Language Overflow - 2016-08-07 (page 1 of 3)

« first day (415 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2810 days later) »

12:59 AM

@DamkerngT. Is it because like is a starive verb, verb of perception. That's why we don't say people is liking this. I guess because of this in our previously discussed sentence it is odd.

1:31 AM

Anyone checked out Ludwig? ludwig.guru

2

Techcrunch article: techcrunch.com/2016/08/05/…

2 hours later…

3:05 AM

Sawasdee khrap peeps!

swasdee khrap kettle

3

Q: Replacing gerund with subjunctive construction

Can the following sentence with gerund be rewritten with the subjunctive construction ? We objected to the buyer's paying only part of the invoice amount. to We objected that the buyer should pay only part of the invoice amount.

gerund subjunctive

@jimsug Very interesting!

I entered "okrashivanie yedinichnich kletok" and it offered "single cells" with examples that seem to be good.

3:26 AM

Ah I also feel in the trap like the OP. I instantly checked Oxford's Advanced Lerner's Dictionary. And found this

> to give something as a reason for opposing something

And as an example it cited -

> He objected that the police had arrested him without sufficient evidence.

Even with the definition, I couldn't understand the difference. I at first thought The subject he was opposing the fact that the police had arrested him without sufficient evidence.

I wish dictionaries could give some clear context. It would have been far better.

I know this is asking for too much for a dictionary. But still.

Anonymous

3:41 AM

@TIPS Aspectual still is a positive polarity item.

good evening @snailplane

Everything fine?

o/ Snails!

4:07 AM

@Man_From_India Such verbs are usually stative, but we sometimes use them to represent mental actions: I am liking these shorter work hours.

> And better friends I'll not be knowing

She lays out a coherent case that HRC, and the imperialistic power she represents, are monsters. Is it grammatical to use is a monster here?

Hi Cow. Moooooo

Morning, Jim

Chewed any interesting hay lately?

Yes

> O thou pale orb that silent shines
While care-untroubled mortals sleep!
Thou seest a wretch who inly pines.
And wanders here to wail and weep!
With woe I nightly vigils keep,
Beneath thy wan, unwarming beam;
And mourn, in lamentation deep,
How life and love are all a dream!

4:14 AM

@TIPS I didn't realize that some Muslims use alcohol. But you all have tails, right?

What time is it there in Trump/Putin land?

> Oh! scenes in strong remembrance set!
Scenes, never, never to return!
Scenes, if in stupor I forget,
Again I feel, again I burn!
From ev’ry joy and pleasure torn,
Life’s weary vale I’ll wander thro’;
And hopeless, comfortless, I’ll mourn
A faithless woman’s broken vow!

@JimReynolds 9:15 am

I think we finally have a chance to unify these great nations!

Make Russia great again

lol

user image

4:16 AM

Heaven help us all

Haha!

I honestly think Hillary is more competantly dangerous

ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/humor/tom-swifties.html

I had never heard of "Tom Swifties"

So fun!

"dolefully" - because it's the name of a company

?

Ah, yes, I see.

Nice!

Yes

"I hate this musical", said Les miserably

> "I won't let a flat tire get me down," Tom said, without despair.

I don't get this

I don't either. I only get the connection with air.

Is des = the in some language?

Let's play a C, E, and G, said Tom's orchestra, in accord.

@Cardinal I'm not sure the context, but probably: Two items are considered similar if many people buy them together. I think this would be more conventional wording. And even more conventional: if they are often bought together.

@Cardinal If we include still, it gives the suggestion that the speaker has been trying repeatedly or for an extended period. If we leave it out, we lose that information.

4:37 AM

0

A: Meaning of ""I won't let a flat tire get me down," Tom said, without despair""

"Despair" sounds like "the spare." Alas "I won't let a flat tire get me down," Tom said, without "the spare [tire]". Definition of spare at Oxford includes A spare tire Note: at first I thought it was a pun on "without the air", but realised it was "without the spare."

