Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 February 20

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 20

Madagascan or Malagasy

I ran across the demonym of Malagasy today whilst categorising and notice it is listed as the official demonym in the Madagascar articles infobox. Being from England, I've always used the term "Madagascan" to refer to a person/object/animal etc originating from the island. Is the use of Malagasy to refer to all things that I term "Madagascan" correct and in common usage elsewhere? Is this just a case of us Brits lagging behind everyone else in adopting the term the country itself uses? Nanonic (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Both forms are acceptable, though I must say that the only form I have seen is Malagasy. As I am from the United States, perhaps this is another transatlantic difference. Marco polo (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm feeling a difference. I'd say "Malagasy" refers to the predominant ethnic group on Madagascar and their language, while "Madagascan" just refers to anything connected with the island or the country. Thus a citizen of Madagascar who belongs to a minority ethnic group is a Madagascan but not Malagasy, and a plant or animal species found only on the island is Madagascan but not Malagasy. But this is just my own gut feeling, I don't have evidence to back it up. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm British, and I don't think I've ever met 'Madagascan' before. However, 'Malagasy' to me suggests either the nationality or the language, rather than wildlife. --ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd pluralization

Or pluralisation, if you'd rather. I'm talking about words like knights-errant, courts martial, attornys general and the like. Is there a way to know when words are pluralized like this? And aside from that, is there an online list of ones that someone knows of? Thanks. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

English plural#Plurals of compound nouns might be of some help. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See English plural#Plurals of compound nouns and English plural#Compounds from the French. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec2) Basically, you pluralise the head noun. A good dictionary should show you the form taken for a particular word, so if you are unsure it is worth looking it up. Some compounds now frequently take regular plurals (both courts martial and court martials are correct), but it is best to err on the side of caution/tradition if you are in doubt. Gwinva (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec3) The simple and generalised rule is that if one part describes the other, then the part being described gets pluralised.

Thus a Lieutenant General is (nowadays) a wikt:lieutenant to the General, so the "head" is general; hence "Lieutenant Generals", not "Lieutenants General".

However, a Governor General is a Governor of the general sort. Hence it is "Governors General". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Or Governors-General if referring to the Australian office. Btw, how come the plural of "attorney" is not "attornies"? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason the plural of "key" is not "kies"? ("Moneys" is aqually correct with "monies"). Gwinva (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The -y to -ies rule does not apply when e precedes the y. Marco polo (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Post-positive adjective. Bovlb (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

...and note the interesting way plural possessives of such nouns are formed: attorneys-general's, heirs presumptive's!

See Apostrophe.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating, Noetica. Those examples would stop in their tracks many people who thought they knew the rules. Re Post-positive adjectives, it's interesting that some of them occur only in the plural - we talk of "an expert in all things medieval", but never about "a thing medieval". -- JackofOz (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But you could say "something medieval"... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So wait, does this mean that a phrase like "We digitized the rights-of-way's centerlines" is correct? I never quite knew whether the plural would be rights-of-way or right-of-ways, let alone the possessive! Pfly (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The head word seems to be "right", so I'd say yes. Not sure whether my view accords with other sticks-in-the-mud's opinions. (I'm not entirely sure about the hyphenation of either "right of way" or "stick in the mud", but I doubt that would affect the pluralisation.) -- JackofOz (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So, what's the plural of son of a bitch? Sons of a bitch? Sons of bitches? "I had to listen to several sons of bitches' ramblings at the meeting of attorneys-general's spouses"? Oy. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether they were brothers or not. If the former, "sons of a bitch"; otherwise, "sons of bitches".  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that, if they were brothers, "sons of a bitch" couldn't be converted to "sons of a bitch's ramblings", without losing coherence. That would have to be "the ramblings of the sons of a bitch". Actually, even with "sons of bitches' ramblings", there's scope for ambiguity. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To my non-native, non-expert ears, only "sons of bitches" works. I found a poem by Black Bart the robber-poet, I remembered it from reading a Lucky Luke comic book (I think it was the one in which he accompanies a Wells Fargo stagecoach to the West):

"I've labored long and hard for bread,

For honor, and for riches,

But on my corns too long you've tred,

You fine-haired sons of bitches."

