Language desk
< January 16	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 18 >

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.

January 17

Analysis of "the ruin of many a poor boy"

What syntactic structure is "the ruin of many a poor boy"? Why not say "the ruin of many poor boys"? Llaanngg (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic license. And possibly to consider them as individuals rather than a group. Especially as the singer of "House of the Rising Sun" is identifying himself as one of those individuals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you're an Animals fan; the song is supposed to be sung from the POV of a woman (discussed briefly in the article and here). Matt Deres (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent linguistic studies (such as this one) seem to refer to it simply as "the many a NOUN construction". If you Google "many a" construction, you'll find a number of not-very-enlightening discussions about it on the Web. I suppose it's one more thing that's just all in the game. Deor (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a practical reason. A trailing "s" can tend to sound like hissing, especially when sung. Singers will try to soften that trailing "s". But if they turn it into a singular, it not only sounds more poetic, it also avoids the problem. (Although in these examples, it's more of a "z" sound.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See "Many a New Day" from the Rogers & Hammerstein musical "Oklahoma!" (1943). Song lyrics, even more than metric poetry not set to music, consider syllabification and stress patterns besides the sheer value of a wording less common than everyday speech. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a one of a kind construction as Deor pointed out, the "many a" construction, strictly restricted to "many". Speculation: Maybe it comes from taking "many" to mean "many times". Or maybe "a" is not what we think. Maybe the "a" is in fact a reflex of "of" with "many a" meaning "a great quantity of". If so we would expect this to be followed by a plural, but maybe there was a plural there until the expression became frozen and the "a" misinterpreted. End speculation. But seriously I'd love to see a history of the usage of that phrase. If anyone has access to the OED it'd be great if they could look this phrase up. It is already in Chaucer: for example there's a bunch of occurrences in the Prologue to the Canterbury Tales (search for "many a" in your browser). On the other hand I can't find even one occurrence in the whole of the text of Langland's Piers Plowman (careful: this text takes a bit to load). In any case it is definitely restricted to just "many". Not only can you not say "*few a woman" but it seems you can't even expand "many" to "very many" or "too many": "*I've walked very many a mile" or "*I've walked too many a mile" do not sound entirely right to me (but then not entirely wrong either). The noun that follows "many a" does not seem to be restricted in any way. Another example in song is in Led Zeppelin's "Gallows Pole" "Hangman, hangman, turn your head awhile, I think I see my sister coming, riding many a mile." But this has no purpose other than to encourage you to listen to that great song.

Contact Basemetal here 18:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest citation of the "many a" construction in the OED is from Layamon's Brut: "Al þa twa ferden of moni ane eærde." It does seem to be an early Middle English construction; the more familiar "many + plural noun" occurs in Old English, but "many + singular noun"—as in Alfred the Great's translation of Orosius: "þæt Estland is swyðe mycel, & þær bið swyðe maniᵹ burh"—is cited from even earlier OE and may (I suppose) be the original construction. Deor (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the singular acceptable in OE after any word meaning "many" or "few", or is that restricted to manig? Contact Basemetal here 21:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... The OED suggests that the expression might derive from the earlier, obsolete, "many one". The phrase "many a time" has been used at least since the early fifteenth century by many a well-known writer. The OED has a total of two thousand, six hundred and ninety-one cites that use the "many a" construction, so it is a very common idiom in English. Dbfirs 21:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I'd like to know why "many one" was ok but now "few one". That I think is the as yet unexplained oddity. Contact Basemetal here 21:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

German name of Oskar Schindler's Enamelware Factory

There's a discrepancy between several language versions of the page Oskar Schindler's Enamel Factory of its name in the original German:

Deutsche Emailwarenfabrik (DEF) - in WP English, French and Polish WPs
Emaillewarenfabrik (not the full name) in the German WP
Duitse Emaillewarenfabriek ('Deutsche Emaillewarenfabrik) [sic] in the Dutch WP

