Language Overflow

CopperKettle

04:56

0

Q: Can a hypothetical question be in past tense? Please see my example

If you passed a subject without learning anything valuable about it, did that subject really help you?

tenses

A good question for ELL, but judging by my experience, it won't be moved here.

Damkerng T.

06:33

@StoneyB Cat's answer: All of the above.

CopperKettle

07:14

0

Q: Is there a word for the revenge of a cat?

I found this meme from 54 Great Examples of Modern-Day Neologisms: But it also invokes a serious question to me: is there actually a word for the revenge of a cat, because you make fun of it? Or, if the word hasn't been invented yet, is there a word for a revenge, that is funny from the third ...

single-word-requests

Damkerng T.

LOL

CopperKettle

(0:

Damkerng T.

I was in a mood to chblog (read "chat-blog" + "rant" :-), but the cat changed my mind. :D

CopperKettle

"A POET had a cat.
There is nothing odd in that—
(I might make a little pun about the Mews!)
But what is really more
Remarkable, she wore
A pair of pointed patent-leather shoes.
And I doubt me greatly whether
E'er you heard the like of that:
Pointed shoes of patent-leather
On a cat!"

@DamkerngT. (0:

I first learned the word feline from that poem. (0:

Damkerng T.

07:46

0

Q: Going for a party/to a party

Just as I was entering the room, the family was going for a party/to the party. Out of the two which one is correct and by which grammatical rule. Suggestions please. Thank you

sentence-construction sentence-meaning sentences

Let's pick the best alternative, something someone might really say:

> Just as I was entering the room, the family was going to a party.

Assuming that this is an opening sentence in a novel, how should we understand the sentence?

Did the family still in the room?

What was the family doing?

CopperKettle

I guess the preposition for is felicitous in "Johns was really going for that ball"

compete for something
like someone/something
choose something
attack/criticize
be sold
go somewhere to get something
be true/relevant
have advantage/quality

Damkerng T.

I guess so, but it would be read differently, a different meaning, I mean.

CopperKettle

(from Macmillan's)

Damkerng T.

Between the choice of a party and going to the beach, they went for a party.

CopperKettle

I'm not sure... maybe go for is only for physical, obtainable things..

Damkerng T.

07:57

It's choosing something.

Choosing a choice should be okay.

CopperKettle

"I think I’ll go for the steak. What are you having?" (example from Macmillan's)

"I think I'll go for the sea voyage." Dunno.

Damkerng T.

Between the steak and the chicken, he chose the steak!

I think in English a choice could be anything, because anything in English can be a thing.

CopperKettle

nods

Since a choice could be anything, I would go for to. (0:

Damkerng T.

Some patterns are more restrictive, afaict, Macmillan usually gives a hint, like "someone", or "that clause", and so on.

@CopperKettle A nice choice!

14 mins ago, by Damkerng T.

> Just as I was entering the room, the family was going to a party.

I had a problem visualizing the scene, though.

CopperKettle

nods

Damkerng T.

08:06

Maybe this is what they meant:

> Just as I was entering the room, the family was going to leave for a party.

CopperKettle

That seems better

Damkerng T.

(I used both to and for!)

CopperKettle

(0:

Damkerng T.

Metaphor of the Day: the robustness of our languages: L1 ~ a pyramid, L2 advanced ~ a skyscraper, L2 novice ~ a little hut

:-)

CopperKettle

(0:

I tried to kill the 'grammar' tag there, but Rathony (has?) kept it..

0

Q: What is the past form of "ought to"?

I ought to help him . I ought to have helped him. Shall I use (have + past participle) for the past form of ought to? Please suggest me clearly.

grammar past-tense semi-modals

Damkerng T.

08:16

I'm not sure about tags at ELU.

CopperKettle

nods

Damkerng T.

