ELL's Cabin

Pandya

06:35

migrate > migration

merge > ?

@DamkerngT. Hi

Damkerng T.

Hi!

Merging, or in some limited contexts, a merge.

Pandya

migrate, migrating, migration

merge, merging, ?

I think a merge would work right?

Damkerng T.

Yes, but merge as a noun is only used in some contexts.

If you're talking about version control systems, then "a merge" would be fine.

Pandya

you can also suggest alternative to merge

Damkerng T.

I don't know how you're going to use it, so I can't make any good suggestion.

Pandya

06:48

ok. let me use in one post. I'll give a link for it.

Pandya

09:31

@DamkerngT. hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/11738/277

PhMgBr

12:40

@Pandya Did you use a 'merge' (n.), because I didn't spot it?

Usernew

14:18

@Rathony Dude, what's your problem?

PhMgBr

@Usernew Uh, what do you think this will achieve?

Usernew

14:34

nothing

@PhMgBr

but that user is constantly rolling back my edits

and now he is really getting onmy nerves

PhMgBr

@Usernew Link?

Usernew

wait

0

Q: What is the difference between these three words?

I am always confused if I use these words: During, Throughout, and Through. When I speak or write, I am not really confident which of them I should use, especially in the case, where the situation includes the time aspect. Could you explain to me the difference between them?

vocabulary

2

Q: Leicester is seven points ahead

Leicester is seven points ahead of Tottenham. Leicester is seven points ahead before Tottenham. Which sentence does better express the fact that the club from Leicester leads the Premier League by a margin of seven points.

prepositions

Rathony

@Usernew What is your problem?

Usernew

you @Rathony

Rathony

Read the Help Center guidelines about the edit.

Usernew

14:36

I even said "STOP rolling back! Not everyone is aware that spurs is the nickmane for Tottenham Hotspur!"

still you kept going

PhMgBr

Calm down, both of you.

Usernew

yeah, I have read many posts on editing. etc etc

@Rathony

I am calm, just like the Nyan Cat @PhMgBr :)

*nickname

and stop rolling back my edits! I never make superfluous edits! So, please, stop trolling! @Rathony

@PhMgBr Off to watch the Flight of the Phoenix from 1965

have a nice day. :)

@Catija Hi!

PhMgBr

@Usernew and @Rath to be fair, both of what you did is superfluous.

In one case, at least.

Usernew

@Catija bye

umm and that would be? @PhMgBr

PhMgBr

Your first edit on ell.stackexchange.com/questions/88622/… isn't very meaty @User, and @Rath when an edit is done, it's better to leave it than roll back, unless the edit is doing active harm.

Rathony

14:42

@Usernew Do you think this edit is done in accordance with the guideline? ell.stackexchange.com/posts/88641/revisions

PhMgBr

Of course, to avoid all this semi-drama that ensues.

Anonymous

@Usernew Please, let's keep this discussion polite.

Usernew

I am polite.

PhMgBr

@Rathony Hmm, he removed a tagline, and that's encouraged but trivial.

Usernew

like the nyan cat

PhMgBr

14:43

@Usernew You could be more polite, her point being.

Usernew

I am more into formatting

actually

Rathony

to fix grammatical or spelling mistakes
to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it
to correct minor mistakes or add addendums / updates as the post ages
to add related resources or hyperlinks

PhMgBr

The rest is "consistent formatting" edits, which are still trivial.

So still a trivial edit.

Rathony

Tiny, trivial edits are discouraged

PhMgBr

@Usernew Actually, you could be improving much more.

Rathony

14:44

@Usernew remember this

PhMgBr

Like tags.

Save your gas for things that need an edit @User.

@Rathony Not banned. Hence the rollback was uncalled for.

Rathony

@Usernew Whether Tottenham is called Hotspurs or Spurs is not the point in the answer.

Anonymous

It's not a big deal either way. ELL isn't a particularly busy site, and Usernew's edits don't have to go through the 'suggested edit' queue, so the edits don't take up a lot of time.

