« first day (562 days earlier)      last day (337 days later) » 
00:00 - 08:0008:00 - 20:00

12:16 AM
> A recommendation on primary education:
1. Teach less
2. Learn more
...
"..."
 
Anonymous
What are you quoting?
 
Umm... Someone I can't criticize at the moment.
But it looks like it's gonna be the direction of our education here.
I believe the concept is being put forth in good faith, but ...
Umm... It reminds me of a lot of answers on ELL. It's kinda look great. It reminds us of those grammar books and respectable sources, but it's not it.
I think the recommendation was inspired by learner-focused education of some sort.
 
Anonymous
12:33 AM
Agreed. At many SLACs, teaching evals are essential while at some R1s, being told you are a "good teacher" is actually an insult (the implication is that you aren't dedicated enough to your research if you are also teaching well). — RoboKaren 4 hours ago
 
Anonymous
How bizarre.
 
This kind of thing is a double-edged sword, I think.
I remember that I got one professor who had never been in the class he was supposed to be, and we were told to read these books or those articles, and it went on like that until the end of the semester. I found out later that he made loads of money by being a consultant. (I guess he was busy being a consultant than being a teacher.)
I don't like the concept of tenure much, but I guess it would depend on who gets the tenure. It's only fair for good teachers.
 
Anonymous
12:55 AM
@snailplane Do you have a source for that? I always assumed 'til came from until, and I use 'til exclusively (and even scoff at till users). — pabo 9 mins ago
 
Anonymous
Scoff away, scoff away…
 
Until is much safer for learners. :-)
 
Anonymous
'Til indicates in spelling the reanalysis of till as an abbreviation of until. It's certainly interesting that people conceptualize it this way, and I don't have anything against the spelling 'til myself, but I recommend avoiding it because it may convince people that the speller is ignorant.
 
I think I've seen 'til being used in some poems.
 
Anonymous
Oh! Do you have an example handy?
 
1:01 AM
Ahh... 'tis from my vague memory. :-)
 
Anonymous
The AHD suggests that 'til is now acceptable as an alternative respelling of till: "Till is actually the older word, with until having been formed by the addition to it of the prefix un-, meaning "up to." In the 18th century the spelling 'till became fashionable, as if till were a shortened form of until. Although 'till is now nonstandard, 'til is sometimes used in this way and is considered acceptable, though it is etymologically incorrect." Of course, till is still standard and in widespread use. — snailplane 1 min ago
 
Anonymous
So there we go, an alternative point of view.
 
Anonymous
According to Google Books Ngram Viewer, till is 16 times more common than snail, a word I would suggest is also in widespread use. :-)
 
Anonymous
Let's try COCA
 
Hah!
 
Anonymous
It's unlikely that all 12,000 results are something like "till the field"
 
Anonymous
For reference, the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) has 786 results for ' til (because of how the corpus is put together, you have to put a space after the apostrophe when you search) and 12060 results for till. That's about a 15:1 ratio in favor of till. — snailplane 28 secs ago
 
nods
 
Anonymous
0
Q: What does "pull out" mean?

RuahI read this sentence in a book: He said that maybe it should pull out into a Watermelon Bed. What does "pull out" mean?

 
Anonymous
1:16 AM
This one's a mystery to me.
 
Anonymous
I mean, I think the answer posted to the question is correct.
 
Anonymous
I just have no idea what a Watermelon Bed is :-)
 
Anonymous
I guess I picture an ellipsoidal green bed.
 
@snailboat A Japanese gadget? :)
 
Anonymous
Hemiellipsoidal, rather.
 
1:19 AM
Looks like it's gonna be a Hot Question. :-)
 
Anonymous
I agree with the answers, but I have no idea what a "Watermelon Bed" is. A green hemiellipsoidal bed with red sheets...? — snailplane 6 secs ago
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. I did my part to Hot Question-ize it. I upvoted everything!
 
