Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 August 10

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.

August 10

Number in a sequence

What question would you ask to get the answer "Barack Obama is the 44th US president"?

A friend and I are discussing this, and it's hard for me to come up with something that sounds good. So far we have:

• "What number president is Barack Obama?"
• "Which number president is Barack Obama?"

Both seem awkard to me, even if each is used. I was wondering what y'all think? Is there a better way to phrase it? Also, if you wouldn't mind mentioning what general variety of English you speak, that would be interesting to note. I speak American English (Southeast).

Thanks, Falconus^{p t c} 17:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I was sure this had been discussed here several times before, but I could only find one instance, which was about translating from Tagalog. There isn't a standard way of expressing this in English. People with a mathematical bent often say "How many'th", but this is not standard in any English as far as I know. --ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

How about: "What is Barack Obama's ranking in the sequence of US Presidents?"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I would ask "Who is Barack Obama?" That's British (i.e.English) English. Widneymanor (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I considered that, but it would probably receive the answer "He's the US President". We need to get "the 44th" mentioned somehow. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Jeopardy:

"I'll take sequence numbers for 100, Alex."

"44th President of the United States."

"Who is Barack Obama?"

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a misanalysis, Bugs. Any question matching the answer "44th President of the United States" will satisfy Jeopardy's rules. But outside that context, not all of those questions will result in the answer "Barack Obama is the 44th US president". We need a question that is guaranteed to produce that answer, and "Who is Barack Obama" is certainly not such a question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• An infinite number of questions elicit any given answer. It's why Kant's categorical imperative is such blatant nonsense. In addition to the perfectly cromulent questions suggested above, there are:

1. What's a sentence beginning with the letter "b"?
2. What's a sentence with seven words, assuming US and 44th are single words?
3. What's a sentence with nine words assuming they aren't?
4. What's the saddest current fact in US history?
5. Who's the 44th US president?
6. What is a sentence that would generate the acronym BOITFUP or BOITFFUSP depending on how one describes 44th and US?
7. Which US president is numbered the 44th?
8. Who is numbered the 44th US president?
9. Which human being is counted as the 44th US president?

Etc., and so on. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) if you want to put together a question (that you might ask in a quiz), something like "If George Washington is the first president of the United States, what is Barack Obama?" might work. [Note that some people may disagree with the premise and/or give an answer of 45 - see Peyton Randolph and David Rice Atchison]. Of your two phrases, I personally (BrE speaker) would say "What number president is Obama?". Tevildo (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Randolph and Atchison quibbles are trivial, but the answer "43rd" would be defensible — Obama is counted as 44th because of Grover Cleveland, the only president to serve non-consecutive terms. Obama is only the 43rd unique individual to serve as POTUS, but he is the 44th if you count the presidents as an ordered multiset. This is actually an example I like to give of why multisets are natural (another is baseball, when you can have ten men come to bat in an inning even though there are only nine playing on the team). --Trovatore (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks all! It's interesting that we can't come up with a different way to phrase that question for casual conversation. Falconus^{p t c} 13:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, interesting. We ought to be able to say "Whichth president is Barack Obama?" Duoduoduo (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

German has a word for "how-manieth"; you can say "Der wievielte Präsident ist Barack Obama?" Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"If Stephen Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th, what is Barack Obama?" Dbfirs 19:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"Where does Barack Obama fall in the sequence of US Presidents?" should do it. Though "most recent" etc. are correct answers without giving the number.--Wikimedes (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

From Doctorow's Metacrap:

• 2.7 There's more than one way to describe something

• "No, I'm not watching cartoons! It's cultural anthropology."
• "This isn't smut, it's art."
• "It's not a bald spot, it's a solar panel for a sex-machine."

• Reasonable people can disagree forever on how to describe something. Arguably, your Self is the collection of associations and descriptors you ascribe to ideas. Requiring everyone to use the same vocabulary to describe their material denudes the cognitive landscape, enforces homogeneity in ideas. And that's just not right.

μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Psalms in meter

This is a KJV Bible question. What is meant by "Psalms in meter"?--LordGorval (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That usually refers to poetry, which is what the Psalms are. Where did you see that sentence fragment? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps OP is referring to Metrical psalter? bibliomaniac15 21:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Psalms of David in Metre. Why do they say "David"?--LordGorval (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

A subset of the Psalms are attributed directly to David. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to explain in more detail, because I think there are some things that the OP may not be understanding in general about the Book of Psalms. The Book of Psalms, or "The Psalter", is a song book or hymnal. That it, it is a collection of musical pieces designed to be sung in religious ceremonies. The various Psalms often have non-lyrical notes and marginalia that go with them, ascribing the author of the song, its use in ceremony, or the style of song it is. When you see a note alongside a Psalm that says something like "A psalm of David", that means that David has been ascribed as the author of that Psalm. Other notes like "in meter" or the like are probably notes designed to tell how they are supposed to be sung. --Jayron32 17:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The Psalms in most translations of the Bible are translated for meaning, not meter. That is, while the originals were in verse and intended to be sung, the translations are not written in English verse form and are not really singable. Psalms "in meter" are translated into English verse form so they can be sung. For example, the King James Version of Psalm 23 begins:

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

Whereas a metrical version of it I remember learning as a child, which can be sung to the tune of "Amazing Grace", goes something like:

The Lord's my shepherd, I'll not want

He makes me down to lie

In pastures green; he leadeth me

The quiet waters by. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Even at that, you have to stretch some of the syllables to make it fit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the Book of Common Prayer's translations of the psalms are literal, not metrical, is the reason why Anglican chant is designed to allow you to sing as many or as few syllables as necessary on certain notes. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, little lines called "pointing" | tells you when to | change notes | in an Anglican choral psalter. | The rest of the congregation | have to guess! Alansplodge (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless their copy is pointed too! On youtube you can find a very funny video from the 1960s of a choir singing traffic regulations in the style of Anglican chant. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Response to Bugs — this is why metrical psalters frequently use uncommon synonyms, and why they're occasionally criticised (whether by people who have produced newer editions or by people who reject exclusive psalmody) as having extremely stilted language in order to facilitate the rhyme or the metre. One reason metrical psalters are used is that Anglican chant (and similar methods for singing non-metrical texts) is less intuitive to the untrained singer than the "normal" singing that's possible with a metrical translation. My own church included a few psalms pointed for Anglican chant in the otherwise-metrical psalter that we published in 1973, but although I'm a lifelong member, I can't remember the chants ever being used except in a few "let's try to learn the hard ones" group settings. Not surprisingly, they're all gone from the metrical psalter that was published a couple of years ago. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it reads more like if Yoda were saying it. I'm just saying that it doesn't really work with "Amazing Grace". It rhymes, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Both are in common metre, so they can be sung to each other's tunes and along with such unusual tunes as the "Ballad of Gilligan's Isle". The ability to switch tunes is one result of translating lots of texts into the same metre, especially in contexts when people don't have a psalm-book or a musical score, because the leader can line out the text according to a few tunes that everyone knows. It can get boring if you're singing everything to one of just a few tunes, but if your church wanted to sing all of the psalm selections and didn't have more than one or two books with printed music, it was far easier to have all of the psalms in one or two metres, so that people didn't have to learn a pile of tunes by using the Think System. See split-leaf psalter for a printed psalm-book that takes advantage of a small number of metres in order to provide a wide variation in tunes. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not enough syllables in the first line. If you spelled out the contractions, it might work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The/Lord's/my/shep/herd/I'll/not/want, eight, just as A/maz/ing/grace/how/sweet/the/sound, eight. Nyttend (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Lo-ord's my shepherd / I-I'll not want." You have to stretch it in the original song as well: "A-ma-zi-i-ing grace / How sweet the sound". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Crimond by Jessie Seymour Irvine is the tune usually associated with the metrical Psalm 23 in both England and Scotland. It was sung at the Queen's wedding; she allegedly sang the descant down the telephone to the choir master at Westminster Abbey, as he had never heard it before. Old 100th was sung at the Coronation of Elizabeth II, the first time in a thousand years that the congregation had been invited to join in the singing. Just to mention that metrical Psalms were the invention of the Calvinists, whose Scottish branch, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, was responsible for the most well known English language ones. In the Church of England, metrical Psalms are treated as hymns. Alansplodge (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers.--LordGorval (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Even today, my Catholic parish sings a disproportionate number of hymns to the tune Star of the County Down. It's a nice tune that everyone likes and can sing, and a lot of hymns fit it (7-6-7-6-7-6-7-6). 86.140.54.107 (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Using "through" and "by" correctly in a single sentence?

