Language Overflow

CowperKettle

19:10

0

A: Are "present continuous" and "be going to" interchangeable?

If something is not yet happening, it is not present, nor should present continuous be used. Thus only your first example is grammatically correct. Correct constructions for the second would include: I will be visiting my brother on Friday. I plan to visit my brother on Friday. That said, nat...

A guy from Florida says that "I'm visiting my brother on Friday" is wrong.

M.A.R.

Or

@CowperKettle My nativography says he's most probably saying it from a textbook, not using his intuition

Or he's just considering only one or few contexts

user2684291

@CowperKettle To me, "just" collocates better with "a(n)". If you say "just the", you'd most likely use it in sentences such as: "that's just the thing we needed". I know this isn't an adequate explanation, but that's how it sounds to my ear.

Maybe "a" is used to "classify" in that sentence?

CowperKettle

Yes, like "he is just a human being", "he is a mere human"

user2684291

Yeah.

CowperKettle

19:25

But since the first sentence makes the recommendation, the somehow seemed acceptable to me too.

I'd usually go for a.

But here I'm not sure

user2684291

I would use "a" there, definitely. (:

Especially since it looks like an example of the aforementioned floccinaucinihilipilification.

CowperKettle

> A candidate for US presidency should be at least 35 years old in order to be allowed to run for the post. But this is just the recommended minimum.

M.A.R.

@CowperKettle And this doesn't necessarily mean that in the same context, it's the only recommended minimum

user2684291

I think if you use "the", you're referring to some minimum. When you use "a", you classify (anew).

M.A.R.

Shtoopid articles

user2684291

19:32

"Since the first sentence makes the recommendation, I think that it is okay to use 'the'." This isn't a reason why you'd use "the".

CowperKettle

There's an answer by Lambie, and I can't understand it at all.

M.A.R.

@CowperKettle I stopped reading after the first sentence

Ugh

CowperKettle

So it's possible to use "the", but not due to my presumed reason.

M.A.R.

Where's Arau?

user2684291

@M.A.R. Same, haha.

M.A.R.

19:37

I guess encouraging ELL's to answer is not such a good idea

Damkerng T.

@CowperKettle Interesting. Maybe he's from another generation.

M.A.R.

Or that

CowperKettle

@DamkerngT. I would not expect Trump Grammar to become so widespread so soon

M.A.R.

Like, from the 1810s

Damkerng T.

@CowperKettle LOL

CowperKettle

19:38

(Sorry for another stupid Trump joke)

M.A.R.

@CowperKettle That's the only way to sooth the pain of seeing an inferior being possessing a higher position than ours

Damkerng T.

@M.A.R. I always think it's a potential problem, but it looks like most users on our site don't share the same opinion.

user2684291

@CowperKettle Trump Grammer?

Damkerng T.

I mean, sure, learners or non-native speakers can answer lots of questions on our site, but sometimes they stretch their knowledge too far, and that could be a problem.

M.A.R.

@DamkerngT. Sometimes I feel the users feel that if they don't act learnerically correct, someone will bash them about their insensitivity with regards to English learners

So there's this sick atmosphere on the site that stops learners from becoming independent

user2684291

19:43

@M.A.R. Who should act "learnerically" correct? I don't get your sentence.

Damkerng T.

@M.A.R. I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to by learnerically correct either, but if real examples could become touchy-feely, we can skip this. :-)

M.A.R.

@user2684291 The users, generally.

I get the feeling people keep saying learner can't do X, not because they really can't, but because the people who say it don't want to sound harsh to learners.

user2684291

I think DamkerngT. was referring to users like David (?) whatchamacallit, who kept answering question after question, even though what he said was sometimes wrong.

M.A.R.

''learnerically correct'' was a play on ''politically correct''

@user2684291 Well, that's not uncommon in any SE.

Damkerng T.

@user2684291 Yes, you got me, though I didn't have any specific user in mind.

M.A.R.

19:46

An enthusiastic answerer goes on answering everything

It gets more awkward when you think you know some stuff

user2684291

@DamkerngT. I did. (:

M.A.R.

Which is usually the case regarding native speakers here, and even advanced learners

user2684291

Yeah. That's why I stopped answering questions, mostly. I don't know if I'm right at all.

M.A.R.

