« first day (596 days earlier)      last day (303 days later) » 

4:23 AM
"I came as soon as I ascertained that you needed to see me, sir."
So other few... words... fit.
 
ascertain this^
 
@IceBoy Randall is clever, but this Russian guy is still my hero
 
@HostileFork Wow, too cool :-)
 
 
3 hours later…
7:43 AM
> "I'm not gonna give up for sure", said Veronica.
I wonder if having that comma inside the quote would be better.
 
Anonymous
That would rather change the meaning
 
Anonymous
"I'm not gonna give up for sure" ← an informal (nonstandard?) way of saying "It's not certain that I'm going to give up"
 
Oh! I thought it was just about style.
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. I'm not sure. I'm trying to imagine it.
 
Anonymous
When I saw it, I wondered if Maulik meant "There is no way I'm going to give up"
 
7:46 AM
> "I'm not gonna give up for sure", said Veronica.
"I'm not gonna give up for sure," said Veronica.
 
Anonymous
And I think that if you put a comma in there and pronounced for sure separately, it'd be a lot easier to get that interpretation
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. Oh! I totally misread what you wrote.
 
Anonymous
I thought you meant putting a comma um, inside the quote :-) Like "I'm not gonna give up, for sure!"
 
Umm... Not really. :)
 
Anonymous
I would probably personally say "inside the quotes" to refer to the quotation marks
 
7:47 AM
I wasn't very clear, admittedly.
 
Anonymous
But that's just me.
 
Anonymous
Now I understand.
 
Oh, good point!
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. It's okay, I misunderstand stuff all the time. :-)
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. The difference you point out is a matter of style
 
Anonymous
7:48 AM
It's somewhat pondian
 
Anonymous
You'll find that many programmers on both sides of the pond, though, favor putting the comma inside the quote when it's part of the quote, and outside when it's not
 
I don't know this word. (Perhaps related to ponder.)
Ahh... I see.
 
Anonymous
Oh, it's a matter of which side of the pond you're on
 
A very big pond. :)
 
Anonymous
Sorry, I know I don't always communicate very clearly, but I've been thinking for a while I should try to talk the way I normally do when I'm around learners (other than learners who very clearly need basic language)
 
Anonymous
7:51 AM
Because, if nothing else, it helps expose learners to the way the language is normally spoken. By me. Which may not be how anyone else speaks it. But eh, whatchagonnado? :-)
 
You should talk normally. In other words, you should be you. That's the best, I think. :)
 
Anonymous
I am me!
 
Yay!
 
Anonymous
points
 
nods :)
 
Anonymous
7:52 AM
Yesterday on Japanese.SE, someone asked me who snailplane is
 
LOL
 
Anonymous
I've confused a lot of people now :-)
 
Anonymous
Sorry, a lot of people!
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. Sometimes when I talk like myself on language-conscious fora, I find that people correct my English
 
Hah!
is gasping!
 
Anonymous
7:53 AM
Admittedly, I do say nonstandard stuff.
 
Anonymous
Quite a lot, actually :-)
 
Defining what standard is could be very tricky.
 
Anonymous
That's true.
 
Anonymous
Sometimes I'm not sure.
 
It's quite easier to judge in written English.
 
Anonymous
7:55 AM
It's easy to say a lot of stuff is standard, and it's easy to say a lot of stuff isn't
 
Anonymous
But there's stuff on the fringes where people might disagree
 
Oh, like that question I saw yesterday, "This looks a good book."
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. Written English has additional standards, like that of spelling
 
Anonymous
Ah, is that still current in BrE? I'm not entirely sure
 
Judging from FF's comment, I think it still is.
 
Anonymous
7:56 AM
It's not part of my dialect
 
Anonymous
So my intuitive judgment as a teenager would have been to say "That sounds wrong!"
 
Anonymous
But now I've been exposed to it a bit
 
Have you heard this phrase before, 'The Constitution Is Not A Suicide Pact'?
I read on ELU that it's a common phrase in the US, but I think it might not be the case.
 
Anonymous
I haven't.
 
Anonymous
I'm not a lawyer.
 
8:01 AM
nods
 
it makes sense, to me
 
@IceBoy The Constitution phrase?
Btw, hello!
 
Hi pal.
yes, a suicide pact is a "I will kill myself, if you kill yourself" agreement, right?
 
Sort of like that I believe.
 