I am stuck with using "through" and "by". Here are the following examples:

• ...may be supported by taxpayers through the local government. (A)
• ...may be supported by the local government through taxpayers. (B)
• ...may be supported through taxpayers by the local government. (C)
• ...may be supported through the local government by taxpayers. (D)

The idea is that the tax payers send money to the local government, and the local government take the money to fund public works. I have added letters A, B, C, and D to the four examples, so that I can easily cite a sentence without rewriting the whole sentence. I think A and D mean the same thing, and B and C mean the same thing, because the only change in A and D or B and C is the reversal of the dependent clause in either coupled sentences. So, between A and B or D and C, which sentence most accurately summarizes the idea? Sneazy (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal opinion: A and D (and preferably A) are the best formulation. The money passes from the taxpayers, through the government, to whatever it's spent on. Nothing is going through the taxpayers. There's nothing wrong with B and C if you eliminate "through taxpayers", though, since local governments presumably get all their money via taxation, so the taxpayers are understood. Deor (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur that A and D are correct, and that A sounds better. As to Deor's quibble: local governments do have other sources of revenue, which vary: special purpose grants; programs funded by higher levels of government; private endowments left for a dedicated purpose; specialized revenue streams (Wisconsin's state lottery profits fund education, for example) and so on. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

While A & D are probably what you're after, B & C certainly aren't wrong. In A & D you're emphasizing that the funds are originating from the taxpayers and are simply being channeled through the local govenment to accomplish the goal. In modern times we like to think that government functions as the expression of the will of the people (consent of the governed and all that), but that's not always the case. B & C can be used to highlight that perspective, as B & C give agency to the local government, and relegate taxpayers to tools which the local govenment is using to accomplish that support. e.g. "The golf course to nowhere is being supported by Mayor Kickback and his cronies through increased taxes on working people and small businesses." It need not be that severe, but whoever you put in the "by" clause is the actor in the support, and who you put in the "through" is the means by which they accomplish it. -- 71.35.121.78 (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

wonder (verb)

In English, the verb wonder can be used with several conjunctions, such as wonder if, wonder about, wonder whether, and wonder why.

• I wonder if my sister is all right.
• I wonder about my sister's well-being.
• I wonder whether my sister is well (or not).
• I wonder why my sister is ill.

Now, I need to find a legitimate statement that involves wonder that.

• I wonder that I can see a magical tooth fairy.

I do not see how the fifth sentence is a legitimate sentence. I don't even know what it means. Sneazy (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be the second meaning of "wonder" as a verb given here: "To be affected with surprise or admiration; to be struck with astonishment; to be amazed; to marvel." Now, I'm not sure I've ever heard that sense of the word used with a "wonder that" construction, but I don't see any reason why it would be grammatically or logically incorrect. (For example, replace "wonder" with "marvel" and it doesn't seem odd at all.) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

EO mentions the "wonder that" usage.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you not say, to continue picking on your poor sister, "My sister has been ill for so long it's a wonder that she ain't dead." CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but you also change the part of speech. Sneazy (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and "it's a wonder that" is the only way those two words could be reasonably juxtaposed in contemporary English, imo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Using "for" to imply a contrast

Why is the word for being used to imply a contrast?

• For a person with rudimentary crafting skills, Sam has been given a prestigious award and a lofty title. Sneazy (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Are these homework questions? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I swear that these are not homework questions. These are linguistic questions, though. Sneazy (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems a somewhat malformed sentence. I would expect to hear something more like:

• For a person with such rudimentary crafting skills, it's remarkable that Sam has been given such a prestigious award and lofty title. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That may be an improvement, but it also shifts the emphasis away from Sam's relative lack of skill, at least as I read it. The original sounds a great deal more like the standard backhanded compliment. For example, "Sam has been given a prestigious award and a lofty title for a person with such rudimentary crafting skills." (c.f. "You're pretty good at baseball, for a girl.") Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Such constructions usually rely on an intensifier such as "very", "awfully", "remarkably", "rather" etc before "prestigious". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Reminds me of an old story about a guy trying to come up with a compliment for his unappealing blind date: "For a fat girl, you don't sweat much." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

So, does anybody know why the word "for" is to imply contrast, linguistically speaking? Sneazy (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You are looking at two things. First, for is being used to mean in regards to being, which is a simple prepositional usage. The other is that the phrase has been topicalized by being moved to the front of the sentence. The first is too simple to be taught in grammar and the second is usually only explained if you take linguistics, so it seems odd to a layman, but isn't. μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

So, how is the topicalization of the sentence related to using the word "for" to imply contrast? Topicalization is referring to the emphasis. I'm looking for how the word "for" is used to imply contrast. So, I don't think you answered the question. Sneazy (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The topicalization merely makes it into a marked form for English sentence structure--it doesn't establish contrast, merely highlights it. The "in regards to" part implies comparison or contrast. There's no clearer way to explain that unless you need it translated into some other mother tongue. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not say "establish" or "highlight". I just used the term "imply". Why is it being used to imply contrast? Sneazy (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Like Medeis mentioned, "for" is not really indicating a contrast here, it's indicating a different kind of modification. Compare to a sentence like "He is short for a basketball player", meaning that someone is short with respect to what you would expect of a basketball player, not short overall. This is called subsective modification (see e.g. the latter half of this), which is different from predicative modification (e.g. "He is a male basketball player", which just means that he is male and a basketball player, unlike the other example which doesn't exactly mean that he is short and a basketball player).

