« first day (810 days earlier)      last day (89 days later) » 

10:01 PM
Sorry to interrupt. Now I wonder, is percentage numerals too?
In reports, I think (imho) it's easier to read "14% of land is privately owned, which is a very small percentage" than to read "Fourteen percent of land ...".
Or at least it's easier to spot the percentage.
 
@DamkerngT. A numeral is any of the 10 Arabic number symbols we use... 1, 2, 3, 5 2837... etc. What comes before or after that numeral, % $ whatever... doesn't change that they're numerals.
 
nods
 
Anonymous
(Note that in linguistics numeral has a different definition)
 
@snailboat Oh? Interesting.
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. The CMOS recommends writing out percent instead of using the percent sign in non-scientific writing
 
10:06 PM
Ahh... makes sense. Context is everything!
 
Oh, you mean numeral generically VS Arabic Numerals specifically? As in Roman Numerals I II, IV etc?
 
Anonymous
And they suggest always using numerals for percents, not writing them out. Unless they come at the beginning of a sentence!
 
Anonymous
In linguistics, words like one and two are called "numerals".
 
Hah! That's quite specific! (the unless)
 
Anonymous
So they'd suggest writing "14 percent" in the middle of a sentence and "Fourteen percent" at the beginning
 
10:07 PM
@snailboat Really... that's interesting.
 
Anonymous
(Some people rewrite sentences so that they don't come at the beginning)
 
Got it! Thanks!
 
And that was one of the options I listed... if it matters (rewriting the sentence).
 
Anonymous
I think it's often a good option
 
It is, though it may occasionally require the passive voice.
 
Anonymous
10:09 PM
Of course, you don't always have that luxury―you might be transcribing something someone said, for example :-)
 
Oh, it's our Hot Network Question now.
I forgot to upvote the OP's question!
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. The percent rule is itself an exception. In other contexts they suggest writing out numbers from zero to one hundred
 
Anonymous
I think some other style guides say "small numbers" or "up to ten"
 
nods -- I always spell it out up to ten. Hmm... Maybe I've never written anything more than ten at the beginning of a sentence. (except for a year, like 2015)
 
Just noticed the latest comment... any thoughts on whether it's sincere, ironic, or mocking? or something else? I can't get a handle on it but it seems irreverent at the least.
> Oh, sure. I think that's a case of "spell out small numbers, use digits for large numbers". That's a rule I respect and follow. Even if it's in the middle of a sentence, I routinely write, say, "I was born in AD 1958, so I am now two-score and sixteen years old."
Meep... how do you quote stuff here?
 
10:17 PM
Adding a space after > should have the effect you want.
 
@DamkerngT. Thanks!
 
My pleasure!
 
Anonymous
I think Jay is generally well meaning
 
Agree.
I guess it must be because J.R. mentioned "Four score and seven years ago..." first. :-)
How many scores am I now?
 
OK. That makes sense. Didn't want to judge quickly but I'm bad at reading sarcasm/jokes, particularly on the web.
 
10:20 PM
Ahh... I'm two-score something years old!
Is that even English?! (I'm just mocking myself.)
 
I feel like we should go back to fortnight and sennight now.
 
That's a new trick!
 
Anonymous
That graph is somewhat surprising to me
 
10:23 PM
_NUM_ AD,AD _NUM_ on Google Ngram!
 
Anonymous
My perception is that writing AD first is somewhat old fashioned
 
Both seem to co-exist!
 
@snailboat Why? I would guess that some huge percent of AD years don't have AD in either place... and the rule I grew up with is 500 BC and AD 500...
 
Anonymous
@Catija Yeah, I'd guess that too
 
Anonymous
10:25 PM
Still:
 
Anonymous
It's just my intuition talking, not a rule: it sounds better to me with AD after
 
AD 2000 did take a major downturn at the same time 2000 AD went up.
 
A movie, a song, or a novel, maybe?
 
Anonymous
But I thought AD beforehand was more traditional, so I expected it to be higher earlier on
 
10:27 PM
This one is an interesting ballet: books.google.com/ngrams/…
 
Anonymous
I guess both before and after have been coexisting for a while
 
@DamkerngT. good find. Looks like 2000 AD might not be a good sample year.
 
Indeed!
 
10:30 PM
A bumpy road!
 
Anonymous
Yeah, the data is pretty noisy. Actually, the default setting of smoothing = 3 hides that noise
 
Anonymous
But if you look, there isn't really enough data to draw a conclusion from
 
nods
 
The less recent 1200 AD seemed to have more data...
 
Anonymous
I suppose we're more likely to add AD to older dates
 
Anonymous
10:33 PM
When you hear or see 1999, probably the first thing you think of is the year
 
Anonymous
But when you see 1200? Maybe the association is a little weaker
 
That was my thought... even more so with something like 700... though I'd think the amount of discussion of that era would be greatly reduced, too.
 