Anonymous
0
A: 'The Constitution Is Not A Suicide Pact'

Joe BlowIt would appear that nobody has made it clear to LePress, THIS IS A COMMON POLITICAL PHRASE IN THE USA. (Just to be clear, it's not "extremely common" like say "tea party" or something. But it's "quite common" -- for example, like saying "soccer mom" or "bleeding-heart liberal".) It actually h...

 
Anonymous
8:05 AM
This answer is trivially falsifiable
 
Anonymous
Soccer mom is 50 times more common than constitution is not a suicide in COCA
 
I think it could also mean "We all will kill ourselves somewhen somewhere".
Soccer mom is somehow catchy. :)
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. Hmm, I think it has a relatively clear meaning . . .
 
I wrote this a few moments ago:
Disclaimer: This is just me trying to figure out the phrase in plain English; it's not legal advice. The phrase 'The Constitution is not a suicide pact' essentially means that if we choose to uphold the laws but as a result destroy ourselves somehow, that will be as if we are committing suicide (real or idealized, it doesn't matter, I believe), and thus turning the Constitution into a suicide pact. — Damkerng T. 42 mins ago
 
Anonymous
It does look frequent enough that I wouldn't be surprised if I'd seen or heard it before and forgotten. But it's not really "quite common"
 
Anonymous
8:08 AM
That is to say, it has only 2 results in COCA
 
Anonymous
Which is the relevant corpus since it's apparently a US term
 
Anonymous
Soccer mom has 119 results, the plural soccer moms has 122 results
 
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Although the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln, and although versions of the sentiment have been advanced at various times in American history, the precise...
 
Anonymous
So if we combine those, the phrase is more than two orders of magnitude less common
 
Oh, it sounds like people use the generalized soccer mom(s) more often!
@IceBoy Exactly!
 
Anonymous
8:11 AM
Well, 119 versus 122 is within the margin of error
 
Anonymous
A soccer mom can also be general :-)
 
Anonymous
You need context to decide what's most natural. — snailplane Aug 12 at 6:25
 
Anonymous
I left this comment last month.
 
Anonymous
Now the question has been put on hold:
 
Anonymous
> Please edit to add the research you have done in your efforts to answer the question, or provide more context.
 
Anonymous
8:12 AM
Unintended consequence?
 
Anonymous
Or unrelated to what I wrote?
 
I don't know for sure. Possibly unrelated.
I already forgot that question.
 
Anonymous
It was just bumped.
 
Anonymous
I actually just voted to reopen. :-)
 
Anonymous
I think that when people are asked to pick one or the other, and they can't reasonably do so, that makes a good answer
 
8:15 AM
200_success edited it yesterday, we might get a better answer this time. :)
 
Anonymous
"Both can be reasonably used"
 
Anonymous
But some people close questions like that with
 
Anonymous
1. Details, Please
 
Anonymous
2. Unclear what you're asking
 
Anonymous
3. Primarily Opinion Based
 
Anonymous
8:16 AM
It could make sense if you suspect they have an actual context
 
Anonymous
But I suspect they don't
 
Anonymous
And anyway, they can always ask a follow-up question, more specific than the general one, and get a more specific answer
 
Anonymous
I think that's all okay.
 
Anonymous
So I voted to reopen. :-)
 
Both are fine to me.
I'm still thinking if this which can replace this that in all cases.
 
Anonymous
8:17 AM
Occasionally, I see or I'll even use Maulik's quoting style, where he wrote:
 
Anonymous
> "I'm not gonna give up for sure.", said Veronica.
 
Anonymous
I'd never write that sentence.
 
Anonymous
But!
 
Anonymous
If I want to quote something the way someone wrote it exactly including punctuation
 
Anonymous
> When you wrote "About that.", I would probably have written something like "About that...".
 
Anonymous
8:19 AM
This is a made-up example, and a bad example at that. I'm just trying to come up with something to illustrate when I'd actually write a period inside a quote that was followed by a comma
 
Anonymous
(I wrote "quote" here rather than "quotes" :-)
 
Anonymous
But under normal circumstances most people would of course never write .",
 
I think I don't call quotation marks quotes very often. :)
 
Anonymous
I don't know what I do.
 
Anonymous
To the corpusmobile!
 
Anonymous
8:21 AM
It appears I use both singular quote and plural quotes
 
Anonymous
But it looks like I use plural quotes more. Yay, me?
 
@snailboat I think I write quotes like that sometimes too. I think ELL forces me to do some acrobatic stuff with quotes very often. :)
 
Anonymous
I guess I write quotation mark if I think it's ambiguous
 
nods
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. It's okay! Better to be flexible and get your meaning across than to slavishly adhere to rules :-)
 
Sounds neat!
wants to say something better than neat, but not sure what that would be.
 
