English questions

[Travis B.]

Developers have cow-orkers.

[Travis B.]

Are the terms 'colleague' and 'coworker' entirely synonymous? Are there perhaps differences in connotation?

Yeah, it's class Doctors have colleagues, plumbers have co-workers. Someone in the middle, like developers, can have either.

As ever, there are nuances. You can talk about a grocery bagger's colleagues, but it's ironic or condescending. If you talk about a doctor's co-workers, it'd be likely taken as their secretaries and nurses.

Cow-orkers aside, if someone at my work (for those who don't already know, I'm a programmer by profession) spoke of "colleagues" I would think they had drunk too much of the human resources department Kool-Aid.

[Man in Space]

Plumbers can have colleagues too—for example, someone in the same line of work but a different shop/state/union.

[Linguoboy]

I'm currently reading an English-language novel in which a character is described as blond on one page and as red-haired on the next page. Is that just the author being sloppy, or can red-haired sometimes be seen as a subdivision of blond in the English language?

There is a type of hair colour called "strawberry blonde". Wiktionary describes it as "hair [that] appears blonde in dim light, but when exposed to sun or a bright light, the hair may assume a slight tinge of pink or red color". I rarely see this term used outside of popular literature from the mid-20th century and earlier.

[Raphael]

I'm currently reading an English-language novel in which a character is described as blond on one page and as red-haired on the next page. Is that just the author being sloppy, or can red-haired sometimes be seen as a subdivision of blond in the English language?

There is a type of hair colour called "strawberry blonde". Wiktionary describes it as "hair [that] appears blonde in dim light, but when exposed to sun or a bright light, the hair may assume a slight tinge of pink or red color". I rarely see this term used outside of popular literature from the mid-20th century and earlier.

Thank you. I don't think that applies here - the book is from the turn of this century.

[Raphael]

Was the word "eldritch" invented by HP Lovecraft, or did people use it before him? If the latter, what did it mean before him?

[bradrn]

Was the word "eldritch" invented by HP Lovecraft, or did people use it before him? If the latter, what did it mean before him?

Wiktionary gives a citation from 1790 (Burns’s poem Tam o’ Shanter), apparently with more or less the same meaning. It does however note that Lovecraft reintroduced it into modern literature.

[Raphael]

Was the word "eldritch" invented by HP Lovecraft, or did people use it before him? If the latter, what did it mean before him?

Wiktionary gives a citation from 1790 (Burns’s poem Tam o’ Shanter), apparently with more or less the same meaning. It does however note that Lovecraft reintroduced it into modern literature.

Thank you!

[Travis B.]

Does anyone else have slown /ˈsloʊn/ as a valid past participle of slow?

[Darren]

Does anyone else have slown /ˈsloʊn/ as a valid past participle of slow?

Yeah, it's be /sləʊ̯ən/ here though.

[TomHChappell]

Does anyone else have slown /ˈsloʊn/ as a valid past participle of slow?

I think so? Maybe? Analogous with <flown> ?

It must be rarish, if we have it here.
….
I feel that participles of “slow” would be active and passive, rather than present and past. But in the case of “slown” — if we have it here and now in my ‘lect — those participles would apparently be homonyms. Assuming I’m not just all wet!

[Travis B.]

Does anyone else have slown /ˈsloʊn/ as a valid past participle of slow?

I think so? Maybe? Analogous with <flown> ?

It must be rarish, if we have it here.
….
I feel that participles of “slow” would be active and passive, rather than present and past. But in the case of “slown” — if we have it here and now in my ‘lect — those participles would apparently be homonyms. Assuming I’m not just all wet!

I'm just using the standard terminology for English. Yes, in many cases the present participle is really an active participle and the past participle is really a passive participle, even though slown as in "The rain has slown down" doesn't sound very passive.

Interestingly enough, for some verbs in the dialect here, there is a contrast between more-past-y and less-past-y past/passive participles, such as aten versus eaten and dranken versus drunk(en), respectively, with the more-past-y ones typically being a preterite with -(e)n attached.

[Raphael]

What would be the proper punctuation for a line containing a quote like

"I'm gonna get right to it" said Michael.

