Language Overflow

1:23 AM

@Araucaria I doubt I'm gonna get in on this: I'm finding it very hard going. I'm having to get back to a fundamental question that's been nagging me for a while now, viz. just what is predication, and how does it differ from attribution?

Damkerng T.

9:32 AM

0

Q: Which phrase does "of" refer to here?

In this quote, what does "of any of its obligations" refer to, and how do I know? the breach by Supplier or its associated individuals or entities of any of its obligations hereunder, Only for entities. For its associated individuals and entities. For Supplier and its associated individual...

> the breach by Supplier or its associated individuals or entities of any of its obligations hereunder,

I have no problem understanding the sentence, but the user of hereunder made me curious.

Most if not all dictionaries define hereunder as an adverb.

How could we fit an adverb after a noun phrase like that?

Maybe hereunder is associated with the main verb of the clause, rather the noun phrase. I don't know. I don't have the whole clause.

Oh, it was crossposted!

-1

Q: "of its obligations"...which phrase does it refer to?

the breach by Supplier or its associated individuals or entities of any of its obligations hereunder, 1, " of any of its obligations" in this sentence only for entities. 2," of any of its obligations" in this sentence for its associated individuals and entities. 3." of any of its obligat...

sentence sentence-structure

Hmm... which site first?

Ahh... ELU first.

Okay, the string "the breach by Supplier or its associated individuals or entities of any of its obligations hereunder" doesn't appear anywhere on the web except on ELL and ELU.

(And the pastebin that the OP used to draft it, I believe.)

(Another reason that encouraged me to check it was that the agreements between Supplier/its individuals/its entities and its obligation.)

Google still returned the same 7 results even when I changed my search string to: "the breach" "its associated individuals or entities" "obligations hereunder"

And the same seven with: "its associated individuals or entities" "obligations hereunder"

Or: "its associated individuals" "obligations hereunder"

The hereafter leads me to another related problem: what is here?

Here typifies the common problem of adverb-vs-preposition-vs-pronoun cases.

> The discussion here is only theoretical.

Is that here an adverb? I think it's not.

(I don't know why I didn't say I don't think it is, and I feel like I think it's not is closer to what I was really thinking.)

A curious lyric:

> Take your hand to your palm and slap your thigh
--"The Clapping Song" by The Rebelles

How could I take my hand to my palm?

By putting my palms together?

Damkerng T.

10:07 AM

1

Q: Can the transitive verb display be used without an object?

I have read a sentence like that from a magazine: "Approval was given, and Ju's art displayed." Since the word display is a transitive verb, how can it be used like this without an object.

grammar

> Approval was given, and Ju's art displayed.

This (Approval was given, and Ju's art (was) displayed) is used so often in English that I think it deserves its own name.

Something that sounds linguistic.

Damkerng T.

10:21 AM

0

Q: Is there something like "feel+past participle" in english?

"I felt impelled to go on speaking". In such a case does "impelled" function as an adjective here? So it could be "feel + adj" form ,am I right?

american-english

Interesting...

Superficially, we can think of I feel impelled to do something the same way we think of I feel good/bad/etc.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

I feel impelled to do anything right now.

Damkerng T.

But is impelled really an adjective (or does it even function as an adjective, for that matter)?

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Aww...

> I feel forced to do something.

Is forced an adjective?

> I feel my hands tied.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

I'm pretty sure it's a word.

Damkerng T.

Is tied an adjective?

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Oh, that reminds me of the formal grammar stuff we mentioned yesterday.

I found this on ELU:

20

Q: Is there an EBNF that covers all of English

This almost feels like a SO question. Is there an EBNF that covers all of English, and if so, what is it?

grammar

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@DamkerngT. Is EBNF some kind of flu?

Damkerng T.

10:27 AM

It stands for Extended BNF.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Extended flu? :O

Damkerng T.

In formal language (such as computer languages and mathematical languages), we usually described the syntax that govern all "compilable" code formally.

And BNF (Backus-Naur Form) is one popular way for that.

 <postal-address> ::= <name-part> <street-address> <zip-part>

      <name-part> ::= <personal-part> <last-name> <opt-suffix-part> <EOL>
                    | <personal-part> <name-part>

  <personal-part> ::= <initial> "." | <first-name>

 <street-address> ::= <house-num> <street-name> <opt-apt-num> <EOL>

       <zip-part> ::= <town-name> "," <state-code> <ZIP-code> <EOL>

<opt-suffix-part> ::= "Sr." | "Jr." | <roman-numeral> | ""
    <opt-apt-num> ::= <apt-num> | ""

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

It's seems scary, like flu.

Damkerng T.