Because most of my English writing stuff is technical, AD is rare for me. (I wonder if I've ever really used it!)
 
I'm a fan of BCE and CE. :P
 
Anonymous
When we start talking about years like 78, I always have to add something like "the year" or "AD", or it doesn't sounds right to me even if context makes it clear I'm talking about a year
 
Anonymous
10:35 PM
Oh, yeah, those are probably good
 
Anonymous
I'm indifferent personally. It's all the same to me
 
Anonymous
I don't think of AD as religious. That's just etymology. I don't think of goodbye as religious, either
 
@Catija I enjoyed 10,000 BC a lot!
 
I don't use them, either way, to be honest.
 
Anonymous
I kind of like the sound of BC, maybe because of the comic strip :-)
 
Anonymous
10:36 PM
 
The irony of dating something 10,000 BC is amusing to me, considering that (at least in the US) many people refuse to accept the world as being more than 6000 years old.
 
Hey, maybe I've seen some of the comic!
@Catija Hehe!
 
Anonymous
It is weird when people let religion get in the way of science
 
Anonymous
But I mostly just ignore that―people can believe whatever they want to believe
 
10:38 PM
@snailboat indeed.
 
Anonymous
Me, I like science. What could be more fun than calling birds "dinosaurs" in daily speech? :-)
 
I saw a few of them this morning!
 
Anonymous
Oh! Yay!
 
Anonymous
I'm not sure where all the dinosaurs were when I was out today
 
Anonymous
Usually I see lots of them!
 
10:40 PM
Cute white mini-dinosaurs. :-)
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. Did I show you the lizard I found?
 
@snailboat I wonder if they are cousins with the ones I saw this morning.
 
Anonymous
 
@snailboat Oh, yes!
 
Anonymous
 
10:42 PM
I think I wasn't in the room when you posted it, but I remember I've seen your pic.
Ah, this one is new!
 
Anonymous
I don't know why, but he let me get really close.
 
In the former one, your lizard looks like Godzilla!
 
Anonymous
I don't think he was playing dead because he still moved a little
 
Anonymous
Usually they're afraid of people and run if you get close.
 
Maybe he knew he was quick?
 
Anonymous
10:43 PM
@DamkerngT. He's about pinky finger size! :-)
 
Anonymous
I had several people remark that he looked huge in that picture.
 
@snailboat I imagined that the net was as big as a stadium!
 
Anonymous
Hmm, maybe a little bigger than pinky finger size. I'm not really a good judge of size.
 
Anonymous
 
Where is the lizard?!?
 
Anonymous
10:44 PM
In the middle, up against the vent!
 
Anonymous
That's the same thing, but without zooming in.
 
Oh!
 
Anonymous
Doesn't look so big now, probably… :-)
 
I'm sure I would've missed him!
 
Anonymous
They're very cute, though. This one is a Western fence lizard.
 
Anonymous
10:46 PM
I'm glad he posed for me :-)
 
:D
By the way, nice pebbles!
 
Anonymous
I like them!
 
Anonymous
I wonder how big a rock has to be before it's no longer a pebble
 
Anonymous
Wow! Wikipedia says:
 
Anonymous
A pebble is a clast of rock with a particle size of 2 to 64 millimetres based on the Krumbein phi scale of sedimentology. Pebbles are generally considered larger than granules (2 to 4 millimetres diameter) and smaller than cobbles (64 to 256 millimetres diameter). A rock made predominantly of pebbles is termed a conglomerate. Pebble tools are among the earliest known man-made artifacts, dating from the Palaeolithic period of human history. A beach composed chiefly of surface pebbles is commonly termed a shingle beach. This type of beach has armoring characteristics with respect to wave erosion...
 
10:47 PM
Me too! The pebbles in my garden don't look as neat, though.
Wow!
> Pebbles are generally considered larger than granules (2 to 4 millimetres diameter) and smaller than cobbles (64 to 256 millimetres diameter).
That's kinda... very specific!
 
Anonymous
I think in natural speech the boundaries are pretty fuzzy.
 
Anonymous
We aren't all sedimentologists
 
:D
True!
 
Anonymous
But it's still fascinating to see that there's such a specific definition waiting at hand!
 
Yes!
 
Anonymous
10:49 PM
I think in my mind the rocks there might be a little too big to call pebbles.
 
Anonymous
That's what made me think of looking it up
 
Some of them are qualified as cobbles, I think.
 
Anonymous
Hmm, I guess so!
 
