@DariusJahandarie Which "bro" are you sure that it is?

Do you think you can rule out addressing a brother as "bro"?

They changed how tab completion works in chat :-O

@DariusJahandarie Well, neither bro is available in my speech :-)

I think calling people bro is counter to my personality regardless of age :-)

Kind of like how I never picked up "LOL"

Though I'm the right age for it.

At all

I don't use any variants

No LOL, no lawl, no lulz, no nuttin'

I talk funny online. But I probably talk funnier in real life. :-)

@Szymon I don't think there's any reason to remove the answer

When I read it, I thought "I don't think there's always a small pause"

@DariusJahandarie Your last two structures are pseudo-clefts (not actually a type of cleft―note that there's no corresponding basic structure in many cases to be clefted), which pairs a fused relative construction with a foregrounded element. The fused relative presents a variable, and the foregrounded element tells us the value of that variable.

However, who typically appears in interrogatives and is (almost always) inadmissible in fused relatives; whoever does not typically appear in interrogatives but works grammatically in fused relatives, although "[Whoever enables me to be me] is [my mother]" doesn't work as a pseudo-cleft because now it's answering the question "Who is my mother?" rather than "Who enables me to be me?". One typical way of working around the inadmissibility of who is instead to paraphrase with the one:

> *Who deserves the credit is Jill.

> The one who deserves the credit is Jill.

(See CGEL p.1072-4, 1422-3)

> The one who enables me to be me is my mother.

Although obviously other paraphrases are possible

If you have a copular construction with a fused relative, specifying be, and the fused relative represents a variable whose value is defined by the other complement of be, then you have a pseudo-cleft regardless of order―it's called a reverse pseudo-cleft when the fused relative comes second

I'll have to get back to you on the subject of agreement

You asked a really complicated question! :-)

Who used to be acceptable there, by the way: in Othello, we find "Who steals my purse steals trash", but this is now archaic

Yeah, those fit with 覗く

Though the "peep" meaning would come from the verb

And the adverb would add some different meaning

@Anthony チラッと and チラリと would be 擬態語

(And they would also be adverbs)

I fit them with 覗く because you said "peep"

チラッ／チラリと見る or the like

There are a bunch of ways to say 'glimpse'

Why are you sad?

What? :-)

@DariusJahandarie That sounds good! And I don't think it could be a 擬音語 :-)

I know different people have different categories for mimetic words

@Anthony It's a deverbal noun from 覗く（のぞく）

「覗く」の連用形「覗き」の名詞化　←　When it's been 名詞化ed, it's no longer a verb…

Pretty much any 動詞の連用形 can be used as a 名詞 but

Some of them get lexicalized as 名詞

And then they can take on attributes independent of the original verb (or not)

I don't see any reason to consider it a 擬態語

@Anthony You can probably find all this stuff in dictionaries

Although I thought ぽかん was a 擬音語・・・

Our self-evaluation period is about to end.

The timer's already run out, but there's a little time to sneak in reviews past the buzzer… :-)