English Language Learners

Damkerng T.

07:00

It seems like he was confused by some dictionaries.

Anonymous

Getting ready can refer to all sorts of preparation.

Anonymous

Not just "getting ready" before you head out somewhere.

Damkerng T.

I'm not sure if I would think of Getting ready as a single unit.

Anonymous

> There are so many excuses for not painting. We all know people who 'plan to take up painting' -- the kinds of people who spend their lives 'getting ready.' I used to know hunters like that. Weeks before the season started they'd get their outfits together and check out their guns, but when the season was on they might only go out for half an hour. They got a kick out of 'getting ready.'

Damkerng T.

Get it done. Get it ready. Make it ready before the acceptance test.

(I made it up.)

Anonymous

07:02

I do think of getting ready as a unit.

Damkerng T.

So get ready and get it ready are different?

Anonymous

Get ready! = "Prepare yourself!" Get it ready! = "Prepare it [for something]!"

Anonymous

I suppose you could think of get ready as having an implicit reflexive object when none is specified

Anonymous

Get ~~yourself~~ ready. I'm getting ~~myself~~ ready.

Damkerng T.

I understand get ready the way I understand get X-self ready.

Anonymous

07:05

That seems reasonable.

Damkerng T.

Yep. :-)

Anonymous

I think it's the same thing I said, except that "having an implicit reflexive object when none is specified" sounds so much spiffier

Damkerng T.

spiffier is what we need for the next millennium.

Let's be spiffy!

Anonymous

Make yourself ready has the same emphasis on agency, but you can't just say *make ready. And *become ready lacks the emphasis on agency, but you don't need to give it a reflexive object.

Anonymous

Get ready is in the middle! :-)

Anonymous

07:08

Get ready; get set; go!

Anonymous

Get ready; ~~get~~ set; go!

Anonymous

~~Get~~ ready; ~~get~~ set; go!

Damkerng T.

Yeah!

(Usain Bolt wins again.)

Anonymous

= ~~Get yourself~~ ready. ~~Get yourself~~ set. Go!

Anonymous

I s'pose.

Anonymous

07:12

I upvoted oerkelens' answer.

Damkerng T.

I haven't read his answer yet, but I upvoted Maulik's question.

Anonymous

Oh, I answered that same question once

Anonymous

Well, almost.

Anonymous

I guess it's a little different.

Damkerng T.

It sounds familiar but I didn't search anything.

Anonymous

07:20

The question I answered was about *a same.

Anonymous

Sometimes I look at my reputation on Japanese SE, and I think "it's funny that my reputation is ahead of my ELL reputation, since I'm better at English than Japanese, and I've written a lot more answers on ELL". But then I remember I threw away thousands of rep on bounties :-)

Anonymous

Still, my reputation is proportionately higher on Japanese.

Anonymous

I guess when I started writing answers on ELL, the community was a lot smaller. ELL only got like 100-150 visits/day at the time, I think.

Anonymous

But ELL has long since eclipsed Japanese.

Anonymous

And lately I think it's easier to get reputation on ELL than it used to be.

Damkerng T.

07:24

Yay!

It could be so.

If you care about the points.

Anonymous

Well, the answers that I get lots of points for are never the ones I expect to get points for.

Anonymous

Like that "I'm a large" question just got, I think, 23 upvotes.

Anonymous

I put very little effort into that. :-)

Anonymous

I answered a recent question asked by the latest reincarnation of Carlo R, and it's now my highest-rated answer, I think simply because the question title had "sex" in it, so lots of people clicked.

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Maybe my comment helped a little. :D

Anonymous

07:26

Not because the answer is good, but because racy questions attract eyeballs.

Damkerng T.

Oh, that too! I still remember that.

skullpatrol

Does this sentence sound ok?

15% is what number of 180?

Damkerng T.

It sounds weird to me. Shouldn't it be "What is 15% of 180?"?

skullpatrol

15% is what portion of 180?

Damkerng T.

No, not that, I was going to say something else.

"180 is 15% of what amount?"

Anonymous

07:37

@DamkerngT. Or "180 is 15% of what number?"

skullpatrol

"15% of 180 is what number" is the standard way

Damkerng T.

I'm fine with that, and that.

Anonymous

Well, we've asked two different questions.

Anonymous

The answer to one is 27, and the answer to the other is 1200.

Anonymous

But "15% is what number of 180?" is incomprehensible to me

Damkerng T.

07:38

Me either.

Anonymous

And "15% is what portion of 180?" makes me think the answer is "15%"

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Exactly. So it doesn't make much sense.

