English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

VLC, I think, can optionally not put those there, maybe at install time you can choose.

Some of those entries are not standard, like "move to..." I think comes from some addon you put in.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 Perhaps...but I want the entries in a submenu, and I don't want to have to edit the registry or do it from within various programs.

And yeah, you could uninstall some archiving programs or pick one that doesn't put in menu items

Or...I could just take 10 seconds and drag all those entries into a submenu!

That saves me a lot of time and frustration.

Woo!

3:04 PM

So I like that programlet.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 You understand?

@Mahnax Too late...

16,001.

"Should anything happen, call the police" vs "If anything should happen, call the police"

@MrShinyandNew安宇 Or do you still think I'm weird for liking this program?

Well I took that screenshot just before the the question that ruined it.

@Meysamرهادربند What about it?

29 mins ago, by Robusto

Exactly 16K questions at this moment. A milestone.

3:07 PM

@Cerberus I don't think you're weird for wanting it. But I would either just uninstall things that bug me, or else find a free program that does this, or else just manually edit the registry. It's just not an important task that needs a constantly-installed program.

@Cerberus What's the difference between the two. Are they the same?

@Robusto Oh, sorry.

Now it's at 15 999 anyways.

Going in the wrong direction.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 I tried finding a free program. A good one does not exist. Editing the registry is not easily reversible per individual entry, and too hard. And its being loaded constantly never was a program: it all worked very smoothly.

@Meysamرهادربند Yes.

If any, the difference is very slight.

@Robusto you should have seen the two that got deleted.

The direction is alright.

In fact I can keep us at 15,999 for quite some time.

3:10 PM

I wonder how many questions are worthy of remaining.

Seven.

Perhaps eight.

What's the percentage of worthwhile questions?

Somehow the first sentence sounds a tiny bit suboptimal, perhaps because the elliptic conditional construction ("should...") combined with a main clause in the imperative ("call...") is a bit hard to parse intuitively—though it still sounds OK to me.

@Cerberus So install the free app, move the items around, then uninstall it

@MrShinyandNew安宇 Not possible.

The entries change back when you close the .exe.

3:11 PM

@Cerberus WHAT?!

Which is a disadvantage, but also an advantage (safer and easier to disable/restore).

In practice, it works great.

bleh, I would never use a program like that.

@Cerberus No. If anything, the second one sounds verbose.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 Why not?

It just sits there, consuming resources, insisting on its presence for no good reason.

A utility like this should just run once, and be done with it.

3:16 PM

@Robusto I don't know, I find both OK.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 Sounds like you have a personal grudge! It doesn't consume any significant resources.

@Cerberus I don't really like either. Both are bordering on the archaic, with a whiff of pedantry or erudition. Fine for a formal register, but if I'm warning people about danger I would say "If anything happens, call the police."

@Robusto I had books in mind, not speech. I probably wouldn't use it in speech a lot.

Down to 15,992. This should buy us a couple minutes.

@Cerberus I feel like it's an inelegant solution to a simple problem and also annoying that this process has te stick around forever. They could at least implement it as a shell extension so it's less obtrusive.

3:19 PM

So I don't know what Meysam wanted with this?

From books.

Books are gay.

Except Dan Brown, he's good.

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 Well, some are.

Dan Brown is gay.

Apr 25 at 19:12, by Matt Эллен

we've just popped 15000 questions!

We're going to have this kind of conversation every 1000 questions?

3:20 PM

@Robusto Yes, so? I have nothing against "if anything happens"; I just meant to say that reading "if anything should happen" would not make me think "oh, this is odd/very formal/awkward".

@MrShinyandNew安宇 for that I'd have to delete 1000 questions every 1000 questions.

@Cerberus Me either. I would think it somewhat affected.

I'm not sure I'm up to the task.

To me, adding should does changes the meaning of the condition a bit.

Besides, I gotta run. Catchalataz.

3:21 PM

Makes it a bit more iffy, if you will.

Bye!

@Cerberus How so?

No. It doesn't make it any more iffy.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 I guess so...I was a bit surprised when I first realized that it only make temporary changes to the context menu (but then I figures that it might be safer / more stable, so I was fine with it; add to that the ability to change stuff again at any moment right from the context menu).

@Robusto If you fail v. if you should fail: I would expect some expectation of the contrary with the latter.

user19161

@MrShinyandNew安宇 We can have one every 100.

