Language desk
< October 27	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 29 >

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 28

Patterns of speech in the 19th century

I just finished reading Roughing It by Mark Twain, and although he's an amusing writer and probably the most readable of any 19th century writer, it can be very verbose and full of long sentences and difficult reading. And it put me in the mind of the Steven Spielberg movie Lincoln, which also takes place in the 19th century and is full of people who speak in an overly formal, verbose manner. They were the President and his Cabinet, sure - but then I also recently watched the newer version of True Grit, in which a 14-year-old girl and two cowboys again share that manner of speaking, with bigger vocabularies than a modern English major. But if you watch old '60s westerns, they pretty much just talk like working-class cowboys would talk nowadays.

My question is - did people actually talk like that back then? Or are movies like Lincoln and True Grit based around the surviving speech that we know of from the 19th century - which is to say letters, novels and Abarham Lincoln speeches - and while people in the 19th century might WRITE like that, nobody would actually SPEAK like that (outside of a formal speech?) 220.239.203.14 (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell for sure, but it's often the case that words which were once in normal use but have mostly gone out of use now feel formal. I think that most of what you are hearing is not so much about the language itself but about changing standards of politeness. In polite company people would generally speak in a way that seems very formal to us. In less exalted contexts, the speech would still have some unfamiliar features, but they would not necessarily seem formal. --ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's only been in the last few decades that the once-standard formality of communication has been relaxed, into what some call "informal formality" [Google that term for more info). For example, addressing your company president by his/her first name rather than Mr./Mrs./etc. One of the few leftovers of the older approach is to start a letter "Dear..." Calling someone by their formal name is a way of addressing the person's title rather than the person themselves. Vestiges of this are the New York Times calling everyone "Mr." or whatever, and also specifics such as calling royalty "Your Majesty" or calling the Pope "Your Holiness". Also consider the number of businesses which used initials: F.W. Woolworth, J.C. Penney, that kind of thing. Their first names were irrelevant, as you wouldn't call Penney "James" unless you were a close friend. Otherwise, it would be "Mr. Penney". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've often wondered this about Shakespeare. I can't believe that the common man talked that way, full of double meanings and flowery speech. Take even something fairly straightforward, like "Hark, what light through yon window breaks, is it the dawn ?". I can't imagine the average farmer asked if the Sun was up quite like that. StuRat (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting Boston Globe article about how Tony Kushner grappled with the language of Lincoln. He checked the OED to ensure that the vocabulary was generally correct for the era, but was not averse to using anachronistic, modern terms (like the f-word) "in the interest of not making it sound like a historical waxwork". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 23:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"F-word" "modern"? In what possible way is a word used in print at least since the 15th century, and obviously in speech well before that, "anachronistic" and "modern" during the Civil War? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-го in Common Slavic

Recently I removed this IP comment because words like «его» unlikely were pronounced with [ɡ] ever, but later I recalled that the /…/ notation is phonematic, not phonetic. If various [ɡ]/[ɣ]/[ɦ] did not have a phonematic difference (like they do not have in Russian), then probably the IP was not so wrong? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Russian, /g/ and /v/ are different phonemes: consider "голос" (golos - voice) vs. "волос" (volos - hair). You seem to be saying that this inflection was never pronounced with a /g/: on what grounds? --ColinFine (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You shoudn’t waste your time explaining me that /ɡ/ and /v/ are different in my native language. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was /g/ until some centuries ago in Central and North Russian, and in South Russian it was pronounced /ɣ/ until quite recently.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How namely? Do you seriously think that «его» was ever [jɪɡo], [jɪɡɔ], or something alike in North Russia? Did you ever try to pronounce it? /ɣo/ in «его» and endings of adjectives (of the Common Slavic origin) just changed to /vo/ in the distant past, whereas remaining instances of /ɣ/ shifted towards [ɡ] that we hear nowadays. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite serious. In North Russian as well as in Common Slavic there wasn't /ɣ/ as a phoneme, and the ending changed as follows: ogo > oɣo > oo > ou̯o > ovo. In Olonets dialects and in South Russian it can be heard with /-ɣ-/ until recently (by me personally, but now I think the dialects are nearly dead). In Olonets it was the remainder of the second stage above, in South Russian it was such from the South vs. North dialect division in Common East Slavic (some thousand year ago, I believe).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Schenker.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, "-го" looks like "ro" in the Roman alphabet, but it is -go in the Cyrillic alphabet. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of BIOTA?