LOL
1
Q: Translation of a Spanish saying into English

NicoThere is a saying in Spanish that doesn't traslate very well into English: Cuando las barbas de tu vecino veas pelar, pon las tuyas a remojar. When you see your neighbour's beard ?scalping, get yours to soak. I've found a translation here that is wrong. The meaning of the Spanish sayi...

There is an edit suggestion that we should add the tag idioms...
But it looks more like a proverbs thing to me.
 
Anonymous
Yeah, me too.
 
Anonymous
Though proverbs are often idiomatic.
 
1:30 AM
From our wiki, "An idiom is a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words."
 
Anonymous
Pull out might get a bunch of views just because of another possible (somewhat less couth) association the phrase might have
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. That's an okay definition.
 
Hmm... Is wake-up call an idiom? Maybe it is.
@snailboat Ahh... That, too.
 
Anonymous
I feel a little unhappy when I see the top-rated answer on my userpage
 
Checking out...
LOL
 
Anonymous
1:34 AM
I think it's important for people to be able to ask about topics like that, though
 
Anonymous
Or topics like taboo language
 
I set it to newest, not votes, so I'm not sure about mine either.
 
Anonymous
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language has a rather short definition for idiom: "A sequence of words that is a unit of meaning (kick the bucket = "die")."
 
Anonymous
I think non-compositionality can be broken down into syntactic and semantic types
 
Mine looks like a General Audiences thing.
 
Anonymous
1:37 AM
The site's definition and the CEL's definition are both restricted to the semantic type.
 
nods
 
Anonymous
By the way, I think Nico's question is on-topic. :-)
 
Me too.
Hmm... I should probably browse through my proverb book.
Ahh... It's not used in that meaning, but it's related, "Rats desert a sinking ship".
Also, "The wolf is at the door".
 
Anonymous
2:11 AM
Eep!
 
Anonymous
Don't open the door, Red Riding Hood!
 
> 1a. He lives in a house whose windows face south.
1b. He lives in a house the windows of which face south.
1c. He lives in a house of which the windows face south.
Wait a minute, what's wrong with 1c? -- I don't think it's wrong per se.
(Imo, I would say that 1c sounds a little better than 1b, even.)
Hmm...
Compare:
> The first "derives" from a clause in which NOUN is the Patient of VERB.
I think we don't normally write:
> The first "derives" from a clause NOUN in which is the Patient of VERB.
(Btw, the examples 1a-1c are from ell.stackexchange.com/questions/31072/…)
 
Anonymous
3:20 AM
Did you write those things you quoted just now?
 
The "derives" sentences? No, StoneyB wrote it (the first version).
 
Anonymous
Although we don't have to accept that sentences are literally derived from one another by transformations, we can use processes like subject-auxiliary inversion as a metaphor, a way to relate sets of sentences to one another and reduce the total amount of descriptive work that needs to be done
 
Anonymous
So with that in mind,
 
Anonymous
> 1. The windows of the house face south.
 
Anonymous
> 2. a house [ the windows of which face south ]
 
Anonymous
3:24 AM
> 3. a house [ of which the windows __ ___ face south ]
 
Anonymous
> 4. a house [ which the windows of ___ face south ]
 
Anonymous
Do you like all of these equally?
 
I want to mark the last one ungrammatical.
 
Anonymous
What exactly are we doing to relate these sentences to one another?
 
1. sounds okay, a bit non-native, 2. sounds rather okay, a bit colloquial, 3. sounds good, a bit formal.
4. sounds bad
 
Anonymous
3:27 AM
Oh, let me add numbers
 
Anonymous
By the way, I don't think 1 sounds non-native
 
If it's a standalone sentence, I think it's fine.
 
Anonymous
It's a standalone sentence.
 
(I still read it in the context of 1a-1c, so it's odd.)
 
Anonymous
That's why it has capitalization and punctuation, unlike the others.
 
Anonymous
3:29 AM
When we talk about relativizing, we pretend that we're starting with an independent sentence.
 