And years later, we got the ramblings of The Arrogant Sons of Bitches. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah allus thought it wuz "sunsabitches" and they jes' don't deserve nuthin'. 'Specially not no capital letters! -SandyJax (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I just made up that "sons of a bitch" example. I've never heard it used. And if it were used, it would point the finger too directly at the mother, and away from her sons, which would be to lose the point of the expression. I agree entirely with Sluzzelin's "what works/doesn't work" approach to language (and most other things, for that matter). -- JackofOz (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Which versus that

Can someone offer a quick and easy way to remember how I properly distinguish "which" from "that"? Usually, whenever I look this up somewhere, the explanation goes on and on ... and gets overly long and involved ... and simply confuses me and ultimately loses me. And I certainly never remember it, long-term, down the road, when I need it again. Any quick memory aids or mnemonics so that I can learn this once and for all? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

Yes. Normally if it seems right to pause before the relative pronoun, or to put a comma there, the pronoun should be which. Otherwise it should be that. (If you really want to follow the relevant rule, of course. I do!)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty good rule of thumb, and it also applies to cases where the choice is between "that" and "who" or "whom". For example, (a) "The girl that I marry will have to be a Wikipedian", (b) "The girl, who later married me, said she was a Wikipedian", and (c) "The girl, whom I later married and even later divorced because she lied when said she was a Wikipedian, was lovely". (Disclaimer: I generally don't use "that" in reference to humans, and virtually never as a substitute for "who", but there are times when it's better than "whom"). -- JackofOz (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The simplest rule is to ignore the rule because it is one of those arbitrarily invented rules to make your life miserable. If, however, you want to avoid the abuse of which hunters, the following rule can be used by native English speakers:

Avoid which and use that instead – unless the latter sounds wrong or changes the meaning of what you want to say.

This version of the rule should have the equivalent effect as Noetica's. In either case, you should always have a comma preceding which, and no comma before that. See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language/FAQs#Which or that? for some examples.  --Lambiam 06:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is quite useful. As Quinion says, however, at the end: "If you wish to write naturally, don’t fuss too much about the usage of that versus which. Obsessive correction (sarcastically called a which hunt) is best avoided." 80.254.147.52 (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the term "which hunt." I thought I was just mad. LShecut2nd (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If you remove the "which", the meaning of the sentence isn't changed. If you remove the "that", the meaning is changed.--Eriastrum (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Eriastrum --- can you give a clarifying example? I don't think I follow you.

• This is the new car that I just bought.
• This is the new car which I just bought.
• This is the new car I just bought. (using your "elimination rule")

They all sound the same to me ... no? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

I don't want to speak for Eriastrum, but I think s/he meant to say that if you remove a clause that should be introduced by "which" (i.e., a nonrestrictive relative clause), the meaning of a sentence isn't changed, whereas if you remove a clause that should be introduced by "that" (i.e., a restrictive relative clause), the meaning is changed. Even this, however, represents only the usage of folk who like to make cut-and-dried distinctions in the matter. Which has long been used, particularly in British English, to introduce restrictive as well as nonrestrictive clauses. Deor (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, yes - that makes more sense ... and also seems to work. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

Thanks a lot for all of the useful information above. I think that I finally understand this rule, in both theory and practical application. The link offered by Lambian was particularly helpful ... and, by the way, I never even knew that Wikipedia had an FAQ for the Language Desk. That link / article offered by User 80.254.147.52 was also pretty useful / helpful. Thanks to all. So, as a final thought, this is what I have come up with ... in order for me to remember this in the future. Please let me know if indeed I got it down correctly, or if I messed up in my understanding somewhere along the line.

