised that no one has pointed out that tense and time are actually used distinctively in English grammar. Tense is the form of the verb (sometimes complicated by composite constructions like "will" for future tense or "have" for present perfect tense; not all grammarians consider these to be true tenses but they are often presented as such). Time, on the other hand, is when something actually happens. So for example when you use the narrative present, you recount events in past time, but using the present tense. Counterfactuals like if I were use the past tense (specifically, the subjunctive mood and past tense) for something in present time. --Trovatore (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good distinction to make. But I'm not sure I agree about the last bit. "If I were" is not past tense. The past subjunctive is "If I had been". "If I were" really refers to something that is not the case, but might conceivably become the case in the future. "If I were king, I'd abolish Wikipedia" is not saying "I was once the king, and I abolished Wikipedia" (we'd have heard about it at the time). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, if I had been is the past perfect subjunctive, not the past subjunctive. If I were is past subjunctive. It is important that I be is present subjunctive. I don't think there's a future subjunctive in English. --Trovatore (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If some day I were to be..." is present subjunctive. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It's past subjunctive (followed by an infinitive). This is exactly the distinction between tense and time. Present subjunctive is (unfortunately) a bit out of fashion on your side of the Pond, but an example of it is it is important that you be prompt. --Trovatore (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd agree with everything by Trovatore here, and add my favourite example of a pseudo-tense with a definite relationship to time: future in the past, which would go on to become the most over-used construction on Wikipedia. IBE (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm a fan of future-in-the-past. Sometimes it's really the best way of getting the temporal relationships across. I agree that it's often too chatty for an encyclopedia, but "overused" for a construction that I hardly ever see here seems hard to justify. --Trovatore (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the most overused construction on Wikipedia is the mandatory misplaced modifier to get any good article off to a flying start: "Born in 1961, Obama's parents were ....". If Obama's parents were born in 1961, that would probably make him aged less than 30 now, a record nobody has ever seen fit to comment on. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore is right. I had considered explaining when I saw "If I had been" but refrained. Given someone else has done so I will confirm it. μηδείς (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is president referred as "she"?

We use pronoun "she" for president. Why don't we use "he"? 27.62.140.224 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is “we”, and what president are you talking about?—Emil J. 16:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the President were a female, "she" would be perfectly appropriate. --Jayron32 16:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Short Information break: The IP geolocates to Mumbai, India. Indias current President is Pranab Mukherjee, who is male. --Abracus (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this question in a book published by government of India. "We" includes me, my teachers and the government of India. We use word "she" whether the president is male or female. 27.62.140.224 (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article President of India, which presumably was written mostly by Indians, uses almost exclusively "he or she" or "he/she", although I did find one instance of "his" but none of "she" etc. The section President of India#Constitutional role says

Article 53(1) of the Constitution vests in the President "the executive power of the Union", to be "exercised by him [sic] either directly or through officers subordinate to him" in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. However, the Constitution also states that the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, is to "aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice".

So the Constitution contains at least two "him"s and a "his". Does the questioner have a link to an example of a website by the Indian government that uses "she"? Duoduoduo (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pratibha Patil was the female president until last July. Could it be that the government document you saw was written during her presidency, and maybe your teachers were speaking then? Duoduoduo (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look around the National Portal of India shows that the current president is referred to as “he” by the government, as expected.—Emil J. 18:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might there be some confusion here with "she" and "sri", which some people will pronounce the same? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also bears noting that the current President of the Indian National Congress (the party boss) is a female, Sonia Gandhi. --Jayron32 18:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What language does the OP speak, does it have grammatical gender, and if so, is the word president itself perhaps feminine? μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, the OP, have some reliable source to show that the president of India is referred as "she". This page is also using word "she" for the president of India. This book is published by government of India, see page number- 89 and 90 of ch-5:Working of Institutions. In this two pages, the president of India is also being referred as "she". What is the reason behind this ? 106.218.12.88 (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We call India as our mother and the soil of India as our motherland, both of which are feminine. This may be the answer, but it doesn't seem to be a rigid explanation. 106.218.12.88 (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The example you give is apparently a use of "she" in a politically correct attempt by the author to seem inclusive and not be sexist by assuming the president is a male. It's generally considered silly and bad English to do so, especially in a context where the intention is unclear. A much better choice for that intention would have been "he or she" which I am sure would not have confused you. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Duoduoduo here: Pratibha Patel was president for 5 years until the middle of last year, and it would make sense for materials published in that time to refer to a female President of India because that was indeed the case, and to refer to her as "he" would have looked stupid at that time. However, it doesn't look too good now she's retired. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there's evidence of the timing that seems likelier than my guess. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using "God" in a nonreligious context?

