November 29

Consider a sentence such as this: John, please pass the salt. It is my understanding that the word please is an adverb. Can someone please explain why. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Well, according to Wiktionary, in that context it is "Short for if you please, an intransitive, ergative form taken from if it pleases you, which replaced pray". I think this helps? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information that you quoted from Wiktionary refers to the verb form of the word "please". I am asking about the adverb form. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Please is an adverb because it modifies the verb, "to pass". Just reduce the sentence to its core bits; John (subject) pass (verb) the salt (object). Which of those three is changed by "please". Is John different? Nope, he's the same person passing. Is the salt different? Nope, same salt. Is the passing different? Yup, its now being done politely. That makes it an adverb. --Jayron32 05:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I don't understand. How is "please" modifying the verb "to pass"? In your example, you somehow equate "please" with "politely". If the sentence stated "John politely passed the salt", then I understand how "politely" is an adverb to modify "passed". In my original sentence, I do not see that "please" equals "politely". In fact, "please" is really just a formality or nicety. I just don't see how it modifies the verb "pass". It's not the manner in which I am asking John to pass the salt (as if I asked him to pass it quickly or slowly or politely or whatever). Anything you can offer to help me see why "please" is an adverb and why it modifies the verb "pass"? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

John is passing the salt in response to a polite request. Thus, his passing is modified by the environment in which it is requested. --Jayron32 06:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure if "John, please pass the salt" implies that the passing is polite, but rather that the request (i.e. the discourse itself) is polite. It may be for that reason that Anders Holmberg calls it a "particle" and notes that "The semantics and syntax of please is a tricky subject" (On Whimperatives and Related Questions, Journal of Linguistics; unfortunately, the database isn't freely accessible). He also gives an interesting example that "?If you can open the door, can you open it" is dubious, but "If you can open the door, can you please open it" is grammatically correct with the please insertion. I'd also like to note that AndyTheGrump's statement was on point, according to the Online Etymological Dictionary, which says please 's "imperative use (e.g. please do this), first recorded 1620s, was probably a shortening of if it please (you) (late 14c.)." If that's the case, it's easy to see how the please 's ancestral subordinate if clause would have modified the main-clause verb, but the degree to which that's relevant to the present-day use of please is up to you. I'd say since English dictionaries don't like to use the term particle as a legitimate part of speech (perhaps understandably so, since it's such a vague term), they defer to please 's etymology and call it an adverb.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 06:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Please" doesn't really fit in well with the traditional parts of speech. You could lump it in as an adverb (if you wanted to define things that way), but it's quite different from classic "manner" adverbs, such as "quickly" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Some theories of linguistics might define it as an

illocutionary particle... AnonMoos (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Following up on Andy's commments, presumably the "if you please" derives from the French expression répondez s'il vous plaît used in

RSVP (invitations)

, which I take to literally mean "respond if it pleases you". I'm not a grammatician, but I would think "if you please" would be considered an adverbial phrase.

There is a funny reference to the expression in

HMS Pinafore, in which the land-bound commander of the British navy orders the ship's captain to say "if you please" when giving orders to the crew. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, it's a verb. Quoting the entry (I've added the links):

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that! Calling it a verb seems more problematic than calling it an adverb. In a sentence such as this (If you do your homework, that will please your mother.), I can see that it acts as a verb. In a sentence such as this (John, please pass the salt.), I cannot see that it has any verb function. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Unless they are saying that the standard (polite form of) "please" is just a short-hand way of saying "if you please". In which case, I can see that the "please" is a verb ... and the "if you please" is an adverbial phrase. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I think please may actually be in the imperative here. "I am commanding you not just to pass me the salt, but to be pleased by doing so." Doesn't sound all that polite when you expand it out that way, but it seems intuitive; it would then be a shortened version of please to pass the salt. --Trovatore (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No: it's pretty certainly short for "if you please", and we have attestations going way back to prove it. As such, it's a subjunctive: there's no command in it. We can imagine a possible universe in which you are pleased to pass me the salt, and if that is the same universe we are living in, then pass me the salt; hence, it's a subjunctive. "Pass", on the other hand, is certainly in the imperative mood. Marnanel (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A mandative subjunctive is a (third-person) imperative. "[May] it please you to pass me the salt.". The recipient of the command is technically "it", rather than "you", but still, something is being commanded. On the other hand, conditionals in general do not ordinarily take the subjunctive, although it's true that they sometimes used to and that this could be an example of that. --Trovatore (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question has got me thinking. If you translate Please pass the salt as Passez le sel, s'il vous plaît, then the main verb of the sentence is clearly pass and please merely modifies the verb, making it an adverb. But if you translate it as Veuillez me passer le sel, please suddenly becomes the main verb (in the imperative) and pass follows that, and is in the infinitive.