2

Q: Is there any similar idiom/proverb to Japanese proverb -Gesu no kanguri

There is a saying 下衆の勘繰り(Gesu no kanguri) in Japanese. "Gesu" means a person who is mean, lowly, or base in his/her heart. "Kanguri" means interpreting falsely someone's intention as bad. A translation of this saying can be: A mean person often interprets an innocent person's intention as bad."...

idioms expressions proverbs

I tried to think of a phrase, came up with none, so I searched, hoping to find something along the lines of "evil thinks evil"...

But I found this instead: "Evil always thinks it's doing right."

Which is also interesting!

CopperKettle

nods

Some say the Scheme with love stands luminous,
Some say 't were better back to chaos hurled;
And so 't is what we are that makes for us
The measure and the meaning of the world.

@DamkerngT. I tried to seach the web, going to Goodreads as usual.

“Don't judge a man by his opinions, but what his opinions have made of him.”

goodreads.com/quotes/tag/judging

Damkerng T.

Nice! It's a step closer to the question!

The Japanese version is very succinct. I think we can do that in English, too. I thought I even had heart, it. But I can't remember what it is... :-(

CopperKettle

nods

Damkerng T.

08:31

BTW, my sad smileys are usually just hyperbole.

:-)

CopperKettle

(0:

Damkerng T.

On the other hand, my happy smileys are usually real. :D

CopperKettle

(0:

Damkerng T.

08:44

Though I don't feel like to write a chblog right now, I think I'd better post those random thoughts here before I forget.

Sometimes a learner asks about "Is this correct?" (or its opposite, "Is this wrong?"), but what is wrong, what is right, what is correct, what is incorrect? These aren't clear. It may be clear if we limited it to "grammatically correct" or "sounds right".

There are many layers of language above grammar.

So many things that are grammatically sound can still sound wrong to a lot of people.

(Perhaps the most obvious example is those stuff in style guides.)

CopperKettle

nods

But "I ought to have helped him" is not a full counterpart of "I ought to help him", because the present-tense form allows for the possibility that I will help him, while the ought to have form indicades that I did not. If we say "I was under an obligation to help him", this will leave open the possibility that I did in fact help him. — CopperKettle 1 min ago

Some answers on ELU are sloppy indeed.

Damkerng T.

Above grammar and style, we still have semantics, pragmatics, and so on. Corporation in communication is normally required and assumed.

@CopperKettle nods -- Totally agree.

I think one thing that keeps ELU stay in good shape is that there is a large enough number of people.

(Looks like I confused myself with my own choice of words! Now I'm not sure whether I should've used 'is' or 'are', but let's move on. :-)

CopperKettle

(0:

Anonymous

Is (and remove stay)

Damkerng T.

Thanks!

CopperKettle

08:56

Good afternoon, @Snails!

Anonymous

Morning! :-)

CopperKettle

It's 3 a.m. in El Gato! Some morning!

(0:

Oops, that's wrong El Gato. It's even earlier.

Damkerng T.

Sorry! I misread the message!

CopperKettle

It's 1 a.m. in California

Los Gatos. I forgot. (0: Hope the cat's won't inflict the proverbial revenge on me.

Anonymous

The cats!

Anonymous

09:00

I tried to go back to sleep, but I couldn't.

CopperKettle

That's bad. One has got to sleep.

But we usually use who as relativizer for persons. I forgot to say usually.

Anonymous

Yes, who is more common than that

Anonymous

Well, I went to sleep early last night.

CopperKettle

Good!

Anonymous

Most modern linguists agree that relative that is not a relative pronoun

2

Anonymous

09:05

Instead, it marks the relative clause as subordinate

Anonymous

In other words, it's the same that we see in "I think [that snails are cute]".

CopperKettle

it's a subordinating something (conjunction?)

Anonymous

Quirk et al. define subordinator as short for 'subordinating conjunction', which is a traditional term

CopperKettle

nods

Anonymous

Huddleston & Pullum get rid of the conjunction part and make subordinator into a part of speech

CopperKettle

09:08

ah

Anonymous

Generative linguists call it a complementizer

CopperKettle

nice!