Usernew

Yeah, I mean I was editing tags for Grammar questions, but when I have less time, I focus more on formatting, because a clear format conveys more than a bad or improper format.

Anonymous

A very large number of small edits can be problematic because they bump so many questions, shoving all the latest content off the front page.

Usernew

14:45

of course it is! One who is not aware of that fact can be misguided thinking spurs to be something else

Rathony

@Usernew Who cares about formatting?

Anonymous

But formatting edits here and there are okay, especially if they don't take up the time of reviewers.

Anonymous

In any case, we don't need to have a heated argument about this topic.

Usernew

in school, marks are cut for improper formats, why do you think they teach that?

PhMgBr

@snailboat Exactly.

Rathony

14:46

to fix grammatical or spelling mistakes
to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it
to correct minor mistakes or add addendums / updates as the post ages
to add related resources or hyperlinks

Usernew

@snailboat Exactly!

PhMgBr

@User formatting isn't that big a deal. @Rath trivial edits aren't that big a deal at this scale. Just move on, both of you.

Usernew

Spurs is also a basketball team :) :(

ummm

@PhMgBr yeah, I agree.

Anonymous

If either of you would like to discuss these edits further, I suggest writing a meta post.

Usernew

But there is no harm in making a improper edit into more proper format which is easy to understand.

Rathony

14:47

@Usernew Who is talking about basketball in the context?

Usernew

google spurs

Anonymous

That way you can get the feedback of the entire community, and not just the bit that joins chat :-)

Rathony

Do you Google everything in an answer?

Usernew

@snailboat Agreed! But got no time for that :D

Rathony

The OP wanted to call it Spurs. It is the OP's right. Not yours.

Usernew

14:49

@Rathony OP?

Rathony

Did you read the first answer?

to fix grammatical or spelling mistakes
to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it
to correct minor mistakes or add addendums / updates as the post ages
to add related resources or hyperlinks

Anonymous

2 mins ago, by snailboat

If either of you would like to discuss these edits further, I suggest writing a meta post.

Anonymous

This is a subtle hint that the chat discussion should be coming to an end.

Usernew

Actually I wanted to end this chat long before when I said something like going to watch the movie :P @snailboat

Anonymous

Please, feel free to watch your movie, and Rathony, if you have more to say, please write a meta post.

Rathony

14:51

@snailboat Nothing to write Meta post about.

Anonymous

Okay, then. We're all done :-)

PhMgBr

Sigh

Don't kick me! :)

I've been test-kicked once. It felt funny.

Anonymous

Usernew, Rathony: Please, feel free to write a meta post if you have more to say. We can have a friendly discussion in chat, but we aren't going to have a heated discussion in chat. I'm not saying either of you is right or wrong, but this discussion started out the wrong way and drawing it out isn't going to help things.

PhMgBr

BTW @Snail how good is "cannot chat for 1 minutes" in terms of grammar?

Anonymous

@PhMgBr It's ungrammatical. Programmers often forget to account for special cases like "1 minute".

PhMgBr

15:04

I know. Just messing around. :) Also

Anonymous

@PhMgBr That's a pretty interesting example :-)

Usernew

15:26

When I say "dictionary," which dictionary first comes to your mind? @snailboat @PhMgBr

Anonymous

@Usernew In the context of English, I think the Oxford English Dictionary.

Usernew

top 3?

PhMgBr

@Usernew LDOCE, since it's the first "big" dictionary I bought.

Anonymous

I use different dictionaries for different purposes.

Anonymous

I recommend the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English too, along with Macmillan.

Anonymous

15:27

ldoceonline.com - macmillandictionary.com

Anonymous

There are a number of good dictionaries for learners, including the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary: oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us

Usernew

well, I use Ox+ford

but the dict is actually for my friend whose English is below average

Anonymous

The Oxford Dictionary of English (the one on oxforddictionaries.com) is quite good!

