« first day (549 days earlier)      last day (350 days later) » 
00:00 - 19:0019:00 - 00:00

Anonymous
7:24 PM
12
Q: Sentence in which "its" and "it's" can be interchanged without changing the meaning?

nneonneoA friend posed the following word puzzle to me: Can you think of a sentence that keeps the same meaning whether you use "it's" or "its"? He asserted that this puzzle does in fact have a solution. However, it has me completely stumped. I tried to solve an easier problem, to find a sentence w...

 
Anonymous
Is this the language equivalent of the code golf site?
 
To me, definitely! Considering that it's received well on ELU, I think we could ask crossword questions there too. :D
I'm really thinking about adding tags literary and outdated (or old-fashioned).
 
Anonymous
That's sort of what single word requests are, right?
 
Anonymous
The combination of an arbitrary requirement ("it must be one orthographic word") plus a question about language ("How do I say blah blah blah")
 
@snailboat I was thinking about something more exclusive to crosswords. :-)
 
Anonymous
7:27 PM
Is there a tag?
 
Anonymous
I suggested in a comment that Early Modern English should be on-topic on ELL, but not Middle English or Old English
 
Anonymous
Of course, that would ideally include only good questions about EME
 
My idea is a bit more aggressive than that. Let's say that if most native speakers think that "Where do you come from?" is outdated, questions asking about it should be marked so.
 
Anonymous
That one's tough, since people still say it
 
My idea is learners probably should be discouraged from using it.
 
Anonymous
7:30 PM
That seems fair enough
 
Anonymous
We could also deprecate "How do you do?" :-)
 
That's probably for the BrE tag. :)
 
Anonymous
Really? Does anyone say that anywhere?
 
Anonymous
I was under the impression the answer was no :-)
 
Anonymous
Lessee.
 
7:31 PM
Hmm... I think they still say "How do you do?" on the island. :D
 
Anonymous
I think it's hyperformal in both AmE and BrE
 
Anonymous
Though possible in both
 
I think many of InE speakers also still say the phrase.
nods
Ah, that convinces me that we should also add something like a formalism tag.
 
Anonymous
I found a claim online that people say it "quite a lot" in the UK
 
Anonymous
Hey, look!
 
Anonymous
That didn't onebox.
 
Anonymous
Somehow that got +13 :-)
 
No, you're wrong. It's not +13. :-)
 
Anonymous
Check out Matt's answer. He's a NSoBrE
 
Wow! I think that's a really great answer!
I always wonder why the correct response of "How do you do?" is "How do you do?" (though I know that it's the correct response). Now I know why.
Hmm... Between outdated and formal-english, probably "How do you do?" should get only a formal-english tag.
Checking out similar tags on ELU...
> http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/formality
This tag is for questions regarding formal, versus informal words and usage.
 
Anonymous
7:39 PM
Yeah, just formal could work
 
Anonymous
If we use the same tag as ELU, it helps with migrations
 
They use formality instead of formal (but they alias formal to formality, I think).
I think I will create these three tags: formality, outdated, and literary
(Between formal and formality, I prefer formal, but I think I will use formality just for the sake of ease of the migration.)
 
Anonymous
That makes sense to me.
 
But how can I create a tag? By just adding a tag to some question?
Ahh... We already have the tag formality.
 
Anonymous
Yes, that's how. I didn't realize we already had it
 
7:47 PM
Me either, but we don't have the other two.
Ah, we seem to have both formal and formality tags. Should we alias them?
 
Anonymous
Probably.
 
Anonymous
That's up to a moderator.
 
Anonymous
I mean, you can bring it up on meta.
 
Anonymous
There's a system for regular users to create tag synonyms, but it doesn't work well unless your site is significantly larger than Stack Overflow.
 
Anonymous
Since, in fact, there are no such sites on SE, it's probably designed wrong
 
7:49 PM
I think after creating the other two tags, I will post a meta post, and will include the issue of formal and formality tags in it.
 