I mean, even less comprehensible to the common folk. (0:

As Russians say, "this would be hard to understand without half a liter"

Anonymous

Hehe

CopperKettle

(0:

Anonymous

We need some alkonaut slash grammarnauts up in here to figure this stuff out!

CopperKettle

09:10

(0:

Anonymous

Maybe from now on I should call myself a grammarnaut

2

CopperKettle

Let's grab a couple of Budweisers to figure out complementizers. (0:

Anonymous

It's funny because I'm a teetotaler :-)

CopperKettle

Me too. I've got a bottle of champaigne to re-present to folks on some bicycle ride, since I don't drink

Anonymous

Nice!

CopperKettle

09:13

(0:

Anonymous

I drink lots of water and some tea :-)

CopperKettle

I drink lots of tea and some water. (0:

Anonymous

When I was younger I drank soda.

CopperKettle

I had loved soda, cause it was hard to get.. But in the 1990s I finally drank myself sick on 't

Anonymous

It's bad stuff!

CopperKettle

09:15

Yes, so dieticians say. (0:

Fast sugar.

Anonymous

Empty calories

CopperKettle

nods

"You may wonder how fast the electrons are whizzing around in the atoms around you. A good example (and the most simple to calculate) is the hydrogen atom which is in all our water. A calculation shows that the electron is traveling at about 2,200 kilometers per second. That's less than 1% of the speed of light, but it's fast enough to get it around the Earth in just over 18 seconds."

I thought they traveled at the speed of light.

Damkerng T.

Me too!

CopperKettle

I need to go. You'd better go catch some z's, @snails!

(0:

Damkerng T.

o/

CopperKettle

09:19

BBL

Damkerng T.

@snailboat I like Snail-sensei better. :D

Anonymous

Electrons and photons are different things

Damkerng T.

nods -- Still I thought they traveled at the same speed.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Sensei is an honorific term and it would be arrogant if I called myself name-sensei – honorifics are for the outgroup, not the ingroup

Damkerng T.

Oh! The sense of in vs. out-group didn't cross my mind!

Anonymous

09:23

Ingroup = self + others in whatever group is contextually relevant

Anonymous

Do you have this concept in Thai too?

Damkerng T.

nods -- But isn't it common between students and their teacher?

Anonymous

What do you mean

Damkerng T.

@snailboat I think in Thai it's mostly relative between the speaker and the person who is referred to with an honorific word.

Anonymous

Let me explain a little

Damkerng T.

09:24

@snailboat I mean, students always call their teacher a sensei, I think?

Anonymous

In your own family, you honor people older than you, right? Older brothers, older sisters, parents, etc.

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

But if you start talking to someone outside the family about your own family members, you don't use any honorifics

Damkerng T.

Eh?

Anonymous

Because now the line is drawn between your family and the rest of the world

Anonymous

09:27

If I'm working at a large company, I have to use honorifics to address the CEO

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

But if I'm talking to a customer, I don't honor the CEO, even if I'm a lowly grunt worker

Damkerng T.

Interesting!

Anonymous

Because now the CEO is in my group, relative to the customer, who is outside the group

Anonymous

So using honorifics on the CEO's name would be like using them for myself

Anonymous

09:29

So it's all contextual

Damkerng T.

Ahh

Anonymous

Students can address their teacher as X-Sensei normally, but the teacher can't call themselves that

Anonymous

Sensei is a term of great respect, used for teachers, doctors, lawyers and so on

Anonymous

Oh, and for manga-ka! :-)

Anonymous

It's not appropriate to show that you hold yourself in high esteem

Damkerng T.

09:32

In Thai, it's always about the social positions of the CEO and myself, but the social position of the customer is also taken into account (I think. I'm not sure because most of the honorific words don't sound offensive or too arrogant to a third or a second person. To put it another way, the honor is nontransferable.)

