Language desk
< January 19	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 20

Old English example at Genitive case#English

(Reposting from Talk:Genitive case#Old English example)

“

One can say the Queen’s dress, but also the Queen of England’s dress, where the genitive marker is completely separated from the actual possessor. If it were a genitive case as many other languages have (including Old English), one would expect something like *the Queen’s of England dress or, to emulate languages with a single consistent genitive case, *the England’s queen’s dress.

”

This alludes to an Old English example, but doesn't quote any specific one. Would that be þǣre englalandes cwēne clāþ? If so, this is a poor example: the word order changed, and cwēn doesn't take an -s ending, but englaland does, superficially eliminating the difference from Modern English which the example is supposed to show. How about we change the example to e.g. the cat in the hat's tricks and (presumably) þæs cattes in þām hætte wundru to match both the word order and the endings? --77.137.78.10 (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the rule the example is meant to illustrate is valid, the example is poorly chosen. The "actual possessor" of the dress is the Queen of England, so in the possessive form the genitive marker is not at all separated from, but directly apposed to, the actual possessor. Presumably, the intention is to observe that the marker is not attached to the head of the noun phrase designating the possessor, but to the full noun phrase. I do not think the text in the article means to suggest that there is an actual example in Old English having anything to do with English monarchs. In languages that I'm aware of that have a true genitive case, the genitive suffix is attached to the stem of the head of the noun phrase. For example, in modern Greek the Battle of Marathon is η Μάχη του Μαραθώνα, with head Mάχη. Its genitive is της Mάχης του Μαραθώνα. --Lambiam 16:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but I suppose that Genitive case#English intends to show the difference between Modern English and Old English in the placement of the genitive marker. For that, an actual Old English example (not necessarily having anything to do with English monarchs) would be useful, but a Greek example less so. --2A00:A040:19F:D2F0:50FE:16F1:AC58:BD02 (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found excerpts of Cynthia L. Allen, Genitives in Early English: Typology and Evidence on Google Books. It contains a few pertinent examples of recursive (double) genitives in OE, e.g.:

"þurh miht ures drihtnes agenes bebodes" ("through the power of our Lord's own commandment", literally "through power [our lord's own commandment's]", where "bebodes" is the post-nominal genitive modifier of "miht", and "drihtnes" is the pre-nominal genitive modifier of "bebodes";
"þæt he wære his fæder wuldres beorhtnys" ("that he was the brightness of his Father's glory", literally "[his father's glory]'s brightness", where "his fæder wuldres" is the pre-nominal genitive modifier of "beorhtnys", and "his fæder" is the pre-nominal genitive modifier of "wuldres"

In late Old English, there was an alternative pattern, where the "inner" genitive modifier was replaced by an "of" phrase (as in Modern English), but extraposed after the "outer" genitives head noun, so that instead of "the Queen of England's castles" you'd say "the Queen's castles of England", and instead of "the Wife of Bath's tale" you'd say "the Wife's tale of Bath", etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The heads of the noun phrases in these two excerpts are each time the last constituent, so the excerpts cannot illustrate the issue in question. If the alternative pattern was consistently used for nouns modified by a postpositive attribute ("of England", "of Bath", "in the hat"), the constructed example for a Seussian magical animal in Old English should be þæs cattes wundru in þām hætte. --Lambiam 13:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle contains the phrase þes cynges wyrre of France,^[1], word-by-word "the king's war of France", but meaning "the king of France's war". According to this source, the "group genitive" of Modern English was introduced in Middle English, as seen in Chaucer's the god of slepes heyr. --Lambiam 13:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Lambiam: and @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, I've now updated the article section accordingly. --77.137.78.172 (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When should I use "the" for a university?

Hey! What confuses me a bit: When do I have to use the article "the" in front a university's name. Here are some examples: "I work at Harvard Business School."; "I work at the London School of Economics."; "I work at Copenhagen Business School"; "I work at Stanford Univesity."; "I work at the Technical University of Berlin."; "I work at Politechnico Milano." --> to me this is quite confusing and I cannot see the pattern. Are my examples even correct? 80.71.142.166 (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get into grammar, some establishments have "the" included in their title, The London School of Economics and Political Science for example. Alansplodge (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

misleading post removed and corrected below. I am sorry to have been incorrect. --Jayron 32 13:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)edit: a slight correction was made to my post to make it more accurate, given the corrections made below. --Jayron 32 16:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, but there are some trends which if followed might reduce the chance of guessing wrong. In the UK, "University of XXX" is (probably) always preceded by "The/the" when used as a noun, whereas "XXX University" (or "XXX university") is not. For example, "six students at the University of Manchester" (noun), "six students at Manchester U/university" (noun), "six University of Manchester students" (adjective). The same is not true of "College": "six students at Eton College", "six Eton College students". Bazza (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bazza is 100% correct. --Jayron 32 16:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)edit: a slight correction was made to my post to make it more accurate, given the corrections made below. --Jayron 32 16:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bazza said it's a trend, not a rule, and it agrees to my instinct as a native English-speaker. It's Jayron's counter-examples that look cherry-picked to me. Now, does someone have references that would address the point? --184.144.97.125 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I spend time on replies like this so that what I am saying is as clear as I am able to make it. It's annoying when people then cherry-pick which words they are going to read so they can distort the points I am, in good faith, trying to make. And I never mentioned "School". Bazza (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, of course you are both correct here. I have made a very slight correction to my response to make it more accurate. I apologize for any confusion my prior post may have created. --Jayron 32 16:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) While there is no hard and fast rule, it is a pretty safe bet that it is "the University of Thingumabob". Whether the article is then properly part of the name (in which case it should be written with a capital "T") can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. If "the" is not part of the name (and often also if it is), it can be supplanted by another definite determiner, as in, "the earlier University of Memphis". If "Thingumabob" is itself a proper noun, then it is also rather safe to expect just "Thingumabob University", without an article. (Our article Johns Hopkins University opens with "The Johns Hopkins University (...) is a private research university", which I find jarring.) Oxford uses both styles; their "About" page has the headline "About the University of Oxford", but has at the bottom a link for information about "Oxford University".^[2] In most cases, a name carrying an adjective as attribute also induces a definite determiner: "the Open University", "the Australian National University". --Lambiam 15:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to describe nth number

Hi! I'm having trouble describing the numbers in the circles in this diagram (hope it's clear what I mean). What's the best way to phrase it? Would

"... with the number of career major titles it brings the player to"

or

"... with the number of major titles the player had won up till then"

be better (a concern is that there's uncertainty whether the number is before or after said win)? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 20:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Somewhat tangentially, how would one ask, "What nth child is this child of yours?"

"along with the updated number of career major titles". Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Where in the birth order is your child?" or "What's your child's position/spot in the birth order?" Clarityfiend (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: Thank you very much. I've updated it accordingly. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 23:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clarityfiend, Someone raised a concern that "updated number of career major titles" might imply that there was a diagram in which the numbers were wrong and the current diagram updated them. Is there any way to avoid this interpretation? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 20:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could just delete "updated". The meaning is quite obvious without it anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or "number of major titles at that point", perhaps. Deor (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to make it unambiguous that the win at that tournament is included, "number of major titles won by the player up to and including that tournament". --Lambiam 08:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]