Things go awry when your verdict isn't as infallible as you believe it to be

Damkerng T.

@user2684291 Maybe it's just because I've been here long enough to see it happen again and again, so I didn't have to think of any specific user when thinking of the problem.

M.A.R.

19:48

@DamkerngT. Day 361: Who's this MAR underling? What an idiot

Damkerng T.

@M.A.R. nods -- Which reminds me of another problem that our site still seems to have: we don't have enough people voting correctly (on the technical side of it).

@M.A.R. Heh! I didn't mean that for sure! :D

M.A.R.

Ahh, so you probably meant it

Damkerng T.

@M.A.R. LOL

BTW, even though the general idea would be will and be going to are almost interchangeable, I think this example would sound weird:

> Me (calling my stock broker): I'd like to transfer NNN stocks of PTT from my account to another broker. [some more details here]

> Broker: That's all right, sir! I'm going to do it this afternoon.

user2684291

I think it's OK.

Damkerng T.

nods -- Hmm... it doesn't sound as bad as I thought it would sound.

user2684291

19:53

"I'll do it this afternoon." would be very common, right...

But "going to" can be used when you've already made up your mind and are thinking of your schedule. That's my impression. Also, there's something about "politeness". "I'm going to do just that, sir."

It's as if they're ordering themselves.

Damkerng T.

Yes. In my idea, when I was imagining that dialogue, I thought it would sound a bit like they made up their mind even before I told them what to do.

CowperKettle

> I'm three times more profitable than my salary. (would this be correct?)

0

Q: Which one is correct between these two?

I'm three times as more profitable as my salary vs. I'm as three times more profitable as my salary

comparative-constructions

Damkerng T.

It's fine with me.

CowperKettle

I posted an answer, then hid it.

Can salary be "profitable"?

user2684291

I don't think so, haha.

Damkerng T.

20:00

Hmm... I think we can take "my salary" as an amount of money.

user2684291

Money is profit.

CowperKettle

> The profit I generate for the company is more than three times my salary. (this one seems better logically)

user2684291

I'm more profitable than it says on my paycheck.

Damkerng T.

off to grab some crispy fried fish...

user2684291

But people don't describe themselves as "profitable", it's still kinda weird, eh?

CowperKettle

20:01

So I think the sentences would remain wrong logically even if we adjust(ed?) the conjunctions

@user2684291 Maybe the person is a slave

user2684291

@CowperKettle Yeah.

CowperKettle

> Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.

user2684291

1 (of a business or activity) yielding profit or financial gain.
2 beneficial; useful: he'd had a profitable day.

CowperKettle

> If in this year she gives you 6,000 quarts of milk, and makes you 300 pounds of butter, you say then she is profitable. If she has not, she is not profitable, and you sell her for 30 or 35 to the butcher. (1912)

V.V.

Perhaps "The profit I bring to the company is worth( of) three salaries of mine

CowperKettle

20:09

Yes, because "I am profitable" sounds odd

Damkerng T.

@CowperKettle Um... this she wasn't human, I think.

CowperKettle

@DamkerngT. Of course.

user2684291

Haha.

CowperKettle

You don't sell a human to the butcher.

Damkerng T.

@CowperKettle In some states, cannibalism is legal under some restricted conditions.

(or so I heard)

CowperKettle

20:12

Mark Twain wrote about it ("Cannibalism in the Cars")

Damkerng T.

Oh!

CowperKettle

Cannibalism in the Cars

"Cannibalism in the Cars" is a short story written in 1868 by American writer Mark Twain. It tells the darkly humorous tale of apparent acts of cannibalism from the point of view of a congressman on a snowbound train. It indirectly satirises the political system of the United States of America. == Synopsis == The story is about a group of men trapped on a train during a snow storm. After a week, the men gradually realize that they must resort to cannibalism for survival. They hold ineffective elections to select candidates, and follow parliamentary procedure to a fault. The story continues in a...

Damkerng T.

> He was one of the finest men I ever sat down to, handsome, educated, refined, spoke several languages fluently, a perfect gentleman, he was a perfect gentleman, and singularly juicy.

Haha!

user2684291

Why would you be barred from eating long pork?