Anonymous

There's a stock character in Japanese fiction, the ore-sama character. He uses ore for his first person pronoun, but he adds the highly honorific -sama to it! And so everyone knows he's arrogant

Damkerng T.

@snailboat I understand. -- It sounded odd when I first heard that "manga-ka" is also called sensei. :D

Anonymous

Sensei as a noun is usually for teachers, but as an honorific suffix it's more general

Damkerng T.

I think I get it. So you're snailboat to you, but Snail-sensei for MAR and me. :D

Anonymous

Is the social position of the customer considered to be above that of everyone at the company?

Damkerng T.

09:36

But we all can keep things simple and simply call you snailboat. :-)

@snailboat Usually, but it's not exactly above. It's more like usually highly regarded, but it can be regarded as equal sometimes.

Anonymous

People call me lots of things :-) I'm happy with most of them. As long as you don't abbreviate my real name, I'm usually happy.

Anonymous

One of my friends calls me snail mama.

Damkerng T.

LOL

S.R.I

@snailboat the in-group and out-group looks like a weird honorific system only found in Japanese society

I don't think I've come across that in India, TBH

Anonymous

I don't know that much about honorifics cross-linguistically

Damkerng T.

09:38

Oh! And we also have big and small companies.

S.R.I

We do address strangers with a "sir" and "madam" suffix to show respect and formality

But respect and formality are two different things that are completely driven by context and body language.

Anonymous

People on ELL keep doing that to me and I'm not entirely comfortable with it. Especially because so many people here assume I'm male, so they use sir :-)

S.R.I

Ah, just be happy that you're talking to Indians :P

Anonymous

I'm sure other languages have ingroup/outgroup distinctions, though. It just depends on the language.

Anonymous

Honorific speech is grammaticalized in Japanese, so it's as much a linguistic matter as a cultural one.

S.R.I

09:43

I've heard as much. I was never bothered enough to learn the language :-)

Damkerng T.

I think the ingroup/outgroup distinctions could be at work over here when two employees from two companies of different sizes talk to each other in a meeting.

Anonymous

Oh, please explain, @Damkerng-sensei! :-)

Damkerng T.

Argh! I'm no sensei!

Anonymous

See, two can play at that game.

S.R.I

I'm out

Anonymous

09:45

Later, Three Letter Acronym!

Damkerng T.

I meant, I can feel that sometimes when I work in the name of a small company for a large company.

I have to make myself smaller.

S.R.I

Oh, snailboat can't be bothered to type S.R.I, right? :-)

Anonymous

It's so much more typing!

S.R.I

ouch

Anonymous

I'm sorry! I'll type your name properly, @S.R.I :-)

Anonymous

09:49

But I'll be renaming @Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ.

S.R.I

没关系

CopperKettle

10:34

@DamkerngT. - bullseye!

Damkerng T.

:D

CopperKettle

(0:

Damkerng T.

0

A: This is the man who was chasing me last night. This is the man that was chasing me last night

Both work, but that is informal. When the relative clause is a defining one (the present case), you can use both. However if you have a non-defining relative clause, you can't use that. For instance, This is the man, a robber, who was chasing me. This is the man, a robber, that was chasing...

I want to upvote this answer, but I'm not sure about the informal part.

CopperKettle

nods

I recalled there was something like "I'll see you home", but was not sure.

Damkerng T.

I've only heard I'll walk/drive you home.

CopperKettle

10:41

usingenglish.com/forum/threads/17348-see-you-home-walk-you-home

Damkerng T.

I think your accompany is fine too. I mean, what if we don't walk or drive?

CopperKettle

nods

I thought first of chaperone, but since today is not April 1, I decided just barely to mention it.

Damkerng T.

Oh, I'll see you home is in use, too! Come to think of it, I think it makes sense.

CopperKettle

Yes, it seems to be an old expression too!

Damkerng T.