@Cerberus The potentiality for failure exists immeasurably in both. They cannot be reasonably contrasted.

user19161

@Robusto Yeah, I would not even think of the other two options except for reading this site.

3:25 PM

"I expect you to succeed, because you have everything in you to defeat the other participants. However, if you should fail, a back-up plan would be in order." Or something.

@Cerberus so your saying "If you fail" has a higher expectation of failure than "If you should fail"

user19161

@Mahnax Oh, at first I thought you had 16k rep.

I would sooner expect if x should in a context like this than in a neutral context.

er, implies a higher expectation on the part of the speaker

@Cerberus You haven't changed anything on the business end of the proposition yet. Making other statements elsewhere is not germane and does not change the meaning.

3:26 PM

@MrShinyandNew安宇 Yes, but only slightly.

"I expect you to succeed, because you have everything in you to defeat the other participants. However, if you fail, a back-up plan would be in order."

@ClarkKent No, but that would be nice.

@Robusto Sure, that is fine. But I feel that there is some kind of correlation. I am not saying anything about when people would use if you fail; I'm just saying that if you should fail is perhaps a bit more common in contexts where the expectation is that you will probably not fail than it is in neutral contexts.

And I am saying neither is prejudicial.

I don't mean to say that if you should fail is more common with negative expectations than if you fail.

user19161

3:31 PM

@Cerberus I have that feeling too. Somehow the should adds a shade of meaning.

I am not alone.

user19161

@Cerberus Where is that from?

@ClarkKent miguelmllop.com/grammars/mygrammar/conditionals.pdf

@ClarkKent Yeah.

@Cerberus Your having company doesn't mean the lot of you are right.

And?

user19161

3:34 PM

@Robusto Neither does it mean the lot is wrong. QED.

What it means is that this discussion is now reduced to splitting angel hairs.

user19161

Do angels have hair?

Why? I think it is an interesting linguistic question.

And religious barbers think the kind and consistency of angel hairs is an interesting question too.

Meanwhile, I need to go get my blood drawn.

3:37 PM

@Robusto Take a picture, it'll be faster

My theory is that the addition of should adds some kind of emphasis to the conditional clause, and that this emphasis marks a kind of implicit antithetical aspect: "if, contrary to expectation, you fail...". But that is speculation at this point.

@Robusto OK bye!

@MrShinyandNew安宇 You don't find linguistics interesting?

I mean, how long do you have to sit there for the artist to complete their drawing?

@Cerberus I never said that

user19161

@MrShinyandNew安宇 I think it is faster to use a crayon.

Or this kind of linguistics specifically?

Not sure in which branch to put it.

I do find this interesting, actually

3:39 PM

But the angel hairs...

Not that I mind.

But at some point, without data, it does become pointless to discuss it.

And you find this pointless?

user19161

Most discussions are pointless.

If only Kosmonaut were still here. We in fact discussed a different kind of should for hours.

@Cerberus I think discussing it FURTHER is probably pointless. You made your point, you cited an authority, that didn't PROVE anything, but you can't really PROVE it any further.

3:41 PM

Speculating in any way we could to explain funny you should say that.

user19161

@MrShinyandNew安宇 Wow wow wow, someone is shouting.

I agree with you, and your authority

@ClarkKent no, emphasizing

@MrShinyandNew安宇 Okay, I disagree (it can be very interesting, and new ideas could be inspired). And I wasn't looking to prove anything.

SHOUTING IS LIKE THIS! CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

user19161

MWAHAHAHA.

3:43 PM

@Cerberus Bring on the data, then. Without data it's just supposition.

So you think that discussion between Kosmo and me was also pointless? Or just this should in particular?

@MrShinyandNew安宇 I don't want to prove anything at the moment, as I said. It was just an interesting topic of discussion, but apparently only to me.

@Cerberus no, THIS discussion about the use of "should" in conterfactuals... You said it shades it, Rob said it doesn't, you cited an authority. What else is left to say?

I didn't say it wasn't interesting. I said discussing it further is pointless.

I didn't mean to cite an authority: I just posted that to make sure Rob didn't think I was mad.

@Cerberus er, same difference

How can it be interesting if it is pointless?

3:45 PM

@Cerberus FURTHER discussion

You would need to do extensive research to come up with proof.

not PAST discussion

@Cerberus and THAT is exactly what I said like 20 messages ago.

