Language desk
< June 19	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 20

the meaning of "mean"

I wonder what "mean" means in the following context. "Expanses unknown to deed or map are known to every dawn, and solitude, supposed no longer to exist in my county, extends on every hand as far as the dew can reach...A tractor roars warning that my neighbor is astir. The world has shrunk to those mean dimensions known to county clerks.We turn toward home, and breakfast." (Excerpt from Aldo Leopold's "A Sand County Almanac") Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.173.24 (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small. limited, restricted, inferior, poor, meagre Wymspen (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the various origins of "mean" interesting.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Some people mean to be mean when implying that target's intelligence is below the mean". StuRat (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I would tend to interpret it in the mathematical sense (but I may be wrong; "it looks like a nail to me"). --107.15.152.93 (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More like "Mr. Blacker, looking round the rather mean apartment with a little alarm..." (Charles Dickens, All Year Round, 1867). Alansplodge (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese wartime spelling reform

I remember reading that Hoàng Xuân Hãn, during the Japanese occupation of Vietnam, proposed a spelling reform of the Vietnamese language that entirely avoided the tone marks, using instead combinations of letters. I'd like to find more details about this orthographic plan. I refer specifically to changes proposed during the Empire of Vietnam period. Thanks! --2.37.228.109 (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may already be familiar with these, but there are several references at the end of the section Vietnamese alphabet#History—references 7, 8, and 9; one of them may deal with this. Loraof (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Were" vs. "had been"

Resolved

– 21:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

During the course of deverbosification, I typically change had been to were -- but am wondering about an overlooked nuanced distinction. Comments? --107.15.152.93 (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Had been" and "were" are certainly not interchangeable in general. Can you give an example sentence? --Trovatore (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the OP, but you could switch "We had been planning a trip to Paris" with "We were planning a trip to Paris" with little change of meaning. Matt Deres (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The former implies that the planning was limited to a time before the main action, whereas in the second, it is contemporary with the main action. --Trovatore (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The specificity of using "were" (instead of "was") in the query made me think that the OP might be considering counterfactual sentences, if I were... versus if I had been. In this case, they are essentially never interchangeable. "If I were" is for counterfactuals in present time; "if I had been" is for counterfactuals in past time. If I were a lion (now), I would be looking for my mate to bring me some fresh antelope, but if I had been a lion (at the time of some historic atrocity), I would have jumped into the fray and torn the evildoer to pieces. Does that help? --Trovatore (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OP, please do not change 'had been' to 'were' unless you know what you're doing. There is an important distinction. 'Were' is used for the simple past tense when the speaker or writer is reflecting on a historic event from the perspective of his current time. When the setting is already in the past, one uses 'had been' to refer to an even earlier time. Thus, when the speaker or writer is in the present:

"John and Emily were late for work on Tuesday 12 March 2004 due to illness."

"John told me in 2006 that he and Emily had been late for work on Tuesday 12 March 2004 due to illness." The 'had been' here refers to an even earlier time than 2006. Akld guy (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Emily were late for work on Tuesday" would be acceptable in the West Country dialect, but probably not elsewhere. Alansplodge (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe on the Joizee shore? --107.15.152.93 (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Example: He concluded that sugar gliders had been brought to Launceston as pets... --107.15.152.93 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. In that case, the point of had been is that the animals were brought to Launceston prior to his drawing that conclusion. "Were" is not wrong, but "had been" is more precise. Whether the extra precision is worth the slightly stilted sound is a matter of taste. --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; thank you (and others) for clarifying. In this case, "had been" is the better choice. --107.15.152.93 (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Were" should be considered wrong because it immediately plants in the reader's or hearer's mind that the context is the later time (2006, when John spoke in the example I gave) and then the mind struggles to make sense of the earlier time reference (2004) that he spoke about. Akld guy (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right; and with my example (from here), had been brought -occurred prior to- He concluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.152.93 (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or prior to an observation of sugar gliders in Launceston. —Tamfang (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]