Oh. That's it. The spare.

4:56 AM

Better?

This is the worst time to get a flat tire, but I won't let it get me down, said Tom without despair.

@Cardinal My sense is that you can maximize your test score by focusing on fluency, and trying not to monitor either your grammar or your logic during the exam

The test publishers and evaluators will focus much more on your ability to communicate understandably and more or less continuously.

@Man_From_India I agree that it's a way people explain this, but I think it's somewhat misleading.

Otherwise the phrase people knowing him would've never been used. (But People knowing him are ... wouldn't be the best choice, still, IMO.)

Greetings, android

(Or people liking us as in your example yesterday.)

Good afternoon!

5:11 AM

We might or might not want people licking us

LOL

I only want to be nibbling on @Man_From_India. It's my greatest dream

:D

Not in any disgusting sexual way.

I'm simply hungry

Strange, Ludwig doesn't work for me!

My browser is too old?

5:15 AM

We need one of those fundme campaigns to upgrade your firmware

It doesn't work in a newer version of Firefox either!

Maybe I'll try it again later.

It works on my android mobile chrome

Hah!

Mobile only, perhaps?

Hmm...

@Cardinal I'm flattered that you are using my example of animal meaning thing. But we can only do so in a limited way. Think of that's another animal meaning, that is a different kind of thing than what's been mentioned.

Wow, it doesn't work on Chrome (PC) either!

5:24 AM

I'm very good at playing poker, but playing free online poker is another animal. Often, another/a different animal (entirely).

And often beast or creature.

Perhaps we most commonly use it to suggest that y is different than x, and so requires a different type of approach to understand, master, kill, solve.

What works to hunt a fox won't work to hunt a lion.

Hmm... strange, Dam.

And damn strange, too

Oh, my! Ludwig doesn't work with Firefox or Chrome on my PC, but it works with IE11!

(I guess it'll work on Safari, too.)

@JimReynolds Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, I suppose. :P

Heh! It uses Google Translate as its translation engine.

Okay, I think I get it. It's a bit like easy corpus plus dictionary search engine.

5:58 AM

3

Q: Replacing gerund with subjunctive construction

Can the following sentence with gerund be rewritten with the subjunctive construction ? We objected to the buyer's paying only part of the invoice amount. to We objected that the buyer should pay only part of the invoice amount.

gerund subjunctive

Hmm...

Just to be sure, what should this mean? We objected that the buyer had paid only part of the invoice amount.

Does the speaker think the buyer had or had not paid it?

An example in a dictionary:

> He objected that the police had arrested him without sufficient evidence.

This should mean that the police really had arrested him, and he objected to that.

@JimReynolds Thank you

They objected that only part, not all, had been paid

We objected that the buyer should pay part of the invoice amount is probably a bit too tricky for me.

@JimReynolds I presume that it means "We think the buyer had paid it indeed, and we object to that."

(or thought/objected, the original sentence is in past tense.)

Or to simplify it further, "We thought the buyer had paid only part of it indeed, and we didn't think that was right (or just)."

Hmm...

Only part means only a portion, not the total due.

nods

Simplified even further, "We thought the buyer had not paid it in full, and that was not a good thing."

6:12 AM

I'll give you only part of my dinner

She paid only part of the rent

Why would you interpret it as in full?

The problem wasn't the part part, but it was about objected with that, and it's more complicated because we have should inside the subordinate clause.

@JimReynolds I negated it.

Oh. Maybe I see.

Sometimes, a sentence is easier to understand if we negate it.

Reading We objected that the buyer had paid only part of the invoice amount as "We thought the buyer had not paid it in full, and that was not a good thing." is fine with me.

I think maybe because objected is more commonly used with to.

Objected to the fact that the buyer had ...

But reading We objected that the buyer should pay only part of the invoice amount as "We thought the buyer should not pay the invoice amount in full. If someone hadn't paid or paid or would pay anything only in part, we supported them" is hard for me.