Anonymous
So the proper route is to start a meta discussion, after which a moderator can create the tag synonym for you
 
Anonymous
Sounds like a plan!
 
It's already begun. :)
Tag: outdated
> This tag is for questions that are related to acceptable but possibly outdated usage of English, and thus while being useful for learners, this tag outdated is a warning that the learners should be discouraged from using it themselves.
What do you think about the description I wrote? (I haven't clicked save yet.)
 
Anonymous
I think the site has some hacks hard-coded in to remove things like "This tag is for" and "questions that", so after you submit they might disappear on you
 
Anonymous
I'm not sure which strings exactly it targets
 
Anonymous
7:55 PM
But you can pre-empt it
 
Anonymous
> Acceptable but possibly outdated usage of English. While it may be useful for learners to know, this tag is a warning that learners should be discouraged from using it themselves.
 
Anonymous
How's that?
 
Neat!
Saved. One down. One more to go.
 
Anonymous
Hmmph, I got another downvote over on Japanese.SE.
 
Anonymous
I don't get those very often, but I've gotten two this month
 
Anonymous
7:57 PM
The question got a downvote, too
 
Eh? Is it because of that learning technique question?
 
Anonymous
It's a kanji question rather than (strictly speaking) a language question
 
Anonymous
I don't see any errors
 
Anonymous
Although Japanese.SE, like many (most? all?) other SEs has a fair amount of anonymous downvoting
 
8:00 PM
I'm afraid I can't have opinions on this one.
 
Anonymous
Oh, that's okay.
 
Anonymous
I wasn't asking for your opinion, I was just mentioning it because getting a downvote feels like getting frowned at by someone you don't know
 
Anonymous
"Who is this person and why are they frowning at me!?"
 
Anonymous
If it were about the language, I'd probably be feeling insecure. "Oh, no! What mistake did I make in my Japanese?"
 
From the image in your answer, they print the same character both ways!
 
Anonymous
8:03 PM
But since it's about kanji, I feel pretty confident in what I wrote, so I don't see any reason to change anything
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. See at the bottom it says 旧字? That's short for 旧字体(きゅうじたい) "old character form"
 
Ahh...
 
Anonymous
Radicals are arbitrary, in any case.
 
Anonymous
All they are is a system for indexing characters in dictionaries.
 
Anonymous
There's no platonic ideal radical for each character
 
Anonymous
8:05 PM
But the 康煕字典 is freely available online, and that's the dictionary that established the 214 traditional categories
 
You mean the 214 radicals?
 
Anonymous
Yes
 
Anonymous
Each radical is the head of a category.
 
Anonymous
All the hanzi are placed into one of those 214 categories, based on (hopefully) including one of those 214 radicals.
 
Anonymous
(Technically the 214 date back to an earlier dictionary, but they're generally identified with the Kangxi dictionary)
 
Anonymous
8:09 PM
Maybe they downvoted me for not mentioning that part :-)
 
Hmm... :)
 
Anonymous
But they're widely referred to as the Kangxi radicals, not the Zihui radicals.
 
Oh, this means that even the mods still don't know who downvote who!
 
Anonymous
Votes are private.
 
(I think that that information should be useful for the mods.)
 
Anonymous
8:11 PM
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to disclose what information is available
 
Anonymous
But there are ways to fight serial downvoters and such.
 
It's alright. I think it's better if you don't disclose anything.
 
Anonymous
8:22 PM
I added a footnote.
 
Anonymous
Probably not enough to get the downvote reversed, if that was what it was about :-)
 
Anonymous
I think people reversing downvotes is pretty rare on Japanese.SE.
 
Anonymous
The radicals are somewhat arbitrary, though.
 
Anonymous
They're just a system for indexing dictionaries.
 
nods
 
Anonymous
8:25 PM
In some older dictionaries, there were a lot more than 214 :-)
 
I guess that it came after most characters had existed.
 