Anonymous

@Usernew I recommend a learner's dictionary like the OALD then :-)

Usernew

so, he is looking for a dict that gives pronunciation, with thesaurus, blah blah

Anonymous

15:30

oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/walk_1?q=walk

Usernew

Collins?

and there was another one

Anonymous

Collins isn't a bad dictionary, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it for your friend.

Usernew

Cambridge

Anonymous

Cambridge has multiple dictionaries. The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (CALD) has some good features for learners: dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/walk

Usernew

is the physical dict of ox+ford as good as the online one? cz mine is quite outdated and doesn't have some words

Anonymous

15:32

Any dictionary for learners should have pronunciation listed with IPA transcriptions. Most of them have audio links you can click to listen, too.

Anonymous

@Usernew Which Oxford dictionary are you talking about?

Anonymous

They publish a number of different dictionaries.

Usernew

he needs it in physical form

wait

Anonymous

We've discussed three of them already.

Usernew

I have the compact edition :(

probably that's why

he didn't like that

Anonymous

15:33

Compact edition of which dictionary?

Anonymous

Remember, Oxford publishes a number of unrelated dictionaries.

Usernew

@PhMgBr and you still stick to that dict?

PhMgBr

Yep.

It has a buttload of info.

Anonymous

I am a fan of the LDOCE :-)

Usernew

I just have the "Compact Oxford thesaurus dictionary" Indian Edition

that's all I can say :D

hmmm

I will see if it is available in India :D

Anonymous

15:34

OALD → amazon.com/Oxford-advanced-Learners-Dictionary-Hornby/dp/…

Anonymous

Longman → amazon.com/Longman-Dictionary-Contemporary-English-Edition/dp/…

Anonymous

Wow, those oneboxes take up my entire screen!

PhMgBr

Whoa that's a huge onebox

Usernew

this one

It says, "new." But it is actually old :D

PhMgBr

@Usernew Hmm, I think I've seen it once in someone's hand, but never used it.

Anonymous

15:36

@Usernew Ah, I see! Thank you. I don't recommend that dictionary for learners like your friend, to be honest. Which is not to say it's a bad dictionary, but it isn't designed to meet the specific needs that learners have.

PhMgBr

@Usernew Exactly, I think the fact that it does say "new" means it's old.

Usernew

He is currently using some local Hindi-to-English dict, and that my friend is just downhill

@snailboat probably that's why he didn't like it :D

@PhMgBr Exactly!

Anonymous

My copy of the LDOCE is the 5th edition, but I see that there's a 6th edition now.

PhMgBr

@snailboat Oh, mine too!

We have so much in common.

Like, like a dictionary!

Usernew

0

Q: If it has a common name, what's a big water bottle called?

The question is clear. If it has a proper common name, what's a big water bottle exactly like those in the picture bellow called? You can say that there is no common proper word for that, as you can't force one to exist if it doesn't. You can then just state how's it referred to. Note that I'm...

word-request

I think it would still be called a bottle?

Anonymous

15:39

@Usernew Hmm, I think you might be right! I'd probably say something like "a really big five-liter bottle" :-)

PhMgBr

Definitely not jug of water O_o

I call them PETs, I think I've told you before.

\o @J.R.

Anonymous

But I'm not sure. I don't have much occasion to refer to five-liter containers of water.

Usernew

I think he was asking for these kind of bottles, but still a bottle

123rf.com/…

Anonymous

I don't think we usually say "PETs" for bottles made of PET in American English.

PhMgBr

@snailboat But what about Persian English? :P

J.R.

15:42

@snailboat "Okay, then. We're all done :-)"

Nicely played. Thank you.

No more rollback wars, please. Find a way for both of your edits to co-exist.

Usernew

In Hindi, we call them "Bottle."

@J.R. I don't have any problem with that, but he was just rolling back because I edited it.

J.R.

@Usernew Near as I can tell, your edit made two changes. One was adding the word Spurs. The other was putting the words in italics, even though they were already in quotation marks (it should be one or the other, but not both).

You kept wanting to add Spurs in, Rathony wanted to roll the format changes back.

PhMgBr

BTW @Snail fun thing is people here refer to almost everything with a capacity of 5 liters as "a gallon".