The first would be expanded in English as If you please, pass the salt (or strictly if it pleases you). The second is expanded as Please to pass the salt, a formula which I think is sometimes found in pseudo upper class writing ("Please to tell His Majesty that ...") Unfortunately, unlike in French, the imperative and infinitive in English are formed identically so we can't tell which is intended. Sussexonian (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinatiing. It's obviously an interjection, and yet not only has nobody here mention that, most of the online dictionaries under www.onelook.com have it wrong as well. American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, Collins, Webster's New World, and Random House all call it an adverb. Macmillan has it right, and Encarta goes both ways, giving "adverb, interjection" for the "Please do this" sense and "interjection" alone for the "Please!" sense. I also looked at the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary; they call it an "exclamation", which Wikipedia sais is another term for an interjection. The OED1 calls it an "imperative or optative" verb, but that was written in 1907 and they're still thinking of it as a contraction of expressions like "if you please" rather than a word in its own right. --Anonymous, 23:38 UTC, November 29, 2010.

We can probably all agree that "please" is indeed an interjection when used in the following sense: Oh, please, I don't want to hear that song again! (or some similar construction). My original question, however, was specific to the Hey, you, please do such and such for me variety of "please". Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Merriam-Webster lumps it into the 'adverb' part of speech, but defines it in the manner that they define interjections, with two definitions: 1) — used as a function word to express politeness or emphasis in a request 2) — used as a function word to express polite affirmation. To me it seems more of a verbal tic in the same category as 'like' (which M-W calls an interjection), whereas 'like' conveys approximation or uncertainty, 'please' conveys politeness. Lexicografía (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term "interjection", in traditional parts of speech, mostly means a single standalone word not closely grammatically integrated into a sentence. In "That was, like, grody to the max!", the word "like" is kind of marked off from the surrounding clause (shown by the commas in writing), so it can be considered interjection-like. However, in the sentence "Would you please pass the salt?", "please" is not interjection-like at all (by traditional criteria). AnonMoos (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not? It could be set off by commas as well and IMO doesn't contribute too much (Would you pass the salt v. Would you please pass the salt) except an air of politeness. Lexicografía (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Doesn't contribute too much except an air of politeness" = illocutionary particle. AnonMoos (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought interjections were particles. Whatever. Lexicografía (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, "interjection" implies that if it occurs in a sentence, its meaning, grammatical relationships, etc. are much the same as when it occurs as a standalone one-word utterance, while "particle" doesn't imply that... AnonMoos (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of the input and feedback above. This was helpful. Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

What is the correct use of hyphens (if at all) in the context below?

• John is a 25 year old student. John is a 25-year-old student. John is a 25-year old student. John is a 25 year-old student.

Also, does it make any difference if the age is spelled out with words rather than numbers?

• Betty is a five year old girl. Betty is a five-year-old girl. Betty is a five-year old girl. Betty is a five year-old girl.

Finally, does the following manipulation of the words change anything? (The word "year" from above is made plural to "years" below.)

• John is 25 years old. John is 25-years-old. John is 25-years old. John is 25 years-old.

• Betty is five years old. Betty is five-years-old. Betty is five-years old. Betty is five years-old.

Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It makes no difference whether you use numerals or spelled-out numbers. The attributive phrase "x-year-old" should have two hyphens (thus "John is a 25-year-old student" and "Betty is a five-year-old girl), while the predicate "x years old" should have no hyphens ("John is 25 years old" and "Betty is five years old"). Not being a huge fan of hyphens myself, I would probably let "John is a 25 year old student" slide, but "John is 25-years-old" is absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong.)

talk) 06:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

For "Not being a huge fan of hyphens", read "Not being a huge fan of correct punctuation". 87.114.101.69 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I am a huge fan of correct punctuation. But hyphens are very often used unnecessarily, and when their use is wrong, or even optional, I prefer to excise them like

talk) 17:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm irritated by compounds with more than one hyphen, partly because of the with-enough-hyphens-any-phrase-can-be-an-adjective trend, but see no better alternative to "n-year-old". —Tamfang (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses! Much appreciated! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Please could a native Polish speaker translate an English phrase into Polish for me? I want to say: Thank you and happy Christmas. Thanks for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.165.179 (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a native speaker, but Dziękuję i życzę Wesołych Świąt should work.—Emil J. 15:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A native speaker here and I confirm that Emil's translation is correct. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to both of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.165.179 (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I learned in grade school to always use lower case letters after colons and semicolons (except with proper nouns, obviously). Yet in any novel I read, they always use a capital letter after colons and semicolons. Looking it up on Wiki here, I read that my way's right, but then why do these books from major publishers do this? I guess they have the choice, but it still seems odd to me, especially considering how crazy publishers are about grammar and punctuation when sending out literary work. ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 16:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've often seen capital letters after colons, especially if what follows the colon is a complete sentence on its own, but I've never seen (or at least never noticed) a capital letter after a semicolon in edited, published writing. Do you have an example?

talk) 17:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I am surprised by your reference to "any" novel. Do you mostly read novels from a particular publisher or author? This may be their particular idiosyncracy. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the word Katana (in one of its written forms in Japanese) somehow linked to the meaning of equinox, solstice or eclipse? Wiktionary says no, but I have a strong hint that it may be related, from a Japanese speaker that made a mistake in a presentation. --Lgriot (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you mean by "mistake in a presentation" and how you formed the connection? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a cursory glance, the letter for Katana is 刀. Equinox is 分点, vernal equinox is 春分, and autumnal equinox is 秋分. Summer solstice is 夏至 and winter solstice is 冬至. Other than the similarity between 刀 and 分, Japanese sword (日本刀) is pronounced nihontō and winter solstice (冬至) is pronounced tōji. I don't speak Japanese, though, so please take this with a grain of salt. Thanks. --Kjoonlee 04:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a business presentation in English, I really think they meant equinox (that is the name in English of the project they were talking about) and wrote Katana in their PPT. Unfortunately it is too senior a person for me to dare ask them directly. But maybe it is a completely unrelated mistake and katana creapt up in there for some other random reason. Thanks anyway. --Lgriot (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well katana = 刀, and X equinox is X分. In its simplest sense, 分 is to divide - an equinox is one of the dividing points of the year. You can see the connection in the construction of the character: 分 is a knife (on the bottom) cleaving two parts apart (above).

So could it be katana --> cleaving --> division --> equinox? Perhaps it's deliberate and they are going for a metaphoric rather than literal connection? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for trying, sorry I don't think we will find any more on this, I think we can close this thread. --Lgriot (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess at the difference between

Having lived in the Northeastern US most of my life (grew up on Long Island, have lived in eastern Massachusetts intermittently since the early 1980s), I don't think [kɪʔɪn] is correct, at least not anywhere north of central New Jersey. (I am less familiar with dialects south of about New Brunswick.) You might be onto something with gemination of the glottal stop, which I think sometimes happens in the New York area. I don't think a vowel (nasalized or otherwise) occurs in casual speech after the glottal stop. It is a sonorant [n̩] everywhere I've been. I'm not aware of an online clearinghouse. I think that this sort of information is buried in academic journal articles. Marco polo (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. Since I am no expert linguist, maybe a more personal version of the question will be clearer. I believe I pronounce such words as "mountain" and "kitten" in the standard General American fashion. When I am exposed to many speakers from the length of the Hudson Valley (Brooklyn to Albany), I am very struck that their "kitten" and "mittens" are so different from mine. Impressionistically, I would have said that I pronounced a "t," whereas they left it out and said "ki''in" (as for "mountain," I'm not sure there's any difference). However, a bit of reflection convinced me that I (and most other Americans) do not in fact pronounce a t, but a glottal stop. This raised the puzzle: what is the striking difference between their pronunciation and mine, since the unexamined belief "glottal stop vs. t" turns out to be inaccurate. My leading theory is still either (a) gemination of the glottal stop and/or (b) some kind of vowel "more" than the syllabic n. Hopefully more help is forthcoming. Wareh (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I'm not so sure that you are wrong about this. I think maybe I have heard something like ['kɪʔʔɘn]. Marco polo (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that sort of thing, but it's not standard here...it's noticeably 'something'. (Can't quite put my tongue on it, I think I want to say it sounds childish or something...in any case, the point is, it definitely is said, but people also definitely notice that it's a bit funny.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that pronunciation is a class marker (i.e., used by people from a less-educated, working-class background). Marco polo (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think many would agree, though I should say that in the area I indicated I have heard it in the formal speech of e.g. university professors too. I like your ['kɪʔʔɘn] suggestion too. Wareh (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think this extends from the Hudson Valley east into western Connecticut and perhaps western Massachusetts, as far as the Connecticut River valley. I don't hear it where I live, in eastern New England. Marco polo (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live in western Connecticut and I can't recall hearing ['kɪʔʔɘn] except perhaps by children or New Yorkers. I believe I personally pronounce it [kɪt̚n̩] (with an unreleased t). RamsesWPE (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ramses. You seem to have illuminated most of the true answer, which is that I pronounce [kɪt̚n̩].