Anonymous
And then we do one or more things to it, and make it into a relative.
 
Ahh... I see.
> 5. a house [ which the windows of it face south ]
I think 5 is passable.
 
Anonymous
That's non-standard. It contains a resumptive pronoun
 
Anonymous
Resumptive pronouns are pronouns in a relative clause which refer to the antecedent of the main clause (sometimes referred to as the matrix clause). These pronouns occur after a pause or interruption (such as an embedded clause, series of adjectives, or a wh-island), and they restate the antecedent. 1. This is the girli that whenever it rains shei cries. Their primary role is to “block violations of syntactic constraints”, but that is not their only role. In the past, resumptive pronouns have been seen as “ways of salvaging a sentence that a speaker has started without realizing that it is...
 
Still better than 4, I think?
 
Anonymous
3:33 AM
Oh, I'm letting you decide tonight. :-)
 
Hah! Hehe.
 
Anonymous
I stared at those sentences too much to decide myself.
 
Anonymous
Maybe later I'll come back and say stuff about them once I've gotten some distance :-)
 
Anonymous
Perspective, donchano.
 
choking... whirling a few rounds...
 
Anonymous
3:34 AM
Oh! Don't choke!
 
Anonymous
Does anyone know the robo-Heimlich maneuver!?
 
I was about to drink some water and I laughed, so the choke! :)
I'm okay now. :)
 
Anonymous
Phew!
 
still coughing a bit.. :)
 
Anonymous
People say stuff like "I inhaled some water" or "some water went down the wrong pipe"
 
Anonymous
3:38 AM
The windpipe is the wrong pipe, so what's the right pipe? The foodpipe? :-)
 
Oh, inhaling some water is not a good idea!
@snailboat Gastropipe!
 
Anonymous
Hee
 
Anonymous
Wow! People really do call the esophagus a foodpipe.
 
Anonymous
The esophagus (American English) or oesophagus (British English), commonly known as the foodpipe or gullet, is an organ in vertebrates which consists of a fibromuscular tube through which food passes, aided by peristaltic contractions, from the pharynx to the stomach. In humans, the esophagus is usually 18–25 centimeters (cm) long. During swallowing the epiglottis tilts backwards to prevent food from going down the larynx. The esophagus travels behind the trachea and heart, passes through the diaphragm and empties into the cardia of the stomach. The word esophagus which derives from the Greek word...
 
Anonymous
"commonly known as the foodpipe"
 
Anonymous
3:41 AM
How come I don't know this word? :-)
 
Anonymous
Let's check COCA…
 
Anonymous
No matches!
 
Anonymous
Can't be that commonly known, now can it?
 
Anonymous
139 for gullet, 526 for esophagus
 
Anonymous
I would say "The esophagus, commonly known as the esophagus, …"
 
3:42 AM
I think that's the term commonly known. :D
 
Anonymous
They might be using common to mean "its non-scientific name is either foodpipe or gullet"
 
Anonymous
In biological nomenclature, a common name of a taxon or organism (also known as a vernacular name, English name, colloquial name, trivial name, trivial epithet, country name, popular name, or farmer's name) is a name that is based on the normal language of everyday life; this kind of name is often contrasted with the scientific name for the same organism, which is Latinized. A so-called "common name" is sometimes quite commonly used, but that is not always the case. Sometimes common names are created by authorities on one particular subject, in an attempt to make it possible for members of the...
 
Anonymous
> A so-called "common name" is sometimes quite commonly used, but that is not always the case.
 
Anonymous
But it seems weird to me to use that in adverbial form: "commonly known" to me implies that it is known, well, commonly :-)
 
I think commonly known doesn't mean "known by common people or a lay person".
 
Anonymous
3:44 AM
To me, "commonly known" should mean "a lot of people know X"
 
Anonymous
You know, like "Yggdrasil is a very common name!"
 
I would read it that way too.
 
Anonymous
Yggy for short.
 