Anonymous
It might be a bit overused, but I've always liked that quote :-)
 
Hey, isn't that sort of similar to the quote 'The Constitution is not a suicide pact'?
 
Anonymous
I suppose you could draw a parallel
 
Anonymous
Do you care to do so? :-)
 
8:27 AM
Me? I'm a simple man, so it might be something like: "Rules are important, but there are things that are more important than rules."
I read your quote as consistency, though a good thing, don't have it foolishly.
The bounty question makes me think that which one is better, between "rocks and all" and "rock and all".
I think in that context, "rocks and all" seems to be better; however, I don't like to correct what a native speaker said in a YouTube clip.
And there is a room to visualize those rocks as rock, though this is a weird image.
 
8:58 AM
@HostileFork It struck me as you think of going to differently from gonna. The same goes to have to and hafta.
I don't know, but my idea as a non-native speaker is, the shorten pronunciations still have about the same meaning as the full ones.
I think you'd agree that, "I'm going to have to do this or that someday," doesn't sound very unnatural.
However, I gathered that you don't say "I'm gonna hafta do this or that".
 
 
1 hour later…
Anonymous
10:31 AM
@DamkerngT. For most speakers, gonna and hafta are more restricted in usage and meaning than going to and have to
 
Anonymous
Which is to say, gonna and hafta can always be replaced with the uncontracted forms going to and have to, but not the other way around
 
Anonymous
 
Anonymous
A paper that I should re-read, actually :-)
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. Sounds good to me!
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. Oh, I suppose I should take a look at it, but . . .
 
Anonymous
10:35 AM
Before doing so, my initial impression of "rocks and all" and "rock and all" is that both are fine and it's simply a matter of whether you've got more than one rock
 
Anonymous
I don't see anything special about it. (Will I, once I see the question and see the context?)
 
3
Q: Usage of "wanna", "hafta"

NicoIn "THE MORPHOLEXICAL NATURE OF ENGLISH to-CONTRACTION", Pullum quotes four examples of usage of "wants to"/"wansta": (5) a. Teddy is the man Mike wants to send. b. Teddy is the man Mike wants to go. c. Teddy is the man Mike wansta send. d. *Teddy is the man Mike wansta go. I would ...

 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. Okay, I looked at the question and watched the first part of the video.
 
Anonymous
They're shifting generally between plural and singular talking about the rocks in general
 
Anonymous
When they shift to the singular, they start talking about the rocks through a representative example
 
Anonymous
10:40 AM
That's how I interpret it
 
Anonymous
I'm not entirely sure why they shifted to the singular there
 
Anonymous
It might be in anticipation of the following example
 
Anonymous
But we can't tell what order they wrote the words in
 
Anonymous
@Nico Yay!! :-)
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. I hope you don't mind that I like to respond to stuff in chat without clicking all the links and finding out all the context ahead of time.
 
Anonymous
10:42 AM
I like chatting. Chat is fun.
 
Anonymous
Now once again I am clicking the link . . .
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. Without addressing the answer directly . . .
 
Anonymous
"You gonna" has be-deletion, which is nonstandard (but very common)
 
Anonymous
The OP's examples aren't grammatical in AAVE, though
 
Anonymous
They aren't grammatical in any English I'm aware of
 
Anonymous
10:55 AM
@snailplane I don't have CGEL. Would you mind telling me that? — Maulik V 2 hours ago
 
Anonymous
Hmm . . .
 
Anonymous
It might be too much to summarize in comments, but maybe I can talk about it on chat :-)
 
Anonymous
Another day, though.
 
11:25 AM
Oh, a lot of messages for me!
@snailboat Thanks for all the useful comments!
@snailboat On the opposite, I actually like it more to chat about questions both before and after reading all the details.
@Nico I remember this one. Anyway, I was a little surprised when HostileFork (what a name!) mentioned that gonna hafta is AAVE.
@snailboat So true! It wasn't really a good example, though I think the OP tried to ask about "gonna have to" vs. "have to" in general.
 
user116848
12:32 PM
@snailboat If you say the backshifted version: "Yesterday on Japanese.SE, someone asked me who snailplane was" it will have the same meaning, right?
 
user116848
ping me
 
If I may, both would mean the same.
 
user116848
Because if I say say the same sentence I'd use 'was' instead of 'is'.
 
user116848
I see. Hello!
 
Hello!
 
user116848
12:34 PM
How would you say it? With is or was?
 