In Persian, I mean, not PerE. :P

@J.R. Mhm, both superfluous work.

Usernew

I didn't add Spurs. I deleted it.

and typed "tottenham" so that it would be clear

J.R.

Well, I couldn't figure out which was which. It was not exemplary behavior from either one of you.

Usernew

15:47

second, I removed italics because he already put them in quotation mark

just look at the third revision

ell.stackexchange.com/posts/88482/revisions

PhMgBr

@Usernew How necessary is this?

You should save your strength for posts that need edits, not become nicer by edits.

That's my point.

Usernew

I got your point, I follow that point.

PhMgBr

Rath went a bit too far by rolling back, but your edits are also not that shiny.

Usernew

It's not about shininess

I mean, I don't get any points doing that

PhMgBr

Rule of thumb: If you spent 5 minutes before clicking "save edits", it means your edit is worth something.

J.R.

15:50

@PhMgBr Actually, now that I see what's going on, I think you're in the right here.

Usernew

I am not gaining anything from making trivial edits

PhMgBr

@Usernew Then don't make trivial edits.

J.R.

But next time just flag it, instead of getting lured into a Rollback war.

PhMgBr

Make BIG ones.

Usernew

I know

J.R.

15:51

Oops, I meant to say that Usernew is in the right.

Usernew

but my editing is not hurting anything

J.R.

I don't have any problem with the Rev 3 edits.

Usernew

it's not taking anyone's time, moderator's time

nothing

PhMgBr

@J.R. But I'm always in the right. Like, inside of it.

J.R.

:-)

PhMgBr

15:52

@Usernew As I said, this isn't a problem at this scale.

Usernew

yeah :)

PhMgBr

But one of SO's major problems is superfluous edits.

J.R.

What are you trying to do, give me a prepositional faze?

PhMgBr

@J.R. Nah, just feeling punny these days.

Usernew

puny?

J.R.

15:53

Punny.

Funny + Pun = Punny

Usernew

got it :)

J.R.

I don't think it's an official word yet, but it ought to be.

Usernew

yes, it's funny

I caught a user using a fancy word which I didn't find anywhere

"globalit"

J.R.

That's not a word, that's a typo

the person meant to say "globality"

Usernew, check out that answer now. See if you're satisfied with that edit.

Usernew

yes!

wait

which one?

J.R.

15:57

The Spurs answer

PhMgBr

@Usernew That some kind of rock?

Usernew

no, actually I forgot the word "globality" was confused @_@

Yes! @J.R.

totally satisfied!

what about you @J.R.?

Which dict is best?

till now it is Oxford and Longman

J.R.

online or print edition?

which are you asking about?

Usernew

physical/print for below-average EL

J.R.

Here's the deal, if you're asking about print dictionaries, I'm not qualified to answer. I don't use them often enough.

"Whatever snailboat says" is the best advice I can give.

If you were asking about online dictionaries, that's easy: Never rely on a single dictionary. (I usually check at least three.)

Usernew

16:06

okay, then, 3 votes to Longman

PhMgBr

@Usernew I've never compared dictionaries, as long as they satisfied my needs. LDOCE's descriptions are usually A2-B2 level.

So they fit what you need.

J.R.

:-) - LOL

Usernew

hmmmm

PhMgBr

@J.R. Wow, never seen these two together.

Makes a wish

Usernew

Thanks to you all three for your recommendations! @J.R. @snailboat @PhMgBr

have to go now

Adios!

o/

J.R.

16:07

Okay, next time you have an edit rolled back, see if you can improve your edit

Usernew

have a good day/night

okay, thanks. :)

J.R.

And then if it gets rolled back again, flag it

we'll take a look

Usernew

thank again

*thanks

PhMgBr

And if it gets rolled back again, pitchforks!

Usernew

Bye!

Will make a roller coaster!

J.R.

16:09

Time for me to head out, too.

Sorry if I interrupted anything.

