Language Overflow

M.A.R.

05:45

@Cardinal Which one?

Zootopia?

N1ng

07:30

!!flip/SWIMS

Ellbot

(づ๑ʖ๑)┛︵SMIWS

M.A.R.

07:54

!!flip/(づ๑ʖ๑)┛︵SMIWS

Ellbot

◟(`ﮧ´ ◟ ))づ๑ʖ๑(┛︵SWIMS

M.A.R.

08:59

Hey @Jim

jimsug

09:12

Hey hey

Long time, etc

I saw something about Arrowfar something something.

Or... is that something that we're not talking about, here?

M.A.R.

09:22

@jimsug Hmph?

@jimsug I have no idea what you're talking about

There was a reunion with Arrow a while ago

But that was a while ago

What's recent is that a troll is upset from Snail, so shitposts on ELL every now and then.

@jimsug Welcome back. I missed your Australianness

user2684291

I haven't seen the feller as of late.

M.A.R.

10 Famous Actors Who Literally Do The Same Thing In Every Movie

►

This is accurate

jimsug

@M.A.R. Ah, fair enough. Slightly frustrating, but nothing too serious, I'm sure.

M.A.R.

@jimsug No one reads the posts anyway

jimsug

09:45

Indeed.

Cardinal

11:08

@M.A.R. The one which was about the music, or something like that!

M.A.R.

@Cardinal The music? What music?

Cardinal

I don't know, it was a girl with an instrument I guess!

M.A.R.

Oh, you mean ''Sing''?

Cardinal

@M.A.R. I think so.

M.A.R.

You shouldn't have used an article there.

''The one which was about music''

Not ''the one which was about ~~the~~ music''

Cardinal

11:11

@M.A.R. Ah- I see.

0

Q: Confuse between Too and SO "His eyes were ...... bad that he couldn't read the number plate of the car in front."?

Dears, I got this question from Cambridge website (http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/test-your-english/general-english/) His eyes were ...... bad that he couldn't read the number plate of the car in front. 1) such 2) too 3) so 4) very I answered TOO , but the answer was SO , can anybody exp...

Why is "such" wrong?

M.A.R.

Because there isn't an NP after the blank

It's just ''bad'', which is an AdjP

So you use ''so''

@Cardinal Very stupid tagging

I'm gonna write an answer to that

Cardinal

@M.A.R. :)) I didn't come up with better ones.

@M.A.R. YaY!

M.A.R.

11:33

Meh

Two answers in.

Khan answered it sufficiently

I'll just edit

Cardinal

But no one said why "such" is wrong

RichF

hello

Cardinal

@RichF Hello o/

M.A.R.

@RichF Hello, welcome to the room

@Cardinal And that's not the main question at hand

RichF

@Cardinal If you want to use the word "such", the sentence would have to change some. We don't say "such but". You could say, though, "His eyes were such that he couldn't read the number plate of the car in front."

ack, I meant "such bad" when I wrote "such but".

Do either of you understand reputation scoring well? There is something on mine this morning I do not understand.

M.A.R.

11:45

@RichF I'm known to know this stuff or people that know this stuff

RichF

For a certain answer, the drop down reputation box says I have +15 today. But there are no up votes or down votes.

M.A.R.

When was the last time you clicked the dropdown?

RichF

0

A: "nor" after a usual negative sentence

The word "nor" in this context is preferred. The clause "attempt to board the train" is positive. Preceding it by or does not in itself reverse that positive. However, in context of the full sentence, native speakers would know it is meant as negative. A purpose the nor provides is to act as a ...

M.A.R.

@RichF This is supposedly the anomaly?

RichF

I just checked it again. still +15 in the dropdown, and 0 votes.

M.A.R.

11:48

That accept gained you 15 reps.

Having an answer accepted gains you 15 reps, regardless of the answer votes.

RichF

I don't really care about the score, just confused because they don't agree. Ack!!! I missed the accept. <blushes>

Thank you

M.A.R.

It also sticks the answer to the top no matter how many higher voted answers there are.

@RichF Anytime. I was expecting a tough question :)

RichF

That was my "just got up" question. :)

M.A.R.

The timeline says your answer was accepted six hours after you posted it.

RichF

Cool, thanks. I don't think my 898 rep is enough to see that. Or I just don't know how.

M.A.R.

11:58

@RichF It's not built in the UI, but every post has one.

You have to either manually type it or use a userscript that adds a button for it

ell.stackexchange.com/posts/117930/timeline

For instance.