6:17 AM

Special meaning of should. It means essentially, did.

High register

From our answer:

> Or if it's a proposed course of action you're disagreeing with:
We objected that the buyer should pay the full invoice amount.
http://ell.stackexchange.com/a/99847/3281

(I'm thinking it over and over, and yet can't quite get through it.)

Ah. It could technically be either.

Hah!

We would specify if not clear from context

@AlexanderMadyuskin Just in case it isn't clear (because it can become very confusing even to a native speaker:) We objected that the buyer should pay only part of the invoice amount means that we want the buyer to pay only part of the invoice amount. — P. E. Dant 5 hours ago

Basically,

6:21 AM

Wrong

> We objected that the buyer should pay only part of the invoice amount = we want the buyer to pay only part of the invoice amount. (according to the comment)

See tromano's first question?

First comment? -- looking...

Is this a future possibility, or something which has already happened? — TRomano 12 hours ago

Haha. I haven't read it all yet!

Yes.

I was a bit surprised that he asked if it was something had already happened. But I didn't think much at that time.

6:23 AM

It can mean either, without context

That you called me stupid last month was bad enough. But that you should insult my mother was too much!

Ah, I see!

But it still doesn't change the sense of should, I think. It just changes the point in time.

Out to vs did

Ought to

(BTW, I usually read should in the past tense as "that I was right or it was right to do so".)

Hmm... just did?

Right. A less common meaning. Formal

Okay, maybe so. For me, the sense of did is implied.

(It was right to do so, so I did so.)

6:27 AM

No

I think it's sort of irrealis in a way

nods -- which is why I still read it literally as a "should", with "did" as its implicature.

I'm so surprised that he should do such a thing!

(I'm not saying it's a standard way, or even a right way. It just works for me.)

@JimReynolds Two possible paraphrases compete in my head, but I think I can understand this fine.

I would presume the past, but could be either.

The problem is objected that X should.

Could it mean opposite things if we read it as what happened vs. what is appropriate?

Let me try:

> HAPPENED: We objected that the buyer should pay only part of the invoice amount = The buyer had paid only part of it, and we didn't think that was appropriate.

> NOT HAPPENED YET: We objected that the buyer should pay only part of the invoice amount = If the buyer paid only part of it, and we didn't think that would be appropriate.

6:34 AM

Yes.

If no context was supplied, I would assume the first/past.

But wouldn't that be the opposite to many comments and the answer?

I didn't read it. Lol!

Okay!

It's here, just in case: ell.stackexchange.com/a/99847/3281

I'm too busy giving answers to read the question!

Oh, I see! Sorry for keeping you here.

BTW, thank you very much!

6:38 AM

No. I'm making fun of myself.

I'm so eager to answer, I don't want to bother reading the question !

Tromano nails it in his two comments

nods

A quick question, if a mother said, "My objection is that the children should study only in school.", should I read it as she wants or does not want to see children study only in school?

(Maybe in (the) schools or at school works better.)

It needs context

Most likely, someone has proposed something else, and the mother thinks they should study only in school

I see. Thanks!

But it's also possible that she objects to the idea that they study only in school

Oh!

Hmm... I think I get it. It's quite flexible.

6:46 AM

With no context, we assume the first.

That she rejects something, because she thinks they should study only in school.

Many speakers of AmE would not understand the second sentence with should to be a rejection of a contemplated partial payment. We would be more roundabout and say "We object to the idea that the buyer will pay..." and not use should to represent the non-actual there.

nods -- The rephrased sentence is very clear.

We would expect it to refer to a completed action

To be an objection to something which has occurred.

I object that robots should be allowed to learn English.

Anonymous

I noticed tonight that my mouthwash is labeled "alcohol free" but has "benzyl alcohol" on the ingredients list.

No. ... that robots should be allowed in this chatroom.

Anonymous

The semantics of being alcohol-free!

