Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 September 21

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.

September 21

American/British English differences? BBC UK's use of "with"...

A caption from this article reads "It is unknown how long the couple had been in Tenerife, a popular place with British holidaymakers." That immediately struck me as odd. I would have phrased it "...a place popular with British holidaymakers." As written, to my American eyes it is synonymous with "...a popular place that also happens to have British holidaymakers as an accessory worth noting." That's a bit over the top, but you get my point. Does the original text seem strange to anyone else? Is this an editorial goof, my own regionalism, or a American/British divergence? The Masked Booby (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a balance between two awkwardnesses, the one you noted versus the uncolloquial sound of following a noun with a modifying adjective. You wouldn't (in the last couple of centuries) say "a place popular" ("Let's go there, it seems to be a place popular"), so it sounds odd even when it's a contraction of "a place that [or which] is [or has been or has become] popular with British holidaymakers". I think it's just that different English-speaking communities (and people in different contexts) handle the difficulty differently. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's just a British/American difference, and doesn't seem at all strange to my British eyes - although grammatically it is ambiguous. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

One stray sentence in a single travel article should not be given undue weight as representing the prevalence any particular usage, good or bad; sometimes, as we wiki-editors know too well, you just screw up and get careless with the keyboard, ya know?

However, for the record, a simple google search reveals:

• 947,000 results for a general web search of "a popular place with"
• 109,000 results for a general web search of "a place popular with"

• 33 results in 19th century books for the phrase "a popular place with"
• 0 results in 19th century books for the phrase "a place popular with"

• 163,000 results in 19th century books for the phrase "popular with"

Presented as a public service. Your mileage may vary. Textorus (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

should not be given undue weight <-- precisely why I asked, friend. Thank you for the stats. The Masked Booby (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Textorus (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As an American, the phrase doesn't sound odd to me, at all, so I can't see it as American vs. British useage. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Adjective#Form (point 1 of 4) (permanent link here), "In English, attributive adjectives usually precede their nouns in simple phrases, but often follow their nouns when the adjective is modified or qualified by a phrase acting as an adverb."

—Wavelength (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, from all this, we can be sure of at least one thing: Tenerife is a popular place without holidaymakers from the US. :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Latin help

Can someone tell me how to say "the miracle of the pope's return" in Latin? I'd appreciate it. It's for a short story I'm writing. Explaining the context is too involved.--162.84.161.15 (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Mirabile recursi Papae. Or Miraculum regressi Papae. Take your pick.

Slight variation: recursus/regressus mirabilis Papae: "miraculous return of the Pope." Textorus (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the difference between the various translations perhaps reveals the fact that with an isolated phrase such as this (as opposed to a complete sentence) it's very difficult to be certain what the most appropriate translation would be without an explanation of the context. --rossb (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Close/tight-knit communities

When some shocking event (murder, rape, take your pick) happens in a relatively small place, the media will invariably describe the community there as "tight-knit" or "close-knit". But why is it that communities are never so described in the good times? Or in tourist literature? Or in encyclopedias?

If they really were so "close-knit" as claimed, surely this would apply all the time. And be worthy of mentioning not only in the bad times. No? OK, maybe they're suggesting the community responds to the crisis and rallies to support the most grievously affected families or whomever. That's a nice image. But they don't become "tight-knit" only at that moment; they were always "tight-knit", but when the occasion demands, they're "tighter-knit".

Is this amenable to logical analysis, or is it just one more of those journalist cliches, like the way every funeral is described as "a moving ceremony" (as if that would surprise anyone, or be worthy of mentioning, as if to suggest the usual funeral is cold and unemotional). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh Jack, in this mortal life it's always a mistake to say "never." Here's just a few articles I googled with "tight knit community" that contradict your assertion:

• Neighbors cherish tight-knit community
• Brown College: a tight-knit community
• Berwyn Day celebrates community's tight knit nature

And the list goes on; those are just from the first page of 580,000 search results - some negative situations, yeah, but plenty of positive ones too. Textorus (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

PS - Just for fun: Couple's Divorce Stuns Tight-Knit Community Of Manhattan. Textorus (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with those comments. However, in my experience "tight-knit" can also sometimes be used by the press as a euphemism for "keeping their business to themselves", and not willing to talk to outsiders, journalists or (perhaps) the police. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It can mean anything. This from our Bob Dylan article: "Dylan’s parents, Abram Zimmerman and Beatrice "Beatty" Stone, were part of the area's small but close-knit Jewish community." Bus stop (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that, in UK usage, "tight-knit" would tend to have somewhat more negative connotations than "close-knit". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Its a knitting term. Obviously has its origin in this. Bus stop (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a journalistic cliché to me. As to its origin, it's a pretty obvious metaphor, since knit has several similar meanings. Lexicografía (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

One can knit one's brow, if one is so inclined. Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

