English Language Learners

Anonymous

10:38

I don't think they are. So no it's not. — Codeswitcher 6 hours ago

Damkerng T.

I think "Test that it works" is not a very good sentence.

Anonymous

You think that *Test ~~that~~ it works is ungrammatical because something's wrong with Test that it works?

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Your little edit markers here function like bullet points :-)

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Hehe.

I think understand the OP's Test that it works. I just think I wouldn't say it.

I probably say "(You) test it and see if it works."

Hmm... "Test if it works" might be possible, but still sounds a little odd to me.

Anonymous

10:55

@DamkerngT. How about whether?

Damkerng T.

I think whether whether or if sounds the same to me.

It forces me to think that [if it works] is a noun.

0

Q: How to ask a question according to the specific sections?

（1）I get up early in order to catch a bus. （2）I get up early because I can catch a bus. How to ask a question according to “in order to catch a bus ” and "because I can catch a bus"?

questions

I don't understand the OP's question.

Does he want a question like "Why do you get up early?"?

Nico

@snailboat Why isn't it grammatical? I can see that using "that" makes clear that "it" goes with work, but I would never parse the sentence as "[test it] works" .

Anonymous

@Nico If I knew, I would have said instead of just leaving a comment saying it wasn't.

Anonymous

My judgment is that "Test it works" is super ungrammatical.

Damkerng T.

Unless "Test it" is quoted. :-)

Nico

11:03

Could you explain what makes you feel it is ungrammatical?

Anonymous

I can't tell what it means.

Anonymous

It doesn't sound like a sentence.

Nico

OK, I see

Anonymous

Even if I know that that is being omitted, I can't fit it through my mental grammartron.

Nico

I just wanted to make sure you didn't have any grammatical rule in mind.

Anonymous

11:04

Sorry, I don't have anything more useful to say about it.

Nico

Does it sound worng with "that"?

Anonymous

No.

Nico

I think I know how you feel

Anonymous

It's often easier to decide if something is grammatical or un- than explain why.

Nico

If I was to read that sentence, I would do as:

Test [small pause] it works

Anonymous

11:06

That's also why I put "I think" in my comment. It's just my personal judgment.

Nico

but yet, it doens't feel fully tright

Anonymous

But you know how some sentences feel like they're not quite right, and others feel like they're super wrong? This is the latter.

Nico

Intriguing...

Damkerng T.

I think we can verify this by thinking of a sentence that we can't leave out a that.

Anonymous

There are lots of sentences where you can't omit that.

Anonymous

11:09

There are others where you must omit that. (We talked about this a couple months ago)

Anonymous

> [ That they were lying ] is now quite obvious.

Anonymous

> [ * ~~That~~ they were lying ] is now quite obvious.

Anonymous

> Who does she think [ ___ is the ringleader? ]

Anonymous

> Who does she think [ *that ___ is the ringleader? ]

Damkerng T.

Let's say that we ignore the That at the beginning of a sentence.

Nico

11:13

Umm, I'm struggling with "Who does she think [ ___ is the ringleader?]" It sounds correct, but I'm struggling to parse it grammatically.

where is the subject of the relative clause?

Damkerng T.

It sounds correct to me. Convert it back to a declarative sentence, and it should be obvious, I think.

Nico

"The ringleader that she thinks [of] is who"?

Anonymous

@Nico The gap is the subject of the subordinate clause. It's anaphorically linked to who outside the subordinate clause.

Damkerng T.

But about omitting that, I'm afraid that a lot of people might feel that dropping any other that (except when it's needed to lead a sentence) is fine.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Well, that's demonstrably false.

Damkerng T.

11:16

Got to go out for a while. BBL

Anonymous

3

A: What's the grammatical structure for "there is nothing a guy can do that even comes close"?

This is a declarative existential clause with the dummy subject there and the copular auxiliary be taking a noun phrase (NP) complement: There is [ nothing a guy can do that even comes close ] We can, of course, divide the NP up further. Its head is nothing, which is modified by two relati...

Damkerng T.

Oh! The system remembers our avatars at any specific time! Neat!

Anonymous

Here I give two reasons that a linearly non-initial that can't be omitted

Damkerng T.

(Really gotta go. :-)

Anonymous

The exact conditions in which that are somewhat complex. There are several relevant rules.

Anonymous

11:18

I've found myself unable to explain it before, too, though I've done more reading since those times

Anonymous

I suspect there is more that I have yet to learn.

Anonymous

Speaking generally, I think the reason a subordinator sometimes can't be omitted is that it's needed for comprehension--the listener needs a cue that a subordinate clause is coming up

Anonymous

So!

