English Language Learners

Anonymous

04:37

Today I learned the word cenotaph

Ash

06:48

" vent heard in ever " what does this mean ?

Anonymous

It looks like it was cut off.

Anonymous

It doesn't mean anything by itself.

Anonymous

I'd guess that "vent" is a cut-off part of "haven't"

Anonymous

Like, "Oh, I haven't heard that song in forever"

Anonymous

But that's the best I can do with that fragment

Anonymous

06:55

@Ash Do you have anything to add to that quote?

Ash

makes perfect sense now.Thanks @snailboat.

Anonymous

Ah, glad to hear it :-)

Ash

07:22

I often here this in some films like " let alone (do something) " , does this mean that "even this can not be done , so , how can that be done ?"

skullpatrol

yes

Anonymous

Yep! Like skullpatrol says, it sounds like you've got it right :-)

skullpatrol

For example: you will never learn how to read, let alone write if you don't go to school.

Anonymous

Good example!

skullpatrol

thanks :D

Anonymous

07:37

I answered that question about "Impossible is nothing"

Anonymous

I took the daring position that it is non-standard and does not mean anything in particular.

Anonymous

This is at odds with all the other answers.

Anonymous

I do think it could appear as wordplay.

Anonymous

But in that case, the meaning would probably depend on how it was construed in context.

skullpatrol

Isn't that a Nike ad slogan?

Anonymous

07:39

Could be. I don't expose myself to advertising.

Anonymous

That's the sort of place you'd expect wordplay, though.

skullpatrol

It reminds me of the phrase "It is what it is."

Anonymous

Ah, but that's standard.

Anonymous

A succinct statement of the reflexive property! ;-)

skullpatrol

Indeed.

"Impossible is nothing" could be viewed as a description of the empty set.

Anonymous

07:43

In English grammar, some copular constructions are reversible (A is B ⇔ B is A) and others are not (but I can't find the unicode ⇔ with a diagonal stroke through it :-( :-( )

Anonymous

In English grammar, some copular constructions are reversible (A is B ⇔ B is A) and others are not (A is B ⇎ B is A)

Anonymous

How's that? :-)

Anonymous

It's kind of to tell what ⇎ is on my monitor :-(

Anonymous

I guess writing <=/=> would be clearer. But I like Unicode arrows. :-(

skullpatrol

If I look very closely I can see it.

If a=b, then b=a.

aka the symmetric property of equality

nothing is impossible

not any thing is impossible

impossible is not any thing

Anonymous

07:53

Specifying copular construction:

Anonymous

> [The only problem] is [the cost].　⇔　[The cost] is [the only problem].

Anonymous

Here, A = B.

Anonymous

Ascriptive copular construction:

Anonymous

> [The house] is [red].　⇔　*[Red] is [the house].

Anonymous

The second one sounds at best archaic or poetic, a reflection of a time when word order was more free.

Anonymous

07:55

But people simply don't say things like "Red is the house" these days.

Anonymous

There's a sharp contrast between this and the specifying construction where either order is fine because A = B

Anonymous

In the ascriptive construction, it's not saying A = B. Instead, B is a trait ascribed to A

Anonymous

If we replace A with nothing, a compound formed from the quantifier no and the generic noun thing

Anonymous

> [Nothing] is [red].

Anonymous

Now we're saying that the set of things to which the trait "red" is ascribed is empty

Anonymous

07:57

> *[Red] is [nothing].

Anonymous

This sentence is not possible with the same meaning.

skullpatrol

hmmm...I would have to agree with you that "Impossible is nothing" is non-standard and does not mean anything in particular.

Anonymous

That doesn't mean it's not technically possible to string those words together.

Anonymous

But we should distinguish it from the specifying construction in which we get an equivalent sentence when we swap A and B

Anonymous

Because in a specifying construction, we really are saying A = B, so of course B = A, too!

skullpatrol

08:00

The only "meaning" I can get out of "Impossible is nothing" is the nonexistence of impossibleness.

