English questions

[Travis B.]

To quote Etymonline:

The sense "company of persons organized to meet for social intercourse or to promote some common object" (1660s) apparently evolved from this word from the verbal sense "gather in a club-like mass" (1620s), then, as a noun, "association of people" (1640s).

The "cudgel-like object" meaning is the original, and comes from ON klubba.

[Raphael]

Ah, thank you!

[bradrn]

I just heard a lecturer pronounce the name of ⟨η⟩ as /nita/. I’ve never heard that before; does anyone else know how common that pronunciation is, and where it originates?

[Yalensky]

I just heard a lecturer pronounce the name of ⟨η⟩ as /nita/. I’ve never heard that before; does anyone else know how common that pronunciation is, and where it originates?

Are you sure you're not just rebracketing "an eta"?

[bradrn]

I just heard a lecturer pronounce the name of ⟨η⟩ as /nita/. I’ve never heard that before; does anyone else know how common that pronunciation is, and where it originates?

Are you sure you're not just rebracketing "an eta"?

Pretty sure it wasn’t; the context was a mathematical formula. Additionally he said it in the same way in two or three different formulae. But I’ll listen more closely next time I hear him say it to confirm this.

(I did consider rebracketing as the source of this, but an eta isn’t exactly a common collocation…)

EDIT: As it happens, I’m listening to another one of his lectures right now, and he just pronounced it the same way. And I can confirm that it isn’t an instance of rebracketing “an eta”: he consistently pronounces it /nita/ every time he mentions it.

[Kuchigakatai]

It sounds like he has internalized a mistaken word separation, thinking from hearing "an eta" that the name is "n-eta". Compare Latin hedera > Old French ière > modern French lierre, with an l- after mistaking the article l' as part of the stem.

[bradrn]

It sounds like he has internalized a mistaken word separation, thinking from hearing "an eta" that the name is "n-eta". Compare Latin hedera > Old French ière > modern French lierre, with an l- after mistaking the article l' as part of the stem.

Yes, I did consider this, and it does seem to me to be the most likely source, but as I said earlier:

(I did consider rebracketing as the source of this, but an eta isn’t exactly a common collocation…)

[Kuchigakatai]

Oh, I misread that. Maybe he nevertheless got it from the likes of "This is called an eta", "Just add an eta".

[bradrn]

Oh, I misread that. Maybe he nevertheless got it from the likes of "This is called an eta", "Just add an eta".

Ah, good point — I was struggling to think of a reasonable context where an eta could possibly show up, but that would certainly work.

Also, now that I think about it, possibly the shape might also have contributed: ⟨η⟩ and ⟨n⟩ look remarkably similar.

[Qwynegold]

Sorry if I have asked this before in some thread, but I can't remember the answer. What's the difference between someone and somebody? Are they completely interchangeable?

[Raphael]

Is there a general English term for the employer's part of mandatory payments for things like retirement insurance, health insurance, unemployment insurance, etc., in those English-speaking places where things like that are a thing?

[alice]

Is there a general English term for the employer's part of mandatory payments for things like retirement insurance, health insurance, unemployment insurance, etc., in those English-speaking places where things like that are a thing?

I think "contribution" does the job, as it were, for employers and employees.

[Raphael]

Thank you!

[Kuchigakatai]

Sorry if I have asked this before in some thread, but I can't remember the answer. What's the difference between someone and somebody? Are they completely interchangeable?

Somebody is more informal than someone. That's about it.

Maybe I could add that "somebody" is more common in bilingual dictionaries, where it is abbreviated "sb". E.g. "to talk to sb". On occasion I've seen "someone" used though, e.g. in the Hans-Wehr Arabic-English dictionary, which abbreviates it as "s.o." (with a dot in the middle of the compound to better distinguish it from the adverb "so").

[Qwynegold]

Sorry if I have asked this before in some thread, but I can't remember the answer. What's the difference between someone and somebody? Are they completely interchangeable?

Somebody is more informal than someone. That's about it.

Maybe I could add that "somebody" is more common in bilingual dictionaries, where it is abbreviated "sb". E.g. "to talk to sb". On occasion I've seen "someone" used though, e.g. in the Hans-Wehr Arabic-English dictionary, which abbreviates it as "s.o." (with a dot in the middle of the compound to better distinguish it from the adverb "so").