Anonymous
Yeah, so…
 
Anonymous
Characters came into existence in various ways
 
Anonymous
Scholars aren't necessarily all certain or in agreement about the best way to analyze all of them
 
Anonymous
There's a traditional classification which is quite possibly fairly wrong
 
Anonymous
8:27 PM
A lot of archaeological evidence has been uncovered since that classification was established
 
Anonymous
But the largest portion of characters, called 形声文字(けいせいもじ) in Japanese, are made of a semantic element and phonetic element
 
Anonymous
For these characters, which are, after all, what you spend most of the time looking up, ideally the radical is aligned with the semantic element
 
Anonymous
But the 214-radical system doesn't really make that possible
 
Anonymous
It's a compromise.
 
Anonymous
You'd need to have hundreds more radicals if you wanted to align the semantic elements with radicals.
 
Anonymous
8:30 PM
So you find characters like 悶, where the radical and phonetic element are the same
 
Anonymous
(Why? 心 is also a radical.)
 
Anonymous
I'm going to go look that one up :-)
 
Anonymous
Oh, stupid dictionaries. They put it in different sections.
 
After the door character?
 
Anonymous
It is under 心 in the traditional classification.
 
8:33 PM
Ahh...
 
Anonymous
I've been hoodwinked by dictionaries classifying things differently. See what a mess it is? :-)
 
Anonymous
Some dictionary editors have tried to make things easier to find.
 
Anonymous
So they moved characters into different categories.
 
Anonymous
Or even merged entire categories together.
 
Anonymous
In the traditional system, 肉 and 月 look pretty much identical as elements in other characters
 
Anonymous
8:35 PM
So the editor of one dictionary I have merged them all into 肉
 
Anonymous
I suppose you don't need to know any of that
 
Anonymous
You don't need to navigate the maze of radicals because their sole purpose is as an indexing mechanism, and you have modern dictionaries available :-)
 
Anonymous
With other look-up methods.
 
Anonymous
You're so lucky! :-)
 
Probably. :)
 
Anonymous
8:36 PM
Ahh, kanji.
 
But the radical system might influence the order of characters in Unicode, I guess.
 
Anonymous
Really?
 
I don't know. :)
But I guess that they must order them somehow.
 
Anonymous
They're in a bunch of different blocks.
 
Anonymous
I think that by code point they're way out of order
 
Anonymous
8:39 PM
I'm not sure how the Unicode Collation Algorithm orders them. It must do it somehow :-)
 
@jimsug O, I will for thy bravery hail praise upon thee,/ for an animadversion thou lodgeth 'gainst StoneyB./ — user8153 13 hours ago
Oh, my.
 
Anonymous
There's an awful lot about Unicode I don't know.
 
(I was looking for a candidate for literature question, and found it!)
 
Anonymous
I figured out a way to rephrase my answer without implying that the Kangxi dictionary was the first to use the Zihui system
 
Anonymous
Yay!
 
Anonymous
8:40 PM
Er.
 
Anonymous
Yay? :-)
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. I probably actually just remembered that it was exceptional in having 門 as a phonetic element rather than a semantic element, and confused them.
 
Anonymous
In most characters with 門, the thingy under the gate is the phonetic element.
 
Anonymous
I remembered that it was an exception, but the wrong kind of exception :-)
 
Anonymous
What's a good example of one where the phonetic element is the radical, I wonder…?
 
Anonymous
8:43 PM
How about 錦?
 
Anonymous
Lemme look that one up so I can avoid putting my foot in my mouth again :-)
 
Anonymous
Yep, it's under 金. And it's pronounced like 金, not like 帛!
 
Anonymous
So that's a better example than 悶.
 
Anonymous
帛 isn't one of the 214 radicals, so 錦 can't be under it.
 
Anonymous
But if you were going to line them up and say something like "radicals indicate the semantic portions of semantic-phonetic characters", you'd have to put it in a 帛 section.
 
Anonymous
8:49 PM
It's starting to show that it's been a while since I studied kanji :-)
 
Anonymous
But that's okay. I can read Japanese fine, which is all I really need.
 
I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but I will try to let the Jingle Effect help me on kanji. ;-)
 
Anyone knows why OxfordLearnersDict pronunciation of pen is /pen/ and not /pɜn/?
I've seen it in many other words too.
 