Does the German text describe with an adjectival form rather than give the actual name? Does the Dutch page include an inadvertent corruption based on the Dutch spelling? I need the correct German name for a museum exhibit where at present I don't have access to any archival documentation that might clear this up. On the other hand, if any of the WP pages require correcting I'd prefer the decision be made by an editor more linguistically adept than I. Your advice is appreciated by -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both "Emailwarenfabrik" and "Emaillewarenfabrik" are orthographically correct in German, and both are used in reliable German sources in relation to Schindler. This book [1], p.671, cites the title of an original document from Schindler's archive as using "Emailwarenfabrik", but that probably doesn't guarantee that other documents might not have used the other spelling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this [2] page has several photographs showing "Emailwarenfabrik" on the sign above the entrance gate, but it seems those are screenshots from the movie, not original contemporary photos. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, this should settle it: the official letterhead on an original document, reproduced here [3]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] This page from the Malopolska Virtual Museums project (which looks entirely respectable, although we don't have an article on it) gives the history of the factory. It would appear that "Deutsche Emailwarenfabrik (DEF)" is the most official form of the name. Tevildo (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See vitreous enamel products. Emailwarenfabrik means vitreous enamel products factory[4] --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 12:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google translators spelling is still wrong pronunced. It still sounds like "em@il". --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 12:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[OP adds]: My original query arose from real-life GLAM-work but now involves consistency between pages in this Wikipedia. My understanding of the above clarifications indicates the authentic spelling for the factory name is Emailwarenfabrik (or -fabrik or Fabrik, still unclear as the one document we've seen is a letterhead and not inline text). Searching the English WP for Emaillewaren and Emaillewarenfabrik yields four pages (one being Wiktionary) for the former and three pages for the latter - all of which I'm going to change to Emailwaren or Emailwarenfabrik, respectively - unless any objections are raised here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emailwarenfabrik and Emaillewarenfabrik is right, due Email and Emaille still is or was used. de:Emaille redirects also. Taken from the discription, the company name was made. Apperears to have no scientific background, the Dutch translaltion is made by meaning, maybe correct if the Schindlers company took an exclusive license in Nazi Deutschland, it might be the correct description. Just look for references for changes in the Wikipedia. Check, if Schindler had such license or just took a name. Nazi Deutschland was very restictive also in business. Some todays advertising still focus on such national and exclusive brandnames to suggest like the Made in Germany a similar quality that is defined by exclusion on national borders, only. If that names are trademarks would be another question. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerzy Gross Entlasspapiere 1.jpg is a letterhead with the proper noun on it. For the common noun both spellings "Email" and "Emaille" occur. Note, however, that both terms differ a bit in spelling, pronunciation, gender and connotation (German, French), see [5]. In a German text written today I would use "Deutsche Emailwarenfabrik" for the proper noun and "Emaillewarenfabrik" for the common noun, for the word "Email" acquired a second meaning after the year 2000 and might confuse some readers. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"North, Central America and the Caribbean"

CONCACAF stands for Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football. Does anyone else find this odd? I think that a comma only, with no conjunction, is normally used when more than two adjectives qualify the same noun (except between the last two of them):

North, Central(,) and South America(n)

But when there are only two, there's the conjunction and:

North and Central America(n)(,) and (the) Caribbean

If, say, a basket contains three types of fruits: (1) red apples, (2) green apples, and (3) oranges, one wouldn't say that there are "red, green apples and oranges", right? I've often seen commas substituting and's in newspaper headlines like "Man Wins House, Car In Lottery" - does this have anything to do? What do you think about that? --Theurgist (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. But who's to say it's the one or the other? Just because Wikipedia or even the CONCACAF site say so doesn't make it Gospel truth. Maybe it is your equivalent that's actually the correct one. Do we have the minutes of the meeting where this name was thought up? Take for example the Spanish language equivalent. Spanish WP gives "Confederación de Norteamérica, Centroamérica y el Caribe de Fútbol" which is much worse even. Not only does Norteamérica contribute only N while Centroamérica contributes CA but the order is not even idiomatic in Spanish where you'd expect "Confederación de Fútbol de Norteamérica, etc." I would tend to think the correct Spanish equivalent would be "Confederación Norte- y Centro-Américana y Caribeña de Fútbol" just like in your English version. Contact Basemetal here 21:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The web site includes the league's statutes, which I think would be the most authoritative possible source for the name. In English, Article 1, Section 1 specifies that

The organization shall be called "The Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football" or "CONCACAF" and shall be composed of National Associations belonging to North America, Central America and the Caribbean.

I agree that this is incorrect English usage, but it is their name, and they have the right to call themselves whatever they like. Note also that the 7th word is "America", not "American" as the original poster wrote. In English as I use it, "American" would definitely be more natural.

By the way, in Spanish:

La organización se llamará "Confederación de Fútbol Asociación de Norteamérica, Centroamérica y el Caribe" o "CONCACAF" y estará compuesta por las asociaciones nacionales pertenecientes a Norteamérica, Centroamérica y el Caribe.

So the acronym is clearly based on the English-language name alone. I note in passing that acronyms sometimes omit the letters from minor words like "and", so even if the name had had an "and" before "Central", they might still have chosen to use "CONCACAF" as the acronym in place of "CONACACAF". --76.69.45.64 (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "American" rather than "America" because the Wikipedia article had it so. I have now modified it so it matches the CONCACAF document, and cited the document as a source. That actually is the 6th word, counting the initial "The" (or the 5th word, not counting it). --Theurgist (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]