English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

ktm5124

22:06

Why is the Latin stackexchange so much friendlier than the English Language stackexchange?

It's funny how the beta communities are a lot warmer and more welcoming.

Cerberus

22:27

@ktm5124 Yup!

That happens to most (all?) older SE sites.

It's probably because the old users feel they need to "clean" the site, which I think is a bad idea.

And they get tired of seeing various kinds of questions that they don't like.

At some point, they think "enough is enough".

Which is silly.

ktm5124

@Cerberus Thanks for validating my perception. Yeah, the English Language stackexchange feels a little uptight. It's like I'm held accountable for every word that I use in a post.

tchrist

There are other differences.

Stack Exchange has never catered to questions that display zero effort. Latin students may be used to doing actual work. The billions of would-be English learners are often otherwise.

ktm5124

That might be true. But in my case, I receive different feedback on the two forums. So either I put effort into my Latin posts, and not my English Language posts, or there's a different atmosphere in each.

tchrist

In your most recent ELU post, although you used Greek script for a word, you are asking about the sense of that word in English without referencing existing dictionary entries regarding the same.

Cerberus

@tchrist It is true that the audience for Latin is a but narrower, but still, there is a difference.

ktm5124

22:39

I initially included the Merriam Webster definition, but I thought it was unnecessary, so I deleted it.

Cerberus

We get some fairly meh questions on Latin.

And translation requests.

Etc.

But we allow almost everything.

ktm5124

When the dictionary definition agrees with the etymology, it's more interesting to cite the etymology.

tchrist

> What's the imperfect indicative of Etc.?

ktm5124

Because it makes the word and its meaning more memorable. It can be a useful tool for memorization.

et cetera is not a verb

Cerberus

@tchrist Nah, we wouldn't get that.

But neither does English get many nonsensical questions.

ktm5124

22:41

Here's an interesting theory.

Cerberus

@ktm5124 Absolutely true.

ktm5124

Perhaps there is subtle discrimination against users with low reputation.

I think older SE sites have more established status hierarchies. Which can lead to more discrimination.

Cerberus

It's hardly subtle!

ktm5124

Perhaps there is blatant discrimination against users with low reputation :)

Cerberus

There certainly is some discrimination.

ktm5124

22:42

Beta communities have a different motive. They need all the questions they can get in order to survive.

Cerberus

Then again, high-rep users tend to not ask many questions.

tchrist

@Cerberus Sure of that?

Cerberus

@ktm5124 That is certainly a factor.

@tchrist Not at all nonsensical.

tchrist

> my English not god help please

Cerberus

I think it is you who should look up the word nonsensical in a dictionary first, my dear fellow.

tchrist

22:47

Help parse my English not god.

Nonsensical it certainly is.

Appealing to us not god for help.

> If someone asks you if you have difficulty understanding abstract ideas, what exactly are they asking?

Step 1: Get a dictionary.

People ask ELU questions about anything they don't understand that they can ask about in English.

Just because you can ask an English question doesn't make it an English question.

Cerberus

> (of words or language) having little or no meaning; making little or no sense:

tchrist

They also regularly make requests instead of asking questions.

> Please do this for me.

Then they tell you what they want you to do for them.

Like writing love letters or cover letters or term papers.

-7

Q: use of has have,have have,has has,have had,had had

Please let me know the uses of the above verbs as soon as possible as my examinations are knocking at the door.

british-english

Good thing they labelled that british-english, eh?

-4

Q: English Courses

Any One knows free websites for English course but please by level by level by level please thank you

vocabulary learning

-3

Q: I need a single word for "not committed to self-realizations"

I am looking for a word that bests describes the statement "not sticking/committing to self-realizations".

meaning

What's a self-realization anyway?

-5

Q: how visoin and Mission can be substitued?

When ever we start to read a report on a community project, vision and mission are the two words which strike our face.Many times doubts arise regarding their trustworthiness, because many projects do not rise upto their own promises In the 1989 book, Age of unreason, by henry, it is frequently...

single-word-requests

@Cerberus Please tell me how that ^^^^^^ is not a nonsensical "question".

Cerberus

Mmm unclear and far too broad, but not nonsensical.

Some sort of answer is possible.

Not so for the imperfect of etc.

tchrist

Ok fine: me rindo, riendo.

"Laughing, I give up."

I leave it to you to backtrace the two inflected verbs.

ktm5124

23:09

Well, I think I've found a solution.

I might just ask my questions in the English Language Learners forum.

Swallow my pride, and get a better reception :)

Cerberus

Haha.

Depends on your question.

ELL is indeed friendlier.

Tonepoet

The point of reputation is inherently discriminatory, so I don't see that as being a problem, even being the lowest rep. person in the room...

Cerberus

Also because it is newer.

@Tonepoet One problem is that my answer will get more up-votes than your answer, even if yours is better.

I've seen that happen.

Although perhaps you have too much reputation.

More than someone with 120 reps, then.

ktm5124

Yeah, the alternative is to continue using the ELU, but to fight fire with fire.

Which I am currently doing.

Tonepoet

I think the association bonus is harmful in that regard.

120 rep. reads like 20 rep.

Cerberus

23:16

@ktm5124 It depends on your question, really.

@Tonepoet Hmm possibly.

ktm5124

The mark of maturity is to accept things as they are, not how they should be.

Applies to SE as well as US government.

Tonepoet

Also there are a number of problems regarding how Stack Exchange's voting system works. I'm most particularly frustrated with how acceptance and bounty awards prioritize answers...

tchrist

@ktm5124 Only the Ostriches are happy?

ktm5124

Power protects power. The lower 70% are disenfranchised. That's how it works in the US (and also SE)

Plutocracy

I'm usually not so cynical, though. Just been watching a lot of Noam Chomsky interviews.

