ELL's Cabin

Damkerng T.

00:26

Have an upvote, Maulik! I think it's important on ELL that we should keep reminding questioners about the different standards normally considered applicable to speech as opposed to writing. Particularly, formal writing, which OP specifically mentioned here. Your newly-added final example is also good, because it shows how the repetitive format (including that all-important comma) can reasonably be used in (relatively) formal writing. — FumbleFingers 11 hours ago

Hmm... how formal is "formal"?

> But it's important to understand that 0.6 percent is still a very, very low rate by any historical standard.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/interest-rates-are-still-very-low/?_r=0

That's semi-formal at best, imho.

Here is its opening:

> Sorry about blog silence; still trying to get as much as possible of my great office cull done before I leave for England. Here’s the scene right now:

"Sorry about blog silence" would never occur in my formal speech.

Damkerng T.

05:59

Et tu, Brute?

"Et tu, Brute?" (pronounced [ɛt ˈtuː ˈbruːtɛ]) is a Latin phrase meaning "and you, Brutus?" or "you, too, Brutus?", purportedly as the last words of the Roman dictator Julius Caesar to his friend Marcus Brutus at the moment of his assassination. The quotation is widely used in Western culture to signify the utmost betrayal by an unexpected person, such as a friend. The fame of the quotation is entirely due to its occurrence in William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, as Caesar utters these words as he is being stabbed to death, having recognized his friend and protégé Brutus among the assassins...

That's a bit weird to me.

So, his name is not Brutus, but Brute.

(Hmm... that should've been was not.)

> καὶ σὺ, τέκνον.

Now, that makes me wonder... in what language did Ceasar speak?

Or more specifically, in what language would Ceasar speak to Marcus Brutus?

Fantasier

Well, it's hard to say what his name actually was (I think). Because names got inflected too :-)

Damkerng T.

Indeed!

Fantasier

Take Sariputta (สารีบุตร) for example. His name would be Sariputto (สารีปุตฺโต) in the nominative case. I think Brutus was nominative and Brute vocative?

Damkerng T.

According to Wikipedia, yes.

Fantasier

That's a guess, though, I haven't got to the vocatives yet in my Latin study :-)

Damkerng T.

06:13

I wonder how Latin would deal with people names from other languages. :D

Fantasier

Me too.

But I guess they would just keep the names as-is no matter what the case is.

I'm at Chapter 5 in the Oxford Latin Course. 11 More to finish the first book! :-)

It's getting somewhat difficult though.

Damkerng T.

@Fantasier Oh, that's good progress!

Fantasier

I try to do one chapter a day.

I'm already one chapter behind the plan :-P

Damkerng T.

You could finish Latin by the end of this month!

Fantasier

Well, the first book I guess.

There are three books in the series

Damkerng T.

06:18

Ah, I missed the first part. :D

Fantasier

06:46

Woahhhh I have this room fooooor my seeeelf

Noboooodyyyy is heeerrreee

Damkerng T.

07:22

@Fantasier Sorry, I'm back. :P

Fantasier

Oh no!

An invader!

Fend him off!

Damkerng T.

cloaked himself...

Fantasier

What do you call "ข้าวมันไก่" in English?

Damkerng T.

That's an interesting question. :D

Hey, Wikipedia calls it Hainanese chicken rice. :D

Freddy

07:57

seems yummy!

Damkerng T.

09:40

0

A: "Would have been" Vs "Would be"

The connotation of Your father would be proud of us. Is that he would be proud if he was here and knew we did [x]. The connotation of Your father would have been proud of us. Is that he would be proud of us if he were still alive and knew we did [x]. He is presumed to be dead.

Hmm...

Fantasier

11:10

I think would be could connote the second one too.

Fantasier

11:21

(PEU 258, 259.3)

Damkerng T.

11:43

I think the other answer is better in that question.

Fantasier

Yes, but I think it's worth mentioning that the would have version could mean the same as the would version too.

Damkerng T.

I think they're not really quite the same.

For would have to be used in place or would, two conditions need to be met.

One is it's about the future (from the reference time).

The other is it should be at least almost as if it's impossible.

Fantasier

Hmmm

It could be present too, if you trust PEU, that is. (259.3)

Damkerng T.

No, present is the speaking time.

So, it's the future from the reference time's point of view, which could also be the present time when the reference time is in the past.

