« first day (639 days earlier)   

12:44 AM
> In American English, we do not say "prefer x to y"; we use "prefer x over y" or "prefer x rather than y" instead. This may not be true in other regions.
Hmm... That's new.
 
@DamkerngT. New to me, too. But I'm from Alabama and a lot of folks from elsewhere in the country don't think what we speak is English.
 
@StoneyB Thanks for the feedback!
I still think "prefer x to y" is more common.
 
1:12 AM
Ah, we answered the same question!
 
In pretty much the same way, too.
It's gotta be more comfortable for our questioners when the experts agree!
 
I don't understand your possible alternative meaning to still standing. It's logically and grammatically certain they were still standing at the time referred to (when the locals were allowed to move back in to them). The status of the buildings earlier, when those locals were avoiding evacuation, isn't really relevant. — FumbleFingers 2 mins ago
Ouch!
I don't think I suggested anything about "the status of the buildings earlier", though.
 
No; you took the alternative references to be 1-at evacuation or 2-today, whereas FF and I took them to be 1-at evacuation and 2-at liberation. I think you may be right
 
1:39 AM
I don't think so. You can have any number of theories about what might have happened earlier, but the actual words cited here specifically refer to the time at which the building were still standing. They make no reference to any earlier time, and it would be perverse in the extreme to jump out of the past tense narrative and assume it might mean still standing now (at time of speaking/writing). — FumbleFingers 1 min ago
Somehow I'm unable to follow his reasoning.
It's kind of I were saying it should be either red or blue. And he came in saying, "No, you're wrong. I don't think it's green."
I guess I will leave it at that.
(However, I think he had a point that my "red" would be a perverse. Maybe I watch too many movies and late shows and get myself to be too familiar with reading sentences in unusual ways.)
 
@DamkerngT. In COCA, to is the winner.
 
@snailboat Yay for the to!
 
> After liberation, the local inhabitants who had evaded a German-ordered mass evacuation from the area, were allowed to move into the few buildings still standing.
Must . . . destroy . . . comma
2
Either that or add one before who!
 
Before the were?
 
It's unbalanced.
And you know what happens when commas are unbalanced.
They fall over!
 
1:46 AM
I'm pretty sure that I've seen commas being used like that a lot, even in academic papers.
Maybe particularly in academic papers! :-)
 
That comma is fine if you add one before who
Otherwise it's the opposite of fine. It's enif.
 
nods
LOL
Now I'm sure you know how to write shell scripts.
 
Hee.
I gave you an upvote.
 
Thanks!
 
I think your interpretation makes sense
 
1:52 AM
I think it's exactly the problem the OP had in mind.
 
The title of this paper is amusing: Syntactically challenged rather than reduced: participial relatives revisited
They're syntactically challenged!
 
Wait, they're challenged, not challenging?!
 
Still participial, either way!
 
> Aborigines, [searching for strong voices in their fight for equality], found in this 16-year-old champion a powerful new symbol for their cause.
> [Searching for strong voices in their fight for equality], Aborigines found in this 16-year-old champion a powerful new symbol for their cause.
What does the ability to move this phrase suggest?
 
That English is quite flexible, perhaps. :-)
 
2:08 AM
Even more to the point, compare A: the buildings still standing OR the still standing buildings to B: those buildings standing the test of time BUT NOT those standing the test of time buildings.
 
> In the majority of cases, a participle clause (instead of a full relative clause) will be used whenever an -ing form or a passive verb occurs in a postmodifying clause. However, there are different reasons for this tendency. With -ing verb forms, the primary factor seems to be structural: many of the most common -ing verbs occurring in postmodifying clauses are stative in meaning (verbs of existence/relationship; 5.2.2).
> As a result, these verbs rarely, if ever, occur as full progressive verbs, and thus a full relative clause containing a finite progressive form is not truly an option. For example, none of the following postmodifiers could normally be re-phrased with a full relative clause containing a progressive verb:
> a matter concerning the public interest (ACAD)
> an affidavit containing all the basic factual material (ACAD)
> a society consisting of educated people (ACAD)
(Biber et al. 1999 p.631-2)
 
O Nice!
 
I guess the aspect of active participles can be ambiguous.
 