Anonymous

9 mins ago, by snailboat

> [ * ~~That~~ they were lying ] is now quite obvious.

Anonymous

Without that, "they were lying" seems like a main clause.

Anonymous

11:20

You need to give the listener a that so they can understand it as a subordinate clause

Anonymous

But that explanation is a little bit circular. If this sort of subordinate clause could occur unmarked, then listeners would be used to processing them, and they could occur. But since they can't, they don't, so they can't.

Anonymous

So to some extent, it's really just how it is--there's not necessarily a good explanation for why it is that way.

Anonymous

For example, a relative clause with a gap in subject position typically needs a relative word or that at the front to introduce it. You can't omit that.

Anonymous

But in many non-standard varieties of English you can, and it doesn't impede comprehension.

Anonymous

Why can't you do it in Standard English? No reason. You just can't.

Anonymous

11:23

So to come up with an explanation for when that can be omitted, we need to look at how people actually talk and what judgments they make about their sentences.

Nico

I'm starting to see how complicated it is. I haven't realised before.

I'm still mystified by your second example:

Who does she think [ ___ is the ringleader? ]

Imagine I remove the dependent clause

Anonymous

It's part of what CGEL calls an unbounded dependency construction.

Nico

Who does she think?

it's wrong

Anonymous

@Nico Right, you can't remove it.

Anonymous

So it's a complement of think.

Anonymous

11:28

They don't call it a relative clause.

Nico

OK, so @DamkerngT. was suggesting to make it sentence declarative I should've done:

Anonymous

Their term "unbounded dependency construction" is supposed to be a larger category to which relative constructions belong.

Nico

She thinks that

Anonymous

The term is pretty opaque sounding--

Nico

that = the ringleader is who

Anonymous

11:29

--but they use "unbounded" to mean "there is no upper bound on how deeply the gap may be embedded"

Anonymous

So!

Anonymous

They say that the gap there is coindexed with who outside the subordinate clause

Anonymous

Which makes sense. It's like [ Who is the ringleader? ], right?

Nico

but if that was the case, then "who does she think" wouldn't make sense

Anonymous

It's embedded inside a complement clause.

Anonymous

11:31

You can't remove the complement clause. It's a complement.

Nico

and the auxiliary-subject inversion?

whay is there an inversion in "who does she think?"

Anonymous

Un-inverted and removing do-support, you get She thinks [ who is the ringleader? ]

Anonymous

Which is an in-situ wh-question

Nico

OK, I'm starting to see what they mean by unbounded dependency construction

I don't fully understand it yet, but I'm going to give it a rest and come back to it later.

Damkerng T.

11:51

@Nico What I meant was something like: She thinks Jenny is the ringleader.

To make a question that will get Jenny as the answer, it would become: Who does she think is the ringleader?

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Yes, or if we take it one step at a time:

Anonymous

> She thinks [ Jenny is the ringleader. ]

Anonymous

> She thinks [ who is the ringleader ] ?

Anonymous

> *She does think [ who is the ringleader ] ?

Anonymous

> Who does she think [ ___ is the ringleader ] ?

Damkerng T.

11:54

What is strange is that She thinks that Jenny is the ringleader. sounds fine.

But this one does not: *Who does she think that is the ringleader?

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. This is related to the sort of complement that think takes.

Damkerng T.

Oh, I see. That think would eat that that alive.

And it would sound odd because it will sound like that is the ringleader is what she thinks.

Damkerng T.

12:50

Prepositions are difficult for learners.

'in the plate' or 'on the plate'

Anonymous

13:06

If you said something was in a plate, I'd think you meant it was somehow lodged in the material (or in a video game or such, overlapping its physical space)

Damkerng T.

That is what I think.

A fork in a plate sounds like a nice episode for Fringe! :-)

Anonymous

You could stick a fork in a paper plate. It's soft enough.

Damkerng T.

By the way, I lolx5 reading this: ell.stackexchange.com/a/22964/3281.

Anonymous

Or a styrofoam plate.

Anonymous

Er.

Damkerng T.

13:08

Oh, a styrofoamy plate is not very Earth friendly.

Anonymous

J.R.'s comment is the best answer.

Anonymous

But because he accidentally left it as a comment, only the other two answers can be voted on.

Anonymous

0

Q: Why is this website English?

No understand. Want lern very much. site english. i come lern english. site english. how can lern english with only english why?

discussion

Damkerng T.

I think Maulik mixed up served in plate with food on my plate.

Anonymous

What is served in plate?

Damkerng T.

13:11

Something like "The waiter served our food in plate.", I think.