Deja Vu

We were talking about just the same thing yesterday

RichF

@M.A.R. oh, so in the URL address bar you add "/timeline" right after question number?

M.A.R.

Yep

CowperKettle

\o all

RichF

@CowperKettle hello

CowperKettle

Good evening, 5-hydroxytryptamine!

There's so much of you in today's chat that chat should start having hallucinations

(0:

It's a blue nondescript evening here

M.A.R.

12:12

@CowperKettle \o

CowperKettle

15 minutes to sunset

RichF

do you mean me? I don't see a "5-hydro..."

M.A.R.

@CowperKettle It's a gray nondescript pre-nap time for me

@RichF He means me

RichF

@M.A.R. can I just call you C6H12O6 for short?

M.A.R.

Or you can call me MAR

RichF

12:16

even shorter!

time for me to go. bye

M.A.R.

Cya

Damkerng T.

Good evening, everyone!

M.A.R.

\o

Damkerng T.

Hmm... I think I like or better than nor in that sentence.

> Please do not enter the safety zone nor attempt to board the train.

But I'm not sure what the style guide books would have on this.

Man_From_India

12:31

1

Q: Dropping "about" in " I'm asking about whether"

I'm asking about whether he is married or not. I'm asking whether.. . Are they both correct?

prepositions

M.A.R.

@DamkerngT. Me too

Man_From_India

A fine question. I know what the answer is. But looking for a grammatical explanation. Let's see how the answerers end up posting there.

Similar interesting things :

> People began asking question whether the new system would be successful.

vs

> How to ask a question about whether it's okay to drop this bold "about"?

Damkerng T.

I think it's better not to have about there.

I think some people might sometimes use it, but if I'm not mistaken, a careful writer wouldn't use it.

Man_From_India

@DamkerngT. You mean in this sentence: "How to ask a question about whether it's okay to drop this bold "about"?"

Damkerng T.

I think it's better not to have it.

Man_From_India

12:42

I too think most people would drop about there. And I think that is natural too. But I have doubt about this sentence : "How to ask a question about whether it's okay to drop this bold "about"?"

M.A.R.

12:58

in Tavern on the Meta on Meta Stack Exchange Chat, 2 mins ago, by Telkitty

CowperKettle

13:51

> The studies were performed using the automatic powder diffractometer Ultima IV-285 (Rigaku) with the following parameters:

can I use the here at first mention?

user2684291

@Man_From_India You either "have doubts" or "are in doubt".

CowperKettle

14:25

> The samples were prepared by dry-pressing the studied mixtures into a mono-Si low-background sample holder (depth 0.5 mm, inner area diameter 20 mm). (or should it be "0.5 mm depth, 20 mm inner diameter"?)

user2684291

14:39

Phrase of the day: pinch and a punch for the first of the month

2

Damkerng T.

@CowperKettle Sounds fine to me, FWIW.

user2684291

@DamkerngT. Why can "the" be used there? Would you say "using the hammer with the following parameters"?

@CowperKettle I would go with the latter.

Damkerng T.

@user2684291 I take it the same way as those the directory /etc and such in programming documents.

@user2684291 But really, do we need why?

I usually think we are better off to operate in any language without asking why. It just is.

user2684291

Huh.

@DamkerngT. I'm unable to surmise your intended insinuation.

Damkerng T.

No, no insinuation.

Sorry if I said something you could take the wrong way.

If there's anything, I'm perhaps just too tired with these grammar rules.

user2684291

14:53

Insinuation = hint.

I didn't mean anything else by that.

Damkerng T.

To me, they're artificial.

I see! No worries, then. :D

Anyway, I'm not saying that those rules aren't useful.

user2684291

Hm, apparently the meaning of "hint" is obsolete, and nowadays the word has negative connotations.

However, a native speaker of English said the exact same thing I just did (they didn't actually say "surmise", though) with no other connotations.

Damkerng T.

@user2684291 Interesting. Maybe it worked as intended in the context.

user2684291

1. a. trans. To introduce tortuously, sinuously, indirectly, or by devious methods; to introduce by imperceptible degrees or subtle means.

I don't know if what comes after the semi-colon is another completely different meaning or what.

7. To signify or express indirectly; to give to understand; to hint, suggest, imply. Obs. or arch.

This is a separate definition, though.

Damkerng T.