Hello Everyone,

Can you please tell me the meaning of BIOTA ? I have found the Explanation on: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/biota?q=biota But it is still unclear to me, ex:The biota of England, does it mean :(The organisms of England), or, (The organisms of a particular region of England) ?. Your answers is very important to me, cause it is your language.

Thank you for answering, --العراقي (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it says "the biota of England", then it refers to the whole country. If the writer is talking about a particular region, he or she would name that region. --Viennese Waltz 10:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biota means "living things" from Greek [1], so the term is used for whatever region, it has nothing specifically to do with Britain. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreed that we should fix English grammar

Hi all, I'm sure most of us know that an intransitive verb cannot generally be used in the passive, and when it is, it ought to take a preposition, as in "The houses were lived in by millions of people" (and I would not really write such a sentence, so it might actually be wrong; I just lifted it from the article). But what about "agree"? This is intransitive, as in, "they agreed upon the terms of the ceasefire". But: "it was agreed that we should move forward with peace negotiations." How does this work? IBE (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because _agree_ has (at least) two subcategorisation frames: transitive with a sentence object (_agree that_) and intransitive with _to_ or _upon_. Note that _agree to_ and _agree upon_, though syntactically the same, are different meanings of _agree_. --ColinFine (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So would you accept (as far as grammar is concerned) "That we should move forward with negotiations is agreed by me"? Because if "agree" in this sense is transitive, it should be quite ok to render it this way. I was not aware that verb + that + clause was considered transitive - is this always true, and is there a good reason for it? IBE (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The better way to say the second one is, "We agreed that we should move forward..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but not my point. I only mind at this stage that I am grammatically correct. The active is usually to be preferred, but not always. IBE (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of your sentences are grammatically correct. Anyone who is comfortable with English can understand them. But just being technically correct doesn't necessarily make them "good usage". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your comment. IBE (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"We agreed that we should move forward..." does not have quite the same meaning as "That we should move forward with negotiations is agreed by me"? The second sentence means "I agree that we should move forward..." it may be a proposal that the other party has not yet accepted. DES ^(talk) 20:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am only looking at grammar here - I could have written "That we should move forward with negotiations is agreed by us". I wasn't focusing on using the same "marker sentence" throughout, just on the general grammatical form. IBE (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The" other party, DES? There must be at least 3 parties involved if one of them hasn't agreed yet, because one party cannot agree with itself. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be "agreed to by me" or us or (most especially) you'ems? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other/Another

So, what's the difference between those. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 18:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English to Spanish translation - other = la otra, another = otra. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thank you very much. It has been a tricky one for me for years :P... Although I don't know why but, I use them well almost everytime. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 19:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another generally means "one additional other": Do you want another cup of tea?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may find EO's entry of interest:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cannot follow the link, but thanks. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 19:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I keep forgetting that. I'll paste it in here, later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says, "another (adj.) - early 13c., merger of an other. Old English used simply oþer. Originally 'a second of two.' Compound reciprocal pronoun one another is recorded from 1520s." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is THIS site blocked in Cuba? Strange. Never known. Use Tor network then, Miss Bono.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-Lüboslóv Yęzýkin They are not blocked in Cuba, they are blocked at work, so we don't get distracted. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 12:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with this clearly educational site? I simply can't understand your employer's motivation.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is wrong with it. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 13:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little off the track, and because I don't have my Spanish etymology dictionary handy: Would you say that the word for "we", nosotros, is derived from something equivalent to "we others"? And likewise vosotros from "you others"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never thought about that before... Hmmm... (O_o)? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 12:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, see[3][4].--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't work for me, but the Real Academia site says it's from nos y otros. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we explain French nous autres, vous autres, Bugs? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to a French word-origins dictionary on line. On the other hand, how do you account for the fact that the Latin word for "cheese" is caseum, the Spanish is queso and the German is Käse, while the French is fromage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You think I need an etymological dictionary for that! Itsmejudith (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might not. I might. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fromage is from Latin formaticum [5], referring to the form that gives a cheese its shape. (Note the change for > fro is similar to the one I gave for cor > cro in cromulent.) μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! We learn something new today! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In another oddity of roots, we have the potato(e), which is called la patata in Spanish, and something similar in other Romance languages, except for the more exotic la pomme de terre in French, literally "earth apple". This is only vaguely related to the French term for New York, la grande pomme de cheval. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Cuba we usually say la papa instead of la patata. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 12:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French does have "patate" as well, but it's more of a slang word, like "tater" in English. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says vosotros came from vos otros (a parallel Fr vous autres is given). Nosotros is by analogy with vosotros.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is tater like Potato?... Ohhhh a good line comes to my mind. So I am going to do like Jimbo did the other day. A barnstar for the one who knows where this line came from and the one who finds what goes between the brackets:
"We're navigators... we're aviators, [...] masturbating alligators. Bombardiers, we got no fears, we shed no tears, we are pushing the frontiers... of transcendental perception."