• the word "which" introduces a non-restrictive clause and a non-restrictive clause is set off by comma's (or a pause, as Noetica states)
• the word "that" introduces a restrictive clause and a restrictive clause is not set off by comma's (nor a pause, as Noetica states)

Thusly:

• the word "which" contains the letter "c" ... "c" stands for COMMA ... therefore, use a comma
• the word "that" contains no letter "c" ... therefore, no comma

Is my synopsis and mnemonic for future remembering of all this pretty accurate and a good overall rule to follow? Or did I miss something here? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

Will versus shall

What is the proper distinction in employing "will" versus "shall"? If possible, please offer the old/traditional rule ... and the contemporary. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

The standard traditional rule, in simple form, is this:

Simply to mark future tense, use shall for the first person and will for the second and third persons. To mark inevitability or determination, strong intention, or imperative force, use the reverse.    Examples:

Who shall I say is calling? (simple futurity)

He will find a silver dollar. (simple futurity)

We shall be bored if this continues. (simple futurity)

I will do it, whether or not you approve. (strong intention)

You shall do as I say! (imperative force)

They shall submit to my authority! (imperative force)

The war shall continue, though everyone wants peace. (inevitability or determination)

Illustrative excerpt from KJV of the Bible (Genesis 30:28–33), though some instances are influenced subtly by other considerations:

And he said, Appoint me thy wages, and I will give [it]. And he said unto him, Thou knowest how I have served thee, and how thy cattle was with me. For [it was] little which thou hadst before I [came], and it is [now] increased unto a multitude; and the LORD hath blessed thee since my coming: and now when shall I provide for mine own house also? And he said, What shall I give thee? And Jacob said, Thou shalt not give me anything: if thou wilt do this thing for me, I will again feed [and] keep thy flock. I will pass through all thy flock to day, removing from thence all the speckled and spotted cattle, and all the brown cattle among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats: and [of such] shall be my hire. So shall my righteousness answer for me in time to come, when it shall come for my hire before thy face: every one that [is] not speckled and spotted among the goats, and brown among the sheep, that shall be counted stolen with me.

Modern usage is more in favour of will alone; except in certain fixed forms like Who shall I say is calling? This might be said by someone who normally only uses will. Americans use shall very little; and many British and Australians are influenced by their example.

The corresponding forms should (when not meaning ought) and would follow the same pattern; but note that should is more obsolescent even than shall, except in certain conditional expressions: If I should get there before you... (and even in the third person: If it should rain...); but not often these days I should get there before you if chose to run.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 06:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. These are sometimes known as the predictive and promissive futures respectively. Bovlb (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the use of "shalt not" is heavily influence by the manner in which Hebrew forms its negative imperative. It uses the negative adverb (lo) and the imperfect aspect, most comfortably translated in English as "thou shalt not", although the meaning is just as much "do not". Blame Tyndale and James. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

When laying out the conjugation of a verb in the future, it is convention to use shall in the first persons and will in the second and third.

I shall go

You will go

He will go

We shall go

You will go

They will go

However, when using them in prose, shall indicates that (notice the use of 'that' as opposed to 'which'!) something will be done regardless of other influencing factors, whereas 'will' signifies that the action is dependent upon something else.

You shall go to the ball! (i.e. this is not up for negotiation)

You will go to the ball, if you behave. (i.e. going to the ball is dependent on a prior action)

92.3.49.42 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Careful with the 'British', Noetica: I often use 'shall', and almost invariably in the interrogative - 'will I go?' is asking for a prediction - but some Scots I know do not appear to use 'shall' at all, and will say things like 'Will I close the window?' --ColinFine (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's one of those questions which troubles us all. Will I win the lottery? Will I live into my eighties? Will I develop cancer? Will I shut the window? Gwinva (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think for a moment that I was not being careful, Colin? At the very start I wrote "The standard traditional rule, in simple form,...". Of course there are variations from "standard", and there are inevitable complications, including the subtleties that I mentioned in passing for the KJV example. I did not seek to trace all such curlicues.

But it is not clear what you are saying, because you don't tell us whether your usage is British.

Meanwhile, put Shall we dance? through its paces, as an invitation proffered first in Britsprache, and then in Vespucciano.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking some Welsh and knowing some Scottish people suggests a British person to me, but YMMV. Given the context of the first sentence I would say Colin reasonably expected people to infer that his usage was British. 79.74.27.178 (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

dog's tail and a possible saying

In my native tongue there is a saying related to dog's tail. It literally reads thus: "You can't straighten a dog's tail even if you put it inside a flute for twelve years". It is said of people obstinately persevering in their perverse course. Is there a saying in English similar to this, attached or not attached to dog's tail?--Doggerellade --Doggerellade (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm intensely interested in learning your native tongue. You can't say that quite the same way in English -- you can say, "You can't teach an old dog new tricks," but that is more about how difficult it is to learn new ways of doing things once you're used to being a certain way (often used when people of a certain age are trying to work on computers). I can't think of any saying to match what yours says... Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't squeeze blood from a stone? Flogging a dead horse? 130.88.140.114 (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