2:24 AM
I think on average the quality of meatie's questions has been improving
I find myself upvoting them more often lately
 
Ahh... The questions gradually change from hacking to paraphrasing.
 
17
A: I or i, which one is correct?

tunnyThe personal pronoun 'I' is always written with a capital letter in standard English. That's just the convention. Lower-case 'i' is very common in texts, informal emails and chatrooms, but is still considered incorrect elsewhere.

I liked this answer
The comments railing against i,even in informal chat, have received a lot of upvotes
 
Those comments are interesting!
 
I enjoy peeving as much as the next language user, of course
It I feel it's somewhat missing the point to discuss whether it's correct in informal chat
Certainly I think it's fine. Oh, no! I can't edit messages from my phone
 
Hee
 
2:35 AM
I commonly use lowercase i in chat
In certain circumstances, doing otherwise is a marked choice
Just like how always ending chat messages with punctuation can have in intended implications
 
Lately, I usually type just i on my iPad and let it converts my i's to I's.
 
Yeah, that's pretty common!
 
So, I actually typed i, but it came out as I!
@snailboat Besides i, there is u.
how r u is quite popular in some places.
Oh, I learned that all programs broadcast in the US must now have subtitles included. I think I've heard someone complained that subtitles usually come in all-caps!
So, if someone recited King Lear on some show, lowercase v. uppercase wouldn't be a problem, I think. :P
0
Q: How can text (of all formats) be indented?

LePressentimentI refer to http://ell.stackexchange.com/a/20319/8712, but it uses the grey code format. How can one indent in general, including bolded, italicised, sub/super-scripted texts?

Sounds like Unicode Zero Width Space might be useful. I don't remember how effective it is.
I remember that I used   a lot myself. ​ and   could also be useful, but I think I've seen a more effective way to indent things on SE.
 
 
4 hours later…
6:57 AM
hello!
 
7:08 AM
@Omen Hello!
 
how are you?
 
Good. How are you?
 
Not bad - just joined the site
 
Welcome to the site!
 
2 answers, 2 edits, 2 upvotes and even a downvote!
I am doing well
 
7:11 AM
Hehe!
 
I got the 2 ups and a down for my answer here ell.stackexchange.com/questions/37652/…
my other answer is still fresh
 
I'm trying to find the OP's sentence in the book, but I think your edit is good.
 
and I am sure the answer is okay too...lol, despite the downvote
 
Weird. I can't find it in the book. -- Keep trying...
 
lol - it could be in the special edition
I tend to proof read technical English
 
7:25 AM
It would be much easier to know what the author was trying to point out if the OP gave us the entry number in the book.
 
indeed
but taking it at face value, my answer is still okay isn't it?
 
Not quite, perhaps.
> The speaker was expressing the view that it is likely that she would not be married any time soon - perhaps later on, she would get married. Essentially, the speaker is of the view that we could have to wait a little while longer for the wedding.
I think that jumps a little too far to the conclusion.
 
i'll delete it
 
The basic meaning of "I shouldn't be surprised if they didn't get married soon." should simply be "I doubt if they got married soon."
 
well, my answer is deleted
 
7:32 AM
I guess your answer is not entirely wrong, though.
It's weird that I still can't find it. :-)
 
it got another downvote - so nah, not keeping it, it is deleted...
I am now very concerned about my other answer
 
Oh, I see. I found it.
Swan was trying to suggest that the negative verb is used without a negative meaning.
 
@DamkerngT. I added the quote
 
i think i will avoid questions like that
 
@snailboat Hooray!
@snailboat Can I upvote the editor of the question instead? :-)
 
7:39 AM
I was sure I answered correctly...
hopefully, my second answer is adequate ell.stackexchange.com/questions/37647/…
 
> Why I apply to a given doctoral program at a given university
That sounds rather weird.
 
that's why I corrected the entire sentence in the answer
 
I guess at would be okay.
 
At is grammatical
 
i suggested 'at' and 'through'
 
7:43 AM
Through . . .
 
I have seen it in use
 
Yeah
 
My head is still spinning because of through.
 
<-- nervous
 
I'm sorry! :-)
 
7:44 AM
It might work if they applied it through their own university.
 
I'm trying to think through the implications of through but it's difficult
I think there could be a difference in meaning
Of course through is also grammatical
 

« first day (639 days earlier)