« first day (1335 days earlier)      last day (2198 days later) » 

jus cogens prime
jus cogens prime
04:36
Thank you both for helping me out with that...
@ColleenV Thanks, I was a bit surprised by this sort of "distributive" approach to the construction whereby "nonsense" has sort of two heads... but it's not the first time I've been explained something like that so it just confirms something I still have to fully grasp about the language...
New Meta Question
New Meta Question
0
Q: Is the Close System really fair?

Tasneem ZhI had three questions that have issues with voting to close system. Question #1 This has two votes to get closed because it is an opinion-based question. My question was about if "How would your apology benefit me?" sounds clear and understandable based on what I have explained in the question ...

feature-request vote-to-close specific-question
jus cogens prime
jus cogens prime
@snailboat Thanks, I hear you, possible but not likely. I had the feeling it was possible even without the possessive suffix. I saw some translation into French ("absurdités (n.) marxistes (adj.) insensées (p.p as adj.)" where it's just totally clear that the adjectives apply to the noun and where it seems to have little impact whether you construe the last one as applying to the preceeding sum of the noun+adj. or just the noun etc. Nevertheless I still get the feeling that for the unlikely...
interpretation to be more likely there should be the plural in English.
Maybe I should have this working theory that in English distributive is stronger than additive so to speak with these constructions. I'll think about it. Thanks again both.
And by the way if anyone wanted to use the question on the main site, I waive attribution.
 
3 hours later…
New Meta Question
New Meta Question
08:22
0
Q: How to improve answers

virolinoI want to get involved more in closing the unanswered questions. Since I do not have many permissions as a newcomer, I encounter some trouble. If there is an answer which covers only a part of the topic, what should I do to improve it? Edit the answer to add information? Create new answer? Jus...

discussion answers
0
Q: filter for questions

virolinoI want to create a special (over)view for questions. I think of at least the following: no answers at all (or, alternatively, with answer(s) but no accepted answer); not closed (for whatever reason); sorted (newest to oldest, or alternatively, oldest to newest); specific community. I am aware...

discussion statistics
CowperKettle
CowperKettle
@ColleenV Thanks a million, Colleen!
 
4 hours later…
New Meta Question
New Meta Question
12:38
0
Q: how to handle unanswered abandoned unclear questions?

virolinoWhat is the best way to handle abandoned questions, which cannot be answered because they need clarifications? And the OP is not reacting any longer... This is one example. Is reporting / flagging them a good action? I cannot do too many things, being a newcomer. It is not a duplicate of this,...

discussion unanswered-questions
 
3 hours later…
CowperKettle
CowperKettle
15:12
Word of the day: Tito-Stalin split (a very complex type of split in gymnastics)
ColleenV
ColleenV
15:49
@juscogensprime I think there might be other examples that behave differently because of the semantics. “crazy” “nonsense” and “Marxist” are pretty tightly tied together in my mind because of the mention of students and the number of stories in the news with that negative view.
If I said something like “What’s this crazy capitalist nonsense?” It would depend on the punctuation and context if I interpreted it as “nonsense about a crazy capitalist”, “the nonsense of a crazy capitalist”, or “nonsense that is both crazy and capitalist”
 
1 hour later…
CowperKettle
CowperKettle
17:16
user image
Russian opposition attacks Putin.
userr2684291
userr2684291
17:46
I've just heard a then associate professor at MIT using LOL.
They did use it somewhat ironically/self-consciously.
Jasper
Jasper
17:58
Well, it's just an informal word, no big deal using it.
userr2684291
userr2684291
Then again, a month ago I heard a wild but casual lest from a youngish (40-odd) professor at Harvard.
@Jasper I'd only heard it a couple of times from younger speakers.
I never said it was a big deal, just unusual in my (apparently not that considerable) experience.
CowperKettle
CowperKettle
Among the sins I've heard confessed,
LOL was but once combined with LEST
"LOL" is a kind of litmus test:
Lest used with "lest", it makes you blessed.
haha
>
Among the sins I've heard confessed,
"LOL" was but once combined with "lest".
"LOL" is a kind of litmus test:
It makes you blessed, lest used with "lest".
userr2684291
userr2684291
18:20
Nice lollaby.
CowperKettle
CowperKettle
Dyakuyu!
Jasper
Jasper
18:42
@userr2684291 I haven't really heard it either, LOL.
userr2684291
userr2684291
@Jasper They didn't even spell it (L-O-L), they said "lahl", haha.
Or "lul"? Idk.
Jasper
Jasper
@userr2684291 Actually, I think I have only heard it once in my whole life, when someone on youtube was trying to read someone else's text messages, LOL.
Abcd
Abcd
19:12
The best candidate should be appointed ____ the post.
Is for in place of to wrong in the above sentence?
userr2684291
userr2684291
@Abcd Can you cite a reliable source that puts it that way?
Abcd
Abcd
@userr2684291 No, I cannot. At every place "to" is given as the right choice. But my first instinct was to choose "for" which is why I asked ...
userr2684291
userr2684291
The best thing one can do when speaking or learning to speak a foreign language is to try to sound like its native speakers, definitionally. I wouldn't deviate from that if I were you. Even if for were possible, given that you can't cite a single reliable source that uses it that way, it's best to stick to the most common choice of word.
3
The Google Books Ngram Viewer chart shows appointed to the post is around 200 times more frequently used than the suggested alternative.
Jasper
Jasper
19:52
@userr2684291 Even so, I guess there is a lot of variation among native speakers, and there is also the problem of different dialects.
Anonymous
20:22
@Abcd I think for would probably get the meaning across, but I'd recommend saying to instead.
Anonymous
@userr2684291 I usually say /lʊl/.

« first day (1335 days earlier)      last day (2198 days later) »