Hmm... In that specific phrase, probably was.
 
user116848
Hmm right.
 
However, some website evaluated me as BrE. :D
 
user116848
Yeah? :)
 
user116848
Which one? Some English website?
 
12:36 PM
Yup. And I wasn't really happy about that. I mean, I'm trying to use AmE here. :)
Hmm... It was a while...
 
user116848
Yes me too. I fall under both BrE and AmE
 
user116848
I like AmE too. My accent is normal AmE
 
Oh, I made up a silly name for my accent: AmERPFLwTA
May 25 at 0:16, by Damkerng T.
In case you might really want to know, it's shorten from "American English Received Pronunciation as a Foreign Language with a Thai Accent".
 
user116848
lol
 
user116848
Yes everyone is like that. Our native accent is shown in our spoken English most of the time
 
12:40 PM
nods
 
user116848
But people who even speak English at home their accent improves
 
True, that!
It could be fun. :-) (Don't take it too seriously, though.)
 
user116848
12:58 PM
I didn't get to see my score
 
user116848
It was fun though
 
@Arrowfar Oh, they don't not really give us scores. They just try to guess our dialects.
It could be funny; for example, in my case:
Jun 15 at 5:38, by Damkerng T.
> Our top three guesses for your English dialect: 1. English (England) 2. Scottish (UK) 3. Welsh (UK)
Our top three guesses for your native (first) language: 1. Norwegian 2. English 3. Swedish
I'm Norwegian, eh?
 
user116848
Norwegian sounds nice lol
 
Oops, I typed "don't not" a moment ago.
I wonder how often I do that (typing something I don't actually think and very unlikely to speak or write).
 
 
2 hours later…
2:48 PM
In the scoring system for the SAT back in the day (I understand it has changed), I got 800 math (perfect score) and 680 verbal (680 out of a possible 800). I didn't study the logic or take any kind of SAT prep, I just took it... partially because I could have retaken it if I'd wanted to. But that was basically "good enough" to not bother.
However, I did look at the breakdown in the scoring of the area where I missed questions.
On the verbal section, I was perfect on vocabulary and the other various sections, but everything I missed was in "reading comprehension".
Having not read up on the nature of their choices, I didn't know how they were intentionally trying to psych you out. In fact, they deliberately did not (in those days) choose clear writing samples... they chose published samples of writing that could confuse you... on purpose. And tried to see how well you read between the lines.
Which kind of made me mad at the time, but looking at some of these ELL samples I can see perhaps why it would be considered a "skill" to be able to see through to the meaning.
 
A perfect math score is kinda neat, I think. Not that I know what SAT questions are like. :)
@HostileFork I bet you were thinking of those legal-related questions.
 
At the time I used to think the burden was on the speaker. "You could have been clearer."
But you could almost always be clearer.
 
nods
It's communication, so maybe it's 50-50. Hehe. :)
 
And I've thought of this in terms of how I just freely blather in answers using the kind of casual language we generally use when trying to answer a narrow question.
So it's not like, in responding, I'm any kind of paragon of clarity. I'm kind of blobbily frothing in an organic way to explain the issue.
Because, most of the time, that's what we do. We blobbily froth and people somehow understand us.
 
I think that's fair. Most of us manage to get our points across that way.
 
3:02 PM
If you have access to the speaker, to ask for clarifications, it's a bit different than when something is writ in stone... you can afford sloppiness because you're there to clarify
 
True.
When I read what I wrote, I usually thought, I could've phrased it differently.
 
I found that in thinking about language precision and economy, one thing that provided a lot of thought on it, was making comics.
 
Then again, what is done is done.
 
If you have three panels, and are working with the space and just how long sentences distract, you work to convey the joke briefly.
 
@HostileFork Umm... Would you care to elaborate on that a bit?
nods
 
3:05 PM
Well, some might say that Twitter forces a certain economy of words. I learned on this site from the questions the word "headlinese"
 
Hehe.
 
But when you make a 3-panel comic, you don't speak in headlinese...but you are still forced to think about economy of words without losing meaning.
 
Twitter works rather like telegraphs in the old days.
I think I get your point.
 
I might suggest using software for making comics to be a good project if I were teaching English; because it's a chance to be funny and to think about meaning.
 
If only the students aren't afraid of drawing. :)
 
3:11 PM
You don't have to draw to make comics...
I've always used software
There's lots
Although, I can also draw. :-)
 
Oh, I see. That's very nice! Thanks!
 

« first day (596 days earlier)      last day (303 days later) »