Man_From_India

16:22

Another one -

0

Q: If gone in "has been gone" is an adjective, how do I know that dispatched in "has been dispatched" is a past participle?

What structure is this sentence is? He has been gone four hours now. If 'gone' is an adjective and the sentence is in present perfect, then how will I know that 'gone' is an adjective. For instance, in this sentence, "It has been dispatched." 'dispatched' is a past participle and not ...

adjectives past-participle

Alone with gone and dispatched, there is another word that one of the comments there raised - agreed.

Anonymous

Also an adjective.

Man_From_India

@snailboat You mean agreed right?

Anonymous

Yes.

Man_From_India

But dispatched can be either a verb or an adjective. What do you say?

Anonymous

Well, agreed can be either a verb or an adjective too, and so can gone.

Man_From_India

16:30

No I mean in this sort of sentences - He was gone

Anonymous

That's an adjective.

Anonymous

I'm not sure about your dispatched example.

Anonymous

It has been dispatched clearly contains a verb form, not an adjective.

Man_From_India

The item was dispatched - It can be either a verb or an adjective.

Anonymous

Can you think of a test that demonstrates its adjectivehood?

Anonymous

16:31

It seems like a productive use of the passive construction.

Anonymous

@J.R. Your presence may be needed again :-)

Man_From_India

@snailboat Will this be adjective use?

> And you, padre, are the one who's going to get dispatched.

Anonymous

@Man_From_India This is a get-passive.

Anonymous

@Rathony I'm going to give you a time-out for now.

CowperKettle

You've been bickering all this time? I managed to take a walk and visit a store and whatnot.

Man_From_India

16:33

@snailboat Ahh I see, I thought that that get takes an adjective as a complement.

Anonymous

@Man_From_India Just a moment.

CowperKettle

Word of the day: thorp

> By thirty hills I hurry down,
Or slip between the ridges,
By twenty thorpes, a little town,
And half a hundred bridges.

Anonymous

Okay, I'm back.

Man_From_India

WB :-)

@snail Is there any reason to analyze it as a passive, and not an adjective? I mean that one what you called get-passive.

Anonymous

@Rathony I've given you a temporary suspension to cool off due to your aggressive behavior, in light of past problems in chat. I've also pinged @J.R., so the ELL mods should be aware and should be able to take any action they think is appropriate.

Anonymous

16:41

@Man_From_India There are a number of passive constructions. The most common and basic pattern involves the passive auxiliary be followed by the past participial form of a verb.

Man_From_India

nods

Anonymous

But there are a number of other constructions, many of which involve lexical verbs such as have or get, and some of which have the participial verb form alone.

Man_From_India

Ah right. I think the central idea is that it implies that there is an agents that does it. Right?

Anonymous

Geoffrey Pullum has a post about the passive here: languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922

3

Man_From_India

@snailboat I starred ur msg and will read later after dinner :-)

Anonymous

16:45

Although there's a range of passive constructions, in most of them we can see a few unifying qualities. You can almost always add an agent with a by-phrase, for example. The agent is not understood as being the subject of the verb group. The semantic roles are changed.

Anonymous

The get-passive is often interchangeable with a be-passive in terms of propositional meaning, but the get passive is rather more restricted and often has an adversative interpretation. They aren't always interchangeable.

Man_From_India

Reading grammar books beyond those that are designed for school use, or you can say text books, makes me believe this -

> There is no hope of figuring out the meaning of grammatical terms from common sense, or by looking in a dictionary. Passive (like its opposite, active) is a technical term.

Anonymous

But they share the same basic grammatical properties and interact with semantic (thematic) roles the same way, apart from get being a lexical verb and be an auxiliary.

CowperKettle

"adversative"?

Anonymous

> I got hit by a car.

Anonymous

16:49

> I was hit by a car.

Anonymous

Was is more neutral. Got suggests that I didn't like the car hitting me.

Anonymous

So speakers tend to use the get-passive for sentences like this :-)

Anonymous

That's the "adversative" part.

CowperKettle

Nice. I recall reading something to that effect about get, but when you are not refreshing your memory, it all slips away.