Anonymous
I'm afraid I just call them rocks... but they're nice rocks! I like them :-)
 
Anonymous
10:51 PM
When I think of cobbles, I think of cobblestone
 
Anonymous
Cobblestones are stones that were frequently used in the pavement of early streets. "Cobble", the diminutive of the archaic English word "cob", meaning "rounded lump", originally referred to any small stone rounded by the flow of water; essentially, a large pebble. It was these smooth "cobbles", gathered from stream beds, that paved the first "cobblestone" streets. In England, it was commonplace since ancient times for flat stones with a flat narrow edge to be set on edge to provide an even paved surface. This was known as a 'pitched' surface and was common all over Britain, as it did not require...
 
Ahh
They're rare over here. Maybe only used in some old walls and pavements.
 
Anonymous
I can't think of the last time I saw actual cobblestone
 
Anonymous
That doesn't mean it wasn't recently, just that I can't call it to mind if so!
 
nods
I grew up in a place literally means "laterite".
Nos cobble, though.
 
Anonymous
10:55 PM
A place whose name literally means "laterite"?
 
Argh, a bee attack!
 
Anonymous
Oh no!!
 
I'm wearing a white shirt, so I think the bee thought I was the daylight!
So he flew right at me!
 
Anonymous
To make your sentence grammatical in Standard English, you could add that. One of the times a bare relative is not permitted is when the gap is in subject position
 
Anonymous
> I grew up in a place [ that ___ literally means "laterite". ]
 
10:57 PM
Oh, I was looking the bee sentence. :-) Thanks!
 
Anonymous
But if you distinguish a place from its name:
 
Anonymous
> I grew up in a place [ whose name literally means "laterite". ]
 
Anonymous
Or the name of which
 
nods
I wanted to blame my error on the bee, but I'd rather not. :-)
 
Anonymous
Ah, I hope my extended discussion doesn't seem like nitpicking :-)
 
11:00 PM
Apparently, I couldn't turn "laterite" into a good full sentence in one blow.
@snailboat It's okay, though I'm sure it's my Cat 2.
 
Anonymous
That's what I figured :-)
 
Anonymous
I guess I'm just elaborating out of habit.
 
Anonymous
Whose, by the way, takes animate reference only when it's used interrogatively:
 
Anonymous
> Whose car is that? ← Whose must refer to a person
 
Anonymous
But not when it's used as a relative word:
 
Anonymous
11:03 PM
Hmm, I should find a new example for that
 
I think I saw a few whose or whose extent questions by LawA51PC today.
1
Q: Antecedent of 'whose' in 'to whose extent' ? (1834 UK)

Law Area 51 Proposal - CommitSource: p 377, A Treatise on Astronomy, by Sir John F. W. Herschel ... But between that remotest orb and the nearest star there is a gulf fixed, to whose extent no observations yet made    have enabled us to assign any distinct approximation, or to name any distance, however immense,...

 
Anonymous
> At the general level we will define a past tense as one whose primary or characteristic use is to indicate past time.
 
Anonymous
Here whose is fine even though it doesn't refer to a person, because relative whose doesn't have the same restriction interrogative whose does
 
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. That is some really weird spacing.
 
Anonymous
The spacing makes it harder to read, which makes it harder to parse. I don't think it helps with anything, unfortunately. — snailboat 20 secs ago
 
Anonymous
11:11 PM
I can't figure out what Law Area had in mind.
 
I think he was trying...
> My struggle with 'to the extent of which', inspired me to Google some examples of 'to whose extent' as practice. This is how I encountered this quote, not because I wish to learn astronomy.
Oh, so this must be it!
1
Q: 'of which' in 'to the utmost extent of which' (1906 UK)

Law Area 51 Proposal - CommitSource: p 279, The Family, by Helen Bosanquet, BA in Moral Sciences (First Class; Cambridge) If the husband is the head of the Family ... the wife is the centre. It is she who is primarily responsible for the care of the children; to the utmost extent of which the family means will allow,...

A Treatise on Astronomy (p.377), by Sir John F. W. Herschel
And maybe when he reads "to the extent of which", he may understand it as "to whose extent".
And then he went on hunting some more examples of "to whose extent"!
 
Anonymous
To whose extent isn't something people really say (or write) in 2015
 
Anonymous
But a couple hundred years ago it wasn't so strange.
 
nods -- I think I've heard it before, and maybe another expression with extent in it. (I can't recall the expression.)
 
Anonymous
Extent is still extant.
 
11:16 PM
Oh, yes. to a large extent, to such an extent that
 
Anonymous
Yes! Its use is quite extensive
 
Gotta go. @Catija Congrats (about the answer going on network-wide!). @snailboat Thanks for everything, as always!
See you later!
 
Anonymous
See you later, @DamkerngT.!
 

« first day (810 days earlier)      last day (89 days later) »