« first day (1790 days earlier)      last day (1744 days later) » 

userr2684291
userr2684291
02:13
ell.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5203/3395 The problem with questions like these is not malice or anything like that, it instead lies in the fact that the asker doesn't really know what he or she wants or needs. It's some variation on the XY problem.
Er, I mean the question the poster of that question asked on the main site.
Sometimes it's just curiosity/frustration, where a student finds themselves unable to analyze something in the way they were taught. And that's normally because they weren't given a sufficiently coherent theoretical background and framework to begin with.
Most of these askers appear "self-taught" using a bunch of conflicting resources on the internet. OK. And then they come here and ask a question like "How do I analyze this sentence? This must be a determiner and this a noun, right?". Unless you have a sufficiently vigilant user like BillJ, you'll get the same answers that you can find online, and we're going back to square one. The problem with these questions is, I don't think they help people get a better understanding of English.
I've already said this. I think a year ago, maybe. These kinda questions are inherently bad questions for ELL. Actual grammar analyses should only be used to supplement an explanation. When a user asks (dumbed down) "In We ship packets, I thought ship was a noun, so how does this sentence work exactly, I don't understand?", a simple "analysis" could be "Ship is actually a verb, and it means to send something using a ship." but the main answer here is the dictionary meaning.
And the part about ship being a verb is not necessary at all, it's supplementary at best. In ell.stackexchange.com/questions/246936, how will categorizing anything using some linguistics term help anyone with learning English? This is just another "data point" in this asker's attempt to decipher English grammar using random internet resources.
ell.stackexchange.com/a/243630/3395 This on the other hand is a great question/answer. Basically, we could've dispensed with the supplementary stuff, but with it we can actually "prove" something about the grammar of that sentence, and subsequently about its interpretation.
I think the solution here is to simply ban questions asking for grammatical analysis: 1. they're unlikely to help anyone learning English; 2. if the asker doesn't know what they're actually asking for (like that guy who posted that meta question), the answer they'll be provided with is useless as they'll just ask for another on another website, and get a different analysis (they don't know how to evaluate these analyses).
userr2684291
userr2684291
02:58
I just realized shipping doesn't necessarily involve a ship, but whatever, lol. But yeah.
I also tried to close this other question which was clearly about techniques used to learn new words as belonging to Language Learning.SE, but I don't think everyone agreed with that...
It's not about me wanting to close questions randomly, but looking at BillJ's answers, I don't find anyone even voting for them. So these are clearly Linguistics.SE kinda questions, and more people will probably know how to answer and evaluate them there. And the Language Learning thing, well, all this question I tried to close got was an opinion, which was okay partly, but didn't address the asker's exact method... but no, let's leave it here. OK...
 
3 hours later…
CowperKettle
CowperKettle
05:31
Word of the day: Impactful
CowperKettle
CowperKettle
05:56
books.google.com/ngrams/…
paradigm-shifting tops paradigm-changing
 
2 hours later…
Featured Questions
Featured Questions
08:01
0
Q: Omit the redundant relative pronoun when using a conjunction

vincentlinIs it weird to omit the redundant relative pronoun when using a conjunction to connect multiple adjective sentences? Let me explain what I am asking. Example 1: He is a hero who men don't like and who women admire. or (Redundant relative pronoun omitted) He is a hero who men don't l...

grammar relative-clauses relative-pronouns relative-adverbs
 
5 hours later…
SmokeDetector
SmokeDetector
13:20
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive body detected, potentially bad keyword in body, toxic body detected (107): What is the exact meaning of this sentence from the film? by Darcy on ell.SE
ColleenV
ColleenV
13:54
It's OK SmokeDetector, it's just a quote from a movie for context.
 
2 hours later…
CowperKettle
CowperKettle
16:07
user image
Would you believe - the Urals are in bloom!
Though white as snow, yet still it's bloom, not blizzard.
Who was that kind ushanka-wearing wizard
That in our enfilade of sullen seasons
For warmth and sunshine conjured up a room?
CowperKettle
CowperKettle
16:58
Dandelion coffee
Dandelion 'coffee' (also dandelion tea) is a tisane made from the root of the dandelion plant. The roasted dandelion root pieces and the beverage have some resemblance to coffee in appearance and taste, and it is thus commonly considered a coffee substitute. == History == Susanna Moodie explained how to prepare dandelion 'coffee' in her memoir of living in Canada, Roughing it in the Bush (1852), where she mentions that she had heard of it from an article published in the 1830s in New York Albion by a certain Dr. Harrison. Dandelion 'coffee' was later mentioned in a Harpers New Monthly Magazine...
 
2 hours later…
AIQ
AIQ
19:07
Do we put the matter before "Table of Contents" in the "Table of Contents"?
I can't find anything on my guide
M.A.R.
M.A.R.
@AIQ What
AIQ
AIQ
@M.A.R. I am not sure - I see the smart thing to do is to not put them in, but I see a lot of published thesis that have it
M.A.R.
M.A.R.
Oh, if I understand you correctly, then put it if it matters, and don't if it doesn't
But usually lean on the don't side, because what you put there shouldn't be all that important in the first place
Is it a preamble or preface or that sorta thing?
AIQ
AIQ
I guess. Like would you put "Abstract ---- ii" in the "Table of Contents" which starts at "iv" - the reader has already seen the abstract before getting to the page of the contents
M.A.R.
M.A.R.
It kinda depends on what you're writing anyway, but then if the preface has a lot to do with the main content, do include it
@AIQ Nothing wrong with that
AIQ
AIQ
19:12
Okay. I see.
Thanks M.A.R.
M.A.R.
M.A.R.
Make me a sandwich
AIQ
AIQ
I can't even explain things clearly - here this summarizes what I am trying to say:
What goes into a Table of Contents? The short answer is: everything that follows it and nothing that precedes it.
M.A.R.
M.A.R.
@AIQ well, it heavily it depends on what you're writing for what audience
For web design, yeah, terrible idea.
For most books, yeah, terrible idea.
But does it have a witchcraft sentence in a scientific journal or a scientific book? Probably not.
AIQ
AIQ
I see ... I just don't want my reader to go "What a dumb guy, listed the page number for table of contents in the table of contents"
 
2 hours later…
AIQ
AIQ
21:47
In a movie, the head of the CIA says "Is that clear?" and Jack, the agent, says "Loud and."
So, now we drop things like that?
AIQ
AIQ
22:33
ummmmmmm
 
1 hour later…
M.A.R.
M.A.R.
23:42
@AIQ Probably nonstandard

« first day (1790 days earlier)      last day (1744 days later) »