...though not with Botox needles. --- OtherDave (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And children in tragic accidents are always popular, bright, well-loved and have lots of friends, it seems. As I have always understood it, it's just journalistic convention/padding to lighten up a rather gloomy passage, doesn't do anyone any harm. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, children in tragic accidents were always popular, with lots of friends. I don't understand its purpose being to lighten up a rather gloomy passage but rather to amplify sadness. I think its aim is to make that which is already tragic to seem even more tragic. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely we are talking about good old journalistic cliches. Brainless reporters with small vocabularies writing articles by using all the tired old phrases they have heard and assume must be used in this or that context. Papers and TV reports are riddled with them. Can anybody tell me who manages the "danger list" in any hospital. In the UK no hospital has a 'danger list', it is a made up figment (oops, tautology) of non-enquiring journalists' minds. Richard Avery (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly that didn't make much sense. What I meant was, it gives a light counterpoint to the gloom (even if the overall effect is to exaggerate the contrast). - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 22:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It made a lot of sense. Thanks for giving me something to pontificate about. Bus stop (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too over-analytical or harsh in judgment about these things, guys. Journalists have to write hundreds of such stories every year, and what exactly is it you would like them to say each time, in an ideal and perfectly logical world? "Kid croaked. Fell in reservoir. Parents shocked. Funeral Wednesday." --? When you've had the actual duty of writing things like this over and over - and when you've actually held the lifeless body of someone near and dear to you in your arms, beyond all recall - then perhaps you would be better able to judge the appropriate expression of information in such cases. It's not like reporting the minutes from the last city council meeting. There's a human factor to be considered here, just as important as the intellectual one. More so, actually. Textorus (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There is some truth to that. It doesn't entirely explain why journos feel the need to tell us over and over that funerals are emotional events, as if we'd never been to one; but there is some truth to it. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Members of the so-called community were struggling to give a damn about the inevitable death of the dim and smelly kid from number 14, who was playing chicken with passing lorries". "And he didn't have any friends anyway. Really—no one liked him. He was voted the least popular kid in our class at school." "The funeral was held on Friday, at the cemetery, in the rain. 3 people attended. It was pathetic."

Passive voice

Hi, These sentences use passive voice? Do they need correction, if so, how do I do so?

It was the last element found in nature, though some synthetic elements have later been found in nature.

and

It is the second-rarest naturally occurring element; in fact, it is estimated that only as little as one ounce is present in the earth’s crust at any one time.

I would also like to know if there are any other grammatical errors in these two sentences.
Thank you for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.27.58 (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

One at a time:

• "It was the last element found in nature, though some synthetic elements have later been found in nature.": The second clause is indeed in the passive voice, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. You may want to somehow remove the word "nature" from one of the clauses, since having it twice might be a little repetitive, but otherwise the sentence looks fine.
• "It is the second-rarest naturally occurring element; in fact, it is estimated that only as little as one ounce is present in the earth's crust at any one time." The only passive voice in this one is "it is estimated", but the rest of the sentence is OK. Lexicografía (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The main issue here is that the sentences use what Wikipedia calls "weasel words" (see WP:WEASEL). Instead of saying "it is estimated that..." you should say who estimated it, and give a reference. Looie496 (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the use of the passive voice in the first sentence is OK, because the reader probably doesn't care who found the other elements, and indeed mentioning the person who found the other elements may seem like too much detail. However, the first sentence is confusing logically. You say this element was the last one found in nature, then say someone found another element in nature. And if the second element is synthetic, how can it be found "in nature?" This is confusing to me. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There are no grammatical errors with either sentence. The first one sounds a bit awkward with the repetition of "nature"; why can't the sentence simply stop after the first clause? ("It was the last element found in nature." OR "It was the last naturally occurring element discovered.")

Also, I wonder if the two sentences could be recast for better clarity and concision. Suggestion: Of all the naturally occurring elements, X was the last to be discovered and is the second-rarest. Perhaps as little as one ounce is present in the earth's crust. Textorus (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The punctuation would be improved with a comma after 'second-rarest' and a hyphen between 'naturally' and 'occurring'. To my taste 'in fact' is redundant. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree about 'naturally-occurring', but I disagree about a comma where you say. That would mean that, of all the elements, it is the second-rarest one; and it also happens to be a naturally-occurring element. But that is not what the sentence is saying. It's saying that, of all the naturally-occurring elements, it is the rarest one. So, no comma. Since we're discussing commas, I'd definitely have a comma between 'my taste' and 'in fact' in your last sentence. Some may disagree. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Per MoS, a hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb. Textorus (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Related question

If a hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb, is there a need to remove the hyphen in the sentence: "Here's a randomly-generated value you can use", which is there at the "Watchlist" section of My preferences? --Theurgist (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that hyphen should be removed. —Angr (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)