^BNF for a U.S. postal address (from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backus%E2%80%93Naur_Form).

Most programmers know this.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

30 secs ago, by inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

It's seems scary, like flu.

Is a BNF for U.S. postal address?

Damkerng T.

10:30 AM

Nah, it's fascinating!

For describing the syntax of a formal language.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

I get it I get it. I was just fooling with words.

Damkerng T.

Theoretically, we can consider all possible U.S. postal addresses as a language.

Ahh

But back to the EBNF for English...

Some say it's impossible...

Some say it is...

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

It is impossibly possible.

Damkerng T.

To put the matter to rest once and for all...

I made one myself...

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

It is possibly impossible.

@DamkerngT. ELLIPSIS IS  . . . NOT ... ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)

Damkerng T.

10:39 AM

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M :D

Anyway, here it is:

text            :   sentences ;
sentences       :   sentence sentences
                |   sentence
                ;
sentence        :   words ENDMARK ;
words           :   WORD words
                |   WORD
                |   LEFTER words RIGHTER
                |   words PUNCT words
                ;

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

11:43 AM

@DamkerngT. I read this.

@DamkerngT. Please do not inline Project Gutenberg images. See: www.gutenberg.org/howto-link kthxbai.

Damkerng T.

I see, but it's too late now.

Oh, actually, I can do something about it...

→ 2 messages moved to Trash

Can you read this without looking up its transcription?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@DamkerngT. I've grown up in a pharmacy since I was 6. There are not many handwritings I can't read. But, I need to stare at it for 15 minutes before enlightenment dawns.

Damkerng T.

→ 1 message moved to Trash

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M I guess I may need more than 15 minutes!

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

I wonder . . . @Snail can you read the masterpiece up there?

How 'bout you @Jim?

@DamkerngT. I managed to read one word: Right.

jimsug

bits and pieces jump out

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

11:57 AM

A second word: when.

jimsug

glory... god of England

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Yeah, I wanted to say that too.

Damkerng T.

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Congrats!

0

Q: How to analyze a sentence structure, and check or it is correct?

I try to analyze a sentence structure. But I don`t know how to do it. In which sentence parts I should to look to set or my sentence is correct. Example, I have the sentence bellow: I very want to become an IT professional. I - subject very want - predicate what want? - to become an IT pr...

sentence-construction sentences sentence-structure

And the quest for the formal grammar of English continues...

jimsug

oh look, backticks

Damkerng T.

Very standing out!

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

12:02 PM

I wonder how many ELL questions use backticks legitimately.

After I'm done with this title thingy, I'm gonna write a punctuation FAQ. :P

Damkerng T.

0

Q: How to analyze a sentence structure, and check or it is correct?

I try to analyze a sentence structure. But I don`t know how to do it. In which sentence parts I should to look to set or my sentence is correct. Example, I have the sentence bellow: I very want to become an IT professional. I - subject very want - predicate what want? - to become an IT pr...

sentence-construction sentences sentence-structure

> I very want to become an IT professional.

> Using this logic i decided to use the preposition to before the word become. Or I am correct?

I'm not sure what this to is.

Is it a preposition? Is it a particle? Or something else?

In any case, I very want should be rephrased.

But how do I know that?

Note to self: This probably is a good example for demonstrating why learning grammar may not be the most important thing in language learning. We shouldn't learn it too little, and we probably shouldn't learn it too much.

Araucaria

12:21 PM

@DamkerngT. You know that because very doesn't modify verbs, it usually modifies adverbs or adjectives. Becasue of this very want is ungrammatical

Damkerng T.

Nice explanation!

Araucaria

@DamkerngT. Well, H&P say that it's a subordinator like that or for. But Pullum has also argued that it's a non-finite auxiliary verb! Some people have argued it is an unusual preposition (different from our normal to.

Damkerng T.

Sounds like we don't have one true answer.

0

Q: The meaning of "identify" and "distinguish"

I wrote To create a wrapper, the user first identifies text features such as textual delimiters, keywords, constants or text patterns, which we call anchors, to distinguish and delimit data regions and data records on a representative page. by "distinguish" I mean "to make distinct", does ...

word-usage word-meaning word-request

I think Ahmad is trying to push the use of identify and distinguish a bit.

It seems to work better with identify than with distinguish.

> I can identify this thing, so I make this identifiable for others, by selecting this feature. In other words, I identify it (for others). The feature identifies it.

Let's try that with distinguish.

> I can distinguish this thing (from other things), so I make this thing distinguishable for others, by selecting this feature. In other words, I distinguish it (for others). The feature distinguishes it.

Damkerng T.

