Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 January 13
Language desk | ||
---|---|---|
< January 12 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 14 > |
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 13
editdifference between pool and pond
editWhat is the difference between pool and pond? If there is one in the fields dug for watering the plants, which should be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.202.187.153 (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- A pool has more defined edges and shape, with something forming the outside of it. A pond is more like a small lake, with soil defining the sides and bottom. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- The term "pond" is cognate with "pound" and implies an enclosed space (in this case, filled with water).[1] The term "pool" means "small body of water",[2] and while what Mike said is true for a swimming pool or other small bodies of water, the term "pool" can also designate an area within a larger body of water, often with a specifying adjective, such as the "plunge pool" of a waterfall, or a "whirlpool", or a calm pool such as the one just ahead of the brink of Victoria Falls, as shown by these knuckleheads.[3] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would call the body of water dug in the fields for watering the plants a pond. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Pond is more specific - a pool can be anything from a puddle in the palm of your hand to a largish lake. Not sure about the "defined edges" argument, see Dozmary Pool. Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that may have "Pool" as part of its proper name, but having seen it in Google Street View, if I encountered it without knowing its name I would refer to it as a pond. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- If it were in The Land of 10,000 Lakes, it would most definitely qualify as a "lake". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- The word pool has connotations of depth and/or of being a place where water collects. In North American English, it refers to 1) a place where water has collected, in which case it is synonymous with puddle, 2) a purpose built basin for wading or swimming, or 3) a deep spot in a stream or river, for example at the base of a waterfall. The word pond refers in North American English to 1) a small artificial reservoir, or 2) a small lake. The word pool cannot refer to a lake in North American English. Marco polo (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- If it were in The Land of 10,000 Lakes, it would most definitely qualify as a "lake". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that may have "Pool" as part of its proper name, but having seen it in Google Street View, if I encountered it without knowing its name I would refer to it as a pond. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Pond is more specific - a pool can be anything from a puddle in the palm of your hand to a largish lake. Not sure about the "defined edges" argument, see Dozmary Pool. Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would call the body of water dug in the fields for watering the plants a pond. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I can't think of an argument for Marco Polo, so here's some soppy poetry instead:
- "A GARDEN is a lovesome thing, God wot! / Rose plot, / Fringed pool, / Fern’d grot— / The veriest school / Of peace..." Alfred, Lord Tennyson.
- Fact remains, pond is a better word, whichever side of the pool you're on ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Glad he did not ask for the difference between a Sea and a Pond (see Billington Sea.) Collect (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- A bit more Googling suggests that in England, a "pool" can be an artificial lake (Blue Pool), a coastal bay or cove (Chapmans Pool) or even a river (Rusland Pool). Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Generally, seasonal wetlands in the US are called vernal pools, [4] -- one supposes it maybe possible to artificially create one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- My feeling is that it is a matter of size. A vernal pool is more like a puddle than a pond. It's a deep spot that water drains into, seasonally. Anything larger than about 80 meters in width would more likely be called an intermittent pond or lake than a vernal pool. Marco polo (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would not think a puddle creates and sustains a unique ecology, like a vernal pool does. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- My feeling is that it is a matter of size. A vernal pool is more like a puddle than a pond. It's a deep spot that water drains into, seasonally. Anything larger than about 80 meters in width would more likely be called an intermittent pond or lake than a vernal pool. Marco polo (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Using the word however.
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi,
I've got an English question that has to do with the transitional phrase however. More specifically, where it goes in a sentence. Another editor is changing every sentence which begins with however in a particular article I am watching and leaving almost never a good idea to start a sentence with 'However', [...] - Malleus in the edit summary. In some cases, it actually seems like an improvement, but in others, I'm not so sure. To be honest English wasn't my strongest subject at school so I tried looking online. It seems like there are lots of sentences that begin with however. I guess it could just be a matter of personal style, but not sure. Here are some examples of sentences that were edited.
- Original: However, there is no clear record of when drops were introduced.
Edited: There is no clear record of when drops were introduced, however.
- Original: However, it is thought that these were only played to a very limited extent.
Edited. It is thought that these were played to only a very limited extent, however.
- Original: However, this is not equivalent to the more traditional way of "gaining professional status," [...]
Edited: This is not equivalent, however, to the more traditional way of "gaining professional status", [...]
I not sure why the first two edits were needed since moving however from the beginning of the sentence to the end IMO does not seem like an improvement at all. I can understand the third edit and it does seem better to me.