Fantasier

Oh, right, but how is that different from the would version then?

Damkerng T.

11:56

It's basically about looking forward vs. looking back, imo.

But not from the speaking time.

Which makes it a bit tricky.

Fantasier

I mean, practically, the would version talks about impossibility/improbability at present (speaking time) or the future, which is the same thing as the future from the reference time's perspective?

So I don't really see the difference?

Damkerng T.

Yes, because without backshifting, the reference time would usually be now.

But things can get complicated when the story is retold, or would is used in reported speech.

Fantasier

Hmm so you're saying the only difference is the reference time?

Damkerng T.

nods -- To the best of my knowledge. I'm not sure if it's 100% there, but at this point, this is the best explanation I can come up with.

Which simplifies a lot of things.

(as in makes it easier to use unconsciously; not to incorrectly mindlessly simplify it.)

Fantasier

I usually try to distinguish backshifting in conditionals, which affects on the meaning (rather than just time), and the one in reported speeches.

Damkerng T.

12:03

The way I simplify it, they aren't really different. (That's the point of the simplification.)

Fantasier

Hmm....

Damkerng T.

So basically, three times are always involved: now, then, and when what we are talking about is happening or happened or will happen.

Oh, btw, there are two worlds in my modal usage: real and unreal.

Fantasier

I don't think when what we are talking about is happening or happened or will happen is usually only one of past, present, or future.

Anonymous

To me they sound like they could have the same meaning

Damkerng T.

They can!

Not always, though, I think.

Fantasier

12:07

When you're setting up a condition, present and future usually come together.

Damkerng T.

@Fantasier What else (because we now have 6 of them past, present, future, when it's real and when it's unreal; actually I'd prefer to think of it as 4 rather than 6)?

Fantasier

Or that's what I think.

@DamkerngT. That's my point. 4 rather than 6, I don't think we can really avoid grouping present and future.

Damkerng T.

Word of the day: cannae

Anonymous

Hmm, this is an interesting point: how do we account for the distribution of flap /t/ in American English in militaristic and capitalistic?

Damkerng T.

@Fantasier 4 or 6 is equally good as long as the learner can use all the tenses and modals right. :-)

Anonymous

12:11

One flaps, the other doesn't

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Do you mean /t/ after /s/ doesn't flap?

(I'm not very familiar with the two words in speech.)

Anonymous

The first /t/ in militaristic doesn't flap

Damkerng T.

Oh!

Anonymous

Which is unexpected

Damkerng T.

That's unexpected to me, too!

Interesting!

Anonymous

12:14

So the distribution of the flap is not entirely predictable, which we expect of allophones

Anonymous

But we have no minimal pairs that would suggest the flap is phonemic

Damkerng T.

Maybe it's about /r/ vs. /l/.

We have syllabic /l/, but no syllabic /r/.

Hmm...

Do you think of /r/ in banker as a syllabic /r/?

> militaristic /ˈmɪlɪtəˌrɪstɪk/

> capitalistic /ˈkæpɪt(ə)lɪstɪk/

> history /ˈhɪst(ə)ri/

Anonymous

Phonetically it's syllabic, but phonologically many people like to pretend there's a vowel before the r

Damkerng T.

I think I have never heard a flap-t in history before.

nods

> battle /ˈbæt(ə)l/

But flap-t for battle is so common.

Anonymous

indiana.edu/~lingdept/faculty/davis/Capitalistic2005.pdf

Anonymous

12:22

Yes, pronouncing battle with a separate vowel before the l would be quite strange

Damkerng T.

jumping to the conclusions...

Oh, Mediterranean!

Do you flap that /t/?

Anonymous

Never

Damkerng T.

A-ha!

Maybe it's /r/ vs. /l/ indeed.

Anonymous

Like in capitalistic, it's aspirated

Anonymous

Er

Anonymous

12:25

Pretend I typed militaristic

Damkerng T.

:D

pretending: success!

Anonymous

Yay!

Damkerng T.

Oh, the paper seems not to mention anything about /r/ or /l/ sound.

BTW, @Fantasier, this golden rule is very important: English tenses and aspects are not about what really happens, but about what the speaker sees and thinks happen.

^I shouldn't've added thinks!

Fantasier

12:41

@DamkerngT. I think that sort of applies to any language with tenses and aspects.

Damkerng T.

nods -- so would or would have is not really about past, present, or future, but how the speaker sees it.

