« first day (424 days earlier)      last day (3112 days later) » 

18:00
Notice: @DEAD's views do not necessarily reflect those of Stack Exchange Inc., its officers, executives, shareholders, nor any reasonable person.
:D
I still believe that we can use "with"
2 hours ago, by Cardinal
> In Persian we have some words with pronunciation has changed over time, but the spelling is still the same.
That's not felicitous
@JimReynolds Not even his own's.
@Cardinal Then you shouldn't use a clause after it.
Of course you can form sentences with many different words.
But you have to make them work.
We can say *with pronunciations that/which have changed over time, but whose spellings are still the same.
nods -- what Jim and DEAD said.
18:04
We can say with pronunciations that/which have changed over time, but whose spellings are still the same.
Why that "that" cannot be omitted ?
0
Q: The meaning of "in the rack"

MoriOn this audio file, at 1:40, what does in the rack mean? It's what I hear: I got three cars in the rack, it's all over the place down here, you know. Source: The ILI English Series, Intermediate 2, Page 87

Good question
I like this guy's questions
I don't know, but I know that that that can't be omitted.
@Cardinal Yes, I saw.
I haven't checked out the context, but three cars in the rack makes me think of something like this:
@DamkerngT. let's get this worked out
18:08
@Cardinal That that is playing the role of the subject of the following clause, so you cannot omit it.
@Avicenna So, it (Robot) declares that the modal "will" can convey multiple moods
@dbliss Hi! @dbliss -- Welcome to the room!
@Avicenna Hmm, not enough explanation IMO.
@Cardinal nods.
So can "pronunciations".
18:09
@DamkerngT. look at the last yellow box in your answer. you stand by that?
Hullo @DBL. Welcome to chat
@DEAD Complete it please.
@dbliss Yes, on the condition that you must not read the paraphrase as standard English.
@Avicenna I'm still giving it some thought.
@DamkerngT. you say, "it is predictable that i have met you before."
18:10
@Avicenna Ah- I see thanks
They're paraphrases, a bit like "gloss", and you have to read them the way someone who doesn't know ins and outs of English or think of English as a foreign language would.
@dbliss I didn't say that.
@Cardinal You're welcome!
The exact words are "It is predictable that some of you have met me before".
As a paraphrase of Some of you will have met me before.
@DamkerngT. right. ok. do you see that that interpretation is different from the one in the other answer?
Not really. (Again, read my above messages first.)
18:13
:))
@dbliss If I may ask, are you a native speaker?
@DamkerngT. let's establish the two possible interpretations. one is the one you gave. the other is, "it is predictable that in the future we will be able to say some of you have met me."
No. Again, I didn't say/write that.
There was nothing about "in the future" in my answer.
Please read my answer carefully.
Wait a minute, what did you mean by other.
@DamkerngT. slow down. i said that. that is my interpretation.
When you wrote "the other is, "it is predictable that in the future we will be able to say some of you have met me.""
18:15
@DamkerngT. and yes, i am as native as they come.
I was confused because in the comments on the main site, you were talking about two answers, not two interpretations.
t is predictable that in the future we will be able to say some of you have met me."
The sentence, I will have met you before, doesn't convay that message.
@dbliss That's pretty much what I guessed. American, probably?
@DamkerngT. yes. there are two answers with two interpretations.
@DamkerngT. yes, american.