Like "Black is what color of this shirt?"

skullpatrol

Hmmm... Thanks for the ideas :-)

Anonymous

"15% of 180 is what number?", by the way, is an in-situ wh-question. It seems appropriate if you're quizzing someone.

Anonymous

If you aren't, then the fronted wh-question is better: "What number is 15% of 180?"

Anonymous

07:43

(Or just: "What is 15% of 180?")

Damkerng T.

nods

0

Q: Can't log in to Chat

I need help here logging in to chat here in this site? I tried clicking on the path but it's not giving me the field where I could type in. I just acquired more than 20 reputation so I believe I should be able to log in. THANKS

usage

I think it's not a real question for the main, but he is asking us.

20 rep points is enough, I think.

Anonymous

Um.

skullpatrol

In my opinion the phrasing "a is to b as c is to d" is much better but less used :(

Anonymous

Hello, chatter in potentia!

Anonymous

@skullpatrol Than what?

Anonymous

07:50

We used that phrasing for A:B::C:D all the time in school.

Damkerng T.

@skullpatrol That pattern is common enough to me.

skullpatrol

Kids are taught "of" means multiply :(

Anonymous

It's a partitive construction: in "half of X", half is the amount of X, and the same is true in "15% of 180"

Anonymous

But two of two does not yield four, so it doesn't seem that of means "multiply"

skullpatrol

Also with "What percent is 48 of 64?"

Damkerng T.

07:58

That makes sense, I think. 75%

skullpatrol

In this percent problem "of" means divide.

Damkerng T.

Hi guys, I opened the link you posted but still no field to type in my message? — Rolan 4 mins ago

At the bottom, it's asking me to log in? I'm already logged in that's why I can't figure out where to log in. I tried as what it is telling me but still the same it led me to a different link which I think not letting me to enter the chat. — Rolan 57 secs ago

Anonymous

That's a fronted version of "48 is 75 percent of 64." The number 75 is replaced with what: "48 is what percent of 64?" Then the wh-phrase "what percent" is fronted and the subject 48 is inverted with the auxiliary is: "what percent is 48 ____ of 64?"

Damkerng T.

I can't visualize what he described.

Anonymous

It's again a partitive construction where the phrase to the left of of is a quantifier

Anonymous

08:01

The fact that 48 and 64 are on opposite sides of of after wh-movement and SAI has no bearing on the meaning of the construction

Damkerng T.

test

Anonymous

Success!

Damkerng T.

Hmm... Maybe the problem is on my side.

Anonymous

They need to log in to chat, not into ELL.

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Thank you for the confirmation! :D

skullpatrol

08:03

What does "SAI" stand for @snailboat?

Anonymous

Subject-Auxiliary Inversion

skullpatrol

:-/

Anonymous

You can see the uninverted version as a subordinate clause: "I need to calculate [ what percent 48 is ____ of 64 ]"

Anonymous

Here, the gap (indicated with underscores) shows the position of what percent before wh-fronting

skullpatrol

You lost me.

Anonymous

08:08

I'm just pointing out that the sentence is derived from the canonical "48 is 75% of 64", and that of does not mean "division"

Anonymous

It indicates that "what percent" is a quantifier

Anonymous

There's nothing illogical about that

skullpatrol

Thanks for your time :-)

and patience.

Damkerng T.

11:47

1

Q: “Was in labour for 3 hours” versus “had been in labour for 3 hours”

As a continuation to this question and AlicjaZ's beautifully explained answer, I would like to ask whether there is any difference in meaning between the following sentences? She was in labour for 3 hours. (simple past) She had been in labour for 3 hours. (past perfect) Both sentences ...

tense usage perfect-aspect aspect

@Nico It's hard to explain concisely, but to sum it up, it's not the event that dictates which tense we should use, but it's about how we view that event that influences our choice of the tense.

So, imho, changing the tense changes the meaning, though we can describe the same thing in many different ways.

Nico

Agreed. Now the question is what is the difference in how the event is seen?

Damkerng T.

That's the million-dollar question, isn't it? :-)

Nico

:)

Damkerng T.

I spent several months on ELL trying to figure what's going on in a native speaker mind while they speak.

Nico

I've done some research in Google's ngram viewer. I think they have the same meaning. The difference is only in usage.

simple past seems to be more colloquial and past perfect more formal

Damkerng T.

11:53

But basically, it's about simple tenses against perfect tenses.

That's the best I can figure out.

Which is not very clear for you, I'm sure, because it pushes the difference off to the "simple vs. perfect".

Nico

I think the key is that in this particular case that complements to the verb provide the simple past with a perfect aspect that otherwise it wouldn't have

Damkerng T.

@Nico I would say not necessarily.

@Nico I imagine something like this (I usually do this when I'm not sure). I imagine a frame to view the timeline.

Nico

I may be wrong, that's why I asked the question. Why do you think not necesarily?

Damkerng T.

Something similar to what storytellers would use in movies.

I mean, it's almost similar to when a native speaker saw "a kitten", they immediately said "a kitten", not a small cat or a little cat.

It's built into the language.

If they say "a little cat", it means that they view the same cat in an unusual way.

Afaict up to now, the perfect tenses always have something related to the past and the event time.

(I borrowed the term "event time" from StoneyB.)

Nico

:) I remember

Damkerng T.

11:59

I think the difference between "simple present tense" and "simple perfect tense" might be easier to explain, because the end of the event and the reference time (now) are the same. No backshift is needed.

Nico

but I'm not getting the point you're trying to make. Is it about usage? Although the event to describe is the same, depending on how I decide to describe it, I will use one or the other?

Damkerng T.

It's about how the speaker views the event.

Like when we saw someone walking to us, it's equally valid to say, "She walks toward us," and "She is walking toward us."

But of course, it's wrong if you said something like "She is going to walk toward us." instead.

Ah, snailboat is here. I think snailboat can explain this better than I can.

Nico

well, you could say: I can see in my glass ball that she is going to walk toward us

Damkerng T.

Perhaps not if she already started walking.

Nico

I'm intrigued by Maulik's idea that all verbs with perfect aspect link to the present. What he says about simple past is wrong, but this idea about the perfect aspect is intriguing.

Anonymous

12:06

I like to leave explaining that stuff to other people. It's hard! I like explaining the easy stuff :-)

Damkerng T.

Link to the reference time, I would say, not the present. But it's close.

Anonymous

What is wrong in Maulik's answer?

Nico

@snailboat well I have to say, that in the pat you have explained pretty complicated grammar!

Damkerng T.

(Now I'm not sure if I switched the terms "reference time" and "event time" that StoneyB uses. Let me check it.)

Anonymous

Oh, now and then.

Nico

12:07

The idea that simple past implies the link with presetn is broken

Damkerng T.

@snailboat I haven't read his answer yet. Nico said so.

Anonymous

Hmm. I think it just implies that the event is in the past.

Nico

imagine: crocodriles lived during the Eocene

skullpatrol

Do you know of any literature that discusses the uses of the word "of" @snailboat?

Nico

it doesn't mean crocodriles live now

Damkerng T.

12:10

It's very likely that in speaker's opinion, crocodriles don't exist anymore.

Anonymous

I'm on my phone, skullpatrol, so I'll have to get back to you. You can find a description of partitives in your favorite reference grammar, though.

Damkerng T.

That's my default interpretation, without the aid of real-world knowledge.

skullpatrol

Ok, thanks :-)

Damkerng T.

But the speaker can provide more information to clear things up.

@skullpatrol I'm sure that it's about "15% of 180". :-)

Anonymous

"I know that crocodiles lived during the Eocene. I'm not sure if they're still around or not."

Damkerng T.

12:12

Exactly!

skullpatrol

Among other things. @Damkerng :-)

Anonymous

Living doesn't have an endpoint. You can keep living forever (at least as far as grammar is concerned!)

Damkerng T.

@Nico, Btw, I think you've already seen this in StoneyB's canonical post: ”Don’t use the perfect unless you need it.”

Anonymous

Contrast: "Crocodiles went extinct during the Eocene. I don't know if they're still going extinct or not."

Anonymous

This is nonsense :-)

Damkerng T.

12:15

Now, that doesn't make any sense.

jinx

skullpatrol

I have searched high and low for something focusing on this little-giant of a word, as I like to call it :D

Damkerng T.

(Yay! The first time I said it!)

Anonymous

So the semantics of the simple past depends on the verb.

Damkerng T.

nod ... nod ... nod

@skullpatrol I'm sure that it's beyond typical dictionaries.

Anonymous

@skullpatrol Is there a good library near you? You can go look it up in CGEL.

Nico

12:18

@DamkerngT. It's on my reading list but I haven't got around to read it all.

skullpatrol

I had to go to the OED :-/

64 definitions :-O

Anonymous

The OED is a great resource but it doesn't describe all the constructions formed with of in detail.

Nico

@snailboat I think so. I only meant it as a counter-example that simple past implies a broken link with the present. simple past is simple it just says something happened in the past

Anonymous

It is after all a dictionary and not a grammar.

Damkerng T.

@Nico So I believe that "She was in labour for 3 hours." is more likely...

unless you want to say something like "She had been in labour for 3 hours until ..."

Nico

12:21

@DamkerngT. look at these ngrams:

books.google.com/ngrams/…

this one implies perfect aspect is more common, but if we look a bit further

books.google.com/ngrams/…

Anonymous

She had been in labour for three hours when all of the sudden, Baby McBaby Esq. burst through a wall like some kind of diapered Kool-Aid Man

Damkerng T.

Hmm... I couldn't interpret the / ngram well. I changed mine to , instead.

Nico

books.google.com/ngrams/…

when using pronoun the simple past is more common

Anonymous

/ is nice because it calculates ratios

Nico

I interpret that as a sign that simple past is used more often in colloquial conversation

Anonymous

12:23

Aren't you limited to 5-grams?

Nico

@snailboat how'd you mean?

Anonymous

I don't think Google has 6-grams indexed

Nico

@snailboat yes, there is a limit

Anonymous

Your query compared to a 6-gram

Anonymous

But without 6-grams indexed, it returned no results...

Anonymous

12:25

Also, you should add the results for labour with labor

Damkerng T.

> She was in labour for several hours before the baby was born.

Nico

@snailboat it's a 5 ngram "she had been in labour"

skullpatrol

@snailboat do you use the CGEL a lot?

Damkerng T.

> The lady had been in labour for three days before she arrived at PMH.

Nico

@DamkerngT. if you replace "lady" by "woman" then "was" is more common

Anonymous

12:27

Some

Damkerng T.

@Nico I would say "had been in labour for" and "was in labour for" have about the same amount of usage.

Anonymous

books.google.com/ngrams/…

Nico

@snailboat thanks for the link and the + trick

Damkerng T.

People weren't in labour/labor very often during 1900-1920, I think. :-)

Nico

They must have been fighting a war then!

Damkerng T.

12:31

Very likely!

Anonymous

There was a boom in babies here post-WW2.

skullpatrol

See you all later :-)

Anonymous

Good night!

Damkerng T.

See you soon!

And, good night!

Nico

g'night

Damkerng T.

12:37

I would say that based on the speaker's opinion, saying Crocodiles were living during the Ecocene implies more chance of survival (of the crocodiles, from their time to our time) than Crocodiles lived during the Ecocene.

Nico

To me, it doesn't say anything about the chances of survival. The main difference to me is that "were living" gives me the idea the Eocene was a long period of time.

Damkerng T.

The chance of survival (in the speaker's mind) is just a speculation. It's my deduction on the choice of tense.

But probably nothing solid.

A longer period of time seems to make sense.

At least the speaker seems not to know when it began and ended.

(Or don't care about it in that sentence.)

Hmm... that gave me an idea. It's like zooming into the event, I think.

Nico

yes, that's nice picture!

Damkerng T.

13:54

@MaulikV I don't know if you can read this, but I hope you can. I will reply to your last comment to me in here since I couldn't reply back because of you already deleted your answer.

I wish I wouldn't have to say this, but I will. Please be flexible. I'm sure that my written English is not always the best thing native speakers will read, and I appreciate them when they are patient enough to figure out what I was trying to convey.

Similarly, when I read or listen to what others wrote or speak, I always do my best (well, most of the time) to understand what another speaker trying to convey. Our words are not perfect, but behind those words are true intentions and meanings. And those are what really matter.

Nico

14:16

"behind those words are true intentions and meanings"

Damkerng T.

I wish I could have fixed the grammar in those lines a little, but my eyes aren't as sharp as they were. :-)

My fingers are also much slower than ten years ago.

Nico

It's alright. Your words there have true intentions and meaning.

Damkerng T.

14:36

@Nico Thanks.

By the way, I just read AlicjaZ's answer. I think she did a great job explaining the difference.

Nico

I'm very impressed with all her answers so far. Definitely someone to keep an on!

Damkerng T.

Definitely!

Nico

I've just noticed she wrote an answer to my question too!

Damkerng T.

:D

Nico

14:56

BTW I loved her comment about the actual duration of labour.

helix

Good (morning|night)

Nico

Afternoon here in the UK

Damkerng T.

It's way past evening here, so I will say hello!

helix

Oh.

Let me generalize.

Hello. :)

Damkerng T.

My timezone is UTC+7. :-)

Hello!

helix

15:11

Re:

4

Q: An adjective for something that has been achieve with a lot of effort through years

I am looking for an adjective that describes something that has been achieved hardly after a lot of effort through years. For instance, hardly-achieved experience OR hardly-gained knowledge. Is there any specific word for that? Edit: By hardly I meant though hard and laborious work. It's n...

word-request adjective

Isn't "experienced" enough to answer that?

Damkerng T.

I think the OP wants to emphasize that the experience he got didn't come easily.

I think hard-won or hard-earned are quite perfect.

I'm not sure about perseverant, though.

But of course, once the OP got such experience, the OP will be experienced. :-)

Damkerng T.

16:01

Sometimes I think I might instinctively suppress my vocabulary too much. People seem to kindly told me simple stuff that I already knew often enough. I understand their goodwill and appreciate their helps. But, meh! :-)

Maybe I'm into reverse psychology too much. I mean, when I hear people trying to use big words, I usually discredit them silently.

And that's not only in English.

The same goes to those marketing campaigns. The more they are trying to convince me, the less creditability they will get.

So I got stuck with my simple words. :-)

helix

17:43

Relevant XKCD:xkcd.com/1133

GATA

18:06

Hi all :) Does anyone know the meaning of "whisde"?

Damkerng T.

Never heard of it. I'm sorry. :-)

Whistle?

GATA

Ah yes thank you :) In Online version of story it's"whistle".

Damkerng T.

Hooray!

GATA

The factory whistle dictated the time for many to get up, blowing at six o'clock in the morning.

:D

Damkerng T.

Ah, I can't vote anymore today.

No more vote left. :-)

Oh! I've voted 666 questions up until now. What a number! Look at the number!

GATA

18:14

Devil

:D

I thought we can vote as much as we want.

Damkerng T.

I'm not sure; it looks like we have about 40-50 votes max a day.

Yay! I'm still the top voter this year. :-)

At this rate, I probably will be the all-time top voter in just a few months. :-)

GATA

I think I would be the last.

I vote one per day

:)

Damkerng T.

Probably not, I think one vote a day is already above average.

GATA

I have already learned about ovens and furnaces, why I should learn "kilns" too :(

And reaching up into the town and the streets of workers' houses you had the kilns and the sawmill and the lumberyard and storage sheds.

Damkerng T.

Hmm... I'm not used to kiln.

Oh, I can recall it! I heard it once.

It's another kind of oven I think.

GATA

18:22

Yes

Damkerng T.

Not being enclosed.

(At least that is what I understand.)

GATA

I think I wont include it in my "new words" list

Damkerng T.

I don't know much about bakery and culinary. :-)

GATA

me either :)

Damkerng T.

But you knew kiln?

GATA

18:23

no

Damkerng T.

Oh, you mean you don't want to memorize it. :-)

GATA

Yes :)

Damkerng T.

nods I think kiln is probably not very useful. :-)

GATA

I am not lazy but I dont want to waste my time on words that i will use once in life :)

Damkerng T.

Hehe.

GATA

18:26

That's why sometimes I ask questions about commonness of words.

Damkerng T.

I'm sure oven is much more common than kiln. :D

Btw, do you use Macmillan Dictionary?

GATA

No I use oxfords.

Damkerng T.

The online Macmillan Dictionary has this curious feature.

It's the red star(s).

> What are red words?
90% of the time, speakers of English use just 7,500 words in speech and writing. These words appear in red, and are graded with stars. One-star words are frequent, two-star words are more frequent, and three-star words are the most frequent.

That's from Macmillan.

oven has two stars.

common has three stars.

word, of course, has three stars.

kiln, definitely, has no stars. :-)

GATA

Wow thank you. its very helpful.

huray :)

Damkerng T.

I wish I could have a complete list of those starred words, but I couldn't find it.

GATA

18:30

Get rid of kiln :)

I just bookmarked "Macmillan Dictionary" thank you again its really useful.

Damkerng T.

You're very welcome!

Damkerng T.

19:04

Hello! @snailboat

By the way, how is your hand?

Damkerng T.

19:19

I think I gotta go. See you guys later.

skullpatrol

later

GATA

later :)

Anonymous

23:04

@DamkerngT. My hand is just fine.

Anonymous

The injury wasn't serious to begin with, and it faded within a day.

Anonymous

Well, there's still some slight swelling, but nothing hurts.

skullpatrol

@snailboat what happened?

Anonymous

@skullpatrol I hit the back of my hand on a doorknob.

Anonymous

Nothing serious :-)

skullpatrol

23:09

icic, I found a video that destroys most of high school math education :(

by a field's medal winner >8(

that is the equivalent of a nobel prize in math

Anonymous

I don't know if it's the equivalent.

Anonymous

I think the Nobel is less prestigious.

skullpatrol

but more money

@snailboat but yes, you are right

Transcript for