With us, "the leopard cannot change his spots". Though that doesn't strictly imply perverseness, it's more often pejorative than "you can't teach an old dog new tricks". It's not as widely heard, I think, too. Also, "there's no fool like an old fool", and I should know. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We do have "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." It normally refers to things, but I could imagine someone applying it to a person he was trying to train and didn't like. However, in that context it could mean that the person was incompetent rather than stubbornly refusing to improve. --Anonymous, 18:27 UTC, February 20/08.

Emptying the sea with a sieve? hotclaws 21:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How 'bout, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"? Seems pretty analagous to me. As for the original saying, that's gotta be a case of losing something in translation. Azi Like a Fox (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Dorothy Parker's "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think". —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"You can flog a dead horse to a silk purse, but you can't squeeze a leopard from an old fool's trick." - I think that summarizes them all. Well, back to whatever it is I do. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have quite the overtones of obstinate perversity that your saying does, with its "for twelve years," but there's "You can't fit a square peg into a round hole." Deor (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Word for "Jew" in languages of former Yugoslavia

A Nazi-era yellow badge worn in the area of the former Yugoslavia has the letter Ž in black on a yellow background, shaped like a Star of David. Apparently this is the initial letter of Židov, the Serbo-Croatian word for "Jew." Is that also the initial letter of the word for "Jew" in other local languages of German-occupied Yugoslavia—and if so, which? (N.B. - my usual ruse of checking via interwiki was inconclusive due to dissimilar names for comparable pages.)-- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice the Slovenian article sl:Judje says "tudi Žídje in Žídi", which I presume means "also Žídje or Žídi". At the time, of course, there was no distinction between "Bosnian", "Croatian", and "Serbian", there was just Serbo-Croatian, but nevertheless I see that the Bosnian article bs:Jevreji gives "Židovi" as an alternate name and the Croatian article is actually at hr:Židovi. The Serbian sr:Јевреји and Macedonian mk:Евреи articles don't contain the string "жид" anywhere in them though. Maybe in the Orthodox countries, the "жид"-word has become strongly derogatory as it has in Russian. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I once read that after 1945, Russians tried to change the word for "Jew" in the Polish language, because it was pronounced similarly to a highly-derogatory word in the Russian language... AnonMoos (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the Polish word is Żyd, which sounds like and is cognate with Russian zhid, but in Russian that's derogatory and in Polish it apparently isn't. Looking through the various Slavic Wikipedias' articles, it seems the Catholic countries use the zhid-like word neutrally (pl:Żydzi, cs:Židé, hr:Židovi), while the Orthodox countries prefer the yevrey-like word (be:Яўрэі Yawrei, bg:Евреи Evrei, mk:Евреи Evrei, ru:Евреи Yevrei, sr:Јевреји Jevreji, uk:Євреї Yevreyi). Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian are at bs:Jevreji and sh:Jevreji but give "Židovi" as an alternate name. Slovenian is at sl:Judje but gives "Židje" as an alternate name. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

German Language Self-study

Is there a supreme self-study referreence and practice German, organized and codified structure of German language perfectly, qualities of a self-study book , ecxellent referrence of German language and... ? Flakture (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, no study guide is perfect, and no study guide is as good as living among German speakers and speaking German with them. I'd recommend learning German through your native language, though, which I presume is not English. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There is the reference grammar Hammer's German Grammar and Usage, which I pick up from time to time. It's not a course, though. Strad (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest purchasing the following text book, Wie geht's?. It's a college level textbook for English speakers wanting to learn German. It's excellently laid out and well written, and it is what I used to learn German. --KeithatET (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perplexing sentence

