English questions

[Raphael]

Next question, once again completely unrelated to the previous one:

Why is the sound that Beaker the Muppet makes usually transcribed as "meep"? I don't think I've ever heard a "p" in the coda there, or any kind of coda at all.

[Moose-tache]

As fascinating as that is, my years of hunching over monographs force me to add to the previous discussion.

Technically, what separates a foreword from a preface is not the writer. Sometimes prefaces are written by not the author, and on rare occasion a foreword will be written by the author. Much like the introduction, the distinction is about how integrally connected it is to the main text of the book. A preface is about the book, or more directly about one edition of the book, and will often be updated with each edition. Forewords are not updated (although subsequent editions may get a shiny new foreword) because they are not substantially "about" the actual text of the book, but the larger context. This is the main reason why they are usually written by someone other than the author: a foreword usually talks about the significance of the book, the historical position of the author, etc. In books for public consumption the foreword will usually be a couple of pages where Oprah describes how she felt when she read it. None of that would happen in a preface. A preface needs to address the actual text in some way, even if it's just describing the consequences of an updated translation. They're kind of like those "how to read this manual" sections at the front of technical documents.

Of course, these are tendencies, not hard rules. Sometimes a publisher will write a preface about how handsome and fine-smelling the author is, because the author is their star client, or a foreword will go into detail about the argumentation of a text. But as a general rule, this is the intended difference.

[Raphael]

"I won't be so arrogant to claim that..."

or

"I won't be so arrogant as to claim that..."

?

[Linguoboy]

"I won't be so arrogant to claim that..."

or

"I won't be so arrogant as to claim that..."

?

Sounds better to me without the "as" (and it sounds even better to me with "wouldn't" rather than "won't").

[Raphael]

Sounds better to me without the "as" (and it sounds even better to me with "wouldn't" rather than "won't").

Thank you!

[Richard W]

Sounds better to me without the "as" (and it sounds even better to me with "wouldn't" rather than "won't").

Thank you!

On the other hand, I would prefer it with 'as'!

[Travis B.]

I would go with wouldn't and as myself.

[bradrn]

I would go with wouldn't and as myself.

So would I.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I would go with wouldn't and as myself.

So would I.

I would also use that phrasing. Using won't implies some definite future event (as a villain saying something like, "But we won't be so arrogant as to assume the heroes can't stop us", as opposed to a hypothetical, or advising somebody not to do something), and without the "as" I can still understand it, but it feels a little off.

[Moose-tache]

I'm surprised that any native speaker says it without the "as." To me that's extremely wrong, up there with "let's trying" and "I believe you n't."

[Raphael]

Thank you, everyone!


"I've proven that person wrong"

or

"I've proved that person wrong"?

[Linguoboy]

"I've proven that person wrong"

or

"I've proved that person wrong"?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proven#Usage_notes

[Raphael]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proven#Usage_notes

Thank you!

[Man in Space]

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?

I never got that impression from it. Being autistic I have certain sensory sensitivities; I can’t wear a lot of tight or long-sleeved clothing because the way the fabric causes my body hair to face the “wrong” way, and that’s always how I took it.

[Darren]

Recently I've noticed people consistently using [l] as an allophone of /t d/. It seems to be the dissimilated realisation of the second instance of a flapped alveolar stop in a word/phrase, e.g. fixated in [fɪkˈsæi̯ɾɪlɪn]. It's hard to say for sure but I think in AusEng at least it's different to the usual realisation of /l/, [ɫ]. I've heard it from both Americans and Australians in relatively high frequency, but I've never seen it mentioned anywhere. Has anyone else noticed this in their own/other people's speech?

[bradrn]

Recently I've noticed people consistently using [l] as an allophone of /t d/. It seems to be the dissimilated realisation of the second instance of a flapped alveolar stop in a word/phrase, e.g. fixated in [fɪkˈsæi̯ɾɪlɪn]. It's hard to say for sure but I think in AusEng at least it's different to the usual realisation of /l/, [ɫ]. I've heard it from both Americans and Australians in relatively high frequency, but I've never seen it mentioned anywhere. Has anyone else noticed this in their own/other people's speech?

I don’t recall ever hearing this, though maybe it’s just that I haven’t been listening closely enough. For fixated in I have [fɘkˈsæ͡ɪdːɘn], but I don’t necessarily speak Australian English per se.

[Raphael]

OK, this is perhaps more a political than a linguistic question, but it's still connected to language use, so I'm asking it here:

I've somehow got the impression that recently, the term "African American" is a bit in retreat, and there's a resurgence of the term "Black". I haven't seen any "announcements" along those lines, so it's just the impression I get from reading texts written by people with political views that mean that they try to use the community's own preferred term. So, is my impression right, or mistaken?

I'm currently working on a blog post where I plan to talk about a number of US politicians and briefly mention their demographic groups, so I'd like to know whether "African American" or "Black" would step on fewer toes.

[zompist]

I'm currently working on a blog post where I plan to talk about a number of US politicians and briefly mention their demographic groups, so I'd like to know whether "African American" or "Black" would step on fewer toes.

"Black" (capitalized) is fine as an adjective. However, using ethnic descriptions as nouns can indeed step on toes.

[Travis B.]

OK, this is perhaps more a political than a linguistic question, but it's still connected to language use, so I'm asking it here:

I've somehow got the impression that recently, the term "African American" is a bit in retreat, and there's a resurgence of the term "Black". I haven't seen any "announcements" along those lines, so it's just the impression I get from reading texts written by people with political views that mean that they try to use the community's own preferred term. So, is my impression right, or mistaken?

I'm currently working on a blog post where I plan to talk about a number of US politicians and briefly mention their demographic groups, so I'd like to know whether "African American" or "Black" would step on fewer toes.

I am with zompist - Black is perfectly fine as an adjective, but don't use it as a noun - in that case, use Black person or Black people instead. As for African American, it is fine as both an adjective and as a noun. Note that African American may have connotations of that one is trying to deliberately be "politically correct" for its own sake. Also, from what I have seen and heard, Black people tend to call themselves Black rather than African American.

[Estav]

I'm currently working on a blog post where I plan to talk about a number of US politicians and briefly mention their demographic groups, so I'd like to know whether "African American" or "Black" would step on fewer toes.

"Black" (capitalized) is fine as an adjective. However, using ethnic descriptions as nouns can indeed step on toes.

Lowercase "black" strikes me as a more common stylistic choice (I don't find the capitalization to have a particularly significant effect on either meaning or acceptability).