It's just that I haven't heard it before. How about you added that?

Ahh

CopperKettle

10:44

I've added it. (0:

Damkerng T.

Yay!

CopperKettle

(0:

Says he, 'my dear, I'll see you home' (1795)

John O'Keeffe (Irish writer)

John O'Keeffe (24 June 1747 – 4 February 1833) was an Irish actor and dramatist. He wrote a number of farces, amusing dramatic pieces and librettos for pasticcio operas, many of which had great success. Among these are Tony Lumpkin in Town (1778), Love in a Camp (1786), and Omai (1785), an account of the voyages of the Tahitian explorer Omai, and Wild Oats (1791). == Early life == O'Keeffe was born in Dublin in 1747 to Roman Catholic parents and was educated by the Jesuits. After showing a talent for drawing he studied art at an Academy in Dublin, but grew increasingly more interested in ...

O'Keeffe had problems with his eyes ever since he had fallen into the River Liffey in his youth. From the mid-1770s, O'Keeffe increasingly lost his sight, and from 1781 his plays had to be dictated by him.

Damkerng T.

Aww... and yet he could still write many beautiful pieces.

CopperKettle

nods

@DamkerngT. And I'm not sure about the defining stuff. (0:

Damkerng T.

That, too.

Though I think it's in the right direction.

CopperKettle

10:57

nods

Damkerng T.

Maybe I should read it again.

Ah, I think his rule is good, but his examples are not.

CopperKettle

nods

"Now, in his heart, Ahab had some glimpse of this, namely; all my means are sane, my motive and my object mad."

@CopperKettle I think when they wrote it, it was clear that the fact that he decided was the first action before he didn't want to do something. — Regarding the question, I think is also possible to say the wolf had watched her but the continuous form emphasises better even if it was a minute or so earlier. Since the wolf was there first before the girl walked to the forest, the past perfect is used to tell about which actions happened first, that's why past simple is not used. — Subjunctive 8 mins ago

Damkerng T.

I think the "didn't" is very odd.

CopperKettle

Me too, and the explanation failed to set it right in my mind.

Damkerng T.

11:29

Oh-oh-oh, Interstellar is coming up on HBO!

Hanaa

13:25

Hi all!

S.R.I

Hello

Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ.

14:32

@Hanaa Hullo CC @S.R.I

Ravan

@Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ. hello

I left message in other room for you :)

Hanaa

Hi @Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ.

Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ.

\o all.

Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ.

14:49

@snailboat NITRATE!

S.R.I

@Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ. so you have seen @snailboat referring to us as TLAs? :-)

Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ.

Seriously, how easier is typing TLA than typing @ and pressing tab?

S.R.I

@Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ. NITRATE? Technically, it should be NitricOxide, right?

@Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ. Nitrate is NO<sub>3</sub>

grr, I still suck at SO's markdown

Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ.

@Snailsensei

@S.R.I Yes. NO3 -> NOOO

S.R.I

Perfect, I still remember my chemistry :D

Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ.

14:57

So yeah, I meant nitrate.

Catija

@Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ. Are you making bacon?

Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ.

@Catija Heh no. Bacon bacon (from pork) is haram.

And it's half past six here.

(p.m.)

And I've had fish for lunch, like cats.

Hey BTW. Long time no chat!

Catija

@Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ. Yeah, yeah... but it has nitrates in it :P

And, there's always turkey bacon.

Ϻ.Λ.Ʀ.

@Catija So do plants. O_O

So does mineral water, in small amounts.

Jim Reynolds

17:09

21 hours ago, by Damkerng T.

> EXAMPLE 4: "I HAVE LIVED in New York for ten years."

EXPLANATION: The construction "have lived" indicates that some "living" in the past extends a consequence to the present moment. The modifying phrase "for ten years" clarifies that the consequence is due to a continual state: my "living in New York" continued from a point ten years ago to the present moment. Notice, however, that this construction does NOT imply an ongoing state THROUGH the present moment. I could utter this sentences, for instance, while boarding a train in Grand Central Station for my new home in Connecticut, reflect…

@DamkerngT. The speaker may still live in New York, and the statement can mean "for ten years so far," or the speaker may have lived in New York in the past, and is looking back to talk about an extended period in the past that is finished.

