Language desk
< July 4	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 5

Singular or plural verb

In the following article, Yarnell Hill Fire, there was a description of a wildfire that killed 19 firefighters. The sentence (which does not appear in the article at present) read something along the lines of the following.

"The nineteen deaths are the single worst disaster in state history." (or words to this effect).

So, my question is: should this sentence employ a singular verb or a plural verb? Should it correctly read as: (a) The nineteen deaths are ... ? Or (b) The nineteen deaths is ... ? Both verbs seem like "bad choices" (i.e., each one sounds "wrong"), given the sentence construction. That is, the noun before the verb is plural and the noun after the verb is singular. (I believe that this sentence contains a subject complement.) My question also assumes that I am not interested in changing the wording or sentence construction at all (which I realize can solve the problem in an indirect way). I am interested in knowing which verb is the correct verb for the way in which the sentence is worded above. Also, in this case, why exactly is the correct verb considered to be the correct verb? In other words, why exactly is singular (or plural) the correct verb to be used for this sentence? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, Huddleston & Pullum's Cambridge Grammar of the English Language treats this somewhere, confirming the fairly simple rule that it's basically always the subject that wins out, so in this case it would be are. Of course, there's also another, minor pattern where a formally plural subject can be used with a singular verb, but that's only when the subject is construed as a measurement phrase describing a single quantity (as in "ten years is an awfully long time"). You might occasionally get such a reading with "deaths" (as in "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic"), but the sentence you quoted seems to be treating the nineteen as distinct individual cases, so that would probably not apply here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hmmmm, I am not sure that I am convinced. So, according to the rule that you cite, what would happen if we took the same exact sentence above and simply reversed the order? "The single worst disaster in state history is the nineteen deaths of the firefighters." Is that correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be correct. "The single worst disaster is..." and "The nineteen deaths are..." would almost always be correct, and certainly correct for both of your examples. With the exception of plurals used as mass nouns, English verbs look to the subject of the sentence for their proper conjugation. Since the word "deaths" is not being used as a mass noun, but as a simple plural, it takes "are", and since the word disaster is unambiguously singular, it takes the word "is". --Jayron32 19:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for the input and for the explanations. Much appreciated! Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ending sentence on an exclamation mark

Say I was referring to man writing for a magazine called Hello! in a Brit Eng sentence, which of the following is correct?

He wrote for Hello!.
He wrote for Hello!

Thanks, Ericoides (talk)