"Oh, my god!" is a widely used interjection in the English-speaking world. The phrase is often used nonreligiously. I am wondering if a person may use the word "God" nonreligiously in these contexts, or if the contexts below would be too misleading:

"God bound the lovers together tightly with a thread marked by a knot. Any partner who tried to 'break the knot' would sever his relationship with God and fall into a state of sin."
"After raining, God marked the sky with miraculous rainbow as an sign for hope and optimism."
"Thank God that she was saved from the unfortunate disease!"

For the first example, I was thinking of the idiom "tying the knot". 140.254.226.229 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"OMG" qualifies as a violation of one of the Ten Commandments, and in any case it's become trivialized. It used to be an expression of utter horror and fear. Now it's become pretty much equivalent to "Oh, wow!" Of your three examples, the first two are straight out of religious tradition, while the third kind of straddles the fence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what if you intend to use 1 and 2 as a metaphorical, qualitative way to describe your perceptions and feelings about the universe rather than an actual belief in God, the supernatural being? 140.254.226.229 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their origin is religious, and they could be considered metaphorical, e.g. taking "God" to mean "Nature". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Objecting to "Oh my God" is a Protestant sensibility. In Catholic countries God, Jesus and the Virgin Mary are invoked all the time. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Maybe the commandment is not worded that way in Spanish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devoutly Orthodox Christian Russians have been saying "Боже мой!" (Bozhe moi! My God!) as a general expression of surprise etc for centuries. Jesús and María are extremely common names in the devoutly Catholic hispanosphere. But I agree: the use of "OMG" and what it stands for, simply because that's what one's friends all say 59 times a minute, every minute, is complete rubbish. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, your point would be clearer if "take in vain" had any usage in English other than in that commandment, so that we might know what it means. —Tamfang (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a difference between simply exclaiming a holy name in the manner of a swear word, and offering a snippet of prayer. One can sound like the other, but generally only the speaker knows for sure which it was. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On these home-improvement shows, when the homeowner walks into the newly-renovated space and shrieks "OMG!", that's unlikely to be a prayer - it's just something they're used to saying in almost any situation, no matter how mundane. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a Roman Catholic friend who, when asked if he was hungry, would say "I could eat the sweet beard of Jesus, so I could!". I find this so funny. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Various contracts use the phrase "Act of God" to desribe natural events that may affect the ability of the contracting parties to deliver on their agreement. Roger (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the rather wonderful word Godwottery,[1] which means over-elaborate garden features. Alansplodge (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A garden is a lovesome thing, God wot! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the subtopic of the Third Commandment (in the usual numbering system): Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. There are different interpretations, and not everyone takes it to be a prohibition against OMG. IBE (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In particular "God" is not "God's name". It's baffling that people think it is so commonly, given how most versions of Exodus contains an explicit translation of God's name to English. Now, it's not my place to dictate religion to anyone else, but it really drives me batty that people can refer to a rule from one part of Exodus without acknowledging the relevant information part of another. i kan reed (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the thing that has always bothered me. In the same part of the Bible, Moses asks: "The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name?" Then God replies: "I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." So God has declared that he has no real name, and to tell them "I AM has sent you" - unless that was a typo, and it was meant to be "tell them Ian has sent you". IBE (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Tetragrammaton and I am that I am, for a lot of detail. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that "God" is not God's name. No human knows what God's name is. But we use "God" to mean the name of God, so it's the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but seriously, it's Yaweh or Jahova. The historical record with regards to this isn't ambiguous. The Christian god had a name, until it was culturally forgotten, almost certainly as a consequence of the 3rd commandment. The transformation of Jesus' real name to "Jesus" is much weirder, comparatively. i kan reed (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, neither Yaweh or Jahova are the real name of God. God's answer to Moses, "I am that I am", was His way of saying "I won't tell you what my name is". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, instead of the "I'm right, you're wrong" game, try reading Names of God. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that whatever any individual uses as the name of God, that is God's name to that individual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And should there (hypothetically) exist someone who didn't believe in God, that would no sooner prevent him from uttering "oh my god" than it would prevent him from saying, "This sudoku is diabolically difficult," or referring to his beloved as Venus, or remarking during a particularly violent thunder storm, "My but Thor is busy this afternoon!"—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]