Is there a specific rule relating to the word however and where it should go in a sentence? Thanks in advance. Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
12 mre examples |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You forgot to add these, as well ...
|
- The idea that a sentence should never start with "However" is rather outdated. Most writers these days use it in that way, and Fowler's Modern English has no objection to it as long as it is immediately followed by a comma, and gives the following example from William Golding: "I should be so angry if the situation were not so farcial. However, I had a certain delight in some of the talk."--Shantavira|feed me 08:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- My understanding is that however should be used between two clauses. One suggestion is to join two sentences with a semicolon; however, the two sentences should be relatively short ones. Note however, that you also can refer indirectly to the previous sentence or idea. ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- To be clear, however can also be used as an adverb (it's in the class that also includes who(m)ever, wherever, whatever, whenever), and it is certainly not followed by a comma in that case: However you do it, I want it finished by 8 o'clock. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@Ihardlythinkso: Once again, I am truly sorry for any comments I made here that offended you. I have stuck them out as well as a sign of my sincerity. I wasn't my intent to call into question your integrity as an editor. I should have chosen my words more carefully. Marchjuly (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
|
- Strunk & White recommend placing "however" first when it means "in whatever way" or "to whatever extent", and not placing it first when it means "nevertheless" [6]. This is not a firm grammatical rule, but it does have some support even before The Elements of Style [7] and is now accepted by many as good style (largely on the authority of the book).
MalleusThe other editor is enforcing this rule, but in a slightly odd way: the examples in Strunk & White place "however" within a clause, not at the end. Their clear preference is for "however" in second position. I'm not at all sure they would approve of placing it at the end of a sentence, even if it is consistent with the rule as they stated it. The rule about "however" is one of the visible signs that distinguished people in different camps on questions of grammar and style. You don't have to follow it, but following it won't hurt anything -- and it will make some people happier. Personally, I follow the advice from The Elements of Style, but I wouldn't impose it on someone else's writing. - Although you didn't ask about it, there are a couple of things that should certainly be avoided:
- Using "however" as a fancy version of "but".
- Dropping in a "however" sentence to try to argue for or against something. This often leads to Wikipedia articles with whole paragraphs that run "However, A. However, B. However, C." They seem to be arguing with themselves.
- These are bigger issues than whether or not you follow the however-first rule. --Amble (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Amble for all that great info. I actually felt putting however and the end of those sentences made them sound slightly worse. I thought about changing them back to the original sentence and then asking for a discussion, but this other person seemed so sure. I have no idea who Malleus is and I tried searching on the Internet, but had no luck. Plus, this other person makes so many edits in a short period of time, self-reverts many of them within a few minutes, and then goes back and re-edits them to something else. So, I thought it would be best to let the dust settle first and ask here. I kinda agree with you in that using too many howevers may spoil the broth. Thanks again --Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Professor Irwin Corey, who is due to turn 100 in July and already looked old in the 1960s, would sometimes start his lectures with "However..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Baseball Bugs for the reply. People who have lived to be 100 probably are right more times than not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not directly related to your question, but we should be very cautious about using the word "however" in Wikipedia articles at all: see WP:EDITORIALIZING. --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks ColinFine. I'm learning new stuff about Wikipedia each and every day. I didn't know that, so thanks for the link. Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:MOS#Semicolon before "however".
- —Wavelength (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Wavelength Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Ihardlythinkso is correct. I mistakenly left out the quotations marks for the name Malleus in that edit summary. It was completely unintentional and silly mistake on my part. I should have been more careful. I sincerely apologize to Ihardlythinkso, Eric Corbett and anyone else misled by my mistake.Marchjuly (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: As you can see above in this thread, the article was a mess. I tried to improve it. (I did improve it.) It's a bit demoralizing to have an editor come here and display a selected fraction of my edits on the grammar issue, and then suggest my copyedit work might not be "the Wikipedia way". (The background is that I reverted this new-ish editor at the article early on, went to his user Talk to attempt a WP:BRD, and since then he has been consulting grammar reference boards over minor aspects of my overall editing, leaving innuendo remarks – such as reminding reference board participants how polite he is and of his "spreading good karma" in comparison to the "unpleasnat experience" he had with me on his user Talk. An editor here has gone to the user's Talk as a result of this thread to assure him he was "polite all around". Oh sure. That's a selective point of view. While I'm the editor receiving the negative innuendo comments by this user. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
|
- Many people advise (some quite strongly) against beginning a sentence with however, and the advice is certainly reinforced by its appearance in the popular and influential Elements of Style. However, that advice is questionable at best, as Geoff Pullum shows on page three of this article. Good writers begin sentences with however all the time, and there should be no blanket prohibition of the practice. It often comes down to personal preference and what "sounds right"; personally, I agree with Marchjuly
is correct, I believe, in observing that several of the suggested "corrections"that the first two examples that began this threadware no improvementwere fine the way they were. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC), edited 00:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
closed continuing argumentation |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Wipe you mouth.