@snailboat Wait, is it!?
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. Um, er, ah, well, … :-)
 
3:46 AM
I guess Ragnarok is way more commonly known than Yggdrasil. :)
Oh, I checked the spelling Ragnarok and found that they're going to make Thor 3! (I haven't watched Thor 2 yet!)
 
Anonymous
In Japanese, the beginning of ラグナロク Ragnarok is homophonous with ラグナ Laguna
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. Me either.
 
I no troll. Me Tiger! :D
 
Hello Tiger!
 
Around a week or so ago, I went and voted to close like 3 stupid threads on ELU, and when I was prompted to provide a comment, I wrote in something like "Pure nonsense" into the space--which was what I was thinking. Sometime later, I saw that my comment was a REAL COMMENT in that thread -- and it had an up vote. I went and deleted my comment (there were two of them, I think).
So, I be itching to write similar stuff in many threads, but usually ah restrain me-self. :)
 
3:58 AM
Oh, that's interesting!
 
Anonymous
@F.E. Oh, god! :-)
 
Anonymous
Yeah, that's how it works.
 
Anonymous
As you already know. But I'm telling you anyway.
 
Anonymous
The system turns your off-topic close reason into a comment.
 
Anonymous
And anyone who chooses to close for the same reason automatically upvotes it.
 
Anonymous
3:59 AM
And if it gets the five votes it needs, the comment is automatically deleted.
 
Oh, so it might have been another close-voter! :D
 
Anonymous
(In fact, even if you delete it ahead of time, if it gets closed anyway, Community re-deletes it and takes ownership of the deletion in the post history)
 
Anonymous
Many close voters type in a reason, then immediately delete the automatically generated comment.
 
@snailboat Oh, I could've done that?!
 
Anonymous
@F.E. Since I can see deleted comments on Japanese.SE, I've noticed people doing this all the time.
 
Anonymous
4:01 AM
(Moderators on ELU can see your deleted comments over there, too.)
 
@snailboat Then that's their problem. :D
 
Anonymous
Hee.
 
Anonymous
Well, they're hidden by default, so I doubt moderators are going and looking anyway ;-)
 
Anonymous
Not all the time, anyway.
 
Anonymous
That takes Effort.
 
4:04 AM
In your +110 bonus thread, I've only down-voted two posts. Er, guess which two (perhaps a rhetorical question).
Still another 3 days . . .
 
Anonymous
Hey, are you assuming I'll upvote any answer I award the bounty to?
 
Anonymous
Maybe I'll award it to one of those -3 answers. You just don't know.
 
Anonymous
Then it'd be a +98 bonus instead of a +110 bonus. :-)
 
I was trying to bring the bad answers down toward zero, but too many people kept on up-voting those two posts. :(
The best answer seems to be the one in the middle (of the vote count). :) . . . Oh, WAIT!
> They're both correct, but have different implications.
 
Anonymous
Oh, it has 3 downvotes!
 
4:09 AM
Whoa! Are we being taken in? Is he playing a rope-a-dope?!
@snailboat But it is plus 3, right?
 
Anonymous
Yes, +6 -3 = +3
 
Anonymous
If you have enough reputation, you can click the number and see how it breaks down (do you have that already?)
 
I thought he was just a regular guy, because he got one of the "passive" examples wrong in another thread.
@snailboat Not on ELL. I be a beginner here.
I wonder if I'm messing up a whole bunch of EFL speakers with me Tiger Dialect. :)
 
For the record, I didn't downvote anything in that question.
 
Anonymous
I did. I might vote more later.
 
Anonymous
4:12 AM
I haven't voted on anything but the two answers at the bottom.
 
I did 2 down-votes, and 0 up-votes so far.
 
Anonymous
(Sorry, two answerers!)
 
Anonymous
I still haven't taken the time to read the other answers in detail
 
Anonymous
I'm waiting until closer to the deadline :-)
 
I just don't like poor answers getting high up-votes like they been getting.
 