Anonymous
@jinawee They're the same sound.
 
Anonymous
English doesn't have a phonemic contrast between [e] and [ɛ]
 
8:58 PM
Also, you might want to check this out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_respelling_for_English
 
Anonymous
Because it doesn't, some lexicographers choose to transcribe the phoneme whose basic sound is [ɛ] as /e/
 
Anonymous
You might say that using e is less accurate, but it's also simpler, easier to type and to read―as a general principle, using as few special symbols for phonemic transcription as possible is a good thing
 
According to the page, NOAD seems to really use /e/ for IPA /ɛ/.
 
Anonymous
Some dictionaries use /ɛ/ instead, and that's fine too. Just keep in mind that they're transcribing the same phoneme, and that it doesn't represent a difference in pronunciation
 
Anonymous
Uh oh, did I mix up the left-facing and right-facing thingies? Just a moment
 
Anonymous
9:00 PM
I did mean ɛ, not ɜ. Let me go edit what I wrote
 
Any particular reason why urban is /ɜːbən / and not /eːbən/?
 
Anonymous
Fixed! :-)
 
It's typically /ɜr/, but some dialects are non-rhotic.
 
Anonymous
I made the mistake of just copying and pasting what jinawee wrote :-)
 
Anonymous
ɜ is more central. Let me go look that up so I can get on the same page…
 
9:03 PM
Hmm... NOAD seems to use /ər/ for this /ɜr/.
 
I didn't even know /ɜ/ existed, that seems really messy.
 
Anonymous
Hmm. You were the one who brought up ɜ
 
Oh, it's the one in "work"
 
Anonymous
Where did you find /ɜːbən/?
 
Anonymous
Is that RP?
 
Anonymous
9:05 PM
I see it in Collins
 
Anonymous
So I guess it is!
 
I usually use this page as a reference for English pronunciation in IPA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English
 
Anonymous
Thanks!
 
(Though it's rare that I will look things up on it. :-)
 
I thought it was said ɛːbən and then copy-pasted ɜːbən from oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/urban without noticing the difference
 
Anonymous
9:07 PM
Ugh, English vowels
 
Anonymous
Why do we have so many? :-)
 
Hah! I thought you knew it. :)
 
Anonymous
Honestly, I thought I knew the IPA for English vowels, but I'm feeling a little confused at the moment :-)
 
Anonymous
It doesn't help that different people write them different ways.
 
Isn't it strange that I read it in a book that English is still understandable without any vowels?
 
Anonymous
9:08 PM
@jinawee Are you learning British English pronunciation?
 
Compared to other languages I know, I think English is quite phonetically rich!
 
Anonymous
Yes!
 
Anonymous
A blessing and a curse. :-)
 
Anonymous
Thai has a fair amount of vowels, though, doesn't it?
 
Thai has less pure vowels. What we do have more are triphtongues.
 
Anonymous
9:12 PM
@jinawee I found the blog post on John Wells' blog about e and ɛ.
 
@snailboat I don't really know. I'm trying to see the differences between both. I think I'm learning more Am pronunciation because of TV series, although I've lived in England.
 
The first few things about English came to mind: BBC, and Stephen Fry.
 
So right now I guess I'll mix both accents.
 
Anonymous
When I was trying to describe two symbols used for the same sound, I was more or less trying to say what John Wells says there. (John Wells is the author of the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary)
 
Anonymous
9:16 PM
Oh, this is the original post:
 
Anonymous
> In your dictionary, words such as "bed" are transcribed with an [e], when elsewhere I often see the same vowel rendered as [ɛ]. Also, when I listen to various vowel recordings I find that [ɛ] comes closer to the sound I make when I say "bed". Of course, I am not a native speaker of English, and it may well be my Dutch or Norwegian that is creeping in, but I was wondering as to the nature of your choice for using [e]?
 