There's a second usage of "other", particularly in American English. When a speaker says "every other one" it means what I know, in UK/Australian English, as "every second one", i.e. not this one, but the next one, then not the one after that, but the one after that, etc, etc.... HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a requirement that the second, fourth, sixth, etc. have to be chosen? Or could it be the first, third, fifth, etc.? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly. You're the Yank here. I'm just the one who gets confused by that usage. I'll defer to your knowledge of your language. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is peculiarly American. Lewis Carroll used it:

“

"I'm sure I'll take you with pleasure!" the Queen said. "Two pence a week, and jam every other day."

Alice couldn't help laughing, as she said, "I don't want you to hire me – and I don't care for jam."
"It's very good jam," said the Queen.
"Well, I don't want any to-day, at any rate."
"You couldn't have it if you did want it," the Queen said. "The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day."
"It must come sometimes to 'jam to-day'," Alice objected.
"No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day: to-day isn't any other day, you know."

”

— Lewis Carroll

Believe it or not, we have an article on this. --Trovatore (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one here who recognises that another is a contraction of 'an other', which puts in contrast to 'the other'? Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was in my EO link to "another". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would make you the other one to notice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a Brit, I recognise the use of "every other one" as stated above, i.e. not this one, but the next one etc, but how would it be used by an American. Could you give me sentence with the American usage please. Thanks. Widneymanor (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. I thought this was the American way of saying "every second one", which is what the Brits and the Aussies say. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it depends how you interpret Widneymanor's "etc."? It could be "not the first one, but the second, third, fourth, fifth, ...", or it could be "not the first one, but the second, not the third one, but the fourth, ...". An example could be: Suppose you see someone you know in a cafe on a Tuesday afternoon, during business hours. You: "You're taking a day off from work today?" Acquaintance: "Yeah, I have every other Tuesday off." The "every other" expresses alternation between a Tuesday at work and a Tuesday off, and the "every other Tuesday" could perfectly well include today. --Amble (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be a natural utterance for me (the acquaintance). I'd say "Yeah, I have every second Tuesday off". "Other" is one of those words that doesn't exist in a vacuum; there has to be an obvious answer to the question "Other than what?". If someone said to me "Yeah, I have every other Tuesday off", I'd be wondering whether he has to work the first 3 Tuesdays every month (or 4 sometimes) and has the last one off. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are evidently regional differences here because "every other ...." can mean "alternate" here in northern England ("every other Tuesday" = "alternate Tuesdays"). I agree with Jack that it's ambiguous, but I think the meaning is usually conveyed by the stressed syllables. Dbfirs 21:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to have commented on my Dodgsonian attestation above. Lewis Carroll was not particularly from the North, was he? Oh, his article says his family was. Would this usage really have caused any confusion in London? --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dodgson was evidently aware of the two contrasting meanings and played on these. Presumably his audience also understood the two meanings (the Liddell family had connections in Durham and Scotland). Dbfirs 09:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Every other Tuesday" is the usual idiom for alternate Tuesdays here in Sunny London. "Every second Tuesday" would probably be understood to have the same meaning, but it's not how you would usually say it. I'm a bit confused by the suggestion that it has another meaning. Alansplodge (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]