Language desk
< February 2	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 4 >

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 3

How should I say "each of which", "by which", and the like, in spoken English (say English of teenagers and likewise)?

For example: "I saw huge birds each / some of which had a black beak". Should I say (in spoken English): "I saw huge birds that each / some of them had a black beak"?

How about "by which"? For example "the scientific tool by which we could discover what happened here three centuries ago"...

77.125.124.225 (talk)

"I saw several birds, each of which had a black beak" is perfectly grammatical. ""The birds, that each one of them had a black beak" is not grammatical. "Each one of the birds had a black beak" is also fine. "A microscope is a tool by which we can see small details" is a fine sentence. So is "He saw the fine details in the feather by means of a microscope".

"by which" and "each of which" are both fine phrases in spoken English. Here is a youtube video that instructs on the English use of some similar phrases [1]. Here's another short piece on "which" [2]. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You claim "...'by which' and 'each of which' are both fine phrases in spoken English". Are you sure? So, would a boy (e.g. 12 years old), say "Did you see the huge birds each / some of which had a black beak?" ??? 77.125.124.225 (talk)

Most 12-year-old persons I know would probably say Did you see the huge birds with the black beaks?. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about "some of which"? would a boy (e.g. 12 years old), say "Did you see the huge birds some of which had a black beak?" ??? 77.125.124.225 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No native speaker, of any age, would ever say that, imo. It sounds very contrived and unnatural. It also betrays confused thinking. The main point of the question seems to be whether the other person saw the huge birds. That some of those birds had black beaks seems to be secondary material that really belongs somewhere outside that question. This is mainly because, if the other did not see the huge birds at all, they would not know whether any of them had black beaks or not, so they could not truthfully answer the question as posed. How about this: Did you see those huge birds? Did you notice that some of them had black beaks? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that I've used those phrases, and I'm sure that I've heard them spoken. I'm sure that they can be used in speech in a grammatically correct way. I'm a native speaker, and I've heard many varieties of English. Not everyone speaks the same. The speech that people use depends on context. We use different registers for different occasions. I might be biased in terms of what I think is "normal" because I spend a lot of time speaking and listening in scientific and academic contexts. I suppose I would be a little surprised to hear "each of which" used correctly by a 12 year old at the play ground, but it wouldn't be that strange. I thought the question was more about correct grammar, so I replied as such. I see you've clarified your title now, so others can help you come up with alternative phrasings that might be more common among young speakers. For a similar example to what I was getting at: some people use "heretofore [3]" and "henceforth [4]" in spoken English, while many people do not. They are more commonly used in writing than in speaking. I'm sure those words might cause some confusion in some listeners, but they are still valid English words that are used (by some) in speech. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I suppose I would be a little surprised to hear 'each of which' used correctly by a 12 year old at the play ground". Yes, that's why I asked about alternative phrasings.

"Others can help you come up with alternative phrasings that might be more common among young speakers". I still wonder how such a phrasing might look like... 77.125.124.225 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you need them to say? Wouldn't "the black-beaked huge birds" sound more natural in a 12 year old's speech, or "the huge birds with a black beak"? Akseli9 (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Marco Polo's response (I agree with him). 77.125.124.225 (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "the black-beaked birds" or "only the black-beaked birds" or "just the black-beaked birds"? Would that be considered regular English, spoken English, or simply strange wording? Thanks. Akseli9 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Huge birds with black beaks" is what I'd expect to come out of the mouth of a child. "Black-beaked birds" is a higher-register construction that would be slightly less likely for a child, but still perfectly acceptable. Marco polo (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but how about "some of which"? How would that be expressed by a child (in one sentence)? for example, "I see many birds, some of which have black beaks". 77.125.124.225 (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "I see a lot of birds. Some of 'em have black beaks." or with the sentences connected by "and".

Also, many people say and even write things like "I see a lot of birds, which some of them have black beaks." Here's an example from COCA, brackets mine. " But the problem when you talk to economists is that in 2001, it didn't do anything. What really mattered was the long-term -- once the long-term tax cuts kicked in, which some of them were also passed in 2001, more in 2003 -- once those kicked in, and cuts an[d] capital gains an[d] dividend cut and personal income cuts, that helped turn around the economy by 2003." —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw huge birds and some of them had got black beaks. I saw (or I seen) a load of black birds and they'd got black beaks (implies they all had). There were great big birds (or there was great big birds) and their beaks were black. There was these loads of enormous birds that all had got these really black beaks. All British English. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

"Have you seen the chair some of whose legs are broken"?
"Have you seen the red hammer by which I fixed the chair you had broken"?

77.125.124.225 (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plurals

What is the plural of:

ángelos -
angelus – is it angeluses?
Jinn - Y

(Russell.mo (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

The plural of "angelus" is "angelus" (in French, [5], I don't think that's an English word, we'd just say "angel" or "angels"). Jinn is the plural, the singular is jinni or djinni. The more common spelling in American English is Genie (note the redirect), with the plural "genies" or (rarely) "genii" [6]. Wiktionary is your friend for this type of question. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know, thank you -- (Russell.mo (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

You need to specify in what language at least. The word ángelos is already the plural of ángel in Spanish. And if angelus is Larin, the plural would be angeli, assuming you want the nominative case. μηδείς (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, wouldn't the plural be mas ángelos? --Jayron 32 00:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The plural of ángel is ángeles. I totally agree that Russell.mo has to say what language he's talking about. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angelus is an English word. I don't think the plural is used much, though. I'd be more likely to say "Angelus services" or something—not that I'm a Roman Catholic or High Church Anglican, so you probably shouldn't listen to me. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issue is, how do I differentiate a 'human messenger' and a 'supernatural being'? The article Angel#Etymology say's it (somehow), but without any plurals... Any suggestions? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Peeps I'm using the singular from angelus#Declension page that is related to the Angel#Etymology article's information ... If this is wrong then let me know. Thank you all. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I'm making my own ones guys, like angeloses and angeluses. I'm can't really put my finger on what to use... Help me if you guys can think of something -- (Russell.mo (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Maybe if you give an example of a sentence you want to use "angeloses" or "angeluses" in. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Guardian angels (angeloses) like Jesus, Mohammad, Moses were thought to have angeluses in them"??? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Trouble is, you're using Latin words from the Septuagint to explain concepts in an otherwise English sentence. Angelos is not an English word at all; and, while angelus is recognised, its primary meaning is a reference to a devotional text that happens to start with that word in its Latin version. Why not just use words like "messenger" and "divine being" rather than messing around with abstruse words that, rather than clarifying what you're trying to get across, will probably serve to have the opposite effect. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Angelos and his family would be Angeloses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually been to the Angeloses's on a few occasions. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the 'angel-' words are derived from the Greek, ἄγγελος, angelos, which means 'messenger' and has the nominative plural ἄγγελοι, angeloi. GoldenRing (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry for delaying in replying, my dongle/modem troubled me a bit, ran out of 'kbs'... Apologies.

Anyways,

Thanks GoldenRing. I must say the plural does not sound nice, the singular does...

@JackofOz: I don’t know, the word(s) seems to provide the meanings of an angel messenger, spiritual angelic one (alive one)...figuratively when I use it. And sounds better (I think). If you suggest not using it then it is confusing... The words you stated, I have to capatalise the first letter if I state God... I still need to come to conclusion with the plurals. I guess I have to choose the nominative word(s) but none of them sound nice... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

"Angelus" is Angel when he's happy. You wouldn't like him when he's happy. --Trovatore (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]