Anonymous
4:13 AM
In the meantime, I want pretzels.
 
Oh, I just noticed the other bounty question!
 
@DamkerngT. That be outta Tiger's domain.
Tiger be on today's standard English written form, only.
Tiger growl, snarls, chews. Tiger no speak English.
 
Hah!
 
Tiger type English slowly on keyboard.
Tiger type slow because claws sharp.
 
Does Tiger like Victorian English?
Because Robot is confused when reading this English, "You have confidence which nor can even the Devil shake."
 
4:19 AM
@DamkerngT. Tiger be on today's standard English written form, only.
@DamkerngT. Typo, or optical conversion error? Compare: "You have confidence which nor not can even the Devil shake."
 
Ahh... That makes quite some sense!
 
Anonymous
It doesn't look grammatical to me. I expect not instead of nor and can later: "You have confidence which not even the devil can shake." What year was this written? — snailplane 1 min ago
 
@DamkerngT. It might even have an older use of "can" in that example?!
 
not can even!
 
Anonymous
It's okay to ask about sentences you've written yourself, but please tell us you've done so. When you post a sentence and ask "Does this mean…", most people think you're asking what someone else's sentence means. — snailplane 47 secs ago
 
4:24 AM
Robot thinks it's an alien's dialect, somewhat resembling to Victorian English, but somehow defunct.
 
@DamkerngT. The OP admitted they made up that sentence. :(
 
By the way, Robot enjoys watching Aliens vs. Predators a lot!
 
Anonymous
Telling us that he wrote the sentence himself is pretty important.
 
(Sad) Tiger be not liking getting faked out like that. :(
 
Me either.
 
4:28 AM
I'm getting my dialects all mixed up. (sheepish grin)
 
Anonymous
That's fine, and I even upvoted the question after your edit, but without the additional information I would have voted to close because it looked like you were trying to interpret someone else's ungrammatical and sentence without citing it. Telling us you wrote it yourself is the difference between that upvote and that close vote. — snailplane 10 secs ago
 
Anonymous
See that editing error?
 
Anonymous
> ungrammatical and uncited sentence
 
Anonymous
When I moved uncited out into the adjunct without citing it, I accidentally left the and behind.
 
Anonymous
I make this sort of editing error regrettably often, and I once read a name for this sort of error
 
Anonymous
4:29 AM
But I can't remember what it was
 
Anonymous
I wish I could :-)
 
Oh! I didn't notice it!
 
Anonymous
I already fixed it on the site itself.
 
Anonymous
But you can see it in the version I quoted in here.
 
Second thought typo? :-)
 
4:30 AM
I'd rather that thread be closed, or better yet, get ported to ELU. :D
 
I made that a lot!
 
Anonymous
@F.E. But ELU would punt it right back! ;-)
 
That thread doesn't have anything to do with English language learners.
 
Anonymous
@F.E. I think this is a time that call for carrot rather than stick, though.
 
Anonymous
The user is upset about getting so many of their questions close voted.
 
4:31 AM
@snailboat Maybe not. They be loving SWR questions and stuff like that.
 
Anonymous
Now, I did a lot of those close votes, and I think they were fair.
 
Anonymous
@F.E. Wait, are we talking about nor can?
 
@snailboat Yup ("which nor"). :) . . . . The user has 216 questions in 11 months! What!? . . . And no answer posts?!
 
Anonymous
Many users on ELL never answer questions, and others never ask questions.
 
But that's an average of 20 questions a month. For 11 months. Ouch.
 
Anonymous
4:34 AM
The venom'd tongue, injurious to his fame, Which nor can wisdom shun, nor fair advice reclaim. I found this. — username901345 2 mins ago
 
Anonymous
@F.E. It's significantly more than that. They delete many of their questions.
 
Anonymous
And they have three accounts.
 
@snailboat Ouch, ouch.
 
nods in agreement
 
@snailboat Ouch, ouch, ouch.
@snailboat Hmm, that's interesting. :) . . . Maybe worth keeping the thread open, just for that.
(Gonna go and do some editing for an hour or so. With Maleficent music in the background, of course.)
 
