English questions

[bradrn]

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).

I agree, to some extent. “He was happy to not change” implies that he never did change. On the other hand, “He wasn’t happy to change” makes no such implication (though there does seem to be an implicature that he did change). In general, I’d say that the Neg-hopped form is most idiomatic in modern English, being the functionally unmarked form.

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'.

So Mandarin ‘think’ and ‘feel’ use the same word? That’s interesting — I may end up using that in my own conlang…

[Richard W]

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 find it hard to parse, "I think she should, not to have problems with her in-laws later." I at least initially take the 'not' to imply that the reason is not so that she will have problems with her in-laws later and then i (a) think that I must have misheard the reason and (b) I expect the reason for learning to be given. The two minimal emendations are:

• I think she should, but not not to have problems with her in-laws later.
• I think she should, so as not to have problems with her in-laws later.

I may be a bit pernickety because Thai wives seem to dislike their European husbands learning Thai!

Without a comma, there is of course the garden path of taking 'not' to mean that she should not learn Italian.

[zompist]

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).

The farther left you Neg-Hop, the more ambiguities can result! Each hop adds things the "not" could apply to.

Your intuitions are right, except that these are implicatures, not implications. That is, they can be denied without contradiction. You can easily say "He wasn't happy to change, so he never did." Or for that matter "He was happy to not change, but he was forced to."

[bradrn]

Or for that matter "He was happy to not change, but he was forced to."

I’m not sure I’m happy with this, which is why I said earlier that this is an implication rather than an implicature. It gets better if you add a modal: “He would have been happy to not change, but he was forced to.”

[bradrn]

(Note: cross-posting to this thread since it seems more appropriate here.)

"Linguists": https://xkcd.com/2390/

I noticed this XKCD as well, and now that I think about it, I have the same question: what exactly is the difference between ‘fell down a hole’ and ‘fell in a hole’?

Along similar lines, here’s another little conundrum which has been puzzling me for a while. English allows the directional ‘along’ to modify various verbs with non-directional meaning: ‘bubbled along’, ‘whirred along’ etc. Though non-directional directionals are practically a universal, this particular construction is a bit strange in several ways. For one, it is allowed only with a very particular set of verbs: ‘bled along’, for instance, is nonsensical. (Note that I am ignoring straightforward and extensions of the base meaning ‘follow a path’, as well as its comitative usage, as those are far less restricted.) More curious is its semantics; most sources I can find describe it as a progressive or continuous, but as a native speaker that doesn’t sound quite right, for it has an additional connotation of… flippancy, almost? Except that I doubt that the ‘flippantive’ is a recognised grammatical category. I’d be very interested to know what the semantics of this construction are.

[zompist]

I noticed this XKCD as well, and now that I think about it, I have the same question: what exactly is the difference between ‘fell down a hole’ and ‘fell in a hole’?

For me, the size of the hole. If you drop your keys "down a hole", they're too far to reach; "in a hole" doesn't have that implication. Similarly, if you "fall down a hole", the hole is bigger than you are and it's hard to get out. Whereas if you "fall in a hole", it could be a crater, large but shallow.

[Pabappa]

reminds me when i was about 6 years old i asked my mom the difference between "sit up" and "sit down". She said that if i had a glass of water first it means i have to sit up, and if not i have to sit down. Or maybe it was the other way around. I was young enough to believe her.

I agree with zomp about the holes .... though if the hole is shallow enough, I might not call it a hole in the first place, and instead use a more descriptive term like ditch, crater, etc.

[bradrn]

I noticed this XKCD as well, and now that I think about it, I have the same question: what exactly is the difference between ‘fell down a hole’ and ‘fell in a hole’?

For me, the size of the hole. If you drop your keys "down a hole", they're too far to reach; "in a hole" doesn't have that implication. Similarly, if you "fall down a hole", the hole is bigger than you are and it's hard to get out. Whereas if you "fall in a hole", it could be a crater, large but shallow.

Yep, I agree with this as well. (It’s obvious in retrospect.)

reminds me when i was about 6 years old i asked my mom the difference between "sit up" and "sit down". She said that if i had a glass of water first it means i have to sit up, and if not i have to sit down. Or maybe it was the other way around. I was young enough to believe her.