12:44 PM

1

Q: her experience growing up in Canada

Encouraged from her teacher, Vanessa decided to enter the short story contest with a story about her experience growing up in Canada. Are "her experience" and "growing up in Canada" in apposition? Is "her experience growing up in Canada" is the same as "her experience of growing up in Canad...

nouns gerund appositive

I think it is. (What else could it be?)

Appositive, participial phrase, an adverbial phrase, maybe an adjunct too. All these labels for the same thing.

2

Q: Ending several phrases in a list with a dangling preposition

Purchaser will provide for payment in full to the Supplier upon the delivery to, third party inspection of and acceptance for shipping at the port of entry of all Products required by said CPO or CPO’s,the loading on board of all Products, issuance of an on-board bill of lading and fulfillment...

sentence-construction phrase-usage sentence-meaning

I have a rather strong feeling that the quote was written by a non-native speaker based on a legalese template.

Damkerng T.

1:04 PM

Hmmm, "I don't like he shouting" is ungrammatical. It doesn't mean anything in English. — Araucaria 2 hours ago

I don't like he shouting sounds really bad.

However, ...

He shouting something was heard by everyone. is perhaps passable.

Damkerng T.

1:17 PM

@Araucaria I don't know if this is hypercorrection or not, but there are uses of who as the object of preposition. I really find such uses hard to judge whether they are at all correct or not :( Like - "I am not content with who you really are.*. Another one - Contrary to who claims that .... Actually in these cases it's most natural to use who, instead of whom. Some strange ones - "They are behind us. Behind who?" It's is the last type of construction that I find hard to judge :-( — Man_From_India 22 hours ago

Hmm... that's a little strange.

I think normally we use hypercorrection to mean that the correction is actually ungrammatical.

Let me make something up...

> As the speaker of the opening ceremony, behind whom all the athletes are, I ...

I think behind who would sound worse in that sentence.

(I changed participants to athletes because the scene I can imagine is weird with participants.)

Hmm...

In that question, sentence C doesn't sound as good as the other two.

> People will now vote for whom they are told, forced to vote by people who have a hold over them.

Let's take a closer look at the main clause.

> People will now vote for whom they are told.

Does that really work?

StoneyB

1:51 PM

@DamkerngT. I think your instinct is sound: this, although formally correct, is right at the battle line where formal use is retreating in the face of colloquial use.

Damkerng T.

I was thinking that People will now vote for whom they are told to vote would sound better.

StoneyB

What makes this sentence wonky is that the relative clause headed by who(m) is not a bound relative with a pied-piped preposition, where formal use still requires whom and colloquial use still tolerates whom -- it's a free/fused relative. ...

Damkerng T.

nods

StoneyB

@DamkerngT. ... Yes, you're halfway there. The wh- form there is not the object of the for which is actually present; it is the object of a different for, which as been deleted by ellipsis:

People will now vote for [who(m) they are told to vote for].

Damkerng T.

A-ha! Yes!

StoneyB

1:58 PM

And in that sort of construction, colloquial use requires who, and formal use has largely come to tolerate who.

Damkerng T.

Somehow with the ellipsis (just People will now vote for who(m) they are told), I was thinking maybe who might work better, but I wasn't sure.

Interesting!

Both of the strings "vote for who they are told" and "vote for whom they are told" get 2 results (each) in Google Books!

tchrist

2:10 PM

Vote for who you are told is most likely to win.

Araucaria

2:49 PM

@DamkerngT. "He shouting something was heard by everyone." ain't possible, I'm afraid old bean!

Damkerng T.

I doubt that myself too.

But I wonder how we can say one thing is not "possible" in a language.

Or to be specific, in this case, in English.

Araucaria

@DamkerngT. We just mean ungrammatical, don't we?

Damkerng T.

Yes, but I remember that some of your examples sound marginal to me too.

Araucaria

@DamkerngT. Well, native speakers can be kinda be confident within their own specific variety of the language. There are always marginal cases where something will be unacceptable for one native speaker and not for another. There's also cases of varietal differences. But the way to check your grammaticality judgements about specific cases is to test them with a range of native speakers.

Damkerng T.

@Araucaria I believe I don't take that stance in my own language.

Araucaria

2:56 PM

@DamkerngT. which bit?

Damkerng T.

The bit that turns a grammaticality test into a popularity test of some sort.

I believe that it's better to call such a thing an "acceptability test".

Araucaria

@DamkerngT. There's nothing about a popularity contest. It's just that if you only test with one speaker, they may be influenced on that particular day or time by some nuance of the sentence or something.

Damkerng T.

I guess there are many ways to define what grammar is.

StoneyB

The collection of linguistic rules consistently observed by members of a specific discourse community.