Fantasier

Or almost everything in life in general, talking about subjectivity.

Damkerng T.

> It would be nice if you could be here with us tomorrow. <-- straightforward thinking

Fantasier

@DamkerngT. Uh-huh. You already implied that when you said the only difference was reference time?

Damkerng T.

> It would've been nice if you could be here with us tomorrow. <-- but you just told me that you can't come.

@Fantasier Yes, which is why I think I should add that it's about the reference time in speaker's mind.

Fantasier

12:45

Not trying to be rude, but, is there any other type of reference time?

Apart from one in the speaker's mind?

Damkerng T.

Hmm... there shouldn't be one, but apparently, almost all the learners I've observed seem to think of tenses and aspects as the consequence of real events.

"This is what happened. So I must use this tense."

"This is what they wrote, so it must've happened like this."

Fantasier

Ah, I think I see your point.

@DamkerngT. This sorta leads me to another question. What do you think about I really wish you could've been with us tomorrow (but you just told me you can't come)? If your theory is correct, this should work too? (Or not :-P Maybe I'm missing something)

Damkerng T.

Yes. I tried to simulate two possibilities when both would and would have could be used in exactly the same event.

It's just that each speaker thinks of it differently.

Fantasier

Hmmm, but to me that sounds really weird.

But I dunno. Maybe I'm being biased.

Damkerng T.

I don't think that this condition "but you just told me that you can't come" is absolutely needed, but something similar to that should be there in the speaker's mind.

(In an attempt to explain PEU 259.3 in plain words.)

(or map it to my idea)

It's about the future, but the speaker's already known or been informed that it won't happen.

Fantasier

12:55

I get you, but you see, my point was, my proposed sentence seems extremely unidiomatic to me. Like, that never ever works. (Which I can't really say, but, I think you get me)

Damkerng T.

nods -- I wonder how many speakers would really use could've been in that situation.

I remember Leech mentions something about the modals.

Anonymous

I really wish you could've been with us tomorrow sounds okay

Damkerng T.

Basically, it's along the lines: not all modals are equal. :P

Fantasier

@snailboat Really? Interesting!

Damkerng T.

But I can remember only must and need.

Anonymous

12:59

When it's been conclusively decided in the past that the listener won't be able to be

Damkerng T.

(I owe this must've been to Jim. He provoked me to look into the difference between must've been and will/would've been.)

Anonymous

I'm not sure how often people say that exact thing, though

Anonymous

But I think phrasing it that way is a consequence of how the speaker conceptualizes the situation

Anonymous

Must has inferential semantics

Damkerng T.

Must doesn't have its past form like other modals.

Which was a big trap for me!

Anonymous

13:01

He must've been X = I think it is highly likely based on an inference from observations I have made that he was X

Anonymous

Must is etymologically a past tense form, for what it's worth. Mōtan used to inflect

Anonymous

The only other form we have remaining is mote and even that is marginal

Fantasier

I think should and could, used in present, don't have their past tense forms too (because they are already in past tense "forms")? That's why should have and could have are deployed instead, just like must.

I think StoneyB said something about those two a couple of times.

Or more.

Damkerng T.

But should and could both are already in the past form!

Fantasier

Yeah, but let's pretend they're not :-P Because we still usually have to use other forms in past tense.

Damkerng T.

13:07

Shall also has very limited uses.

Fantasier

I don't think people often use it in speech anymore.

Damkerng T.

I think besides some fixed expressions, legalese, and probably some technical stuff (which sounds a lot like legalese), it's rare to hear shall.

Fantasier

Gen. Douglas MacArthur "I Shall Return"

►

Anonymous

@Fantasier It's fair to pretend they're not.

Fantasier

I SHALL RETURN!

Damkerng T.

13:10

:D

Anonymous

Would, could, should, might, and must are all morphological past tense forms

Anonymous

Many linguists regard all modal auxiliaries as non-inflecting

Anonymous

So they consider will and would distinct in that sense

Damkerng T.

Obviously, in 2029, I shall return would become I'll be back.

Anonymous

Huddleston & Pullum consider will and would to be two inflectional forms of the same thing

Damkerng T.

13:11

nods

Anonymous

And there are definitely alternations between these forms that support that analysis

Anonymous

But in many cases there is not

Anonymous

We could equally say that sometimes they behave like past tense forms, and other times they behave like independent forms

Damkerng T.