Anonymous

Hmm. That doesn't sound like a proper sentence to me.

Damkerng T.

No?

I think of it the way I think of go by bus.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. No.

Anonymous

I don't think I've ever heard it before.

Damkerng T.

Hmm... looking for 'serve * plate'

Didn't work well. -- retrying with 'serve * in plate'

Oh, it suggested served instead. Nice!

Anonymous

13:17

*Served in plate is also strange.

Damkerng T.

Oh, it's too rare, and those who used it are probably non-native speakers.

'served * on plate' yields a lot more results.

> Three courses were served entirely on silver plate, en suite, and the banquet was conducted altogether in the style of the most princely Eastern magnificence.

Anonymous

What's that from?

Anonymous

It looks like it contains OCR errors.

Damkerng T.

I'm not sure. I changed to other pages already.

Anonymous

Yep. That or should be of

Damkerng T.

13:20

Oh, it's from The Oriental Herald and Journal of General Literature.

Anonymous

The on silver plate part is okay, though.

Anonymous

Generally you won't find plate used that way, though.

Anonymous

You'll either serve {plates/a plate} of something, or you'll serve something on {plates/a plate}

Damkerng T.

Oh, I just noticed that it's used as an uncountable noun!

So, it's not really like by bus construction?

(Where the article is dropped.)

Scanning through other results, I think the norm is on a plate or on someone's plate.

Hmm... can an OP accept a community wiki answer instead of normal answers?

Damkerng T.

By the way, I found cake in a plate in a novel titled A Country Doctor:

> [...]; and Mrs. Thacher soon returned with some slices of cake in a plate and some apples held in her apron.

Anonymous

13:29

@DamkerngT. I posted an answer.

Damkerng T.

Umm.. and another one (which I think is a legit usage) in a novel? called Sex and the Single Transsexual

Anonymous

Haha.

Damkerng T.

> The cake was in a covered cake plate on top of the refrigerator and I was thinking about having a nice slice of it...day and night...Night and day.

@snailboat Hooray!

Anonymous

What's a cake plate?

meer2kat

A plate for serving cake...

Anonymous

13:30

Since it's a covered plate, it can have an interior, I suppose.

Damkerng T.

I'm not sure, but I think it has a cover.

Anonymous

meer2kat

Yep

Damkerng T.

That's what I imagined.

meer2kat

It covers it so it can be easily transported

Damkerng T.

13:31

So I think in a covered plate is legit in this case.

Anonymous

Well, in a covered plate.

Damkerng T.

Oh, yes.

meer2kat

in the covered cake plate, yeah

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. It might be if context is sufficient, but if you just said a plate and context didn't make it obvious I think people would imagine a plate without a cover. The original says in a covered cake plate

Anonymous

I'm not wise to the world of cake plates, though.

Anonymous

13:34

FumbleFingers just wrote an answer. It seem fine.

Damkerng T.

A-ha! So a fork in a (covered) plate is possible, but very unlikely, I think. :D

Anonymous

I'm removing my answer and voting this one up. As an aside, on chat Damkerng found "in a covered cake plate": a plate with a cover, I suppose, is conceptualized as having an interior. — snailplane 7 secs ago

Damkerng T.

Ahh... You don't have to remove yours, I think.

Anonymous

No, I do. I didn't read the question carefully enough.

Anonymous

I'm not always a very careful reader, unfortunately! :-)

meer2kat

13:39

where are y'all from?

Damkerng T.

Me? Bangkok, Thailand.

Anonymous

I live in California.

meer2kat

Nice

Anonymous

Some people would claim that apostrophe should be to the left of the A.

Anonymous

When I was young, I always typed ya'll, and people always corrected me. :-)

Anonymous

13:41

At some point I stopped saying that word. Maybe California's been a bad influence on me.

meer2kat

go to the south :P

interchangeable round here

Damkerng T.

Oh, they don't say y'all or ya'll in California?

meer2kat

no, it's a colloquialism

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. We don't really say y'all or you all very much here

Anonymous

Or all y'all!

Damkerng T.

13:42

Probably you guys, maybe?

Anonymous

Well, I always said you guys

meer2kat

That's common everywhere

Damkerng T.

@meer2kat Where are you from?

meer2kat

Virginia/Kentucky/Indiana

Damkerng T.

(Is that picture the real you, btw? :-)

meer2kat

13:44

Yes it is :)

Damkerng T.

Wow! You look cool!

I was a fan of Indiana Pacer, by the way.

meer2kat

LOL I've never been told I look "cool" hahaha :)

Damkerng T.

