English Language Learners

@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.)

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. In COCA, to is the winner.

@snailboat Yay for the to!

Anonymous

> 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.

Anonymous

Must . . . destroy . . . comma

2

Anonymous

Either that or add one before who!

1:46 AM

Before the were?

Anonymous

It's unbalanced.

Anonymous

And you know what happens when commas are unbalanced.

Anonymous

They fall over!

I'm pretty sure that I've seen commas being used like that a lot, even in academic papers.

Maybe particularly in academic papers! :-)

Anonymous

That comma is fine if you add one before who

Anonymous

1:47 AM

Otherwise it's the opposite of fine. It's enif.

nods

LOL

Now I'm sure you know how to write shell scripts.

Anonymous

Hee.

Anonymous

I gave you an upvote.

Thanks!

Anonymous

I think your interpretation makes sense

1:52 AM

I think it's exactly the problem the OP had in mind.

Anonymous

The title of this paper is amusing: Syntactically challenged rather than reduced: participial relatives revisited

Anonymous

They're syntactically challenged!

Wait, they're challenged, not challenging?!

Still participial, either way!

Anonymous

> Aborigines, [searching for strong voices in their fight for equality], found in this 16-year-old champion a powerful new symbol for their cause.

Anonymous

2:04 AM

> [Searching for strong voices in their fight for equality], Aborigines found in this 16-year-old champion a powerful new symbol for their cause.

Anonymous

What does the ability to move this phrase suggest?

That English is quite flexible, perhaps. :-)

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.

Anonymous

> 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).

Anonymous

> 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:

Anonymous

2:09 AM

> a matter concerning the public interest (ACAD)

Anonymous

> an affidavit containing all the basic factual material (ACAD)

Anonymous

> a society consisting of educated people (ACAD)

Anonymous

(Biber et al. 1999 p.631-2)

O Nice!

I guess the aspect of active participles can be ambiguous.

Anonymous

2:24 AM

I think on average the quality of meatie's questions has been improving

Anonymous

I find myself upvoting them more often lately

A: I or i, which one is correct?

Ahh... The questions gradually change from hacking to paraphrasing.

Anonymous

17

The 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.

Anonymous

I liked this answer

Anonymous

The comments railing against i,even in informal chat, have received a lot of upvotes

2:33 AM

Those comments are interesting!

Anonymous

I enjoy peeving as much as the next language user, of course

Anonymous

It I feel it's somewhat missing the point to discuss whether it's correct in informal chat

Anonymous

Certainly I think it's fine. Oh, no! I can't edit messages from my phone

Hee

Anonymous

I commonly use lowercase i in chat

Anonymous

2:35 AM

In certain circumstances, doing otherwise is a marked choice

Anonymous

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.

Anonymous

Yeah, that's pretty common!

Q: How can text (of all formats) be indented?

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

I 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?

support

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.

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

this one - ell.stackexchange.com/questions/37647/…

Oh, I see. I found it.

Swan was trying to suggest that the negative verb is used without a negative meaning.

Anonymous

@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.

Anonymous

At is grammatical

i suggested 'at' and 'through'

Anonymous

7:43 AM

Through . . .

I have seen it in use

Anonymous

Yeah

My head is still spinning because of through.

<-- nervous

Anonymous

I'm sorry! :-)

7:44 AM

It might work if they applied it through their own university.

Anonymous

I'm trying to think through the implications of through but it's difficult

Anonymous

I think there could be a difference in meaning

Anonymous

Of course through is also grammatical

<-- nervously twitchy

Hehe. Poor thing!

7:46 AM

got to get that twitch seen to...

an upvote?!

I think your at suggestion is good, but I'm not sure about through.

@snailboat I think we're going to have more questions about The Archers coming this way. :-)

Anonymous

I think through would often work when it's a more general program, perhaps a national program, and you're applying through this specific institution

I will make it explicit that I have seen it used, but the first one is better

Anonymous

Through is a spatial preposition and it's used here figuratively, like prepositions often are . . . When you go through a university, the figurative directional line keeps going past that university and finally ends up somewhere else

Anonymous

Through a university makes the university an intermediary

7:51 AM

Like, through the woods!

Anonymous

So my feeling is that through is most appropriate when it's a more general program, not specific to that university

Anonymous

I've been looking through some Google results: google.com/…

Ah, "through the Office of the Associate Dean". That's quite clear.

so, I should stop feeling twitchy?

I think it might be better if you write a bit more about the different meanings.

Now, it's at about +0.6 on my upvoting scale. :-)

Anonymous

7:55 AM

@Omen It's just a Q&A site! :-) Nothing to be nervous about

Santiaborg

Where is the party? ( my first english words )

@snailboat Indeed!