Anonymous
There we go :-)
 
Anonymous
I should just save links like this rather than trying to explain stuff myself
 
Oh, see how short Hollywood movie's titles are: The Heat, The Bay, The Croods, Planes, Epic!
 
Anonymous
9:22 PM
Frozen was originally titled Anna and the Snow Queen
 
Anonymous
That's what it's called in Japanese: アナと雪の女王
 
Ah! Frozen is also short!
 
Anonymous
Hollywood does like pretty short titles, huh?
 
Anonymous
One or two words.
 
Anonymous
Occasionally three? :-)
 
9:24 PM
Hehe!
 
Anonymous
You know, if the words are short enough: "Men in Black"
 
Anonymous
Have you ever seen the title of Fiona Apple's second album?
 
Anonymous
It's a poem.
 
Anonymous
But most people abbreviate the title to "When the Pawn…"
 
LOL
 
Anonymous
 
The title somehow reminds me of the official name of Bangkok. :)
 
Anonymous
Ah! I remember :-)
 
Anonymous
Um, I don't remember the whole name. I remember that it exists :-)
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. My revised kanji post got an upvote :-)
 
Yay!
 
Anonymous
9:33 PM
What was your standard for posts? They need at least 3 upvotes?
 
nods -- For posts on ELL. :-)
 
Anonymous
Hmm…
 
Anonymous
I have two recent posts on Japanese.SE which don't meet that criterion: japanese.stackexchange.com/users/1478/…
 
Anonymous
Maybe the bar needs to be set higher on Japanese.SE
 
Oh, that one was only posted 5 hours ago. We can wait for a while. :)
Ahh... jimsug just raised an interesting issue on the meta.
 
Anonymous
9:38 PM
This one got a downvote, too, but no comment explaining why: japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/17888/…
 
Anonymous
I wish people commented more often with downvotes, but whatchagonnado? :-)
 
Anonymous
1
Q: Why were my comment flags on this comment declined?

jimsugWhat does this quote from Shakespeare mean? [on hold] The above comment doesn't seem to be useful, and it seems to be a defensive remark (indeed, something the commenter admits to in another comment that they made, which was deleted after I raised a flag on it. @jimsug O, I will for thy brav...

 
I flagged the other comment (now deleted) that targeted on jimsug earlier.
I once got a similar feedback.
Apr 9 at 7:10, by Damkerng T.
> Alright, fed up with this. every translation of the text, also very authorative, says you are wrong. Finished.
 
Anonymous
Ahh, I've seen that sort of comment
 
Anonymous
Flagging is the right thing to do, probably
 
9:44 PM
This is what jimsug got earlier...
20 hours ago, by Damkerng T.
@jimsug you are wrong. This is for English Language Learners for petes sake. Not Comptemporary English Learners! Why are you so purblind and parochial? Maybe you could use some liberal thinking like those Republicans in COngress who insist birth control is sacrilegious...7 — user8153 2 hours ago
@user8153 There's no need to make things personal, I don't know what this has to do with the US government, which I am pleased to say I have absolutely nothing to do with. You'll see in the help center that historical English is explicitly defined as off-topic. Certainly, feel free to make the case that Early Modern English should be on-topic. But making ad hominem arguments is probably not the right way to do it. — jimsug 15 hours ago
@jimsug O, I will for thy bravery hail praise upon thee,/ for an animadversion thou lodgeth 'gainst StoneyB./ — user8153 14 hours ago
I wish all comments and questions would exist permanently and no one would be able to delete them, not even the owner, except for the moderators.
@snailboat I think it's rather clear that there're three accounts.
 
Anonymous
His writer's voice is rather unique :-)
 
I don't know how many rude messages went by under the radar on the main site.
 
Anonymous
As is his style of asking questions
 
nods
 
Anonymous
10:27 PM
I do think discussing Early Modern English should be on-topic
 
Anonymous
Assuming it meets the other criteria an ELL question should meet, of course!
 
I think it's fine, as long as we make it clear that it is not what we use today.
 
Anonymous
Yeah
 
(Actually, it's the reason behind my initiative of those tags.)
 
