Language desk
< July 13	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 15 >

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 14

Is this a grammatical mistake?

I read a description in an English web page. I think the highlighted words have a grammatical mistake. Any English native can answer me?

After ended the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s, the US dollar became a true fiat currency allowing to be freely traded and sold.

--Capim Dourado (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native speaker, and I don't like it. All you need to do is move ended to after the word system. Myrvin (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The place I found it in [1] wasn't in idiomatic English. Myrvin (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you need it after allowing. So: "After the Bretton Woods system ended in the early 1970s, the US dollar became a true fiat currency allowing it to be freely traded and sold." Myrvin (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A comma is mandatory after currency: " ... true fiat currency, allowing it to be .....". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I also wonder about "traded and sold". Myrvin (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Traded and sold' is problematic and tautological. Trading implies selling.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

11:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. I totally agree with you! --Capim Dourado (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traded and sold are not synonymous. Bought and sold, possibly, as a pair and snare, but to trade is not necessarily to buy nor to sell. One can choose to buy or sell under a capitalist system, and there is no obligation to buy nor sell. So trade is not synonymous with that. Si Trew (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"After ended"??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, sleepy. That was dealt with in Myrvin's first response. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy? No, in this case, more like Dopey. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is off topic as it's not really the business here at the ref desk, but it is not a flat currency, it is a floating currency. Before Bretton Woods it was fixed to the pound sterling, to the unspeakable advantage of, er, someone. However, "After the Bretton Woods system ended" would be more idiomatic. Si Trew (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the preposition before the verb

Why does English have the tendency to put the preposition before the verb? Examples are "outspoken", "upscale", or "downsize". When a house is scaled up in extravagance, the house can be described as upscale house. When a company wishes to lay off workers to size down the company, the company can be described as downsize. When a person speaks out openly, that person can be described as outspoken.

Similarly, sentences also have a tendency to place the preposition before the verb. Examples are "the glass through which the photons pass" or "the fork and knife with which we use to eat" or, more humorously, "This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put".

Is there a reason for this observed phenomenon? Why are the prepositions placed before the verb? Is there a formal term to describe it? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been confused by prepositions. However, I thought that the pre part refers to being placed before a noun or pronoun, but, maybe, a verb as well. Your 2nd sentence is not idiomatic, unless you meant "used to eat". The placement of the preposition in sentence 1 would pass muster, the idea is that the sentence should not END with a preposition - now a rule no longer observed as assiduously as it was. Your 3rd sentence is a humorous way of showing how a sentence can get into knots by following that rule too carefully. Eric Partridge has a few more, including: "That depends on with what they are cut". Myrvin (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a circular answer, but prepositions are placed before the verb because they are prepositions, i.e. "preposition" is the formal term. As Myrvin says, "pre" means "before. If they came after the verb they would be postpositions. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On reading about it, it seems they are pre because they go before nouns and pronouns - can't see verb mentioned. Myrvin (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er, right...whatever :) They go before, anyway! Adam Bishop (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit clash: According to The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, the rule was invented by Dryden. Fowler spends a lot of time being rude about a too strict adherence to the rule that prepositions shouldn't go at the end of sentences, but it doesn't stop pedants getting hot under the collar about it even now.Myrvin (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Words like upscale and downsize are a different matter. Down is not a preposition, it is an adverb. Myrvin (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler says: "down-. Use of the adverb as a prefix to form new verbs has been a feature of the 20C, e.g. downface (first recorded 1909), downgrade (1930), download (computers, 1980), DOWNPLAY (1968), downpoint (1946), downscale (1945). downsize (1975), downturn (1909)." Myrvin (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the company is said to have been downsized.