4:42 AM
See you soon
 
Anonymous
5:06 AM
 
Anonymous
This is a sweet potato. A white-skinned sweet potato.
 
Anonymous
I've never bought a sweet potato before.
 
Anonymous
This is my first!
 
Anonymous
I hope you're all proud of me.
 
Anonymous
Hopefully it's not riddled with badness that is plain to see for sweet-potato experts.
 
5:13 AM
I'm no potato expert, but this one looks nice!
Kampai! for your first potato!
 
6:00 AM
@snailboat You've never eaten baked sweet potatoes before! (incredulous stare)
Even tigers eat baked sweet potatoes, like sweet potato pie, or just hot and fresh from the oven, or with butter and brown sugar. Almost as good as lasagna.
Ah did 2 or 3 hours of work today, not bad for me. :)
 
6:12 AM
9
Q: Which is the correct question ("Who has" vs "Who have")?

bellaThe situation is that: We've already read three English novels. Which is the correct question for that situation? 1) Who has already read three English novels? 2) Who have already read three English novels? Or could both be correct? Please also provide the grammatical reasons fo...

Okay, from the answer posts and the comments, it seems that there's a bit of confusion on this topic. And so . . .
 
6:48 AM
In COCA, there are 232 "Who has ..." and 35 "Who have ..."
But if we look more closely, only 2 of those 35 are a real question that Who is the subject of the sentence.
> Who have been the redistributors? Not the liberals, but the supply-siders.
> Ms. WALTERS: Let me finish . Who have not felt- Mr. BRINKLEY: She said she had, a lot
Skimming to those 232 "Who has ...", I'd say virtually all of them are real questions with Who as the subject of the sentence.
So let's round the number of to 200:2, and we get about 100:1 ratio of "Who has":"Who have".
 
@DamkerngT. And?
 
Nothing. I just present the data.
 
Numbers are numbers. Often they don't mean a thing, but can often be misleading.
@DamkerngT. This is an important data.
@DamkerngT. 35 "Who have …" <== is important data.
 
No, only 2.
 
@DamkerngT. That's still important. That is, if they are grammatical in their contexts.
 
6:54 AM
I agree that those two are grammatical.
 
There might be some delays between my responses, as I'm in the middle of writing an answer post. :(
@DamkerngT. Can you provide the text of those two examples (including some of the surrounding prose)?
 
You can use this link to verify the examples: corpus.byu.edu/coca/x1.asp?c=coca&q=32393434
Anyway, I will paste the whole block of the two texts here.
 
@DamkerngT. Just those two examples using the singular value is all that's needed (with their block of surrounding prose). :)
 
Oh, that link doesn't work. This one does: corpus.byu.edu/coca/?c=coca&q=32393434.
 
Hopefully, those examples are from recently published text.
 
6:58 AM
> endanger the well-being of future Americans. The federal budget deficit absorbs savings that could and should be building up the nation's productive capital. The trade deficit burdens the nation with a growing foreign debt and weakens us in world economics and politics. The deficit in government expenditure for infrastructure, environmental protection, education, children's health and other neglected public responsibilities impairs our productivity and competitiveness.
> # At the same time, inequalities of income and wealth have increased dramatically over the last 10 years. Nothing could be a more legitimate political concern in a democracy . Who have been the redistributors? Not the liberals, but the supply-siders. They have engineered a redistribution, a regressive redistribution. To oppose more of the same is scarcely the socialist heresy that conservative ideologists allege.
 
Anonymous
COCA examples are from 1990-2012.
 
> # The promises of the Reagan era turned out to be empty, indeed worse than empty. They failed at the supply-side bottom line, which is accelerating productivity. And despite tax concessions billed as savings inducements, the private sector's propensity to save plunged. # True, the country recovered from
 
Anonymous
If you want to find older examples, you need to use COHA.
 
