« first day (507 days earlier)      last day (392 days later) » 

12:00 AM
I mean here
Anyone can ask anyone at the same time in the chat.
I think you must have seen the notification bubble a few times already.
It should pop up every time F.E. or I reply your messages.
@Farooq Like this. :P
@F.E. So did you think of any examples.
@DamkerngT. Thanks for elaborating
12:03 AM
@DamkerngT. I just glanced at their page on relative pronouns: owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/645/01
Oh, this must be about which vs. that. I'm pretty sure.
It seems to have been updated within the last 18 months. What's interesting is that the use of "which" for their restricted relatives has been updated in a few spots, but they don't provide a main example for its use. And so, a student will probably still think that "which" isn't to be used for integrated relative clauses.
Notice the info at the bottom of the page.
@F.E. Did you get my question?
And I noticed that if you carefully examine the table at the top of the page, it sorta allows the use of "which" for restricted-relative clauses.
@F.E. You meant the fine print?
12:06 AM
@F.E. Sorry you are busy
@Farooq I'm multitasking right now . . . :)
okay me too:)
@DamkerngT. Their stuff in: Some special uses of relative pronouns in restrictive clauses
Ahh... I see. -- reading...
@Farooq You might want to talk to medica about what she meant. :)
12:08 AM
@F.E. So I will talk to you about "wished" examples after a while
> Dessert is all that he wants.
medica is not on this or any English chats
> ?This is the best resource that I have ever read!
@DamkerngT. Notice their "that / which -- There are several cases when that is more appropriate than which:" which seems to assume that "which" can be used for restricted relative clauses, but they hadn't actually discussed that kind of usage.
@Farooq Leave a comment under her post.
12:10 AM
@F.E. So how can I invite medica to chat if I want to ask in a ongoing questions manner like I asked you guys here today?
@DamkerngT. Right, for that assumes that they had already taught the student that "which" could also usually be used in examples with restricted relatives.
@Farooq Er, wait until she responds to your comment?
@F.E. I think that works better (than which) in "Dessert is all that he wants." I also think that "Dessert is all he wants." is probably the normal usage.
@DamkerngT. Right. That is true, but there is no need for that "exception" if the student thinks that "which" is not an option for restricted relatives.
The problem is probably how we should phrase them in a semi-formal essay.
If you look up near the top, there doesn't seem to be an example that actually uses a restrictive "which" relative.
12:14 AM
@F.E. Oh, true! Weird.
@DamkerngT. If you look at the top, you'll see they only use "that" and "who", but no "which".
@DamkerngT. But not weird if the writers (original writers) of this page thought that you couldn't use "which" like that to begin with. :)
It's been a while since I've looked at OWL, but I didn't think it was this simplistic. Wow.
There's very little info here.
It's basically: See Spot run. Run, Spot, run!
I think this post (by StoneyB) is quite good.
A: I am confused over whether to use "what" or "that"

StoneyBBoth are grammatical, but they mean somewhat different things. He knows what other teachers don't know. In this the clause what other teachers don't know is a "free relative clause", which acts all-by-itself as a noun clause. In this case it acts as the Direct Object of the verb knows. ...

Perhaps the trend is that is the new which. :)
@DamkerngT. Reading . . .
12:20 AM
Now I can't remember when we had that discussion (in this chat room), about exactly when we can't replace which by that.
There are a handful of related posts (that/which) on ELL, but I think I can't hunt all of them down at the moment.
@DamkerngT. er, "He knows WHAT other teachers don't know" -- I use the modern grammar terminology (as in CGEL), and tend to think that that example has the same meaning, and syntax, as "He knows that which other teachers don't know".
@DamkerngT. Didn't we just have that discussion within the last day or two? I thought I put links to posts, like one on ELU.
Doesn't what imply "everything"?
Hmm... probably it depends on the context.
@DamkerngT. But this is a fused-relative "what".
Reading the sentence again, it sounds more like something, not everything.
It stands for "that which", or "something that".
12:26 AM
The "what" is the antecedent for its own relative word/gap. It actually has two functions.
"He knows something." But what kind of something? "He knows something that you don't know".
