Language desk
< September 30	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 2 >

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.

October 1

"Without it"

In French, is there a way to say "without it"? This is frustratingly hard to google for. For example, I know how to say "I can't do homework without a pencil", but how do you say "I can't do homework without it"? --140.180.243.97 (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"sans" + "elle". According to Google translate "I can't do homework without it" -> "Je ne peux pas faire mes devoirs sans elle." StuRat (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pencil = un crayon (masculine). It would be: Je ne peux pas faire mes devoirs sans lui. But, lui can only refer to a person or an animal. Spontaneously I would say: Je ne peux pas faire mes devoirs sans ça/cela. (Try Google translate from French to English...). — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. It's strange that there's no inanimate equivalent of lui/elle. Can you use "...sans cela" in writing, or is it too colloquial?

@StuRat: Google Translate presumably has trouble translating the phrase because there's no word for "it" in French. --140.180.247.75 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I was curious how the French Wikipedia dealt with It girl, and here is how they did it. I particularly liked the expression "une charmante jeune femme sexy", and give them credit for dropping all the English diacritics when they incorporated our word "sexy" into the French language. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your small text: hat diacritics? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wherefore? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can say "sans cela" or "sans ça", but at the end of a sentence it might sound a bit weird. That phrase sounds better introducing a clause, where it means something like "otherwise". Adam Bishop (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fine vs. finely

He feels fine after a disease. seems correct to me. What about He feels finely after a disease.? Is this correct? Grammar explanations are appreciated. Thank you in advance.203.228.255.210 (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine in this sense is already an adverb, like well. There is no need to add -ly. (The adverb fine in the sense of okay should not be confused with the adverb finely, which is the opposite of coarsely.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's correct. As a non-native speaker, I was taught that verbs describing senses (feels) or appearances (seems) take an adjective, not an adverb. This site rationalizes this by assuming that the adjective describes the subject rather than the verb. Hence, if you can replace the verb with to be (although with some considerable change of meaning), then you put an adjective rather than an adverb. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-native speaker, you probably shouldn't be insisting that a native speaker is wrong. In the statement He feels fine after a disease, feels is a verb and fine is an adverb. He feels finely is definitely wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "finely" is definitely wrong.... on the other-hand "he feels Finley" would be correct but have a totally differnt meaning ;-) -- Q Chris (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'fine' really an adverb here? What about analogous statements such as 'he feels sad/happy/hungry'? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They would certainly follow the same pattern, for example "He feels hungry after his fast" (not hungrily) or "he feels sad after his divorce" (not sadly). -- Q Chris (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In "He feels fine", "feels fine" is a predicative expression. "Feels" is the copula and "fine " is a predicative adjective. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But he might be "feeling poorly after his divorce" (and no doubt he's also "feeling poor"). StuRat (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that non-native speakers often have a better technical grasp of grammar than nonspecialist native speakers, because they have had to study the rules, such as they are. The rule about sense and appearance verbs being modified by adjectives rather than adverbs is indeed taught to EFL learners, usually with the explanation that these actions are passive. Fine is certainly an adverb where the verb is active: "My car was mended and it is working fine now". But I too (native speaker) was taught that it is a predicative adjective, as is well in the same context (I.e. "I feel well" equals "I am well", and not "I feel in a good manner". Karenjc (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The verb "feel" in the examples is a copular verb and should be used with an adjective instead of an adverb. See "Copula (linguistics)" and "List of English copulae".