Anonymous

You're interpreting impossible as a noun (like impossibleness) because it's in subject position, I think

skullpatrol

yes

Anonymous

It seems like a fair interpretation if you're going to assign meaning to it

skullpatrol

That's why I used quotation marks :-)

Anonymous

Ahh, good ol' scare quotes!

skullpatrol

08:06

Yes, they are scary sometimes...

...assigning meaning at will.

Anonymous

08:40

"Assign meaning at will!" "Poor Will! What did he do!?"

skullpatrol

He didn't make his intentions clearly understood :-)

or maybe that is the reader's responsibility.

skullpatrol

09:19

@snailboat is "numberness" an uncountable noun?

while number is a countable noun.

Anonymous

09:49

@skullpatrol I'm not aware of numberness. I imagine it could be count or non-

Anonymous

"I implore you, Your Numbernesses! Don't decimate the people of Number Town!"

Anonymous

"This quantity has distinct numbernesses--one singularish, the other pluralish."

Anonymous

But until I see numberness, I won't know for sure what it is.

Damkerng T.

12:16

Hmm... ell.stackexchange.com/q/23026/3281

I think etc. is mainly used in writing.

Just like, i.e., and e.g.

Do people really say them in real speech?

Anonymous

I do.

Anonymous

I say practically everything I write.

Damkerng T.

Oh!

I mean eye-ee, ee-gee, ee-tee-cee?

Anonymous

No, no.

Anonymous

I.e. is pronounced "that is", e.g. is pronounced "for example", and etc. is pronounced "et cetera"

Anonymous

12:19

Only the last is used in normal speech.

Damkerng T.

See, we don't actuall say them.

Anonymous

You will find people who say eye-ee or ee-gee, but these people are weird.

Anonymous

I'd rather say id est than eye-ee

Anonymous

And id est would come across as super pompous unless you were talking to someone who you knew in advance would be fine with it

Damkerng T.

I think we have to pronounce them when we read text, but spontaneously, how often do you say et cetera?

Anonymous

12:21

But there's really no reason to ever say exempli gratia except to remind people that you know a couple words of Latin.

Anonymous

Et cetera is surprisingly common.

Damkerng T.

Hah!

Anonymous

It's the commonest Latin thingy in English that I can think of.

Damkerng T.

I always think it's a good idea to change it to "and so on".

Anonymous

I like "and so on".

Anonymous

12:22

Et cetera is so common, though, that I don't think it comes across as snobbish at all to use it in casual conversation.

Anonymous

Just my personal opinion.

Damkerng T.

Ah, I see. That's kind of new to me.

Anonymous

Searching the spoken subcorpus of COCA (which contains unscripted speech) for et cetera, I find 1529 results. For etcetera, 208. For etc, 813. That's 2550 total.

Damkerng T.

That's quite a lot, considering the size of the corpus.

Anonymous

For comparison, walking gives 5774 results in the spoken subcorpus.

Damkerng T.

12:26

Does that mean that some people really pronounce etc as ee-tee-cee?

Anonymous

There are 261 results for i.e. I don't recommend that anyone actually say i.e., though

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. I doubt it.

Anonymous

It doesn't matter whether you write it et cetera, etc. or (the old way) &c.

Anonymous

Note that we always pronounce it with an /s/ sound, not a /k/ sound

Anonymous

In English

Anonymous

12:27

That thing I said earlier about how to pronounce i.e. and e.g. is a common practice and what I recommend you do, but it's not universally observed

Damkerng T.

I can't remember since when, but I was told to read them as "that is" and "for example" long time ago, so I kept reading them that way.

Anonymous

That is my recommendation as well.

Damkerng T.

In Maulik's case, et al is probably better.

Anonymous

Etc. is different, though.

Anonymous

I restrict et al. to citing names, as in "Quirk et al."

Anonymous

12:31

Of course, you don't have to follow my practice there.

Damkerng T.

For a group of ten people, mentioning a few names and then "and friends" or "and others" might sound better.

