Language desk | ||
---|---|---|
< October 25 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 27 > |
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. |
hi every one! i'm gonna start a new magazine! suggest me short stylich meaningful names of any language............... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.103.140 ( talk) 07:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Moved to misc desk here . FiggyBee ( talk) 13:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I received an email, and I was typing my reply. My very first sentence was this: Your email brings two thoughts to mind. I continued on, typing the rest of the email. Then, I went back to the very first sentence and I added in the following parenthetical: (and its accompanying questions). Now, my first sentence read: Your email (and its accompanying questions) brings two thoughts to mind. Mentally, I went back and forth 100 times, wondering if the verb should stay as singular brings or should be changed to plural bring. I was taught (I think?) that a parenthetical is absolutely irrelevant to sentence structure. The sentence should be able to stand alone if the parenthetical were completely removed. This leads me to believe that the correct verb should remain singular brings. However, at the same time, introducing the parenthetical seems to make the subject of the verb change from singular to plural. And hence require plural bring. No? So, here are my questions. (Question 1) In the new and revised sentence, with the added parenthetical, what exactly is the subject? Is it merely "your email" or is it "your email (and its accompanying questions)"? And, thus, what is the subject's appropriate verb? (Question 2) Would the answer to Question 1 change in any way if I rewrote the sentence by simply deleting the parentheses symbols and doing nothing else? In other words, is there any semantic / grammatical / linguistic difference between Sentence A and Sentence B below? Certainly, their substance and what they are communicating are exactly identical ... or no?
Sentence A: Your email (and its accompanying questions) brings two thoughts to mind.
Sentence B: Your email and its accompanying questions bring two thoughts to mind.
I understand that I can change words around, etc., to fix this problem. My question, though, presumes that I do not want to do so. Help! Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 16:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC))
As I mentioned above, you MUST formulate your sentence to read correctly when read out loud (i.e. where parenthetical marks are not possible). So it MUST be Your email (and its accompanying questions) bring two thoughts to mind. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.90.101 ( talk) 22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Having commented on the sidekick related question above, I thought I should give my view here. It's exactly that: an opinion. The problem is the word "and". It seems to make the subject "your e-mail and ... questions" not just "e-mail" so a plural verb should follow. If you want to have a single subject - the e-mail - I would definitely suggest avoiding problems by saying something like "Your e-mail, as well as the accompanying questions, brings ...". But I can't see what stands to be gained by complicating this. So "Your e-mail and the accompanying questions bring ..." works for me. With one small exception, that "accompanying" seems to imply that the questions were somehow separate from the e-mail. This seems a bit odd. If the questions were in the e-mail, why not refer to "its questions" or "the questions is contains". If the questions were separate, why not say "Your e-mail and the questions sent in an accompanying note ..." or similar. That's if, as a careful writer, you think any of this really matters in this particular case. 86.139.236.224 ( talk) 13:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Where does this expression originate?-- GreenSpigot ( talk) 20:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I met this guy (from India) a while ago on holiday and he asked me what my good name was, I had no understanding of what he meant until someone explained it to me, at which point I responded. When he said "good name" I thought it might be a type of name such as forename and surname.
When I went on holiday in summer, on the plane I saw a movie called Outsourced, in it, a man meets this Indian guy who asked him what his good name was, he also seemed quite confused. Why do some people ask "What is your good name?" and not just "What's your name?"?
I understand that they are complimenting your name, but that seems kind of wierd as they haven't even heard it yet - so how can you compliment it if you haven't heard it (the compliment seems almost insincere).