Anonymous

6:51 AM

I have something English-related to report.

We're all ears

excited!

Anonymous

I was in a waiting room the other day, and they had some entertainment news type channel on.

Anonymous

And I can't really shut that out and read, so every time I go there, I just sit there and listen.

Anonymous

So I was listening, and the announcer said the word mistress.

Anonymous

6:54 AM

But he pronounced it with three syllables! Something like /ˈmɪstərˌɪs/

Anonymous

As though the word was misteress.

Oh!

Maybe he used it as a counterpart of Mister!

Anonymous

It's a myst(e)ry!

I think I might pronounce it thusly sometimes. Maybe.

@snailplane It's a late evening over there, I think, right?

BTW, Thailand is at #6 in the Olympic Games. Yay!

7:02 AM

Yay!

By coup?

Weight lifting!

The Thai military has taken the gold!

Heh!

Haha. Did you know one of my friends is a Thai political scientist? I figure I can laugh at things he jokes about!

55555

@JimReynolds I guess so!

A political scientist? Hmm... that's the first!

It always sounds weird to me when applying political to science.

Haha! I didn't expect it to be real, but it's real: political engineering!

(If it's a science, we can engineer it. :P)

7:07 AM

It makes us ask What is science?

What is science?

See?!

Studying some aspects of the nature through observations and experiments?

Sounds like a good start

I suppose that, for me, if we can't conduct an experiment and verify it, it's hardly science.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. It's midnight!

@snailplane A-ha!

@snailplane Is the Olympic Games popular over there?

(I wonder if I should use are, but I think of it as one thing.)

I wonder if you watch the games or follow the news about it. :-)

7:11 AM

Is is ok. We use both, informally. But probably not include games in that context. Or not include Olympics!

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. My ear expects are.

I see. Thanks!

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. I don't, but it's hard to avoid.

Is/are the Olympics popular there?

@snailplane Aww...

7:12 AM

@JimReynolds Only if Thailand wins a medal

Taipei is swarming with Pokemon players. It became available two days ago.

@JimReynolds My condolences

@JimReynolds Congrats!

@DamkerngT. You don't congratulate people when they're hit by a storm

My phone doesn't want to let me refer up, it seems. To the antecedent of a reply.

7:14 AM

@JimReynolds Don't forget to look where you're walking while catching the Pokemons, BTW. :P

I hope I never download it

:D

I bet there are lots of accidents

o/ @TIPS

|o

Sherlock Holmes: A Mysterious Case of Pokemon Go -- coming out soon. :P

7:16 AM

Drunken chemist

@JimReynolds Imagining a dad at home that does kids and feeds laundry

Oh wait.

That came out worse than I thought

O.O

-3

Q: what is the electronegativity of the various ions?

I am interested in gaseous ions. What is the electronegativity of various ions? What is the electronegativity of various ions? Thanks!

electronegativity

I kept trying to figure out the difference between their first question and second question in the body.

One is certainly asking into the nature of the electronegativity of various ions, if I'm reading it correctly. But the other, I don't know!

A-ha! SE's weeks start on Sunday.

7:21 AM

Whose Sunday?

Does Venus have Sunday?

I'm not sure, maybe UTC.

@TIPS The difference is that one was the first Ctrl-C, and the other was the second. :P

Has anyone received their SE t-shirt yet?

No, rather, it's more subtle @Jim @Dam.

Not me.

No! Dammit!!

7:22 AM

One is about "various" ions, the other about "various" ions.

There's a huge difference.

So I'm half-naked.

The bottom half, strangely.

@TIPS o_O

The difference might seem small at your scale, but it's rather large in the world of atoms.

There's a old student joke about Venus's day length

@JimReynolds O_o

7:23 AM

(Sending TIPS a photo.)

@JimReynolds So you're gonna wear the T-shirt . . . in an innovative way?

LOL

Haha

@JimReynolds Please no! I can't stand your awesomeness

I need to cover my moobs

@cow joke, please

Anonymous

7:26 AM

@TIPS Ungratulations!