(than "and so on" or etc)

Anonymous

I would not recommend using a Latin genitive form of ceterus in place of part of the English et cetera

Anonymous

I think that would confuse most people.

Damkerng T.

I don't know if people would use etc in Maulik's specific case.

Anonymous

I need to see it again.

Damkerng T.

12:33

> Wow, what a sexy car that is
Yeah! That's Spartans'
Spartans'?
Ah, I mean Jack, Mike, Harry, Peter etc's.
Oh! Are they Spartans? I did not know.

Anonymous

Since the genitive 's is a clitic I think it can combine to the right edge of a NP containing etc.

Anonymous

It is, though, at least unusual

Damkerng T.

I'm not sure how I should pronounce that "Spantans'".

Anonymous

Spartans' is pronounced the same way as Spartans without the apostrophe, probably

Damkerng T.

Shouldn't it be Spartans's?

Anonymous

12:34

That's an R

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Either is fine.

Damkerng T.

Oh, my fingers. :(

I'm guessing... that we can't find etc's in COCA.

Anonymous

Spartans' is probably /ˈspɑrt(ə)nz/. Spartans's is probably that or /ˈspɑrt(ə)nzɪz/

Anonymous

There's some overlap between when ' and 's is used in this situation

Damkerng T.

I think I would go with the latter (Spartans's /ˈspɑrt(ə)nzɪz/).

Anonymous

12:38

And it corresponds roughly to the difference between adding /ɪz/ and not

Anonymous

But the choices people make in print differ from those they make in speech

Anonymous

So it's not unreasonable to suggest that the two do not correspond exactly

Anonymous

Or consistently, in any case

Damkerng T.

@snailplane But as I said I've heard it in informal speech. — Maulik V 3 hours ago

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. According to Quirk et al., in this case the usual spelling would be Spartans', but the usual pronunciation would have -ɪz, while the minority spelling would be Spartans's and minority pronunciation without -ɪz

Damkerng T.

12:44

Hmm... Is it possible that Maulik can't hear the d' in "What'd'ya want?"?

Anonymous

There's a nice chart on page 320

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. That is precisely what I thought.

Anonymous

Unfortunately, do may be so far reduced that it's phonetically entirely gone

Anonymous

But native speakers perceive it as being there anyway, being used to reduced forms and filling in the gaps

Anonymous

And so when writing would typically represent it

Anonymous

12:45

And of course that completely reduced form is in variation with partially reduced and unreduced forms

Damkerng T.

I think there would be something I call "micro-pause" in there for d' if it was really reduced.

Anonymous

Writing it without do is not accurate

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. I think there are other clues to its presence

Anonymous

Even if the do itself is gone, it has an effect on the phonetic context

Anonymous

Which makes you psychologically think it's there.

Anonymous

12:47

The /t/ in what would change without do there, for example.

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

It's hard for me to give an accurate phonetic description, unfortunately.

Anonymous

But I imagine you can tell the difference, too.

Damkerng T.

Me neither. I think I can.

But it's hard to spell out all the clues.

@snailboat I'd love to see the chart. :-)

Anonymous

I think that psychologically you can't leave do out.

Anonymous

12:49

In the middle is Dickens's and Dickens'

Anonymous

Showing the overlap between the two choices

Damkerng T.

I think saying What'd'ya want? and What you want... (and pause before saying is blah blah blah) are different already.

Anonymous

I think you has a different pronunciation in the latter

Anonymous

Certainly the two are different in intonation as well

Damkerng T.

nods -- Perhaps that's another clue (or cue).

Anonymous

12:51

Have you considered checking a dictionary? Also, out of curiosity, what makes you think your washing machine has Classical Japanese written on it? :-) — snailboat ♦ 11 mins ago

Anonymous

cry

Anonymous

Their question is tagged classical-japanese :-)

Damkerng T.

Oh!

Perhaps the time before the washing machine is called washing machine?

Anonymous

They were asking about this: imgur.com/wndToeI

Damkerng T.