That sounds fair.

Anonymous

In any case, the relationship between each pair is different and needs to be documented specifically

Anonymous

13:13

And in all cases is weaker than the relationship between a regular lexical verb and its past tense form

Damkerng T.

I usually think of will-would and may-might the same way.

Anonymous

Huddleston and Pullum show that may and might, for some speakers, are no longer in alternation

Anonymous

So for those speakers, they can't be considered forms of the same thing

Damkerng T.

nods

Fantasier

nods

Anonymous

13:14

This difference confuses speakers for whom they're still related... :-)

Anonymous

languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1683

Damkerng T.

The headline didn't use the counterfactual might have (saved)!

Anonymous

The headline's intended interpretation works for me

Damkerng T.

What surprises me the most on that page is this part: ('Might' already sounds a bit pompous or 20th-century to many young American speakers.)

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. I'm sure he has a reason for saying that, but it doesn't seem that way to me at all

Damkerng T.

13:22

0

Q: as separator -- why no article?

From Core Java Volume I—Fundamentals, 9th Edition by Cay S. Horstmann (2012): The Java compiler itself is highly skilled in guessing the various meanings of the period character as separator between packages, subpackages, classes, inner classes, and methods and variables. Here is what the t...

articles

Oh, no!

It's "bare NP" again!

Anonymous

It sure is.

Anonymous

Those thingies are weird, though.

Anonymous

They mostly pop where predicative complements are allowed

Anonymous

But as doesn't take a predicative complement

Anonymous

Still, bare (undetermined count) NPs often show up as complement of as

Anonymous

13:24

So the complementation of as needs to be described specifically.

Anonymous

It isn't like any other word.

Anonymous

I don't think I'm up to the task of adequately describing as myself

Anonymous

It's tricky.

Fantasier

Does CGEL address this?

Anonymous

Hmm, well, let me find a comment I wrote the other day

Anonymous

13:25

This question isn't a duplicate of the question linked above. This is about a bare role noun phrase as complement of as (CGEL p.263). — snailboat May 6 at 4:51

Anonymous

There we go, page 263...

Anonymous

Note that not every bare NP is a bare role NP

Damkerng T.

I found Shakespeare's grammar discussing as X without the yesterday!

looking... found it! Here: books.google.com/books?id=RGDDAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA59

Anonymous

Predicative complements can be regular noun phrases or adjective phrases, but they can also be bare role NPs.

Anonymous

> She became ill.
> She became a horse.
> She became treasurer.

Anonymous

13:27

But as in adjunct function doesn't take adjectives as complements:

Anonymous

> *As ill, Kim withdrew from the competition. (CGEL p.637)

Anonymous

You can tell it's from CGEL 'cause it's got our old friend Kim.

Damkerng T.

LOL

Fantasier

lol

Anonymous

Kim and Pat are H&P's secret signal that they've made up the example in question.

Anonymous

13:29

Other examples are taken from corpora and edited as the authors wish

Anonymous

It's not really what you'd call a corpus-based grammar, though

Anonymous

For that, see the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber et al., 1999)

Damkerng T.

BTW, I guess you'll like an example used by A Shakespearian Grammar: "Creeping like snail." :-)

> "The why is plain as way to parish church."

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Oh! It's funny, though, 'cause today, we mostly say that snails crawl rather than creep :-)

Fantasier

Interesting. The author described the example as a change in progress. From "like a snail" to "snail-like".

Damkerng T.

13:32

@snailboat I think I like crawl more than creep for snails. :D

Anonymous

Animals that creep include inchworms

Anonymous

Inchworm being a boss

►

Damkerng T.

Hehe! That reminds me of the "worm dance" I saw last week on AFV (America's Funniest Videos).

Anonymous

That's creeping

Anonymous

Or possibly inching

Damkerng T.

13:34

The guy did exactly that creeping!

Anonymous

Hehe!

Fantasier

Hmm... A man literally creeping.

Anonymous

An earthworm creeping on a pavement

►

Fantasier

Must be creepy...

Anonymous

Snails are sometimes described as creeping still, but I don't think very often

Damkerng T.

13:36

@Fantasier Prolly! (But everyone seems to enjoy his creeping in the video. :-)

@snailboat Oh, it's vertical!

