Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 May 26

Language desk
< May 25	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 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.

May 26

Lux Aurumque

Hello, I'm reviewing Lux Aurumque for DYK and apparently, as per eg here, this title can be rendered either as "Light and Gold" or "Light of Gold"; I iz reasonably learned in Latin and would have thought the latter would have a genitive somewhere - is this a legitimate translation, an alternative version, or what is the correct grammatical/rhetorical term for these two nominatives functioning in this way? Any obvious parallels? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the article says Lux Aurumque is named after this poem, it seems we should probably simply get rid of "Light of Gold."

However, there is a rhetorical figure precisely as you describe, and its correct name is hendiadys. Wareh (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the -que suffix means "and". I remember that one from SPQR! 86.181.172.218 (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It does mean "and". If it is a hendiadys, it still wouldn't be a genitive, it would be either "light and gold" or "golden light". Adam Bishop (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No question that the Latin means "Light and Gold", as was the title of the original English poem, but the other (wrong) translation is also around, example, how could that be worded? For the moment I will just drop it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Adam's suggestion seems to me to have the answer: "light of gold" is another way of saying "golden light", which as Adam suggests is a possible interpretation of the phrase as a hendiadys. --ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this phrase grammatically correct?

I encountered the phrase "during early planning stage". For example: "during early planning stage, our company was in dire straits". Is the "during early planning stage" grammatically correct? It sounds weird to me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No. It should read "during the early planning stage". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like business jargon. It might be acceptable in an email, but "the early planning stage" is correct in formal writing. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

...unless there were several early planning stages, in which case it should be "an early planning stage". "The" and "an" are articles; see article (grammar). The writer may be of Asian origin; missing articles are typical of Engrish.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

... or he may be Slavic. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

True, but illiteracy is very common in the business world nowadays, seemingly even for native speakers. I think they've decided to optimise the English language for maximum throughput, IBE (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

They are their own worst enemies when it comes to the truly ridiculous corporate-speak they all feel they must employ ("low-hanging fruit", "green fields", "blue skies" ...). But that's just a manifestation of the special jargon that applies in any profession or industry. The real problem goes a lot deeper than that. The education systems some of these people have come through are rotten to the core, and I include my own country in this. A quote from last week's news:

• There are fewer and fewer people coming into the [teaching] profession who can proofread [student work] accurately … They can't recognise the errors because their own writing is littered with grammatical errors of syntax and of verb tense. … A significant number of younger teachers have very limited written English and reading skills. If these people don't understand language well, how can they teach it well? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant ramblings

A significant number of younger teachers has very limited written English... Tevildo (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Either is correct, depending on whether you're saying the group is or the group are. — kwami (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Yes, "group" can be singular or plural depending on context. But "number" is unambiguously singular. The point is that any expostulation critical of grammar or spelling invariably contains grammatical mistakes. This is, I believe, one of the Internet laws. Tevildo (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC) 'Number' is the same, and has been in writing since at least the 17th century: Peacham (1622) Nor bee so foolish precise as a number are, who make it Religion to speake otherwise then this or that Author, and including Sweet in his New English Grammar (1898): Of the large number of verbs which take the infinitive in Old-English the greater number are now followed by the supine. — kwami (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Tevildo, your suggestion sounds as pedantically hyper-incorrect as "It's I who am knocking on the door". The word "number" may have the form of a singular noun, but conceptually it's plural in this case. Also in "A number of them are Americans" (or would you insist on "A number of them is American"?). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Of course, such was my intention. "A number of them are American" is perfectly _acceptable_, but it's still (arguably) _wrong_, and the original author of the text (in whom I detect a tendency to pedantry, from his (or her) use of "fewer" in the first sentence) should have chosen a less risky construction in a piece that attacks poor grammar. Tevildo (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC) I am not 100% sure, but I have heard that this is a difference between different standards of English. In the UK, for example, I have heard that it is proper to say that "the team are playing well." In the US, this would be very strange, and should be "the team is playing well." Falconusp t c 08:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Anyway, the point of the quote was to make a comment on the education system, which relates directly to the OP's question. This fussing about abstruse points of grammar in the quote itself is not relevant to the question and just undermines the purity of intellectual intercourse. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 20:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It sounds fine to me (Midwest American), if a bit unexpected. Compare "during class" or "during Doctor Who." Not sure what category of noun this is that allows this (unless class is a proper noun in this case?). Lsfreak (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the original question could be correct, although it would be better with "the" inserted. If the organization has several elements to its development process, one of which is called "Early Planning Stage", it would be acceptable to say something along the lines of "During Early Planning Stage, the company was in dire financial straits, but at Preliminary Design Review, the situation had improved sufficiently for the project to continue." Tevildo (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)