8 mins ago, by Cerberus

My theory is that the addition of should adds some kind of emphasis to the conditional clause, and that this emphasis marks a kind of implicit antithetical aspect: "if, contrary to expectation, you fail...". But that is speculation at this point.

So this is neither interesting nor ehm pointed to you?

I mean, it's OK.

2 mins ago, by Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

I didn't say it wasn't interesting. I said discussing it further is pointless.

That did not count as further.

3:47 PM

further from NOW

actually further from when I first said "discussing it further"

Well, never mind. I won't call your favourite topics "pointless to discuss further".

@Cerberus headdesk

surprise me. Say something pointful about "should" shading the meaning of a counterfactual.

Can you understand why it is not exactly fun for me to hear that?

@Cerberus You are misunderstanding me completely

Am I? I said something that was interesting to me, and you started about splitting angel hairs.

3:49 PM

I did find the conversation interesting. I read, enjoyed, and agreed with that link you posted.

@Cerberus no, Robusto started about splitting angel hairs

Oh, all right then.

Did he?

Oh, yes.

But you seemed to agree.

Then I made a joke about angel hairs

Well, I do sorta agree, in that I don't think there is any more to say about this particular case of the use of "should"

You were not talking about me?

I thought I was the "barber".

@Cerberus well, actually, you ARE the barber. But that doesn't mean that I am not also an angel barber.

Ehh now it gets too complicated.

3:52 PM

Anyway: to avert future misunderstanding: I find linguistics very interesting. But arguments about it can be pointless.

When you say "can be" during such an argument, the suggestion is that the current argument is pointless.

All arguments and discussions I have ever had with linguistics in chat about linguistics have always been interesting to me.

Mitch

but they could still have been pointless.

There are some linguists that I find frustrating and disagree with, like Lawler. But I have never actually chatted with him.

@Mitch I don't know, those two seem to exclude each other...

There are some linguists that I disagree with, but find very interesting to have a discussion with, like Alex B.

@Cerberus It's pointless because you and Rob were disagreeing about the FACTS. There is nowhere to go from there without some kind of back-up. You cited an authority. Linguistic authorities are notorious for being completely made-up, so unless he cites a better authority there isn't much left to say unless one of you provides some data: a study or a paper or some usage examples.

Mitch

YOu don't have a TV, do you? It's all very interesting (OK not all), but it is mostly pointless (hmm..the point is to pass the time?)

3:55 PM

Then there are some linguists that I usually end up agreeing with (and that I find very interesting), like Kosmo.

(pre-emptive note: when I said "linguistic authorities" I was including all real linguist scientists and people who play them on TV, like Strunk & White)

Mitch

The difficulty with linguistics is that most data is like 'I think this sounds right'. That is a legitimate set of data as long as it is coherent and consistent.

but still sounds like a fallacious appeal to authority (and sometimes is)

The difficulty with linguistics is that most data is like 'I think this sounds right'. That is a legitimate set of data as long as it is coherent and consistent.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 I didn't try to come up with an authority in order to thereby convince Rob; but he seemed to be thinking I was making something up, that he had never heard someone seriously claiming that, so I thought, "perhaps he will reconsider when someone else seems to have thought about this too". I didn't mean to trump him or anything, because it is possible that some kind of cognitive bias is disrupting both my and that source's linguistic antennae.

So anyway, @Cerb, I think a discussion can be both interesting AND pointless, and also a discussion can be pointful until a certain point, after which it becomes pointless.

@Mitch Hmm I don't find most tv interesting! I guess you call a comedy series interesting but pointless in some way. But a discussion?

3:58 PM

@Cerberus That's fine, but your motivations for posting that are not really important.

@Mitch Yeah, I recognize the problem.

@Cerberus And that was the problem here: You said "It does X" and Rob said "It doesn't X". As far as discussions go, there isn't much to add to that besides EVIDENCE.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 I agree with the latter, but I think I would have been able to extend the pointedness of the discussion with a willing audience, i.e. people who like brainstorming about linguistics, or about this specific linguistic phenomenon.

@Cerberus perhaps. But in this case the one guy who disagreed with you left.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 You kept calling it an appeal to authority, which suggests that I was trying to use it to force a "victory", which I really was not.

4:01 PM

And @Meysam may still not know the bigger answer to his question about shoulds.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 I disagree: there are plenty of other ways to make progress.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 What's the bigger answer?

