Whales are sure big!

Ninja roll? Sounds delicious!

Oh, I was tricked into trying to come up with a single word!

@Arrowfar In place of 'ageless'.

Oh, I guessed right!

(It kept spinning for a few seconds before the image came up. :-)

I guess so. :-)

Very popular, and very expensive!

Wow, finally, we have the deleted answer undeleted in the bounty question!

Oh, we now have two bounty questions. Whatever, I'm sure we all know which question I was talking about.

It's a long long-deleted answer!

> A sentence is the maximum chunk.

I don't like to think like that. I think there are bigger chunks than sentences.

@snailboat I find that very often!

I still haven't read it through.

I'm not sure if the term "Intonational Phrases" is standard; I hope it is.

@snailboat Oh, indeed!

It's strange to me that they choose to name it intonational phrase.

I think it's like and, or, or but.

However, I think I would avoid knocking a because-clause out of its main clause in formal writing.

Oh, I found a typo in there! "Figure 5. Different phrasing patters"

@snailboat Eh?

That's weird. :-)

Long time no see! :) My father recharged my internet just now!

Hi!

@DamkerngT. hi!

@snailboat It would be nice if they included pitch contours like Figure 7 in ELL books!

> Notice as well, that I said nothing about any pauses between the clauses. There is not likely to be a pause after sons in example (2). Sure, we could put a pause in there, but in actual fact, it's rather unlikely. It is most likely to happen if the relative clause is an afterthought.

I guess I don't agree with this part.

On the other hand, I'm not very sure they were making a case for that specific example or making a case for non-restrictive clauses in general.

> The pitch will usually drop considerably so that the relative clause is said at a much lower pitch than the rest of the sentence. This makes it clearly separate in some way from words surrounding it. However, this will not happen in sentences (1) or (2)!

I also doubt this.

Oh, I just realized that the question might not be symmetrical. I mean, if we asked what intonations in real speech will result in the two example sentences, we might get one kind of answers, but if we asked what intonations people would use when reading the two sentences, we might get another kind of answers.

All in all, I like his last conclusion.

fontfeed.com/archives/a-typographic-anatomy-lesson

Lots of typographic terms inside!

I stumbled upon this sentence: Many patients worldwide continue to have typical influenza symptoms and full recovery within a week. It was used as an error correction problem. I think there was no error, but the poster said full recovery within a week wasn't good; they said it should read ...and fully recover within a week, which of course, sounds better.

They explained that the sentence needed another verb after and because it joined two clauses. However, I think it joined the two noun phrases, typical influenza symptoms and full recovery. I looked up CGEL on coordination; it did talk about asymmetric coordination which implies that one coordinate takes place before the other, e.g. he had breakfast and got up (cf. he got up and had breakfast).

It doesn't mention this kind of case in particular. So I wonder if such coordination works in this case, where and joins two noun phrases, too? Or does and have to join two clauses for this to work?

A-ha

I thought it might not be possible to do that just because the coordination is asymmetric. I guess that's not the case. Thanks!

@snailboat Well, one can't have recovery before symptoms, right?

Ah... I see.