English questions

[Travis B.]

"parchment paper" would never be used to refer to velum, though, i.e. the original use of the term. If a modern speaker says "parchment paper," you can be sure they're not talking about something that came from a goat. The most common use is a waxy paper-like substance that is used in baking, which I believe also gets called "papier" in German.

Also, I think referring to papyrus as paper is something people would do out of convenience, the same way we might call hakama "trousers," simply because we don't have a better word for them. It doesn't mean that English speakers think papyrus is a canonical example of a type of paper. Same for "parchment paper." They are extensions of a word by necessity, not things that English speakers find indistinguishable from a notebook.

To me parchment and parchment paper mean two different things; the former means writing material made out of animal hide, the latter means the waxy paper-like substance used in baking you speak of here. However, I can definitely see people using the former to mean the latter as well (as most people have had less exposure to the original meaning of parchment than myself).

[Travis B.]

It's difficult to chase the exact semantics, because *divide by third registers as ungrammatical, and divide by a third conjures up the postfix operation ÷⅓.

*Divide by third also does not sound right to me, while ?divide by a third is not something I'd normally hear despite it not seeming inherently ungrammatical to me, but I would not be sure whether the person meant divide by three or multiply by three were I to hear it (I am more accustomed to divide by three, divide in thirds, or divide into thirds).

[zompist]

Personally, "divide by half" just sounds wrong. Generally you can't words from a sentence, because then won't understand.

But a little Googling suggests that people are obsessed with the question. E.g. here's someone who thinks it's obvious that "divide by half" means "double"; here are others who think its obvious that it's ungrammatical.

As linguists, we should we wary of defining our own usage as correct. "Divide in half" gets twice as many Bing hits as "divide by half"... but a million hits for the latter is an awful lot of uses, and they're not all discussions of the phrase itself.

(I tried Google too, and got half as many results. Google has been messing with the algorithm lately and I'm not sure it's as useful for corpus linguistics. I don't know if Bing is really better, but at least it's giving more raw results.)

[Richard W]

Likewise, I would say "my brother is in the hospital", not "my brother is in hospital"—even though the second is used by some speakers of English and is understandable to me.

There's quite a difference in meaning. "In the hospital" give his physical location, and implies that it is obvious from the conversation which hospital he is in. "In hospital" means he is in some hospital, not just visiting, and is there as a patient.

[Travis B.]

Likewise, I would say "my brother is in the hospital", not "my brother is in hospital"—even though the second is used by some speakers of English and is understandable to me.

There's quite a difference in meaning. "In the hospital" give his physical location, and implies that it is obvious from the conversation which hospital he is in. "In hospital" means he is in some hospital, not just visiting, and is there as a patient.

In NAE in the hospital has precisely the meaning you give for in hospital, which NAE-speakers typically regard as a Britticism, and for the meaning you give for in the hospital NAE-speakers would typically use at the hospital.

[Richard W]

In NAE in the hospital has precisely the meaning you give for in hospital, which NAE-speakers typically regard as a Britticism, and for the meaning you give for in the hospital NAE-speakers would typically use at the hospital.

For NAE, does the style rule apply that it is better to omit the article when one can?

British English does have an unreliable contrast between in the hospital and at the hospital. Most simply, the former would be used for being 'indoors' and the latter for merely on-site (e.g. in the outside car-park), but there are subtleties, especially with annexes.

[Estav]

In NAE in the hospital has precisely the meaning you give for in hospital, which NAE-speakers typically regard as a Britticism, and for the meaning you give for in the hospital NAE-speakers would typically use at the hospital.

For NAE, does the style rule apply that it is better to omit the article when one can?

I (NAE) am not familiar with that as a general style rule. i do not use "in hospital" at all. For comparison, I do use "in school", "at school", and "at the school", but the presence or absence of the article is not stylistically determined; it corresponds to a difference in meaning analogous to the difference you stated for "in (the) hospital": "at the school" refers to some specific school building, while "in school" or "at school" refers to the generic concept of being in/at some school. ("In the school" sounds a bit odd to me in most contexts, although it's a possible grammatical phrase.)

[alice]

Speaking of schools, I recall as a 4-year-old hearing the absence of another child at my nursery being explained as "he's gone into the big school".

[Richard W]

In NAE in the hospital has precisely the meaning you give for in hospital, which NAE-speakers typically regard as a Britticism, and for the meaning you give for in the hospital NAE-speakers would typically use at the hospital.

For NAE, does the style rule apply that it is better to omit the article when one can?

I (NAE) am not familiar with that as a general style rule. i do not use "in hospital" at all. <snip/>

"When one can" is the dialect-specific part of the style rule.

[Travis B.]

In NAE in the hospital has precisely the meaning you give for in hospital, which NAE-speakers typically regard as a Britticism, and for the meaning you give for in the hospital NAE-speakers would typically use at the hospital.

For NAE, does the style rule apply that it is better to omit the article when one can?

British English does have an unreliable contrast between in the hospital and at the hospital. Most simply, the former would be used for being 'indoors' and the latter for merely on-site (e.g. in the outside car-park), but there are subtleties, especially with annexes.

In NAE one does not normally say "in hospital". Note, however, NAE-speakers typically say in/at school rather that "in the school" unless they specifically want to emphasize one's being inside the school building, or "at the school" unless they specifically want to emphasize being within the school grounds, over actually being a student engaged in school activities.

[evmdbm]

I was thinking about control constructions and object raising

I ordered Alice to come
I ordered Alice to give the book to Bob (these I understand to be a control construction in that a component of the first clause - the main clause - determines an argument of the second subordinate clause. Alice is ordered and will be doing the coming/giving...)