CowperKettle

> It may be urged by gentlemen that the hardships and privations of a frontier life have rendered Mr. Davis tough; but, gentlemen, is this a time to cavil at toughness? Is this a time to be fastidious concerning trifles? Is this a time to dispute about matters of paltry significance? No, gentlemen, bulk is what we desire—substance, weight, bulk—these are the supreme requisites now—not talent, not genius, not education. I insist upon my motion.

Damkerng T.

20:19

1

A: "I'm three times as more profitable as my salary" vs. "I'm as three times more profitable as my salary"

The comparison between your profitability and your salary would be I'm three times as profitable as my salary. "more" is redundant since three times is already "more". I'm as three times more profitable as my salary. would be comparing yourself to your profitability, when you really w...

Read it again...

> The comparison between your profitability and your salary would be

> "I'm three times as profitable as my salary."

> "I'm as three times more profitable as my salary." would be comparing yourself to your profitability, when you really want to compare your salary.

Is that so?

user2684291

It's a normal form of shorthand if an individual or group is closely identified with an activity or Profit & Loss account, especially in sales functions, a usual question might be "Is he profitable?" when what is meant is "Are his sales activities profitable?". One could ask about a company "Are they profitable?" which would not refer to the individuals in the company pre se but the aggregate activities of the company. — Peter 4 mins ago

Damkerng T.

Oh, he didn't use CowperKettle's version.

> "I'm three times more profitable than my salary."

user2684291

I agree with that comment.

Damkerng T.

@user2684291 Makes sense. To be honest, I read it that way as well.

But I wonder how often people would use that. Maybe often enough. I don't really know.

"I make this company a lot more money than my salary!"

user2684291

I would expect it in contexts where a company is hiring another company that comprises one person, haha.

Or something like that.

Damkerng T.

20:24

Hehe!

V.V.

20:37

2

Q: "three times as much as" vs. "three times more"

1. She earns three times as much as I. 2. She earns three times more than I. Are these two sentences grammatically correct?

comparative-constructions

user2684291

Yeah, they mean the same.

Damkerng T.

@J.R. I understand your point of view. In my opinion, though, we can consider "all" uses of the definite article through the concept of "identifiability" no matter whether it's something unique (like the sun), it's something specific (even though it might not be unique, like the window), or it's something generic (like the air, and our the city), because it's identifiable, i.e., it's "known" to the user, either implicitly or explicitly. It's just my opinion though, and I don't force anyone to understand it the way I do. Then again, I don't think my idea is very far off. — Damkerng T. 40 secs ago

Before I go to sleep!

Come to think of it, the air is probably better put under the "something unique" category.

Then again, it's my very late hour.

(Also, I'd probably be better off with the speaker and the listener than with the user.)

user2684291

He's replied to your reply, by the way.

Damkerng T.

@DamkerngT. - You didn’t happen to click on the dictionary link, did you? Your idea may not be very far off, but that misconception is something I've seen learners struggle with more than once on ELL. I think it’s better to let learners know there is more than one possible usage, rather than try to force-fit every usage into some single, oversimplified rule-of-thumb. — J.R. ♦ 1 min ago

user2684291

20:53

(:

Damkerng T.

Now that makes me feel like I have to defend myself! (Um, I mean my idea!)

sigh -- If we had to learn a language from dictionaries ...

For the record, I'm a lumper, not a splitter.

So, the more cases they have, the worse for me.

Joe Pinsonault

Be comforted that, as a native speaker, that all sounds like jibberish to me. So you know more about that part of english than I do!

user2684291

Ugh, articles.

You never know with them, they like to keep you on your toes. It's a sex thing.

Damkerng T.

I'd like to refrain from arguing over subtle points, which could stray off the main topic. IMHO, there are more than one way to formulate the explanation of the usage of English articles. It's true that I didn't click your link. I still don't think my idea is in conflict with the definitions in the dictionary, given that the dictionary is correct. (It's too late for me to read them carefully tonight.) For what it's worth, I upvoted your answer, and it probably was the first vote because I think your answer is correct and in line with my idea. (BTW, you can write me more if you'd like in chat.) — Damkerng T. 1 min ago

In case J.R. might want to discuss it more in here.

user2684291

Shouldn't it be "there's more than one way"?

Damkerng T.

21:05

Yes, that crossed my mind right when I posted my message in here.