editWhen you want to ask somebody to remove the sauce or any bits of food left around his mouth after eating, is it okay to just say, "Wipe your mouth."? Thank you.203.228.255.210 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- That seems a bit insistent and I would only use it with a close friend. With someone else I might say, "You have a bit of food..." and then point to the same place on my own face. Dismas|(talk) 14:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't even use it with a close friend. If I had children, I would use it only with them. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- In most varieties of English, using a simple imperative form like that implies that the person speaking is a superior and the person receiving the command is an inferior. It is most often used by parents toward children, but it might also be used from a commanding officer in the military to a subordinate or from a prison guard to a prisoner. If an adult outside a military or penal institution uses the simple imperative toward another adult, particularly when it has to do with the recipient's body, the person receiving the command will feel disrespected and insulted. Even in the workplace, a boss would not normally say to a subordinate "Wipe your mouth" because it would be insulting. (Maybe an abusive boss would do this.) On the other hand, in some workplaces, it is okay for a boss to use the simple imperative to command a work task that does not refer to the employee's body (for example, "Make 20 copies of this report.") In my workplace, bosses would not use the simple imperative even to assign a work task. Instead, they might say "Could you make 20 copies of this report?", softening the command by putting it in question form. Because the command to wipe the mouth has to do with a person's body, even the question form would be insulting. You would not normally say "Could you wipe your mouth?" I can imagine a wife saying that to a husband, because they are intimate, but even then the husband would feel a bit disrespected or put down. Instead you would say something like, "You might want to give your mouth a wipe." Even this is something that you can only say to someone you know. If it is a stranger or someone you don't know well, the most you can do is say, "Um, excuse me..." and then maybe pantomime with a napkin, and smile in a friendly way. Marco polo (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, with a minor provision that tone is important when it comes to issuing commands like this. Between close friends, even something as blunt as "Wipe your mouth!" could still be acceptable, if the tone of voice and/or body language made it clear that the command was in fact just a suggestion. Matt Deres (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Just added "please" after would soften it enough for me. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yep, a tone of exasperation or touch of humor would do it. It's really defensiveness among English-speaking cultures about who has a right to give us direct commands. That said, the original formulation is still a bad idea and the better thing to do is just draw the person's attention to it (using a gesture with "you might..." or "you've, uh, got a little...") — LlywelynII 08:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Why do we care?
editThe question demonstrates the discomfort most people feel around others who aren't aware they have stuff around their mouths. It extends to speakers who frequently develop little patches of white spittle on their lips or the corners of their mouth, and some are notorious for it (John Howard, for example).
I wonder why it bothers us so much. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because as they talk there's a significant chance that sauce or spittle may fly your way ? StuRat (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- That per se never bothered me, I must say. Just the look of it is enough. Often, when I saw Howard speaking on TV (where there was zero chance of being sprayed), I had the urge to reach out and wipe it off his mouth, or shout something unrepeatable at his minders who had failed in their duties. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe white stuff around the mouth can be an external sign of one of those evil, possibly highly contagious diseases "we" realised we needed to avoid thousands of years ago. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- If a speaker is careless about his personal appearance, it can compromise his message. A good example would be if the guy has his fly open. Are you listening to the speech? Or are you focused on his open fly, and wondering if he's really that unobservant, and if so, whether what he has to say reflects that inattentiveness. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's an interesting thing. The John Howard I refer to has always been an impeccable dresser. In early-mid career he had some teeth work done to enhance his looks. He was noted for his daily vigorous morning walks to keep himself reasonably fit. Clearly he was very concerned about his visual appearance, as any half-decent politician should be. So it was always odd that such a person would be so prone to the spittle drop problem. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe nobody told him. Sometimes politeness can hurt instead of help. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I find that impossible to believe. He was Prime Minister of Australia for 11 years, and was a major public figure for over 20 years prior to that. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- He's deaf. Maybe he didn't hear them. I agree that his suits were always impeccable. Not so sure about the tracksuits. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)