So, in "He knows something [that you don't know]", that "what" has two functions: the "something" in the matrix clause, and also the function of the relative word in the relative clause.
Thus, the term "fused relative".
But StoneyB paraphrased it as:
> He knows all the things which other teachers don't know.
@DamkerngT. But notice that even here, she explicitly split out the two different functions, and has each function done by a separate thingie.
Her example is similar to WHAT ==> "that which".
Except that her "that" is now "all the things".
I think StoneyB is a he. :)
Are you sure?
12:33 AM
Hmm... Yes.
He mentioned his wife once, I think.
Er, that doesn't mean much nowadays.
And so, back to grammar . . .
@DamkerngT. Surely OWL talks about the irrealis "were"?
12:37 AM
I think all the things or something are both possible, depending on the context. Though something is perhaps more likely.
@F.E. I'm not that sure.
@DamkerngT. The main point to those examples (by StoneyB and others) is to show the fused nature of the word "WHAT" in those sentences.
@DamkerngT. I'm not seeing anything about open conditionals, remote conditionals, modal remoteness, etc.
Me either.
OWL is extremely basic stuff.
They might assume that the reader already knew that.
So is that OWL stuff supposed to be maintained by their students, grad students, and professors at that university?
Pretty disappointing. All those years on the internet and that's all they've got. :(
Strunk and White's The Elements of Style is probably better. :)
12:41 AM
I'm not very sure, but I think the fact that any pages there can have more than one contributors points to that.
I think I've got more and better info in my limited number of posts on EL&U, and I've only been here around 6 months, and I'm only one single person: a tiger with claws that don't work too well on keyboards.
That's probably true!
It looks like OWL aims at common mistakes by students, though the don't say that explicitly.
But for university students? Ouch. If their students don't have at least this stuff down pat . . .
Presumably, students don't like to read anything long.
I'd expect to see stuff at least on the level of that "wish" issue we were just discussing.
12:46 AM
Most of their students are native speakers, maybe?
I'm not so sure I'd want ELL students to use that OWL stuff.
@DamkerngT. Purdue? I hope so, if that's the Purdue University that I'm thinking of. Let me check . . .
This is their mission statement: The Purdue University Writing Lab and Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL) assist clients in their development as writers—no matter what their skill level—with on-campus consultations, online participation, and community engagement. The Purdue Writing Lab serves the Purdue, West Lafayette, campus and coordinates with local literacy initiatives. The Purdue OWL offers global support through online reference materials and services.
So I think it is that highly regarded university. Wow.
Guess I'm getting old. Thinking less and less of these young whippersnappers . . .
I think they tried to simplify their stuff on OWL, maybe too much.
@F.E. One thing I learned: no grammar site or book is perfect.
But it is their writing lab. For university students, I'd expect, since it's "The Purdue University Writing Lab". They shouldn't be accepting any native English speaking student who needs that kind of info.
Especially when it comes to those designed specifically for ELL.
@DamkerngT. Be careful of making absolutes.
12:53 AM
I think I can add, those I've seen so far. :D
@DamkerngT. But I don't think that is for ELL students. It seems to be for everyone, including, or targeting, native English speakers.
@DamkerngT. Well, you haven't seen mine. snicker
@DamkerngT. Have you yet seen the 2002 CGEL?
You know, their first two chapters are free online?
@F.E. Obviously, I don't include CGEL. I usually look at them from a non-native speaker point of view.
Here's the two free CGEL chapters: cambridge.org/uk/linguistics/cgel
Uh, oh, there's a message for me on ELU . . .
I think CGEL is great for native speakers.
For learners, I think it's too much. (It should be useful for really advanced learners too, though.)
If this was from dialogue, then I suspect the character said or meant to say this: "I still wish I could have done more." -- as the word "still" sorta contradicts the use of the past-tense "wished". (But if it was narrative (in a book) that was written in past-tense narrative fiction, then that's a different type of situation. -- but hopefully that isn't the situation here.) — F.E. 5 hours ago
@F.E. Hah! I think you would prefer dialog to dialogue. Hmm... I probably should use dialogue myself too. I think I have a habit to always spell "dialog".