Anonymous

@Santiaborg Here in ELL chat! :-) Welcome to the party!

@Santiaborg Everywhere, I hope!

i did a bit of an edit to state that 'through'is for a more general sense

Anonymous

7:58 AM

I finally got a Pundit badge on ELU!

Eh? I thought you already had it!

Oh, on ELU!

Anonymous

I already had it on ELL and Japanese.SE

Anonymous

I like when I edit a question quickly enough that I see the edited version in "New feed items" in chat :-) That always gives me a warm fuzzy

Hee

@DamkerngT. I added a bit to the answer to state that the use of 'through' is more general - just going to link some examples

8:04 AM

Umm... I think general is very vague.

geez

It's all right. It's your answer. Don't let my opinion sway you in any way.

Anonymous

I am come is an archaic perfect construction

Anonymous

Be used to be used as a perfect auxiliary in Old English and Early Middle English, and to a lesser extent later on

Anonymous

In Modern English, have is the perfect auxiliary

8:06 AM

@snailboat That's what I'm thinking. I found a lot of "We are come from a far country" in Google Books. It depends on their context, I think.

nods

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. = "We have come from a far country"

i am glad i scrapped my answer to that question

Anonymous

Perfect be can even be found today, but it's strictly an archaism

This is becoming too difficult for me...

Anonymous

@Omen It's okay, your answer is okay the way it is

8:10 AM

need to eat now... that amount of thinking drained my energy

Bon appetit!

Japanese food

Anonymous

"Where are you come from?"　←　use of the archaic perfect auxiliary be = "Where have you come from?"

I used to live in Japan

Anonymous

"Where do you come from?"　←　standard use of the dummy auxiliary do to support subject-auxiliary inversion

8:11 AM

@Omen Neat!

I was trying to learn Japanese for a short while. I hope I will get back to it soon. Maybe next year.

4 years in Tokyo

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. がんばってね！

Thanks! (arigatou gozaimasu!)

Q: 'To be' vs 'to do' after wish

I might do some more editing.... I have edited 2 (1 has passed muster so far)

but...food time!

Anonymous

0

In an example that Swan provided, he used to be in a that-clause after a wish. Here is an example: All the staff wish you weren't leaving so soon. My question is, could we use to do rather than to be there? All the staff wish you didn't leave so soon.

grammar

Anonymous

8:16 AM

The first uses the progressive auxiliary be

Anonymous

They need an auxiliary in order to add negative -n't

Anonymous

They already have one (progressive be), so they add -n't to that: weren't

Anonymous

The second one doesn't use the progressive auxiliary be

Anonymous

But they still need an auxiliary to add negative -n't

Anonymous

So they have to add the dummy auxiliary do: didn't

Anonymous

8:17 AM

Do doesn't add any meaning.

Anonymous

So the difference is the presence or absence of the progressive auxiliary be

Anonymous

That is, the first example is progressive and the second example is simple

I think both versions are fine.

But I think my natural choice is probably "you weren't going to leave soon".

Context!

Anonymous

I think they're both grammatical but mean different things

I can't think of a context that makes didn't leave sound better than weren't leaving.

Anonymous

8:27 AM

They already left.

Hmm...

Anonymous

With the progressive weren't leaving, the leaving is still in the future.

Anonymous

With didn't leave, the leaving could be in the past.

Anonymous

Though it could also be in the future

Anonymous

Or, hmm, habitual?

Anonymous

8:29 AM

I'm not saying that interpretation's likely, by the way :-)

Habitual leave is weird.

Anonymous

"I leave at 6 (every day)"

Anonymous

＝ "I get off work at 6 every day"

And with soon, it would be even weirder!

Hmm...

Anonymous

In the habitual interpretation, "wish you didn't leave so soon" would mean "wish you didn't habitually leave as early as you do"

8:30 AM

Oh, I guess habitual soon is possible.

Anonymous

Like, we wish you worked later every day! ;-)

LOL

Anonymous

This interpretation is possible though it probably wouldn't be the first one people think of.

Anonymous

There would probably be more natural ways to express it if that's what they meant.

Anonymous

Didn't could also work with a future interpretation, just like the progressive

Anonymous

8:32 AM

If you compare "I'm leaving soon." and "I leave soon."

Anonymous

Both can have the meaning of near future leaving

Anonymous

But compare:

Anonymous

"I wish you weren't eating that cake. I hate watching people eat."
"I wish you weren't eating that cake. It's just sitting there in the fridge, taunting me!"
"I wish you didn't eat that cake. It was supposed to be for your sister's birthday!"