Oh thanks! This is a perfect answer! I'm dealing with a dictionary, and "sb" is much easier to use. I didn't want to use "so" specifically because it'll get confused with the adverb, and "s.o." requires four keystrokes... >_<

[Kuchigakatai]

I've never quite understood "to not" vs. "not to".

"The incentive to not change isn't present" ~ "incentive not to change".
"He was happy to not change" ~ "happy not to change".
"It would've been better to not do it." ~ "better not to do it".

Which do you guys prefer in these cases, or do you accept both?

[alice]

I've never quite understood "to not" vs. "not to".

"The incentive to not change isn't present" ~ "incentive not to change".
"He was happy to not change" ~ "happy not to change".
"It would've been better to not do it." ~ "better not to do it".

Which do you guys prefer in these cases, or do you accept both?

"to not" is the only correct option here. Anything else is an abomination before the LORD.

[Richard W]

To boldly split infinitives that no man had split before.

I've never quite understood "to not" vs. "not to".

There's the old rule that infinitive + verb should not be split, so wherever "to not" occurs, "not to" may occur with the same intended meaning.

Having said that, there is the possibility of the unexcluded middle. E.g. "I chose not to watch the election coverage" has an implication of making no effort to watch the coverage, but "I chose to not watch the election coverage" has an implication of deliberately avoiding it.

"The incentive to not change isn't present" ~ "incentive not to change".
"He was happy to not change" ~ "happy not to change".
"It would've been better to not do it." ~ "better not to do it".

Which do you guys prefer in these cases, or do you accept both?

For the first two I would normally use 'not to' - unless not changing took effort, in which case I might use the former. It would be very unusual for me to use "to not". This may be because "Better not (to)" is a common truncated sentence.

[zompist]

I've never quite understood "to not" vs. "not to".

"The incentive to not change isn't present" ~ "incentive not to change".
"He was happy to not change" ~ "happy not to change".
"It would've been better to not do it." ~ "better not to do it".

These are nice examples of Neg-Hopping. English likes to move negatives as far left as possible, and damn the semantics.

Colloquially, you could even move them farther in some of these: "He wasn't happy to change", "It wouldn't have been better to do it."

Stylistically, the "to not" variants sound fussy to me, but not incorrect.

[Kuchigakatai]

Having said that, there is the possibility of the unexcluded middle. E.g. "I chose not to watch the election coverage" has an implication of making no effort to watch the coverage, but "I chose to not watch the election coverage" has an implication of deliberately avoiding it.

For the first two I would normally use 'not to' - unless not changing took effort, in which case I might use the former. It would be very unusual for me to use "to not". This may be because "Better not (to)" is a common truncated sentence.

That semantic distinction you make for "to not" is pretty interesting. Thanks.

These are nice examples of Neg-Hopping. English likes to move negatives as far left as possible, and damn the semantics.

Colloquially, you could even move them farther in some of these: "He wasn't happy to change", "It wouldn't have been better to do it."

Stylistically, the "to not" variants sound fussy to me, but not incorrect.

Are you sure those two still mean the same thing? I'm under the impression my original "He was happy to not change" expresses the guy likely never ended up changing, while your "He wasn't happy to change" means he likely changed (after being forced to, to some extent).

But yeah, I get what you mean. I'm reminded of a Mandarin speaker who I once heard say, "Why do English speakers say things like 'I don't think you should do that'? Are they saying that they don't think!?" In Mandarin, the negation has to appear before the subordinate verb:

我覺得你不該那麼做。
wǒ juéde nǐ bú gài nàme zuò
1SG feel 2SG not should thus do
'I don't think you should do that' ~ 'I think you shouldn't do that'.



By the way, I asked this question somewhere else, and someone there made a very interesting comment: it seemed to her that "not to" seems to be avoided after auxiliary verbs that could be taking "not to" directly after because of ellipsis: "Learn Italian? I think she should, to not have problems with her in-laws later." (instead of "should, not to have...") (especially true if there's no comma in written English)

I asked this in yet a third place, and someone there said she generally preferred "not to" (as the two of you do), but preferred "so" + finite verb even more, in various further examples I provided, e.g. "Learn Italian? I think she should so she doesn't have problems with her in-laws later.", "She finished the project early so she wouldn't have to face her manager" (instead of "finished it early not to have to face her manager"). Which I also found interesting...