At one time, I did intentionally use "dialog" instead of "dialogue", but now I've switched sides.
Yanno, I'm currently re-reading those first two "basic" chapters. :)
1:05 AM
Is there any reason that makes "dialog" look not as good as "dialogue"?
@F.E. Hah!
Tiger be on page 56. Oh, look! Top of page is Fused heads, what a coincidence.
I think there is more, and better, info in the free first 2 chapters of CGEL than what's in almost all the available general grammar usage manuals out there.
Each time I re-read this stuff, I'm noticing new stuff . . .
From what I've heard, CGEL is really good.
@DamkerngT. What I've found, is that it (CGEL) almost always backs up my native AmE ear.
Though, many common grammar sources and pedants have info that I usually disagree with.
Too often, a native English speaker thinks something ought to be one way, so asks a question on a grammar site, and is told bad info. And the OP accepts what they are told. Which is unfortunate, for CGEL will usually support the OP's original position.
Perhaps it's about the prescriptive vs. descriptive approaches.
Both approaches are okay, as they have different purposes. But the assumed grammar of prescriptive pedants gotta first reflect the real world. Too often, that is not the case.
1:14 AM
Things are much worse for English as a second language learners.
I mean, we don't even have our instinct to rely on.
And when we think we have it (our English language instinct), we can't be sure we should trust it.
@DamkerngT. And then when you do ask questions on English grammar sites, you then get traditional grammar pedants to give you bad info. :)
That's quite true!
@DamkerngT. I've procrastinated a bit too long . . . gotta do something productive . . . might start by reading another page or so in CGEL, :)
Hehe. And don't forget to share some of them with us, as you always kindly do so. :)
Tigers don't share. (Not the good stuff.) Bye. :)
1:26 AM
See you soon!
1:51 AM
Just popped in to say that often I get fused relatives mixed-up with subordinate interrogative clauses. Sometimes a sentence can be ambiguous as to interpretation. Sometimes one interpretation is preferred (maybe the only acceptable one?). (Not sure if this is one of them.) But anyway . . . :)
StoneyB is a he. :)
I 'm wondering what do you do for a living, DT. You are always in the chatroom. Are you a ESL teacher?
2:13 AM
@DamkerngT. Hm, I'm now kinda sorta persuaded that the example was using a subordinate interrogative, since "know" does license subordinate interrogatives (perhaps: "He knows the answer to the question 'what do other teachers not know?' "). Trying to find info to support a fused relative interpretation ("what") doesn't seem to be so obvious for the verb "know". This topic always messes me up constantly. Oh, well.
1 hour later…
3:40 AM
@ZhanlongZheng I'm not a teacher. I prefer to think of myself as a learner.
May I ask what you do? just outta curiosity.
I'm developing something. :)
you live in Bankok? A programmer?
I consider myself as an ex-programmer. I'm not very active in programming nowadays.
But it's true that I'm almost always here. Part of my thoughts is here.
Are you Thai?
3:55 AM
Yes, absolutely. :)
So we are in the same time zone. :-)
Mine is UTC+7. What is yours?
Ahh... Our zones are close. :)
Oh, so it's nearly lunchtime there, I think?
Of course, we are close geographically.
yes. it's 12 a.m. here.
I live in Beijing
3:59 AM
Do you use English a lot in your work?
@ZhanlongZheng I've been to Beijing once. It's a nice city! :)
I bought a few books back, but never really had a chance to use them.
it's a requisite for my job. I read lots of materials in English and negotiate with our clients from abroad.
Having clients from abroad sounds like fun!
I'm an accountant. Besides, I deal with lots of financing matters.
Wow! Money is all around you, literally!
No, they are from the banks :-(
4:04 AM
We are having an aerospace project with your country. We will be using your obital slot.
Oh, that must be a really big project!
I read lots of sci-fi, so naturally, I love space explorations.
We will be forimg a JV with you.
What's your favourite?
Oh! I didn't know that. Which company?
4:07 AM
@ZhanlongZheng Asimov's, definitely. :)
As a child, I used to read a lot of sci-fi.
@ZhanlongZheng Oh, lots of satellites!