But like I said, it's my very late hour. :D

I think prescriptively, it's definitely is more than one way.

I'm not sure, but I guess in practice, some people may write are more than one way.

To be honest, reading a comment while I'm typing it is very hard for my eyes!

@DamkerngT. - You didn’t happen to click on the dictionary link, did you? Your idea may not be very far off, but that misconception is something I've seen learners struggle with more than once on ELL. I think it’s better to let learners know there is more than one possible usage, rather than try to force-fit every usage into some single, oversimplified rule-of-thumb. — J.R. ♦ 17 mins ago

user2684291

I don't know, I've usually heard "there's more than one way".

Damkerng T.

@user2684291 nods -- agreed

About the last part in J.R.'s comment, "force-fit every usage into some single, oversimplified rule-of-thumb". But we have in fact only one rule for the definite article, don't we? The rule is "it's definite".

Identifiable is just another way to say definite, IMO.

user2684291

Yeah, I agree.

Damkerng T.

The problem is, just like countability, or past-present, or progressive, or other features of English, it's not easy to conceptualize it for people from other languages.

user2684291

I don't know about "identifiable".

I guess... that's what we mean...

Damkerng T.

21:13

@user2684291 I think some linguists use it recently, because it might be more transparent than definite.

user2684291

Yeah, it definitely is. :>

Damkerng T.

:D

user2684291

@DamkerngT. Btw, haha, he named it "DAMS (Definite Article Meaning Syndrome, a relatively common affliction that often affects English learners. It's chief symptom is confusion, generally caused by the erroneous belief that definite articles are only used for things previously referred to and specified in a narrative or conversation)."

Damkerng T.

Hehe! I was there when he posted that answer. It's an interesting name. (^_^)

user2684291

I'm laughing so hard.

Damkerng T.

21:17

I'm not sure when it was. Maybe a year and a half ago.

Oh! It's almost two years already!

Joe Pinsonault

21:36

There is more than one way -> there are more than two ways
Is what seems correct to me

user2684291

I agree.

Damkerng T.

I'd use is as well, if I were taking a test. :D

Too bad I'm not a mod, I can't edit my comments after 5 minutes.

Joe Pinsonault

With "there is", it usually just becomes "there's", and then people don't change "there's" to "there are" because that's hard. So I hear things like "There's more than 2 ways". In casual speech. I hardly even think of "there's" as a contraction anymore, it's just like, a new word

Damkerng T.

(Still, this means that in my spontaneous speech, it's quite possible that I might say are more than one X anyway, which is not a good habit.)

@JoePinsonault Yes. There's is something special.

user2684291

@JoePinsonault Yeah, exactly. I think that's how people think of it.

You'd never say "there are/there're eight...". It's difficult to pronounce, "there's" is so much better. :>

Joe Pinsonault

21:41

I avoid difficult things =)

user2684291

I noticed there's a typo in the quasi-definition above, it should be "its" instead of "it's". However, I think in English we may dispense with the distinction while preserving the meaning: its = it's; there = they're = their. I can't think of an example where it might be ambiguous.

Could someone produce an example where it might not be obvious?

Damkerng T.

These typos are quite common, I think.

To native and non-native speakers alike.

Joe Pinsonault

@user2684291 agreed

it's only useful to distinguish between the spellings as a way to tell people on the internet that they're wrong

Damkerng T.

@user2684291 You got to read Here-there, there-here! :P

user2684291

@JoePinsonault Hahah indeed.

Damkerng T.

21:44

Jul 31 '16 at 10:09, by Damkerng T.

> 'Herethere,' Shep repeated. 'Here is there, there is here, and everywhere is the same place if you know how to fold.' 'Fold? Fold what?' 'Fold here to there, one place to another place, herethere.'

And on that note, I think I should fold myself to my bunk!

user2684291

@DamkerngT. I think that's to do with abstract mathematics?

Or physics I guess.

Damkerng T.

@user2684291 It was from a novel. He (Shep) had some abilities.

user2684291

Haha, okay.

Damkerng T.

;-)

user2684291

I just remembered some of those videos where they ... invert a sphere or something like that.

@DamkerngT. Cocoon yourself and sleep well.

Damkerng T.

21:49

Thx! See you later! o/

user2684291

Catch you later.

Transcript for