@Cerberus well, it was an appeal to authority. I know you wouldn't claim that as a decisive victory, but what else could citing that kind of reference book be besides an appeal to authority?

@Meysamرهادربند I dunno, I forgot the question.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 I wouldn't need anyone to disagree with me, just someone willing to ponder the question along with me. sad faces

@Meysamرهادربند What's the bigger question?

@MrShinyandNew安宇 Hmmm...

4:03 PM

@MrShinyandNew安宇 I explained that.

@Cerberus But if nobody thinks there's a question? You: "should shades the meaning in this case in this way, slightly". Everyone else: nods

@Cerberus the bigger question is: what are we doing here on this planet?

@MrShinyandNew安宇 I had moved on to trying to come up with an explanation.

@Meysamرهادربند I for one am chatting. You?

@Cerberus Just because you don't "claim victory" doesn't mean that you're not appealing to authority. It's only a fallacy if the authority is wrong, and if you don't allow for that.

@Cerberus Oh! In that case the explanation is that adding more words when fewer will do usually shades the meaning. innit?

I told you what your phrasing "appeal to authority" seemed to suggest to me, and why I did not mean it in that way. If you never meant to suggest that, then fine. I just wanted to make sure.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 Well...

Incidentally, I think this discussion might very well qualify as pointless, hehe.

I'm sure you agree.

4:06 PM

@Cerberus I for two am

I don't know what kind of authority is represented by that PDF. So far it appears to me to be of the "somebody on the Web says" variety.

@Cerberus well, I said "cited an authority" to avoid shading the meaning with the "fallacy" of "appeal to authority". Guess my shading was too subtle?

@Meysamرهادربند Hmm you don't seem to be chatting for two!

@Cerberus I've been thinking that since the beginning :)

@Robusto But it's written in an authoritative style and formatted like a textbook!!

@Robusto I didn't mean it as a kind of authority. I just figured that maybe you thought I was making up something silly.

4:08 PM

@Cerberus I just don't seem. You know, the reality is different from what you see or what it seems to be.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 I don't know. I wasn't sure what you meant, so I explained what my intention was.

@Cerberus No. I fully understand that not all of the silly things you say are made up by you.

anyway, lunch time for me.

bbl

@Meysamرهادربند So you don't seem to be anything at all?

@MrShinyandNew安宇 Bye.

@Robusto Gee, thanks!

@Cerberus I would rather not to continue this conversation. QED.

4:09 PM

@Meysamرهادربند Hehe, now this was pointless!

@Cerberus I would have asked why if I were to continue! :D

I would have said because we were talking about nothing if I were.

So what should I get my little boy for his birthday?

I've been thinking maybe a bed.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 By "pointful" I assume you mean pointed. If not, my apologies.

@KitFox What, are they out of lumps of coal at Wal-Mart?

But he's been good.

4:21 PM

@KitFox Then don't buy the coal at Wal-Mart. See if they have any at one of the finer stores.

Good idea.

Try Nordstrom's for coal.

Gigili

@Meysam: The answer is still there, did you flag it?

@Gigili I did. Apparently had no effect.

Gigili

That's odd.

4:27 PM

The moderator only closed the comments

Gigili

I noticed and they locked the post.

By the way, khabidi bedune lalai o ghose is wonderful, I love it. Thank you again @Meysam.

Hello

I need some help with a sentence, please

'Someone else showed me to the doctor' I have to put it in passive

I have been shown to the doctor

@Gigili Khahesh :)

That, or I was shown to the doctor.

What?

4:33 PM

Was shown would be the passive equivalent tense to showed.

What bizarre sentences.

My sentence is wrong

Why would you be shown to a doctor?

Is he planning on purchasing you?

'I have been shown to the doctor'

I agree this sentence is stupid but I had to translate it. It's given in a textbook

That, or perhaps I was shown to the door of the doctor's office?

Translate it?

Then what's the original, in what language?

4:35 PM

In Russian

it was given *

Hmm.

@Monica Oh. Well then "I have been shown to the doctor" I think.

But it is not correct

Showed => was shown; have shown => have been shown.

Why not?

4:37 PM

No?

I have no idea. I thought "have been" was the proper passive construction, but Cerb would know better than I would.

Some native speakers said it is not, but they didn't tell me how to correct it

@KitFox That is the passive of have shown, I would say.