JackOfOz: there's nothing ill-formed about the sentence for me (in AmEng), at least. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Impressive. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

In British English (as, perhaps, in Australian), the standard construction, explained so clearly by Rjanag, normally requires an active statement about Sam ("for a .... Sam is/has etc ... ") rather than a passive statement about what has been done to Sam. In spoken English, I would accept the extension to a passive following the "for a" construction, but I don't think I'd write it in the most formal of documents. Perhaps it's a question of style rather than grammar? The subject of the sentence is still Sam, so "malformed" is too strong to describe my slight uneasiness about the structure of the sentence. Dbfirs 06:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

So, can anybody explain how or why for is used to highlight/show/imply contrast? Sneazy (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The contrast comes from the fact that it would be easier to say nothing, or to say something simpler. It's somewhat idomatic. The more typical usage is something like "For someone who never went to school, Sam sure knows a lot." You use the "for" clause to set up a restricted subset, and then you make a comment on the superlative nature of the person within that set. (Sam might not necessarily know a lot in an absolute sense, but he's very good when compared to people in the restricted subset.) If the restictive had no bearing on the performance in the superlative, there would be no need to add the restictive. Therefore, by including the restrictive you imply that there's a connection. ("For a Foobar, Sam sure knows a lot." - if being a Foobar didn't have any influence on intellegence, you probably wouldn't have bothered to mention it.) Fast forward to idiomatic usage. Not only can we now just simply imply the superlative (with "lofty title" you're only making an implied comparison within the subset - that for the rudimentarilly skilled lofty titles are rare), but you can also make absolute statements about the subject, leaving only the implied connection between the abilities (predigious awards and lofty titles are rare even in the unrestricted set of craftspeople, but you're using the idiomatic "for" connection to say it's even more remarkable given the subset of people he happens to belong to). -- 71.35.121.78 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's any difference between your example and Sleazy's; neither is more "idiomatic" than the other, they're both quite normal.

Sleazy: why shouldn't it be "for"? This is just part of what the word means. Why do we use "explain" to mean what "explain" means; why do we use "above" to mean on top of and "below" to mean underneath, and not vice versa; etc.? The connection between words' form and what they mean is mostly arbitrary (that is one of the major properties of language). rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Rjanag, are you familiar with the story of the linguist who interviewed a zoo keeper? "Why," he asked, "do they call herbivores 'herbivores?" "Because they eat plants." "And why do they call pachyderms 'pachyderms'?" "Because they have thick skin." "And why do they call pigs 'pigs'?" "Because they're dirty, filthy, rotten beasts." μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a device called a comic triple, and also points out that even though we consume pork, we still have about as much disdain for hogs as they did in biblical times. A guy walks into a bar, carrying a duck on his shoulder. The bartender says, "What are you doing here with that pig?" The guy says, "This happens to be a duck." The bartender says, "I was talking to the duck!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, funny you mention that, since after I called my sister last night to test the joke on her (she's a biologist) I realized the same exact point, that the two set-up lines were needed for the third to work. Turns out we do have comic rule of threes. There's also something else going on in the joke though. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and explain. I'm kind of a jay. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It's based on the use-mention distinction. In the first two questions, when asked why he uses a certain word (sound-symbol) for a certain thing (class of natural being) the zookeeper explains the meaning of the words herbivore and pachyderm that come from their etymology in Latin and Greek respectively. In the case of pig he simply gives a tautology, implying that the word pig inherently applies to the animal we know in English as pig, because the inherent meaning of the sounds /pɪg/ are obviousl "dirty filthy rotten beast", regardless of any actual etymology. It is a variation of the "If the English of the KJV Bible was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me" joke in favor of requiring English as an official language, or the notion that only foreigners have accents. In the case of Sneazy, he's insisting on the fallacy in reverse. He wants to know why for means what it does, as if we could separate it into f- and -or and assign meanings to these synchronically. The best we can say is that historically this word has become associated with this meaning. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I see. The technique reminds of the answer to this Doonesbury joke: "What's the difference between the Hindenburg and Rush Limbaugh?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)