Man_From_India

What is "prepositional meaning", you mentioned in your last comment?

Anonymous

16:51

Propositional meaning. Not prepositional.

Anonymous

Stupid linguistics, all these p-words that sound almost alike :-(

Man_From_India

:D Even my eyes missed it :P

Anonymous

The proposition expressed by the sentence is the meaning related to its truth value.

Anonymous

I got hit by a car and I was hit by a car both express the same proposition.

Man_From_India

hmm

CowperKettle

16:52

> In British English, a "bramble" is any rough (usually wild) tangled prickly shrub

I wonder if this is true

Wiktionary says it is.

> I murmur under moon and stars
In brambly wildernesses;
I linger by my shingly bars;
I loiter round my cresses;

Anonymous

@CowperKettle Wait, does it mean something else in American English?

CowperKettle

@snailboat Who am I to know?

Anonymous

Maybe I've been ignorant about brambles my whole life :-)

CowperKettle

> (US) Any of several closely related thorny plants in the genus Rubus, including blackberry and raspberry.

Saith Wiktionary

Cresses?

> (botany) A plant of various species, chiefly cruciferous. The leaves have a moderately pungent taste, and are used as a salad and antiscorbutic.

Now that helps a lot.

"of various species"

Anonymous

@Man_From_India There are also inchoative uses of get with adjectives: I got angry.

Anonymous

16:56

"Inchoative" here means it's referring to a state that is beginning or becoming.

Anonymous

And there are some constructions with get where there may be some overlap between the two.

Anonymous

I'll quote CGEL p.1441:

Anonymous

> They are getting married at the week-end. (adjectival)

Anonymous

> They are hoping to get married by the bishop. (verbal)

Man_From_India

Now this part from CGEL confused me :(

Anonymous

16:58

But usually the get-passive is fairly unambiguous, unlike the be-passive.

Anonymous

> The window was broken. (adjectival or verbal)

Man_From_India

yes

Anonymous

Here, you can imagine that broken is an adjective describing the state of the window.

Man_From_India

nods

Anonymous

Or you can imagine that broken is the past participial form of a verb in a passive construction, describing the act of breaking the window.

Man_From_India

17:00

right

Anonymous

But with get, it's not ambiguous:

Anonymous

> The window got broken. (verbal)

Anonymous

@Man_From_India Maybe you should read that section of CGEL. The section on get-passives starts on page 1440.

Anonymous

Otherwise, I may end up typing out the entire thing :-)

Man_From_India

Ok sorry :-) I will. Let me bookmark it.

Anonymous

17:04

@Man_From_India Actually, start on page 1436.

Anonymous

And keep in mind that the "adjectival passives" they discuss are not true passive clauses.

Man_From_India

ok. currently reading that article from language log that you mentioned

Anonymous

(They would call them "pseudo-passives" to make that clear, but that term tends to be used for prepositional passives instead, so they went with "adjectival passives".)

StackExchange

17:28

0

Q: Is an edit to change only "formatting" warranted on ELL?

Since I joined this community, I've noticed many edits which seem to be trivial and not helpful enough to this community. The edit guidelines on ELL's help center clearly states that "tiny, trivial edits are discouraged". For example, the second edit of the linked question, Article usage before...

discussion editing

CowperKettle

17:38

If we want to say that something fell at an angle of 90 degrees, will we say "it fell at right angle"?

Damkerng T.

18:43

@Pandya Merge sounds good in your post. I might write Merging Karma and Bhakti into Jnana if I chose to use merge. Some other possible alternatives to merge I can think of right now are combine, fuse, unify, integrate, and consolidate. I'm not quite sure which one is the best because I don't know much about Hinduism.

Færd

19:11

@CowperKettle At right angles, as far as I remember. Let me check..

Yes. Or at a right angle.

oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/…

CowperKettle

19:31

@Færd Thanks, Fard!

It says "at a right angle", as if there exist numerous 90 degree angles.

Hm. There might exist such angles.

Transcript for