MyWiki:Reference desk/Language

{{Wikipedia:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/L|WP:Refdesk/Lang|WP:Refdesk/Language}}

December 7

Why do these similar words, used in the same context, require different forms of the following verb?

In a discussion I originally wrote "I see no reason to limit this to ...", but then changed that to "I see no reason or benefit to limiting this to ...". Which got me wondering, why do "I see no reason" and "I see no benefit" require different forms of the following verb? Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Not sure,but your second version doesn't seem truly grammatical to me. Shouldn't it be "I see no reason for, nor benefit to, limiting...."? User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it's different varieties of English or something, but while your version does read to me as grammatical it also reads as significantly more formal than my second version (which doesn't seem ungrammatical to me, but that's probably not surprising regardless of whether it objectively is or not). Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I would have written it as "I see no reason to or benefit in limiting this to . . .", but I am somewhat prolix.

English often has several different ways to correctly write and/or say (gasp – a split infinitive! :-)) the same thing, sometimes with subtle differences in implication, sometimes not. This flexibility enhances poetical expression and frustrates ESL students (which is not to say that other languages are not equally versatile, but I lack sufficient grasp of any of them to perceive it).

None of this, of course, addresses Thryduulf's question about the origins of the differences he adduces, which lie beyond my limited expertise. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Your version feels not grammatical to me. Usually, in a grammatical sentence of the form "... A or B ...", one can delete "or B" without making in ungrammatical. Applying the deletion to the bit "reason to or benefit in" produces "I see no reason to limiting this to ...".  ​‑‑Lambiam 05:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Which is also the problem I had with Thryduulf's version. "I see no reason ... to limiting". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Some English nouns can be used with an infinitive complement.^[1] These nouns constitute a closed class. The noun reason is in this class; the noun benefit is not. The article linked to suggests a characterization of this class, but (as for many things in human languages) it may be impossible to discern why some words are in this class and others not.  ​‑‑Lambiam 05:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

December 10

Written off?

I was just writing something on a platform with an international audience and use the expression "written off" to describe a car that was no longer usable and wondered how universal the term really is. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Common as muck here in Britain. DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Its use is not truly universal, but mainly restricted to the Anglosphere. As the past participle of the verb write off, it has also less total senses in bookkeeping (as in, "62 percent was written off as uncollectable").  ​‑‑Lambiam 00:34, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I worked in the insurance industry here in Australia for a while, and that's the meaning there. I just wondered about the usage in countries with different approaches to such things. HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Very common in South African English. The Afrikaans translation is "afgeskryf" which literally means "off-written". ~2025-39889-34 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Common in the U.S. and Canada. As in: after the accident, the car was a complete write-off. As mentioned, the usage comes from insurance and accounting. Xuxl (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Outside the Anglosphere, an equivalent term exists in the German language, ie ab-schreiben. The meaning seems identical, it can be used formally in a fiscal context (to write off an investment over n years as an expense, reducing taxes; mentioned by user:Lambian) and colloquially for an item which has lost any value and usage (as used by user:HiLo48).

Note that abschreiben can also mean to copy, generally in an literary context (as in Luke and Matthew have abgeschrieben from evangelist Mark). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Also Swedish "avskriva", I believe. To copy is "skriva av". But the phrasing might be less common outside of Germanic languages. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Not to be confused with the weird latter-day journalistic construction "sign off on", which means approve (as distinct from plain "sign off", which usually means to say goodbye). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

A car that is written off may still be perfectly usable. My previous car was written off when somebody pulled out in front of me, but I continued to drive it for another six months. It merely means that the (other party's) insurer won't pay for repair because the cost exceeds (or exceeds 3/4 of) the value of the car. The insurer wrote off the car as a total loss, paying me £900 for it and letting me buy it back for £38 (which I omitted to pay (and I later got £90 for it as scrap)). catslash (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

December 11

Cease and Desist

Those two words mean the same thing, right? So was the phrase combining them invented at the Department of Redundancy Department? I am not seeking legal advice. (Article: Cease and desist). ~2025-39770-07 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on everything, including Cease and desist. There it explains that "The phrase "cease and desist" is a legal doublet, made up of two near-synonyms. Clicking on that link for Legal doublet will take you further into this rabbit hole. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I have heard that cease means stop it and desist means don't start it again. —Antonissimo (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

That's basically it. It's kind of subtle. "Cease" obviously means "stop". "Desist" is used to mean "refrain".[2][3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

It is called the Office of Pleonasms and Redundancy. Using words and terms that are not strictly necessary and, being redundant, might as well be omitted, deleted, and left out, since they do not add or increase information beyond the words and terms that have already been used, means more billable time for the lawyer.  ​‑‑Lambiam 01:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Somehow strikes me as an auctioneer technique. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The exact wording of laws are determined by people serving as legislators, not as lawyers (though they are usually both), and at least in the UK this process is usually subject to expert scrutiny and adjustment before the laws are passed.

As has already been discussed above, words which may loosely mean the same thing to a layperson, often in law have more precise and different meanings, and the use of both may be necessary to avoid loopholes in laws: having done so, there is less scope for a lawyer to argue that a client has or has not actually broken the letter of a law.

The recent populist fad for distaining the expertise of specialists more educated and knowledgeable than oneself should not be encouraged in an encyclopaedia (I suggest). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

To restate what Antonissimo said, cease means stop it if you're doing it, and desist means don't start if you're not doing it. That would seem to cover everything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Here are the meanings of desist as given in dictionaries:

• An American Dictionary of the English Language (1913 Webster): To stop; to cease to act or proceed; to forbear.
• OED (1933): To cease (from some action or procedure); to stop; leave off, give over forbear.
• Collins: If you desist from doing something, you stop doing it.
• Merriam–Webster: to cease to proceed or act.
• Longman: to stop doing something.
• Wiktionary: To cease to proceed or act; to stop (often with from).

 ​‑‑Lambiam 17:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, de-cease refers to the cessation of heartbeat and brain activity. It seems to be the same as ceasing heartbeat and brain activity. De-sist is a derivate from the Latin sistere (= to stop). De-sist, sist, de-cease and cease then appear to be synonyms of identical semantic value.

BTW. sist is listed as a Scottish legal term for a stay in legal proceedings, so the verb / noun is in usage. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Given the broader meaning of "desist", it would seem that "cease" is a subset of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

An argument for using cease and desist is that not everyone knows the meaning of desist.  ​‑‑Lambiam 04:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Legalese. Reminds me of the story about a guy who told his lawyer he didn't have a will. The shocked lawyer said that without a will, he could die intestate! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)