Oh, I am happy if it is correct

It is grammatically correct, but the scene described by this sentence would be unusual, so that's why we think perhaps this was not what was intended.

4:40 PM

No, Cerb, you are saying it should be "I was shown to the doctor" not "I have been shown to the doctor."

And I am agreeing with you.

Could you suggest a more natural scene?

Although "I have been shown to the doctor" is also passive construction.

I was sure it would seem odd to native speakers

@Monica "Someone showed me the watch." "The watch was shown to me."

I had to put it into passive

I know the passieve

Does it sound natural in active?

4:41 PM

Usually you don't "show" people. It sounds weird.

My mother showed me to the doctor?

You could "show someone in to the doctor's office."

That's exactly what I need, the right verb in both passive and active

That means approximately "lead into" or "guide into."

@KitFox OK, I was commenting on Monica's "I am happy if it is correct".

4:43 PM

when, Cerberus?

What?

I meant what Kit says.

Which verb would sound natural?

@Monica Oh, ugh. Um, "The nurse showed me into the doctor's office." "I was shown into the doctor's office by the nurse."

This.

Maybe.

user19161

4:45 PM

@Monica Do you mean someone showed you where the doctor's room is?

No, I mean I was showed to the doctor. It is an unnatural sentence

But you can use show without into if it is a place, like she showed him to the elevator.

So I wonder what other verb can be used there instead of 'show'

Can you explain what's going on in the situation you have in mind?

Is someone showing another person to the doctor?

Why would he do so?

We need more context to fully understand.

It's not going in my mind

4:47 PM

You normally just go to the doctor, or you are taken to the doctor by your mother.

user19161

I think someone took you to the doctor for him to see you right?

it's from a book in which there is no context :(

But you are not shown to the doctor in a normal doctor's visit.

The doctor looks at you, but there is not some other person who actively shows you to the doctor.

user19161

@Cerberus But I would say the original sentence is fine albeit weird.

OMG. The original recombinant DNA ... DNA => and

And we all know that and combines with anything.

4:49 PM

The construction is OK, but, as I said, I doubt whether such an unusual situation is what the book intended.

OMG it must be a conspiracy.

user19161

@Robusto I have no idea what you are saying.

Of God and His angels.

If you are "shown to" the doctor it must be a pretty odd circumstance.

Exactly.

@ClarkKent I know, but you're a pineapple. @Cerb is almost not a pineapple.

user19161

4:50 PM

One is exhibited to be examined.

@Robusto Hey, take that back: I often don't get your jokes!

user19161

@Robusto Actually, I still think I am not a pineapple. But I just like to use words in weird ways.

user19161

Seriously, the people from my country are not pineapples.

Your condition could be shown to the doctor. But if you are shown to the doctor yourself it must be because you are dead or otherwise disabled.

@ClarkKent I didn't say it about the people of your country. I said it about you. Let's just say I showed myself to you calling you a pineapple.

Or because you are a girl about to be sold as a slave to someone who happens to be a doctor.

4:52 PM

Maybe I could use 'consult'?

How?

Consult would be what another physician does.

Ohhh, what horrible things you are saying! :D

A lay person doesn't "consult" with a physician.

user19161

@Robusto You love confusing me.

4:53 PM

What did we say?

I have been consulted

the baby has been consulted

Yes, you could consult a physician.

user19161

@Monica We have code words for many things in this room, so you may not understand what we are saying.

But you wouldn't consult a baby about anything, especially if your life depended on it.

:D

4:54 PM

You could consult a baby as to whether he considers the Nibbly-Boo the better choice for the night, or the Blanky-Loo.

And you would get shit for an answer. Literally.

Babies can be relied on for shit. Lots of it.

He will render his conclusion in cries and giggles.

You could see a doctor.

Or be seen by the doctor.

user19161

How about simply "I have been taken to see the doctor"?

user19161

Is that the intended meaning?

4:55 PM

maybe I had better write; I have been seen by a doctor

user19161

@Monica Sure, but that would leave the part of someone taking you there out.

This creeps me out.

But it can be translated word for word from Russian

Thus I have been seen by a doctor is the best option

user19161

Sorry, I read the transcript and I don't get what you are trying to do exactly here.

'My mother showed me to the doctor'

I had to put this into passive

user19161

4:58 PM

Are you just trying to do the exercise in some book and put it into the passive?

Yes, exactly

user19161

Is this some grammar book you got?