> Math problem: you're a cosmonaunt who descented on Venus. How do you determine the length of the day, provided that there's a heavy cloud cover? A: Start a small fight with a local, get jailed, divide the time in jail by 10. (10 days was the usual term for small misdemeanor in USSR)

@snailplane (ﾉ＾◡＾)ﾉ︵ ┻━┻

Anonymous

My snails seem to be doing well. It's very hard to find the baby Zeta, though. She's so tiny! And snails love to hide.

Zeta? Which one is Theta?

Theta is one my good friends' nick.

I remember an Indian movie about Zeeta and Geeta. (0:

7:29 AM

Don't want to lose the chance to call him a snail

@cow haha

@CowperKettle *Logic problem

Or wait, maybe climatology?

daytime-ology

Seeta Aur Geeta

Seeta aur Geeta (Hindi: सीता और गीता , translation: Seeta and Geeta) is a 1972 Hindi comedy, drama film starring Hema Malini in a dual role, and directed by Ramesh Sippy. The story is by Salim-Javed and the music by R.D. Burman. The story is about identical twins (played by Hema Malini) who are separated at birth and grow up with different temperaments. The twins then swap places (like The Prince and the Pauper). Hema's two partners in the movie are played by Dharmendra and Sanjeev Kumar. Manorama plays the evil aunt who changes her tune after her arm is twisted (literally). Furthermore, Hema Malini...

You should have a snail named Geeta, Snails! (0:

@CowperKettle It's always about lost twins

@TIPS Are you suggesting that snail is a negative thing to call people?

7:30 AM

@JimReynolds No, but it's a negative thing to call people when they're running

Saw a news item. Some kind of snail's tooth is the hardest substance found in nature!

That's true. That's why they use planes, I think

I love how Bollywood knows how to play scenarios that can happen in equal or less chance than 1 in 1E25.

@snailplane They probably meant that it was free of ethanol alcohol

7:53 AM

@DamkerngT. at first I thought the same thing. But later I think it's not correct.

@DamkerngT. Congrats, but they've only just begun.

@Man_From_India Hmm... what should it mean, then?

@CowperKettle Thanks! And true, that!

I've been wondering for a month now why your username is "CowperKettle," accompained by an icon of a copper kettle, when the name "Cowper" is pronounced "kOOper." Can you enlighten me? — P. E. Dant 3 mins ago

:D

He objected that the police had arrested him without sufficient evidence = He objected because the police had arrested him without sufficient evidence?

Sawasdee Krap ! all

0

Q: "have been" or "were" in this context

I wrote this sentence: We suppose that two items are similar if they have been bought together by many people. Should I say? We suppose that two items are similar if they were bought together by many people That sentence is the premise of a theory, it is a fact, not opinion. item me...

grammar sentence-construction sentence-meaning grammaticality grammaticality-in-context

8:06 AM

Hiya!

Salam and sawasdee khrap!

Is it wrong to say that:
*I thought we should do x*
I am saying that since the time reference is in the past

On the other hand,

I know we can use present when the process exists at the moment

I thought we should've done that is probably a better choice. (IIUYC)

But yours is not wrong, IMHO. It should be okay in informal conversation.

Anonymous

@Cardinal Depends on what you're trying to say.

I thought we should do that is absolutely fine in the meaning of "I think we should do that" at some time in the past.

8:13 AM

@DamkerngT. This is my intention @snailplane

@Cardinal Whether you did it or not is one main factor.

In the case of the question I brought above, I have never seen a conditional sentence which does bot belong to one of the four types.

@DamkerngT. nods

@Cardinal Zero, and 1-3 conditionals?

I made that mistake again:
"have never seen a conditional sentence which **does** bot belong "

@DamkerngT. yes

I'd say it's better to treat them as guidelines, not rules.

