English Language Learners

Anonymous

17:00

You can tell me which page

Damkerng T.

@snailplane I mean when being used as a prep.

> Do not say that one thing is opposite to or opposite of another.
Say that one thing is opposite another: There's a car park opposite the hotel.

In LEG, it's in Appendix 25.30, p. 332.

Anonymous

Got it

Damkerng T.

According to LEG,

> There's a bank opposite (to) my office.

is grammatical.

And this opposite is a preposition.

Anonymous

Yeah.

Anonymous

It's like near (to) and close to

Damkerng T.

17:04

Agree.

Anonymous

> She was sitting near me.
> She was sitting near to me.
> *She was sitting close me.
> She was sitting close to me.

Anonymous

Whether the to is allowed or required is idiomatic, on a case-by-case basis.

Anonymous

Here's what Quirk's grammar says:

Anonymous

Opposite means 'facing' and has optional to:

Anonymous

> Her house is opposite (to) mine.

Damkerng T.

17:06

Hah!

Anonymous

(This is in the section describing it specifically as a preposition, of course.)

Damkerng T.

That's identical to that question.

Anonymous

It's page 680 if you want to quote it as well.

Anonymous

(from A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language)

Damkerng T.

Hmm... I might have it from Archive.org.

Anonymous

17:08

I don't think it's out of copyright

Damkerng T.

Yeah, found it here: llrc.mcast.edu.mt/digitalversion/Table_of_Contents_136386.pdf.

Hmm... dot mt?

Malta!

Anonymous

Table of Contents?

Damkerng T.

Not sure, it's still on the way. (114 pages)

Anonymous

Quirk et al. is about 1800 pages.

Damkerng T.

Ah, so it's only the table of contents and the Index.

Was it the 1868 edition?

Anonymous

17:14

Er?

Damkerng T.

Perhaps not.

I found this: archive.org/details/acomprehensiveg02kerlgoog

Anonymous

Its first edition was in 1985.

Anonymous

The one I referred to was by Quirk et al.

Damkerng T.

Obviously, it's not the same book. :-)

Anonymous

Unfortunately not!

Damkerng T.

17:15

So I guess it's not available on the web freely.

Anonymous

Well, that's why I typed up a short quote in case you wanted to use it in an answer. :-)

Damkerng T.

But how can I provide an answer that conflicts with Longman dictionary. :-)

Perhaps, I might just leave a comment.

Anonymous

Because you have other sources saying otherwise? :-)

Damkerng T.

A grammar book from 1995. :-)

(I almost thought that it's already obsolete, remember?)

Anonymous

Which one is from 1995?

Damkerng T.

17:19

Okay, I might try to put all information together.

@snailplane My LEG.

Anonymous

Oh, really? Umm, which edition do you have?

Damkerng T.

It says Twelfth impression 1995.

Anonymous

But that's not when it was written, that's just when it was in its twelfth run of printing.

Anonymous

Twentieth impression 2003 :-)

Damkerng T.

Wow!

Anonymous

17:22

It's actually from 1988.

Damkerng T.

It also says, yes, First published 1988.

Anonymous

I don't think it's been updated since then.

Damkerng T.

I take it that "impression" means they didn't change anything from the First published.

Anonymous

I don't think so. But it's not entirely clear to me.

Anonymous

→ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impression_%28publishing%29#Print_run

Damkerng T.

17:24

Ah, I see.

Anonymous

It may have minor changes, like fixing typographical errors and so forth. Or it may not

Damkerng T.

They even bolded that impression. :-)

Anonymous

They sure did! Thanks, anonymous Wikipedian.

Damkerng T.

Suppose that I want to quote A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, how should I quote it?

> A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language by Quirk et. al?

Anonymous

How about: A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk et al. 1985, p.680)

Damkerng T.

17:32

Oh! That's clear. Thank you!

Anonymous

It's sort of an ad hoc style. Maybe I'd put the page number outside the parentheses: (Quirk et al. 1985), p.680:

Anonymous

Something like that.

Damkerng T.

Trying to answer the question and quote the usage from both books...

Anonymous

It occurred to me that if you could combine into one sentence both the optative "Long live the King!" and a question that had no meaning whatsoever you could satisfy the requirements.

Anonymous

My attempts at doing so are all terrible.

Damkerng T.

17:46

Done posting.

@snailplane "no meaning whatsoever"?

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Therein lies the rub :-(

Damkerng T.

Not that, I think. I mean a question that means nothing?

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. I thought I understood your question.

Damkerng T.

Perhaps this Long live the King!? can satisfy the requirement, then. :-)

Anonymous

No, you have to somehow not make that part into a question :-)

Damkerng T.

17:50

Aww... A question mark is not enough. sad (a little)

Anonymous

I'm having trouble coming up with a fully meaningless question.

Anonymous

It's those pesky words, they've all got meanings behind them!

Anonymous

My first attempt was: "Long live the King!" is what I am saying right now and also by the way this is a rhetorical question?

Anonymous

Of course, it didn't work. It spent too much time describing itself :-)

Anonymous

I was trying to come up with a question which wouldn't be taken as prompting an answer.

Damkerng T.

17:53

Oh!

curious

Anonymous

Ahh, I can't do it.

Damkerng T.

Ahh.

Anonymous

Oh! By the way, Barrie England is Barrie England, not Barrie English.

Damkerng T.

LOL

Anonymous

Five minutes until two hours until 19:00Z!

Damkerng T.

17:56

confused

Anonymous

One of my snails buried themselves! Snaily is buried.

Damkerng T.

Shouldn't it be "five minutes until one hour until 19::00Z"?

Anonymous

Could be!

Damkerng T.

@snailplane Oh, what happened?

Anonymous

Oh, they do that sometimes.

Anonymous

17:57

Either they want to sleep without being disturbed, or they want to lay eggs, usually.

Damkerng T.

Oh, you mean in their own shells.

Anonymous

Oh, yes, they dig :-)

Anonymous

You can see the tip of the shell peeking out of the dirt!

Anonymous

What time is it now in Z time?

Damkerng T.

Ahh...

Should be 17:58Z.

Anonymous

17:58

A-ha!

Anonymous

Two minutes until one hour until 19:00Z!

Damkerng T.

18:12

Hello @choster!

Anonymous

I just heard someone say totemo yuniiku "very unique" :-)

Damkerng T.

totemo yuniiku ~ very unique?

Or the phrase is very unique?

Anonymous

Totemo is an intensifier.

Damkerng T.

Oh! yuniiku = unique!

Anonymous

Yuniiku is the English word unique transformed by Japanese loanword phonology

Damkerng T.

18:21

A-ha!

> Oh, you don't want to drink that. I'm sick and I was drinking from it.

What if I say,

> Oh, you don't want to drink that. I just had it.

Does that sound okay to you?

BRB

Anonymous

Had implies completion there I think.

Anonymous

If I had a glass of orange juice, I drank pretty much the whole thing.

Damkerng T.

@snailplane Thank you.

But like this, how will you know about rules and many other things about grammar? I don't think so. — hellodear2 7 mins ago

Sometimes it's hard to convince people (that the best thing can be the simplest thing).

And I'm sure that I don't know rules and many other things about grammar of Thai. :-)

Damkerng T.

19:00

Geringdingdingding!

Anonymous

0

Q: Happy birthday, ELL!

One year ago today, English Language Learners entered private beta. A week later, it opened to the public, and since then the questions and answers have been rolling in! So, what have we accomplished? We're getting 19.4 questions per day. Early on, this statistic hovered around the 15 mark, ...

discussion

2

Damkerng T.

Hoorey!

Anonymous

I wrote that entire question in the last few seconds and posted it. Yup.

Damkerng T.

Happy Birthday music on!

Anonymous

♫ 〜Party time〜 ♫

2

Damkerng T.

19:02

Shake shake shake.

2

Transcript for