Anonymous
(C ontemporary versus H istorical)
 
That's the first one. Date: 1990 (19900121), Publication information: OUTLOOK, Title: The Tax-Cut Time Bomb; Author: James Tobin, Source: Washington Post
> feel. Not just in the terms of sexual harassment, but in sexual discrimination, which has not come up here but which is also something that so many women are now coming forth and saying, " This happened to me, this happened to me. " One of the questions about Professor Hill is, why 10 years, and how does she remember it so accurately? And there are very few women whom I've talked to, and I include myself-
> Mr. DONALDSON: Have you ever been sexually harassed? Ms. WALTERS: Let me finish . Who have not felt- Mr. BRINKLEY: She said she had, a lot. Ms. WALTERS: -who have- I have not been sexually harassed, but I have been very obviously discriminated against on-
> Mr. DONALDSON: crosstalk that's shifting to another subject, Barbara. Ms. WALTERS: No, no, no, no, no, what I'm saying is, it is a part of the whole business of sexual awareness of what women have gone through. And what I was going to say about that,
That's the second one: Date: 1991 (19911013), Title: ABC_Brinkley / 19911013, Source : ABC_Brinkley
 
7:01 AM
Checking out COHA...
 
Er, transcripted dialogue probably ain't gonna be carrying much weight on the current discussion. Now, as to edited text -- by professional editors -- that would be valuable.
Though, transcripts are valuable for how we actually speak the language.
 
I found this in COHA, I'm not sure I should count it: Who have you in your eye?
> 'You have hit me exactly, Mosley!' said the roue with animation. 'Who have you in your eye? For that look of yours means something. Come, I am all curiosity.'
 
Anonymous
@F.E. Happily, COCA has subcorpora
 
Anonymous
About 20% is the SPOKEN subcorpus, but the other 80% is published written material of one sort or another.
 
(I fixed one quotation mark, in front of 'Who have you in your eye? ...')
 
7:05 AM
But in grammatical discussions, it seems that if one can provide edited written examples, then that's kinda safe and good data points that's usually accepted by both sides.
 
Anonymous
When you search, you can specifically exclude SPOKEN, if you like.
 
@DamkerngT. Er, that be sounding old: Come, I am all curiosity.
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. Ah, I'm sorry, when I said "if you want to find older examples", that wasn't meant to imply we do :-)
 
. . . back to creating an answer post . . . (on this topic)
 
Anonymous
I was just outlining two options.
 
Anonymous
7:08 AM
10 mins ago, by F.E.
Hopefully, those examples are from recently published text.
 
Anonymous
4 mins ago, by Damkerng T.
I found this in COHA, I'm not sure I should count it: Who have you in your eye?
 
But it looks like I can find more legit Who have ...? in COHA indeed!
(Though still much less in number than Who has ...?)
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. Tha's 'cause it's "Who do you have in your eye?" in modern grammar, or "Who are you thinking of?" in modern idiom
 
Anonymous
That is, the same person who said "Who have you in your eye?" would say "Have you a penny?"
 
Anonymous
Anyway, the author there was born over two centuries ago.
 
7:11 AM
@snailboat I found similar examples, which I can confidently rule out (e.g. Who have you here, captain?), but this one (Who have you in your eye?) is ambiguous for me.
 
Anonymous
In what way do you find it ambiguous?
 
It sounds like the asker asked about "Who that have you, and I can see that in your eyes".
(Anyway, I was in my fast mode to skim through a big chunk of text.)
 
Anonymous
> 'An empty cage is of no use if it is gilded, Silsby.'
>
> 'I know that! But there is no trusting these persons. I have spent thousands to please them, and they are only the worse for it. I have half a mind to get married, to revenge myself on them all. If I could come across a young beauty, modest and agreeable, I would like to have her. I would give fifty dollars for such a one. I want a fine creature to dash out with on the turnpike.'
>
> 'Do you mean a wife?' asked Ralph with surprise.
>
> 'A wife -- no!' answered Silsby staring at him.
 