"outspoken", "upscale", or "downsize[d]" - Aren't these all adjectives, not prepositions? Rmhermen (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

outspoken is an adjective, upscale is a verb (or an adjective in OED), downsize is a verb; downsized is an adjective. None of them are prepositions. Myrvin (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First question: the pattern is common in many Indo-European languages, so is presumably inherited. Second question: I think a better question is how English (unique among the languages with which I'm well acquainted) came to reanalyze a phrase like eat with forks to see the with as bound more strongly to the verb than to the noun, allowing relative phrases like that we eat with; and the answer must involve analogy with phrasal verbs like take over (whose object cannot be treated as part of a detachable phrase over X). —Tamfang (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose your point about with, is part of the reason why pedants prefer "forks with which we eat". I didn't understand your take over point. Myrvin (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say (unless facetiously, as in the crack attributed to Churchill) the project over which I took; nor can you say of forks we eat them with, by analogy with I took it over. Yet the form that we eat with seems to me to treat eat with as structurally equivalent to take over. —Tamfang (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see now. Does it help that, as you say, take over is a verbal phrase, while eat with isn't, so you need to keep the two parts together as much as possible otherwise you lose the phrase connection? The fact that you can sneak an it in between the two parts is interesting, but there must be other examples like that. Myrvin (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is the increasing preference of that over which in a wide variety of settings. They're not exactly the same: that is a demonstrative, while which is a relative. In many cases, though, either is acceptable. In our case, I don't think that would have been considered correct traditionally: If one would put the preposition before its object, one is pretty well constrained to use which ("... with which we eat" in preference to "... with that we eat," the second of which is incorrect). But as the language has evolved to prefer that over which, the result has been to keep "eat with" together so as to avoid "with that". StevenJ81 (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm,, maybe. The New Fowlers says:Final verdict. In most circumstances, esp. in formal writing, it is desirable to avoid placing a preposition at the end of a clause or sentence, where it has the appearance of being stranded. But there are many circumstances in which a preposition may or even must be placed late ... and others where the degree of formality required governs the placing. When formality is desired, of which I had already heard, ... has the advantage over which I had already heard of."

The original question confuses two separate issues: 1) the practice of placing prepositional phrases of the form "[preposition] which" before the verb, and 2) the placement of prefixes before the verb (e.g., "downsize"). Those prefixes are not prepositions. They are in fact derived from adverbs, as are some prepositions, but they don't have the same function as prepositions. As for putting prepositions before the verb followed by "which", that is a feature of high-register or formal English that is not really native to the language. It was invented and promoted by grammarians in the early modern period following a French model because they found the English practice of ending phrases with "dangling particles" inelegant. Marco polo (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, New Fowler's says, "Apparently Dryden set the myth going. In his Defence of the Epilogue (1672) he cited a line from Ben Jonson's Catiline (1611), The bodies that those souls were frighted from, and commented, 'The Preposition in the end of the sentence; a common fault with him, and which I have but lately observ'd in my own writings.'". Robert Lowth in his Short Introduction to English Grammar (1775} ... concluded: 'This is an idiom, which our language is strongly inclined to: it prevails in common conversation, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing: but the placing of the preposition before the relative, is more graceful, as well as more perspicuous; and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated style." No mention of the French.

I now see there is a WP article (of course): Preposition stranding. It mentions Dryden too. Myrvin (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As indeed there should be. H. W. Fowler in Modern English Usage has a very long article, "-of" at which he discusses prepositions at the ends of sentences. It is a Sturdy indifensible, there is no logic in it at all, but just that you can't do it in Latin, so that when English people were taught English language they were told you cannot put a preposition at the end of a sentence. Considering that English is full of phrasal verbs it is a ridiculous "rule", and should be abolished. End of. Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I said most of that, although with less venom and certainty. You seem to be reading the original Fowler (~1926?) rather than later editions such as The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage (1996). We should note that there are many occasions when even New Fowler's decries putting the preposition at the end. See my quotation from New Fowler's above. "Final verdict ....". Myrvin (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that's just pudding the carp before hors d'oeuvres. Robert Birchfield's third edition, in my opinion, is rubbish. Si Trew (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have a first first edition, two second editions, and I had a third by Birchfield which I seem to have misspelled (misspelt?) but the latest editor of the OED. I will find them if you want them but I am a bit short on bookshelves at the moment so a lot are in store and I am going from memory. Si Trew (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for you. But your original entry seemed to suggest that Fowler was in favour of the rule. If not, you were simply repeating what had already been said. The original Fowler (under prepositions) actually says, "Those who lay down the universal principle that final prepositions are ' inelegant' are unconsciously trying to deprive the English language of a valuable idiomatic resource, which has been used freely by all our greatest writers except those whose instinct for English idiom has been overpowered by notions of correctness derived from Latin standards. The legitimacy of the prepositional ending in literary English must be uncompromisingly maintained ; in respect of elegance or inelegance, every example must be judged not by any arbitrary rule, but on its own merits, according to the impression it makes on the feeling of educated English readers." Was this your point? Myrvin (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I think quite the opposite, I was agreeing with you (or emphasizeing your point). Totally in agreement with what you say. Fowler completely disliked the rule as being arbitrary and not appropriate to English. I am trying to think of other languages, Hungarian I speak a little but doesn't really count because it is combined with the noun, in French one cannot do it really, German one cannot really do it, to put the preposition at the end. That doesn't mean we must but we can. I probably didn't express myself clearly. Fowler was in favour of spelling words ending in -ize by the way, but I still can't get out of the habit of doing it with -ise. Si Trew (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mother of two