—Wavelength (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In "he feels fine", "fine" is an adjective* It describes the person's state, not the manner in which he performs the verb "feel". 86.160.211.131 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* in the sense intended above. It could, unusually, be an adverb if "he feels fine" is talking about someone's ability to feel things. 86.160.211.131 (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is actually a bit ambiguous. In today's English, we hear the "well" in "I feel well" as an adjective meaning "physically healthy", but it seems likely to have originated as an adverb. Compare "I feel poorly", which is still idiomatic in some English varieties, and note that the parallel Romance-language constructions all use the translation of the adverb "well", and that these words can generally not be used as adjectives meaning "healthy". --Trovatore (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"poorly" in "I feel poorly" is also an adjective (assuming it refŷers to health and not to ability to feel). 81.159.104.199 (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Then why can't you say *a poorly patient, the same way you can speak of an unwell patient? --Trovatore (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the UK you can - "Poorly patient waits 54 hours to be seen" Gandalf61 (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. Never would have guessed that. I would call that a completely ungrammatical utterance in American English, even the varieties that allow I feel poorly. --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that that utterance was from a newspaper headline, which give us such silly things as "Man critical after horror smash". Well, I'd be critical too if I'd been driving along minding my own business and some petrol tanker careened out of both left field and control and smashed into me and broke half my bones and organs. I'd be hopping mad. What the "critical" is referring to is the medical condition of the patient, not the patient himself. Similarly, a patient who is feeling poorly cannot, in any reasonable variety of English, be described as "a poorly patient". Newspaper headlines obviously do not count as reasonable varieties of English. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In BrE at least, "poorly" is a true adjective meaning "unwell": you can be poorly as well as feel poorly. Most often it is used predicatively, but "poorly patient" is not incorrect. 86.160.213.213 (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is, it's not clear you can't also be <adverb> in some cases. In AmE, I definitely want to put a star before *poorly patient; it just doesn't work at all. --Trovatore (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] and [2], where the word is listed as an adjective. Despite your protestations, I can assure you that "poorly patient" is correct in BrE. 86.160.213.213 (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That British weirdness is not the main point here. The point is the semi-adjectival use of adverbs, which is a common thing in Romance languages, but also seems to have some protrusion into English. How are you? I'm well. You could be saying that you're not sick, but the usual intent is a more general state of satisfaction than pure physical health, so it's not the usual adjectival sense of well. It seems to be related more to the adverbial sense. Colloquially you can say "I'm good", but that has other connotations (idiomatically, "I don't need anything from you, please go away", or more formally, "I am morally commendable"). --Trovatore (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "I'm well", I mean exactly that I'm not ill. 86.160.213.213 (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used "sick" rather than "ill" specifically because "sick" is exclusively an adjective (at least in standard English), whereas "ill" is etymologically an adverb. (Yeah, I understand that the Brits use "sick" to mean "vomiting", but I don't have to go along with that.)

You don't seem to be coming to terms with the main point here. There is a usage in English that puts some adverbs into the role of predicate adjectives. --Trovatore (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such as what? All the examples you've given are adjectives. 86.160.213.213 (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are. I think you're incorrect specifically about what "I am well" means. In fact I think you're incorrect, or incorrectly reporting, even what you personally mean by it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that "well" in "I am well" is an adjective meaning "in good health". See, for example, [3] and [4] for examples illustrating the difference between adverbial and adjectival use of "well". 86.160.213.213 (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. It means something more general. --Trovatore (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's you who are wrong. You seem to be confused about the difference between an adjective and an adverb. "well" can be an adverb (and most often is), but in "I am well" it is not. Study the examples I linked to and maybe you will figure it out. 86.160.213.213 (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is an adjective or an adverb in "I am well" is somewhat iffy; I am not actually quite sure. However it most definitely does not have (or at least is not limited to) the usual adjectival meaning ("physically healthy). You are quite wrong about that. --Trovatore (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "iffy", it is definitely an adjective there. Its usual general meaning in that phrase, which is good enough for my purpose here, is "in good health" (beyond that I am not concerned about arguing the fine nuances of the wording of the definition). I am not "quite wrong". You are the one who is mostly "quite wrong" with your peculiar ideas about this word. 86.160.213.213 (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Look, it's clear that this sense of the word came etymologically from the adverb. The very fact that you use "ill" as an antonym to it should confirm this, as should comparisons with Romance languages. You're just refusing to see this. You should stop doing that. --Trovatore (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the most technical sense, it's a predicative adjective. However, it functions adverbially in that it describes a verb. Aside from that trivial semantic debate, finely in this context is definitely absolutely wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. 86.160.213.213 (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel well about your decision? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you are all arguing that 86.160.213.213 is wrong. The OED has well, adjective: "Sound in health; free or recovered from sickness or infirmity: more explicitly well in health", and has unwell as an antonym. I agree with Trovatore that the adjective derives from the adverb. Dbfirs 11:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have specified the first example. It is not a copular verb in the second example.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finely means "into small pieces" or "precisely", I doubt one would feel that way. Ssscienccce (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like "finely chopped onions" --208.185.21.102 (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sew trousers