Ratio of Who has:have in COHA ~ 400:8, COCA ~ 200:2
 
Anonymous
The context should be enough to make it clear
 
7:18 AM
nods -- It's much clearer now.
(I'm done skimming through those 72 examples. Yay!)
You should not expect a comment from a downvoter. That's how this site works! That's how I got -1 down here. — Maulik V Aug 5 at 7:04
 
Anonymous
Due to the long-term shift from auxiliary static have to lexical static have, you'll find more strings of who have in that linear order in older English
 
I'm a bit concerned with the comment. I think I've seen enough comments of his to be able to conclude that he really thinks that.
@snailboat I ruled most of them out, so 72 examples is down to 8.
 
Anonymous
("Static" have is the sense in which have is a stative verb, which includes possession have)
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. What search did you use?
 
Anonymous
. who have, I bet
 
7:25 AM
Yes. Then I did an eye-balled search.
 
Anonymous
Oh, I was interested in COHA
 
Anonymous
That's where I found the 72 number, too :-)
 
I changed the database to COHA. :)
 
Anonymous
> Who have hungered and thirsted after righteousness with intenser longings, who have striven after self-crucifixion and likeness to Christ with more earnest and persevering efforts, who have actually made greater attainments in the life of God, than the Augustines, the Luthers, the Paysons of the Christian church? (1845)
 
Anonymous
Wow, that is a lot of false positives
 
7:31 AM
It's the same in COCA. (So, there are only 2 Who have ...? out of 35.)
 
Anonymous
Hmm
 
Anonymous
> Who have the power of impeaching all civil officers of this State for corrupt conduct in office, or for high crimes and misdemeanors? ... Who have the care of the highways and bridges in the several towns? (1843)
 
Anonymous
> Who have dwellings there, in avenues of space? (1875)
 
Anonymous
Those are the three examples I count
 
Anonymous
Count them as six, if you like :-)
 
Anonymous
7:36 AM
I'm curious what the other 5 (4? 2?) were
 
Oh, I don't want to recount them again.
 
Anonymous
Oh!
 
Anonymous
You didn't save them! Now I'm sad ;-)
 
Anonymous
Who have is really fairly rare.
 
Me either. My browser is slow (so it's sluggish to search and type), and COCA doesn't have easy saving, I think.
 
Anonymous
7:37 AM
I use text editors :-)
 
I would be nice if I could export all those texts out of COCA. :)
 
#55 "Who have been the bene-ficiaries?"
 
Anonymous
Ah, good eye!
 
#2 "who have never drank of glory's intoxicating draughts!"
It's an exclamation, but I think it's qualified.
 
Anonymous
7:41 AM
Ah, that's "You, who have never drank of glory's intoxicating draughts!"
 
Oh!
 
Anonymous
I wonder what causes these. OCR problems?
 
Anonymous
I'm sure they didn't type these all up by hand.
 
I guess it's because OCRing too.
#13 "Who have established this seminary, already so vigorous and promising?"
#16 "Who have dwellings there, in avenues of space?"
I guess that's about all. (I'm sure I missed some of them this time.)
 
Anonymous
Ah, I thought #13 was a false positive, but it turns out it was a true positive!
 
Anonymous
7:46 AM
@DamkerngT. That was one of my three, too!
 
Ah, I missed it in your examples!
In any case, I think it's much much safer for learners to just always use the singular form.
Then, whey they become more advanced, I'm sure they will become aware of the plural alternative automatically.
(Otherwise, they might end up the way Maulik answer's explains: Think of the expected answer first, and always use the singular when you expect a singular answer, and use the plural when you expect a plural answer.)
And because LiveMynd didn't mention this, I decided not to upvote his answer, because I think it could mislead the learners. (Though I think he's very fluent in English.)
 
00:00 - 08:0008:00 - 20:00

« first day (562 days earlier)      last day (337 days later) »