Damkerng T.

Thanks! That's what I thought!

Though it doesn't seem like what the book says.

Jim Reynolds

You mean in this excerpt?

I think the excerpt here implies that it can be either.

Damkerng T.

Yes. It seems like the book means to say that it can never mean "ten years so far". For that, we need ''ve been living".

Jim Reynolds

But it says it here, by implication.

It says that the language doesn't necessarily imply that the state (of living there) continues through the moment.

Damkerng T.

Let's walk through it together.

> "The construction "have lived" indicates that some "living" in the past extends a consequence to the present moment."

Jim Reynolds

17:18

Meaning that it might.

Damkerng T.

What do you think it means?

Jim Reynolds

Well, it's a basic repetition of the standard "the past with a connection to the present"

People love to say that, though I think it's useless.

About the present perfect, I mean.

Damkerng T.

Yes, but it sets out the part "living" into the past, and connects its "consequence" to the present.

You have to read it like you don't know English.

Read it like a robot, and you'll understand my point.

Jim Reynolds

Well, it's poorly worded. But I can read it as including that a consequence of the past living to the present is continued living!

Haha.

Robots have the gift of pure logic.

Hanaa

Like a robot @DamkerngT. ^_ç

Damkerng T.

17:21

At the end of the paragraph, there is a sentence suggesting that we should use "been living" if we want it to mean "so far".

:-)

One advantage of reading like a robot is it's easier to predict how a learner may read the same thing.

Jim Reynolds

I disagree with the statement that it implies "to the moment".

Hanaa

I agree about have been living

Jim Reynolds

The present perfect often refers to the past, past, past, past.

Hanaa

because it is a continuous action

Damkerng T.

Hmm...

Hanaa

17:23

that have relation with the present

Damkerng T.

I'm not sure I follow.

Jim Reynolds

I disagree with that way of explaining it, Hanaa. Although it's a common explanation

Hanaa

@JimReynolds but which past?

Jim Reynolds

I ate breakfast yesterday.

That statement has a connection to the present, because I said it now!

Hanaa

The near past or the continuous?@JimReynolds

Jim Reynolds

17:25

I'm not familiar with a concept of a "continuous past".

And I'm not a grammar expert, by the way. I just like to sound like one sometimes.

Damkerng T.

Ah, Jim was arguing that, if "connected to the present" was a good way to explain the present perfect, saying "I ate breakfast yesterday" would be fine.

'cause the speaker just says it "now".

Jim Reynolds

I've kissed a lot of frogs in my lifetime.

Damkerng T.

Which is a very fine argument, imho.

Jim Reynolds

That can be past.

CopperKettle

Good evening. I'll lurk some.

Jim Reynolds

17:26

Good evening, lurker.

Hanaa

Good evening!

Jim Reynolds

There are BE / AmE differences in use of the present perfect.

BE is "more strict" about needing to use the present perfect in certain situations.

Americans often feel it's a free choice when referring to a finished past state or event.

To my grief, I have not yet read Pizzleston and Higgles on this.

Henroff and Puddleston?

:D

CopperKettle

Huddleston and Pullum

Page 145, I guess

Jim Reynolds

:-)

CopperKettle

(0:

Damkerng T.

17:32

nods -- There is a recent question in which an answer mentioned that "I have put the water in the freezer" sounds a little weird. I speculated that the answerer is an AmE speaker,

CopperKettle

No, starting from page 139 is better ("The Perfect Tense")

Damkerng T.

15

Q: What is wrong with "have put" in "I have put the water in the freezer"?