@ZhanlongZheng Saying that sounds like you don't read them anymore. :(
You will acquire a communications satellites from us.
Please take care of it nicely. :)
not very often. I read Ballard sometimes.
4:12 AM
Oh, I remember now that you mentioned Ballard in some questions.
His style is unique.
yes, a couple questions
I think most people would recognize him because of Empire of the Sun.
Frankly, I didn't know that he wrote sci-fi too.
almost all of his works are sci-fi, but funny thing is his most well-known one is not.
He started with sci-fi and ended with it.
Oh, he was born in Shanghai!
yep, he was left with trauma there when japs invaded our country.
4:16 AM
Ahh... I see.
As a child, he saw lots of atrocity and had to live with it.
But the good thing is he tapped into it and formed a style of his own. I recommend reading some of his sci-fi. Most of them are short stories.
nods -- I will keep my eyes open for his work the next time I visit a bookstore. :)
You can download his works from internet if you don't care about pirates.
4:22 AM
Haha. I think it depends on which year he published his work.
Anything before 1964 is absolutely fine.
Can you gimme your email? I can send you some.
Promise not to spam it, please. :)
haha, never.
you could use a spare one
it's done.
Why ar u so afraid of junk mails?
I don't check my email very often, so sometimes I miss some important messages.
@DamkerngT. "miss"
4:29 AM
Oh, the present tense. TYftC!
I see. I bond it with my htc phone.
@ZhanlongZheng Just so you know, that term is considered racist in a lot of places
why is that?
@DamkerngT. Dialog and dialogue aren't quite interchangeable.
@ZhanlongZheng Because it was used in nationalist propaganda during the war, dehumanizing propaganda
4:32 AM
But in other places, people think of it as a simple abbreviation
:16088938 In my old books, an adverb never modifies a noun phrase.
Remember what English teachers taught you about what adverbs can modify? :)
In my old books, an adverb can modify a noun phrase.
Well, here's an interesting tidbit in CGEL (on page 57 within Chapter 2) : Thus the adverb almost can modify verbs (She [almost died]), adjectives (an [almost inaudible] response), adverbs (He spoke [almost inaudibly]), or NPs (They ate [almost the whole pie]).
An adverb can modify a noun phrase, wow! Bet your grammar books don't say that. :)
@DamkerngT. Well, the problem is that "adverb" is a category that traditionally contains disparate things. Even in modern grammar, you need to break adverbs down by category to describe their syntax.
4:34 AM
but it's restricted.
@ZhanlongZheng Good for you!
@snailboat nods
@ZhanlongZheng I remember my old grammar books saying that only adjectives can modify nouns, and that adverbs can modify a lot of stuff but not nouns.
By the way, hello @snailboat, @F.E.!
what war. I might look into it. @snailboat
4:35 AM
Yup, Tiger read CGEL.
@ZhanlongZheng Er, that shortened 3-letter term isn't accepted in the USA either.
@ZhanlongZheng When I say the war, I usually mean the Second World War.
@ZhanlongZheng Were those old grammar books of yours EFL books? What year were they published, like within the last decade or two?
Everyone had their propaganda machines running full tilt back then.
Ahh... this probably can explain the difference.
Q: What is the difference between dialogue and dialog?

NickCI am American, and I always thought the difference between dialogue and dialog was one of meaning, the way Merriam-Webster has them listed: 2 entries found: dialogue (noun) dialog box (noun) According to Merriam-Webster, dialogue means conversation, and dialog box means a windo...

@DamkerngT. I've changed by evaluation on that example earlier: I now prefer to interpret it as having a subordinate interrogative clause (not a fused relative). :(
4:39 AM
@F.E. I think my old grammar books are good even from my present knowledge.
You mean, "He knows what", and that what is "what other teachers don't know"?
@DamkerngT. Yeah, that's the thing--with computer stuff, it's almost always dialog. You can say a modal dialog or a dialog box, but probably not dialogue in either case. (I mean, it'd be unusual. You can find some examples.)
They are in 90s.
@DamkerngT. Yes. :)
@ZhanlongZheng Wow! Then they must have been unusually good grammar books! Do you remember who the authors were?