Anonymous
It's not okay, for example, to ask a question about a quote from several centuries ago that's apparently ungrammatical now, without letting anyone know what its source is
 
Anonymous
10:29 PM
Because then you might get, for example, responses saying "That's ungrammatical. Replace am with has"
 
Anonymous
Then the OP leaves a comment responding "But it's such-and-such famous writer!"
 
Anonymous
Which is something they should have said in the first place.
 
Also, considering the level of those comments, it seems like the level of command of English required to write them is well above average learners...
so it's only fair to ask the OP to state their idea first...
or reveal the translation or interpretation or whatever they already have in mind...
or else our answerers would become victimized, imo.
We don't answer homework questions, why we answered "What does this mean?" of these rarely used (and thus, less likely to be useful for most learners) words and phrases for this specific OP?
 
Anonymous
I don't know. It's hard to come up with a fair policy on "What does this mean" questions, I think
 
Anonymous
Ideally the OP should say something more than just "what does this mean", though
 
Anonymous
10:34 PM
They should explain what trouble they're having understanding it
 
Anonymous
Or, well, something
 
So, source should be required for these literature questions, but only source shouldn't be enough, imo.
 
Anonymous
Yeah, that seems fair
 
Anonymous
ELL has an awful lot of low-effort questions, really
 
Anonymous
10:56 PM
Seriously, my brain has not been working well today. I'm glad I haven't tried to do anything important :-)
 
2
Q: Which is his name: the Fat Friar, Fat Friar?

Listenever Then something happened that made him jump about a foot in the air - several people behind him screamed. "What the ––?" He gasped. So did the people around him. About twenty ghosts had just streamed through the back wall. Pearly-white and slightly transparent, they glided across ...

This question makes me think hard... What is name? :-)
I know that we won't call (the) Fat Friar a name in my L1.
 
Anonymous
Fat Friar…?
 
Anonymous
I don't remember that part of the book at all :-)
 
It's just something we call someone else.
Me either. Probably not in the movies.
 
Anonymous
It appears to be capitalized, like some kind of title
 
Anonymous
11:08 PM
Ah, I actually did see the first 5 movies
 
Anonymous
But I read all 7 books in English
 
I think it might be more interesting to ask is if the name of (the) Philippines is "Philippines" or "the Philippines". :-)
Is Fat Friar a friend of Fat Albert? :)
 
Anonymous
Well,
 
Anonymous
(i) You're unlikely to say "My dear The Friar"
 
Anonymous
My takes the determiner slot
 
Anonymous
11:15 PM
(ii) He seems to sometimes be called Fat, and other times not
 
Anonymous
But it's not like a string literal
 
Anonymous
You don't go around calling him Mister The Fat Friar
 
Anonymous
If you had more than one of them, you wouldn't call him A The Fat Friar
 
Anonymous
I mean, you could, but it would be silly :-)
 
Interesting! Which one do you prefer between our Philippines and our the Philippines?
(I think this could be extended to the UK and the USA, too.)
 
Anonymous
11:17 PM
Really? "Our the"?
 
Anonymous
Hmm. How do I communicate this?
 
I just tried to test the feeling. (Mine as well.)
 
Anonymous
We still analyze these names syntactically.
 
Anonymous
They are not black boxes, they are not inviolable strings whose contents are irrelevant to their treatment
 
Anonymous
Compare, though, New York
 
Anonymous
11:19 PM
This is more or less a single word syntactically, although we're aware of its syntactic origins
 
Anonymous
If you ask someone to stop and think about it, they'll probably be able to connect it to York, or to New New York (from Futurama)
 
Oh! Apparently, our the Philippines can be found on Google Books!
 
Anonymous
S'got to be pretty rare, though…?
 
Extremely rare.
 
Anonymous
Do you remember the beginning of The Tick?
 
Anonymous
11:20 PM
"The City. My The City!"
 
Anonymous
When he says this, he treats "The City" as though it's a single word
 
Hah! (I can't remember its first line.)
 