To me, insinuate and insinuation are two separate words.

user2684291

15:02

5. The suggestion or hinting of anything indirectly, covertly, or by allusion or implication. Also with pl., an indirect or covert suggestion.

Damkerng T.

Hmm... Maybe it's only because I come from a language that roots and suffixes aren't part of its fundamentals.

user2684291

That's for "insinuation".

Damkerng T.

It always means something bad to me.

A vicious hint, so to speak.

user2684291

6. To convey (a statement or notion) by indirect suggestion; to hint obliquely: now generally with implication of cunning or underhand action.

This is for "insinuate".

@DamkerngT. What's the difference?

Damkerng T.

@user2684291 Insinuation seems to have a fixed meaning to me.

Insinuate is a bit more flexible

I think I think of them like those words that share the same root but have developed their own specialized meanings.

user2684291

15:07

Right.

I don't share that sentiment.

Haha.

Damkerng T.

nods -- We all have our own copy of the language. :D

user2684291

@DamkerngT. Do you know what the first sentient AI software will say?

Damkerng T.

(I suppose my use of copy could make a good discussion. But not now. :D)

@user2684291 Hmm... I'm not sure. I think it must've already said that.

Or maybe I have to be a bit more careful with the definition of sentient.

user2684291

Shoot, I meant it as a joke.

CowperKettle

@user2684291 thankx!

Damkerng T.

15:11

Ah, I'm slow now. :D

@user2684291 Hello! I guess?

user2684291

Anyway, it will say: "I'm a ware."

2

Damkerng T.

LOL

user2684291

Heh.

CowperKettle

What if I have two diffractograms that were actually recorded, and one diffractogram that was calculated from structural molecular data. How could I call this diffractogram? Calculational?

user2684291

And when it gets pirated, "I'm a warez."

Damkerng T.

15:12

Haha!

@CowperKettle I don't know how diffractograms work.

CowperKettle

I will write "... compared with a theoretical diffractogram calculated using structural data"

Damkerng T.

But I guess it could be actual vs. calculated or approximated or reconstructed.

CowperKettle

Nice! Thank you!

Approximated is nice.

Damkerng T.

:D -- I think your version is understandable, BTW.

@CowperKettle Ah, I can think of another good choice now: computed.

(I just drew the parallel between diffractograms and spectrograms.)

CowperKettle

Nice! Thank you!

Damkerng T.

15:28

You're welcome!

CowperKettle

> However, some recorded reflections are absent in the computed X-ray diffractogram, which indicates the presence in the studied samples of one or several additional phases (polymorphic modifications).

user2684291

@DamkerngT. Do you calculate/compute -grams at all? Aren't graphs merely representations of some data?

CowperKettle

Whatever that may be. O_O

Damkerng T.

@user2684291 According to the history of spectrogram, it wasn't originally "computed".

CowperKettle

@user2684291 If you are planning to create a new drug molecule, you might first build its model in a computer, then compute what its X-ray diffractogram might look like.

Damkerng T.

15:29

Nowadays, I think we can assume that most spectrograms are computed.

I think we can think of this like those seismographs (or seismogram?).

If your apparatus looks like this, it wouldn't be a computed one.

But this probably is:

CowperKettle

I think that in my text they mean "simulated", "theoretical". But I haven't the text of another study they are referring to.

Man_From_India

It's very very disheartening to see that by foot is marked incorrect in exams (from the link one answer there provides). Well, true that it's on foot that is more common, probably by a huge margin. But still by foot is not incorrect, which one of the answers there states clearly.

0

Q: **by/on** foot."?

Suppose I am trying to tell someone, how much distance google maps shows if we take car or on foot. How would I say this? "My house is 10KM from here by car and 8 KM by/on foot." I think "by" is used for means of transport but is it correct to use this here or "on" foot sounds appropriate?

prepositions

They're interchangeable in both of your examples. Switch them both and the meaning remains the same. — Giambattista Jul 27 '16 at 5:20

hmmm, not convincing.

CowperKettle

15:48

> ^[\d,.]+$

M.A.R.

@CowperKettle No swearing in this chat

CowperKettle

How do I write a regexp that shows only segments that contain numbers, dots, commas and (always!) either an opening or a closing bracket, or both?

I want to select all fields like this:

> 4.953(12)

But zero fields like this:

> 4.953

M.A.R.

@CowperKettle I asked on an SO chat

Here are the answers

CowperKettle

ah, stupid me..

M.A.R.

in SO Close Vote Reviewers on Stack Overflow Chat, 1 min ago, by TheLostMind

@M.A.R. - sample IO plz :P

in SO Close Vote Reviewers on Stack Overflow Chat, 1 min ago, by Sam

@M.A.R. Yes.

in SO Close Vote Reviewers on Stack Overflow Chat, 1 min ago, by Tunaki

@M.A.R. you don't

Though it's not a chat about RegEx.

Man_From_India

16:25

0

Q: By vs through prepositions

In these two sentences– It is through advertisements that we are informed of new products and events. ...we are also reminded by advertisements to save for the future and spend wisely, subtly but just as often. What's the difference between by and through in these sentences? Why can...

word-choice prepositions word-difference

Damkerng T.

@CowperKettle You could try ^[0-9.,]+$?[0-9.,]+$|[0-9.,]+$[0-9.,]+$?$

Man_From_India

> It is through/by advertisements that we are informed of new products and events.

Damkerng T.

(Remove ^ and $ if you don't want it to match the whole line.)

Man_From_India

I think here it's interchangeable.

Damkerng T.

@Man_From_India Hmm... somehow through sounds much much better to me.

Man_From_India

16:26

> we are also reminded by through advertisements to save for the future and spend wisely, subtly but just as often.

Damkerng T.

Hmm... I like by better in this sentence.

Man_From_India

In here I think by is not possible by any means.

@DamkerngT. that's true. But I was trying to make the point if by is by any margin possible.

You know the comment under the question claims that both prepositions are interchangeable in both sentences. But I doubt, especially in case of second sentence.

Damkerng T.

What comment? -- Reading ...

CowperKettle

@DamkerngT. Thank you!

Damkerng T.

@CowperKettle Welcome!

Man_From_India

16:30

And I couldn't make anything off the only answer there.

They're interchangeable in both of your examples. Switch them both and the meaning remains the same. — Giambattista Jul 27 '16 at 5:20

Here u go.

Damkerng T.

Hmm... I think yes and no. They are the same, yet they aren't the same.

The deleted answer looks correct to me, actually, FWIW.

Not sure why the -1.

Man_From_India

Oops sorry made a mistake here. You are right, in the second sentence only by is possible.

through there is very very uncommon, IMO, if not incorrect.

CowperKettle

17:12

@user2684291 Are you a native speaker of English?

In case I apply your suggestion (0:

Will Hunting

18:05

Hello @snailplane, lol.

Will Hunting

18:16

@snailplane I am thinking of buying CGEL but it is very expensive. Have you found it to be really, really good?

Anonymous

@WillHunting It's the best grammatical description of the English language currently available, but I'm not sure if it would be the right book for you. It's a reference grammar, designed mainly for use by linguists and teachers, and although students can use it as well they're not the book's intended audience.

Anonymous

Did you pick up a copy of A Student's Introduction to English Grammar?

Anonymous

That book is like a tiny version of CGEL, with about 80% of the content removed, and a little bit added.

Anonymous

When I say "best" I mean to say it's currently the most accurate, and in my opinion more theoretically coherent than A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk et al 1985).

Anonymous

@WillHunting It's good to see you again, blue square :-)

2

Will Hunting

18:26

@snailplane I did. Can I read the big book without reading the small book first? I don't have a degree in linguistics or English. It seems I can.

Anonymous

You can. But I thought if you looked through the little book, it could help you decide if their approach to grammar is right for you.

Anonymous

That's why I asked.

Will Hunting

Well, I don't know much about grammar in the first place, but I think I like what I see so far. I think I will get the big book then.

CowperKettle

@WillHunting You can try the pirated version and then read the legit one

Will Hunting

@CowperKettle Yes, I know already. =)

Anonymous

18:32

@WillHunting The first two chapters are the most important, and they're available for free online without pirating them.

Anonymous

cambridge.org/assets/linguistics/cgel/chap1.pdf

Anonymous

cambridge.org/assets/linguistics/cgel/chap2.pdf

Will Hunting

@snailplane Aha. I think from now, I will just stick to using CGEL and ODE. =)

Anonymous

So if you'd like to read those chapters, I think it could help you decide if you want to spend the money on CGEL.

Anonymous

It is definitely an expensive book.

Anonymous

18:35

Chapter one introduces some of the general terms and ideas, and explains how they're used in the book. Chapter two gives an overview of the rest of the book (minus chapters 18 through 20, which are on morphology and then a brief chapter on punctuation co-authored by Geoffrey Nunberg).