Cerberus

Well, most of the lower 70% do vote for the plutocrats.

ktm5124

23:23

I think his argument is that the media manipulates them into doing so.

Cerberus

The difference is that giving people reps is free.

@ktm5124 That's probably part of it.

ktm5124

There was this great Bernie Sanders - Clinton debate.

Cerberus

But I think the winner-take-all system is also partly to blame.

ktm5124

Bernie asks Hillary, "Do you think Israel is responding disproportionately to Palestinian attacks?"

Cerberus

It ensures that there can only every be two real parties, so you never have much to choose between.

ktm5124

23:24

Hillary sidestepped the question completely... and Bernie called her out on it afterward.

Cerberus

Hah.

ktm5124

I agree with Bernie and yet I rooted for Hillary. Weird, isn't it?

Cerberus

Rooted for, in what context?

ktm5124

Mostly because I thought Hillary would definitely beat Trump. I wasn't sure about Bernie.

I didn't vote in the primary, but I would have voted for Hillary if I had.

But Bernie was right. Hillary sidestepped the question. US turns a blind eye to human rights violations by its friends.

@Cerberus Oh, rooted for her in the primaries.

Cerberus

@ktm5124 Ah OK, yes.

But imagine now that there was not one president with 100% of the power, but 10 presidents.

The first 10 people with the most votes would be elected.

And they would have to decide on things together.

Would you still vote for Hillary in that case?

ktm5124

23:31

I see.

Well, I can't think of ten qualified candidates, only two. Hillary and Bernie.

But I would definitely vote for both.

Hillary represents a reasonable and humane person who supports the status quo (which is sometimes inhumane, unfortunately).

Bernie is a reasonable and humane person who wants to disrupt the status quo.

I think it's important to have both. They would counterbalance each other.

Cerberus

@ktm5124 No, you could only vote for one person.

ktm5124

Oh, I see.

Cerberus

My point is: if 100% of the power after the elections goes to 1 person ("winner take all"), that makes people vote for the establishment and ensures that only two parties are viable.

ktm5124

Yeah, that's a good point.

I think my rationale about rooting for Hillary was embarrassingly simple... Stop Trump!

In your scenario, I would have to do a lot of research on Bernie and Hillary.

Actually, what you just elicited is probably true for most people. We don't think about who we vote, because we vote for our party's leader.

It creates an atmosphere of thoughtless voting.

Tonepoet

I think the U.S.A. grew too large for its original framework to work very well. Back when the nation was founded it only has around one million people if Patrick Henry is to be believed.

That's not even half of a percent of how many people are in it now.

ktm5124

23:39

@Cerberus If I had to answer your question right now, without any further thought: Bernie Sanders.

Tonepoet

Fifty states also probably makes amending the constitution inviable.

ktm5124

If you Google

If you Google "Bernie Sanders" and "Hillary Clinton" in two separate tabs, and compare their policies, Bernie comes across a LOT better.

@Tonepoet A lot of people say that's why European countries do health care better than we do. We're too big for our own good.

Cerberus

@ktm5124 Exactly. And it prevents you from voting for Sanders even if you liked him, because you really need to stop Trump and thus vote for Clinton.

ktm5124

Yeah :(

Bernie comes across so much better. He cuts to the point, where Clinton always introduces her answers with her resume.

Tonepoet

@ktm5124 Well it'd help if the states had near exclusive control domestic policy like they're supposed to have. Some of our individual states are comparable to nations in terms of populous and even slightly larger.

Cerberus

23:42

That's also why many people hate "Brussels": they don't want policy to be decided far away.

Tonepoet

Compare California to Canada, Texas to Australia and New York to Denmark.

Cerberus

And also: if you have one government for a very large territory, that means the people who rule it have more power in their hands overall, and hence they attract more lobbyists.

ktm5124

@Tonepoet The US would a be much more interesting place to live in, then!

I grew up in Massachusetts and now live in Chicago. There's very little difference, except that Chicago has more skyscrapers and Boston is closer to NYC.

But suppose one state had universal health care and the other didn't. That would be cool.

Only possible in an alternative universe.

Tonepoet

@ktm5124 Or earlier in history. I think things started becoming more nationalistic after the civil war, though things really started getting crazy with the earlier portions of the 20th century. Wickard vs. Filburn is often cited as the precedence that really gave the federal government its expansionist powers because of how it reenvisioned the commerce clause: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Supposing Wickard vs. Filburn never happened, the U.S.A. probably wouldn't have federal drug laws for instance. Before, in order to ban Alcohol abuse it was deemed necessary to amend the constitution entirely with the 18th amendment.

Cerberus

Ah, yes.

Fewer drug laws would have been better, or more flexible ones.

Imagine if Texas were to become independent.

How much more progressive the rest of the country would become.

Abortion is illegal in Poland, except if the mother would otherwise die, or something.

It would have been terrible if they could have stopped us from legalising abortion.

ktm5124

23:55

@Cerberus Yeah, I like Bernie's view on abortion: "The decision about abortion is a decision for a woman and her doctor to make, not the government."

I think this election is high stakes because the next president could conceivably appoint three Supreme Court justices.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was talking about that in her unusual interview.

@Tonepoet Thanks for sharing that Supreme Court case. It's really interesting to read about.

Cerberus

Yeah.

And it seems Clinton is far ahead, doesn't it?

Tonepoet

@ktm5124 It should be since it's a landmark case.

ktm5124

@Cerberus I think so

I think it was described as a modest but significant lead.

Transcript for

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…