Anonymous
Probably a lot of names exist on a spectrum of how analyzable they are
 
Anonymous
The White House, for example, is clearly the definite article the as one word,
 
Anonymous
but White House seems more like one word than two
 
Anonymous
11:22 PM
House never receives separate stress, nothing can come between the two, and you can't shorten it to House
 
> I rise reluctantly to speak in opposition to sending our the United States Armed Forces into ...
Wow! I didn't expect that.
 
Anonymous
Looks like a typo or mistake of some sort.
 
Anonymous
It's obvious that White is etymologically a separate word, an adjective.
 
Anonymous
But even though we're aware of White as though it's a separate word, we treat White House as though it's a single word most of the time
 
But I guess that the is never really part of the word.
 
Anonymous
11:24 PM
I can't think of an example where the has really been lexicalized
 
Anonymous
A little voice in the back of my head is whispering that most of the things I'm saying today are slightly wrong in one respect or another. :-)
 
I think we have a question about the New York Times or something like that posted recently on ELL.
 
Anonymous
I hope you don't mind that I'm sitting around and chatting anyway.
 
Never. :)
 
Anonymous
A lot of names have strong preferences for one article or the other, or neither: The Appalachians, Microsoft
 
Anonymous
11:27 PM
The Himalayas
 
nods
 
Anonymous
But we always treat these as actual articles
 
Anonymous
We never say the the Himalayas
 
Ah! I think that's useful for almost all learners!
Hmm... but that's probably only one-sided test. (It doesn't really say anything about just Himalayas.)
Ah, StoneyB posted an answer to that question.
 
11:31 PM
0
A: Which is his name: the Fat Friar, Fat Friar?

StoneyBNone of these is a name. Friar, if lowercased, designates a man who has taken religious vows and joined a mendicant order. Uppercased it is the title by which a friar is referred to and addressed, like ‘General’ or ‘Doctor’. If the friar's religious name were ‘John’, he would be referred to as ...

"None of these is a name." -- Ahh... I like it when StoneyB's answer is decisive.
Oh, we can have a lot of things before Himalayas!
A-ha! Nepal's Himalayas and China's Himalayas are good examples!
 
Anonymous
And Tibetan
 
But then the example is the cascading Tibetan Himalayas.
 
Anonymous
Oh, yeah, I guess that wouldn't be a determiner
 
Anonymous
0
Q: What is this construction?

username901345She was as beautiful a girl as well might be in the whole wide world. (Garden of Love) by Jeniffer Jackson This pattern is new to me. Usually could is used . Is "well might" used here to have the same meaning?

 
Anonymous
Is that a real book?
 
Anonymous
11:37 PM
I'm having trouble finding evidence of its existence, though all I've done is search online
 
I couldn't find the phrase by googling for it.
Oh, you mean the mentioned book.
 
Anonymous
Yeah.
 
I think it's a strange sentence.
 
Anonymous
He might have written it himself.
 
Even with could be, it is still a little odd.
 
Anonymous
11:42 PM
What year was this book written? — snailplane 9 secs ago
 
Anonymous
It would help to know if it's an old book
 
If plagiarism is a word for claiming other people's work or using it as if it were one's own, what is the word for claiming that someone's work exists when it actually doesn't?
(Should I post it as a question? :-)
 
Anonymous
Um… Fiction? :-)
 
LOL
 
Anonymous
That reminds me again that you should either read or see The Princess Bride, or preferably, both!
2
 
11:48 PM
Eh? (Can't relate things together!)
Oh, probably the word fiction rang the bell.
Hmm... Maybe falsification could work.
 
Anonymous
The book is supposedly an abridgement of another book written by S. Morgenstern, an author who does not exist :-)
 
Hehe!
 
Anonymous
House of Leaves does something similar, except that the author goes way over-the-top
 
Oh, it is an interesting novel style!
 
Anonymous
It's a framing device that's been used by a number of authors
 
Anonymous
11:59 PM
I'm not sure who did it first
 
00:00 - 19:0019:00 - 00:00

« first day (549 days earlier)      last day (350 days later) »