Is it mother of two or mother-of-two? Does it depend on whether it is used as a noun or an adjective (attribute)? Different sources seem to contradict each other to some extent, and not even the BBC appears to be consistent here. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that mother of two is a noun-phrase, while mother-of-two is an adjectival-phrase. It's odd as an adjective. Is an example: "This is a mother-of-two law"? Yet "mother-in-law" is both a noun and an adjective. Myrvin (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, I guess there is no widespread agreement on whether or not to use hyphens in such circumstances. It seems that if the phrase is used often enough as a noun, then it will attract the hyphens. Maybe mother-of-two hasn't quite got there yet. Myrvin (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a WP article: Compound modifier. Myrvin (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These too are interesting [2] [3]. Myrvin (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Google NGram thingy gives no examples of the hyphenated form [4], but it looks suspicious. Yet, "mother-in-law" seems to work OK. Myrvin (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems common among the less educated to hyphenate when-in-doubt (see what I did there?); I shan't be surprised, if I live long enough, to find hyphenations mandatory where I supposed them forbidden. —Tamfang (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that "mother-in-law" is an exception to the rule, because it comes from a specific legal concept: Your spouse's mother has the same legal status with respect to you as your own mother does (for certain purposes in certain legal systems). See parent-in-law. Similar type of legal usage: attorney-in-fact, who is not necessarily a licensed, trained attorney, but nevertheless serves that purpose in a given situation. (StevenJ81 (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

With hyphens, it goes back to at least 1500: "The man synned with his modur-in-lawe at the entisynge of the deuel" - more a church, rather than a legal context. Myrvin (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a religious setting, the law is canon law (or alternatively halacha or sharia), but it is still law, and that is why the term is what it is. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. How about: "1688 S. Penton Guardian's Instr. 28 The everlasting Din of Mothers-in-law"? Myrvin (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A search on the OED for *-*-* nouns gives 133000 headwords. From aide-de-camp and blind-man's-buff, through daddy-long-legs and forget-me-not, to stick-in-the-mud and will-o'-the-wisp. Myrvin (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! And there's also mother-to-be Myrvin (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't hyphenate mother of two unless it were adjectival, and then I'd probably rewrite the sentence. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be used in the sentence "all mother-of-two applicants get preferential treatment" meaning that all mothers with two children get special treatment. μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like it Medeis. Myrvin (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a question whose answer differs on either side of the pond, but where would you stress "mother-of-two"? Using mother-in-law, which does exist. I fancy that mother in LAW is stressed at the end, while MOTHER-in-law is stressed at the beginning. I mentioned the pond because my understanding is that Robin Hood is stressed as ROBin Hood in the US, while definitely Robin HOOD over here. :) It may depend on whether the hyphenated phrase is being used as a noun or an adjective. Perhaps we might say, "That green is a ROBin-Hood colour." - Nah, we wouldn't. Myrvin (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Mother-of-two" would simply receive the normal initial word stress on mother and two and no abnormal stresss within the sentence unless it were being emphasized, such as: "Mother-of-three aplicants will be disqualified, whereas all mother-of-TWO applicants will get preferential treatment." This is just normal GA & RP English competency, not some special formula. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You would suggest therefore that mother-in-law is stressed on both mother and law, and mother-to-be is stressed on both parts too? The OED disagrees. It's MOTHER-in law and mother-to-BE. Myrvin (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out all-or-nothing, you will see that US speakers stress ALL and NOTHING, while Brits stress NOTHING. Similar are all-in-one, drag-and-drop, and face-to-face. There are other examples: e.g. head-to-head, heart-to-heart, and one-to-one. In language, I think there are rarely special formulae - what is, is just the way it is. I also doubt that it is often simple or normal. Myrvin (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mother-in-law and mother-to-be are set phrases that have evolved as if they were single words over time, while mother-of-two is not, it's an ad hoc compound in the example I gave. Normally it would not be a compound, one would simply say, "She is a mother of two." μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise, it is