How to talk about putting water in the freezer to become ice? I have to tell the child that I have put the water in the freezer and after some time it will convert into ice. http://ell.stackexchange.com/a/76262/26777 As a side note "have put" sounds a little weird here. Maybe someone ca...

present-perfect

CopperKettle

Of course, you'd need to peek into some earlier pages to make sense of To, Tr, Td etc.

(the time markers for Time deictic, Time referential, Time whatever it is)

Jim Reynolds

Did you say it's time I went on a diet?

Hanaa

@DamkerngT. Is the present perfect here wrong?

Jim Reynolds

17:35

Oh .. no. Time deictic. Never mind.

Damkerng T.

@Hanaa I don't think it's wrong, but one speaker said it sounds a little weird.

And it's like mind-reading to guess why they think it's weird.

Jim Reynolds

How does it sound to you, Hanaa?

And do you have more of a "British" or "American" English learning background?

Hanaa

I put the the water is better for me

because the action finished in the past

Jim Reynolds

I've put the water in the freezer, and I'm now waiting for it to turn into ice.

How's that?

Hanaa

even though he is waiting for it to turn into ice

The action of puting finished, what remains is the action of waiting

Jim Reynolds

17:40

I have read Shakespeare.

Is that ok, if I read him in high school. And I'm now 50?

I won't say middle-aged, because I don't plan to die.

Damkerng T.

I've just watched Interstellar!

CopperKettle

(0:

Hanaa

:D

Jim Reynolds

:-)

Hanaa

In fact, you'd better say: i read Shakespeare

CopperKettle

17:42

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying." (a famous quote by Woody Allen)

Hanaa

because you finished reading

Jim Reynolds

lol

CopperKettle

(0:

Jim Reynolds

In reality, we fairly often use the present perfect for finished past states and events.

Hanaa

No one can be immortal

CopperKettle

17:43

Except God and tardigrades.

Jim Reynolds

CopperKettle will use Hoogle and Putnam to explain why.

CopperKettle

Heh

Jim Reynolds

What's a tardigrade?

CopperKettle

Tardigrade

Tardigrades (also known as water bears or moss piglets) are water-dwelling, eight-legged, segmented micro-animals. They were first discovered by the German pastor Johann August Ephraim Goeze in 1773. The name Tardigrada (meaning "slow stepper") was given three years later by the Italian biologist Lazzaro Spallanzani. They have been sighted from mountaintops to the deep sea, from tropical rain forests to the Antarctic. Tardigrades are notable for being perhaps the most durable of known organisms; they are able to survive extreme conditions that would be rapidly fatal to nearly all other known life...

Jim Reynolds

Star Trek creature?

CopperKettle

17:44

They can survive in open space.

Jim Reynolds

O.O

Hardy little buggers.

CopperKettle

Good evening, @snailboat! I hope you have had a good night's sleep.

"They can withstand temperature ranges from −458 °F (−272.222 °C) to 300 °F (149 °C),[7] pressures about six times greater than those found in the deepest ocean trenches, ionizing radiation at doses hundreds of times higher than the lethal dose for a human, and the vacuum of outer space.[8] "

Anonymous

I got up earlier when I was talking about waking up :-)

Jim Reynolds

Hal: Report time in California.

CopperKettle

(0:

09:45

Jim Reynolds

17:46

snailboat's gizzard starts quivering when people say when and when'nt we can use the present perfect.

CopperKettle

hmm

Jim Reynolds

And it quivered when we were talking about it. And it has been a-quivering since.

Hanaa

@JimReynolds !

Jim Reynolds

:D

Well, it's nighttime here in Taipei. Good-night language lovers.

Hanaa

Good night!

Damkerng T.

17:50

Good night!

An interesting exchange between a robot and a human being in the movie:

> A robot: It's impossible.
A human being: But it's necessary!

Hanaa

I liked it

Jim Reynolds

Did that start to heat up your circuits?

You don't like it anymore?

Damkerng T.

Oh, it was tingling. ;-)

Transcript for