8:18 AM

Hmm, I was discussing with the OP that his or her tenses, at least one of them, strike me as odd

The context and the intended meaning are important.

> We suppose that two items are similar if they were bought together by many people

I think this is wrong

when if clause is in the past

What are the two items? What was the intended meaning? Can we still buy them? What is it supposed to mean, "bought together"?

If we can't buy them anymore, and we're considering their similarity at the time of speaking, I think it's okay.

Sorry my phone was ringing, I had to answer that

(Weird, I edited by to buy, but it wasn't updated the first time I clicked Send.)

Okay!

8:29 AM

@DamkerngT. What if I want to say "I thought we should do that in all time not only limited to a specific time span in the past"

I think we should do that.

But, this does not mean that I reached to this conclusion in the past

I thought we should do that is also fine.

But "think" and "reach a conclusion" are not exactly the same.

consider the case in which a person considered something as true for a long time

for example, physicists who lived after Newton and before emergence of modern physics

@DamkerngT. Most likely, it means the same as He objected to (the fact that) the police had arrested him without sufficient evidence.

8:34 AM

he probably mumbled that: I though we should consider the time as a absolute notion not a relative one

@JimReynolds That's basically my first paraphrase! (which Man_From_India objected to)

I think it could also mean He objected (to something specified earlier, like a guilty verdict or some assertion) because the police had arrested him without sufficient evidence.

@JimReynolds That's my second paraphrase!

Depends on context

nods

@Cardinal Another important factor to select your tense is "context".

8:37 AM

Object most often has no object!

So, why did you say it (or write it)? and On what occasion? are importance.

Or I guess never has an object. Hmmm....

@JimReynolds This is an object-oriented discussion!

I think objected that sometimes = objected to the fact that and sometimes doesn't.

nods

0

Q: What structure is used in "Would Aragorn had he had the ring been"?

Despite leaving Frodo and Sam to finish what the Fellowship started, Would Aragorn had he had the ring been able to control it without falling to Sauron's will and becoming his servant, was there a chance Aragorn could have been strong enough as a Numenorean from a royal bloodline of faithful ...

What structure? An ungrammatical structure, perhaps? :P

Oh, no! A heavy rain is coming again!

8:41 AM

Her teacher threatened to suspend her from school. She objected that she hadn't done anything wrong.

I think that's ok.

nods

She objected to the threat because of (reason).

Her teacher threatened to punish her. She objected that the teacher was acting unfairly.

That's another sort of use.

To complicate the matter, I think this is even more confusing: What she objected was that she hadn't done anything wrong.

Or What she objected was that the teacher was acting unfairly. (Now, is she for or against the teacher or the accuser?)

(At the moment, I'm sure it can be ambiguous in my first language. Though this sort of thing is usually easy in context, which reminds me that people sometimes don't really understand what they're listening to.)

(That is, we sometimes don't only have short attention span, but we're short of attention, too.)

@DamkerngT. What she objected was that she hadn't done anything wrong. I think this would mean She objected to (something introduced prior to this sentence) by stating that she hadn't done anything wrong.

To object does not equal to deny.

Good point!

8:53 AM

We complicate the discussion by trying to consider meanings without context.

(Ah, they're not the same in Thai either!)

Though it may be an useful exercise for understanding to do so.

But it's harder!

What is everything that xxxxxx might mean?

nods

He objected to the situation -> intransitive
He objected that they should do X -> transitive

IMHO

Like what dictionaries do, but with longer phrases.

8:57 AM

Can he object x?

If not, I think it's not transitive.

I think you're cute, is this think intransitive?

I think when it is transitive it means something like saying something or doing something that shows opposition

But I think transitive and intransitive are not the most useful terms in modern grammar. Or, they may mean different things in different grammars.

I object you?

We can't object something.

you can object that I am wrong

« first day (415 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2810 days later) »

Transcript for

Aug '167

Language Overflow

This is the main chat room for ell.stackexchange.com. Welcome!

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile