Language Overflow

Man_From_India

00:15

Good morning.

My morning tweeter feed did bring an advertisement with an odd phrase.

Check out @CuroCarte's Tweet: twitter.com/CuroCarte/status/872791231566299136?s=09

> Give your home a regal touch with this fine crafted Princely Dagger.

Though there is nothing wrong with it, but I expected finely.

Well, the grammar changes if we replace fine with finely.

In the Noun Phrase (NP) - this fine crafted Princely Dagger - the modifier fine modifies the nominal - crafted Princly Dagger.

If we use finely in the NP, it forms an Adjective Phrase (AdjP) consisting of finely crafted.

This puzzle has two relatable words. Take a guess and share your answers with us! https://t.co/GZTg5ykEgc

Tweeted by ClassmateSpBee on June 8, 2017 at 3:48 PM

CowperKettle

06:26

More than that tongue that more hath more expressed

- I can't get this

It's from Shakespeare

What is "more hath more expressed"?

Seems meaningless

Færd

11:27

> Did You Know?

> The speech and writing of a native-born English-speaker may seem crude, uneducated, and illiterate, but will almost always be idiomatic—that is, a native speaker always sounds like a native speaker. For a language learner, speaking and writing idiomatically in another language is the greatest challenge. Even highly educated foreign learners—professors, scientists, doctors, etc.—rarely succeed in mastering the kind of idiomatic English spoken by an American 7th-grader.

Yeah, I knew that. Thanks for sticking it into my eyes.

userr2684291

12:09

@Færd All of that is true of any language, though. Idiomatic basically means "native-speaker-like", so saying that a native speaker's speech sounds idiomatic is tautological and silly. (Of course, taking into account a few slip-ups here and there, which is why they hedged it with almost always – but even errors are idiomatic, I'd say.)

Færd

@userr2684291 Yeah. But what got me most was the last sentence. It can be a nuisance for a learner to be always reminded that s/he won't reach idiomatic fluency.

userr2684291

@Færd (:

Færd

:)

userr2684291

I hate "s/he".

Færd

It was 'he', originally, until I edited it.

I hate "he or she" more.

userr2684291

12:24

@Færd But anyway, I think they're trying to extol English for no reason (since it's one of the easier languages to learn, at least up to a certain point/level) and make them feel better about themselves.

And education means nothing, obviously, it's all about immersion and speaking English every day.

Færd

Well, it's an English dictionary, so it's natural for them to talk particularly about English. And it's kind of true as well.

I agree, however, that it should be noted that that fact is true of almost any natural human language, and it's not peculiar to English.

userr2684291

@Færd It's just that "s/he" means "s or he". "(S)He" (is that the proper way to capitalize it at the beginning of the sentence?) and "she/he" are okay, but not "s/he", in my view.

Færd

I understand. That may be an emerging usage of "/". It's not very uncommon, and it's pretty handy.

Has the potential to be confusing sometimes, I concur.

userr2684291

It doesn't, really, it just has no grounds for existence.

Færd

I'm sure I've seen it used like that a lot. Standard or not, I don't know.

MAybe not.

userr2684291

12:34

Yeah, and I flinched every time.

That's why I use they wherever I have to.

Færd

I like he as the neutral pronoun the best. I wouldn't have any problem with the feminine pronoun if it were accepted as neutral instead.

userr2684291

@Færd For the accusative version, would you use "her/im"?

Færd

But that usage is frowned upon these days.

@userr2684291 Heh. That's ugly.

That's not even the usage we were talking about.

userr2684291

@Færd Huh?

Færd

If there's a prefix or a preceding part that can be added or not, then it can be separated from the main word by a slash.

> un/important

That's a bit different from (un)important in my eyes.

userr2684291

12:42

Huh.

Færd

S/he puts he and she on equal footings. (S)he does not.

You may well disagree. It's a matter of taste or habit, to a good extent.

(Correction: on an equal footing)

userr2684291

@Færd He is complete and S is cut off – complete inequality.

It's as though you're not letting the S to go over the fence to become a real gender.

Færd

This is a fun(ny) discussion.

userr2684291

It's alone and forlorn.

But yeah, I agree. In "(s)he", she is secondary.

Færd

The free nature of / compensates for that. It just shows that the writer was too lazy to fully write both words.

userr2684291

12:54

Mmm, I don't know.

If they'd wanted to do so, they could've simply written "he/she", or "she/he".

Færd

Or that s/he (= the writer) wanted to contract she/he in a witty way.

@userr2684291 There's nothing to know. If people understand what you're saying and a respectable number of them approve of it, then use it.

If not, don't.

I might give it up if I learned there are more poeple who are averse to it the way you are.

userr2684291

@Færd Well, I obviously didn't understand how that meant what you said, i.e., that it implies the writer intended blah blah.

Færd

Those were inner motivations behind the invention of this contraption.

What you need to understand is simply that it means he or she.

userr2684291

As I previously told you, I do, and I doubt that would ever cause ambiguity.

Færd

OK then.

I didn't think this matter would be deserving of such a lengthy debate.

It strikes me as informal. I would never use it in formal or official writing. Nor would I use neutral they. Only he or she.

userr2684291

13:02

Why're you against the neutral they?

Færd

I'm not against it at all. I just don't think it's usually used in formal language.

userr2684291

@Færd The singular they had emerged by the 14th century and is common in everyday spoken English, but its use has been the target of criticism since the late 19th century. Its use in formal English has increased with the trend toward gender-inclusive language.

(From Wikipedia.)

Færd

In informal speech, where you don't have the luxury of slashes and stuff, I use they without reservation.

@userr2684291 Oh.

So it's still a trend. Not established perhaps.

23

Q: The hidden flaw in "singular they"—what to do about reflexive pronouns?

We have a highly regarded answer by nohat to a question about gender-neutral pronouns, in which he points to the "singular they" and its long history of use in English. (Note that he also advises against using it.) Example: If someone wants to watch TV tonight, they'll have to do the dishes. ...

Haha. The accepted answer is .. interesting.

userr2684291

@Færd You can always say he or she.

To me, it just sounds a bit as though you want to be technically correct or pedantic.

Færd

Same here.

> 11, 12. Who plead, &c. Myself who plead for love, and a recompense greater (first "more" of line 12) than "that tongue" (the voice of my books) hath better (third "more ") expressed than my voice could do that greater love and recompense ("that more") which I plead for.

(from here)

I don't know if I agree with that though. Just thought it might help.

CowperKettle

13:39

@Færd Thank you! But I understand 0% of that sentence

I mean I understand 0% of the explanatory sentence. It's too complex

V.V.

15:30

"he was so all-fired mean. " What's "all-fired"?

Færd

15:44

@CowperKettle TBH, try as I might, I can't crack that either. ;)

Feeds

3

Q: Which sentence is most appropriate? "Next year Anny and I {will have been / will be} married for 25 years"

Which sentence would be most appropriate? Next year Anny and I will have been married for 25 years. Next year Anny and I will be married for 25 years. (this sentence came out of a grammar book. I had to fill in the gap "Next year Anny and I (to be) married for 25 years.)

future-tense future-perfect future-continuous

userr2684291

16:04

@V.V. Google says it means "extremely".

V.V.

16:44

Thanks @userr2684291

Ghoti and Chips

16:57

Just popped in for a quickie – this is concerning 'who vs. whom'.

Would it be "The boy, whom we played, with" or "The boy, who we played with, ..." — my money is on 'whom'.

Correction: "The boy, whom we played with, ..." or "The boy, who we played with, ..."*

Man_From_India

Both of them are possible.

0

A: What's what with "Collect them all"

Collect [them all]. Here them all is a Compound-Pronoun. In general, a compound word is formed by multiple lexemes, and hence individual lexemes can be classified into various known word-classes. But here in them all, it's really hard to determine the word class of all. However, we hav...

> But here in them all, it's really hard to determine the word class of all. However, we have no problem identifying the Personal Pronoun - them. If pressed, I would call this all a Determinitive. But I'm not 100 percent sure about this.

Can anyone help here? @AraucariaMan @snailplane?

Or any other?

Anonymous

17:23

@Færd They is neutral and is in widespread use. He isn't so much these days.

Anonymous

In fact, he can be rather jarring.

Anonymous

@Man_From_India Umm, let me get back to you on that :-)

Anonymous

I would never write s/he, although I've seen it a fair bit.

Anonymous

@GhotiandChips Whom is unlikely but possible if you want to be particularly formal. Who is what most people would use in natural speech.

Anonymous

By the way, last time you asked a similar question, the conversation didn't go so well and I had to suspend you. Just so you know, if you act similarly this time, the suspension will be much longer.

Ghoti and Chips

17:56

It is what it is, you know. In the world of conflict and resolutions, you win or you learn, and I definitely did not win during our last encounter — I obviously leaned a bit too much on my internet anonymity leg during that exchange. It is what it is, at the end of the day, it can't be undone, but I can at least tend to my own future as best I can and avoid things like that to happen, to the best of my awareness and ability.

Man_From_India

18:37

> In this sentence, it is an adverb, roughly synonymous with "entirely" or "completely". It modifies the imperative verb "Collect".

The sentence being discussed is - "Collect them all.".

This explanation looks entirely wrong to me.

Catija

@Man_From_India That makes no sense... "all" means "entirely" or "completely" ... "collect" means "gather".

Oh, they say "all"... so that agrees with my assessment?

But I'm not a fancy grammar person, so don't give me any heed.

V.V.

18:54

All modifies "them "(an object), it's a determiner (a

Couldn't erase

Transcript for