You are, for me. Hehe. :D

meer2kat

@DamkerngT. I don't even know what that is. I've lived here for four months and am moving back to Kentucky where I belong in two days.

@DamkerngT. haha thanks

Damkerng T.

Well, the first thing that Kentucky reminds me of is fried chicken. :D

meer2kat

13:46

I had some yesterday :)

Damkerng T.

Hmm.. I was trying to think of things that Virginia reminds me of...

Maybe John Carter. Hahaha. :D

meer2kat

lol

Virginia is very historic

Anonymous

Oh, that in case question brings up a similar case. You can't stick that after in case:

Anonymous

> You'd better take an umbrella [ in case it rains ] .

Anonymous

> *You'd better take an umbrella [ in case that it rains ] .

Damkerng T.

13:57

Oh, I think we can't have that that indeed, but not sure why.

It's a set pattern, I think.

Anonymous

In case is fossilized.

meer2kat

It is acceptable but doesn't sound good

Anonymous

It does permit an of PP instead of the clause: in case of rain

meer2kat

That sounds like something that a native Spanish speaker would say

Damkerng T.

Hey, I remember a good line from a movie that uses in case.

> Truman: Good morning, and in case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening, and good night!

Anonymous

14:00

> *Truman: Good morning, and [ in case [ that I don't see ya ] ], good afternoon, good evening, and good night!

meer2kat

It would work with "the"

Good morning, and [ in THE case [ that I don't see ya ] ], good afternoon, good evening, and good night!

Anonymous

14:11

Maybe the reason "Test it works" is worse than "Test that it works" is that you start by reading "test it", and "it" looks like the direct object of "test", so you need a subordinator like "that" to tell you that "it works" is a subordinate clause

Anonymous

Otherwise the sentence is confusing.

Damkerng T.

That explanation sounds quite good.

(I still think that Test to see if it works. or simply Test if it works. sounds better than Test that it works.)

Anonymous

Maybe if test were used with a that-clause more often, it would be omissible because we'd consider that construction as we read it

Anonymous

But as it is, it's less usual, so we need the marker of subordination to let us know what the structure iss

Anonymous

> accept, add, allege, care, claim, consider, contend, decide, dispute, fear, feel, find, forget, gather, guess, hope, imagine, maintain, presume, realize, reason, reflect, rejoice, suppose, suspect, think, threaten, vote, wonder, worry

Damkerng T.

14:20

Somehow I think I think it works and I hope it works are both fine, but I accept it works and I reason it works are not as fine.

But all seem to be fine in a different construction: It works, I xxxx. For example, It works, I think.

Anonymous

I started a trend! Three people deleted their answers and upvoted FumbleFingers's, I think :-)

Damkerng T.

Three already?

Anonymous

I feel kind of guilty! All that answer-devastation

Anonymous

musicinmybrain and CoolHandLouis deleted their answers.

Anonymous

0

A: "in the plate" or "on the plate"

Plate:a flat, usually round, dish that you put food on E.g., sandwiches on a plate

Anonymous

14:24

Is this Not An Answer?

Anonymous

I'm not sure...

Damkerng T.

I would say it's definitely not a good answer.

But whether it is an answer or not, I'm not sure either.

Oh, I think this doesn't work: It works, I test.

Anonymous

I think that is a pretty strange use of topicalization.

Anonymous

Or whatever you want to call it.

Damkerng T.

Even That it works, I test. is barely able to pass my filter.

Anonymous

14:27

"It works, I think." is okay.

Damkerng T.

Most of the verbs you listed could pass this topicalization test.

(I didn't try all of them, but it looks like all of them could work.)

Nico

@snailboat You've answered this question beautifully.

Nico

16:49

Hi

Nico

17:04

I was going through the conversation about "Test it works" and I'm thinking that "Test that it works" and "Test whether it works" are not equivalent. I would use the first one if I was expecting it to work, and the second if I wanted to know whether it works. When I think of "Test it works", the meaning feels closer to "Test that it works".

I was going through some ngrams and I found a sentence that sounds good and is similar:

> "Be sure to test that it is working"

I wonder if:

> "Be sure to test it is working"

also sounds off.

Damkerng T.

I think snailboat could answer this. I still have a problem with "Test that it works" though. If the intended meaning is not "Test to see if it works", then it should be something like "Ensure that it works", and I think that test shouldn't be used like that. Though I understand that colloquially, people might say that.

(I also think that there is something wrong with "Be sure to test that it is working.")

Perhaps the usage of test is changing.

Nico

17:21

I'm starting to think that snailboat got it when she said that the problem is that "test" is not often used with a that-clause.

gotta go

Transcript for

English Language Learners