@dbliss Now, it's your turn, then. Because two answers share the same interpretation.
18:17
@DamkerngT. i've stated two interpretations in this chat. are we on the same page with that?
@DamkerngT. with what they are?
One of the most difficult things I found is trying to convince native speakers of English to understand English and explanations about English usage from the view of learners.
@dbliss That's probably okay. It's probably the best if you repeat the two interpretations again and maybe which of them is associated (or not associated) with which answers.
@DBL if you're on desktop computer, please hover over a message with a mouse and use the reply function on the right. That way, we can keep track of conversation in a better way.
@DamkerngT. you say in your answer, "it is predictable that some of you have met me before." i say now, "it is predictable that in the future we will be able to say some of you have met me." these are the two interpretations i want to talk about right now.
@DamkerngT. do you see these as having different meanings?
18:21
Okay, what's your point?
Agreed. They aren't the same.
@DamkerngT. my position is that the meaning you propose is wrong. the meaning you propose does not match the meaning of the original statement.
@dbliss I like talking about the time travel
Maybe you have to understand first why I paraphrased it that way,
@DamkerngT. maybe, but i doubt it. feel free to elaborate.
but could you explain more about the bit you think the meaning I propose does not match the meaning of the original?
18:23
@DamkerngT. sure.
@DamkerngT. i'm on my phone so i need to leave to copy the original in order to paste it here.
I understand.
@DamkerngT. the original is, "some of you will have met me before."
@DamkerngT. do we agree about that?
If you want us to help post anything or want to refer to anything, I can help.
@dbliss Yes, that's the original.
@DamkerngT. the "will" here does imply a future orientation, even though it's not future tense.
18:26
@DamkerngT. it does not imply a prediction about the present.
I guess this is where we're going to disagree. :-)
@dbliss OK, this is just wrong.
@DEAD speak your piece.
Well, for now, I'm @Dam's scarecrow.
May I suggest that there is something about the future that might be implied conceptually in some of you will have met me? It works like this:.If we go around the room and check (a future hypothetical), we will find that some of you have met me.
18:28
@dbliss In your dialect, does this make sense? They will be having dinner by now.
@DEAD oh, you know what, there are two possible interpretations.
I'm not even familiar with the situation, but a perfect aspect with a modal isn't necessarily hinting at future.
@DEAD yes, i see both interpretations now.
@JimReynolds That may be possible, but I don't think it's the intended meaning.
@DamkerngT. yes, i see what you meant now. in america, i'd say your interpretation has a bit more rhetorical flourish than mine. but both are allowed.
18:30
Right. It's conceptual.
@JimReynolds Sounds like prophets
@dbliss nods
It means: I assume some of you have already met me.
@DamkerngT. cool. i'll remove my original comments i guess. but it should be made clear that there are two different possible meanings.
@DamkerngT. thanks for being willing to talk this out!
Let's flip a table for all this agreement
18:32
@dbliss I think the other possible meaning you're thinking about is already covered in the other sub-question, where the OP added tomorrow.
(/¯◡ ‿ ◡)/¯ ~ ┻━┻
@dbliss No problem! I'm glad it's sorted out, too!
I wanted to see an escalating conflict.
What does "some of you will have met me" mean?


