Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Domande su alcune frasi

I have some doubts about a couple of passages from "1984" by G. Orwell:
1) "Suddenly he was standing on short springy turf, on a summer evening when
the slanting ray of the sun gilded the ground."
I would have written: "Suddenly he was standing on a short springy turf,..."
Why is the article missing?
2) "Somewhere near at hand, though out of sight, there was a clear,
slow-moving stream where dace were swimming in the pools under the willow
trees."
I would have written either "...where some daces were swimming..."or
"...where a dace was swimming..."
I am a little confused...
Lorenzo

 I am a little confused...
QUOTE (Ragazzini 2003)
dace 
n. (*pl. dace, daces*) (zool.)
1 Leuciscus leuciscus
2 (USA) Rhinichtys
3 (USA) Minnilus cornutus
4 (Chondrostoma genei) lasca.
UNQUOTE
Like "deer", "sheep" (which has no regular plural), "cod".
Bye, FB
-- 
"Come, dear, we have already missed five, if not six, trains. To miss any
more might expose us to comment on the platform."
("The Importance of Being Earnest", Oscar Wilde)

 I am a little confused...
And I'm not surprised you're confused; this is one of those peculiarities
that are difficult to explain.
For some reason, types of fish are usually referred to with a plural verb
and a "singular" (or "collective") noun.
"The fish have just arrived. They're very fresh."
"...where [some] dace were swimming."
Or: "...where a dace was swimming."
"The salmon are swimming upstream."
"There are three goldfish in the bowl."
In the follwing, the plural form "fishes" is used to indiate all the
different varieties of fish:
"...all the fishes of the sea and the birds of the air..."
-- 
In case you're new to this NG, haven't been paying attention, have very
limited knowledge of English, or have Alzheimer's, let me state that the
foregoing is my opinion of modern, colloquial, American English. (With
apologies to the regular readers and the healthy, for the repetition.) I
point this out to avoid confusing the reader; references to British English
may appear to contradict the foregoing.
(And if you can read and comprehend the immediate foregoing message, your
level of English is not all that bad. :)
If you feel the need to e-mail me, un-not my address first.


[...]
I was completely unaware of this rule and, as a matter of fact, it isn't
reported on my grammar textbook; in the section "Nomi invariabili al
singolare ed al plurale - a) di forma singolare" it only lists sheep, bison,
fish, deer, craft, salmon, cod and grouse. Also, Picchi dictionary doesn't
say
anything about "dace" being an uninflected word... however, Garzanti say
"pl. dace, daces". I wonder if this rule about the plural of varieties of
fish
is really universally adopted...
However, besides the grammatical issue, to know what on earth a "lasca,
leucisco" is lies beyond my sphere of competence... out of curiosity I
checked it out on my encyclopaedia of animals:
"Lasca ... lunga non oltre 25cm, caratteristica dei corsi d'acqua rapidi e
ben ossigenati a fondo prevalentemente ghiaioso dell'Italia settentrionale,
della Francia Occidentale e della Spagna del nord."
In practice they are plain, common, freshwater fish, just the kind of fish
you are likely to come across during a walk in the country.
I must say I am often bewildered at the utmost precision sometimes used to
specify species of animals or plants; maybe some animals/plants are better
known (at least as to their names) in the English speaking world compared
with Italy?
Take, for istance, the very first page of "The picture of Dorian Gray" by O.
Wilde: there are listed five names of flowers: "rose, lilac, thorn,
laburnum, hollyhock", which in turn translates to "rosa, lillà, biancospino,
maggiociondolo,
malvarosa". I don't know "malvarosa" and I'm not quite sure about
"maggiociondolo"... am I a complete ichthyo-botanic incompetent?
Lorenzo


As you suggest , just a difference between the everyday plants in our two
countries . Laburnum is a commonplace of the English suburban garden ;
hollyhocks are a traditional 'cottage-garden' flower , still quite common .
Most people here , however , would have a job to recognise any fish beyond a
goldfish , salmon or cod - and the latter two only on the fishmonger's slab
.
Mike

 goldfish , salmon or cod - and the latter two only on the fishmonger's slab
Same here.
Sebastiano
-- 
Vaughn : Now, the guys say it's bitchin, so I assume it's... bitchin. 

inglese quanto lo sia)
In inglese credo che sia abbastanza conosciuto.
Hai provato a leggere "Watership Down" in inglese? Nella versione
italiana, c'e' una lunga nota del traduttore su questi problemi.
-- 
Adam Atkinson (
gh...@mistral.co.uk
)
The gostak distims the doshes.

 questi problemi.
L'italiano è molto deficitario di questi termini 
naturalistici, credo per le sue origini letterarie "alte".
 
-- 
Today no, tomorrow yes.

 italiana, c'e' una lunga nota del traduttore su questi problemi.
No, non l'ho letto. Cerco di recuperarlo e lo leggo.
Sebastiano
-- 
B.A. Baracus : Everybody knows the mans a fool!,he's crazy,he sees people
that ain't there,and he's always talkin' in circles! 


ok, immagino che debba essere cosě, ma mi rimane l'idea che l'inglese sia,
mediamente, piů generoso in quanto a nomi comuni degli animali e l'italiano
piů scarno.
Ciao, Lorenzo

 piů scarno.
Ah, ma certo, č sicuramente cosě. L'inglese ha molti piů termini.
Sebastiano
-- 
[After sleeping with a widow]
J.D. : There are a lot of ways to grieve, but last time I checked,
wheelbarrow style wasn't one of them. 


Yes. For example, isn't Weeping Willow a beautiful name for a tree?
( Salix babylonica).
Joe from Massachusetts