I live in the UK and have never heard this phrase used there, and I concider myself a well-travelled man and have only heard it the one time. I have never heard this phrase used in America either. So is this just a phrase used in India, or is it used anywhere else in the world? Thanks. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy ( talk) 23:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
So is that just the name they prefer to be called, like a nickname? W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy ( talk) 02:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
"Your good name" in the Indian context is the same as saying "your honorable name;" it is just an old way of being polite. In the other sense, your good name is your reputation, and this usage is quite common in American English. DOR (HK) ( talk) 08:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy ( talk) 18:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
On a distantly related note, how did "the good doctor" become a cliché? — Tamfang ( talk) 01:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that the 'President' on all films where America saves the world talks big but always speaks a type of English that makes him sound like he dropped out of school when he was 16? I know for a fact that educated Americans (and even American presidents!) do not talk like that. I am talking about Impact Earth and Independence Day, as well as others. Watching this stuff is like reading the Sunday Sport - full of emotive language and cliches.-- ChokinBako ( talk) 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, most people aren't very intelligent as you've outlined, and so the fact that most films share the same plot and are unbelievably predictable means nothing because most people are to stupid to notice. Quantum of Solace for example is coming out in 4 days and I'll probably go to see it (mainly for conversational purposes), even though I'm sure it will have a similar plot (if not the same) to every other Bond film made. It will probably also have many factual errors and continuity errors, none-the-less it will undoubtedly be a major success (just like Casino Royale). W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy ( talk) 01:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Bill Pullman's speech in Independence Day (film) is one of the greatest by any president real or fiction. Grsz Review! 01:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
From that statement, It does sound as if it is "total crap"! W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy ( talk) 03:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
In order to be elected president, you have to be a "regular guy" that people can relate to. That's how George W. Bush beat Al Gore and why Bill Clinton was so popular. Americans like people who do "straight talk" and "cut the crap." This is true in other fields as well -- look at the popularity of people like Jack Welch and Mike Ditka. A boring intellectual like Ben Stein would not make a realistic American president. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 22:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Might have to go all the way back to the parody "Calvin Coolidge's Insane Last Speech [2]" to hear one that tops the recent fictional and actual idiotic utterances of some U.S. presidents. For a Brit example, one might consider some of the imagined utterances of Prince Phillip [3]. His actual utterances are about equal to the parody [4]. And all this mighty intellect gets passed along to future monarchs of that line. U.S. Presidents are not always the descendants of their maladroit predecessors, but unfortunately this sometimes happens. Edison ( talk) 15:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
O-: Strange how noone has objected to the characterisation of Ben Stein, that evolution denier, as "intellectual". I completely agree with " boring", though. 92.224.244.224 ( talk) 06:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Language desk | ||
---|---|---|
< October 25 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 27 > |
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. |
hi every one! i'm gonna start a new magazine! suggest me short stylich meaningful names of any language............... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.103.140 ( talk) 07:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Moved to misc desk here . FiggyBee ( talk) 13:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I received an email, and I was typing my reply. My very first sentence was this: Your email brings two thoughts to mind. I continued on, typing the rest of the email. Then, I went back to the very first sentence and I added in the following parenthetical: (and its accompanying questions). Now, my first sentence read: Your email (and its accompanying questions) brings two thoughts to mind. Mentally, I went back and forth 100 times, wondering if the verb should stay as singular brings or should be changed to plural bring. I was taught (I think?) that a parenthetical is absolutely irrelevant to sentence structure. The sentence should be able to stand alone if the parenthetical were completely removed. This leads me to believe that the correct verb should remain singular brings. However, at the same time, introducing the parenthetical seems to make the subject of the verb change from singular to plural. And hence require plural bring. No? So, here are my questions. (Question 1) In the new and revised sentence, with the added parenthetical, what exactly is the subject? Is it merely "your email" or is it "your email (and its accompanying questions)"? And, thus, what is the subject's appropriate verb? (Question 2) Would the answer to Question 1 change in any way if I rewrote the sentence by simply deleting the parentheses symbols and doing nothing else? In other words, is there any semantic / grammatical / linguistic difference between Sentence A and Sentence B below? Certainly, their substance and what they are communicating are exactly identical ... or no?
Sentence A: Your email (and its accompanying questions) brings two thoughts to mind.
Sentence B: Your email and its accompanying questions bring two thoughts to mind.