Anonymous

Eat is durative, so the usual interpretation of weren't eating would be the first one, but the second one (eating is planned in the future) is technically possible

Anonymous

The third one puts the eating squarely in the past

Anonymous

8:37 AM

That's because it's hard to habitually eat a single cake (though technically possible)

Anonymous

"I wish you didn't eat those cakes. They're awful for you, you know!" ← Now it's easier to interpret it as habitual

Anonymous

But a past interpretation is still possible

Anonymous

Language is so complicated

Anonymous

I don't know how people learn this stuff

> Kaffee: Corporal, would you turn to the page in this book that says where the mess hall is, please.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, Lt. Kaffee, that's not in the book, sir.
Kaffee: You mean to say in all your time at Gitmo you've never had a meal?
Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.
Kaffee: I don't understand. How did you know where the mess hall was if it's not in this book?
Cpl. Barnes: Well, I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.

I guess that's how people learn this stuff. :-)

Anonymous

8:43 AM

Hee

Anonymous

tunny wrote:

Anonymous

> If the staff wish that you didn't leave so soon, then the factual situation is that you leave soon. This is just about possible, using the present simple for a scheduled future, but it is far less likely than the present progressive.

Anonymous

That seems like a fair assessment

Anonymous

They also gave the habitual interpretation, but not a past interpretation

Anonymous

I upvoted, though

8:45 AM

nods

Ahh, F.E.'s suggestion is also nice.

Anonymous

@shashwatup9k Hello! Welcome to ELL chat!

My cable TV is gone. It's usually gone when a heavy rain is coming.

Anonymous

In older forms of English, be was a perfect auxiliary like the modern perfect auxiliary have. For a long time the two coexisted, and I imagine most speakers are still aware of perfect be, but it's not grammatical anymore. (It can still be found in English as recent as the 19th century, though.) — snailboat 16 secs ago

Anonymous

I left a comment

@snailboat Hooray!

Because "my supervisor in Egypt insists that it's right", I think it's quite likely that they're working in a context of some ancient text.

Anonymous

8:54 AM

I have a hard time with spoken Japanese numbers

Oh!

Anonymous

I can't turn them into the actual numbers the sounds represent in my mind quickly enough

Anonymous

I can do it, but I often find myself lagging behind a little mentally

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Could be

Anonymous

I need to come up with some way to practice Japanese numbers, I guess

8:56 AM

I guess it's fine. We don't talk in numbers very often. But if we have to, I think we will become familiar with it automatically.

@snailboat Try reading financial reports, like stock reports!

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. I don't have a problem with written numbers :-D

Oh!

Is this about saying Japanese numbers in general, or only about rather big numbers?

Anonymous

Oh, big numbers :-)

Like, bigger than 10,000, I guess. :-)

Anonymous

I can do okay with numbers below 10,000

Anonymous

8:59 AM

Especially numbers below 100 I've got a lot of practice with

I used to add numbers on license plates.

Anonymous

For a while, I tried practicing just random bits of math in my head, saying all the numbers out loud

When I was very young. One of my uncle forced me to do that. :-)

Anonymous

Basic arithmetic

I guess the same principle should apply in your case, too.

You can write a computer program that randoms two numbers up, then you add them or concat them, and say it. -- Just my quick idea.

Anonymous

9:02 AM

Hehe, one of the first programs I ever wrote was a math quiz like that :-)

Anonymous

When I was a few years old

Anonymous

I was better at mental arithmetic when I was little

Anonymous

I don't know why

I guess it will be a little different from reading, because you don't see what you're going to pronounce.

@snailboat Maybe because we don't do it as often as when we were younger.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Being able to see something can be a bit of a crutch

shashwatup9k

9:03 AM

:18318117

thank you

Anonymous

Hehe, the chat system is mean! They won't let you have an avatar or ping people until you get to 20 reputation, I guess :-)

Hah! I didn't know that!

Anonymous

I was surprised. Usually if you type a colon and a message ID, it turns into @ username, like:

Anonymous

:18318117

Anonymous

Oh! It didn't

Anonymous

9:10 AM

Maybe I need to type a message too

Anonymous

@snailboat Testing, one, two, three!

Anonymous

That did it!

A: Extra negative in subordinate clause

We learn hidden features of chat every day!

Anonymous

1

Dmitry has correctly coped the paragraph from the third edition of Practical English Usage'. As Swan correctly notes, in informal standard (British) English "I shouldn't be surprised if they didn't get married soon" can mean "I shouldn't be surprised if they did get married soon". However, the...

Anonymous

I upvoted this too :-)

9:16 AM

nods -- Fair and makes a lot of sense!

better than my POS answer was

Anonymous

Hey, don't be so hard on yourself :-)

I concur. :-)

I like it that tunny mentions stressing too.