Ok, I was kidding :D
@JimReynolds Hah!
18:34
@Cardinal !
> The list of companies includes Name1, Name2, ... Name12 and Name13, to name a few. (I guessed how to avoid the use of "and others" together with "includes"). Thanks, Jim.
It doesn't mean an exclamation mark, Jim
Evening, @Avi!
What does, Yesterday, some of you will have predicted we'd meet mean?
@JimReynolds That sentence would confuse me if I heard it.
Because I'd expect would have predicted.
18:36
9 secs ago, by Damkerng T.
Because I'd expect would have predicted.
Jinx
@CowperKettle Logically, use includes or to name a few, unless you wish to particularly emphasize that there are more.
Evening @CowperKettle!
Then it would likely be just to name a few.
Also, (just) to name a few may feel too casual for a scientific report.
@JimReynolds Ah, so "to name a few" also does not combine with "includes"
18:41
It can, but ...
My natural choice is probably among others.
It's not a report this time, but a news report for a website, a chem. industry news piece.
So can and others.
This kind of stuff:
> Each year the event provides a space where representatives of governmental agencies and companies operating large-tonnage and small-tonnage LNG projects, as well as global customer firms (Europe and Asia-Pacific), technology providers and equipment suppliers gather together to discuss strategically important industry issues.
18:42
A stylistic and rhetorical issue.
Oh. That's a marketing-like genre.
It goes there quite happily, if the purpose is to emphasize. Like and many more.
But insert just.
I sleep. Night-night!
@JimReynolds Sleep tighty-tight!
Bye, Jim!
18:48
@JimReynolds Don't worry, I'll hold the line
I think he will have slept before
Word of the midnight: bunker fuel
I wonder why it's "bunker" and not "marine vessel"
spent 1234 cycles to understand the meaning of something Cardinal just said.
@CowperKettle Is this bunker not a bunker?
not, it's 'marine vessel
'
18:54
Ah, I see. The sense can be specialized when it's about ships.
The main sense for me is "strong place" or "strong room". -- Not sure if it was fortunate or unfortunate! :D
@DamkerngT. I don't have any idea, too
:D
@Cardinal Haha!
Apparently, it can mean a certain room in a ship: "a small room or large container where you store coal"
@DEAD gasp!
@Cardinal About omitting that, which, who..., you need to look at the word after thoes pronouns, if it's a verb don't omit it, but if it's a noun feel free to drop it. The rule is, when there is a verb after relative pronouns, they are the subjects of the clause, and if there is a noun after them, they are the objects of the clause.
19:01
Good night
@Avicenna I prefer to analyse the sentence to judge about the role of the pronoun
@DEAD However, "below" is not an adjective in sharp contrast to "above"
(I know bellow is a verb)
Night all!
@Cardinal I cringe to nouns being modified by "above" too.
@Avicenna \o Get that throat some rest
@DamkerngT. yeah. so my interpretation does imply that future tense is being used, right?
19:05
@DEAD Why? It is as adjective as good (?)
@dbliss It may be possible, depending on context. I think the future reading is unlikely in the original sentence.
@DamkerngT. no, not future. [blank] will have happened. what tense is that?
@Cardinal Nope.
It's mostly a prep or an adverb.
@dbliss To discuss this, we have to talk about some basic concepts first.
@dbliss Tense, meaning what?
19:06
@DamkerngT. go for it.
Syntactically, you've got no "future" tenses in English @DBL.
Traditionally, English grammar has three main tenses, right? The present, the past, and the future. (Let's ignore aspects, like the perfect and the progressive, for now.)
It is predicative adjective surprisingly
In modern grammars, it's more established that English has only two tenses: past and non-past.
@DamkerngT. you and DEAD just contradicted each other. should we resolve that?
19:08
@dbliss Huh?
@DamkerngT. ok, resolved.
Okay. :D -- In modern grammars, tense is more about forms.
So, to answer the question [blank] will have happened. what tense is that? -- The best answer is probably it has no tense.
(In modern grammar, the line between the semantics and syntax is more clear-cut, I think.)
So, I guess that when you asked about [blank] will have happened. what tense is that?, you were asking about the semantics, i.e., what time frame this sentence is located it.
@DamkerngT. naa, i meant syntax.
If you adopted the two-tense system: past and non-past, it'd be easy to see that both the present and the future are collapsed into the same time.
@DamkerngT. but i see it's not as simple as i assumed.
19:12
Tense is always so annoyingly complicated.
Even calculus can't cause a headache this fast.
Maybe John Lawler can explain this to you better than me. Anyway, here is a comment he wrote to an old answer. I'm sure there's better ones but this is the best I can find at the moment.
Right. This is just the epistemic sense of will -- confident prediction -- as opposed to the epistemic sense of must -- logical necessity. All modal use is less assertive than a simple assertion -- You've heard the news -- because all modality raises the questions of possibility, probability, and evidence. — John Lawler May 28 '14 at 14:25
1
Q: will have + past participle

user77171In the following two sentences “Your will have heard the news, so I need not repeat it.” “They will have received our letter now. ” , how to understand the "will have + past participle"? Is it future perfect tense or some kind of guess? Thank you so much!

@DamkerngT. well it seems like i'd want to familiarize myself with modern linguistics to really understand all this.
Maybe. I don't know what you already know! :D
@DamkerngT. i'm good with what you've said so far.
@DEAD Don't jump into conclusion pal
19:16
Jumps into calculation
I don't why I typed calculation
I think I should go to bed
@Cardinal Rest well!
Thank you all, BBL
I'm the last man standing
The only guy left isn't a guy, but a robot.
19:18
That isn't a fair fight, so I can pretend to be winning.
Keep it together DEAD. All of this is a cheesy Bollywood movie.
19:31
This is unexpected, again!
A-ha!
contemplating writing a question asking "Who is the best punter in the NFL?" :P
Let's predict this election's next move so we won't be surprised anymore.
Stoney will nominate!
OMG OMG OMG only if!
That would be nice!
Nice is an understatement
Indeed. Very true indeed!

« first day (424 days earlier)      last day (3112 days later) »