The first is correct, with a period (full stop) placed after the magazine title. But – as an option – you may also want to consider rewriting the sentence to avoid the odd punctuation situation (i.e., by not having the title as the final word of the sentence). As an example: He worked for the magazine Hello! as a writer from 2000 until 2007 (or some such). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can't rewrite the sentence, but I appreciate the option. (From your use of the term "period" I take it you are not British?) Ericoides (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I am not British ... correct! Hence, I added the "full stop" notation to my "period" reference, assuming that you were British. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your 2nd sentence, Joseph, you've (possibly inadvertently) just demonstrated the difference between using an exclamation mark as an independent personal flourish (which is sufficient to end the sentence), and having as the last word of the sentence the name of a publication that happens to include the exclamation mark as part of its own spelling (which is not sufficient). Thus, it would be possible to construct a scenario where someone says "No, you idiot, he didn't write for Goodbye!, he wrote for Hello! !". (I've separated the italicised exclamation mark and the Roman one with a space for ease of readability, but it would not be mandatory.) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, Jack. Thanks! Just so I understand, then, let me ask this. In the rule that is cited by User Deor below, does that only hold if the terminal punctuation is a period? And it does not hold if the terminal punctuation is something else, such as a question mark or an exclamation point? If that's the case, shouldn't the MOS clarify that distinction (at MOS:CONSECUTIVE)? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take terminal punctuation to be a full-stop, exclamation mark and question mark. I wonder whether Deor might point me in the direction of all (or one) style guide(s) that support the second version. Ericoides (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also take terminal punctuation to be a full-stop, an exclamation mark, and a question mark. But, as Jack of Oz points out above, the MOS:CONSECUTIVE rule will not make sense when the terminal punctuation of the sentence is either an exclamation point or a question mark. It only "works" when the terminal punctuation is a period. No? Example Number 1: Wow! I just got a job working for Hello! ! (similar to Jack's example above). Example Number 2: Which magazine does he work for? Is it Hello! ? (my own example). In both examples, it does not make sense to eliminate the terminal punctuation, since doing so will erroneously change an exclamation (example 1) and a question (example 2) into a simple declarative sentence. I wonder if User:Deor can address this oddity. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In which case should the MOS rule not be: "Where a proper noun that includes terminal punctuation ends a sentence, do not add a full-stop after it"? Then we could have, "I'm amazed. Do you really work for Hello!?" I'd be happy with that, whereas "I'm amazed. Do you really work for Hello!?." would make me queasy. Ericoides (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Ericoides ... is there a typo in your post above? You offer two examples: one of which you would be happy with; the other makes you queasy. I don't see any difference in your two examples. Am I missing the distinction? Or is there a typo? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latter one ends with a period, the former does not. Ericoides seems to be using that variety of punctuation where the quote marks include things that were never part of the quote. I don't know whether Ericoides is a North American, but most Americans I've talked to about this agree that it's illogical, but they have no plans to discontinue the practice. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, how does "I'm amazed. Do you really work for Hello!?" "include things that were never part of the quote"? Or do you mean that "I'm amazed. Do you really work for Hello!?." should be "I'm amazed. Do you really work for Hello!?".? I'm British and I follow one version of the British rules regarding punctuation (i.e. I include material within quote marks – including full-stops – if it could stand alone as a sentence with a main verb, but not if it's a fragment (unless it's in dialogue))! Ericoides (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me have a mental re-think about this. I'll be back. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Yes, I see the difference now. Geez, you have an eagle eye! Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as an especially fine compliment. Thank you, Joseph. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I stared at that sentence for a full 5 minutes, and I could not see any distinctions. Thus, I concluded that there must be a typo in there! Thanks again! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sorts of examples you're coming up with might occur in dialogue but are unlikely in normal expository prose. For what it's worth, my suggestions (if I were still working as a professional copyeditor) would be the following: In example 1, as well as in Jack's example, I'd just omit the second exclamation point ("Wow! I just got a job working for Hello!"). In example 2, there's no real way around the double-punctuation problem without recasting the sentence, so "Do you really work for Hello!?" would be OK. Deor (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, should the MOS:CONSECUTIVE be edited to address this issue? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, since, as I said, the situation basically never comes up in the sort of expository prose in which WP articles are written. Deor (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you, Deor. Ericoides (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the second version (without the period) is correct according to every style guide with which I'm familiar. The Wikipedia manual of style, for instance, treats this at MOS:CONSECUTIVE. Deor (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually ran across this issue before (in Wikipedia) and recall the resolution comporting with my answer above. I might try to look for that issue and see the specifics. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be an Engvar issue, hence the phrasing of my query and my question to you. Americans tend to use more punctuation marks than we do, which I've always found odd as in the stereotype you're the gung-ho lot and we're the fussy types... I've looked at the BBC website and searched for sentences ending with the word Westward Ho! and found that some do and some do not use the full-stop. On purely aesthetic grounds I find that !. looks ugly. Then again, just ! feels a bit like an unresolved chord. But on balance I'm hoping that no. 2 is correct. Ericoides (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you say above. Essentially, neither alternative is particularly appealing. As you state ... "On purely aesthetic grounds, I find that !. looks ugly. Then again, just ! feels a bit like an unresolved chord". I agree with those sentiments. That being the case, I am curious as to why you can't simply rewrite the sentence? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're off the topic now but let's just say it's not my sentence to rewrite. Ericoides (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, gotcha. I was just curious. Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to say this in English and German

What is the clearest way to express the following: Somebody is leasing a car from a bank. That person is not paying the fees. The bank "takes" (looking for this word) the car from the person because the fees were not payed. So I'd like to say something like: "This is a car that was xxx from leasing". bamse (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In English, "repossessed". --Viennese Waltz 20:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify VW's response, you'd say merely "This car was repossessed". The word doesn't usually take any further clauses. --Jayron32 20:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I worked for a company that sold cars that had been seized by lenders following non-payment. We would say they were 'repossessed'. So something like 'This is a car that was repossessed by the lease company' maybe? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. How about German? Would something like "Abnahme/Ruecknahmeaus Leasing" or "aus Leasingruecknahme" be ok? bamse (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate is good especially for one-word translations, and Ruecknahme and Repossession are two of the options it offers. μηδείς (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Google translate is quite bad for single words, because it lacks the context that make its statistical methods so strong. For single words, try Leo. "Rücknahme" suggests the user voluntarily returns the car - it's what the guy at rental returns would do. "Pfänden" or "beschlagnahmen" might work, depending on context, as might "wegnehmen". There may also be a difference in reader/listener expectations. I don't think the classical Repo Man exists in German language countries. Typically you have to go through a court and use a court-appointed bailiff ("Gerichtsvollzieher") to take back the collateral. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article - Repossession#Germany - which gives Vollstreckungsbescheid meaning 'a court order authorising repossession'. Vollstreckung apparently means 'enforcement', so the term probably has a broader use than the English 'repossession order'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In translations of English texts containing the English word 'repossession' you could use the translation 'Wiederinbesitznahme'. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Wiederinbesitznahme" seems to be the correct term; for something like that I like to use www.linguee.de, as they often provide (con-)text examples. Lectonar (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Middle English

Was middle English a creole language? Thanks199.33.32.40 (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Thomason and Kaufman's Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics treats this definitively and at length. μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See some more pointers at Middle English creole hypothesis. In my perception, too, the hypothesis has been largely abandoned – in effect, it can only be upheld at the cost of redefining the concept of "creole" to such a point as to make it mostly meaningless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We also have an article language contact which cites T&K, but it's not our best. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]