Oh, that doesn't look like classical Japanese to me. :-)

Anonymous

12:53

Which says 除菌 jokin, which means something like sterilize / destroy bacteria

Anonymous

Hmm, what's a good translation for that?

Anonymous

I can't think of the right word off the top of my head

Damkerng T.

Hot water?

Anonymous

Dictionary says... disinfectant

Damkerng T.

That sounds pretty nice!

Anonymous

12:55

I couldn't think of the right word without checking a dictionary

Damkerng T.

That's a good sign.

Anonymous

Hah

Damkerng T.

It means that you compartmentalize the two languages.

At least that is what I think. :D

Anonymous

There's too many words to memorize translations for all of them.

Anonymous

That's what I think.

Anonymous

12:57

It makes me wonder how interpreters ever manage to do what they do :-)

Damkerng T.

I think interpreters need to learn L12 and L21.

Anonymous

One of my friends is studying to become an interpreter. I don't think I could ever do that.

Damkerng T.

(Depending on in which direction they want to do their jobs.)

I think of it as another language.

Anonymous

I'm sure it would involve a great deal of memorization.

Damkerng T.

I believe so.

Anonymous

12:58

I bet it would be significantly easier between a closer pair of languages than Japanese and English

Anonymous

But I still don't think I could do it.

Damkerng T.

Hmm... I think you can translate L2 to L1 rather well, given that L2 is Japanese or Spanish, and maybe other languages that I'm not aware of too.

Anonymous

Oh, translation is easier than interpreting.

Anonymous

I can understand French better than Spanish.

Anonymous

I am not very good at Korean or Mandarin.

Anonymous

13:00

I am bad at a large number of languages. :-)

Damkerng T.

I bet that you can interpret Japanese -> English quickly enough.

Anonymous

But while I'm explaining in English, they say something else and I miss it! ;-)

Damkerng T.

@snailboat You don't have to torture yourself that way. :D

(Bean is saying that. :-)

Anonymous

I know this because people try to make me translate stuff in real time.

Anonymous

I can do it if I'm allowed to pause while I say stuff in English :-)

Anonymous

13:02

@DamkerngT. Bean is such a good snail.

Damkerng T.

:D

It depends on the speed of their speech, I think.

Anonymous

A few hours ago when I last checked on her, she was nibbling at a leaf of lettuce from underneath.

Damkerng T.

yum yum (or nom nom) :D

Anonymous

I always imagine that snails go nom, nom!

Damkerng T.

nom, nom... :D

Anonymous

13:04

You can hear snails eating. Sometimes. It depends on what they're eating.

Anonymous

Lettuce leaves sort of go crunch

Damkerng T.

Hah!

Anonymous

amazon.com/The-Sound-Wild-Snail-Eating/dp/1565126068

Damkerng T.

I never thought they they would make any sounds!

And we have a book on that!

LOL

Oh, actually the book seems to be quite interesting.

Anonymous

It's short. You might like it.

Anonymous

13:07

You could read it in one sitting if you read at a reasonable pace.

Damkerng T.

They even have a German translation of it!

Anonymous

Oh! In case you're learning German!

Anonymous

My brother speaks German.

Anonymous

To me, German sounds like English with an accent just heavy enough that I can't understand it. Of course, that's not really true. But that's what it sounds like

Damkerng T.

I know a few German words. Drucken.

Anonymous

13:09

There are occasions when I can understand it, though not most of the time.

Anonymous

Schnecken!

Damkerng T.

Wasser

Anonymous

A number of German words are used in English, like verboten

Damkerng T.

Ah, schnecken is an important word!

Eh, you mean, used as is?

Anonymous

Das ist es!

Anonymous

13:11

@DamkerngT. Yeah, people say this or that is verboten.

Damkerng T.

Oh! I didn't know that!

Thanks for a new word!

(Or actually a word I know but in another language. :-)

Anonymous

Of course, English and German share a great deal of history, and you can see a lot of parallels. But here I refer to more modern loans which are perceived as such.

Anonymous

We use a lot of loans from German. We use a lot of loan from a lot of languages :-)

Anonymous

Angst is one I bet you're familiar with.