homorganic nasal

, as in catnip [ˈkæt̚nɪp]"), assuming that "most accents" includes most US accents, removes any doubts that this is my pronunciation. That said, I have to say that I find the description bizarrely counterintuitive, as I cannot for all my life persuade myself that my tongue articulates any stop at all ("unreleased" or not). It does not feel to me as if it makes contact with any point between my palate and teeth... If anyone can help me understand this with something better than the blind faith that I articulate t's as do most other English speakers, it would be most welcome.

To get the final answer to my question, I have to reframe it in light of what Ramses has pointed out. Now that I believe that my pronunciation is [kɪt̚n̩] (not [kɪʔn̩] as I wrote before), what is the most likely pronunciation of the adults from Brooklyn to Albany whose pronunciation is markedly different: should we say simply [kɪʔn̩], and forget about all the gemination and post-glottal-stop [ɘ] speculation? I'm talking about a pronunciation that anyone would recognize as different from mine, and yet nothing childish or bizarre (though some would apply snobbish judgements against it, I'm sure). Wareh (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your tongue makes no contact with your alveolar ridge until you make the [n], then what you're saying is indeed [kɪʔn̩], not [kɪt̚n̩]. Personally, I doubt I get the timing of the tongue contact and the lowering of the uvula (to make the nasal) the same every time I say the word, so I probably vary between the two: [kɪʔn̩] if the tongue contact and uvula drop are simultaneous; [kɪt̚n̩] if the tongue contact comes before the uvula drop. (If the uvula drop comes first, you're saying "kint", or the German word Kind.)

talk) 16:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

In that case, the ontological question may become whether the range of pronunciations correctly transcribed as [kɪʔn̩] is wide enough to embrace me and certain Brooklynites (for example). Further (unskilled amateur) self-examination suggests that when I slow down my pronunciation for observation purposes, it's definitely [kɪʔn̩] as described by Angr; it seems possible that in rapid speech I'm more on the fence like Angr. Let's put it this way: I can definitely pronunce [kɪʔn̩] with "my tongue making no contact with my alveolar ridge until I make the [n]" in such a fashion that I still don't sound like these Brooklynites & Albanians. (By the way, I'm starting to wonder if all the Upstate NYers who talk this way do it because they have downstate roots.) Wareh (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing the as easy as pie article, but the sources don't seem to agree on the origin. This site suggests the phrase is of American origin, while other sources state it is of Aborigine origin. What is the origin of the phrase "as easy as pie"?Smallman12q (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesn't seem to originate from the UK. P. G. WODEHOUSE used the phrase in 1925, and the Saturday Evening Post in 1913, according to the OED. The phrase seems to derive from the earlier US expression like eating pie which was used in "Sporting Life" on 26 May 1886. Dbfirs 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... (later) The Australian derivation might possibly be an independent convergence towards current usage, but I've modified the claim in the article (just as a temporary measure). Please remove my text when your research finds earlier usage. Dbfirs 23:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]