I understand that I can change words around, etc., to fix this problem. My question, though, presumes that I do not want to do so. Help! Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 16:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC))
As I mentioned above, you MUST formulate your sentence to read correctly when read out loud (i.e. where parenthetical marks are not possible). So it MUST be Your email (and its accompanying questions) bring two thoughts to mind. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.90.101 ( talk) 22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Having commented on the sidekick related question above, I thought I should give my view here. It's exactly that: an opinion. The problem is the word "and". It seems to make the subject "your e-mail and ... questions" not just "e-mail" so a plural verb should follow. If you want to have a single subject - the e-mail - I would definitely suggest avoiding problems by saying something like "Your e-mail, as well as the accompanying questions, brings ...". But I can't see what stands to be gained by complicating this. So "Your e-mail and the accompanying questions bring ..." works for me. With one small exception, that "accompanying" seems to imply that the questions were somehow separate from the e-mail. This seems a bit odd. If the questions were in the e-mail, why not refer to "its questions" or "the questions is contains". If the questions were separate, why not say "Your e-mail and the questions sent in an accompanying note ..." or similar. That's if, as a careful writer, you think any of this really matters in this particular case. 86.139.236.224 ( talk) 13:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Where does this expression originate?-- GreenSpigot ( talk) 20:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I met this guy (from India) a while ago on holiday and he asked me what my good name was, I had no understanding of what he meant until someone explained it to me, at which point I responded. When he said "good name" I thought it might be a type of name such as forename and surname.
When I went on holiday in summer, on the plane I saw a movie called Outsourced, in it, a man meets this Indian guy who asked him what his good name was, he also seemed quite confused. Why do some people ask "What is your good name?" and not just "What's your name?"?
I understand that they are complimenting your name, but that seems kind of wierd as they haven't even heard it yet - so how can you compliment it if you haven't heard it (the compliment seems almost insincere).
I live in the UK and have never heard this phrase used there, and I concider myself a well-travelled man and have only heard it the one time. I have never heard this phrase used in America either. So is this just a phrase used in India, or is it used anywhere else in the world? Thanks. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy ( talk) 23:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
So is that just the name they prefer to be called, like a nickname? W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy ( talk) 02:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
"Your good name" in the Indian context is the same as saying "your honorable name;" it is just an old way of being polite. In the other sense, your good name is your reputation, and this usage is quite common in American English. DOR (HK) ( talk) 08:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy ( talk) 18:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
On a distantly related note, how did "the good doctor" become a cliché? — Tamfang ( talk) 01:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that the 'President' on all films where America saves the world talks big but always speaks a type of English that makes him sound like he dropped out of school when he was 16? I know for a fact that educated Americans (and even American presidents!) do not talk like that. I am talking about Impact Earth and Independence Day, as well as others. Watching this stuff is like reading the Sunday Sport - full of emotive language and cliches.-- ChokinBako ( talk) 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, most people aren't very intelligent as you've outlined, and so the fact that most films share the same plot and are unbelievably predictable means nothing because most people are to stupid to notice. Quantum of Solace for example is coming out in 4 days and I'll probably go to see it (mainly for conversational purposes), even though I'm sure it will have a similar plot (if not the same) to every other Bond film made. It will probably also have many factual errors and continuity errors, none-the-less it will undoubtedly be a major success (just like Casino Royale). W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy ( talk) 01:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Bill Pullman's speech in Independence Day (film) is one of the greatest by any president real or fiction. Grsz Review! 01:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
From that statement, It does sound as if it is "total crap"! W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy ( talk) 03:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
In order to be elected president, you have to be a "regular guy" that people can relate to. That's how George W. Bush beat Al Gore and why Bill Clinton was so popular. Americans like people who do "straight talk" and "cut the crap." This is true in other fields as well -- look at the popularity of people like Jack Welch and Mike Ditka. A boring intellectual like Ben Stein would not make a realistic American president. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 22:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Might have to go all the way back to the parody "Calvin Coolidge's Insane Last Speech [2]" to hear one that tops the recent fictional and actual idiotic utterances of some U.S. presidents. For a Brit example, one might consider some of the imagined utterances of Prince Phillip [3]. His actual utterances are about equal to the parody [4]. And all this mighty intellect gets passed along to future monarchs of that line. U.S. Presidents are not always the descendants of their maladroit predecessors, but unfortunately this sometimes happens. Edison ( talk) 15:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
O-: Strange how noone has objected to the characterisation of Ben Stein, that evolution denier, as "intellectual". I completely agree with " boring", though. 92.224.244.224 ( talk) 06:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)