Anonymous

So chapter two will cover chapters three through seventeen in short form, and give you a general idea of how their syntactic theory fits together.

Will Hunting

@snailplane I was thinking of getting SOED, but I prefer a single volume contemporary dictionary to a double volume historical dictionary, so I settled for ODE.

Anonymous

Most people now use the OED online.

Will Hunting

@snailplane Well, the chapter on punctuation is very important to me, the most important actually. =)

Anonymous

The chapter on punctuation is co-authored by Geoffrey Nunberg, the author of The Linguistics of Punctuation.

Anonymous

18:38

The Linguistics of Punctuation is very technical and tries to fit the analysis of punctuation into a sort of generative framework, and although it's rather neat theoretically, I can't really recommend it for most people.

Will Hunting

I also got the best grammars and dictionaries for French, German, Italian, and Spanish!

Anonymous

The chapter in CGEL is based on the same general ideas, but it's a little bit briefer and isn't phrased in terms of generative linguistics, so that's a plus.

Will Hunting

I see. I am disappointed in lots of punctuation books, too incomplete. I like Grammatically Correct by Stilman.

Anonymous

It provides a good overview of punctuation – one of the only descriptive linguistic approaches to punctuation, since most linguists don't pay much attention to the topic – but it won't answer 100% of your questions about punctuation, as it's only one chapter long.

Anonymous

Most books on punctuation are style guides, suggestions of how you should use punctuation. Nunberg is a descriptive linguist, so he writes descriptions of how people do use punctuation (in edited Standard English writing).

Will Hunting

18:42

@snailplane I think I should check out that book then...

@snailplane I did post flick/flip through in the end, a few min ago on ELU.

M.A.R.

@snailplane What do they say about dog's bollocks?

Anonymous

@M.A.R. Nothing, I think.

M.A.R.

!!flip

Ellbot

(┛ಠДಠ)┛彡┻━┻

Anonymous

I think the authors are focused more on how American and British English are written today.

Anonymous

18:45

And we don't really use that symbol.

M.A.R.

Well, that's good enough for me

Anonymous

As far as I'm aware, today it's used mainly in certain World Englishes such as Indian English.

Will Hunting

I also looked through A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language and Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English.

These three big grammars all have their Wikipedia pages.

Anonymous

@WillHunting A Comprehensive Grammar is the main competitor at the moment, as far as reference grammars go.

Anonymous

The Longman one can be seen as a companion piece to A Comprehensive Grammar.

Will Hunting

18:48

It seems the Longman one is out of print!

Anonymous

If it's possible, I would recommend finding all three books at a library.

Will Hunting

Yes, but I have access to all pirated versions...

Anonymous

Well, or that, if you want to do that.

Will Hunting

But I use them only for evaluation purposes.

I buy the book if I really want to read it.

Anonymous

The Longman grammar is more corpus-focused than the other two, and it contains some details about spoken English that you might not find elsewhere.

Will Hunting

18:49

That is my definition of fair use.

The Longman one seems to focus too much on statistical data.

Anonymous

I don't think it would really be satisfactory as a complete reference grammar on its own.

Will Hunting

Yes, it complements the Quirk book.

Now have you seen Bas Aarts: Oxford Modern English Grammar @snailplane

Cardinal

A new technique which facilitates **the** analytical investigation **of** **a** wireless network.

Does it sound good?

My major concerns are those in bold.

Will Hunting

Yes it sounds very good, but I would use analysis instead of analytical investigation.

Anonymous

My opinion is that Huddleston & Pullum 2002 is better than Quirk et al 1985, but both books are worthwhile, and Biber et al 1999 is sometimes very interesting but not a book I'd recommend if you don't already have at least one of the other two.

3

Cardinal

18:53

Anonymous

@Cardinal Markdown is disabled in multi-line messages. It's a design bug. The only two kinds of Markdown that work in multi-line messages are blockquotes (with > at the beginning) or pre-formatted text (four spaces at the beginning of each line).

Cardinal

@snailplane Ah- thanks.

Will Hunting

@snailplane My opinion is that snailplane is a world class linguist.

Cardinal

@WillHunting Thanks, what would happen if I drop the definite article?

Anonymous

I'm just a snailplane.

Anonymous

18:56

@WillHunting Bas Aarts is an excellent linguist, and also supervised The Internet Grammar of English about twenty years back.

Anonymous

You might be interested in that as well.

CowperKettle

(0:

Transcript for