For me, ‘sit down’ applies when starting from an upright position; ‘sit up’ when starting from a slouching or lying position.

[Raphael]

Are German Berliner, Israeli sufganiyot, and similar pastries donuts? I've often see them described as donuts by people speaking English - but I've thought for a while that one of the defining features of a donut is the hole in the middle. No donut hole - no donut. But since English is my second language and I've never lived in any place where it's the main language, my opinion on this probably shouldn't count for much. So I'm a bit confused about this matter.

[Travis B.]

Are German Berliner, Israeli sufganiyot, and similar pastries donuts? I've often see them described as donuts by people speaking English - but I've thought for a while that one of the defining features of a donut is the hole in the middle. No donut hole - no donut. But since English is my second language and I've never lived in any place where it's the main language, my opinion on this probably shouldn't count for much. So I'm a bit confused about this matter.

No, a Berliner is definitely a doughnut in English - doughnuts in English need not have holes.

[Linguoboy]

They needn't even be round. Long johns are also "donuts" and I've even heard the designation extended to Chinese fried devils.

[Raphael]

Thank you!

[Raphael]

Yesterday, I used the word "socialite" in a political discussion in Ephemera, and now I wonder whether a socialite can be male.

[Linguoboy]

Yesterday, I used the word "socialite" in a political discussion in Ephemera, and now I wonder whether a socialite can be male.

I don't see why not. To me the gendered meaning is a relic from a day when it was a common way for women to gain prominence and influence when many other paths were effectively closed to them. But there are certainly men who are known more for their presence at glitzy parties than anything else.

[Raphael]

Do roommates have to share a room, or can people who live in different rooms in the same apartment be roommates, too? Are there differences between US and British English on this?

[Linguoboy]

Do roommates have to share a room, or can people who live in different rooms in the same apartment be roommates, too? Are there differences between US and British English on this?

UK English has the term “flatmate” to designate someone one shares an apartment with but not a bedroom. “Apartmentmate” sounds quite awkward so speakers of US English don’t use it and generalise “roommate” to cover both—to the point where, for adults post college at least, this has eclipsed the literal meaning.

So if you say “We were roommates in college”, I’ll assume you might actually have shared a room (though suites are increasingly common in college dorms nowadays). But when my peers speak of their “roommates”, I assume everyone has their own bedroom until told otherwise.

US English also has “housemate”. I’m not sure if this exists in UK English as well and is rare because it’s far less common for non-partners to share a house there than a flat.

[Linguoboy]

“Apartmentmate” sounds quite awkward so speakers of US English don’t use it

my apartmentmates

GODDAMMIT.

[Raphael]

Thank you! I was a bit confused a while ago when you used the word flatmate in a post on this board, given that you're not British.

Edit: now I wonder how to talk about my university-time, err, flatmates, given that we always all had our own rooms and room-sharing is generally very unusual among German university students.

[anteallach]

Do roommates have to share a room, or can people who live in different rooms in the same apartment be roommates, too? Are there differences between US and British English on this?

UK English has the term “flatmate” to designate someone one shares an apartment with but not a bedroom. “Apartmentmate” sounds quite awkward so speakers of US English don’t use it and generalise “roommate” to cover both—to the point where, for adults post college at least, this has eclipsed the literal meaning.

So if you say “We were roommates in college”, I’ll assume you might actually have shared a room (though suites are increasingly common in college dorms nowadays). But when my peers speak of their “roommates”, I assume everyone has their own bedroom until told otherwise.

US English also has “housemate”. I’m not sure if this exists in UK English as well and is rare because it’s far less common for non-partners to share a house there than a flat.

"Housemate" is normal BrE as far as I'm concerned. In many parts of the UK it's actually pretty common for groups of students, for example, to share a rented house.

[KathTheDragon]

"Housemate" is normal BrE as far as I'm concerned. In many parts of the UK it's actually pretty common for groups of students, for example, to share a rented house.

Yep, I did this in my 2nd and 3rd years of Uni.