Araucaria

@StoneyB absolutely!

Damkerng T.

3:02 PM

nods -- In my humble opinion, in each language, there are clearly grammatical cases, as well as there are clearly ungrammatical cases. And we also have those cases that are neither grammatical nor ungrammatical.

Araucaria

@DamkerngT. Sure. There's also cases, for example, when I look at something in Spanish, where it seems completely grammatical to me, but it just ain't! I wouldn't classify those as marginal cases though!

@DamkerngT. However, in the case of your judgements about English, yours, unlike my Spanish judgements, are very likely to be right :)

Damkerng T.

@Araucaria I actually don't believe so.

If I'm good at anything, perhaps it's not trusting myself. :-)

Araucaria

@DamkerngT. Ah, the sign of a good linguist!

Damkerng T.

Hehe! Probably! Is that the linguists' thing? :P

StoneyB

It's a scholar thing.

It goes along with not trusting anybody else, either!

Damkerng T.

3:11 PM

Somehow that makes sense!

Araucaria

@StoneyB That's a big problem for many overseas students coming to study in the UK or US. It's a big part of our academic culture ... Very difficult for someone who has been educated in a very different academic culture, with different ideas about what academic literacies in their new departments are likely to involve ...

StoneyB

@Araucaria Not just NNSs. US highschool students arrive at college convinced that the path to academic success lies in echoing what they are told by teachers or textbooks or other 'authorities', and have a great deal of difficulty understanding the notion of critical thought.

Araucaria

3:28 PM

@StoneyB Absolutely, don't I know it! It can be even worse for some NNS (or even native speakers from very different countries!), because they may already have been extremely successful at postgraduate level in the same discipline in their own country, so finding that difference - that they've often heard about - is actually real can blow their minds. I can't imagine what that situation would be like in reverse. I'm sure I'd have a breakdown ...

StoneyB

3:53 PM

I have just had an absurd thought. ...

CGEL redefine what I grew up calling subordinating conjunctions as prepositions. Cool. I love it.

But why stop at subordinating conjunctions? Why not coordinating conjunctions? And ...

Araucaria

@StoneyB Well, if you can come up with a good theory as to why, then why not?! I've read a really good PhD thesis by Mariangelo Spinillo who argued that determiners don't exist!

StoneyB

In colloquial speech, subject pronouns still take 'nominative' form: I went, he went, they went. But conjoined subject pronouns take 'accusative' form; John and me went, me and him went, me and them went. ...

Araucaria

@StoneyB Yes, same goes for Object ones too! "You never replied to Peter and I" etc

StoneyB

Is it possible that coordinating conjunctions are in fact ditransitive prepositions?!

Araucaria

@StoneyB Hmm, but why wouldn't from be a ditransitive preposition?

StoneyB

4:02 PM

Can you give an instance? ... (replied to Peter and I I take to be a hypercorrection -- which to be sure begs the question ... )

Araucaria

@StoneyB I take it to be too. But H&P would argue it's so widespread that it must be taken to be standard by some speakers ... They in fact argue almost that regarding it as hpercorrection is a form of inverse snobbery!

@StoneyB I'm all for inverse snobbery!

@StoneyB You've lost me on conjunctions, if truth be told, but I often wonder about the other "subordinators" they left in the grammar. They seem to be a ragbag bunch of things ...

Damkerng T.

4:54 PM

Huh?

(I was reviewing some old questions from last week.)

0

A: Do we use "my" or possessive pronouns in such sentences?

My two cents: I don't like his shouting and... I don't like he shouting There's a difference. In the former one, 'his shouting' is considered to be one entity, probably or collectively a noun. In the second sentence, with a personal pronoun, it's an act that I don't like. So, ...

1

A: Possessive pronouns and verb with -ing form

It's called gerunds. Gerunds are derived from verbs and serve as nouns. Since they serve as a noun, they need possessive case of nouns to modify them. That's the reason, your latter examples sound ungrammatical. I object to his (possessive) going and not... I object to him (not possess...

It's hard to believe that both answers were written by the same person.

Maybe he changed his opinion or something?

StoneyB

5:12 PM

@Araucaria 1. What does Spinillo think those non-determiners are? I'm interested to hear, because the whole determiner thing with all the pre-modifiers &c seems hopelessly Ptolemaic to me; but if you tell me 'Spec' I'm prolly going to stick my fingers in my ears and sing la-la-la-la-la.

2. I don't think it's inverse snobbery; I'll agree that it's maybe an unfair characterization of real confusion in the face of an evolving standard.

3. My brain's too full of -ing to deal with subordinators right now!

Transcript for