Anonymous

Snail locomotion really deserves its own word since it's so unique, but they don't get one :-)

Damkerng T.

I wasn't sure until he panned the camera.

Anonymous

I don't think they get their own word in any language I know of

Anonymous

In French, les escargots rampent

Anonymous

In Japanese, katsumuri ga hau

Anonymous

13:39

I don't know what caracoles do in Spanish

Fantasier

I don't even know they are carocoles in Spanish :-P

I know how to pronounce the word though proud

Anonymous

I guess I don't know how to say snails crawl in enough languages for my claim to be very meaningful :-)

Damkerng T.

@Fantasier I don't know even that! -- unproud -- sad

Anonymous

The correspondence from Spanish spelling to pronunciation is very regular :-)

Fantasier

@DamkerngT. Oh, Spanish phonics are quite straightforward.

Anonymous

13:42

It takes much less effort to learn than in English

Damkerng T.

คาโรโคเลส?

Anonymous

Hey, that ain't IPA! :-)

Damkerng T.

(ca-ro-co-les as in Japanese)

@snailboat I cheated!

Fantasier

@DamkerngT. I think the /k/s are unaspirated

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Although the details are different in every single respect, at a very broad level, you can liken Spanish to Japanese

Damkerng T.

13:44

Ahh

Anonymous

Yeah, in general, don't aspirate anything in Spanish

Anonymous

VOT < 30ms for everything

Damkerng T.

@Fantasier Oh, so it's more like กาโรโกเลส?

Fantasier

lol

Anonymous

(So there is some very light aspiration sometimes)

Fantasier

13:45

@DamkerngT. Yeah, that's how I would pronounce it.

Anonymous

That's a common challenge for Spanish speakers learning English, learning to aspirate consonants heavily

Damkerng T.

@Fantasier Thanks! Okay, I related it to กะล็อกกะแล็ก. Now I should be able to remember some parts of it. :D

@snailboat It seems unfair for Spanish and Japanese speakers. :P

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Japanese has a little bit more aspiration, I think, but still toward the unaspirated side of things

Damkerng T.

Oh, but I've heard that there are only three vowels in Farsi!

Anonymous

Persian phonology

The Persian language has six vowel phonemes and twenty-three consonant phonemes. It features contrastive stress and syllable-final consonant clusters. == Vowels == /e/ is pronounced between the vowel of bate (for most English dialects) and the vowel of bet; /o/ is pronounced between the vowel of boat (for most English dialects) and the vowel of raw. Word-final /o/ is rare except for /to/ ('you' [singular] (compare tú in Spanish), loanwords (mostly of Arabic origin), and proper and common nouns of foreign origin, and word-final /æ/ is very rare in Iranian Persian, an exception being /næ/ ('no')...

Damkerng T.

13:48

Hmm... that's 6.

Fantasier

Oh, how convenient.

The thumbnail says enough :-P

Anonymous

> In modern Persian alphabet, short vowels /e/, /o/, /æ/ are usually not written, as is normally done in Arabic alphabet. (See Arabic phonology#Vowels)

Anonymous

That sentence isn't entirely clear to me and I know nothing about the script in question, but perhaps it's saying that of the six vowels (not counting diphthongs), only three are usually written

Anonymous

So maybe "only three vowels" is a claim about the script rather than the language itself

Anonymous

→ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_alphabet#Short_vowels

Anonymous

13:51

> In the Arabic handwriting of everyday use, in general publications, and on street signs, short vowels are typically not written.

Anonymous

So only the three long vowels are typically written

Fantasier

Oh, I thought they didn't write them at all :o

Anonymous

Hmm, I think that originally the Hebrew script marked only consonants, but later methods to indicate vowels were devised

Anonymous

So perhaps it's siimlar

Fantasier

nods

Anonymous

13:53

I have a dreidel

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Hebrew script is fascinating!

Anonymous

I'm ethnically Jewish

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Hehe!

Anonymous

I don't know much about Judaism though

Anonymous

I learned the letters on the dreidel

Anonymous

13:54

But then I forgot them!

Damkerng T.

Oh, no! :D

How many letters were there on the dreidel?

Anonymous

Four :-)

Damkerng T.

Ah, only 4?