I expected Alice to come
I expected Alice to give the book to Bob (which is not a control construction, but object raising)

Now on the face of it these constructions are identical. There's a semantic difference between ordering and expecting in that if I successfully order Alice I am actually controlling her, but no such implication with expect, but nothing else. So I've been looking for a way to tell them apart.

One way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_( ... stic_Tests is apparently to use "there"

a) I ordered there to be a party
b) I expected there to be a party

According to wikipedia and the papers it cites sentence a) is wrong. Sentence b) is fine. As a native English speaker I don't see the problem... sentence a) means I ordered (somebody but I'm not telling who) to have a party...

This raises two questions in my head. First, does anyone else think this, and if so has the surface similarity/identity in the constructions meant that we as English speakers don't have a distinction between these any more. Or secondly, is there is a better way of distinguishing the two types of construction?

[Travis B.]

I was thinking about control constructions and object raising

I ordered Alice to come
I ordered Alice to give the book to Bob (these I understand to be a control construction in that a component of the first clause - the main clause - determines an argument of the second subordinate clause. Alice is ordered and will be doing the coming/giving...)

I expected Alice to come
I expected Alice to give the book to Bob (which is not a control construction, but object raising)

Now on the face of it these constructions are identical. There's a semantic difference between ordering and expecting in that if I successfully order Alice I am actually controlling her, but no such implication with expect, but nothing else. So I've been looking for a way to tell them apart.

One way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_( ... stic_Tests is apparently to use "there"

a) I ordered there to be a party
b) I expected there to be a party

According to wikipedia and the papers it cites sentence a) is wrong. Sentence b) is fine. As a native English speaker I don't see the problem... sentence a) means I ordered (somebody but I'm not telling who) to have a party...

This raises two questions in my head. First, does anyone else think this, and if so has the surface similarity/identity in the constructions meant that we as English speakers don't have a distinction between these any more. Or secondly, is there is a better way of distinguishing the two types of construction?

?I ordered there to be a party sounds somewhat off to me, because it does not specify who was ordered to have a party.

[Raphael]

?I ordered there to be a party sounds somewhat off to me, because it does not specify who was ordered to have a party.

I would probably phrase that as I ordered that there should be a party.

[Travis B.]

?I ordered there to be a party sounds somewhat off to me, because it does not specify who was ordered to have a party.

I would probably phrase that as I ordered that there should be a party.

With the seemingly intended meaning I would phrase that as being "I ordered that there be party", which is perfectly cromulent to me.

[Creyeditor]

a) I ordered there to be a party
b) I expected there to be a party

According to wikipedia and the papers it cites sentence a) is wrong. Sentence b) is fine. As a native English speaker I don't see the problem... sentence a) means I ordered (somebody but I'm not telling who) to have a party...

This raises two questions in my head. First, does anyone else think this, and if so has the surface similarity/identity in the constructions meant that we as English speakers don't have a distinction between these any more. Or secondly, is there is a better way of distinguishing the two types of construction?

Regarding the first question: Maybe this is related to a phenomenon called Proxy Control which has only recently been described for German and is similar in its semantics and its speaker-dependence? Here is a link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 20-09501-y
Regarding the second question: I don't think a strict distinction between raising-to-object is universally accepted. In some Minimalist Programm analyses both actually involve movement. This essay discusses a number of tests.
https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/handle ... 9392_1.pdf

[zompist]

One way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_( ... stic_Tests is apparently to use "there"

a) I ordered there to be a party
b) I expected there to be a party

According to wikipedia and the papers it cites sentence a) is wrong. Sentence b) is fine. As a native English speaker I don't see the problem... sentence a) means I ordered (somebody but I'm not telling who) to have a party...

I don't have a problem with (a) either. Note that this is pretty normal for syntax! People differ in their grammaticality judgments.

Trying to apply Johansson's tests (from the paper cited by Creyeditor) to your sentences...

3.3.1 thematic role assignment test - I don't see that this is actually a test
3.3.2 idiom test

*I ordered the cat to be out of the bag.
I expected the cat to be out of the bag.

That works— "ordered" is a control verb and shouldn't preserve the idiom.

3.3.3 pleonastic test

?It's ordered that Alice (will) come.
It's expected that Alice will come.

I think that's how to apply the test to your verbs. I think the first sounds worse but it's not terrible. However, compare

I forced Alice to come.
*It's forced that Alice (will) come.

That's much worse. Could this be a continuum rather than a binary? (sound of Minimalists moaning)

3.3.4 clausal subject test

?That Alice will come is ordered.
That Alice will come is expected.

Again, note *That Alice will come is forced.

3.3.5 The passivization test

Alice was ordered to come.
Alice was expected to come.

No difference there.

[Raphael]

How would you describe the particular sound quality, arguably almost like a kind of tonality, that you can sometimes hear in the last word of a sentence or half-sentence in Hiberno-English?

[Kuchigakatai]

How would you describe the particular sound quality, arguably almost like a kind of tonality, that you can sometimes hear in the last word of a sentence or half-sentence in Hiberno-English?

Do you have any audio examples?

[Raphael]

How would you describe the particular sound quality, arguably almost like a kind of tonality, that you can sometimes hear in the last word of a sentence or half-sentence in Hiberno-English?

Do you have any audio examples?

Spent some time looking for examples, and rethought the whole idea as a result. Now I wouldn't say it's specific to the last words of sentences or half-sentences. It's more like a general rising and falling of the voice over the course of word sequences. The strongest example I could find is the idiolect of Kevin McAleer, though he's a comedian, so he might be exaggerating for comedy purposes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVNlKQuLvsQ

[Raphael]

Is the idiom "to rub someone the wrong way" a sexual metaphor? Does using it, or variants of it, constitute "using sexual language" in contexts where that might be inappropriate? And can you think of a related idiom without sexual connotations that might be used as a replacement?