At Talk:Polar bear#Indigenous people an editor has questioned the sentence "The fur was used in particular to sew trousers". I would change the word "sew" to "make" but is there any variety of English where the sentence is correct as written? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pelts were used to make trousers. Sewing is done with thread. The thread is not made of polar bear hair. Bus stop (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that. I've tried a pair but I'm wondering if the sentence makes sense in any English variant. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can recall older Australians using the word sew as a synonym for make in contexts like that. I know I'm going to struggle to find a source though. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine they said that in order to not give the impression they were intending to grow the crop, harvest the fibre, spin it into yarn, and weave the cloth on a loom, as their forebears might have needed to do; but to take existing cloth, cut pieces of the right shape, and sew them together. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds normal to me (southern US) to say "I'm going to sew a shirt", but I would sew the shirt with a needle and thread. Falconus^{p t c} 23:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. I understand a "with" at the end of the sentence, ("The fur was used in particular to sew trousers with") but wouldn't add it, as the sentence sounds better as is. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of what I expected. That explains why it had not been changed before. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds peculiar to me. 81.159.104.199 (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You could say "I'm going to use thread to sew a pair of trousers", not "I'm going to use polar bear fur to sew a pair a trousers". StuRat (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's peculiar all right, but it's real. Note than when I spoke of older Australians, I was referring to my grandparents' generation, and I'm in my 60s. It's not modern usage. HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On occasion my mother reminisces about how she sewed all our fancy clothes and her own summerwear when we were children. She also refers to my father's mother having sewn the most elaborate garments. It has never occurred to me that anyone would see this as odd usage. μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Spinning is the twisting together of drawn out strands of fibres to form yarn…" Once one has made yarn, it can be used for sewing. It is often called thread when it is used in that capacity. But such yarn or thread can be also woven or knitted to form fabrics. When these fabrics are cut into shapes and then sewn together, using thread, we can have garments. But a polar bear pelt, containing the fur of the animal, is unrelated to the first step of "…twisting together of drawn out strands of fibres to form yarn…" I think it is incorrect to say "The fur was used in particular to sew trousers". The fur was not used in this capacity. The fur was never twisted together and drawn out to form strands of fibre. The fur is simply a component of the leather pelt. The actual sewing was not done to the fur at all, and the thread used was probably not a thread derived from the fur itself. The sewing took place on the underlying leather pelt. The leather pelt, which is the skin of the animal, is itself not a product of weaving or knitting. Thus when speaking of the manufacturing of garments made of animal hide we should consider language appropriate to that substance. I think it is more appropriate to say that we are making trousers, using polar bear pelts. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple matter of a word being used in two broader and narrower senses. "I made Johnny a shirt for Christmas." "Oh, did you knit it?" "No, I sewed it." Note from the point of view of the criticisms above it would be equally absurd to say someone knitted a shirt, since what they really did was knit the yarn. Unless you want to get down to the bizarre objection that you don't bake cakes, you only bake their ingredients, there's no reasonable purpose to insist one only makes clothing rather than sewing it. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one knits a shirt. The knitted fabric found in a shirt would be too fine to knit. All handmade shirts are sewn. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply laughable and historically ignorant. You are confusing modern machine-knit fabric with actually hand-knitted garments μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at a lot of the pictures at the link you provided, and I'm not sure I would describe any of those tops as a shirt, even if the websites on which the pictures appear do so. I think I'd call almost all of them sweaters or vests (or sweater vests). Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to say you sewed a shirt, but what that means is that you attached pieces of fabric together with thread. Thus, you are using the thread to sew, not using the fabric to sew. Back to the polar bear fur, saying you sewed clothes using polar bear fur is like saying you nailed your house together using wood. StuRat (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word "make" is always acceptable. One makes a shirt. But the question is whether one "makes" trousers of a polar bear pelt or whether one "sews" trousers of a polar bear pelt. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bluejeans are sewed. Bus stop (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trousers can be sewed (or sewn) in that the separate pieces of fabric are stitched together to make a single item of clothing. (The separate pieces of 'fabric' might be knitted or weaved or a synthetic polymer or any of various other materials, none of which are sewn.) However, in the context given, because the fur is actually a pelt, it is likely misleading to say that the fur "is used to sew trousers", as it strongly implies that the fur is used for the stitching rather than the pieces of cloth.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since trousers are (if you're rich enough) made by a tailor, they can be said to be "tailored"; but in this instance, "made" seems to be right to me in British English. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]