Anonymous

That's helpful! I hadn't thought of it

at least my other answer is at least a 'fair' standard

9:22 AM

nods

Anonymous

Is The Archers popular?

It's a featured series on BBC Radio.

I'm not sure how popular it is, but I think it's the most popular one on BBC Radio, so I think it depends on how popular BBC Radio itself is. :-)

Anonymous

I don't know. Pretty popular, I suppose? :-)

am composing a question for ELU...

Anonymous

I've only listened to that one series about snails.

Anonymous

9:29 AM

@Omen Fun!

@snailboat The Archers has a family named "Snell", too!

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. That's a street name 'round here

not sure if I should be bothering though

Anonymous

@Omen Oh? What is it you want to ask about?

@snailboat Hah! So you got all your snails from the Snell Street, I suppose. :-)

9:31 AM

@snailboat the etymology of the word 'chemistry'... why is it not a '-logy' or -nomy or -metry

Oops, that's very unfortunate! Etymology is off-topic on ELL.

Anonymous

@Omen Makes sense.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. But they said ELU.

sigh -- I think I should get new eyeglasses real soon. :-)

@DamkerngT. been needing some for years

Anonymous

9:33 AM

> Of English formation: in 17th c. chymistrie, f. chymist (chemist) + -ry, ‘the art or practice of the chemist’; at first probably contemptuous, cf. palmistry, sophistry, casuistry, etc.

Anonymous

(Oxford English Dictionary)

Anonymous

It probably wasn't conceptualized as a field of scientific study

Anonymous

Rather, as what chemists did, namely, alchemy

Anonymous

The earliest citation in the OED was 1600, so the word was undoubtedly current for at least a short time before that

ooh do you have a link to that - I'll include it in my question, alongside eoht.info/page/Chemistry+(etymology)?t=anon

Anonymous

9:36 AM

But it was only in the 1600s that chemistry began to develop into an actual science

Anonymous

@Omen No, it's from my electronic copy. The current edition of the OED isn't freely available

Anonymous

However, you might be able to find it in the freely available first edition

Anonymous

Let's see . . .

I am going to put as much information in my question as possible

@snailboat We can turn bismuth into gold nowadays!

Anonymous

9:41 AM

@DamkerngT. I posted an answer. But the zero-width space is only really necessary for chat, not for the site itself

Anonymous

@Omen Got it: archive.org/stream/oed02arch#page/320/mode/2up

awesome!

the question is going to have 4 links

thank you for that!

@snailboat I was trying to find that one! This is really useful!

Wow, the C volume is huge!

Anonymous

I'm not sure how big the OED1 was

Anonymous

The OED2 is about 22,000 pages

9:47 AM

wow!

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Though my answer is a bit of a 反面教師 :-)

@snailboat I wish I could up-up-up-up-vote your answer!

Anonymous

Hah

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. @Omen StoneyB has helpfully placed links to each volume of the OED1 on the ELL Resources list on meta: meta.ell.stackexchange.com/a/739/230

Anonymous

So you can bookmark that page, then use the links there if you need to look something up in the OED1

9:56 AM

very nice!

@snailboat Hooray!

Anonymous

The current edition of the OED is unfortunately not freely available, although in the US and UK it's pretty common for libraries to have access

Anonymous

So if you have a US or UK library card, there's a decent chance that card will give you free access to the OED

Anonymous

In this case it doesn't make any difference. The entry for chemistry in the OED1 looks roughly the same to me

Anonymous

Certainly the etymological information is the same

10:06 AM

phew.. question done

@Omen Kampai!

fingers crossed

now, the twitching recommences

@Omen Oh, no! Twitching very often is not very good!

lol

Anonymous

Please don't repeat posts that are materially identical There are other ways of attracting attention, even editing your question will make it more visible. meta.ell.stackexchange.com/q/1120/1407 — jimsug 2 mins ago

10:23 AM

> The total number of pages in the Dictionary is 15,487; of these no less than 7,207, or nearly half of the entire work were edited by Sir James Murray.

OED1, vol 1, page xix.

Oh, it's really a duplicate.

i hope my question is passable

Anonymous

@Omen What if, just in theory, the people on ELU didn't like it?

Anonymous

Would it really be that bad? Would anything terrible happen?

Anonymous

No, it'd be okay. Even if they didn't like it, it'd be okay.

Anonymous

Because you did your best to write a good question and contribute positively to the site.

Anonymous

10:33 AM

You've done nothing wrong and you don't need to worry.

Anonymous

Just take a deep breath and relax :-)

Anonymous

And have fun! Stack Exchange isn't Serious Business.

if it goes negative, I will delete it

Anonymous

Sure, that's your choice

Anonymous

But I think your question is fine.