Hannah, a mother of two from Cambridge, was injured in the accident.

Among the injured was a mother of two from Cambridge.

The mother of two was found not guilty.

but

A mother-of-two police officer was injured.?

What about

Cambridge mother of two Hannah was injured in the crash.? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it exactly right. You can construe a correct sentence making "mother-of-two" an adjective. But anytime someone has done that, it's been awkward. For this case it will almost always be better to restructure the sentence to avoid it. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is sneaking into the press.[5][6][7][8][9][10], including the Beeb.[11] Like one ant seen at a picnic, soon there'll be thousands. And they're all nouns - no adjectives.Myrvin (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources American or Canadian. Hmmm ... StevenJ81 (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er yes, so it seems. It's very popular in Ireland.[12], and Australia[13]. Myrvin (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many mothers? One mother, two children. Thence, Mother of two. If there were two separate mothers of two children, mothers of two. Si Trew (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually for more than one inlaw it should be mothers-in-law (or mothers in law, I am not a great fan of hyphens either, nor apostrophes), as the plural should be on the mothers not the law, which is fungible. But that is beside the point. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree. Mothers in law is perfectly grammatical because there are wtwo mothers and several inlaws. (Admittedly unless you practice bigamy you are unlikely to have two mothers-in-law, but grammatically that is correct.) Fathers-in-law similary, but more practically uncles-in-law or aunts-in-law. They are your inlaws. How difficult can this be? Someone you are related to but not by blood, an inlaw. Not tricky. Si Trew (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's also quite annoying to find that a mother of two was injured in Cambridge. I presume that was Cambridge, Massachusettes. I have done Cambridge and that one and Cambridge, Ontario but I still need to do Cambridge, Gloucestershire. Si Trew (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Si, the question is about whether you can put hyphens in mother-of-two. Myrvin (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a website

A website that lets you find a whole word when you give just few letters (at least 3) with their exact locations at the word.

HOOTmag (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's a webset? Contact Basemetal here 15:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a typo (of course I meant "website"). HOOTmag (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try wordsolver.net. - Lindert (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Thank you, but) this is not the website I'm looking for. HOOTmag (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to the OED Online, you can use that as well. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Smuconlaw, I've been using the OED website for years and didn't know that they allow ? and * wildcards. Dbfirs 16:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the option I need free? HOOTmag (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Dbfirs. No, HOOTmag, I'm afraid OED Online requires a subscription so if you don't belong to an institution such as a school or university that provides you access to it, you probably need to access it through a public library. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my OED search in the previous answer. Myrvin (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using this [14]. There are several crossword solving sites. This does anagrams as well. Myrvin (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another one is Chambers Word Wizard. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about, some known letters, followed by - or following - some unknown letters whose number is not known either? HOOTmag (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try * in [15]. It works in OED advanced search too (see above). Myrvin (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free and better might be [16] - use * again. Myrvin (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Download a raw list of English words (like this) and try a search using regular expressions (I advise doing a search in Notepad++). For example: b??t??n gives such words as bastion, boatman, Britain, etc. (I do not give all the result).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although not a website, AlgoSim (algosim.com) can do this. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LY. I used to have one of those, but lost it. Myrvin (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]