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

13:13

Angst may be nativized. I'm not sure everyone realizes it's a loan, whereas verboten everyone does.

Anonymous

But a lot of words are like that.

Anonymous

Blitz.

Damkerng T.

This one I wasn't sure, but after looking it up, I know that I guessed it right.

Anonymous

We all learn about the German Blitzkriegs from World War II, and both Blitz and Blitzkrieg enjoy fairly widespread use. Maybe not super common.

Damkerng T.

Explaining something just happened, and seems to be happening, and might continue to happen or change or changing in English is something I need to work on, I think.

Anonymous

13:15

The COCA list places blitz around #12000, which is relatively frequent.

Anonymous

Aspect is tough stuff.

Damkerng T.

It's easier to explain things as an afterthought.

Anonymous

Certain er, um, aspects of English aspect are tough for learners of languages that lack them. Like used to, for example.

Anonymous

Not all languages have a past habitual form like that.

Damkerng T.

Hmm... used to is not difficult for me. I think it's because my L1 helps.

Anonymous

13:17

Ahh

Damkerng T.

What Thais need to be careful is the confusion between used to and be used to.

Anonymous

Oh, that must be tricky.

Damkerng T.

A little. :D

Anonymous

It's funny. English speakers can make the same error if they base their L2 speech on translations.

Anonymous

If you look up used to, you can find "grow accustomed to"

Damkerng T.

13:18

Most Thais always have some degree of confusions between be, do, and have.

Anonymous

And if you say the equivalent of "I grew accustomed to eating pizza a lot more than I do now" when you meant "I formerly habitually ate pizza a lot more than I do now", well, that's just silly :-)

Damkerng T.

@snailboat I couldn't find that in Macmillan.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. What I mean to say is:

Anonymous

If I look up "used to", I could get a Japanese verb nareru

Damkerng T.

Oh, I see.

Anonymous

13:20

And I could think "Oh, that's how I express habitual past", but no, it's how I express "grow accustomed to" (= be(come) used to)

Damkerng T.

It's like a round-trip translation.

Anonymous

So you can make this sort of error in either direction.

Damkerng T.

Even "I formerly habitually ate pizza a lot more than I do now" already sounds Japanese, to me. :D

Anonymous

Oh, dear :-)

Anonymous

Japanese doesn't really have a habitual past structure like that.

Anonymous

13:24

You can express it, though.

Anonymous

It ends up being closer to literally "Previously, it was the case that [I] ate pizza a lot, but now [I] don't very much."

Anonymous

Well, there's more than one way to express it.

Anonymous

You could express it a lot more minimally than that.

Anonymous

@snailplane Thanks, I got the function of "that", but what about "before"? Here doesn't it acts like a noun? — Man_From_India 2 mins ago

Damkerng T.

How about this? (close your eyes if you don't want Google Translate to influence your Japanese!)

> 私はピザを食べていたときに、以前に、これがそうだ。

Anonymous

13:27

Hehehe.

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Oh, that question was from last month!

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. This is silly. :-)

Anonymous

Also, you explicitly included the "I".

Damkerng T.

@snailboat That's what I expect from Google Translate. :D

Anonymous

I was thinking more along the lines of 前はピザをよく食べたものだけど、今はあまり食べなくなった

Damkerng T.

13:31

> It is because you are eating good pizza before, but I no longer eat much now.

Anonymous

Haha.

Damkerng T.

(According to Google Translate)

Anonymous

My favorite thing about that is that it guessed the first clause had "you" as a subject and the second "I"

Anonymous

Also, "I no longer eat much now" sounds like I don't eat anything :-)

Damkerng T.

So there were no subjects in the sentence?

Anonymous

13:32

Yoku is a tricky word. It can mean "a lot" or "well"

Anonymous

There was no subject in what I wrote.

Damkerng T.

Neat! So the machine had to fill in the subjects somehow.

Anonymous

Yeah, and it made funny choices :-)

Anonymous

Google's MT is largely statistical, so sometimes it comes up with funny correspondences.