?

[zompist]

What would be the proper punctuation for a line containing a quote like

"I'm gonna get right to it" said Michael.

?

"I'm gonna get right to it," said Michael.

In the UK you'd get single-quotes instead.

[bradrn]

"I'm gonna get right to it," said Michael.

In the UK you'd get single-quotes instead.

…and would also put the comma outside the quotation marks.

(I still do not understand what possesses Americans to put punctuation inside the quotation, where it clearly does not belong.)

[zompist]

"I'm gonna get right to it," said Michael.

In the UK you'd get single-quotes instead.

I only have one book printed and bought in England, but it disagrees with you. Sample:

'Very close in here,' he said.
'Quite oppressive,' said the man next to him.

Admittedly this book is 19th century, but this copy was re-issued in 1982.

Or, from Project Gutenberg, from an H.G. Wells novel

‘I wish, Daddy,’ he said, coming to his point, ‘that you wouldn’t write all this stuff about flying. The chaps rot me.’
‘Yes!’ said his father.

Here's an article from Larry Trask, hosted by the University of Sussex, which gives British usage pretty thoroughly. Toward the end he gets into some cases where people fight about whether a punctuation mark goes in or out of the quote marks. However, the dispute involves direct quotation of printed material where it's a matter of fact (or not) what the original material had as punctuation, not reported speech where there is none.

In high school I wrote a paper about programming, and had something like

To branch to a subroutine you write "GOSUB 12000".

My teacher insisted it had to be

To branch to a subroutine you write "GOSUB 12000."

which I strongly objected to, as the final period makes it incorrect BASIC. But he wasn't convinced, the poor deluded man. However, this sort of thing is rare.

[bradrn]

"I'm gonna get right to it," said Michael.

In the UK you'd get single-quotes instead.

I only have one book printed and bought in England, but it disagrees with you. Sample:

'Southend pier!' he replied, with a puzzled expression.
'Yes; going down to Yarmouth, last Friday three weeks.'

Admittedly this book is 19th century, but this copy was re-issued in 1982.

Or, from Project Gutenberg, from an H.G. Wells novel

‘I wish, Daddy,’ he said, coming to his point, ‘that you wouldn’t write all this stuff about flying. The chaps rot me.’
‘Yes!’ said his father.

I did simplify a bit. My understanding of the rule is that the punctuation goes inside the quotes when it semantically belongs with the quote, and outside the quotes when it belongs with the surrounding sentence.

(For more see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation ... tish_style.)

[quinterbeck]

In the UK you'd get single-quotes instead.

A cursory look online tells me this is highly contested. As a Brit, I am used to seeing double quotation marks as default everywhere, and it's the option I find most natural. I don't recall being taught to use one or the other in school, but I'm pretty sure I've always used double-quotes.

[Lērisama]

In the UK you'd get single-quotes instead.

A cursory look online tells me this is highly contested. As a Brit, I am used to seeing double quotation marks as default everywhere, and it's the option I find most natural. I don't recall being taught to use one or the other in school, but I'm pretty sure I've always used double-quotes.

As another Brit, pretty much the same thing. The only time where I was ever told to use a specific kind of quotation marks was when giving the title of something on paper (because you can't do italics well), and I think we were told to do this in constrast to the double quote we'd all normally use e.g.

In ‘Romeo and Juliet’ Shakespeare presents the theme of …

…and would also put the comma outside the quotation marks.

(I still do not understand what possesses Americans to put punctuation inside the quotation, where it clearly does not belong.)

Sadly, this is also contested. I was definitely told in school to put the punctuation inside, but that is clearly wrong, so I've always put it on the outside (unless in a context where it would lose me marks)

[zompist]

In the UK you'd get single-quotes instead.

A cursory look online tells me this is highly contested. As a Brit, I am used to seeing double quotation marks as default everywhere, and it's the option I find most natural. I don't recall being taught to use one or the other in school, but I'm pretty sure I've always used double-quotes.

As another Brit, pretty much the same thing.

I reckon y'all are getting Americanized. Y'all're gonna be writing "honor" and "Americanized" soon.