Anonymous

Wikipedia explains it:

Anonymous

Dreidel

A dreidel (Yiddish: דרײדל dreydl plural: dreydlekh, Hebrew: סביבון‎ sevivon) is a four-sided spinning top, played with during the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. The dreidel is a Jewish variant on the teetotum, a gambling toy found in many European cultures. Each side of the dreidel bears a letter of the Hebrew alphabet: נ (Nun), ג (Gimel), ה (Hay), ש (Shin), which together form the acronym for "נס גדול היה שם" (Nes Gadol Hayah Sham – "a great miracle happened there"). These letters were originally a mnemonic for the rules of a gambling game played with a dreidel: Nun stands for the Yiddish word nisht...

Damkerng T.

13:58

Oh, so it could be used like a die!

> I asked my American friend why there was no article in front of separator and his answer was, first of all, that the sentence sounded completely fine to him and that you could put an indefinite article there, but you don't need to. As to why that was the case, no explanation followed.
If you have anything to say about this grammar problem, please feel free to share your thoughts and ideas.
http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/56992/as-separator-why-no-article

Anonymous

Link please!

Damkerng T.

Hmm... Maybe I can say that it's been like that since the Elizabethan period.

Anonymous

Oh!

Anonymous

Never mind. I found it!

Damkerng T.

@snailboat It's still the same question: as X

Anonymous

14:02

Thanks! :-)

Anonymous

My poor sandwich question got off-topicked!

Anonymous

No wait, primarily opinion baseded!

Anonymous

I kinda thought that might happen :-)

Anonymous

Though I think the people who voted that way are confused about what primarily opinion based means

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Oh, no!

Anonymous

14:03

If the answer is that it's unclear, poorly defined, or depends on the speaker, then that's obviously the answer

Anonymous

But I'm used to most close votes on ELU being kind of silly

Anonymous

That's the biggest reason I don't use ELU very much

Damkerng T.

14:16

Yay, a lota comments at work!

One reason is probably because it's been like that since Early English (i.e. Old English, before the time of the Elizabethan period). According to A Shakespearian Grammar: An Attempt to Illustrate Some of the Differences Between Elizabethan and Modern English, 3rd ed. (1870), "A and The are also sometimes omitted after as, like, and than in comparative sentences: [...] This is, however, common both in early and modern English. In such sentences the whole class is expressed, and therefore the article omitted." — Damkerng T. 3 mins ago

I think "the whole class" could help explain it.

Anonymous

Yeah, that's fair.

Anonymous

I did leave a pair of comments, though I don't know how useful they are

Damkerng T.

(It's not just "as a separator" or "as the separator" but as the whole class of such a separator")

@snailboat They're surely useful. You give a pointer to CGEL (with a page number!) and mention "bare role NP".

Bad multiple choice questions regularly appear on standardized tests without being "thrown out", though… — snailboat 16 mins ago

Sadly, but true.

Anonymous

Sad, but true!

Anonymous

A coordination of two adjectives

Anonymous

14:24

It could be taken as ellipsis for "~~It's~~ sad, but ~~it's~~ true."

Damkerng T.

nods -- I think my ellipsisinator was malfunctioning.

(Internally, I think of it a bit like It's sadly so, but it's true.)

Anonymous

Ah, sadly, that ellipsis is not possible :-)

Damkerng T.

True! :D

Anonymous

14:37

Although my people skills have always been rather poor, I've gradually been learning to use a new tool to avoid conflict:

Anonymous

Sometimes I shut up :-)

Anonymous

It doesn't matter what I want to say, whether I'm right about something or wrong about something. Sometimes it's just better not to say anything! :-)

Anonymous

Only took me 33 years to figure it out.

Anonymous

Well, I may be a bit of a slow learner :-)

Anonymous

(One of these years I'll learn how to stop putting smilies on every other sentence.)

user116848

14:41

Great! It is Sunday and only one ear piece of my headphones is working.

user116848

Grreeaattt!

user116848

I'll buy 'em tomorrow.

user116848

@snailboat Recipe for success :-)

Damkerng T.

@snailboat But "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

(I don't know what made you say that, though.)

user116848

Hi Damkerng! How are ya?

Anonymous

14:58

@DamkerngT. Well, I'm pretty sure failing to argue over whether or not written grammar exists will lead to no evil :-)

Damkerng T.

:D

user116848

Hi to you too Snail!

Anonymous

Or at most, about the same extent of evil you're guilty of when you eat an extra donut.

Anonymous

Hello!

Transcript for