Me personally, I use dialogue whenever I'm not talking about computer stuff.
4:40 AM
I think I can revert back to use dialogue in the context of dialogues. :)
That's what I do.
They are written in Chinese. I don't think you can read them.
@DamkerngT. Yeah, I find that questionable. Both versions are basically interchangeable. Though, it is possible that "dialog box" might be the more common in software.
I don't like the shorter spelling. It's arbitrary, of course, but I don't.
4:41 AM
of course examples are in English
I tried to make my spelling a bit consistent, so I chose to use only dialog for a while.
As you can see, dialog is used in computery stuff.
S'just how it is. No real reason for it apart from historical accident.
Im having lunch now. see you later.
4:42 AM
Have a good meal!
Have a nice lunch!
@ZhanlongZheng Then I'm really impressed! For if Chinese instructors were teaching that adverbs could modify NPs way back in the 90's, then wow! I'm not so sure what the 1985 Quirk et al. was saying on this topic.
Yanno, if someone posed the question of whether an adverb can modify a noun phrase or a noun, I'd bet everyone would shoot it down. And try to close the question (as answerable by commonly available resources). :)
Talking about dialog reminds me of check (to mean cheque) and technic (to mean technique).
@F.E. I bet that wouldn't happen on ELL.
@DamkerngT. Reminiscent of but different from, I think.
4:46 AM
+1 to snailboat's.
I'm not familiar with technic personally. Check is the normal spelling for cheque in my world.
@snailboat Hmm, that sounds like a challenge. Does someone have a "newbie" account to use to pose that question?
You can create one, I think. :)
@DamkerngT. But I don't think that's encouraged--a sock puppet account, kinda.
@F.E. Sorry, I don't have a separate account :-) I'm just snailboat.
4:48 AM
@snailboat Does "check" also mean the bill when you eat at a restaurant?
@F.E. It's totally fine as long as you don't use it to abuse the rules (voting rings, etc.)
@jimsug Yeah.
Is anybody really, really familiar with the 1985 Quirk et al.? Do you remember if they allowed adverbs to modify noun phrases?
No, I've never gone through the whole book.
I could look it up after I eat
4:49 AM
@snailboat That sounds good! Thanks :)
Tiger lazy.
Tiger donno wanna get confused with different grammar frameworks.
I think it does, but I'm working off memory and may be thinking of a different grammar.
I'm already used to switching gears between half a dozen terminological universes, unfortunately ;-)
Quirk et al's terminology gimme headaches.
Yeah, their grammar is very messy theoretically speaking
But it's got a lot of good descriptive bits in it :-)
4:50 AM
How lazy be this tiger? Well, ah do have a hardcopy here 5 feet away . . .
Eh, didn't they use something similar to CGEL?
There are places where they made similar decisions, sure. But overall they're rather different
5 feet away could be a one-hour walk for snails. :)
Well, the 1985 Quirk terminology is a mixture of traditional grammar and the modern grammars.
What's kinda interesting is that there are hunks of the 2002 CGEL that basically paraphrased parts of the 1985 Quirk et al.
@DamkerngT. Actually, a snail can go 5 feet in less than half an hour.
4:53 AM
Snails are pretty fast.
Hah! I think I should believe you. :)
I discovered that when I read a part that sounded off (er, wrong), and checked to see what the 1985 one said--surprise, surprise, it had the same nonsense in it.
@DamkerngT. Wait, snails can walk? I thought they only had one foot? Maybe hop?
Maybe it's safer to just say "move". :)
p.441 "However, not all adverbs that modify adjectives also modify adverbs (cf 7.60), and some adverbs may modify phrases, viz noun phrases and prepositional phrases.
@DamkerngT. I went with go :-)
4:57 AM
Ah, go is good.
@snailboat Yup, I just looked it up too. 7.63 on page 450, "Modifier of noun phrase".
@F.E. Some people describe the way snails locomote as "walking", others "crawling". I suppose the latter is more accurate :-) Most snails create "pedal waves" in their feet to propel themselves forward.

« first day (507 days earlier)      last day (392 days later) »