Anonymous

Occasionally quite offensive!

Damkerng T.

13:37

I don't know if there is any MT that can outperform it, though.

@snailboat Hah! Funny is very likely, but I've never thought of being offensive!

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. For specific language pairs there certainly are.

Anonymous

MT is a very hard problem, though.

Anonymous

Check out this one: translate.weblio.jp

Anonymous

It uses a different engine. It can be pretty funny.

Damkerng T.

> Though the front was the thing which ate pizzas well, I did not eat very much now.

I think it's funnier than Google's version. :D

We have so many questions today.

Anonymous

13:42

I answered one.

Damkerng T.

I think I have like 40 questions I didn't read them yet.

Anonymous

Wow.

Anonymous

Someone told someone else that be was short for become.

Damkerng T.

?

Oh, wow!

Anonymous

It seems kind of backwards.

Anonymous

13:45

Be isn't a worn-down version of become, become is be with stuff tacked on. Isn't it?

Damkerng T.

I guess so.

(Not sure about its etymology, though.)

Anonymous

Yes, the OED says be + come

Damkerng T.

For learners, I think it's the best to understand be as be, and become as become.

Anonymous

I answered the question about "Impossible is nothing"

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Sure. Unless you're interested in what happened over a thousand years ago, they're different verbs.

Damkerng T.

13:47

Oh all answers in that "impossible" question have no upvotes!

Anonymous

Hehe, true.

Damkerng T.

I think there is a saying about "Impossible is possible."

Something like, even the word knows it. See, it's saying "I'm possible".

Anonymous

Oh, I don't know that saying.

Anonymous

Maybe "The impossible is possible"

Damkerng T.

Maybe, I can't remember the exact words.

Anonymous

13:51

If you use it as "Impossible is possible", you're not using impossible in the usual sense

Anonymous

(Obviously you can't ascribe the trait of being possible to an adjective!)

Damkerng T.

It's a wordplay. That's for sure. But who said it? Hmm... Maybe Audrey Hepburn. (Am I spelling her name right?)

> “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

Anonymous

Probably.

Damkerng T.

Oh, that's exactly what she said.

Anonymous

"Nothing is impossible" is a common phrase.

Damkerng T.

13:54

I think I've heard "Impossible is nothing" from somewhere else, too.

Anonymous

Yeah, apparently it's been used as an advertising slogan and a song title.

Anonymous

It's nonstandard, though, and doesn't have any obvious meaning to my ear

Damkerng T.

Hah!

Anonymous

We talked about different types of copular constructions once. One is the specifying construction, A = B. "What I want is extra cheese." ⇔ "Extra cheese is what I want." Here, since A = B, B = A.

Anonymous

It's reversible.

Anonymous

13:56

Syntactically that's fine since both sides of be here are NPs, so either can be a subject.

Anonymous

Semantically that's fine here because we're equating two things, and equation is a symmetrical relation

Anonymous

But not all copular constructions are so

Anonymous

An ascriptive construction of the form "A is B" ascribes a trait (B) to A

Anonymous

Some ascriptive constructions can be reversed. But for the most part, the inverted ascriptive construction is either ungrammatical or much less viable than the non-inverted version.

Anonymous

Especially since the trait here can take the form of an adjective, which cannot be the subject

Anonymous

13:58

So even when it's acceptable inverted, it feels backwards.

Damkerng T.

The first time I heard it (or a translation of it--"Impossible is nothing"), it was put in the context of arrogance. Something like, "I'm invincible." It sounds like [What you said] "impossible" is nothing [to me (or us)]. I (or We) can beat it easily.

Anonymous

Whereas the specifying construction we can reverse at will never feels backwards.

Anonymous

Yeah, you could construe it one way or another like that.

Damkerng T.

It can sound like a pep talk, I think.

How was it popularized?

Anonymous

> [The house] is [red].　⇔　*[Red] is [the house].

Anonymous

13:59

@DamkerngT. I think it's an advertising slogan.

Transcript for