Consider the following passage from a 19-century manuscript: "Florence divides with Naples and Rome the most admired productions of ancient statuary, but the first in rank is here: the far-famed Venus de’ Medici – the “statue that enchants the world.” This world of ours is composed of all sorts of people. Some are wise, and some would be thought so – while a great number are easily led by the nose and are ready to bow down and worship where others have knelt before. It is astonishing that many good, sensible people are afflicted with such a passion for acquiring a reputation as a connoisseur. I have often had occasion to remark this to myself on witnessing the raptures, got up according to a guide-book, before some work of the pencil or chisel of a man with a name. Touching this statue of the Medici, it is rank-heresy even to look upon it without being “dazzled and drunk with beauty.” Nevertheless, in my own case – whether through my fault or the marble’s,it is unnecessary to inquire - I remained utterly unmoved. Anatomically, the statue is, doubtless, correct – in posture and grace of outline, it is faultless – in chiselling, it displays the touches of a master-hand; but, as for any sentiment or soul about it, it is as cold and heartless as the rock from which it was hewn. This is not poetry – it is at variance with most of the sermons written on this prolific text – and yet I candidly believe it is the real and cool conclusion of all those dispassionate minds who are able to divest themselves of the overwhelming weight of authority and form for themselves a simple and independent judgement. The Venus of Canova is here, in a different gallery – a chaste and beautiful conception, but it has yet to realize the fame of its rival. I wish that they were placed side-by-side. Not even prejudice could fail then, I think, to award the palm where it is unquestionably due." The statement beginning "and yet I candidly believe it is the real and cool conclusion..." is confusing to me. Does he believe that those who praise the Venus de' Medici have reached such a conclusion by being "able to divest themselves of the overwhelming weight of authority and form for themselves a simple and independent judgement"? Or, does he believe that such persons would conclude, as he, that it is not art? Can "and still" be substitued for "and yet"? LShecut2nd (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your problem. I was able to stay with him up to that point, but he shook me off there. I think we are to understand it thus: "It" in "it is not poetry" is the Medici statue. "It" in "it is at variance" is his opinion that the statue is not poetry, as is the "it" in the next phrase. To paraphrase: "The Venus de' Medici is not poetry. Although this opinion is at variance with the writings of the respected art critics, I candidly believe it is the real and cool conclusion of all those dispassionate minds who are able to divest themselves of the overwhelming weight of authority and form for themselves a simple and independent judgement." His use of "this prolific text" is quite odd to this modern American's ear, but I think he's playing fast and loose with words hoping for a whiff of erudition. I think his "and yet" means "nonetheless" in reference to the opinions of the experts. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to use your paraphrase, only changing "is" to "to be" in the phrase "I candidly believe it is...". My over-riding concern in paraphrasing is that I use words and terms contemporary with my author whose notes were written in 1855-1857. I googled books / art critic and came up with a list of only ten. The oldest was 1887. Does the term "art critic" date back to the mid nineteenth century?LShecut2nd (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend for my paraphrasing to be usable, it was just a way of roughly rendering his meaning as I saw it in modern language. I seem to remember your project, and I bow to your experience and study in matters of 19th-century language. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I interpret it thus: "I candidly believe this to be the real and cool conclusion of dispassionate minds: that the Venus de' Medici is as cold and heartless as the rock from which it was hewn."  --Lambiam 19:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see that too. But to use "cold and heartless as the rock from which it was hewn," I would have to steal that punch-line from the sentence beginning "Anatomically, the statue is....". I will have to let it rest for awhile and revisit it. If only I could ask the author! But he died in 1895, and I know no mediums to the spirit world.LShecut2nd (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The author's arugment is that the Venus de' Medici is overrated. The source of confusion for readers is the sentence beginning "This is not poetry," in which the author uses religious imagery to discredit the prevailing view of the statue. "This prolific text" is a metaphor for the statue, while "sermons" represents the praises of the masses--the word denotes lengthy texts that, while beautiful, are essentially dogmatic. The author is saying that, in the popular opinion, the statue, like a scriptural passage, may be expounded upon in lengthy, eloquent language, but its worthiness may never be called into question. These contrast with his unflattering, straight-talk assessment of the statue: "it is as cold and heartless as the rock from which it was hewn." It is the assessment that, unlike the sermons, is not poetry; and the author asserts that anyone who can put aside the indoctrination will form a more down-to-earth opinion of the statue.--Diacritic (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)